Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/26/2017 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 | |
| HB107 | |
| HB197 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 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 George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 107
"An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a fisheries
enhancement permit."
- HEARD & HELD
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
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 2DP 3NR
04/19/17 (H) DP: EASTMAN, FANSLER
04/19/17 (H) NR: NEUMAN, KREISS-TOMKINS, STUTES
04/19/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
04/19/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/21/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
04/21/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/26/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
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 MR. ASHTONRNES 124
04/10/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/12/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
04/12/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/13/17 (H) RES AT 5:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
04/13/17 (H) -- Continued from 4/12/17 --
04/17/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
04/17/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/19/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
04/19/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/26/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM MR. ASHTONRNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Dave Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Talerico,
sponsor, answered questions regarding CSHB 107(FSH).
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSHB 107(FSH).
OLIVER HOLM
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about his concerns regarding HB
107.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 107.
ROBERTA HIGHLAND
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 107.
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent
Nenana City School District
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
DAVID OTNESS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
BRIAN ASHTON
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on his own behalf and
representing Tanana Chiefs Conference in support of HB 107.
SARAH OBED, Vice President of External Affairs
Doyon, Limited
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 107.
TERRANOVA TASKER, Staff
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Johnston,
sponsor, presented the changes made in Version O, the proposed
committee substitute for HB 197.
ROB CARTER, Manager
Plant Materials Center
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 197.
DEIRDRE HELFFREICH
Ester, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 197, but noted
her concern with some of the provisions in Version O.
JAN FLORA
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 197, Version O.
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 197, provided her opinion
on the language in a proposed amendment to the bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:56 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Birch, Parish, Talerico, Westlake, and Josephson were present at
the call to order. Representatives Johnson, Drummond, and
Rauscher arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 107-FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
1:05:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first 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).]
1:05:29 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Talerico,
sponsor, stated the sponsor would like to offer some amendments.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that CSHB 107(FSH) is the version of the
bill before the committee.
1:06:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS0396\R.1, Bullard, 4/21/17, which read:
Page 4, line 16:
Delete "A"
Insert "The commissioner may modify, suspend, or
revoke a permit issued under this section for good
cause. If a permittee violates this section, a
regulation adopted under this section, or a condition
of a permit issued under this section, the
commissioner may, after giving the permittee notice
and an opportunity to be heard, suspend or revoke a
permit issued under this section.
(j) Subject to (i) of this section, a"
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
1:08:05 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
1:08:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO explained Amendment 1 addresses the
issue of certain occasions "when something is misunderstood,
what do we actually do, you know, to correct that, and so this,
this amendment was brought forward to address that particular
issue."
1:09:46 PM
FORREST BOWERS, deputy director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), further
explained Amendment 1 would add provisions that allow for the
revocation or amendment of a permit. These provisions, he
continued, are consistent with language in [ADFG's] other
permitting regulations and statutes, and [ADFG] would try to
work with the permittee first if any deficiencies were
identified. [The department's] intent would be to try to get
the deficiencies and the course corrected rather than to
immediately revoke a permit. Sometimes things don't always go
as planned, he said, or the permittee's plans change, or the
permittee is no longer interested in pursuing the project, or
the project doesn't work out the way the permittee thought it
would. In these cases, Amendment 1 would allow for a permittee
to apply for an amendment and/or if someone was unable to follow
through with the permit terms or was violating the terms,
Amendment 1 would give the department the ability to revoke that
permit.
1:11:07 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, in regard to other types of permits, asked
whether it is always the power of the commissioner to revoke a
permit and be the decision-maker.
MR. BOWERS replied correct. Often that authority is delegated
to other staff in the department, he added, but ultimately that
is the commissioner's authority.
1:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH recalled hearing testimony about the
concern of spreading maladaptive traits, for example, the
hatchery could adversely influence the normal evolutionary
practice of salmon spawning in a stream. He said it seems like
this proposal would sidetrack all of that because salmon would
not be raised in a hatchery, rather it is fertilizing the eggs
and then immediately discharging them into their source waters.
He asked how that could adversely impact a natural run of
salmon.
MR. BOWERS responded that the concern is about loss of genetic
diversity or loss of fitness, and is a concern that is heard and
associated with almost any enhancement project. He said this
bill would allow for small-scale fishery enhancement or
rehabilitation. Eyed eggs would be placed into the gravel and
the fry would not be fed. Another concern that has been heard
is that wild fish select mates using adaptive characteristics
that have evolved through natural selection. In a hatchery or
enhancement setting, humans are doing the mate selection for the
fish and so there could be some loss of fitness through that
process because humans don't know all the drivers of mate
selection. He acknowledged that is a valid concern. But, he
continued, having a large population and spawning enough fish in
the rehabilitation project can provide mitigation to prevent a
bottleneck to genetic diversity.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH surmised that Amendment 1 would preserve
[ADFG's] ability to manage that.
MR. BOWERS agreed that language in the bill would allow [ADFG]
to provide those stipulations in the permit.
1:15:49 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:16:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to Amendment 1. There being
no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:16:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 30-
LS0396\R.2, Bullard, 4/25/17, which read:
Page 4, line 29, through page 5, line 2:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
1:16:52 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO thanked Co-Chair Josephson for a lengthy
discussion with him in regard to [section 2 of the bill] and
said as a result of this discussion, he was told by the
Legislative Legal Services that [section 2] doesn't need to be
in the bill because it doesn't really address anything
particularly like that. [Section 2], he continued, was put in
when the bill was drafted to connect to a particular area of
statute, but it didn't need to be connected, which is why he is
bringing forward Amendment 2.
1:18:19 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said Amendment 2 would delete section 2 and a
concern was raised that the amendment could potentially mean
that one doing a construction project could participate in a
rehabilitation permit instead of mitigating the impacts of the
construction.
1:19:45 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:20:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether section 2 is being deleted
because it is already the case that the department could
consider this sort of project as an alternative to
rehabilitation.
MR. BOWERS agreed section 2 has created confusion and apologized
for not accurately characterizing the intent of this section
when he was last before the committee. He said he spoke with
the Department of Law after attending the meeting between
Representative Talerico and Co-Chair Josephson. Section 2, he
explained, relates to AS 16.05.871, which addresses fish habitat
permits that would be issued related to construction projects.
He surmised section 2 was originally included in the bill
because it is possible that some of the rehabilitation projects
that would be permitted under HB 107 might require one of those
permits as well. Regardless of whether section 2 remains in the
bill, he said, [ADFG] would still go through the same process
for those permits. It just adds another bit of language
referencing those permits, and that the commissioner would have
to consider whether a person had one of these HB 107 permits
when evaluating a person's fish habitat permit application.
1:23:11 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to Amendment 2. There being
no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:23:35 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, in regard to Mr. Bowers' statement that ADFG
hears concerns about enhancement programs, asked whether the
concerns expressed about this program are different in type.
For example, he noted, other hatcheries are tied generally to
some quasi-governmental institution while this one isn't.
MR. BOWERS responded that the concerns are similar. Concerns
about genetics, loss of genetic diversity in wild stocks, and
interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish are the major
concerns that are heard by [ADFG]. Also heard are concerns
about pathology or the introduction of disease, he said. Other
fishery management issues come up that are related to large-
scale hatcheries, but those are separate from the biology
aspects. The biological concerns, he continued, are universally
heard on any enhancement or rehabilitation type of program
involving a hatchery.
1:25:40 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON inquired about ADFG's internal process and
whether there is robust debate within the department. For
example, he continued, whether the hatchery biologist provides
an opinion and whether that bounces back up to the directors in
the top echelons for an internal debate.
MR. BOWERS answered there is an internal review process that
involves staff from the Division of Sport Fish and the Division
of Commercial Fisheries. The review process starts at the area
level, he explained. Staff from the area office located closest
to the project in question and most familiar with the resources
will review and comment on the application. It then comes up in
the regional office for additional review and comment, and if
there are concerns the applicant is asked for clarification or
ADFG may put stipulations on the permit to address those
concerns. Ultimately there is a review by staff in headquarters
at the director's level and, if warranted, at the commissioner's
level.
1:27:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether ADFG's position on the bill is
neutral.
MR. BOWERS replied that the department doesn't have any
objections to the bill. Some of the bill's provisions are
stronger in terms of the conservation measures than the
department's current bio-enhancement and research permit, and
the department sees it as a little duplicative of its existing
permits. But, he continued, he would say the department is
"neutral leaning towards positive."
1:28:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE offered his understanding that the
indigenous fish are taken from a stream, put in a hatchery, and
then the [offspring of these] fish are released into the "fish
eat fish world." He questioned the argument on genetic
inferiority if these fish come back and have survived along with
all the other fish.
MR. BOWERS responded that it is not necessarily a question of
inferiority but a question of potential loss of diversity. For
example, he explained, suppose there is a salmon population
spawning in a particular body of water and an enhancement
project is done where only certain individuals are selected,
such as selecting a certain size of fish or selecting from a
spot where the fish are easier to catch. Doing that and then
putting them into the incubation or rearing setting increases
the survival of those eggs and juveniles so they have an
advantage and may be able to out-compete the other fish because
of that advantage. The intent is to increase survival, and
selecting certain individuals in the population, whether
intentionally or not, disadvantages the other individuals.
1:30:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether there is a fiscal note
from the Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural
Resources.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that the fiscal notes are from ADFG, not
the Division of Agriculture. She offered her belief that the
fiscal notes are zero because ADFG [already] issues permits, and
the bill would not change the type of work that is being done.
MR. BOWERS confirmed that Co-Chair Tarr is correct. He said a
team is already in place that evaluates this type of permit
application and the department doesn't anticipate a large number
of permit applications if the bill becomes law. The
applications would be absorbed into the normal workload, no new
staff would be hired, and no funding increment would be
requested for this program.
CO-CHAIR TARR, responding to Representative Rauscher, confirmed
the fiscal note [Identifier: HB107-DFG-DCF-02-24-17] is zero.
MR. VERHAGEN pointed out that the bill includes a permit
application fee of $100, and said this fee should cover the cost
of the permit should there be any extra workload.
1:32:25 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR reopened public testimony.
1:32:44 PM
OLIVER HOLM testified he is not against salmon enhancement,
which is evidenced by his 30 years volunteering as a board
member of a regional salmon enhancement program. However, he
said, he has some concerns with the bill. He drew attention to
section 1, page 2, lines 14-15, which state, "the species and
number of fish to be taken and, if applicable, the number to be
taken for brood stock". He said this implies that fish would be
permitted to be taken that weren't for brood stock and taking
numbers beyond brood stock would be of great concern. He then
brought attention to section 1, page 2, lines [24-31], which
provides that the department may issue a permit under this
section if the commissioner determines that the project may
restore or increase a population of fish in a body of water in
which "the population of the species of fish is limited". He
stated that all populations of fish are limited, and therefore
this provision seems "wide open".
MR. HOLM further noted that the egg limit of 500,000 with the
permits could mean the taking of 200 to 500-plus adult salmon
for their eggs. Because this could be significant to some
depressed populations, he said he hopes the department would
have the liberty to disallow granting permits in places where
the salmon [numbers] are too depressed. He further expressed
his concern about the added burden to ADFG without money to do
this. He offered his belief that the permitting section will be
losing another position in the next budget year. Additionally,
he cautioned, the bill would set tight timelines for handling
and issuing the permits, which may be difficult for the
department to accomplish without reducing its ability to handle
regular permitting for the regional aquaculture associations and
the other nonprofits.
1:35:29 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that Mr. Holm is saying
the limit of 500,000 eggs would require the taking of from 200
to 500 adult salmon to harvest the eggs and that that may be too
many for an area where the stock is challenged or strained.
MR. HOLM replied correct, the average fecundity of sockeye,
king, coho, and chum salmon is in that ballpark.
1:36:11 PM
ALEXUS KWACHKA testified he is adamantly opposed to the bill.
He agreed with Mr. Bowers that it is duplicative of what is
already being done [by ADFG]. He said [Alaska] can look to
Europe, the East Coast, and the West Coast for failed salmon
policies. [Alaska] has an excellent resource and needs to be
concentrating on taking care of the fish that are returning and
figuring out how to encourage them to spawn more and be more
productive without playing with Mother Nature. This bill is the
wrong way to go. Degradation is already occurring in Alaska's
streams, such as illegal crossing of streams by four-wheelers,
he continued, and he does not want this bill to be an avenue to
shore-up species that are being impacted by humans. A much
better job can be done of managing what the state already has
without tinkering with Mother Nature. It is critical to keep
the diversity and survivability of the fish that are returning
to [Alaska's] streams without introducing who knows what. Good
intentions, he cautioned, have paved the pathways to hell.
1:38:08 PM
ROBERTA HIGHLAND testified she is opposed to the bill. She said
more information is needed to review the research that is
already at [the state's] disposal. Adding fish may sound like a
solution, but it has far-reaching consequences, she stated.
Every time fish are added somewhere it possibly weakens the wild
stocks and those are what should be concentrated on. Hatcheries
bring many problems, she continued, and these problems have been
ignored for a long time. Overtaxing a food source by adding
from five hundred thousand to one hundred million fish is
messing around with Mother Nature. Whenever humans have messed
around with Mother Nature there have been consequences that were
not considered because humans cannot outthink all the different
issues, she added. Human stupidity is responsible for degrading
the habitat. She reiterated her opposition to the bill and
urged it be held until the research is done.
1:40:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired whether Ms. Highland has sources that
could be read in regard to the issue of overtaxing the food
source for the other salmon. She offered her understanding that
a stream has a certain food source supply for the fry as they
are developing and what Ms. Highland is saying is that
artificial inflation of the number of fry will create too much
competition for the available food source.
MS. HIGHLAND replied that a lot of new research is coming out on
hatcheries. She said Paul Greenburg's book, Fish on My Plate,
talks about this problem and that Mr. Greenburg spoke on the
program called "Talk of Alaska" on [04/25/17]. She agreed to
provide information to the committee on this issue.
1:42:13 PM
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent, Nenana City School District,
testified in support of the bill. He said the principal
interest of the school district is the educational benefit of
students, and the bill would be of educational benefit to
students. The bill would encourage curriculum development that
would meet educational standards in science and cultural
standards, he continued. The school district would be able to
work with parties who are educated in this area to teach the
students about how to enhance and restore the wild salmon runs.
He added that he is speaking in support of the bill because
students, teachers, and the community are interested.
1:43:44 PM
DAVID OTNESS testified that while he hears the concerns on the
bill, he is unable to connect the dots. For example, he said,
if a salmon run is ready to go extinct, the best thing that
could be done would be to enhance it. The bill is not a
hatchery bill, he stated, and there would be no food or
antibiotics; it would be as natural as it can get without having
the salmon in the wild. In regard to genetic selection, he
noted that the usual means of fertilizing the eggs is to use
several males, but if it is already down to a point of minimum
access to a species, the choices are limited and at that point
fewer males might be used than would usually be done. The point
is to save the run and to enhance it, he said. The bill is not
about urban areas that are overrun with four-wheelers, he
continued, but rather about villages up north and smaller
communities that don't have intense pressure, and therefore he
doesn't think the points being made by the other testifiers are
valid. Up north there are many environmental stressors for the
fish going both upstream and downstream, he added.
MR. OTNESS said the bill is timely for his area because on the
Copper River there have been some real issues in the commercial
salmon fishery. Last year was a total bust for the seiners and
the gillnetters, he related, but a late season hit of coho
salvaged the season for many people. This year's management
plan will allow a total catch of 4,000 king salmon on the Copper
River, he reported, while in the past this river has supported a
commercial fishery of upwards of 60,000 king salmon. For some
reason the kings are not getting back, which puts the viability
of the salmon run in question, and also shuts down the entire
gillnet fishery if that cap is exceeded. The openings are very
limited, and the management is being very conservative, he
continued. Sacrifices are being made on the lower Copper River
and it begs the question of adequate enforcement upstream
because the sport fishery is likely to be shut down as a result
of this, too. Therefore, he said, the possibility of enhancing
the Copper River run opens up much more accessibility to all the
people from Anchorage and Fairbanks, and [the bill] is something
he would not like to see shut down. A trial run in
Representative Talerico's district is a good idea, he stated,
and the bill has more positives than negatives.
1:50:32 PM
BRIAN ASHTON testified he is representing himself as well as the
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC). Speaking on behalf of TCC, he
said TCC would like to have this necessary tool in its tool belt
for managing its fisheries resources that have been depleted for
a very long time. [TCC] would like to work with ADFG to do it
appropriately, as it has been done for the past 15 years and in
some cases on the Copper River for 40 years. This has been
done, it has worked, and there have never been any crises in
genetics, he stated. However, there is no formal process in
place, so this bill would create a clear process for doing this
and ensuring it is done right.
MR. ASHTON, speaking on his own behalf, said he has been doing
this and helping communities to get permits from ADFG and
today's process is not clear. However, he continued, the number
of eggs is very tightly managed and [ADFG] looks at the number
of fish in the creek and the number of fish to be taken. The
process goes to the sport fish, commercial fish, pathology,
genetics, and the regional managers, he advised. They all sign
off on the last sheet and the final signature is the
commissioner approving the permits, so ADFG scrutinizes this
very well.
MR. ASHTON explained that this is about stocks that are at risk
to such a level that the genetic integrity is already at risk.
When the stock gets so low that it is basically brothers and
sisters coming back to spawn, there is a problem. In regard to
the issue of genetics and choosing how the fish mate, he related
that he has been in meetings in the Lower 48 where more fish
must be re-introduced. In California, non-native coho had to be
introduced in a river system because there were so few fish that
if they had mated there would have been a genetic problem of
brothers and sisters. He recalled that about 10 years ago a
permit in Nome required the taking of 80,000 eggs to get the
needed genetic diversity. So, he continued, ADFG completely
understands the genetic processes and they work.
MR. ASHTON said he has witnessed and has videos of salmon coming
into a creek and starting to spawn. The big alpha males are
clearly saying to the others, "I'm spawning and you're not, so
stay away," and the smaller males will hang back from the
females that are going to spawn. He explained that depending on
the species, some females will spawn three to five times in
several different redds. The big male stays beside her and runs
the smaller males away, but when the spawning starts the big
male cannot watch everything and when he starts to spawn the
smaller male will race in under him and spawn too. As the big
male regains his composure it is clear he is furious as he
chases the smaller males down the creek. It is hilarious to
watch, he said, but it is also educational because it is genetic
diversity in action. He stated that ADFG's policy with the
hatcheries - which this is not - includes very strict guidelines
to catch both large and small males. The genetic policy has
been developed for many, many years, he continued. This policy
has been used for over [four] decades on the Copper River
without any measurable problems. Environmental groups have done
studies looking for problems and haven't found any, he
maintained. The Copper River red salmon are the first to hit
the market and are incredibly valuable. If there were a
problem, it would have been adjusted a long time ago.
1:56:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how many eggs are fertilized in the
Copper River.
MR. ASHTON replied that it began in 1973 and for the last 10
years it has been 36 million eggs per year. The Copper River
has a unique situation, he explained, in that when the big
earthquake happened some of the ground shifted and didn't allow
the fish to migrate in certain areas. During the 1960's and
1970's it was found that there was a huge amount of habitat for
the fish but very little spawning ground, he said. Someone had
the bright idea to assist them in that and it has been a huge
success ever since. He offered to provide the committee with
the studies that have been done and stated that each hatchery is
scrutinized intensely, and data is kept. Although this bill is
not for a hatchery, this would fall under that as well, he said.
But it doesn't nearly come to some of the challenges and the
questions people have about conventional hatcheries.
1:57:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH inquired whether fry from one stream could
be moved into another stream. For example, putting the fry from
a stream with extra large salmon into another stream.
MR. ASHTON responded that that is being done today. Certain
streams in the Lower 48 have nonindigenous coho that were
introduced 80 years ago. The issue is convoluted, he said, and
the answer is yes, it can be done, but this bill was carefully
written and doesn't give the leeway to transplant. He offered
his opinion that much more needs to be learned to go that far.
MR. ASHTON related that the largest king salmon on record
weighed 126 pounds and was caught in a fish trap in 1946 just
west of Petersburg off Prince of Wales Island. The management
of the day, he said, assumed it was one of the Columbia River's
last "June Hogs." The Columbia River big kings were called June
Hogs, he explained, because they regularly reached 80 pounds and
consistently went over 100 pounds. A scale sample showed this
particular fish to be a six-year-old ocean fish. The Bonneville
Dam was being built at this time and did not have a fish pass,
he noted, so the Columbia River's stock of mega-sized fish was
knowingly killed off.
MR. ASHTON pointed out, however, that in his research over the
years he has never found a picture of a June Hog that was
shorter than 58 inches long, and he has seen about 25 pictures
of pre-1900 fish. The [Columbia River] fish were bigger than
the record fish caught in the Kenai River. [The Petersburg]
fish was unique in that it was 52 inches rather than 58 inches
and it looked like a tuna fish, he said. When fishermen in
Wrangell are asked what is the only king salmon that looks like
a tuna, they will say from the Bradfield River. Their response
is immediate because there is only one fish that looks like that
in southern Southeast Alaska. There are no pictures of June
Hogs that have that ratio, he continued, and it is indicative of
the Bradfield River kings. The Bradfield River was basically
[logged] down to the watershed in the 1960's and 1970's and
gravel was pulled out of the river to make the logging roads.
MR. ASHTON noted the Bradfield River was never rehabilitated and
that fishermen in Wrangell today still talk about what would
have potentially been the biggest king salmon in the world. He
further noted that retired personnel from the U.S. Forest
Service and ADFG have asked why these Bradfield fish are off the
record and have not been brought back. Had this been done there
would be two rivers like the Kenai bringing enormous amounts of
income to the state. He said Alaska does not currently have a
clear consistent process for restoring a stock of fish that has
been documented to be down for the last 45 years that has not
come back. This bill, he opined, would give a tool to vet
through the entire ADFG process, and then to bring a stock back.
2:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH drew attention to page 1, lines 5-6, and
lines 10-11, which state [in part], "the department may issue a
fisheries rehabilitation permit that allows a qualified person
to enhance habitat in water of the state to aid the survival of
the fish." He surmised this is the provision for the
rehabilitation of stock.
MR. ASHTON responded that the ability to restore habitat is
already in place. For example, four tribes on Prince of Wales
Island are asking him to work with them because they have spent
the last ten years restoring rivers that have been wiped out
from logging. The tribes know the fish are not going to
rehabilitate because the numbers are simply too depressed.
Another example, he related, is Moose Creek near Palmer where
the U.S. Navy created a chute for sending down coal to where the
ships could collect it. Chickaloon spent about $1 million over
three years to rehabilitate the watershed, he said, but then it
was realized that it could be generations before a fish strayed
into the stream. The only time a fish strays, he explained, is
when its [home] stream is so crowded that there is no room for
it to spawn there, and so it goes elsewhere. Alaska's stocks
are not robust enough to cause straying and that is why the fish
don't come back. So, yes, he continued, there are mechanisms to
do rehabilitation, but it wouldn't necessarily be a superfund
site. He said he plans to talk to the Alaska congressional
delegation about getting help because it is going to be a huge
project to restore this watershed and bring back that
genetically discreet stock that may or may not still be there.
2:05:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised that the bill would allow
restoration of the habitat, but would not allow reestablishment
of the run if members of that stock could not be found.
MR. ASHTON answered correct. This bill is not necessary to
restore habitat because that is already in place. Rather, this
bill primarily is focused to address a habitat issue, if there
is one, because the fish must have a house to live in. He
related that when communities come to him asking for help to
restore a stock that has been gone, he will ask whether the
habitat needs to be rehabilitated first, which was the case with
the Moose Creek watershed. Chickaloon had to fix the house
first and then reintroduce the fish.
2:06:22 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that dam removal in the Lower 48 involves
the same concern as the Moose River project in that it could
take many decades to just let the wild stock return. She
offered her understanding that a specific effort is made to
release hatchery fish in places other than where the indigenous
stock would be, but what makes this different is that the fish
would be released back to the same river. She asked which of
these options are being picked in the Lower 48, and requested
Mr. Ashton to compare and contrast the two and why the bill's
provisions would work in this circumstance.
MR. ASHTON replied that there was a big push in the Lower 48 to
put in fish culverts that would pass fish after it was realized
that certain culverts made waterfalls at the end that blocked
fish from passing. After realizing this error, which in some
cases was decades later, flat-bottomed culverts were used. But
the policy of just "building it and they will come" did not work
because there were no stocks big enough to stray, he said. When
the indigenous species is gone, the question for managers and
stakeholders is what to do. Using genetics, it might be found
that five miles away a stock is found in several places in the
region, and so it might be prudent to use that stock. If
everyone agrees, then that stock will be used.
MR. ASHTON recounted that he was involved in the development of
the Anita Bay cost recovery outside of Wrangell, where it was
decided that a terminal harvest area was needed for commercial
fishing for the hatchery. The criteria for approval, he said,
is that ADFG looks at what the interaction is going to be with
any indigenous stocks around the area. The data suggested there
were no significant stocks in that area, so ADFG was able to say
that there wouldn't be a problem with interaction with wild
stocks and so the project could proceed.
2:09:50 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that the intent of the
bill is rehabilitation of a stock of concern and that is why
eggs from that stock would be used and [the fry] released back
into that same area.
MR. ASHTON responded that the intent was to take everything that
has been learned so far about genetics and write a very
conservative process of what would be done. If a stock of fish
is not meeting escapement, that stock would be taken and helped
to survive, and then would be put back right away with no pens
and no feeding. So, he continued, it is radically different
than the methods and processes used right now by the mega-
hatcheries. Although certain people have lots of concerns about
the hatchery operations in existence today, this is a completely
different process and people shouldn't be so quick to throw the
hatcheries under the bus. He said he was around when the stocks
crashed in the 1970's and that hatcheries have stabilized the
income opportunities in Alaska's commercial fisheries and have
helped dramatically. It is key to constantly look at how to
tweak that and make it better. He said he feels confident that
enough people have been involved in looking at how these
hatcheries are operated, and course corrections are made as more
is learned.
2:11:35 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related that a concern of one of the critics
is that if the hatchery occurs and the taking ultimately occurs
in the same location as the original wild stock, there would be
no way to measure how much of the wild stock is being taken
because they would be co-mingled. He asked whether that makes
sense and is a concern to Mr. Ashton.
MR. ASHTON agreed it makes sense and explained that written into
the bill is a process that ensures there is a very thorough pre-
plan that justifies what will be done. He said he would provide
the committee with the white paper that he gives to people who
come to him about a stock of concern and ask what to do about
it.
MR. ASHTON stated that half the people receiving his white paper
fall off the radar when they realize that this is serious
science and they don't have the resources or capability to
follow through unless they can find partners to help. The need
must be defined, he explained, to ensure it is being done right
and that the genetics are being spoken to correctly because it
is discreet subpopulations within a bigger watershed that are
being talked about. For example, the Yukon River is over 1,000
miles long and genetics show that there are a lot of populations
of king, coho, and chum all the way up the river. So, when one
watershed is found to be at risk, due diligence must be done in
regard to the numbers so that the permit [application] includes
the historical number of fish going up the river and the current
number, along with a plan. All these different issues must be
vetted, including genetics, to get a permit approved, he said.
If one comes in saying that a river system looks like it should
have salmon but doesn't and wants to go plant some eggs, he can
attest [it won't happen] once that person sees his white paper
and he educates them about the thorough level of science and
preparation that must be done. As well, ADFG will tell the
person all the things that must be done.
2:14:11 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that the bill is
not for a conventional hatchery but rather a new model. Because
these salmon are not landlocked, he noted, whatever may be
causing a problem downstream would continue to exist. He
inquired whether the idea here is to grow the number [of salmon]
to such an extent that it defeats the problem.
MR. ASHTON answered that there are going to be interception
issues that might have caused the problem in the first place.
However, for whatever reason a stock is diminished, for eggs
that have successfully gone through the gamut of juvenile stages
in the ocean and have made it back, this bill would allow for
more of those wild eggs that came back to the river to simply
survive. It is a multi-faceted issue to make sure that False
Pass interception is managed, he said. Maybe international
fishing boats are out there, and an international agreement is
needed. This would augment the survival of those that made it
back, taking one more risk out of it to help them survive and it
would be done conservatively until those bigger issues are taken
care of.
MR. ASHTON recalled his talks with Wrangell elders about the
many small watersheds located in Back Channel just behind
Wrangell that no longer have a measureable amount of salmon. He
said he has reviewed the earliest [historical] documents for
that area involving the English who came prior to the Russians,
and he found a federal report from 1864 that documents nine
tribal houses along Back Channel. It is accepted to say, he
continued, that these tribal houses would not have been there if
there wasn't a resource. Management of the fisheries was a big
deal. Elders in Hoonah, he related, have told him of how they
used to prepare the creeks to ensure the fish could make it back
to the creeks. If they didn't have the fish numbers needed,
they would take the sperm from the males and fertilize the eggs
from the females and put them in cedar baskets back in the
creek. So, they did escapement management, he said, and it is
from this that he got this idea.
MR. ASHTON pointed out that a seiner could come in, make a great
round haul of fish, and thereby unknowingly wipe out a very
small subpopulation of fish in a very small river system. No
one would ever know it happened. All those long houses were
documented [in Back Channel], he stated, but now there are no
longer any major fisheries there. These fisheries are gone and
have not come back. In regard to genetics, he said his point is
that in order for a permit to be issued to take fish from a
certain local area within a river system, the [applicant] must
provide a plan that shows an understanding of where the various
subpopulations are located and how the plan will ensure that all
those issues will be managed and addressed.
2:17:45 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said a concern he has heard has to do with
the qualifications required for this model and that anyone who
receives a permanent fund dividend (PFD) could theoretically
apply. He requested Mr. Ashton's response to this concern.
MR. ASHTON offered his opinion that a person who doesn't know
what he or she is doing wouldn't fill out a permit to be
considered by ADFG. Also, ADFG would not issue a permit to an
applicant who doesn't know what he or she is doing.
Understanding how to do this is very serious when it comes to
Alaska's wild stocks and ensuring they are healthy, he said.
The statement of qualifications in the permit [application] will
reflect whether the applicant knows what he or she is doing.
This is a process that has been ongoing for decades and ADFG is
pretty good about saying no to unqualified applicants as well as
saying no if it is unclear to the department whether the
applicant is qualified.
2:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired about the point at which the fry
need to be put in a stream for them to align with that stream.
MR. ASHTON replied he would email Representative Johnson a paper
about imprinting. He explained that some of the stream water
gets into the eggs when the eggs are fertilized. He further
explained that when the eggs hatch the alevin still have the
yolk sac attached, and live in the gravel. Once the yolk sac is
used up the emergent fry come out of the gravel. All three of
these stages have processes where the fish imprints to the
river, he said, as well as to the specific place in the river
from which it came. Each species is different about that some
species are less specific about where they spawn in a river and
some, like sockeye, are very specific about where they spawn.
The fish imprint to the minerals and other things in the water.
2:21:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled a presentation at a conference
in which it was stated that a fish imprints on a specific river
as well as a specific place in the ocean, so the fish from a
specific stream will go to a specific coordinate in the ocean.
At what point this imprinting happens, she said, is what she
doesn't know. She posited that if one spot in the ocean is
getting fished heavily, perhaps certain streams in Alaska will
not get a return no matter what is done. She requested Mr.
Ashton's thoughts in this regard.
MR. ASHTON replied that ocean survival is a very complex process
and new technologies are being used to research where the fish
are migrating. He deferred to ADFG to provide more details. In
closing, Mr. Ashton added that the need for collecting more data
is really important to understand Alaska's resources in the
river systems, estuaries, and in the ocean. Additionally, he
said, applied science curriculums are desperately needed in
Alaska's schools and such curriculums need to have the students
actually go in the creeks and be able to touch the fish, not
just watch fish on a video. The bill would dovetail into this,
he added. It is not only about the fish, but also about how to
approach the management of Alaska's natural resources so the
resources aren't lost.
2:25:34 PM
SARAH OBED, vice president of External Affairs, Doyon, Limited,
testified in support of HB 107. She said Doyon has been
supporting the efforts of the Tanana Chiefs Conference for this
bill. She noted that Doyon has provided written testimony in
support of the bill and understands that the bill would allow
individuals, corporations, school districts, and other
organizations to apply for a fish enhancement permit through
ADFG that would allow for limited collecting of fish, the
fertilizing and hatching of eggs, and placing the fish back into
the water from which they were taken with the expectation of
boosting the fertility rate of the eggs. She said Doyon's
management and shareholders support the bill.
2:27:01 PM
[HB 107 was held over.]
HB 197-COMMUNITY SEED LIBRARIES
2:27:56 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final 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."
2:29:17 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 197, Version 30-LS0493\O, Wayne, 4/24/17,
as the working document.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
2:29:48 PM
TERRANOVA TASKER, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johnston,
sponsor, explained that Version O amends section 4 to address
some of the issues brought up by the community and at the bill's
last hearing. She said [on page 3, lines 17-19 add language]
that would allow for personal noncommercial transfer of seeds.
This is the issue where someone's grandmother could give seeds
to her neighbors and it would not be in violation of any code or
regulation, but that would exist outside of the seed library.
On [page 4, lines 7-9 add language] that would allow for seeds
from a plant that is grown outside Alaska to be used in a seed
library as long as there is compliance with interstate transport
of commercial seeds. On page 4, line 15, would increase the
volume of seed sharing to one pound, which is in response to
public comment that the previous amount was not enough for those
seeds that are larger and heavier. On page 4, lines 27-30, add
language that would not allow anyone to use marijuana seeds as
it pertains to seed libraries because that is not the intent of
the bill.
2:31:56 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON referenced a criticism by P.S. Holloway, who
asked why the bill is necessary when it is a deregulated process
now. Also, he continued, the current unregulated system is
free. He inquired as to why the current system isn't working.
MS. TASKER replied that this bill comes about because current
statute says any seed in the state must be regulated. Then,
going to code, there are two pages of regulation regarding
germination percentages, weights, and everything that is needed
for commercial operations. It seems to not be regulated based
on the interpretation of the [Department of Natural Resources
(DNR)], she said, so the bill carves out a section that seed
libraries can exist and then they can have control over what
goes on. She deferred to Mr. Rob Carter for further
explanation.
2:33:52 PM
ROB CARTER, manager, Plant Materials Center, Division of
Agriculture, DNR, responded that it is an unfortunate misnomer
from individuals who are not familiar with the current seed
regulations in Title 11 of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC),
Chapter 34. He explained that multiple sections of this code
say that any seed transported around the state of Alaska for use
in planting, no matter the quantity, must meet the state's
labeling requirements for rigorous germination purity and
invasive weed testing. These requirements, he said, defeat the
purpose of noncommercial seed sharing because these individuals
have no intent to sell or generate revenue; they do it for rural
food security and genetic diversity. It is regulated, he
advised, but is not enforced by DNR upon Alaskans who are just
trying to provide closer, better, fresher food, and keep genetic
diversity among seeds within the state of Alaska.
2:35:47 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that Mr. Carter is
saying that this is more regulated than people believe, pursuant
to Title 11 of the Alaska Administrative Code. Therefore, this
legislation springs out of that regulation in a sense.
MR. CARTER answered correct; people don't understand that both
the Federal Seed Act and the accessory code regulate seed in
Alaska. But, he reiterated, it is not in the best interest of
the division [to enforce] because there are "bigger fish to
fry." Seed laws are passed with good intention, he said, and
have been around for a long time. It is just in recent years
that other states have been applying these laws to the
noncommercial seed sharing and seed libraries that are more fit
for consumer protection and protection of the farming community
and the agriculture industry, and applying those laws without
reason.
2:36:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there is a difference
between "community seed library" and just "seed library."
MR. CARTER replied that there is no difference and that there is
a multitude of common names. People in the seed regulatory side
in the agricultural industry look at them as the noncommercial
seed sharing activities that are normally located within a
library, nonprofit, community organization, or a private
organization that has space to allow one.
2:38:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH observed that on page 3, lines 24-27 set
up a contrast between plants grown outside the state and inside
the state by saying, "outside the state, and imported into the
state in compliance with AS 03.05.010(a)(5); or [(2)] in the
state, and untreated with a substance toxic to humans, animals,
or pollinating insects." He inquired whether this statute
allows plants that are treated with substances toxic to humans,
animals, or pollinating insects.
MR. CARTER offered his belief that it does. He advised that
plants and seeds are very different critters when it comes to
the regulatory process. Speaking only to seeds, any seed
currently that is being made available for sale or offered for
sale must have that specifically on its label within the
package. In this case, it is not allowing that within community
seed libraries. He offered his professional opinion that these
labeling requirements be met, and that there be due diligence
because individuals in a free, noncommercial seed library may
have children there and sometimes the seed coatings that have
been treated with a pesticide are in bright colors. To remove
the possibility that an individual might get sick or very sick
and die from ingestion of those, he advised that it is in the
best interest of noncommercial use to not allow that within
noncommercial seed libraries.
2:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH agreed that a seed library shouldn't have
any seeds that have been treated with toxic substances. He said
he is having trouble seeing why seeds treated with toxic
substances should be allowed in community seed libraries if they
are coming from out of state. He requested Mr. Carter to
provide clarity in this regard.
MR. CARTER suggested Representative Parish talk with the bill
sponsor if he believes the language on page 3, lines 24-27, has
a loophole for out-of-state seed to be treated and shared with
community seed libraries. Mr. Carter said he thinks the
language could be interpreted either way.
2:42:01 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised it would be difficult if a plant were
being brought into the state to be able to certify what happened
prior to it coming to Alaska.
MR. CARTER agreed it would be very difficult to regulate all
imported plants and said the Division of Agriculture does not
currently do that. He advised that many of the chemicals in the
systemic pesticides used to treat plants do not carry forth
within the progeny of the seed and he therefore doesn't think
that is a necessary step within this legislation.
2:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said that if the provision that seeds from
outside the state should be similarly untreated it would seem
that a nationwide standard, such as organic, could be used to
avoid having to regulate every other state.
CO-CHAIR TARR advised there are imported vegetable starts that
are organic, but said it would be very difficult to do this with
flowers or other showy plants because she cannot think of any
opportunity to purchase certified organic garden landscaping
plants. She requested Mr. Carter's comment in this regard.
MR. CARTER agreed with Co-Chair Tarr. He advised that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standard is a USDA
program and therefore putting that type of language within
legislation could be very limiting. He said he thinks it is up
to the individual seed person to do their due diligence to
provide the seed that is best for the community. He cautioned
that the organic label is something to be very "wise" about.
2:44:52 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to adopting Version O as the
working document. There being no further objection, Version O
was before the committee.
2:45:18 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR reopened public testimony.
2:45:29 PM
DEIRDRE HELFFREICH testified that there is a need for this bill
simply to establish the legality of community seed libraries.
There is a difference between a seed library and a seed bank,
she pointed out. The seed vault in Norway holds germplasm for
particular individuals or companies. They are required to share
the first generation with other researchers, but otherwise the
seeds are held in deep freeze like would be done in a living
museum. A seed library is trying to establish living plants
that have adapted to a certain area, and to increase
biodiversity, educate the community, and help fellow gardeners.
MS. HELFFREICH stated she has some concerns with Version O. She
drew attention to the provision in [subsection] (c) that begins
on page 3, line 30, and which states, "Seed given, exchanged, or
offered for giving or exchange under (b) of this section must be
packaged for sale and labeled with ...." She said the [five]
labeling requirements that follow [on page 4, lines 1-6,] would
put an undue burden on seed libraries and would result in yet
another volunteer event that a seed library would have to do.
She noted she is speaking for herself, but that she was the
founder of the seed library in Ester. She also pointed out that
the provision refers to sellers and packaging for sale and is
contradicted by [paragraph] (5) on page 4, lines 5-6, which
state, "the statement Not authorized for commercial use and not
classified, graded, or inspected by the State of Alaska." She
said there is an inherent contradiction and that part of the
provision looks like it is created for sellers and part of it
looks like it is created for individuals and organizations
giving seeds.
MS. HELFFREICH further pointed out that making organizations
responsible for keeping track of how much a person receives in a
year, or just receives, is problematic. She also stated that
the labeling requirement on page 4, line 2, to include the
seller's name and address, would result in fewer people
participating in these organizations.
MS. HELFFREICH said she has 14 years of professional experience
working as the science editor at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF) School of Natural Resources and Agricultural
Sciences. She noted she has submitted written testimony and
reiterated her appreciation for the bill.
2:51:21 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR advised that the committee intends to consider an
amendment that would address in part Ms. Helffreich's concern
about the seller's name and address. Regarding the tracking of
weight, she noted that Version O raises the weight to one pound.
She asked whether this would address Ms. Helffreich's concern or
whether her concern is that tracking the cumulative amount would
be challenging.
MS. HELFFREICH replied that her concern is the idea of having to
track [the weight].
2:51:36 PM
JAN FLORA testified she appreciates HB 197 and Version O because
it would help with Alaska's food security concern and would
build community resilience. She said that until she read the
bill she had no idea that seed savers and seed swappers were
outlawed. She noted Homer has over 200 high tunnels, the most
in any zip code in the entire U.S. Small agriculture is booming
in Homer, she continued, and people in Homer want to build a
seed library, so the bill would help with this and would help
the Homer community grow more food for its families.
2:53:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to the concern that the packaging
requirements would be a burden to seed libraries. He requested
Ms. Flora's thoughts in this regard.
MS. FLORA responded that she concurs with the witness expressing
this concern. She said she doesn't want to put her name and
address on the seeds. The seeds are swapped with friends and it
is known where they go. She suggested that for purposes of a
community seed library, perhaps a binder could be kept, and a
code put on the packages for tracking where the seeds come from,
so there is some capability of tracing seeds. She noted the
bill states that DNR should publish where the seed libraries
are; however, she continued, DNR already publishes a directory
for Alaska Grown that lists all the farmers and stock growers
that voluntarily want to be in the directory. She suggested
that this directory would be a good place to publish seed
library information.
2:55:17 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony.
2:55:35 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-LS0493\O.1,
Shutts, 4/26/17, which read:
Page 3, line 31:
Delete "for sale"
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "seller's name and address"
Insert "name and address of the person giving or
offering the seed"
Page 4, line 3:
Delete "for sale"
Page 4, lines 7 - 9:
Delete all material.
Page 4, lines 12 - 14:
Delete "(1) that is harvested from a plant grown
outside the state unless the seed is in the original
packaging in which it was imported into the state;
(2)"
Page 4, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "AS 03.20.110 - 03.20.160"
Insert "AS 03.20.110 - 03.20.150"
Page 5, lines 3 - 4:
Delete all material.
2:55:46 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:55:50 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained that Amendment 1 would, in part, address
the issue of information that is required. She said the
amendment would remove some of the confusion about "the sale
element of it" by deleting the words "for sale" on page 3, line
31. Thus, line 31 would read, "section must be packaged and
labeled with". She said Amendment 1 would also do the
following:
• delete from page 4, line 2, the words "seller's name and
address" and insert "name and address of the person giving
or offering the seed"
• delete from page 4, line 3, the words "for sale"
• delete all the language [of subsection (d)] on page 4,
lines 7-9, to get at some of the issue about where seed was
grown
• delete all the language on page 4, lines 12-14
• change the statutory reference on page 4, lines 22-23
• delete all the language on page 5, lines 3-4
2:57:39 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked why the definition of "exchange" would
not be needed.
MS. TASKER answered that because the bill's language has been
cleaned up with the removal of buy or sell, Legislative Legal
Services has advised that "exchange" does not need to be
defined.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated that a conceptual amendment to Amendment 1
could be considered regarding the name and address of the person
giving or offering the seed. She requested Mr. Carter's
thoughts about the suggestion that this information could be
held in a binder, so it would be available, but not physically
on the package, in order to address the concerns of those people
not wanting to give out their personal information [on the
package].
MR. CARTER answered he thinks removal of that language would
simplify that process. He offered his belief that, from a seed
regulatory aspect, as long as there was a sign above the seed
library itself with the name and address of the seed library
above the seed sharing activities within that facility, it would
meet the requirements of this legislation.
2:59:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH, in response to Mr. Carter's answer,
offered his understanding that from the point of view of the
department it would be sufficient to have the name and address
of the seed library rather than the provider of the original
seed.
MR. CARTER replied that is correct.
CO-CHAIR TARR clarified that the name and address would be
specific to the seed library, not specific to the individual
person.
3:00:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who is responsible if the address
of the seller is on the packet.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded the name and address could be the seed
library and location, rather than the name of the person who
donated the seeds to that library.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who would be responsible and who
would be contacted in case of problems if it is the name and
address of the seed library, not the [seed] producer.
MS. TASKER replied that the purpose of creating a community seed
library is that it gives the department a place to go if there
is a problem, and allows some path for tracking if need be. In
the smaller communities, regardless of whether someone's name
and address were written down, the community members would
likely know who is giving what seeds. She deferred to Mr.
Carter to answer the question further.
MR. CARTER responded that who is liable is a difficult question
and he is not sure what [a seed library's] liability would be.
If the issue was an invasive weed, or marijuana seed was being
exchanged, or another item that this legislation made
inapplicable [to current regulation], it would be the
responsibility of the seed library to stop that activity.
3:02:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE stated the intent of the bill is to
allow people to exchange seeds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked the bill sponsor for her hard
work and response to people's opinions by rewriting the bill.
She said that while the state must do due diligence when it
comes to invasive species and so on, people will continue to
share seeds. She expressed her support for the bill.
3:04:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, to change line 6 to read as follows:
Insert "name of seed library giving or offering the
seed"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes. Drawing
attention to page 3, line 20, Version O, she pointed out that
Section 03.20.120 is the community seed library section. So,
she said, while it says the name and address of the person
giving or offering the seed, it is supposed to mean the
community seed library because it is in that section.
3:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND addressed her proposed conceptual
amendment to Amendment 1. She noted that the objection heard in
testimony was that people didn't want the name and address of
the giver of the seed. The suggestion heard in conversation was
replace the giver's name and address with the name of the seed
library that was the source of the seed.
CO-CHAIR TARR explained that the way the language is currently
written, it actually is the community seed library. She said
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 could be considered for
points of clarity, but asked whether Representative Drummond
would like to remove the word "address".
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the seed library is being
referred to as the person.
CO-CHAIR TARR answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND further addressed her conceptual
amendment to Amendment 1. She said it should only say the name
of the seed library. If the community being talked about is
Ester, for example, Mr. Carter will know it is the seed library
in Ester. Also, as stated in testimony, it would take half a
page in the [Alaska Grown directory] to list all the seed
libraries. She stated she is trying to address the concerns of
the testifiers and the concern she heard loud and clear is that
they do not want their names and addresses distributed. The
seed library should be tracking these things and if there is an
issue with the seed and there is a need to find out from whom it
came, the seed library can be responsible for tracking that.
3:07:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, offered her opinion that the language should be left as
is because there are opportunities for individuals to act in an
exchange where it might still be wanted to have the individual's
name and address there versus just the seed library.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH spoke in support of Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1. It would be adequate, he continued, to say that
a community seed library should make reasonable accommodations
for participants to know X, Y, and Z, to avoid having to
individually label each package.
CO-CHAIR TARR restated Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 as
follows: On line 6, after "name" insert "of the community seed
library" and delete "and address of the person". Thus, line 6
would read, "name of the community seed library giving or
offering the seed."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND confirmed the restatement as correct.
3:09:26 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection. There being no other
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:09:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH noted that Amendment 1 removes a couple of
restrictions on seeds that originate out of state, one of those
being that the seeds should be in their original packaging.
Removal of these restrictions, he said, makes him less
comfortable with the bill, particularly for setting a number of
other requirements on it, in which the origin of the seed could
be lost. He reiterated his earlier concern that if it is going
to be made unclear which seeds are coming from instate and which
seeds are not, it only makes it more important that they be held
to the same standards with regard to toxins. With the amendment
as offered, he posited, there is no reason why seeds treated
with neonicotinoids, for example, couldn't be passed off in a
community seed library.
MS. TASKER said she and Mr. Carter talked about the removal of
that specific language, "the original packaging", and this
language would make this process more complicated for people
trying to share seeds. She offered her understanding that a
seed going out of any state must still comply with the Federal
Seed Act and there still are safeguards to prevent harmful seeds
from going one place to another without any control. So, she
continued, [Amendment 1] would not remove any safeguards, rather
it is an access issue.
3:12:11 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR rescinded her motion to move Amendment 1.
[HB 197 was held over.]
3:13:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 107 Amendment 1 on 4.21.17.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition 4.25.17_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition Rinella 4.25.17.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition Adkison 4.25.17.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Gary Martinek's comments about KRSA opposing comments 4-25-17.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 Amendment 2 on 4.25.17.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Opposing Document - Trout Unlimited Letter 4.25.17.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Additional Documentation. Considerations for Salmon Restoration Planning.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Additional Documents, Josephson Permitting process letter.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Additional Documentation. Egg Survival Rate Comparrison.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Fiscal Note DFG-DCF-02-24-17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Gulkana Incubation Picture.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Moist air incubator picture.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Sponsor Statement 2.8.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support ADN Article.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Doyon 2.14.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Mentasta Council.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Nenana City School District 2.16.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Support Pete Velsko.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Ver O.PDF |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2017.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB107 Explanation of Changes O to U.pdf |
HFSH 4/18/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 ver U.pdf |
HFSH 4/18/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Supporting Document SEAFA 4.6.17.pdf |
HFSH 4/18/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| 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 |
| HB107 Opposing Document Friccero.pdf |
HFSH 4/18/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| 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 |
| HB197. Version O.pdf |
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 |
| Explanation of Changes. HB197. Version O.pdf |
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 |
| HB107 Opposition Documents - Letters of Opposition 4.26.17.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |