Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/26/2024 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 | |
| HB174 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB232 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB368 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a
fisheries rehabilitation permit."
3:44:34 PM
Representative Cronk offered a brief overview of the bill.
He stated that the idea of establishing a fisheries
rehabilitation permit for certain fish came about seven
years back with former Representative Dave Talerico due to
fish issues on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. The concept
was a result of thinking outside of the box to come up with
tools to rebuild wild chinook runs on the Yukon or any
other place the situation was occurring. He relayed that
the bill would increase the limit of rehabilitation permits
already allowed by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
He noted that a representative from the department was
present to provide additional information.
Representative Cronk reviewed that there were segregated,
integrated, and conservation hatcheries. The bill did not
fall under any of the aforementioned categories. The bill
related to enhancing survival of wild salmon in their
natural habitat using portable nonpermanent operations and
equipment. He clarified that it was not a hatchery. The
bill would utilize the benefits of advanced portable
equipment. He elaborated that fish would be returned to
their natural watershed as developed eggs or emerging fry.
He detailed that there was no artificial rearing, feeding,
and imprinting challenges. Additionally, operations would
avoid the expensive capital costs of permanent hatchery
facilities, operations, and domestication issues. He stated
that the process complimented Alaska's escapement
management approach towards maximum sustainability by
addressing the discreet subpopulation of salmon that
current escapement management models could not address.
Representative Cronk disputed the rhetoric that the bill
would enable anyone to grab a permit, hatch fish in their
backyard, and dump them in the river. He had also heard the
claims the practice allowed under the bill would create
potential inbreeding, competition, and disease. He
clarified that the bill would not allow any of those
things. He emphasized that the permits would be highly
regulated through DFG.
3:47:27 PM
JOE FELKL, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, noted that Aquaculture Section Chief Flip Prior was
available via teleconference for any programmatic or
permitting questions. He relayed that DFG had worked with
Representative Cronk and previous bill sponsors in the past
on the topic to make the bill workable for DFG to
implement. The department had no concerns with the bill.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee would hear
public testimony followed by a review of the fiscal notes.
He OPENED public testimony.
3:48:56 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, OWNER, PIONEER ALASKAN FISHERIES AND COAL
POINT TRADING, SELDOVIA (via teleconference), shared that
she had been in the business for over 50 years. She added
that she had also been a DFG fish culturist for 21 years
and understood enhancement well. She had raised chinook,
coho, sockeye, pinks, and chums. She highlighted that
chinook were very difficult to raise. She understood that
the eggs would be put in the gravel; however, chinook were
in a very stressed situation at present. She did not
believe it was a good idea to have people taking more brood
stock from stressed situations. She opposed HB 169. She
knew everyone desired to help collapsing salmon
populations, but it would not happen in a vacuum. She
emphasized that decades of misguided management needed to
be addressed and factors needed to be acknowledged. She
stated the bill was duplicative and created another costly
loose end with no monitoring or safeguards on already
stressed populations. She added that any monitoring would
be very costly.
Ms. Hillstrand thought the practice allowed in the bill may
worsen disease and it added stress. She asked the committee
to consult the expertise of DFG aquatic resources
permitting staff. She explained that the program was
already in place and structured in a three step
classification program: small for 500 eggs, medium up to
50,000 eggs, and larger for propagating for accredited
institutions, tribal entities, federal, state, or other
local entities. She stated that using an aquatic resources
propagation permit instead of another additional measure
was a more measured cost-effective way that was already in
place. She detailed that the bill would create costly
repercussions not anticipated to already stressed
populations of salmon. She stressed that 500,000 eggs were
much too large an impact with little to no oversight. She
remarked that the state needed to face how management
decisions were affecting populations. She noted that the
old ways were obviously not working. She highlighted that
the sustainable salmon policy 5 AAC 39.222 urged the
precautionary approach. She emphasized that if the goal was
to sustain salmon, precaution needed to be applied
immediately to save money, time, and energy. She asked the
committee to oppose the legislation. She believed there had
to be a better option than applying a band-aid.
3:51:28 PM
Representative Josephson believed Ms. Hillstrand wrote on
the topic occasionally. He recalled the bill from the late
teens. He noted that Ms. Hillstrand had encouraged
committee members to contact the DFG aquatic resources
permitting staff. It was his sense that DFG supported the
legislation. He asked if the staff were independent
thinkers who would be comfortable speaking to legislators.
Ms. Hillstrand responded that a lot of DFG staff were not
allowed to speak to the legislature or to the Board of
Fisheries. She shared that she had worked with the Board of
Fisheries for decades. She noted there was a problem there;
however, when she had called the aquatic permitting staff
had been very helpful and had told her about the three
stages they went through. She considered the bill and
thought there was a better way. She wondered why add a
duplicative layer when there was something already in
place. She had been told by the staff that they wanted to
make sure people were interested and would take care of the
fish and they started out with a small [number of fish].
She thought a step by step situation was much better than
allowing people to take 500,000 eggs. She remarked that it
was a substantial amount of king salmon to take out of a
population. She noted that the fish stocks in each of the
river systems were distinct and people would want to take
500,000 eggs from each area. She stated it was a lot of
work and to do it right it would require a substantial
amount of money. She suggested starting with aquatic use
permits if the action was going to take place. She thought
the top rung of the classification program gave people
enough time to learn instead of letting people who were not
qualified to be out there taking eggs. She relayed that
aquatic use was not the commercial side of DFG and she
thought it was important to stay away from the Commercial
Fisheries Division. She believed that if the goal was to
support the fish that starting out slow was the right way
to go.
3:55:01 PM
Representative Galvin asked if Ms. Hillstrand was
suggesting that DFG's current program was a better more
incremental way to go so that individuals knew what they
were doing before they got to the larger size removal. She
stated her understanding that 500,000 was the largest
number [of eggs] and there were also small and medium
categories.
Ms. Hillstrand agreed. She explained that HB 169 let people
take up to 500,000 eggs. She emphasized that for Coho and
chinook it was a lot of eggs/female fish to take from the
wild. She detailed that people were not that good at fish
culture or handling eggs. She recommended going through the
aquatic resource permit to start individuals out slow. She
had been told by the aquatic permitting staff that they
wanted to know a person could handle 500 eggs first before
increasing to the next level. She stated the second level
was 10,000 eggs and she thought the third may be 100,000
eggs. She stressed the need to go very slowly when working
with enhancement. She stated that opening the barn door
wide open would be very dangerous for fisheries while they
were down.
3:57:04 PM
TOM HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, CAPE FOX CORPORATION; CEO
KNIKATNU, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared that the
Fog Woman [totem pole] was located in downtown Ketchikan
and it described the reseeding of salmon that had been
taught to him as a child by his grandmother. His
grandmother had taught him that if a salmon was taken out
of the mouth of the river, there was a moral, ethical, and
cultural obligation to finish the journey for the salmon.
He described taking the eggs and milk and mixing them into
cool, bubbling water. The carcass was taken upstream, and
the process was done in cedar baskets. He was disappointed
in the previous testimony. He stated that the legend was
14,000 years old, and he believed it was important for
sports fishermen, commercial fishermen, and the government
to know that if people were not reseeding the resource, it
did not reflect harvesting but mining. He stated there were
excellent examples worldwide from New Zealand to New York
State of people using versions of the same process. He
highlighted that the process was legal in Washington,
Oregon, California, and the Great Lakes. He stated it was
important for salmon to be in their home river. He
highlighted the natural process and remarked that it was
not happening in hatcheries. He relayed that in 2022, New
Zealand announced they were taking over the world's king
salmon market; the country was now collecting large salmon
from its rivers due to reseeding programs. He stated it was
not rocket science. He referenced the large percentage of
kings and chum coming from hatcheries in Alaska and stated
it was not a healthy system. He stated it was an ancient
custom practiced around the world and it was time to be
able to practice it at home.
4:01:07 PM
EMILY ANDERSON, ALASKA DIRECTOR, WILD SALMON CENTER,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in opposition to
the bill. She appreciated the bill sponsor's desire to
boost fish populations in areas where numbers were down;
however, it had been found that over many decades that
rehabilitation using hatchery enhancement could have
numerous unintended consequences that could make the
situation much worse. She stated that Alaska had taken a
fairly careful approach to hatchery development in state
waters to ensure the protection of wild salmon stocks. She
elaborated that while it was not perfect, Alaska's current
fish enhancement and hatchery development policy sought to
segregate wild fish from hatchery fish where possible to
avoid interbreeding, competition, and harvest management
problems. The current law also established safeguards to
protect wild fish from disease and inbreeding.
Ms. Anderson had heard committee discussions that attempt
to distinguish rehabilitation projects from hatchery
enhancement projects; however, both were hatcheries and
both shared the same risk. She stated that although the
bill required the commissioner when issuing a permit to
determine that the project would not harm indigenous wild
fish stocks, there were no requirements in the bill to
segregate hatchery fish from wild fish. Additionally, the
bill did not contain safeguards to prevent inbreeding or
disease outbreaks and there were no requirements for the
permit holder to have any qualifications. She stated that
since the risk to wild fish was so high at the current
point, it should not be an option to waive or weaken
safeguards simply because a permitted operation was
smaller. She explained that it all had ramifications
because HB 169 specifically targeted weak stock fisheries
that were struggling and needed the most care.
Ms. Anderson relayed that the permitted activities under
the bill were not eligible for areas with healthy fish
populations. She remarked that unfortunately the bill set
up a process that mirrored rehabilitation efforts in the
Lower 48 that had only continued to drive depleted wild
salmon populations to the brink. She stated that the
efforts had reduced genetic diversity and the overall
fitness of populations, making those fish less successful
at reproducing in the wild. Additionally, the efforts had
increased competition for struggling populations. She
elaborated that decades of scientific research indicate
that fish rehabilitation projects did not restore depleted
stocks and only masked the problem for a period of time.
She explained that it made it difficult later on for wild
salmon stocks to recover when conditions improved
naturally. She supported taking a careful approach to
protect weak stocks and help them rebound. She supported
focusing efforts on habitat rehabilitation and strong mixed
stock fisheries management and trying to resist the
temptation to fix the problem by increasing numbers through
hatchery rehabilitation. She added that if a tribal entity
or community really wanted to pursue a rehabilitation
project, DFG already had a permitting process in place that
made the bill unnecessary. She noted the safeguards in the
current process were higher and stronger than those
outlined in the bill. She encouraged the committee to vote
against the legislation.
4:05:03 PM
Representative Ortiz asked Ms. Anderson to review her
experience in the field.
Ms. Anderson responded that she was the Alaska director for
the Wild Salmon Center. She is an attorney with a
bachelor's degree in fisheries biology. Additionally, she
worked closely on the testimony with the organization's
science director who was a Ph.D. fisheries scientist.
Representative Ortiz asked if the Wild Salmon Center had a
stance on hatcheries and aquaculture activities in general.
Ms. Anderson responded that the organization did not have
an official position on aquaculture. She believed it had
been evident over time that some wild fish populations in
the U.S. had suffered from aquaculture and hatchery
enhancement projects. In Alaska, most of the hatcheries had
been set up to try to minimize that damage and segregate
hatchery fish from wild stock. She state that the bill was
of concern to the organization because it basically took
hatchery fish bred outside of natural conditions in
incubator boxes and allowed them to be dumped on top of
wild stocks that were really struggling to survive. She
clarified that the concern was not about being anti-
hatchery in any way; it was about trying to protect
struggling, weak wild stocks.
Representative Ortiz noted that the sponsor statement for
the bill specified that one of the benefits of the program
was to enhance habitat in state water for survival of the
fish. He asked for verification that Ms. Anderson had
testified it would have the opposite impact.
Ms. Anderson understood that part of the bill specified
habitat rehabilitation should occur. She supported that and
believed habitat restoration was one of the things humans
could do to really help wild stocks. She clarified that she
did not think it was productive to have wild stocks
harvested, reared, and placed back with wild stocks (to
compete with eggs naturally hatching in river systems) by
individuals who were not qualified to do so.
Representative Cronk asked how the Wild Salmon Center was
funded.
Ms. Anderson responded that the organization was funded by
private donors, individuals, and grassroots organizations
including people who hunt and fish and care deeply about
Alaska fisheries.
4:09:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. He asked for a
review of the fiscal note by DFG.
Mr. Fekl reviewed the DFG fiscal note, control code lyoAo.
He detailed that the bill would create a new permit
program, similar to the existing aquatic resource permit
already offered by the department for scientific and
education purposes. The new fishery rehabilitation permits
would be available to the general public. Permit
applications would be incorporated into current processes
for existing permits such as the aquatic resource permit
and would receive the same level of rigorous review. The
permitting process would include analysis by DFG staff and
public engagement for any projects involving salmon,
through the regional planning team process.
Mr. Fekl elaborated that the Aquaculture Section under the
Division of Commercial Fisheries would be responsible for
reviewing the permit applications. He relayed that the
section had been reduced by half in the past six years and
did not have the resources to take on additional work.
While the department did not expect the new workload to
rise to the level of a full-time position, the department
anticipated the need for a part-time seasonal position. The
position would assist with managing the new permit program
during high application times such as egg take season. The
fiscal note reflected an increase in personal services cost
to the Division of Commercial Fisheries in the amount of
$52,400 for a six-month part-time biologist 2 position
located in Juneau. Additionally, the bill proposed a $100
application fee. Presently, the number of applications the
department would receive was unknown; therefore, the fiscal
note was indeterminate pertaining to changes in revenue.
Representative Hannan asked if the application fee for the
current permits was $100 and whether there was any
requirement for bonding under the current research permit
if something went wrong.
Mr. Fekl deferred the question to a colleague.
4:12:08 PM
FLIP PRYOR, AQUACULTURE SECTION CHIEF, DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME (via teleconference), responded that currently the
aquatic resource permits did not have a $100 fee and there
was no bonding requirement.
Representative Hannan asked if there were bonding
requirements for hatchery permits or if the state accepted
all liability if something went awry.
Mr. Pryor replied that he was not aware of any bonding
requirements through its permitting process.
Representative Ortiz referenced Representative Cronk's
testimony that there was a similar existing process for
projects to go forward. He asked what the legislation did
to try to expand the participation in programs. He asked if
it targeted groups that could not currently access the
existing program. He asked what types of groups those may
be.
Mr. Felkl responded that the current permits had to be for
education or scientific purposes. He clarified that
existing permits could not to rehabilitate a depressed run,
which was the intent of the bill. The bill would expand the
permit from education and scientific entities such as
schools to the general public. He directed members to page
4, line 23 of the bill including the definition of person,
which could include an individual, corporation, business,
partnership, tribe, government, government subdivision,
agency, and other.
Representative Ortiz stated his understanding there would
be a stripping of the eggs and he wondered about the next
stage. He wondered if the eggs would go into a protective
environment to increase survival capabilities predators and
things like that.
Mr. Felkl responded affirmatively. He explained that it
would be protecting the eggs at one of their most
vulnerable states. He deferred to Mr. Pryor for additional
detail.
Mr. Pryor added that the purpose of the practice would be
to protect the eggs during the development stage. He
elaborated that when eggs were in the gravel, they were
vulnerable to multiple things including environmental
factors such as freezing. Typically, the process would
involve a salmon egg box, which was a box with some
upwelling water to keep eggs from freezing and allowing
them to grow in a protected environment.
4:16:46 PM
Representative Ortiz asked what knowledge a person would
need in order to place one of the boxes in a wild stream
setting. He referenced Mr. Pryor's description of creating
upwelling and protecting eggs from freezing. He asked if it
was a fairly simple task or if a person would need a strong
background on the subject.
Mr. Pryor responded that the process was not very
difficult. He explained that the boxes could be built out
of plywood and PVC piping or purchased commercially. Part
of the permitting process would require an applicant to
submit a plan. He relayed that DFG has expertise within the
department to help applicants have the most successful
program possible.
Representative Coulombe referenced the sponsor's remarks
that the bill had been around for some time. She asked what
some of the problems had been and why the bill did not pass
the last time. She asked if the bill reflected any changes
from the original attempt.
DAVE STANCLIFF, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, responded
that the primary issue in the past was that the state was
not running out of the options that now seemed to be
running out. He elaborated that the crisis in the Yukon had
not reached the point where there was legislation
introduced to talk about closing areas entirely. He
explained that the timing of the request had been different
than it was at present. He stated that most importantly,
the legislation had been tweaked to give the commissioner
the ability to shut a permit down, the oversight was
greater, and the requirements people had to go through were
more stringent. The bill aimed to ensure the department did
its part in making sure anyone entering into the endeavor
(e.g., a school system, corporation, or tribe) was
qualified.
4:19:44 PM
Representative Hannan directed a question to Mr. Pryor. She
stated her understanding of the bill that qualifying
applicants could receive a permit for a period of five
years and 500,000 eggs. She provided a hypothetical example
where a person wanted to rear king salmon and opted to grow
100,000 eggs per year for five years. She noted that king
salmon leaving [the rivers] may be gone for three to six
years. She asked if there was any obligation to have some
measure of success before a permit holder made their next
collection of eggs. She considered a scenario where the
first class of 100,000 were very successful but they did
not return for five years and the second class returned
small in size but after three years in the ocean.
Mr. Pryor responded that part of the five-year design in
the permit pertained to a life cycle. He stated that the
purpose of a rehabilitation program was the goal of putting
return spawners on the spawning grounds to continue
spawning generations. The idea was to take a low stock and
build it up. He explained that if the permit was issued and
a person utilized a plan as in Representative Hannan's
example, the first fish would return in small numbers as
three-year-olds, four-year-olds would likely be the
dominant return, and five-year-olds to seven-year-olds
could return if the species was chinook. He elaborated that
after that time period the permit holder would be finished
with the specific permit. He detailed that applicants would
want to look at whether they were producing fish because
their goal of a rehabilitation program was to build stocks
back up to historic numbers. He stated that it was part of
the application and review process, but a lot of it was on
the applicant to decide if they were accomplishing what
they wanted to accomplish.
Mr. Felkl added that the bill required a permit holder to
collect and provide data and reports as requested by DFG.
The department would have continued oversight.
Representative Hannan had heard from fisheries biologists
that most of the current problems were happening in the
ocean, so a program may not seem successful because very
few fish were returning. She considered that the
application fee was fairly low, and a person would not have
a large investment in infrastructure and buildings. She
asked how the state would decide how long a person could
continue to get a permit. She asked if it was on the
department to decide ahead of time that if a permit holder
did not have a return of 10 percent or 50 percent they
could not go forward. She asked if a person could keep
cycling through five-year permits as long as they were not
polluting or damaging wild stock.
Mr. Felkl responded that during the department's review of
the bill it considered potentially requiring fin clippings
to track the fish. He believed a permit holder would be
limited to the five-year period, but he asked Mr. Pryor to
weigh in.
4:24:50 PM
Mr. Pryor responded that the five-year permit would be a
limit on a site. A project would be able to commence for
one life cycle in a specific location. He clarified that
the department would not re-permit for the same location
five years later. He elaborated that the department wanted
returning adult fish on the spawning grounds helping with
the stock and did not want to continually do the hatchery
bucket for more than one generation. An individual could
apply for another permit for a different location.
Representative Josephson replied to Representative
Coulombe's earlier question. He relayed that when the bill
was sponsored by former Representative Talerico, it would
have been the 2017 and 2018 session. Representative
Josephson along with former Representative Geran Tarr had
been the co-chairs of the House Resources Committee and he
recalled the fundamental concern had been about the wild
salmon stock, which was the reason they had not advanced
the bill.
Co-Chair Foster stated it was his intent to set an
amendment deadline for the following day at noon; however,
he could be flexible with the deadline if people thought
they may have amendments.
Representative Josephson stated there were a number of
amendment deadlines. He asked when Co-Chair Foster expected
to hear the bill again. For example, if the bill would not
be heard until Tuesday, he asked if a Monday deadline would
be adequate.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the bill was currently
scheduled again for Monday at 9:00 a.m., but he would
extend the deadline to noon on Monday.
Representative Hannan remarked that it was already 4:30
p.m. on Friday and she knew Legislative Legal Services had
staff working all of the time at present; however, she
thought it seemed unrealistic to give them an amendment on
Friday evening and have it back the following day.
Co-Chair Foster set the amendment deadline for 5:00 p.m.
for Monday. He asked if the sponsor had any closing
remarks.
Representative Cronk thanked the committee for hearing the
bill. He thought committee members were confusing the bill
with hatchery fish. He underscored that the process in the
bill used wild fish harvested out of rivers. He clarified
that the process involved using wild fish eggs harvested
from a river and put back into the same location. He
emphasized that the bill did not impact wild stock. The
process enhanced the fertilization rate from 5 percent to
90 percent. He highlighted that people had not been fishing
on the Yukon for four years and they would not be able to
fish for another seven years because of a treaty. He
relayed that the dam location in Canada had seen fewer than
200 chinooks return. He stressed that a tool was needed to
enable people to rebuild the wild stock in order for people
to fish again. He noted it would enable any entity to take
on the process. He added that it would be difficult because
some tributaries were hard to reach, but it would provide
an opportunity. He reiterated the bill only pertained to
wild fish. He wondered what would happen if the state sat
by and watched the wild stock deplete until there was no
fish. He wondered what the state would do at that point. He
asked if hatchery fish would be used to rebuild the stock.
He would much prefer to have the tool available in order to
rebuild the wild fish stock.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that he had subsistence users on
the Yukon and in western Alaska who were hurting. He shared
that he had recently visited the village of Gambell, and
residents had such low income they relied on being able to
subsist. He thought anything the state could do to help
them was a good idea. He thanked the bill presenters and
the department.
HB 169 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB260 Additional Documents-January 2024 Dept of Health 01.31.2024.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB260 Sectional Analysis 02.01.2024.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB260 FY25 Gov Operating Budget for DOH 02.01.2024.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB260 Sponsor Statement 02.01.2024.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB 368 Legal Memo 042424.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 368 |