Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/19/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB197 | |
| HB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2017
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Dean Westlake, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of natural
resources; relating to agriculture; and relating to community
seed libraries."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 107
"An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a fisheries
rehabilitation permit."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 203
"An Act relating to the sale of certain state land for use as
remote recreational cabin sites."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 197
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY SEED LIBRARIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSTON
03/24/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/17 (H) RES, FIN
04/10/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/10/17 (H) -- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
04/12/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/12/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/13/17 (H) RES AT 5:00 PM BARNES 124
04/13/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/17/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/17/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/19/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 107
SHORT TITLE: FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TALERICO
02/06/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/17 (H) FSH, RES
02/28/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/18/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/18/17 (H) Moved CSHB 107(FSH) Out of Committee
04/18/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/19/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HB 197.
TERRANOVA TASKER, Staff
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Johnston,
sponsor, provided a sectional analysis of HB 197.
ARTHUR KEYES, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 197.
ROB CARTER, Manager
Plant Materials Center
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 197.
GRACE JOHNSTON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 197.
PATRICIA TREYDTE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 197, but noted
several concerns that she has with the bill.
DAVID OTNESS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 197.
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Dave Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Talerico,
sponsor, further introduced HB 107.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 107.
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 107.
GARY MARTINEK
Cape Coral, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
MATHEW O'BOYLE, Spokesperson
Skagway Community Fish Hatchery
Skagway, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
WILL MAYO, Executive Director
Tribal Government and Client Services
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
BRIAN WINNESTAFFER
Chickaloon Native Village
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sport Fishing Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 107.
NANCY HILLSTRAND
Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries Inc.
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 107.
BRUCE CAIN, President
Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
BRIAN ASHTON
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:35 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Josephson, Johnson, Birch, Talerico, and Westlake were present
at the call to order. Representatives Drummond and Parish
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 197-COMMUNITY SEED LIBRARIES
1:04:42 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 197, "An Act relating to the duties of the
commissioner of natural resources; relating to agriculture; and
relating to community seed libraries."
1:04:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON, Alaska State Legislature, as
the sponsor, introduced HB 197. She explained that HB 197
brings forth local issues related to growing one's own produce
to feed family members. The idea for the bill, she continued,
was brought to her attention by her daughter-in-law who was
looking at heirloom seeds and researching the restrictions on
the local exchange of seeds.
1:06:27 PM
TERRANOVA TASKER, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johnston,
sponsor, provided a sectional analysis of HB 197 as follows:
Section 1 would amend the duties of the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to include
development and regulation of noncommercial seed use in
community seed libraries.
Sections 2 and 3 would add subsection (b) to Alaska Statute
(AS) 03.05.030 to allow an exemption for seed libraries
from regulations governing commercial seeds as long as they
comply with AS 03.20.[110], which are the guidelines for
community seed libraries, and do not violate regulations
that pertain to patented use without permission, be
misrepresented in classification, or be prohibited by the
department as a noxious (harmful) seed.
Section 4 would add new section 03.20.110 providing
guidelines for seed libraries as follows: an individual
can establish a community seed library that allows for 100
grams of [one variety of] seed [per person receiving the
seed per year], and the packaging must be labeled with the
variety, seller's name and address, year of packaging,
weight of the contents, and a disclaimer statement that
says not for commercial use. This section would also
direct the department to create a seed registry for
publication online.
Section 5 would [add] language about community seed
libraries to statute regulating plant materials centers
already in existence within the University of Alaska
system.
Section 6 would amend AS 44.37.[030] to include community
seed libraries in the information that the department must
publish online and in print.
Section 7 would amend [AS 44.37.030] to include a
subsection that allows the Department of Natural Resources
to advise people interested in starting a community seed
library on best practices and to submit information about
their library without a fee.
1:09:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH drew attention to the bill on page 2,
lines 2-6 which read:
assist prospective settlers and others [DESIRING] to
engage in the agricultural industry in the state by
providing [WITH] information about [CONCERNING AREAS
SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURE AND OTHER] activities and
programs essential to developing the [DEVELOPMENT OF
THE] agricultural industry and areas in the state that
are suitable for agriculture;
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said the bill seems to make a substantial
increase in the responsibilities of the commissioner of [DNR] by
adding, "areas that are suitable for agriculture."
MS. TASKER replied that she and Rob Carter, Manager, Plant
Materials Center, Division of Agriculture, DNR, have discussed
this and "suitable for agriculture" is wording that both DNR and
the sponsor like to specify whatever area a community garden
might take, whether that be someone's backyard or community
land. Also, she noted, the seed statutes haven't been updated
since the 1980's, so some language cleanup was done when she and
[an attorney from] Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, were going through the bill. She further
pointed out that the bill has a zero fiscal note.
1:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to a letter from Representative
Talerico that he believed all committee members had signed, and
which stated a bridge should be built to an area that is
suitable for agriculture. Representative Parish said he doesn't
want the [Division] of Agriculture itself being an advocate for
bridge building because that is outside the [division's] main
area of purview. Yet, he posited, the aforementioned provision
would seem to add some responsibility to the [division] for
that.
MS. TASKER deferred to DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH returned attention to page 2, line 6 and
further inquired whether it is an increase in the responsibility
of DNR to assist all the regions of the state in developing
areas that are suitable for agriculture.
1:12:57 PM
ARTHUR KEYES, Director, Division of Agriculture, DNR, answered
that the Division of Agriculture sees the entire state as having
agriculture potential of some form or another. In further
response to Representative Parish, he said it is the
responsibility of the division to help all regions of the state
develop areas which are suitable to agriculture, but not
necessarily in regard to infrastructure.
1:13:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the definition of community
seed library and whether it is defined in statute.
MS. TASKER responded that the term "community seed library" does
not currently exist in statute. The bill would carve out a
space in the statute that says seed libraries can exist, and
provides the guidelines for labeling for seed libraries. Other
states going through similar processes ran into the issue where,
because of the way the statutes were written, every seed was
regulated as if it was a commercial seed, which requires
extensive labeling and testing. Nebraska and Minnesota went
through their statutes and specifically added the words
"community seed library" to carve out space for them so it is
very clear that community seed libraries can exist even if not
for commercial use purposes.
1:14:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND surmised that "community seed library"
is defined somewhere in the bill. She inquired whether a
community seed library includes the seed exchanges that
gardeners around the state conduct each spring.
MS. TASKER answered that [in the bill on page 3, beginning on
line 20], Article 1A. Community Seed Libraries, lays out the
guidelines for a community seed library. The issue the sponsor
has run into is that there are some community seed exchanges
happening around the state, Ester being the largest.
Unfortunately, she said, because of the way the statute is
written and based on the way the regulations are written, any
seed that is used for any capacity in the state must go through
that extensive testing germination percentages and labeling.
Technically speaking, any seed library existing today is in
violation of the code. However, she related, she has talked to
Rob Carter and DNR thinks seed libraries are a great idea and
therefore DNR is not assessing fees on current seed libraries.
The department likes this bill because it would give DNR the
authority to help and to promote seed libraries.
1:16:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether this means that seed
libraries currently in existence in Alaska are doing something
illegal and DNR supports the bill in order to control [seed
libraries]. She said the intent of the bill is unclear if there
are already community seed libraries springing up in an organic
local way.
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON replied that the bill would
strengthen seed libraries and would give them greater access to
doing what they do best. She warned [the state] "could be
getting into federal problems if we don't do this."
1:17:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that her district has a farmers
market and she is getting lots of feedback from her constituents
about what this bill means for the already-existing informal
seed exchanges that gardeners hold around the state. She asked
what HB 197 means for existing seed exchanges.
ROB CARTER, Manager, Plant Materials Center, Division of
Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained
that the Plant Materials Center maintains and has the authority
to regulate seeds, their transportation, their sales, and seed
lot sales within the state of Alaska. In regard to what this
bill would do if seed exchanges are already there, he said that
technically seed libraries or any seed exchange in Alaska is
against the state's current regulations. However, he continued,
it is not in the best interest of plant diversity or food
security in the state for the division to spend time and money
harassing community-oriented folks who are sharing seeds and
providing opportunities for food security in a region to say
that they must follow these regulations that are really drafted
for commercial use. So, technically, he reiterated, the non-
commercial sharing of seed - under the prohibited acts section
in [Alaska's] seed regulations - is outlawed.
MR. CARTER pointed out that this bill, like many others around
the U.S., is identifying that non-commercial use is as important
as any issue that [the division] deals with in Alaska pertaining
to food security. Crop genetic diversity, one of the foundation
cornerstones of community seed sharing, is the most important
key to sustainable agriculture and to food security in any
region of the world, he added. The intent behind HB 197 is to
put in statute that this is a legal activity and ensure that
this non-commercial seed sharing activity is secured. Whether
this activity is through a garden club, a fair, or a seed
library, the bill is needed before other larger, non-state
entities come into Alaska and start pushing federal or state
regulations against these practices.
1:20:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired as to how this will not cost
staff time and money for the Plant Materials Center to manage
these informal seed libraries that are already in existence.
MR. CARTER responded as currently written, the bill says DNR
"may" and does not direct the department to do anything.
Community seed library is the legal language, he said, and HB
197 just gives the department the opportunity to promote seed
libraries and have a place for them on the department's internet
site. As a seed consumer himself, he continued, he would love
to see a one-stop shop in the state that identifies all these
seed sharing activities.
1:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how the division will contact
consumers in this regard.
MR. CARTER answered that it would be a multi-faceted front like
many of the things the department does. The department has
great resources, such as utilization of the Alaska Grown program
and all the individual gardeners and commercial farmers that the
department works with already. Once individuals identify that
the department has the ability to help support and promote their
activities, he said, a simple web page could be put out where an
individual could choose to be part of that web page. He related
that he talks to many individuals who participate in these non-
commercial seed sharing activities and the community is well
versed that this legislation is out there. Some of them, he
added, would be happy to contribute their location and contact
phone numbers and dates for community events.
1:23:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH inquired as to how this type of seed
collection would be different from commercial seed collection
for carrots in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley as to the source of
the seeds and how they are preserved and maintained.
MR. CARTER replied that there is very limited carrot seed
production in the state of Alaska because carrots are a biennial
plant and flower in their second year of growth. Commercially,
he explained, carrot seeds are grown in areas like the Skagit
Valley in Washington and other places around the world where
they are harvested with a combine like any other large-scale
seed production. They are cleaned and tested to meet both the
state and federal regulations, he said, and then they are sold
through brokers. Most of the farmers planting carrots on a
commercial scale in Alaska order the seeds from a very large
agri-business that sells tons of seeds at a time. Seeds that
are sold commercially, he continued, have very strict federal
and state guidelines to ensure that they follow both the state
regulations and Federal Seed Act.
1:25:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH surmised that when talking about regionally
adapted seeds harvested from plants grown in-state, it is not
necessarily a commercial operation. It would be a framework for
monitoring and permitting through the internet the exchange of
Alaska grown seeds.
MR. CARTER responded that the bill does not have any monitoring
requirements, nor does he think there is a need for any. Non-
commercial use tends to be relatively small scale, he explained.
It is individuals or a group of individuals who get together to
try to overwinter some carrots and then replant them and collect
the seeds to share amongst themselves. These normally are not
hybrids, but rather heirlooms or open pollinated varieties that
have been around for decades or longer. They are in small
quantities. The real key to it, he said, is individuals who
find a type or variety of seed, or a genus or species of a
vegetable that produces well in their region. In turn they
could harvest seed off that and legally share it amongst
themselves, with no ramifications from either the Federal Seed
Act or Alaska state seed regulations, and not impede the state's
commercial seed producers and sellers.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said it sounds like a reasonable proposal.
1:27:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a story of working in a gift
store as a teenager and selling packages of Alaska seeds, with
the fireweed seeds being wildly popular. Then at some point
these seeds could not be sold anymore due to regulations and
that is why she was pleased to become a co-sponsor of the bill.
1:28:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH remarked a good proportion of the plants
grown in Haines came from his grandmother's garden. He asked
where in statute seed sharing is illegal.
MS. TASKER pointed out page 2, lines [12-14], establish that the
department is regulating seeds, plants, and vegetables whether
they are sold or not sold for use in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH observed that is in statute.
MS. TASKER responded yes. Continuing her answer, she noted that
on page 3, lines 1-7 pertain to the labeling requirements so
that any product that is being used, sold, or exchanged must be
labeled. Then, one must go to the Alaska Administrative Code,
Chapter 34, she said. This chapter has two pages of labeling
requirements and sets out the germination percentage and the
weight. Combining those two parts together, she pointed out, is
makes it almost impossible for a seed library to exist, which
she has confirmed with Mr. Carter. The statute is complicated
and needs some updating, she added.
1:31:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH observed that on page 3, lines 1-2, state
that the commissioner "may" adopt rules, regulations, and
procedures. He offered his understanding that the commissioner
has adopted rules and procedures which make all the seed
libraries in the state and all the individuals sharing seeds
right now, if not criminals, then at least engaged in extralegal
activities.
MS. TASKER answered correct and deferred to Mr. Carter for a
further response.
1:32:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed his question to Mr. Carter and
asked whether it is a regulatory hurdle that the past DNR
commissioner has put in place that makes seed sharing by private
individuals and seed libraries technically illegal.
MR. CARTER replied that the biggest hurdle in those states that
have come down hard on seed libraries and non-commercial seed
sharing is the interpretation of the regulations and definitions
of the words "offered for sale," "barter," and "trade". In
Alaska, he continued, what really hinders non-commercial use is
under 11 AAC 34.075, ["Prohibited acts"], which reads, "(a) No
person may sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or transport
for use in planting in the state any agricultural or vegetable
seed that [in part] (5) has not been tested within the 18
months preceding the sale, offering, or exposure for sale, or
transportation". The seed libraries are not selling or offering
seed for sale, he said, but the key to this is the testing
within the 18 months preceding. So, technically, any individual
who is moving seed in the state of Alaska, whether it is one
seed or a million, who doesn't have the current labeling
requirement of testing within the 18 months preceding is
breaking the state's current regulations. In Alaska and around
the country, that language is utilized to ensure that seed being
moved around doesn't have invasive weeds in it and that is why
that testing requirement has always been followed. That is
really the tripping hurdle anyone who is transporting seed
with the intended use to plant that doesn't have testing, which
is required by the labeling requirements in Chapter 34, is
breaking Alaska's regulations.
1:34:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired why the problem cannot be solved
by regulation. For example, he continued, regulation for
transportation of over 100 pounds of seed. He further inquired
why there isn't a lower boundary on the applicability of that
because people have been doing seed sharing for as long as there
has been agriculture.
MR. CARTER agreed and said [DNR] has full intent to review,
update, and modernize the regulations. He advised most people
do not realize that Alaska has a lot of commercial seed
production, and DNR would rather see those exemptions made for
non-commercial use than to modify things that may jeopardize
seeds being transported for sale or offered for sale within the
state that do not meet the state's regulation requirements, he
said. [The department] wants to avoid loopholes; seed
regulations are not there to stop someone from doing something,
he explained, but rather for consumer protection so that the
seed really is what the label says it is for germination and no
noxious weeds. Further, if he - in his role as plant materials
manager - changed the regulations so that non-commercial use and
seed libraries are not impeded, the regulations could be changed
again by another manager. Therefore, putting a policy into
statute protects this type of activity for generations to come.
1:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH suggested that perhaps Mr. Carter could
amend the {statue and regulation] by adding the word
"commercial" or "for commercial purposes" so someone wouldn't
have to go through a seed library to legally be able to share
seeds with neighbors. He then observed that the section of the
bill for community seed libraries states that someone cannot
give more than 100 grams of one variety to an individual within
12 consecutive months [page 3, lines 26-29]. He pointed out
that some seeds, such as cherry pits, would reach that weight
limit quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON responded she has forthcoming
amendments to offer.
1:38:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH commented that the labeling requirements
seem a bit stringent for what would normally be handed off in a
Ziploc bag.
MS. TASKER answered that the bill has five requirements for
labeling, which is a downgrade from the [current] two pages of
labeling requirements. Based on her talks with Mr. Carter about
the requirements, she said there is some wiggle room. For
example, someone could have a sign within the space with the
statement "not authorized for commercial use" rather than on
every package. The seller's name and address could be kept in a
binder and not necessarily be on the package of seed. Something
as simple as "purple flower" would be a reasonable request, she
continued, as well as the weight of the package for purposes of
tracking the weight limit requirement. She offered her opinion
that these requirements are limited but the sponsor will address
any issues.
1:39:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR related that the 100-gram limit and the labeling
were concerns expressed to her. She asked what the
differentiation is between someone collecting seed from his or
her own backyard and gifting it to a friend versus individuals
participating in a seed library.
MR. CARTER replied the intent of the bill, in his professional
opinion, is the bill pertains to community seed libraries
defined as a place where individuals can go and use those seeds.
The sponsor and her staff have identified that the bill doesn't
provide an exemption so that two persons could individually
share seeds with one another. That would be easy to put into
Article 1, he said, but the amendments need to be heard before
it can be discussed much further.
CO-CHAIR TARR urged that this differentiation be considered.
She pointed out that people who collect seed for contributing to
a seed library are going to want to include the genus, species,
or variety information. This type of person is one step up from
folks who just buy a few plants and have a pot in front of their
house, she said, and therefore the committee might want to
segregate that.
1:41:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that some of the letters in the
committee packet state that the bill is alarming. She said she
thinks some of the concerns could be based on misinformation and
urged for further discussion of the concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON responded yes and asked Ms. Tasker to
discuss the forthcoming amendments.
1:43:25 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Ms. Tasker to address amendments about the
labeling concerns, the 100-gram limit, the requirement for being
grown in-state, and treated seeds.
MS. TASKER related that the sponsor is working on amendments in
response to talks with the seed libraries. She also noted that
some miscommunication about what the bill does has been brought
to the attention of the sponsors, so the sponsors are working
with stakeholders to explain what the bill really does.
MS. TASKER said one forthcoming amendment addresses seeds that
are grown outside Alaska. For example, seed libraries often
receive seed donations from The Home Depot or other entities and
the libraries have said they would like to be able to include
these seeds. This makes sense, she said, because the seeds
traveling from out of state have already undergone a labeling
process as part of the federal interstate commerce rules.
MS. TASKER stated the second forthcoming amendment responds to
the concern about the weight limit and would increase the limit
to one pound, which Mr. Carter has agreed is a limit that should
cover most seed.
MS. TASKER explained the third forthcoming amendment addresses
the marijuana seed issue. This amendment would prohibit
marijuana seeds from the seed library exchange.
MS. TASKER, in regard to Mr. Carter's discussion about a
personal exemption, said she would work with Legislative Legal
Services on language for an amendment to address those concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH requested an explicit [exemption] be given
for personal non-commercial seed sharing.
1:46:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR stated that this type of legislation has been
passed by California, Nebraska, Illinois, and Minnesota, and she
will post the California legislation on the web site for people
to view. She said the aforementioned amendments cover the
issues that she is concerned about. She asked Mr. Carter if he
would like to add anything about the forthcoming amendments.
MR. CARTER answered he doesn't see any issues with increasing
the weight limit. He related that he has heard concerns about
potatoes and root cuttings, but pointed out this is a formality
with the state's regulations because the regulations define
bulbs, straps, corms, and other such things as plants and so
those are not regulated under the state's seed regulations and
would have no weight restrictions. He said he feels the seed
weight limit could be in the one-pound area without directly
impacting anything and still providing the opportunity.
MR. CARTER pointed out that agronomically all seeds cannot be
produced in Alaska, so individuals get seed from friends or
family in other states, or purchase seed from outside of Alaska
that they want to use for non-commercial seed sharing
activities. That exemption is needed, he said, and Article 1A,
Community Seed Libraries, could easily be amended to provide an
exemption for non-seed library seed sharing activities to allow
for one person to give another person a package of seeds for his
or her garden.
MR. CARTER stated it would be up to the bill sponsor for the
language that is required on packaging. He said that, as he
reads the bill's current language, this could be done by a seed
library with a single sign written on cardboard [displayed]
above the library's seed sharing activities or within the
library's seed sharing opportunities that just states these are
seeds grown for non-commercial use and that would meet the
requirements of the bill.
MR. CARTER offered his opinion that this is important; Alaska is
lucky because it has isolation and does not have large
agriculture that tends to push a little heavier on these types
of regulations. The opportunity for non-commercial use and seed
libraries, he said, is what is going to provide for long-term
sustainability and self-reliance in the state because people in
both remote and non-remote areas may not have access to seed,
but they may have access to seed that has been grown in their
region. Having an agricultural system that is adapted to these
community environments to be self-reliant is a large portion of
sustainable agriculture in a state like Alaska, he advised.
1:50:44 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony.
1:51:06 PM
GRACE JOHNSTON testified in support of HB 197. She said she
feels passionately about this bill because she is invested in
Anchorage gardening and loves how a summer garden provides fresh
and nutritious food for her family. The longer that produce is
on the shelf, she explained, the more the nutrition decays, so
it is important to her to be able to pick directly from the
garden to table. She stated she is also firmly invested in the
future of gardening in Alaska through her young daughter. She
would like for her daughter to be able to grow up in a state
where the specialized seeds that can flourish in Alaska, those
that are cold- and sun-adapted, are readily available because
these seeds are not commercially viable for larger seed
producers in the Lower 48 or around the world. It is therefore
important to ensure that Alaskans can legally and widely share
these seeds throughout the state, she said. Explicitly allowing
for seed libraries will ensure that that legacy remains for the
present as well as future generations.
1:53:18 PM
PATRICIA TREYDTE testified in support of HB 197, but with
reservations as she has some concerns. She stated that if the
subject hadn't been brought up it wouldn't need to be done. One
of her concerns, she pointed out, is that the bill says "seller"
as the person giving out the seeds. She questioned whether
"seller" is the correct term or whether a term should be
invented, such as "exchanger" or "sharer".
CO-CHAIR TARR observed that "seller's name and address" is
included as one of the five [labeling] requirements [on page 4,
line 2]. She related that the sponsor and her staff are taking
note of this concern.
MS. TREYDTE reiterated that she doesn't know what the proper
term would be, but that she doesn't think it should be "seller".
MS. TREYDTE said another of her concerns is the 100-gram [weight
limit], which would not go far, particularly if someone wanted
to grow a quarter acre of grain for feeding to chickens. She
urged that this be addressed.
MS. TREYDTE pointed out that Alaska has a viable commercial seed
potato industry and expressed her concern that the bill does not
address potatoes in either start or seed form. She recognized
that seed potatoes would not be included in the bill, but warned
that potato, tomato, and eggplant seeds can carry late blight.
Tomato seeds, she continued, are one of the most precious and
often exchanged seeds because they are easy to save. She asked
whether this is something that needs to be addressed since the
potato industry needs to be protected.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that the purchase of
certified seed potatoes is required. She requested Mr. Carter
to address Ms. Treydte's concern about potato, tomato, and
eggplant seeds.
1:56:20 PM
MR. CARTER replied that the purchase of certified seed potatoes
is required for commercial use.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired whether Mr. Carter thinks tomato,
eggplant, and other seeds like that should be specifically
mentioned or differentiated in the bill.
MR. CARTER responded that if it the subject was live plants he
would say yes, but the bill is only talking about seeds and
therefore he doesn't think it is necessary. Within that family,
the easiest thing for seed savers is that they don't look for
plants that have disease or that biologically aren't in good
shape. They are allowing the fruit to go to maturity so that
the seeds mature. A late blight infected tomato plant, he
advised, would be a very poor performer and it would not be in
the best interest of anyone to maintain it or collect seed from
it. He said the department currently has registration for live
tomato plants being shipped into the state, as well as for
potatoes and within that family, but within this non-commercial
seed sharing use he doesn't feel it is necessary.
CO-CHAIR TARR observed that Section 6 discusses the department's
duties and gives DNR the ability to publish information about
seed libraries. She suggested that perhaps this information
could direct seed libraries to be careful in terms of the kind
of information that is shared with participants so things like
that could be prevented.
MR. CARTER answered that currently the department doesn't have
the authority to spend any time or effort working with the non-
commercial use of seed. He said he therefore believes HB 197,
and that section specifically, would provide DNR the opportunity
to not regulate, but to help promote and identify non-commercial
seed sharing activities, and he is very comfortable with that.
1:59:06 PM
DAVID OTNESS testified in support of HB 197. He stated that as
a gardener he wants to see anything that would facilitate the
transfer of seeds and provide agricultural awareness because
people growing their own food is something that has really taken
off. Anything to make [seed transfer] not illegal would be a
good thing, he added. Drawing attention to page 2, line 25, he
asked why the bill includes regulating the farming of elk.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that that is an existing statute under the
current duties of the DNR commissioner and therefore it is not
something that is being added or changed by the bill. She
explained that when a section of statute is amended the whole
section shows up in the bill.
2:01:48 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
2:01:57 PM
HB 197 was held over.
HB 107-FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
2:02:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 107, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit." [Before the
committee was CSHB 107(FSH).]
2:02:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO, sponsor, introduced HB 107. He
explained that it is a fish rehabilitation bill and the permit
described in the bill could boost the survival rate of
fertilized eggs to the fry stage from 5 percent in nature to 95
percent via incubation. He said the fish eggs would be
collected, fertilized, incubated, and hatched, and the unfed fry
would be released back into the same water. While this is not
completely natural, he continued, it is as natural as it can
possibly be made to rehabilitate or grow populations.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out that fish incubation is not
new and has been done for nearly 40 years in many areas of
Alaska. Similar permits for education and science already
exist, he said, but this bill would clean things up by outlining
these permit requirements in statute and for the purposes of
rehabilitation. The bill would create the ability to not have a
project labeled as either an education or science project, but
to be able to utilize it as a rehabilitation project. It would
be a collaborative effort with private sector nonprofits
actually doing the project while under the complete direction of
[the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG)].
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said his motivation for the bill relates
to the State of Alaska's current fiscal constraints and that
there is at least one party very interested in participating.
This party, he related, thinks it has the ability to potentially
leverage funds and to use some of its own funds to do this,
while it would be a bit tough for [the state] given [the
state's] current financial situation.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO noted he has been down this path before
and that at one point it was declared as being "bucket biology
and anyone could do this." However, he continued, given the
requirements for the permit under this bill, the permit would
not be easy to obtain. The applicant would have to satisfy many
requirements before it could head down this road and it would
require ADFG's approval. Once permitted, the party would have
to stay engaged with ADFG by providing data in order to continue
the project.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO allowed that different people would view
the bill differently. He said some will see it as an absolute
disaster and some will see it as opportunity to maybe provide
more for sport fishermen and potentially more for commercial
fishermen. However, he emphasized, this wouldn't be a hatchery
replacement bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated that for his district this is a
food source bill. He noted that his district begins in Tanana
on the Yukon River, goes all the way to the Canadian border, and
includes also a fair portion of the Tanana River. These two
enormous river systems have traditionally had runs in them, he
said, but recently there have been closures, including a closure
just put on the Kuskokwim drainage. For the folks he represents
this is a critical food source that they have traditionally used
for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Currently that option
appears to be going away. The bill, he continued, is an attempt
to figure out a way to get this food source back so people can
continue to fish from Tanana all the way up to Eagle,
particularly in the Yukon where villages have had fish wheels
for centuries.
2:08:21 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska
State Legislature, explained HB 107 in further detail on behalf
of Representative Talerico, sponsor. He noted that under
current statute, AS 16.05.050(a)(5), a duty of the ADFG
commissioner is to propagate fish or increase fish populations
throughout the state. The department has done this with
educational and science permits, he said, which are similar to
what is being proposed in HB 107. The sponsor has worked with
ADFG in crafting the bill's permit criteria, which begin on page
2, line 2, and which would require that the permit applicant
fill out the applicant's name, reasons for doing this, the
conditions justifying the project, ample communication with
affected people in the area, the location, how many fish and
fish eggs the applicant will collect, and the plan for
incubation. These requirements, he stated, are to ensure that
an unqualified person can't get a permit because [the sponsor]
wants this to be a safe and reasonable process to propagate
fish.
MR. VERHAGEN related that over the years the ADFG commissioner
has come up with science and educational permits that are
similar but are nowhere in statute. So, HB 107 would get a fish
permit into statute. Also, he added, at least one interested
party, the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), is ready to invest
its own private dollars into obtaining one of these permits. He
said TCC has already worked with the biologist who has done this
fish incubation and will be able to responsibly and safely boost
the fish populations in the Nenana and Yukon rivers.
MR. VERHAGEN explained that under science and education permits
an entity would have to obtain the permit under the premise of
science, science collection, or education, whereas HB 107 would
allow the entity to get a permit simply because of a need for
more fish and would put this type of a permit into statute.
Escapement goals haven't been met, he said, and many rivers do
not even have escapement goals or fish counting due to the
state's limited resources. However, he continued, the locals
can attest that not near as many fish are getting up the rivers,
especially as far as the Interior.
MR. VERHAGEN stated each permit would have to be signed by the
ADFG commissioner and the permit [would be subject to] all the
checks and balances listed on page 2, [paragraphs] (1)-(8). He
pointed out that page 2, line 24, states the department "may"
issue a permit. Therefore, he said, ADFG would have full
latitude to reject an application or ask the applicant to amend
its application if the department feels that the person or
organization isn't qualified.
MR. VERHAGEN noted that science and education permits are open
to governmental agencies and schools, but not to businesses.
The hope under HB 107, he said, is for the private sector to
collaborate under the oversight of ADFG and use private dollars
to boost fish populations. But, he added, these private
entities would not be able to say, "These are our fish, so you
can't touch them." The fish coming from these rehabilitation
projects would be open to everyone and it will be in the best
interest of everyone to get as many natural fish as possible.
MR. VERHAGEN drew attention to the document in the committee
packet entitled, "Early Survival (emergent fry) Comparison of
Salmon Naturally Spawning Versus Assisted Spawning." He
explained that in nature when salmon spawn many of the eggs are
washed away without getting fertilized. Additionally, the eggs
are subject to predation by other fish and animals, die from
being covered by silt, or die from freezing in winter if the
water table drops. With all these factors, he said, the
survival rate from fertilized egg to emergent fry is about 5
percent. Through incubation, he continued, that survival rate
from fertilized egg to fry is increased to 90-95 percent, which
has been proven [by hatcheries] for the past 40 years. Under
the bill the fry would be unfed and would be put back into the
same river that [their parents] were taken out of and there
would be no risk of changing the genetics. [These released fry]
would be just like any other emergent fry and would have to
learn to fend for themselves naturally.
MR. VERHAGEN stated that the permit proposed under HB 107 would
allow qualified individuals, corporations, or other entities to
use their resources and money to prove through the application
process outlined in the bill that they know what they are doing.
For example, he continued, he has been working on this all
session and now has a good idea of how to do this, but he would
probably be rejected if he applied for a permit because he
doesn't have the money or resources to get the incubation
equipment or to build the troughs. He further added that [the
Gulkana Hatchery near Paxson that is managed by the Prince
William Sound Aquaculture Corporation] has used nearby natural
hot springs to adjust the water temperatures throughout the
winter while the eggs are growing.
2:16:11 PM
MR. VERHAGEN reiterated that applicants would have to know what
they are doing to be given a permit. The permit would last for
five years so that a return would be seen on the permittee's
efforts. He noted that on page 3, beginning on line 26, the
bill directs that the permittee shall collect and provide
project data and reports that are reasonably requested by the
department. While the department is doing a great job, he said,
the state's money is limited and there are many rivers where
there are no escapement goals and that have no fish counts being
done, even though there are locals depending on those fish for
food. In the event the department receives two permit
applications for the same location on a river, he continued, the
department would have the discretion to either issue two permits
for the same area if it would not overpopulate the river, or to
request one of the applicants to change the proposed location.
Both permittees would then be providing data to the department
that ADFG would not otherwise have on many of these rivers and
creeks.
2:17:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that early in his career he was the
project manager at Sikusuilaq Springs Hatchery on the Noatak
River. Therefore, he said, he can understand what an advantage
it would be to have this supplement to the natural run of
salmon. One of the challenges, he continued, is making sure it
is a natural run and he appreciates that the salmon would be put
back into the stream where they started. The survival rate is
phenomenal, almost like "crowd sourcing" of salmon, so he likes
the idea. He said he would like to hear whether there is a
downside even though it looks to him like it would leverage the
food source and he looks forward to supporting the bill.
2:19:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON directed attention to [the bill on page 4,
lines 30-31, and continuing to page 5, line 1] which read:
(e) In making a finding that the plans and
specifications for a proposed construction, work, or
use sufficiently protect fish and game under (d)
section, the commissioner shall consider related
fisheries enhancement projects under AS 16.05.855.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed his concern that the commissioner
could be satisfied by showing said alternative means of
rehabilitation rather than doing everything possible to restore
wild salmon streams. He asked Representative Talerico to
address this concern.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO replied that this has been successfully
done in the Copper River drainage for a long time. He said it
is remarkable how the operators of the Gulkana Hatchery, ADFG
and now the Prince William Sound Aquaculture [Corporation], have
kept wild salmon stock available in the Copper River as well as
the volume of fish that they've put down the river for people to
utilize on a regular basis.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO related that currently his constituents
in the upper Yukon River are at crisis levels with [the shortage
of] fish. Jokes have been made about how few fish there are, he
said, but it is serious for those people living in Fort Yukon,
Rampart, Tanana, or any community along the river.
Traditionally it is a real crisis and it is critical for [the
legislature] to come up with the very best plan possible, he
continued. While some may argue that it might be detrimental to
the wild stock, it is at a level where action must be taken to
get these supplies replenished and give fish back to these
people.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said the one thing he is trying to avoid
is all the theories of why there are no fish because everyone
could spend the next 10 years, like has been done these previous
10 years, pointing a finger at sport fishermen, or subsistence
fishermen, or commercial fishermen and getting absolutely
nowhere. Instead, he said, he is looking for a resolution to
satisfy the user groups and make sure Alaska has the
subsistence, sport, and commercial fish that are vital to the
state's employment and economy.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO maintained the bill would not be the
replacing of wild stock. This is as wild as it gets, he
posited. Further, he said, the bill is not trying to replace
hatcheries, which are doing a great job of getting lots of fish
out there and which he supports. Rather, it is time to look at
this in a comprehensive holistic approach and come up with
something to resolve the issue that is at hand.
2:23:59 PM
MR. VERHAGEN suggested the bill's drafter, Alpheus Bullard,
might be able to address Representative Josephson's concerns.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
explained the language is conforming to a section in existing
law that has to do with protection of fish and game with the
existence of these new fisheries enhancement permits. The
section of law that's being amended is AS 16.05.871, Protection
of fish and game, and it has to do with protection of waterways
for anadromous fish. This was included as a conforming
amendment because these rehabilitation permits are relevant to
that effort. He said he doesn't know if it would allow anything
that wouldn't be allowed otherwise and therefore he doesn't know
that he has an answer to Representative Josephson's question.
2:26:16 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON requested the definition of "construction" or
"work."
MR. BULLARD replied there is no set definition. To get some
idea of what would be affected, he suggested that the department
be asked what it has regulated underneath this statute.
2:26:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said his concern is that the section in
question is protection of waterways for anadromous fish; that is
the article and the topic is protecting anadromous fish.
[Alaska Statute 16.05.871(a)] he continued, sticks with that
subject and notes the importance of the spawning, rearing, or
migration of anadromous fish. He said he understands that the
aforementioned language is conforming, but stated that it seems
to say, in effect, that if there is some sort of construction or
work, which apparently could include hydraulic projects and
diversions, one way to get to meet the requirements of this
section would be to say that the fisheries rehabilitation
projects, including a hatchery way up river, would suffice.
Therefore, he continued, his concern is that in a net-zero sum
situation, a commissioner might say that he or she is willing to
continue to sacrifice improvements of anadromous fish because
[the department's] fish goal is going to be met in some other
way. He stated he is concerned as to what policy statement is
being made by this section of the bill. He asked whether he is
misreading subsection (e) on page 4, line 30, of the bill.
MR. BULLARD responded he doesn't believe that Representative
Josephson is misreading it. He posed a hypothetical situation
in which there may be constructions, works, or uses that could
not help but have an effect on existing anadromous fish
populations or other fish populations. So, in this instance, he
said, it seems appropriate that the commissioner would be asked
to consider these fisheries enhancement permits.
2:29:12 PM
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), stated the
discussion between Co-Chair Josephson and Mr. Bullard accurately
portrays the intent of that particular section.
2:29:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related that a concern heard from wild salmon
advocates is that by definition these hatcheries are designed to
replenish weakened stocks of wild salmon. However, he said, the
process of that replenishment could further weaken what is
already weakened and the wild salmon suffer further. He
inquired whether the sponsor shares this concern.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered he has heard that concern and
added that several people have expressed concern about the
diversity of the different genetics in the salmon. However, he
said, "Most of us wonder how diverse do they really get because
we know that they just don't scatter-shot, they usually go back
to where they were produced." Wild salmon numbers getting lower
and lower and the salmon continue to be fished and the resource
depleted, but there is currently no supplementing of the wild
salmon with any other potential for any other kind of catch. He
said he looks at this as more like, "Are we just going to work
our way to an extinction process?" Obviously, he said, it would
have to stop at some point if numbers get that low.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO recalled a presentation provided to the
committee about a rehabilitation project on the Tanana River
near Delta Junction in which the riverbank was rebuilt and
stabilized to prevent loss of a historical park and buildings.
He said that if a project were to be approved in that area, he
would hate to think that the fish would be made to suffer.
These things are going to have to cohabitate with each other, he
said. Destabilized riverbanks will need to be stabilized, but
the potential is still there to [also protect] the fish run in
the Tanana River even though the bank was stabilized. Mr.
Bullard's explanation of that was really good, he said,
occasionally there will be those things and they can coexist.
MR. VERHAGEN pointed out that the bill requires the release of
only unfed fry. There is a 10-day window, he explained, where
fry do not need to be fed because they emerge in the alevin
stage [and are nourished by their still-attached] yolk sac. The
unfed fry will be mixing with the natural fish, but the
sponsor's argument is that the released fry are natural fish.
While humans incubated them, nothing else was done to them. He
said the Gulkana Hatchery has been doing this for 40 years and a
difference cannot be seen between the incubated fish versus the
natural fish.
2:33:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR related that the House Special Committee on
Fisheries discussed the difference between trying to do
enhancement for an entire fishery versus enhancement for a stock
because the bill is limited to just the stock of a particular
river or river tributary, which should minimize that risk.
MR. BOWERS replied that applications under the proposed permit
in HB 107 would be limited to 500,000 eggs, which is a
relatively small number of fish. He said [the department] has a
genetics policy that is meant to preserve genetic diversity of
wild stocks, so there would be stipulations on any applicant
permitted under this bill that they would have to meet their
population sizes to ensure that genetic diversity of wild stocks
is not compromised. He stated that loss of genetic diversity is
a legitimate concern that it is taken seriously by [ADFG].
CO-CHAIR TARR reiterated her question regarding the difference
between an enhancement project that is directed toward an entire
fishery versus an enhancement project that is directed more
toward the stock level as provided in HB 107.
MR. BOWERS responded that it would depend on how a fishery is
defined. There could be a recreational or subsistence fishery
that targets a very small discreet stock in a small tributary,
he said. There are many examples of that across the state; not
every fishery is targeting a resource returning to a large
drainage. He surmised that projects permitted under HB 107
would be attempting to rehabilitate a stock that is a component
of a larger resource. But, he continued, certainly there could
be a fishery or more than one fishery that is directed at some
of these resources in small tributaries that would possibly be
considered under this bill.
2:37:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether there is any evidence of which
Mr. Bowers is aware that hatcheries of this sort have enhanced
wild stock populations.
MR. BOWERS answered that [ADFG] permits several different types
of aquaculture projects intended to enhance or rehabilitate fish
stocks, primarily through the private nonprofit hatchery
program, he said, which includes the big hatcheries around the
state. A few state-run hatcheries are similar; for example, the
William Jack Hernandez Hatchery in Anchorage and a hatchery in
Fairbanks, but primarily big private, nonprofit hatcheries such
as the [Macaulay Salmon Hatchery/Douglas Island Pink and Chum,
Inc. (DIPAC)] in Juneau.
MR. BOWERS noted that [ADF&G] also permits other projects, such
as the 11 bio-enhancement research projects that were permitted
in 2016. He said the provisions of those permits are very
similar to those contained in HB 107, such as the 500,000-egg
limit. [The department] has permitted some of those projects,
in the Seward Peninsula in particular, that have restored salmon
stocks in streams where salmon were extirpated due to mining
activity; so there have been some positive outcomes. As far as
small-scale projects like this, he continued, [the department]
doesn't permit many of them because the number of requests is
low.
2:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE stated that the hatchery on the Noatak
River was successful. Speaking from his personal experience, he
related that in the 1980's the whole Kotzebue fish population
crashed and was an economic disaster. The hatchery has now been
closed about 15 years, he said, and he wonders at what point do
[anadromous] fish become indigenous [fish]. He added that he
travels past that fish hatchery and it is teaming with salmon
because that is where they were born. Since the fisheries have
never come back to what they were before, he continued, he is
glad to see this bill.
2:39:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated he has several reservations about
the bill as a whole. He noted he has a degree in biology where
salmon was a frequent topic, did a research project on Auke Lake
salmon, and worked a bit for ADFG. He said he has visited a few
weirs, including one on Frazer Lake, which wasn't previously a
salmon stream, and where a ladder was put in and now the lake
has a robust run. There is also DIPAC in Juneau. He said he is
therefore not inherently opposed to fishery enhancements. But,
he continued, he is concerned that giving a "19-fold competitive
advantage to a subset of the population," as would be done
according to the sponsor's survival statistics, would put a
downward pressure on genetic diversity. Effectively increasing
a subset of the population's representation 19 times over, he
posited, would result in the remaining one-twentieth composing a
smaller portion of the overall population.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered his appreciation that the bill
would require [the fry] to be returned to the same waters and be
returned unfed. He said this provision would avoid what happens
with hatchery fish where they are fed and come out larger and
stronger and so he commends the sponsor in this regard.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH reiterated his concern about the long-term
downward pressure on genetic diversity that HB 107 would result
in. While the bill would be great in the short term, he said,
it would not be a long-term solution, and that leads to other
factors affecting fisheries such as climate degradation, timing
mismatches in outmigration and return, and larger population
blooms of prey when they out-migrate. Also, he inquired whether
there is a provision for local citizens - who are not keen on a
project happening in their traditional fishing area - would have
a mechanism to say, "no thank you."
2:43:48 PM
MR. VERHAGEN, in response to Representative Parish's last
question, directed attention to the requirement on page 2, line
8, which states that the application for the permit must include
"any communication, or plan for continued communication, from
the applicant with affected persons, relevant organizations with
applicable expertise, and stakeholders in the project area," and
to page 3, line 16, which states, "if the proposed project is a
salmon rehabilitation project, relevant and applicable comments
relating to the proposed project submitted by a regional
planning team established under [AS 16.10.375] for the region
that encompasses the project area". So, he explained, the
commissioner would be looking at several things when considering
an application and determining whether to accept it. Page 1 of
the application includes the reasonable communication with
interested and relevant parties and organizations and affected
persons. The parties would be able to have discussions, which
would be documented, and the commissioner would be able to see
that and know whether the locals are in favor of a project.
MR. VERHAGEN then addressed genetic diversity, stating that in
the late 1970's and 1980's ADFG successfully planted over 20
million sockeye eggs in the upper Karluk River and this restored
the depleted run to pre-1921 populations. Also, he said, since
the 1970's the Gulkana Hatchery has annually rehabilitated up to
40 million eggs per year in the Copper River watershed. He
suggested Gary Martinek be asked what the Gulkana Hatchery does
for continuing genetic diversity. Mr. Verhagen added that by
incubating the eggs and putting [the fry] right back in, the
bill is trying to keep everything as natural as possible. He
also pointed out that ADFG would be using its genetics policy to
closely monitor those concerns.
2:47:18 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR [opened public testimony].
2:47:50 PM
GARY MARTINEK testified that he recently retired from working at
Gulkana Hatchery for 37 years and is speaking on his own behalf
in support of HB 107 and the rehabilitation of salmon stocks in
a reasonable and responsible way where conditions are wild. He
said the hatchery is located adjacent to the Gulkana River, a
tributary to the Copper River. Located 260 miles inland from
the marine environment, the hatchery was started in 1973 as a
research project by the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Development (FRED) within ADFG to see if there
was an efficient low-cost method of rehabilitating the heavily
pressured Copper River sockeye stocks. The hatchery is located
in a spring system where the water temperature only varies five
degrees summer to winter and a simple non-powered gravity-feed
system is used to get water from the spring to the incubators.
MR. MARTINEK reported that from 1973-1980 Gulkana Hatchery was
primarily a sockeye research facility. From 1980-1984, he said,
production increased to 20 million eggs and by 1987 production
increased to 36 million eggs, making it the largest sockeye
salmon fry producer in the world. The basic premise was to
increase the natural survival of 13-16 percent of sockeye in the
spring. By placing them into an incubator the survival was
increased to as high as 95 percent with 75 percent being the
average historical survival. He explained that when fry emerge
from the incubator they are counted, otolith marked, and
released into nursery lakes where they spend one year before
outmigrating to the sea. He said the fry encounter the same
environmental predation issues that all wild stocks have to
overcome, and that 17 percent of the returning adult sockeye are
four-year-old fish and 83 percent are five-year-old fish.
MR. MARTINEK pointed out that the Gulkana Hatchery stock is just
one stock of 136 sockeye stocks in the Copper River. He said an
intelligent management program goes hand-in-hand to ensure wild
stocks remain healthy and the commercial fleet, subsistence use,
personal use, and sport fisheries all benefit from the 350,000-
400,000 annually produced hatchery salmon. He further related
that the monetary value of production to all user groups since
the hatchery started in 1973 has been $700 million.
2:50:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how the emergent state of hatchery-
raised alevin compares with the emergent state of indigenous
populations of salmon.
MR. MARTINEK replied that in the 1970's and 1980's Gulkana
Hatchery did research on the hatchery spring and that is where
it was determined that the survival was only 13-16 percent. The
hatchery started very small and by increasing and through
research the survival was increased to 75 percent.
2:51:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired as to how the hatchery's fry,
when introduced to the stream, compare developmentally with the
wild grown.
MR. MARTINEK responded that based on his years at the Gulkana
Hatchery, hatchery fry are the same fitness as the wild stocks.
Regarding earlier questions about genetic diversity, he advised
that wild fish are coming into the spring before and after the
egg-take for the hatchery. By looking at otoliths, he
continued, it has been determined that the wild stock component
in the hatchery spring is still 47 percent.
2:51:56 PM
MATHEW O'BOYLE, Spokesperson, Skagway Community Fish Hatchery,
testified in support of HB 107. He said the Skagway Community
Fish Hatchery is a newly founded nonprofit formed through the
local municipality to address the low level of returning salmon
in Skagway. In the past, he noted, Skagway has been a
collection and release site for king salmon through ADFG's
enhancement program encouraging stock diversification, but due
to dwindling return rates the rearing facility could not sustain
involvement. He explained that during the summer king salmon
would be collected for egg retrieval and the eggs transported to
DIPAC in Juneau for incubation. The following spring the smolt
would be returned to Skagway, but a great deal of mortality
occurred in the transfer from Juneau to Skagway. With the lack
of eggs collected in previous years due to low return rates, he
said Skagway is currently seeing a closure to sport fishing of
king salmon in northern Lynn Canal.
MR. O'BOYLE added that Skagway has a natural run of coho that,
with the help of HB 107, could be brought back to a reasonable
population level. The underlying benefits of HB 107, he
continued, are the economic and educational values. The tourist
dollars brought in through sport fishing affect the community as
a whole. The infrastructure that is created for this resource
can plant the seed for future generations. He said Skagway's
community has always been a big supporter of fish enhancement
through volunteers and programs through the school. The bill
would provide an additional tool in educating high school
seniors who are interested in a fisheries job, thus building on
Alaska's future.
2:54:30 PM
WILL MAYO, Executive Director, Tribal Government and Client
Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), testified in support
of HB 107. He said TCC has had experience working with ADFG to
develop a program that could be added to TCC's toolbox for
fisheries. He explained that TCC wants to develop its
capacities because in recent years [tribal members] have felt
very vulnerable with the decline in their primary human
consumption fish species as well as other [species] in the past.
However, he noted, TCC has discovered that the current state
permitting system basically has two types of permits, neither of
which can be used for the kind of rehabilitation project that
TCC would like to do. This bill would provide a third permit
that would enable TCC to proceed with its projects in a close
working relationship with ADFG.
MR. MAYO stressed that TCC does not in any way want to harm the
wild stocks and is not approaching this haphazardly. But, he
continued, TCC would like to develop the ability to enhance
these stocks that [its members] depend upon if needed in the
future. These are TCC's motivations, concerns, and reasons for
giving its hearty support to HB 107.
2:57:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he is very encouraged to hear TCC's
support. He asked how TCC envisions this moving forward and
whether TCC would deploy individual incubation stations or have
a central location.
MR. MAYO replied that TCC staff are running various projects
around the Interior in different river systems, all within the
Yukon drainage. There are counting stations and weirs among
other things. He said TCC is identifying spawning streams on
which enhancement projects could be done to enhance the returns
to that area. Working with the department, TCC is identifying
and choosing where to start a project. Brood stock would be
taken from an existing stream, [the eggs] would be incubated,
and then at the eyed stage of development they would be
replanted into the gravel beds of their native spawning streams.
The other option is to incubate the eggs until they emerge in
the alevin stage and then place them into their native stream.
3:00:33 PM
BRIAN WINNESTAFFER, Chickaloon Native Village, testified in
support of HB 107. He said he works for Chickaloon Native
Village, which is located in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. He
outlined his extensive work experience as a fisheries biologist
and noted that Chickaloon Native Village has worked on many fish
population rehabilitation projects and many fish habitat
restoration projects. One of the village's first fish passage
restoration projects was on Moose Creek in 2005 in which over $1
million was spent, mostly in federal funds, to reroute the
stream back into its original alignment after railroad
activities in the early 1900's straightened the creek and
created waterfalls that precluded fish passage and essentially
deleted 11 miles of spawning and rearing habitat. After
rehabilitating the habitat, he continued, the village began a
project to restore fish numbers by implementing a moist air
incubation project from 2007-2010. The village partnered with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ADFG, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The project and the
process worked well and the returns of salmon, based on foot and
aerial surveys, remained level when similar stocks of fish in
the area dwindled.
MR. WINNESTAFFER stated that Chickaloon Native Village also
replaced or rehabilitated many culverts under Matanuska-Susitna
Borough and state roads that were not providing fish passage and
were on their last stage of usefulness. He pointed out that
because there wasn't a fisheries rehabilitation permit the
village had to apply for multiple permits, such as a fish
resource permit and fish transport permit with prior approval
from the Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team. He said HB 107
would have been a permit that was apropos for the village's
project and would have allowed the state to track the project
better. It would have been labeled a rehabilitation project
versus a science or education permit.
MR. WINNESTAFFER noted that all these projects represent local
people taking interest in the resources. Instead of an agency
coming in and telling folks what to do there is an excellent
collaboration between agencies and local folks to rehabilitate
[the state's] trust resources. Chickaloon Native Village was
able to bring forward fish passage and population issues to the
agencies and was able to leverage federal and state dollars to
solve these issues, of which most were federal dollars. He said
passage of HB 107 would get to the heart of these projects. The
ability to rehabilitate a resource that was impacted in the past
is a win-win for the people of Alaska, all user groups, and the
resource itself.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her praise to Chickaloon for
doing a great job in rehabilitating its streams.
3:03:21 PM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association (KRSFA), testified in opposition to HB 107. He
posed a scenario in which there are 2,000 wild fish in the
Nenana River with 1,000 females and 1,000 males. He calculated
that if an enhancement program had 100 of the females at a
survival rate of 95 percent and the wild stock had 900 of the
females at a survival rate of 0.5 percent, in just one
generation the genetic diversity would be reduced because the
enhanced portion would generate two-thirds of the fry outgoing
and the wild stock would generate one-third.
MR. GEASE said he understands low king returns because it is a
statewide issue and [the Kenai area] feels it just as much as
anywhere else. He stated that there is a difference between
rehabilitating and reintroducing a population that has been
extirpated versus trying to enhance low numbers of fish in a
population. He said KRSFA thinks that the best strategy for low
numbers of fish is to drastically reduce fishing pressure on
those fish, maintain good habitat, and let nature take its
course. While it is painful to go through these periods of low
abundance, it is really important that this be done. The budget
for king salmon research was once $30 million and it is now half
that. Budget cuts are difficult, he said, but this bill is not
the right path.
MR. GEASE provided an example of where hatchery components and
enhanced components can result in a "trap." He said that in the
Kenai River there are enhanced runs on Hidden Lake [Trail Lakes
Hatchery] and pointed out about 90 percent of the returns are
[fish that live one year in freshwater and two years in
saltwater (1.2 fish)], which are the really small torpedo fish
that swim through dipnets and commercial nets. However, the
majority of returns of sockeye on the Kenai are 2.2 fish and 2.3
fish - really large sockeye. So, he stated, the concept of loss
of genetic diversity is a really critical concept and with
today's department standards of strict separation between wild
stocks and enhanced stocks or hatchery stocks, it is really
important. He further pointed out that in many of the marine
waters there are hatchery terminal fisheries that don't go into
anadromous streams and which he thinks is really key going
forward. He urged that more thought go into the concept of loss
of genetic diversity.
MR. GEASE, responding to Representative Parish, stated he sent
copies of his testimony to committee members via email.
3:07:01 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries Inc., testified in
opposition to HB 107. She said her company has been in business
in Alaska for 53 years and that she worked for ADFG for 21 years
in hatcheries where she raised all five species of salmon and
two trout. She stated she is very aware of what is being talked
about in HB 107 and is against the bill, the reason being that
she has seen a lot of problems with weakened wild fish.
MS. HILLSTRAND said Alaska is blessed with its wild spawning
salmon and that what needs to be done more so than putting fish
into these river systems is doing what has been done in
Chickaloon fixing culverts, fixing the habitat, and most of
all going to the Board of Fisheries and asking why the fish are
not getting up as far as Tanana because that has to do with
management problems downriver. She related that people have
worked hard to get the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council to stop some of the trawling bycatch and have been
fairly successful, so maybe that will help. But, she continued,
HB 107 is putting the cart before the horse because fishing and
fish populations do go up and down.
MS. HILLSTRAND noted that ADFG has written a scientific paper
about what has happened at Hidden Lake [Trail Lakes Hatchery],
and the paper states that there is a risk with doing these kinds
of things. She said it is important to read these scientific
papers that show damage is being done to the wild fish. Oregon,
Washington, and Vancouver have all done damage, she continued,
and there are many scientific papers showing that this kind of
activity enhancement can be very detrimental because the
released fish outcompete the wild fish.
MS. HILLSTRAND brought attention to page 5 of HB 107 and noted
that the regional planning teams (RPTs) were restructured with
ADFG and now most of those teams are made up of hatchery people
who work for the aquaculture associations. These teams are no
longer made up of ADFG staff although they might have that name,
she maintained, and it is really important to look at who is
taking care of the state's supposed wild fish. She urged the
committee to take care of the state's wild fish and said there
are other ways to do rehabilitation, which is totally separate
from enhancement. She also urged the two be defined.
3:09:58 PM
BRUCE CAIN, President, Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce,
testified in support of HB 107. He said many of the chamber's
members are sport-fishing guides, but that this year the Copper
River sport-fishing season for king salmon has been closed
because of a lack of return. There is the Gulkana Hatchery, he
continued, and the Gulkana sockeye run is strong at about
300,000 returns and has been going on since 1977. The Copper
River fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in the world.
He related that the chamber has said it doesn't want the Copper
River to become like the Yukon River and the hatcheries, one of
the reasons for that. But, he said, no king salmon enhancement
is done on the Copper River and now people are faced with the
year of where everything is closed because of lack of return on
the king salmon. Efforts must be balanced, he added.
MR. CAIN maintained that incubation boxes are not an issue of
genetic diversity because they come from the wild stocks and are
hatched just like wild stocks. He said it is a good, non-
intrusive system that has been tested and proven for many years
to be successful. The Copper River sport-fishing guides will
not be guiding this year, he reiterated. The fisheries can be
closed like has happened on the Yukon and people can sit around
hoping things come back. Or, he continued, folks can take care
of themselves, which is part of the approach of HB 107, a good
approach that he supports.
3:12:35 PM
BRIAN ASHTON testified in support of HB 107. He said he is
representing himself but is before the committee on request of
Representative Talerico to help answer questions because he has
been involved in salmon restoration for over 15 years. He was
involved in some of the mega-hatcheries in Southeast Alaska and
helped develop some of the technologies that are being used.
From being raised in villages, he said, he has realized that a
balance must be found with how to help these fish survive, given
that people are certainly very good at taking them. He has
dealt with ADFG for many years, he continued, and is in support
of HB 107 simply because it fills a gap that exists today for
being able to do this effectively and have good controls on when
it is appropriate and when it is not. Other permits are trying
to be used that are not appropriate, he said, and he appreciates
ADF&G for the years it has helped to make those permits fit.
This bill simply clarifies how to do it when it is appropriate
to do it.
MR. ASHTON addressed some of the statements made in opposition
to the bill. He offered his belief that it was overstated about
the numbers overwhelming the genetic stocks of the fish. When
talking about genetics policy with the fisheries managers at
ADFG, they will specifically talk about the numbers of fish that
are going to be enhanced because they have had decades of
experience looking at what the ratio would be of those wild fish
spawning compared to greatly increasing the survival of the wild
fish by assisting their survival. They will look at what the
escapement is and what the numbers are, he said, and discuss how
to do this without overwhelming the natural stocks, in spite of
the fact that these fish are wild fish as well. The Copper
River enhancement program has had 40 million eggs a year for
decades and the stock is still well.
MR. ASHTON stated that there are stocks of fish that have not
come back. The Bradfield River south of Wrangell was a mutant-
sized fish on a par with the Kenai River, he related. It was
logged down to the watershed and the habitat was never restored.
It should be a [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] Superfund
project and work is being done on getting that restored. The
stock is so far down in its numbers, he said, that while it may
return eventually it would take many decades to do it. The
remnant stock could be captured, and the population brought
back. These Southeast Alaska fish were the size of Kenai River
kings. As oil continues to diminish, it is critically important
to look at Alaska's natural reoccurring stocks like in the case
of salmon to ensure they are being helped as best as possible.
MR. ASHTON pointed out that tribes on Prince of Wales Island
have spent over 10 years restoring the habitat in the
watersheds, but the stocks are down so much that they look at
this as the only option. The tribes have restored the habitat
to reintroduce the fish that are gone that have not come back
for decades.
MR. ASHTON stated there would not be any feeding [under HB 107].
He said he helped write this bill in collaboration with ADFG and
very conservative regulations were looked at to ensure that this
policy could not be abused. The wild stocks and the nature of
the wild stocks must be protected. What is being proposed in HB
107 is absolutely different than taking king salmon in the Lower
48 that are incubated, reared in pens, and fed all the way to
the smolt stage for a year in a conventional hatchery and then
letting them come back.
MR. ASHTON offered his belief that by law the regional planning
teams must have ADFG staff on those teams. It is good to
question who is going to be approving these things in the
regional planning teams, he said, but ADFG serves on those
boards.
MR. ASHTON offered his appreciation for Co-Chair Tarr asking
that people with concerns submit them in writing. He said ADFG
can provide information regarding such concerns as genetic
diversity.
3:17:13 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked what made [the Bradfield River] a
Superfund site and what hurt the habitat on Prince of Wales
Island.
MR. ASHTON replied that it is not a Superfund site on the
Bradfield River, but he suggested it should be considered one
because back in the 1960's and 1970's the U.S. Forest Service
oversaw logging where gravel was actually taken out of the river
to build the logging roads. He said it was over the entire
floodplain within the water system and it simply decimated the
watershed. Prince of Wales Island had logging that was right
down to the watershed as well, he continued. Great steps have
been taken because the communities are close enough to it in
collaborating with state and federal agencies. Environmental
groups have funded the restoration of that habitat, he noted.
3:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related that committee members have
received a letter of concern from the Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association about the biological diversity. He said he will
provide this letter to Mr. Ashton so that Mr. Ashton can provide
his comments between now and the committee's next meeting.
MR. ASHTON responded that he will provide comment, but suggested
the letter also be provided to the genetics lab at ADFG, which
has the best genetics policies in the world for protecting the
state's stocks of fish.
3:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recalled Mr. Ashton mentioning the
possibility of restoring stocks to streams where the salmon are
currently not returning. He inquired whether that would be
permitted under the bill as it currently stands in that it talks
about taking eggs from one set of waters and returning them to
the same waters.
MR. ASHTON answered that the watersheds he is referring to
actually have a remnant stock, but the stock is so low that it
can't be expected to recover for a very, very long time.
[HB 107 was held over.]
3:19:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 197 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Version J 4.5.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Sectional Analysis ver J 4.6.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Fiscal Note - DNR-PMC 4.7.17.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Supporting Document - Article. Seed Bill 4.9.17.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB 107 Sponsor Statement 2.8.17.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 Ver O 2.8.17.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 CS (FSH) WORK DRAFT version U 3.6.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 CS (FSH) Explanation of Changes 3.6.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Fiscal Note DFG-DCF 2.24.17.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 107 Additional Documentation Egg to Fry survival rates.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 107 Additional Documentation. Considerations for Salmon Restoration Planning.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 107 Additional Documents - Fish Enhancement in AK History.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |