Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/28/2017 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR12 | |
| HB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 107-FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
10:30:13 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 107, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries enhancement permit."
10:30:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 107, stated that HB 107 is a fish fertilization
enhancement bill. He maintained that the permit proposed in HB
107 could boost fish egg fertilization rates - from the 5
percent occurring in nature to 95 percent using incubation. He
mentioned that fish eggs would be collected, fertilized,
incubated, hatched, and released back as unfed fry into the same
water from whence they came. He opined that releasing the fry
into the original water would make the process as natural as
possible. He stated that fish incubation is not new; it has
been done in many areas for 40 years. He maintained that the
proposed legislation would clarify the statutes regarding permit
requirements. He offered that HB 107 would facilitate fish
fertilization enhancement projects as a collaborative effort -
undertaken by the private sector, but under the auspices of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). He maintained that
there would be quite a few requirements for the permit and the
permit holder that would preclude an unqualified person
receiving a permit.
10:32:55 AM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 107 on behalf of Representative
Talerico, prime sponsor. He referred to AS 16.05.050(a)(5),
which states that one of the duties of the commissioner of ADF&G
is to propagate fish and fish populations. He relayed that
ADF&G has offered fish enhancement permits like those proposed
under HB 107: permits for educational purposes in schools and
universities, and for scientific research. He said that these
permits are available to tribes, government agencies, and
various other entities through cooperative agreements with
ADF&G. He stated that none of the education or science permits
are outlined in statute. He maintained that the proposed
legislation would outline in statute a fish fertilization and
enhancement permit and put these permits under the management
and scrutiny of ADF&G.
MR. VERHAGEN stated that pages 2 and 3 of HB 107 list the
information that would be required on the application for a
permit: the reason the applicant wishes to conduct fish
fertilization; the type of fish that would be collected; the
number of fish that would be collected; and the agreements that
are in place with local shareholders around fish collection. He
maintained that the information requested on the application is
very similar to that which is required for the education and
science permits; however, HB 107 would allow people and
corporations to obtain permits for the simple reason that they
need more fish. He relayed that in many of the rivers in State
House District 6 in the Interior, ADG&G does not have the
resources to perform fish counts and does not have escapement
goals; however, local residents have reported a great reduction
of fish over the years.
MR. VERHAGEN related that meeting all the conditions of the
application would be difficult; therefore, permits would not be
readily available to everyone. He reiterated that the fish
propagation process addressed in HB 107 would be a natural
process: it would not involve fish farming; it would simply
boost the fertilization rate from the 5 percent in nature up to
roughly 94 percent; the unfed fish would be released back into
the water; there would be a ten-day window for them to become
emergent fry fish; and they would return to the same watershed.
He claimed that the fish would be "as natural as possible." He
maintained that the process would boost the salmon population
and maximize the resource, as called for in the Alaska State
Constitution.
10:37:40 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 107.
10:38:00 AM
BRUCE CAIN testified that he works for Ahtna, Incorporated
(Ahtna) as special projects manager, serves on the Prince
William Sound Aquaculture Corporation (PWSAC) board of
directors, and is president of the Copper Valley Chamber of
Commerce, but he is speaking on his own behalf. He expressed
his support for HB 107. He relayed an incident that occurred in
1971 when he was 14 years old: He was working on the docks in
Auke Bay in Juneau at a fish buying station. The business
served hand trollers and a fleet of commercial fishermen. It
was before limited entry, before the 200-mile limit, and before
any hatcheries. He mentioned that at the time, there were no
fish. He relayed that a gentleman, about 70 years old, returned
to the dock with three fish after having fished all week. The
man earned about $23 for his fish. When he put 100 gallons of
diesel fuel into his boat for $30, there wasn't enough money
from the fish to pay for the fuel. It was a very sad, but
defining moment for Mr. Cain as a 14-year-old boy and inspired
him to be committed to increasing fish populations.
MR. CAIN relayed that much was done in that regard: setting the
200-mile limit; forming the Division of Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Development (FRED) in ADF&G;
building the hatchery system; and enacting limited entry. He
mentioned that he could not have imagined back then that there
would be so many fish one day that people would worry about the
effects of hatcheries. He relayed that he has lived in
Glennallen in the Copper River Basin for many years,
participated in the commercial fishery, participated in the
personal use fishery, sport fished, and subsistence fished. He
asserted that the Gulkana Hatchery is a "big blessing" for his
region, which uses incubation boxes. The facility was built by
Ken Roberson, a state biologist, from donated fish totes,
gravel, and plywood. This large sockeye salmon facility keeps
the river healthy. This year there has been a very low king
salmon run on the Copper River, which has prompted state
restrictions. He maintained that the incubation system has
worked well on the Copper River for many years.
MR. CAIN encouraged the committee to support HB 107. He
maintained the [incubation] process could be used to restore
salmon that has been lost due to highway construction and other
activities, and he mentioned that it would be good to try it on
the Yukon River.
10:44:46 AM
ERIC GEBHART, Superintendent, Nenana City School District,
testified that he supports HB 107. He mentioned that he had
experience with fish enhancement in Kake. He relayed that his
current school district has the capacity through the education
permit to engage in fish enhancement projects, but he asserted
that HB 107 would encourage more people to participate in these
activities and the schools could provide an education component.
He maintained that the impact of education is greater through
partnerships with science and fisheries; increased fish
enhancement projects would have a positive effect on the fish
populations; and education of youth would help to sustain the
enhancement projects into the future.
10:47:09 AM
MR. VERHAGEN relayed that his office is excited that Mr. Gebhart
has had experience in fish enhancement and is working toward
doing more of this in his school district. He emphasized the
value of youth participating in the incubation and fertilization
of fish eggs and observing the entire process from beginning to
end. He expressed his hope that for these young minds, the
"excitement and potential" that could stem from this education
would culminate in pursuing education and careers in the field
of fish propagation.
10:50:03 AM
WILL MAYO, Tanana Chief's Conference (TCC), testified that he
supports HB 107. He relayed that he has spent much time on the
Yukon River and the primary "eating" fish in the area was the
king salmon. He stated that due to depletion of the king salmon
population, there have been limitations placed on king salmon
harvest. He maintained that he has witnessed no activity in the
fish camps along the river, which deprives the young people of
the education that the salmon harvest offers them. He stated
that TCC wants to help maintain robust wild salmon stocks; it
employs a scientific program; and it wants to develop the
capacity to address future needs. He said that as resources
diminish, the people diminish, because they are dependent on
their rural economies; the rural economy is the wild resource
economy.
MR. MAYO maintained that discreet salmon populations need
assistance in most regions of the state; a permit process
tailored to restoring wild salmon is what is needed and what is
lacking today. He said that ADF&G permits are not adequate for
the task of restoring wild salmon: they are designed for
research and education; they are limited; or they are for
conventional hatcheries. He maintained that HB 107 would create
a process for restoring discreet wild salmon populations using
guidelines and clear oversight by ADF&G based on good science
and proven practices. He asserted that HB 107 represents a
conservative approach to assure that wild salmon are kept wild:
they are not pen-fed fish; they are not conventional hatchery
fish; and they are returned to their river of origin. He added
that HB 107 speaks to the importance of collaboration, data
collection, and education within the process of restoration of
wild salmon stocks. He said that TCC finds the proposed
legislation necessary to fill a niche that is currently not
filled; the current permits have been unreliable for this
effort. He asserted that HB 107 would allow the state to
proceed with a program to assist wild stocks.
10:54:59 AM
NANCY HILLSTRAND testified that she has 21 years' experience as
a fish culturist of five species of salmon and two species of
trout, and she opposes HB 107. She said that although it is
well intentioned, Alaska can "go wrong" with enhancement and has
multiple times. She asserted that HB 107 would be dangerous
legislation for Alaska's wild spawning salmon resource. She
maintained that the danger lies in multiple people handling the
fish with no oversight. She mentioned that ADF&G does not have
the resources to do the proper oversight that would be needed.
She stated that the simple act of "adding fish" has
consequences. She claimed that HB 107 is a "Band-Aid" approach
to underlying symptoms affecting distinct stock.
MS. HILLSTRAND referred to an excerpt of a sentence in the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]: "Although the Dept. of Fish & Game is currently not
counting the fish population in many rivers in our interior
district such as the Nenana, Tanana and upper Yukon rivers ... "
and testified, "That's what we need." She asserted that Alaska
needs more focus on these areas to learn "what is going on" and
to get the Board of Fisheries "on-board" to make sure it is
aware of what is transpiring in these areas.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated that in the last couple years, Chinook
salmon has been slowly rebounding; the North Pacific [Fishery]
Management Council (NPFMC) has placed caps on the huge bycatch
of Chinook in the Bering Sea. She relayed NPFMC's statement as
follows: "The majority, 64 percent, of Chinook salmon bycatch
in the Bering Sea is from aggregate coastal Western Alaska
stock, which includes rivers from Norton Sound to Bristol Bay,
including Yukon and Kuskokwim." She expressed that these are
symptoms and there are multiple symptoms causing problems with
salmon. She offered that the bycatch caps do seem to be helping
the salmon rebound, but she opined that Alaska needs to monitor
the distinct stocks in the upper tributaries and take care of
its wild fish before altering them with any type of enhancement.
She stated that as a fish culturist, she is very concerned; she
witnessed fish hatcheries evolving from what was considered an
enhancement to a factory production costing the state millions
and millions of dollars. She emphasized that the state needs to
"slow down," look at the habitat, determine why ADF&G is not
paying more attention to the habitat and the food web
interactions. She reiterated that Alaska does not need a Band-
Aid but needs to study the symptoms.
10:57:53 AM
PETE VELSKO testified that he supports HB 107 and referenced a
letter sent to the committee detailing his experience. He
mentioned that he began working with ADF&G at the Tutka Bay
Hatchery in Homer in 1976. He said when the hatchery was
transferred to the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA), he
was transferred to Nome, which was having problems with chum
salmon. He was sent to Nome to test in-stream incubation boxes
to determine the feasibility of putting them in area streams to
help rebuild the run. He worked from 1991 to 1997 under FRED in
Nome. His job was to try to implement small scale salmon
restoration enhancement projects for 15 villages in the Norton
Sound area and it included educational programs in the schools.
Nome had a very active high school incubation project.
MR. VELSKO stated that in 1993-1994, FRED was combined with the
Division of Commercial Fisheries (DCF) [ADF&G] due to budget
cuts. As a result, the salmon restoration and enhancement
projects in Nome became very low priority and were abandoned.
He stated that the need for these projects was real and people
wanted to see them continued. He maintained that the
disappearance of FRED left a void not readily filled by the
private non-profit (PNP) aquaculture associations or by CFD. He
maintained that the PNPs are in the business of producing large
numbers of fish, primarily for commercial fisherman located
along the coast, and DCF focuses on managing fish, as opposed to
producing fish. He said that his question is: "Who's out there
to assist the more rural villages who might want help increasing
salmon opportunities in those areas?" He opined that HB 107
might be a "step in the right direction."
MR. VELSKO summarized by saying that he was doing the kind of
work in Nome that he believes HB 107 would do. He said that all
the villages in the area were very enthusiastic and helpful in
providing him with good information. He maintained that to
check the feasibility of chum salmon in Nome, "you've got to
complete the experiment." He added that when FRED was combined
with DCF, the project was not finished. He stated that the
incubation boxes did produce salmon - as much as 70 percent on
one incubator - but because the experiment was never completed,
he does not know the return of fish. He maintained that more
than one life cycle is needed to see if such an experiment is
working.
11:03:22 AM
MIKE MANN testified that he has been fishing for 55 years
throughout Southeast, Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet, and areas outside
of Alaska; he was a board member of the Douglas Island Pink and
Chum (DIPAC) Macaulay Salmon Hatchery for ten years; and he was
president of the United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG)
Association. He stated that he supports HB 107 because he
supports the actions by DIPAC and the Northern Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA). He expressed his
belief that the communities can prove, with the help of the
experts at the hatcheries, that the fish enhancement is being
done correctly. He maintained that one can identify the run
entry program where it is being intercepted. The personnel at
DIPAC invented a way to identify the specific fish from a
specific area, so that fish following the Japanese current and
coming into Icy Straits or by Noyes Island can be easily
identified. They know where the fish are going, where they
belong, and who is catching them; therefore, appropriate
regulations can be put into place for commercial fishing.
MR. MANN mentioned that he was involved with incubation boxes
for sockeye salmon, spawning channels on the Chilkat River, and
incubation boxes throughout the tributaries of the Chilkat
River. He maintained that these activities have been very
successful [for fish enhancement] and asserted that fish
enhancement is important for other communities. He said that
once there are large numbers of fish coming back to the river
systems that can handle it, the state will do well not only in
commercial fishing, but in sport fishing and personal use
fishing, as well. He suggested that GM fish are emerging
because of the popularity of salmon in the world and the desire
to make money from that. He maintained that Alaska is becoming
the "number one place in the world" [for salmon] and should
recognize and take advantage of that.
11:07:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 107.
11:08:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for someone from ADF&G to respond to
the concern that an unqualified individual might do fish
enhancement and to speak to the qualifications of someone
receiving a permit.
11:09:01 AM
SAM RABUNG, Section Chief, Private Non-Profit Hatchery and
Aquatic Farming and Planning and Permitting, responded that the
provisions [for receiving a permit] are stringent and the
requirements are designed for applicants who are not amateurs.
He stated that the permits would be subject to ADF&G genetics
policies, fish health policies, sustainable escapement goal
policies, sustainable salmon fisheries policies - all the
existing guidance ADF&G currently has for permits; therefore,
nothing amateurish would be allowed to proceed.
11:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if Mr. Rabung regarded HB 107 as an
opportunity for a public-private partnership because more work
is needed to have more fish, but the state is not able to
support that work alone. The state would still regulate the
activity, but private dollars would infuse the effort.
MR. RABUNG answered that there is nothing in HB 107 that gives
ADF&G a permitting authority that it does not already have. He
said that ADF&G crafts the enhancement or restoration projects
as research under the Fish Resource Permit (FRP) policy, which
is for scientific and educational objectives; this research
involves studying the efficacy of this technique to restore
salmon runs. He opined that the supporters of the proposed
legislation want it clearly defined in statute that they can
conduct this fish enhancement activity. He added that he did
not expect a rush of applicants for new projects; the proposals
would be well thought out; and there are provisions in the
proposed legislation that require considerable pre-work before
permits are awarded. He offered that a permit would only be
awarded if stakeholders and ADF&G deemed it appropriate.
11:11:53 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked if ADF&G has the funds to oversee this
program.
MR. RABUNG replied that ADF&G views the proposed legislation as
having a zero fiscal note, because the permits fall within a
category that ADF&G already processes. He offered that the
proposed legislation requires the permit holder to be
responsible for collecting the data; it is a stakeholder-driven,
user-paid approach.
11:12:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Alaska's current fish
enhancement and hatchery development policy seeks to segregate
wild fish from hatchery fish to avoid interbreeding, and
activity under HB 107 would not. She asked Mr. Rabung for his
response to that concern.
MR. RABUNG responded that the PNP program is a different model
altogether; it is large scale fishery enhancement designed to
enhance fisheries, not fish populations. He said that by
definition, it is designed to produce additional harvestable
surplus paid for by the commercial fleet and for the benefit of
the commercial fleet. He added that the PNP programs were
designed to have terminal harvest areas; the fish would return
to where they would not have significant interaction with
natural spawning stocks. He reiterated that fish enhancement
under the proposed legislation is a different model; it is
referred to as rehabilitation or restoration, as opposed to
fishery enhancement; and it is designed to restore existing fish
populations to the higher levels of the past.
11:14:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked the sponsor of HB 107 if he would
be opposed to a friendly amendment substituting the term
"enhancement" with the term "rehabilitation".
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO agreed that "rehabilitation" would be
the correct term.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER suggested that the change may make the
intent of the proposed legislation clearer and avoid a
misunderstanding among the public.
11:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if ADF&G supports HB 107.
MR. RABUNG answered that ADF&G's position on HB 107 is neutral.
11:16:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his concern that the use of the
term "rehabilitation" might fail to communicate to ADF&G that
the committee supports anything that would help increase maximum
yield of the resource. He said that even if Alaska's fish
production level has never been at the point Alaska wants it to
be, that doesn't mean Alaska should not try to achieve it.
11:16:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated an amendment would be drafted to accommodate
all [suggestions].
11:17:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 107 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR012 Sponsor Statement 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 ver A 2.22.17.PDF |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS-02-23-17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Alaska Trollers Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Seiners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Fishermen of Alaska.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Alaska Dispatch News Article 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Reps. Young and Defazio 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Sen. Murkowski 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| 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 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2017.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB107 Ver O.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 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 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 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 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2017.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 107 |
| HJR012 Support UFA.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Presentation House Resources Committee 3.12.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |