Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/27/2023 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 | |
| HB169 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 169-FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
10:04:25 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 169, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit."
CHAIR VANCE expressed support for HB 169.
10:04:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor, introduced HB 169. He said HB 169 is a
reintroduction of House Bill 107 [passed during the Thirtieth
Alaska State Legislature] by former Representative Dave
Talerico. He stated that the main driver for reintroducing the
proposed legislation is the lack of returning salmon to the
Yukon River and Kuskokwim River. He explained that HB 169 would
allow individuals, Alaska corporations, school districts, and
other organizations to apply for a fishery rehabilitation permit
through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). If the
commissioner grants a permit, he continued, these entities would
be allowed to collect a limited number of fish, fertilize the
eggs, hatch them, and then place the unfed natural fish back
into the water from which they were taken. He specified that
this would boost the survival rate of fertilized eggs into the
emergent fry stage from the natural rate of around 5 percent to
roughly 90-95 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK stated that similar types of fish
rehabilitation permits are already allowed by ADF&G for
scientific research and other educational purposes. This bill,
he continued, would allow the private sector and ADF&G to work
together in a responsible collaborative effort to increase the
natural salmon populations and scientific data collection
throughout the state. Helping Alaska's natural salmon runs, he
added, would benefit the state by supplying food to Alaska
families.
10:07:11 AM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor,
provided a sectional analysis of HB 169. He paraphrased from
the written sectional analysis provided in the committee packet,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1 AS 16.05.855
Creates a new section in AS 16.05 to create a
fisheries enhancement permit. AS 16.05.855 consists
of the follow subsections:
(a) Creates a new subsection for the activities that
are allowed under the new fisheries enhancement
permit:
(1) Remove fish from water, collect gametes and
milt, fertilize and incubate eggs, and place
fertilized eggs or un-fed fry back in the same
water
(2) Enhance habitat in state water for survival
of the fish
(b) Creates a new subsection that prescribes as
application form created by the department that states
what type of information must be on the application to
obtain a fisheries enhancement permit. This
information includes:
(1) The applicant's name
(2) Reasoning and feasibility of the proposed
project
(3) Documentation of conditions justifying
project, any collaboration with local
stakeholders, and any other permits required for
the project
(4) Locations of water in which applicant will
take fish and place fertilized eggs or un-fed fry
(5) Species and number of fish taken from water
(6) Applicant's management plan for propagation
or repopulation in permitted water
(7) Applicant's goals, schedule, scope of work,
budget, means of data collection, plan for
genetics management, plans for project
evaluation, and watershed enhancement plans, if
applicable
(8) Application fee of $100
(c) Creates a subsection allowing the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) Commissioner to
issue a permit after determining if a project:
(1)May restore a fish population in a body of
water where subsistence and escapement goals have
not been met, where there are no established
escapement goals and local stakeholders have
identified a decline in fish populations, or the
species of fish is limited
(2) Will result in public benefits
(3) Will not harm indigenous wild fish stocks
(4) Will not place fertilized eggs or un-fed fry
into a body of water if there are enough fish for
natural propagation of the species to occur
(5) Will not introduce live fertilized eggs,
larvae, or fry of nonindigenous fish in
violations of AS 16.35.210
(d) Creates a subsection regarding factors that the
commissioner of DF&G shall consider when determining
if a permit will be issued, including:
(1) The department's assessment of the project
(2) The capabilities of the applicant
(3) The degree of communication that exists
between the applicant and individuals affected by
the project
(4) Comments relating to the project, including
those by a regional planning team established
under AS 16.10.375.
(5) If the project is consistent with the
comprehensive salmon plan and constitution and
statutory requirements imposed on the department
for the area
(6) If the project will increase scientific
knowledge and understanding of the natural
resources affected by the projects
(e) Creates a new subsection requiring a permittee to
collect and provide project data and reports requested
by the department and to reasonably communicate with
individuals affected by the project.
(f) Creates a subsection which sets the timeline for
when DF&G must act on a permit application. Within 15
days, the department must notify an applicant whether
or not their application is complete and can reject an
incomplete application if it is not complete within 30
days of the notification. After the notification,
DF&G must approve or reject the application with 90
days, otherwise the application is automatically
approved.
(g) Creates a new subsection to enact requirements of
a permittee to:
(1) Collect no more than 500,000 eggs for
fertilization.
(2) Implement controls to avoid the introduction
of nonindigenous pathogens or to increase
indigenous pathogens beyond acceptable levels.
(h) Creates a new subsection to ensure that any fish
released in State water with an enhancement
project permit under this section will be
available for common use in the same way as wild
fish are.
(i) Creates a new subsection to specify the duration
of a permit and how to extend a permit
(j) Creates definitions for the following terms under
AS 16.05.855:
(1) "person" is defined as an individual, any
business, governmental agency, or another legal
or commercial entity
(2) "qualified person" is defined as a state
resident or a corporation organized under
Alask's laws
(3) "reasonably communicate" is defined as
communicating significant information regarding
the project by a mode of communication that is
likely to notify persons that a reasonable person
would know are affected by the project
Sec. 2 AS 16.05.871
Amends this section by adding a new subsection (e)
Subsection (e) states that fisheries enhancement
projects under AS 16.05.855 shall be considered by the
commissioner as outlined in AS 16.05.871(d) because
precautions in subsection (d) will not damage a fish
enhancement project
Sec. 3 AS 16.10.375
Amends this section to allow enhancement projects
created through this act to be included in regional
comprehensive salmon plans
10:10:08 AM
MR. STANCLIFF stated that the new language and provisions would
grant ADF&G everything it needs to make a scientific decision.
He said previous supporters of this legislation include Tanana
Chiefs Conference, Doyon Ltd., Ahtna Inc., Greater Copper Valley
Chamber of Commerce, Nenana City School District, Mentasta
Traditional Council, former fish biologist Pete Velasco, Skagway
Community Fish Hatchery, Yakutat Regional Aquaculture
Association, and Chickaloon Native Village. He maintained that
things have changed since letters were received from
organizations which were originally reluctant to support the
bill.
10:11:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired about ADF&G's position on HB 169.
MR. STANCLIFF expressed the understanding from a conversation
with ADF&G, it has offered to work with the sponsor adding
amendments to make for a stronger bill. He added that,
generally, ADF&G is open to the idea of currently pursuing this
without making a final determination.
CHAIR VANCE noted that ADF&G was unavailable for today's
committee meeting because of prior commitments. She confirmed
that ADF&G has some detailed language to add to strengthen the
bill.
10:12:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referenced the gentleman who had testified
during the recent Board of Fisheries confirmation hearings, as
he had spoken about doing this back in the 1970s. He asked
whether this is part of "moist" hatcheries or "mini" hatcheries.
MR. STANCLIFF responded that the sponsor refers to this as "roe
enhancement."
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK stated that the gentleman's name was Stan
Zuray from Tanana, and he had discussed taking salmon out of the
river and putting the eggs and sperm in a bucket, and then
putting the eggs into the gravel. He related that while
traveling the Yukon River [last] summer, the people in Ruby
talked about a specific salmon which they could identify in a
specific river. He expressed the belief they were called
"blackheads." He explained that some salmon in the Yukon River
travel about 2,400 miles, so these fish are unique to have the
energy to swim this far up the river. He said that the idea is
to have these people with traditional knowledge at headwaters to
help fertilize the eggs and enhance the needed salmon runs, as
this is "dire" for the culture.
10:15:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the term "tribe" should
be added to the list included under the definition of "person"
on page 4, lines 20-23.
MR. STANCLIFF answered that, from a legal standpoint, "tribe"
could be added, as this addition would not deter from the intent
of the proposed bill. He explained that in the state "person"
can mean many different things, including an individual person,
part of a family unit, or a business or corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT related her understanding that 500,000
eggs represent about 50 female salmon, although she is unsure
which salmon species the number represents. She said 50 female
salmon is a large number, especially given the current critical
situation. She inquired about the risks of taking eggs from 50
salmon, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK replied that the best practices can be
found by working with ADF&G. He advised that this could
alleviate any problems, and it would be working in the safest
way possible. The tribal entities along the Yukon, he added,
are interested in ensuring that this would be done right.
10:18:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed interest in hearing from
ADF&G. She noted that ADF&G [has lost] 100 biologists in the
last 10 years. She questioned whether ADF&G would have the
capacity for this program, as there would have to be some
oversight. She further asked whether the term "qualified" would
require training.
MR. STANCLIFF replied that under the intent of HB 169, training
would be required under any ADF&G written regulations. He said
ADF&G may be able to improve upon the requirement to satisfy
this concern. He noted that before someone can go into the
field, a report must be submitted along with submitting the
person's qualifications. He stated he does not know if ADF&G
trains the summertime workers who go out to weirs, but it is an
important point to ensure that whoever is there is qualified to
the department's satisfaction.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT related that a main issue impacting
salmon in her region is habitat degradation from logging. She
asked whether the same end could be achieved by restoring
habitat and addressing fishery pressure, rather than undertaking
the hand spawning of salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK offered his understanding that there is no
habitat destruction, but rather destruction from the
overharvesting of salmon, along with current ocean conditions;
therefore, not enough salmon are returning. He argued that the
proposed legislation would be one way to help alleviate this
problem. He urged that the most important issue is to not have
the Yukon River or Kuskokwim River labeled as "endangered"
because this would not be good for anybody. He expressed the
certainty that the people in Tanana Chiefs Conference, Doyon,
Ahtna, and so forth, are willing to learn about this process,
and ADF&G will work with them to ensure this.
CHAIR VANCE drew attention to page 2, line 20 of the proposed
legislation and expressed the understanding that there is some
habitat rehabilitation, if applicable, along with ensuring that
the project is successful.
10:23:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the issues facing
Alaska's salmon habitat are different by region. She observed
that HB 169 already lists "government;" however, tribes should
not have to fight for tribal government recognition and have
this be a barrier. She also expressed concern about mixed stock
rivers and the possibility that enhancing one species in a river
could impact the other salmon species.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK responded that the Yukon River has summer
chums and kings, plus fall chums and cohos. He offered his
belief that the summer chums and kings probably coincide with
each other, but the fall chums and cohos have specific seasons.
He estimated that, given their drastically low numbers, there
has been no king fishing for about three years. He related that
while in Eagle in late September 2017 the fish wheels were full,
with people needing 2,000 chums for dog teams, but since then
there has been no fish for dog teams. The goal, he stated, is
to stabilize the runs and have some harvest, but tools are
needed to get there because the fish may disappear without some
sort of action.
10:25:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK drew attention to page 4, lines 5-6,
which states: "If the commissioner fails to act within that
period, the application is approved, and the department shall
issue a permit." He expressed concern about this provision and
requested the sponsor to elaborate.
MR. STANCLIFF said that more consideration of this is needed.
He explained that it is boilerplate language borrowed from other
legislation which deters [the department] from sitting on
[applications]. Per this language, if the department defers
processing an application, after some time the application will
automatically go into effect. He expressed the opinion that it
is probably not as necessary as other things in statute. He
noted that he will mark the provision as a concern.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK agreed that it speaks to getting people
to move on things but added that it is concerning.
10:27:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained that page 4, lines 5-6, would
remove the politics so a commissioner must act regardless of
whether he or she is concerned about salmon. He concurred,
however, that the provision needs a bit of questioning. He said
HB 169 would not allow the introduction of any new fish, as it
would allow only the taking of eggs and sperm from fish that are
already swimming up a river. He explained that these fish would
have a historical "marriage" to the river, and a return of these
fertilized eggs to the river's gravel would help facilitate the
run. He expressed the understanding that ADF&G is very
concerned about introducing nonnative fish to Alaskan waters,
and he added this is not the intent under HB 169.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK agreed and said he does not want to see the
genetics change whatsoever. He noted that today's female king
salmon are 15 pounds compared to 70 pounds in the 1970s. He
estimated that the smaller the fish the fewer the eggs;
therefore, the goal is to get more eggs fertilized and returned
to the river.
10:30:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that [page 4, lines 8-9] of HB 169
would limit the permittee to [not more than] 500,000 eggs. He
inquired about the number of eggs in one salmon.
MR. STANCLIFF recounted the previous comment that 50 salmon may
tally close to 500,000 eggs. He pointed out that ADF&G may have
this data.
CHAIR VANCE recalled a discussion by Dr. Katie Howard where it
was stated that salmon are struggling in their health and do not
have the fat to provide the energy to make long journeys, and
spawning has been a problem. As previously stated, she noted,
the smaller salmon may not be carrying as many eggs. She said
ADF&G has discussed amending and updating the bill's language
because more has now been learned from research. She expressed
the desire that this had been done when this legislation was
first introduced, as it is necessary.
10:32:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether HB 169 would interfere
with Alaska's treaty with Canada.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK expressed uncertainty, and he stated that
he will get back to the committee with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the harvest of females
[for eggs] would count toward subsistence and non-subsistence
harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK deferred to ADF&G to answer the question.
He advised that once a fish is at the point where the eggs can
be squeezed out, the fish is beyond edible.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether there is commercial
value to the eggs and whether HB 169 would create a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK responded that there would be no conflict
because currently there is no harvest on the Yukon River.
However, he related, there used to be commercial harvest of the
roe, and this was part of the problem because the river was
commercially fished very hard for the roe and plants were built
along the Yukon River for this specifically.
10:34:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her interest in HB 169. She
said the bill is a much better way to address this crisis than
the legislature getting involved in an allocation issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK answered that HB 169 is the beginning and
the baseline for getting started. He said he looks forward to
the involvement of ADF&G and the various entities.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that this is one more tool in
the toolbox and all tools are needed on the table.
MR. STANCLIFF pointed out that when looking at threatened and
endangered species the talk is not necessarily about the entire
river, it can be about a tributary that no longer has fish. For
example, he recounted that years ago kayakers thought they saw a
king salmon in a tributary of the actively mined Forty Mile
River system, and after a "brawl" the tributary was categorized
as "anadromous" and important to salmon survival; therefore,
thought needs to be given to the environmental community because
if a tributary is listed [as anadromous] it will impact salmon,
as well as everything that happens on the tributary. He advised
against going in this direction. He added that when he was
asked to look at Representative Talerico's past legislation, he
expressed the realization that this is something positive which
could mitigate the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK thanked former Representative Talerico for
his foresight in introducing the original bill.
10:38:26 AM
CHAIR VANCE stated that the committee will be working with the
sponsor and ADF&G on updating language within the bill, and
ADF&G will come before the committee. She said there will
potentially be a committee substitute, after which a deadline
can be set for amendments.
10:38:57 AM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 169 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 169 - v.A.PDF |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM HRES 5/10/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Gulkana Incubation Picture.pdf |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM HRES 1/17/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 - Moist Air Incubator Photo.pdf |
HFSH 4/27/2023 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/8/2023 9:00:00 AM HRES 1/17/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |