Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/26/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB131 | |
| HB128 | |
| HB76 | |
| HB124 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of
shellfish; authorizing certain nonprofit organizations
to engage in shellfish enhancement projects; relating
to application fees for salmon hatchery permits; and
providing for an effective date."
1:50:10 PM
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that the last time the committee
heard the bill on April 14, 2018 at which time there were
no amendments offered. He invited the bill sponsor to
refresh the committee about the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, SPONSOR, reviewed the legislation
dealing with shellfish enhancement projects. He explained
that the purpose of the bill was to advance mariculture
opportunities in Alaska through shellfish enhancement
projects. It allowed non-profits to apply for and pursue
enhancement or restoration projects involving shellfish.
They might include red and blue king crab, sea cucumber,
abalone, geoduck, razor clams, plus other shellfish species
not yet on the radar.
Representative Ortiz continued to explain the purpose of
the bill. He reported that HB 128 held the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG) to a high standard in the process of
issuing permits specifically requiring the commissioner to
make a finding of substantial public benefit and a
determination that the project would not jeopardize natural
stocks. It was important to note that when shellfish were
released back into the wild by a permit holder, the
shellfish became a common property resource available for
common use.
Representative Ortiz summarized that the project held the
promise of diversifying and strengthening Alaska's fishery
portfolio by establishing a sound, sustainable approach to
growing the state's fledgling mariculture industry. The
bill had 2 zero fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson appreciated the bill. She quarried
about enhancement for hatcheries. She referred to the title
on page 1, line 3 and salmon hatchery permits.
Representative Ortiz responded that the bill was
specifically designed to enhance Alaska's mariculture
industry. There were several salmon hatcheries in Alaska
that came into existence many years ago. There was nothing
preventing the state from putting other hatcheries forward
in the future. The bill being discussed addressed the issue
of the mariculture industry.
Representative Wilson asked if someone from DFG was
available.
1:53:54 PM
FORREST BOWERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, introduced himself
and asked Representative Wilson to restate her question.
Representative Wilson suggested that in the bill the state
was enhancing shellfish, which she favored. She brought up
the Interior hatchery. It had a plentiful stock, but the
fish could not be placed into the river. Since the bill
provided a vehicle, she thought there might be some
enhancement the state could provide for its hatcheries
creating more opportunities. She asked for his feedback.
Mr. Bowers responded that currently there were laws in
place that allowed for enhancement or rehabilitation for
fish including salmon, trout, and char. Those laws had been
in place for many years. Currently, there was no law that
allowed for shellfish enhancement, the intent of the bill.
Currently, a person could not apply for a permit to do a
shellfish fishery enhancement project. The bill would allow
enabling regulations and a permitting process to be put
into place where a person could apply for and receive a
permit to enhance a shellfish fishery. As Representative
Wilson pointed out, there was already a fish enhancement
hatchery program in place for fish. The legislation would
establish a parallel program for shellfish.
Representative Wilson asked if there was a non-profit means
of doing salmon enhancing products similar to what was
being proposed for shellfish. She wondered if salmon
hatcheries could release stock into the Chena River or the
Yukon River, or wherever the need existed. Mr. Bowers
responded affirmatively. There were examples in many
coastal areas of Alaska. Representative Wilson was pleased
with Mr. Bowers answer. She had been told that the state
could not. She thanked him.
Co-Chair Seaton added that releasing fish into the wild
could be different then raising fish. Permits were required
to allow an entity to release fish without competing with
natural stocks. Enhancement was done by hatcheries or non-
profit entities all along the Gulf. He noted there were
several letters of opposition to the massive amounts of
pink salmon going through non-profit hatcheries and being
released. There was some contention.
Representative Thompson was aware of the hatchery on the
Gulkana River between Summit Lake and Paxon Lake. The
hatchery was funded by the fishing industry. The fish were
fertilized and taken to a lake in the Interior, and
subsequently were put back into the river. He asked if Mr.
Bowers was speaking of such a type of set up.
Mr. Bowers affirmed that Representative Thompson's comments
reflected an example of a fish enhancement project for a
private non-profit. He added that a permitting process was
in place. However, it did not mean the department would
necessarily grant or approve every application. He noted
folks in Representative Thompson's district who had
discussed a potential project with the department and who
might have received some negative feedback. There was
statutory and regulatory language in place that allowed
them to apply for a permit.
Representative Wilson was told by the fish hatchery in
Fairbanks that they could not install the fish in the
Yukon. The co-chair had stated that the reason they were
not allowed was because of the mixture of raised and wild
fish. She wanted additional clarification. She mentioned a
large amount of money going into the project and that there
were issues about fish population. She was concerned with
having built the hatcheries and them not working. She had
heard from the hatchery that it could not insert stock.
1:59:15 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not want to haphazardly add a fish
hatchery provision in the bill. For example, recently there
had been a significant amount of controversy about adding
hatchery king salmon to a wild king salmon stream. He
opined that considerations would have to be studied prior
to going forward. Mr. Bowers agreed. The only part of the
bill that did not relate to shellfish was the application
fee. The legislation raised the application fee for a new
salmon hatchery permit from $100 to $1000. Everything else
related to shellfish fishery enhancement. The piece related
to the salmon hatchery permit application fee was in the
bill and where the word "hatchery" was drawn into the
title.
Vice-Chair Gara was comfortable with the bill being a
"shellfish bill." He would be uncomfortable expanding it.
Co-Chair Foster directed Vice-Chair Gara to walk through
the fiscal notes.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed two zero fiscal notes:
[Fiscal Note Number: 2]
Department: Department of Fish and Game
Appropriation: Commercial Fisheries
Allocation: Statewide Fisheries Management
OMB Component Number: 2171
[Fiscal Note Number: 1]
Department: Department of Fish and Game
Appropriation: Commercial Fisheries
Allocation: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
OMB Component Number: 471
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to report HB 128 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 128 was REPORTED OUT of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two previously published fiscal
notes, one with zero fiscal impact: FN1 (DFG); and one with
an indeterminate fiscal impact: FN2 (DFG).