Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/19/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB197 | |
| HB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 107-FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
2:02:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 107, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit." [Before the
committee was CSHB 107(FSH).]
2:02:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO, sponsor, introduced HB 107. He
explained that it is a fish rehabilitation bill and the permit
described in the bill could boost the survival rate of
fertilized eggs to the fry stage from 5 percent in nature to 95
percent via incubation. He said the fish eggs would be
collected, fertilized, incubated, and hatched, and the unfed fry
would be released back into the same water. While this is not
completely natural, he continued, it is as natural as it can
possibly be made to rehabilitate or grow populations.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out that fish incubation is not
new and has been done for nearly 40 years in many areas of
Alaska. Similar permits for education and science already
exist, he said, but this bill would clean things up by outlining
these permit requirements in statute and for the purposes of
rehabilitation. The bill would create the ability to not have a
project labeled as either an education or science project, but
to be able to utilize it as a rehabilitation project. It would
be a collaborative effort with private sector nonprofits
actually doing the project while under the complete direction of
[the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG)].
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said his motivation for the bill relates
to the State of Alaska's current fiscal constraints and that
there is at least one party very interested in participating.
This party, he related, thinks it has the ability to potentially
leverage funds and to use some of its own funds to do this,
while it would be a bit tough for [the state] given [the
state's] current financial situation.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO noted he has been down this path before
and that at one point it was declared as being "bucket biology
and anyone could do this." However, he continued, given the
requirements for the permit under this bill, the permit would
not be easy to obtain. The applicant would have to satisfy many
requirements before it could head down this road and it would
require ADFG's approval. Once permitted, the party would have
to stay engaged with ADFG by providing data in order to continue
the project.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO allowed that different people would view
the bill differently. He said some will see it as an absolute
disaster and some will see it as opportunity to maybe provide
more for sport fishermen and potentially more for commercial
fishermen. However, he emphasized, this wouldn't be a hatchery
replacement bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated that for his district this is a
food source bill. He noted that his district begins in Tanana
on the Yukon River, goes all the way to the Canadian border, and
includes also a fair portion of the Tanana River. These two
enormous river systems have traditionally had runs in them, he
said, but recently there have been closures, including a closure
just put on the Kuskokwim drainage. For the folks he represents
this is a critical food source that they have traditionally used
for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Currently that option
appears to be going away. The bill, he continued, is an attempt
to figure out a way to get this food source back so people can
continue to fish from Tanana all the way up to Eagle,
particularly in the Yukon where villages have had fish wheels
for centuries.
2:08:21 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska
State Legislature, explained HB 107 in further detail on behalf
of Representative Talerico, sponsor. He noted that under
current statute, AS 16.05.050(a)(5), a duty of the ADFG
commissioner is to propagate fish or increase fish populations
throughout the state. The department has done this with
educational and science permits, he said, which are similar to
what is being proposed in HB 107. The sponsor has worked with
ADFG in crafting the bill's permit criteria, which begin on page
2, line 2, and which would require that the permit applicant
fill out the applicant's name, reasons for doing this, the
conditions justifying the project, ample communication with
affected people in the area, the location, how many fish and
fish eggs the applicant will collect, and the plan for
incubation. These requirements, he stated, are to ensure that
an unqualified person can't get a permit because [the sponsor]
wants this to be a safe and reasonable process to propagate
fish.
MR. VERHAGEN related that over the years the ADFG commissioner
has come up with science and educational permits that are
similar but are nowhere in statute. So, HB 107 would get a fish
permit into statute. Also, he added, at least one interested
party, the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), is ready to invest
its own private dollars into obtaining one of these permits. He
said TCC has already worked with the biologist who has done this
fish incubation and will be able to responsibly and safely boost
the fish populations in the Nenana and Yukon rivers.
MR. VERHAGEN explained that under science and education permits
an entity would have to obtain the permit under the premise of
science, science collection, or education, whereas HB 107 would
allow the entity to get a permit simply because of a need for
more fish and would put this type of a permit into statute.
Escapement goals haven't been met, he said, and many rivers do
not even have escapement goals or fish counting due to the
state's limited resources. However, he continued, the locals
can attest that not near as many fish are getting up the rivers,
especially as far as the Interior.
MR. VERHAGEN stated each permit would have to be signed by the
ADFG commissioner and the permit [would be subject to] all the
checks and balances listed on page 2, [paragraphs] (1)-(8). He
pointed out that page 2, line 24, states the department "may"
issue a permit. Therefore, he said, ADFG would have full
latitude to reject an application or ask the applicant to amend
its application if the department feels that the person or
organization isn't qualified.
MR. VERHAGEN noted that science and education permits are open
to governmental agencies and schools, but not to businesses.
The hope under HB 107, he said, is for the private sector to
collaborate under the oversight of ADFG and use private dollars
to boost fish populations. But, he added, these private
entities would not be able to say, "These are our fish, so you
can't touch them." The fish coming from these rehabilitation
projects would be open to everyone and it will be in the best
interest of everyone to get as many natural fish as possible.
MR. VERHAGEN drew attention to the document in the committee
packet entitled, "Early Survival (emergent fry) Comparison of
Salmon Naturally Spawning Versus Assisted Spawning." He
explained that in nature when salmon spawn many of the eggs are
washed away without getting fertilized. Additionally, the eggs
are subject to predation by other fish and animals, die from
being covered by silt, or die from freezing in winter if the
water table drops. With all these factors, he said, the
survival rate from fertilized egg to emergent fry is about 5
percent. Through incubation, he continued, that survival rate
from fertilized egg to fry is increased to 90-95 percent, which
has been proven [by hatcheries] for the past 40 years. Under
the bill the fry would be unfed and would be put back into the
same river that [their parents] were taken out of and there
would be no risk of changing the genetics. [These released fry]
would be just like any other emergent fry and would have to
learn to fend for themselves naturally.
MR. VERHAGEN stated that the permit proposed under HB 107 would
allow qualified individuals, corporations, or other entities to
use their resources and money to prove through the application
process outlined in the bill that they know what they are doing.
For example, he continued, he has been working on this all
session and now has a good idea of how to do this, but he would
probably be rejected if he applied for a permit because he
doesn't have the money or resources to get the incubation
equipment or to build the troughs. He further added that [the
Gulkana Hatchery near Paxson that is managed by the Prince
William Sound Aquaculture Corporation] has used nearby natural
hot springs to adjust the water temperatures throughout the
winter while the eggs are growing.
2:16:11 PM
MR. VERHAGEN reiterated that applicants would have to know what
they are doing to be given a permit. The permit would last for
five years so that a return would be seen on the permittee's
efforts. He noted that on page 3, beginning on line 26, the
bill directs that the permittee shall collect and provide
project data and reports that are reasonably requested by the
department. While the department is doing a great job, he said,
the state's money is limited and there are many rivers where
there are no escapement goals and that have no fish counts being
done, even though there are locals depending on those fish for
food. In the event the department receives two permit
applications for the same location on a river, he continued, the
department would have the discretion to either issue two permits
for the same area if it would not overpopulate the river, or to
request one of the applicants to change the proposed location.
Both permittees would then be providing data to the department
that ADFG would not otherwise have on many of these rivers and
creeks.
2:17:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that early in his career he was the
project manager at Sikusuilaq Springs Hatchery on the Noatak
River. Therefore, he said, he can understand what an advantage
it would be to have this supplement to the natural run of
salmon. One of the challenges, he continued, is making sure it
is a natural run and he appreciates that the salmon would be put
back into the stream where they started. The survival rate is
phenomenal, almost like "crowd sourcing" of salmon, so he likes
the idea. He said he would like to hear whether there is a
downside even though it looks to him like it would leverage the
food source and he looks forward to supporting the bill.
2:19:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON directed attention to [the bill on page 4,
lines 30-31, and continuing to page 5, line 1] which read:
(e) In making a finding that the plans and
specifications for a proposed construction, work, or
use sufficiently protect fish and game under (d)
section, the commissioner shall consider related
fisheries enhancement projects under AS 16.05.855.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed his concern that the commissioner
could be satisfied by showing said alternative means of
rehabilitation rather than doing everything possible to restore
wild salmon streams. He asked Representative Talerico to
address this concern.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO replied that this has been successfully
done in the Copper River drainage for a long time. He said it
is remarkable how the operators of the Gulkana Hatchery, ADFG
and now the Prince William Sound Aquaculture [Corporation], have
kept wild salmon stock available in the Copper River as well as
the volume of fish that they've put down the river for people to
utilize on a regular basis.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO related that currently his constituents
in the upper Yukon River are at crisis levels with [the shortage
of] fish. Jokes have been made about how few fish there are, he
said, but it is serious for those people living in Fort Yukon,
Rampart, Tanana, or any community along the river.
Traditionally it is a real crisis and it is critical for [the
legislature] to come up with the very best plan possible, he
continued. While some may argue that it might be detrimental to
the wild stock, it is at a level where action must be taken to
get these supplies replenished and give fish back to these
people.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said the one thing he is trying to avoid
is all the theories of why there are no fish because everyone
could spend the next 10 years, like has been done these previous
10 years, pointing a finger at sport fishermen, or subsistence
fishermen, or commercial fishermen and getting absolutely
nowhere. Instead, he said, he is looking for a resolution to
satisfy the user groups and make sure Alaska has the
subsistence, sport, and commercial fish that are vital to the
state's employment and economy.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO maintained the bill would not be the
replacing of wild stock. This is as wild as it gets, he
posited. Further, he said, the bill is not trying to replace
hatcheries, which are doing a great job of getting lots of fish
out there and which he supports. Rather, it is time to look at
this in a comprehensive holistic approach and come up with
something to resolve the issue that is at hand.
2:23:59 PM
MR. VERHAGEN suggested the bill's drafter, Alpheus Bullard,
might be able to address Representative Josephson's concerns.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
explained the language is conforming to a section in existing
law that has to do with protection of fish and game with the
existence of these new fisheries enhancement permits. The
section of law that's being amended is AS 16.05.871, Protection
of fish and game, and it has to do with protection of waterways
for anadromous fish. This was included as a conforming
amendment because these rehabilitation permits are relevant to
that effort. He said he doesn't know if it would allow anything
that wouldn't be allowed otherwise and therefore he doesn't know
that he has an answer to Representative Josephson's question.
2:26:16 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON requested the definition of "construction" or
"work."
MR. BULLARD replied there is no set definition. To get some
idea of what would be affected, he suggested that the department
be asked what it has regulated underneath this statute.
2:26:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said his concern is that the section in
question is protection of waterways for anadromous fish; that is
the article and the topic is protecting anadromous fish.
[Alaska Statute 16.05.871(a)] he continued, sticks with that
subject and notes the importance of the spawning, rearing, or
migration of anadromous fish. He said he understands that the
aforementioned language is conforming, but stated that it seems
to say, in effect, that if there is some sort of construction or
work, which apparently could include hydraulic projects and
diversions, one way to get to meet the requirements of this
section would be to say that the fisheries rehabilitation
projects, including a hatchery way up river, would suffice.
Therefore, he continued, his concern is that in a net-zero sum
situation, a commissioner might say that he or she is willing to
continue to sacrifice improvements of anadromous fish because
[the department's] fish goal is going to be met in some other
way. He stated he is concerned as to what policy statement is
being made by this section of the bill. He asked whether he is
misreading subsection (e) on page 4, line 30, of the bill.
MR. BULLARD responded he doesn't believe that Representative
Josephson is misreading it. He posed a hypothetical situation
in which there may be constructions, works, or uses that could
not help but have an effect on existing anadromous fish
populations or other fish populations. So, in this instance, he
said, it seems appropriate that the commissioner would be asked
to consider these fisheries enhancement permits.
2:29:12 PM
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), stated the
discussion between Co-Chair Josephson and Mr. Bullard accurately
portrays the intent of that particular section.
2:29:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related that a concern heard from wild salmon
advocates is that by definition these hatcheries are designed to
replenish weakened stocks of wild salmon. However, he said, the
process of that replenishment could further weaken what is
already weakened and the wild salmon suffer further. He
inquired whether the sponsor shares this concern.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered he has heard that concern and
added that several people have expressed concern about the
diversity of the different genetics in the salmon. However, he
said, "Most of us wonder how diverse do they really get because
we know that they just don't scatter-shot, they usually go back
to where they were produced." Wild salmon numbers getting lower
and lower and the salmon continue to be fished and the resource
depleted, but there is currently no supplementing of the wild
salmon with any other potential for any other kind of catch. He
said he looks at this as more like, "Are we just going to work
our way to an extinction process?" Obviously, he said, it would
have to stop at some point if numbers get that low.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO recalled a presentation provided to the
committee about a rehabilitation project on the Tanana River
near Delta Junction in which the riverbank was rebuilt and
stabilized to prevent loss of a historical park and buildings.
He said that if a project were to be approved in that area, he
would hate to think that the fish would be made to suffer.
These things are going to have to cohabitate with each other, he
said. Destabilized riverbanks will need to be stabilized, but
the potential is still there to [also protect] the fish run in
the Tanana River even though the bank was stabilized. Mr.
Bullard's explanation of that was really good, he said,
occasionally there will be those things and they can coexist.
MR. VERHAGEN pointed out that the bill requires the release of
only unfed fry. There is a 10-day window, he explained, where
fry do not need to be fed because they emerge in the alevin
stage [and are nourished by their still-attached] yolk sac. The
unfed fry will be mixing with the natural fish, but the
sponsor's argument is that the released fry are natural fish.
While humans incubated them, nothing else was done to them. He
said the Gulkana Hatchery has been doing this for 40 years and a
difference cannot be seen between the incubated fish versus the
natural fish.
2:33:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR related that the House Special Committee on
Fisheries discussed the difference between trying to do
enhancement for an entire fishery versus enhancement for a stock
because the bill is limited to just the stock of a particular
river or river tributary, which should minimize that risk.
MR. BOWERS replied that applications under the proposed permit
in HB 107 would be limited to 500,000 eggs, which is a
relatively small number of fish. He said [the department] has a
genetics policy that is meant to preserve genetic diversity of
wild stocks, so there would be stipulations on any applicant
permitted under this bill that they would have to meet their
population sizes to ensure that genetic diversity of wild stocks
is not compromised. He stated that loss of genetic diversity is
a legitimate concern that it is taken seriously by [ADFG].
CO-CHAIR TARR reiterated her question regarding the difference
between an enhancement project that is directed toward an entire
fishery versus an enhancement project that is directed more
toward the stock level as provided in HB 107.
MR. BOWERS responded that it would depend on how a fishery is
defined. There could be a recreational or subsistence fishery
that targets a very small discreet stock in a small tributary,
he said. There are many examples of that across the state; not
every fishery is targeting a resource returning to a large
drainage. He surmised that projects permitted under HB 107
would be attempting to rehabilitate a stock that is a component
of a larger resource. But, he continued, certainly there could
be a fishery or more than one fishery that is directed at some
of these resources in small tributaries that would possibly be
considered under this bill.
2:37:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether there is any evidence of which
Mr. Bowers is aware that hatcheries of this sort have enhanced
wild stock populations.
MR. BOWERS answered that [ADFG] permits several different types
of aquaculture projects intended to enhance or rehabilitate fish
stocks, primarily through the private nonprofit hatchery
program, he said, which includes the big hatcheries around the
state. A few state-run hatcheries are similar; for example, the
William Jack Hernandez Hatchery in Anchorage and a hatchery in
Fairbanks, but primarily big private, nonprofit hatcheries such
as the [Macaulay Salmon Hatchery/Douglas Island Pink and Chum,
Inc. (DIPAC)] in Juneau.
MR. BOWERS noted that [ADF&G] also permits other projects, such
as the 11 bio-enhancement research projects that were permitted
in 2016. He said the provisions of those permits are very
similar to those contained in HB 107, such as the 500,000-egg
limit. [The department] has permitted some of those projects,
in the Seward Peninsula in particular, that have restored salmon
stocks in streams where salmon were extirpated due to mining
activity; so there have been some positive outcomes. As far as
small-scale projects like this, he continued, [the department]
doesn't permit many of them because the number of requests is
low.
2:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE stated that the hatchery on the Noatak
River was successful. Speaking from his personal experience, he
related that in the 1980's the whole Kotzebue fish population
crashed and was an economic disaster. The hatchery has now been
closed about 15 years, he said, and he wonders at what point do
[anadromous] fish become indigenous [fish]. He added that he
travels past that fish hatchery and it is teaming with salmon
because that is where they were born. Since the fisheries have
never come back to what they were before, he continued, he is
glad to see this bill.
2:39:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated he has several reservations about
the bill as a whole. He noted he has a degree in biology where
salmon was a frequent topic, did a research project on Auke Lake
salmon, and worked a bit for ADFG. He said he has visited a few
weirs, including one on Frazer Lake, which wasn't previously a
salmon stream, and where a ladder was put in and now the lake
has a robust run. There is also DIPAC in Juneau. He said he is
therefore not inherently opposed to fishery enhancements. But,
he continued, he is concerned that giving a "19-fold competitive
advantage to a subset of the population," as would be done
according to the sponsor's survival statistics, would put a
downward pressure on genetic diversity. Effectively increasing
a subset of the population's representation 19 times over, he
posited, would result in the remaining one-twentieth composing a
smaller portion of the overall population.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered his appreciation that the bill
would require [the fry] to be returned to the same waters and be
returned unfed. He said this provision would avoid what happens
with hatchery fish where they are fed and come out larger and
stronger and so he commends the sponsor in this regard.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH reiterated his concern about the long-term
downward pressure on genetic diversity that HB 107 would result
in. While the bill would be great in the short term, he said,
it would not be a long-term solution, and that leads to other
factors affecting fisheries such as climate degradation, timing
mismatches in outmigration and return, and larger population
blooms of prey when they out-migrate. Also, he inquired whether
there is a provision for local citizens - who are not keen on a
project happening in their traditional fishing area - would have
a mechanism to say, "no thank you."
2:43:48 PM
MR. VERHAGEN, in response to Representative Parish's last
question, directed attention to the requirement on page 2, line
8, which states that the application for the permit must include
"any communication, or plan for continued communication, from
the applicant with affected persons, relevant organizations with
applicable expertise, and stakeholders in the project area," and
to page 3, line 16, which states, "if the proposed project is a
salmon rehabilitation project, relevant and applicable comments
relating to the proposed project submitted by a regional
planning team established under [AS 16.10.375] for the region
that encompasses the project area". So, he explained, the
commissioner would be looking at several things when considering
an application and determining whether to accept it. Page 1 of
the application includes the reasonable communication with
interested and relevant parties and organizations and affected
persons. The parties would be able to have discussions, which
would be documented, and the commissioner would be able to see
that and know whether the locals are in favor of a project.
MR. VERHAGEN then addressed genetic diversity, stating that in
the late 1970's and 1980's ADFG successfully planted over 20
million sockeye eggs in the upper Karluk River and this restored
the depleted run to pre-1921 populations. Also, he said, since
the 1970's the Gulkana Hatchery has annually rehabilitated up to
40 million eggs per year in the Copper River watershed. He
suggested Gary Martinek be asked what the Gulkana Hatchery does
for continuing genetic diversity. Mr. Verhagen added that by
incubating the eggs and putting [the fry] right back in, the
bill is trying to keep everything as natural as possible. He
also pointed out that ADFG would be using its genetics policy to
closely monitor those concerns.
2:47:18 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR [opened public testimony].
2:47:50 PM
GARY MARTINEK testified that he recently retired from working at
Gulkana Hatchery for 37 years and is speaking on his own behalf
in support of HB 107 and the rehabilitation of salmon stocks in
a reasonable and responsible way where conditions are wild. He
said the hatchery is located adjacent to the Gulkana River, a
tributary to the Copper River. Located 260 miles inland from
the marine environment, the hatchery was started in 1973 as a
research project by the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Development (FRED) within ADFG to see if there
was an efficient low-cost method of rehabilitating the heavily
pressured Copper River sockeye stocks. The hatchery is located
in a spring system where the water temperature only varies five
degrees summer to winter and a simple non-powered gravity-feed
system is used to get water from the spring to the incubators.
MR. MARTINEK reported that from 1973-1980 Gulkana Hatchery was
primarily a sockeye research facility. From 1980-1984, he said,
production increased to 20 million eggs and by 1987 production
increased to 36 million eggs, making it the largest sockeye
salmon fry producer in the world. The basic premise was to
increase the natural survival of 13-16 percent of sockeye in the
spring. By placing them into an incubator the survival was
increased to as high as 95 percent with 75 percent being the
average historical survival. He explained that when fry emerge
from the incubator they are counted, otolith marked, and
released into nursery lakes where they spend one year before
outmigrating to the sea. He said the fry encounter the same
environmental predation issues that all wild stocks have to
overcome, and that 17 percent of the returning adult sockeye are
four-year-old fish and 83 percent are five-year-old fish.
MR. MARTINEK pointed out that the Gulkana Hatchery stock is just
one stock of 136 sockeye stocks in the Copper River. He said an
intelligent management program goes hand-in-hand to ensure wild
stocks remain healthy and the commercial fleet, subsistence use,
personal use, and sport fisheries all benefit from the 350,000-
400,000 annually produced hatchery salmon. He further related
that the monetary value of production to all user groups since
the hatchery started in 1973 has been $700 million.
2:50:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how the emergent state of hatchery-
raised alevin compares with the emergent state of indigenous
populations of salmon.
MR. MARTINEK replied that in the 1970's and 1980's Gulkana
Hatchery did research on the hatchery spring and that is where
it was determined that the survival was only 13-16 percent. The
hatchery started very small and by increasing and through
research the survival was increased to 75 percent.
2:51:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired as to how the hatchery's fry,
when introduced to the stream, compare developmentally with the
wild grown.
MR. MARTINEK responded that based on his years at the Gulkana
Hatchery, hatchery fry are the same fitness as the wild stocks.
Regarding earlier questions about genetic diversity, he advised
that wild fish are coming into the spring before and after the
egg-take for the hatchery. By looking at otoliths, he
continued, it has been determined that the wild stock component
in the hatchery spring is still 47 percent.
2:51:56 PM
MATHEW O'BOYLE, Spokesperson, Skagway Community Fish Hatchery,
testified in support of HB 107. He said the Skagway Community
Fish Hatchery is a newly founded nonprofit formed through the
local municipality to address the low level of returning salmon
in Skagway. In the past, he noted, Skagway has been a
collection and release site for king salmon through ADFG's
enhancement program encouraging stock diversification, but due
to dwindling return rates the rearing facility could not sustain
involvement. He explained that during the summer king salmon
would be collected for egg retrieval and the eggs transported to
DIPAC in Juneau for incubation. The following spring the smolt
would be returned to Skagway, but a great deal of mortality
occurred in the transfer from Juneau to Skagway. With the lack
of eggs collected in previous years due to low return rates, he
said Skagway is currently seeing a closure to sport fishing of
king salmon in northern Lynn Canal.
MR. O'BOYLE added that Skagway has a natural run of coho that,
with the help of HB 107, could be brought back to a reasonable
population level. The underlying benefits of HB 107, he
continued, are the economic and educational values. The tourist
dollars brought in through sport fishing affect the community as
a whole. The infrastructure that is created for this resource
can plant the seed for future generations. He said Skagway's
community has always been a big supporter of fish enhancement
through volunteers and programs through the school. The bill
would provide an additional tool in educating high school
seniors who are interested in a fisheries job, thus building on
Alaska's future.
2:54:30 PM
WILL MAYO, Executive Director, Tribal Government and Client
Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), testified in support
of HB 107. He said TCC has had experience working with ADFG to
develop a program that could be added to TCC's toolbox for
fisheries. He explained that TCC wants to develop its
capacities because in recent years [tribal members] have felt
very vulnerable with the decline in their primary human
consumption fish species as well as other [species] in the past.
However, he noted, TCC has discovered that the current state
permitting system basically has two types of permits, neither of
which can be used for the kind of rehabilitation project that
TCC would like to do. This bill would provide a third permit
that would enable TCC to proceed with its projects in a close
working relationship with ADFG.
MR. MAYO stressed that TCC does not in any way want to harm the
wild stocks and is not approaching this haphazardly. But, he
continued, TCC would like to develop the ability to enhance
these stocks that [its members] depend upon if needed in the
future. These are TCC's motivations, concerns, and reasons for
giving its hearty support to HB 107.
2:57:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he is very encouraged to hear TCC's
support. He asked how TCC envisions this moving forward and
whether TCC would deploy individual incubation stations or have
a central location.
MR. MAYO replied that TCC staff are running various projects
around the Interior in different river systems, all within the
Yukon drainage. There are counting stations and weirs among
other things. He said TCC is identifying spawning streams on
which enhancement projects could be done to enhance the returns
to that area. Working with the department, TCC is identifying
and choosing where to start a project. Brood stock would be
taken from an existing stream, [the eggs] would be incubated,
and then at the eyed stage of development they would be
replanted into the gravel beds of their native spawning streams.
The other option is to incubate the eggs until they emerge in
the alevin stage and then place them into their native stream.
3:00:33 PM
BRIAN WINNESTAFFER, Chickaloon Native Village, testified in
support of HB 107. He said he works for Chickaloon Native
Village, which is located in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. He
outlined his extensive work experience as a fisheries biologist
and noted that Chickaloon Native Village has worked on many fish
population rehabilitation projects and many fish habitat
restoration projects. One of the village's first fish passage
restoration projects was on Moose Creek in 2005 in which over $1
million was spent, mostly in federal funds, to reroute the
stream back into its original alignment after railroad
activities in the early 1900's straightened the creek and
created waterfalls that precluded fish passage and essentially
deleted 11 miles of spawning and rearing habitat. After
rehabilitating the habitat, he continued, the village began a
project to restore fish numbers by implementing a moist air
incubation project from 2007-2010. The village partnered with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ADFG, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The project and the
process worked well and the returns of salmon, based on foot and
aerial surveys, remained level when similar stocks of fish in
the area dwindled.
MR. WINNESTAFFER stated that Chickaloon Native Village also
replaced or rehabilitated many culverts under Matanuska-Susitna
Borough and state roads that were not providing fish passage and
were on their last stage of usefulness. He pointed out that
because there wasn't a fisheries rehabilitation permit the
village had to apply for multiple permits, such as a fish
resource permit and fish transport permit with prior approval
from the Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team. He said HB 107
would have been a permit that was apropos for the village's
project and would have allowed the state to track the project
better. It would have been labeled a rehabilitation project
versus a science or education permit.
MR. WINNESTAFFER noted that all these projects represent local
people taking interest in the resources. Instead of an agency
coming in and telling folks what to do there is an excellent
collaboration between agencies and local folks to rehabilitate
[the state's] trust resources. Chickaloon Native Village was
able to bring forward fish passage and population issues to the
agencies and was able to leverage federal and state dollars to
solve these issues, of which most were federal dollars. He said
passage of HB 107 would get to the heart of these projects. The
ability to rehabilitate a resource that was impacted in the past
is a win-win for the people of Alaska, all user groups, and the
resource itself.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her praise to Chickaloon for
doing a great job in rehabilitating its streams.
3:03:21 PM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association (KRSFA), testified in opposition to HB 107. He
posed a scenario in which there are 2,000 wild fish in the
Nenana River with 1,000 females and 1,000 males. He calculated
that if an enhancement program had 100 of the females at a
survival rate of 95 percent and the wild stock had 900 of the
females at a survival rate of 0.5 percent, in just one
generation the genetic diversity would be reduced because the
enhanced portion would generate two-thirds of the fry outgoing
and the wild stock would generate one-third.
MR. GEASE said he understands low king returns because it is a
statewide issue and [the Kenai area] feels it just as much as
anywhere else. He stated that there is a difference between
rehabilitating and reintroducing a population that has been
extirpated versus trying to enhance low numbers of fish in a
population. He said KRSFA thinks that the best strategy for low
numbers of fish is to drastically reduce fishing pressure on
those fish, maintain good habitat, and let nature take its
course. While it is painful to go through these periods of low
abundance, it is really important that this be done. The budget
for king salmon research was once $30 million and it is now half
that. Budget cuts are difficult, he said, but this bill is not
the right path.
MR. GEASE provided an example of where hatchery components and
enhanced components can result in a "trap." He said that in the
Kenai River there are enhanced runs on Hidden Lake [Trail Lakes
Hatchery] and pointed out about 90 percent of the returns are
[fish that live one year in freshwater and two years in
saltwater (1.2 fish)], which are the really small torpedo fish
that swim through dipnets and commercial nets. However, the
majority of returns of sockeye on the Kenai are 2.2 fish and 2.3
fish - really large sockeye. So, he stated, the concept of loss
of genetic diversity is a really critical concept and with
today's department standards of strict separation between wild
stocks and enhanced stocks or hatchery stocks, it is really
important. He further pointed out that in many of the marine
waters there are hatchery terminal fisheries that don't go into
anadromous streams and which he thinks is really key going
forward. He urged that more thought go into the concept of loss
of genetic diversity.
MR. GEASE, responding to Representative Parish, stated he sent
copies of his testimony to committee members via email.
3:07:01 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries Inc., testified in
opposition to HB 107. She said her company has been in business
in Alaska for 53 years and that she worked for ADFG for 21 years
in hatcheries where she raised all five species of salmon and
two trout. She stated she is very aware of what is being talked
about in HB 107 and is against the bill, the reason being that
she has seen a lot of problems with weakened wild fish.
MS. HILLSTRAND said Alaska is blessed with its wild spawning
salmon and that what needs to be done more so than putting fish
into these river systems is doing what has been done in
Chickaloon fixing culverts, fixing the habitat, and most of
all going to the Board of Fisheries and asking why the fish are
not getting up as far as Tanana because that has to do with
management problems downriver. She related that people have
worked hard to get the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council to stop some of the trawling bycatch and have been
fairly successful, so maybe that will help. But, she continued,
HB 107 is putting the cart before the horse because fishing and
fish populations do go up and down.
MS. HILLSTRAND noted that ADFG has written a scientific paper
about what has happened at Hidden Lake [Trail Lakes Hatchery],
and the paper states that there is a risk with doing these kinds
of things. She said it is important to read these scientific
papers that show damage is being done to the wild fish. Oregon,
Washington, and Vancouver have all done damage, she continued,
and there are many scientific papers showing that this kind of
activity enhancement can be very detrimental because the
released fish outcompete the wild fish.
MS. HILLSTRAND brought attention to page 5 of HB 107 and noted
that the regional planning teams (RPTs) were restructured with
ADFG and now most of those teams are made up of hatchery people
who work for the aquaculture associations. These teams are no
longer made up of ADFG staff although they might have that name,
she maintained, and it is really important to look at who is
taking care of the state's supposed wild fish. She urged the
committee to take care of the state's wild fish and said there
are other ways to do rehabilitation, which is totally separate
from enhancement. She also urged the two be defined.
3:09:58 PM
BRUCE CAIN, President, Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce,
testified in support of HB 107. He said many of the chamber's
members are sport-fishing guides, but that this year the Copper
River sport-fishing season for king salmon has been closed
because of a lack of return. There is the Gulkana Hatchery, he
continued, and the Gulkana sockeye run is strong at about
300,000 returns and has been going on since 1977. The Copper
River fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in the world.
He related that the chamber has said it doesn't want the Copper
River to become like the Yukon River and the hatcheries, one of
the reasons for that. But, he said, no king salmon enhancement
is done on the Copper River and now people are faced with the
year of where everything is closed because of lack of return on
the king salmon. Efforts must be balanced, he added.
MR. CAIN maintained that incubation boxes are not an issue of
genetic diversity because they come from the wild stocks and are
hatched just like wild stocks. He said it is a good, non-
intrusive system that has been tested and proven for many years
to be successful. The Copper River sport-fishing guides will
not be guiding this year, he reiterated. The fisheries can be
closed like has happened on the Yukon and people can sit around
hoping things come back. Or, he continued, folks can take care
of themselves, which is part of the approach of HB 107, a good
approach that he supports.
3:12:35 PM
BRIAN ASHTON testified in support of HB 107. He said he is
representing himself but is before the committee on request of
Representative Talerico to help answer questions because he has
been involved in salmon restoration for over 15 years. He was
involved in some of the mega-hatcheries in Southeast Alaska and
helped develop some of the technologies that are being used.
From being raised in villages, he said, he has realized that a
balance must be found with how to help these fish survive, given
that people are certainly very good at taking them. He has
dealt with ADFG for many years, he continued, and is in support
of HB 107 simply because it fills a gap that exists today for
being able to do this effectively and have good controls on when
it is appropriate and when it is not. Other permits are trying
to be used that are not appropriate, he said, and he appreciates
ADF&G for the years it has helped to make those permits fit.
This bill simply clarifies how to do it when it is appropriate
to do it.
MR. ASHTON addressed some of the statements made in opposition
to the bill. He offered his belief that it was overstated about
the numbers overwhelming the genetic stocks of the fish. When
talking about genetics policy with the fisheries managers at
ADFG, they will specifically talk about the numbers of fish that
are going to be enhanced because they have had decades of
experience looking at what the ratio would be of those wild fish
spawning compared to greatly increasing the survival of the wild
fish by assisting their survival. They will look at what the
escapement is and what the numbers are, he said, and discuss how
to do this without overwhelming the natural stocks, in spite of
the fact that these fish are wild fish as well. The Copper
River enhancement program has had 40 million eggs a year for
decades and the stock is still well.
MR. ASHTON stated that there are stocks of fish that have not
come back. The Bradfield River south of Wrangell was a mutant-
sized fish on a par with the Kenai River, he related. It was
logged down to the watershed and the habitat was never restored.
It should be a [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] Superfund
project and work is being done on getting that restored. The
stock is so far down in its numbers, he said, that while it may
return eventually it would take many decades to do it. The
remnant stock could be captured, and the population brought
back. These Southeast Alaska fish were the size of Kenai River
kings. As oil continues to diminish, it is critically important
to look at Alaska's natural reoccurring stocks like in the case
of salmon to ensure they are being helped as best as possible.
MR. ASHTON pointed out that tribes on Prince of Wales Island
have spent over 10 years restoring the habitat in the
watersheds, but the stocks are down so much that they look at
this as the only option. The tribes have restored the habitat
to reintroduce the fish that are gone that have not come back
for decades.
MR. ASHTON stated there would not be any feeding [under HB 107].
He said he helped write this bill in collaboration with ADFG and
very conservative regulations were looked at to ensure that this
policy could not be abused. The wild stocks and the nature of
the wild stocks must be protected. What is being proposed in HB
107 is absolutely different than taking king salmon in the Lower
48 that are incubated, reared in pens, and fed all the way to
the smolt stage for a year in a conventional hatchery and then
letting them come back.
MR. ASHTON offered his belief that by law the regional planning
teams must have ADFG staff on those teams. It is good to
question who is going to be approving these things in the
regional planning teams, he said, but ADFG serves on those
boards.
MR. ASHTON offered his appreciation for Co-Chair Tarr asking
that people with concerns submit them in writing. He said ADFG
can provide information regarding such concerns as genetic
diversity.
3:17:13 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked what made [the Bradfield River] a
Superfund site and what hurt the habitat on Prince of Wales
Island.
MR. ASHTON replied that it is not a Superfund site on the
Bradfield River, but he suggested it should be considered one
because back in the 1960's and 1970's the U.S. Forest Service
oversaw logging where gravel was actually taken out of the river
to build the logging roads. He said it was over the entire
floodplain within the water system and it simply decimated the
watershed. Prince of Wales Island had logging that was right
down to the watershed as well, he continued. Great steps have
been taken because the communities are close enough to it in
collaborating with state and federal agencies. Environmental
groups have funded the restoration of that habitat, he noted.
3:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related that committee members have
received a letter of concern from the Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association about the biological diversity. He said he will
provide this letter to Mr. Ashton so that Mr. Ashton can provide
his comments between now and the committee's next meeting.
MR. ASHTON responded that he will provide comment, but suggested
the letter also be provided to the genetics lab at ADFG, which
has the best genetics policies in the world for protecting the
state's stocks of fish.
3:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recalled Mr. Ashton mentioning the
possibility of restoring stocks to streams where the salmon are
currently not returning. He inquired whether that would be
permitted under the bill as it currently stands in that it talks
about taking eggs from one set of waters and returning them to
the same waters.
MR. ASHTON answered that the watersheds he is referring to
actually have a remnant stock, but the stock is so low that it
can't be expected to recover for a very, very long time.
[HB 107 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 197 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Version J 4.5.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Sectional Analysis ver J 4.6.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Fiscal Note - DNR-PMC 4.7.17.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Supporting Document - Article. Seed Bill 4.9.17.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/28/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/1/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB 107 Sponsor Statement 2.8.17.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 Ver O 2.8.17.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 CS (FSH) WORK DRAFT version U 3.6.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 CS (FSH) Explanation of Changes 3.6.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2017.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB107 Fiscal Note DFG-DCF 2.24.17.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 107 Additional Documentation Egg to Fry survival rates.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 107 Additional Documentation. Considerations for Salmon Restoration Planning.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 107 Additional Documents - Fish Enhancement in AK History.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2017 1:00:00 PM |