Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/13/2020 11:00 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 | |
| HB199 | |
| HB218 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 199-FISHERIES REHABILITATION PERMITS
11:09:13 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 199, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit."
11:10:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 199. He stated that he represents House
District 6, which covers Tanana on the Yukon River all the way
to the Canadian border of the Yukon River. He said that
District 6 is the size of West Virginia and contains a very
large water system. He stated that HB 199 is a natural fish
population enhancement bill and "you can't go wrong with more
fish for Alaskans." He expressed that salmon is one of the most
precious resources Alaska has, and many people are not aware
that it is available in a lot of places throughout the state.
He stated that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) is
not currently counting the fish populations in some of the
rivers in Interior Alaska, including the: Nenana, Tanana, and
upper Yukon Rivers. He said that locals in those areas can
attest that fish populations are not nearly what they used to
be. He referenced that he has relationships going back 50 years
with people who have fished those locations for several
generations, and the river system is a major resource for them,
but the river system does not produce fish the way it used to.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO explained that HB 199 would allow
individuals, corporations, school districts, and other
organizations to apply for a fish enhancement permit through
ADF&G. He stated that if the commissioner grants a permit, the
individuals, school districts, and other organizations would be
allowed to collect a limited amount of fish, fertilize and hatch
the eggs, and then place the un fed natural fish back - only
into the water from which they were taken. He explained that
this would not be a transplant program; these fish would have to
stay within the watershed from which they were taken. He
expressed that this would not be "bucket biology," but would be
under the auspices and guidance of ADF&G. He said that this
program would boost the natural fertility rate of the eggs from
approximately 5 percent to 90 percent.
11:13:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated that some king salmon have up to
50,000 eggs, and in the natural process sometimes only 5,000 of
those eggs are fertilized, hatch, and become fry; moist air
incubation could change the number of salmon fry from 5,000 to
45,000. He pointed out that similar types of fish enhancement
permits are currently allowed by ADF&G for scientific research
and educational purposes, but they are limited. He expressed
that HB 199 would allow the private sector and the ADF&G to work
together in a responsible collaborative effort to increase the
natural salmon numbers and scientific data collection throughout
the state. He summarized that HB 199 would provide Alaska one
more tool to ensure that resources are maximized, for both today
and the future as stated in the state's constitution, and thus
benefit from Alaska's natural fish resources and feed its
families. He added that for the people in his district,
traditionally, fishing has been food security for hundreds of
years.
11:15:17 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked what the requirements would be to allow
someone to acquire the permits needed to harvest the fish eggs
and incubate them.
11:15:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered that the application process
would have a form and an application, which would be prescribed
by ADF&G. He expressed that a "fish plan" would be required
describing why the applicant wants to pursue a project and what
the feasibility of the project would be. He added that there
would be an historical data requirement to validate the project.
He pointed out, referencing page 2, of HB 199, that the
conditions for justifying a project are laid out in the proposed
bill. He stated that a project would require maintained
communication with ADF&G and would require research into any
other possible federal, state, and local permitting
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated that an applicant would then need
to provide a detailed management plan which describes how the
project would be managed, personnel who would be involved,
resources available, a budget, and a schedule with an overall
goal for the project. He stated that ADF&G would be monitoring
this process. He expressed that it would be expensive to get
into a project of this kind; the equipment required up front to
incubate the eggs properly is very expensive. He explained that
there would be a genetics management aspect to the program,
which would check to ensure that there are no bacteria or viral
infections in fish being released into Alaska's waters. He
stated that there would also be a watershed habitat
rehabilitation plan and an application fee of $100.
11:19:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated that given the way HB 199 is
structured and written, it will probably require professionals,
such as a fish biologist and a hydrologist, to be involved in
the construction of a good management plan. He emphasized that
he thinks ADF&G would take all the language laid out under HB
199 seriously. He summarized that a properly managed facility
can produce a lot of eggs in a small facility. As an example,
he referenced the Gulkana hatchery, which he describes as
looking like a "tool shed with a sluice box on it," and its
ability to put out over 30 million salmon fry on a fairly
regular basis. He summarized that it would take a substantial
amount of work to get to the point where an application was
ready for submission, which he said he thinks is appropriate.
11:21:15 AM
CHAIR STUTES commented that she noticed Flip Pryor was present
from the Aquaculture Section of ADF&G, and she would like to
hear him state the ADF&G's position on HB 199.
11:21:37 AM
FLIP PRYOR, Aquaculture Section Chief, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, replied that ADF&G
has reviewed HB 199 and has no opposition to the proposed
legislation. He stated that ADF&G had submitted some draft
language which he thinks was adopted.
11:22:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Mr. Pryor feels that the $100
application fee is enough, and whether the proposed timeframe
for the application review process is within the current means
of ADF&G.
11:22:35 AM
MR. PRYOR replied that ADF&G thinks the process could be handled
with current staff; it would be very similar to existing aquatic
resource permits and would require the same review process. He
explained that this process starts first with local area
biologists, then goes to a regional office, and finally gets
sent to the headquarters where it is analyzed by a geneticist
and a pathologist. The geneticist and pathologist then issue
their opinions of the project on a review site and, ultimately,
the commissioner decides whether to issue a permit or not.
11:23:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether ADF&G would have to implement
any new processes, or if the proposed projects would fit into
the current format.
MR. PRYOR answered, "Yes, it fits right in."
11:23:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that a concern had arisen
previously as to how this proposed legislation would impact
native stocks of fish. She asked whether Mr. Pryor could
comment on whether the hatchery fry being reintroduced back into
an area might outcompete the native stock and put it at a
disadvantage.
11:24:18 AM
MR. PRYOR responded that there is always a possibility, with an
enhancement project, that it could affect genetic diversity;
however, he said that these projects would be heavily
scrutinized by ADF&G and its genetic experts. He explained that
the proposed projects would be dealing with local stocks, a
minimum number of broodstock, and most likely a maximum number
of broodstock. He expressed that there would be mitigation
measures in place to reduce risk.
11:24:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to processing companies that "pick
up the tab" when there is no state funding for research, and she
said she is concerned about "who actually is going to have the
information" as "things get a little more piecemeal." She asked
Mr. Pryor whether he could see a way to strengthen the proposed
legislation and establish a program with a public/private
partnership that is directed through ADF&G.
11:26:13 AM
MR. PRYOR answered that he thinks this is already built into the
process, in that these permits require the applicant to submit
the data ADF&G needs to move forward with the application. He
explained that if ADF&G finds that it needs more data, it
requires the applicant to submit it before the permit is issued.
Once a permit is operating, he explained, unforeseen
circumstances can arise that require permits to be reviewed; and
mitigation measures are taken when appropriate, or permits can
be revoked.
11:26:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed that there could be concerns
regarding whether operations of hatcheries could be undertaken
in a way that benefits private interest over the public good.
She asked whether there should be a concern with the possibility
that the process could have less oversight than if it were an
official program operated through ADF&G.
11:27:52 AM
MR. PRYOR answered that he is comfortable with how the process
would work as proposed, as it works the same way as the current
aquatic research permits, and ADF&G is in communication with the
program operators. He said that ADF&G receives annual reports
from operators and most permits require renewal after one or two
years. He summarized that he feels that oversight is already
built into the system.
11:28:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Mr. Pryor could explain the
range in scope and how involved the operations of these proposed
permitted facilities might be.
MR. PRYOR replied that the operations proposed under HB 199
would be limited to 500,000 eggs. He explained that this is a
small amount compared to existing hatcheries, which are hatching
millions of eggs a year; in the case of pink salmon it is
hundreds of millions of eggs. He expressed that the proposed
facilities would be small, as Representative Talerico had
mentioned earlier, like sheds with a sluice box on the front of
them. Current hatchery projects are designed to augment
fisheries, whereas the projects proposed under HB 199 would be
small and focused on rehabilitation. He summarized that he sees
the projects proposed by HB 199 as smaller than a hatchery
program, but larger than a research program.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Mr. Pryor which fish stocks he expects
would be targeted under HB 199 and whether he anticipates that
hatcheries could be overdoing it with rehabilitation numbers in
certain fishery stocks, such as pink salmon.
MR. PRYOR answered that concerns which have been discussed were
that there were a lot of limitations on harvest in order to pass
more fish. He expressed that the proposed legislation would
help with small projects which would reintroduce eggs to an area
and try to boost the number of fish by a small amount. He
explained that out of the 500,000-egg limit, approximately 5,000
would produce fish on average; in an exceptional cycle that
number could be up to 15,000 fish. Adding 5,000 fish to a small
stock could be significant in rebuilding that stock faster than
leaving it alone and not allowing any fish to be harvested.
11:32:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how long the review and
permitting process takes for an aquatic resource permit, as
described by Mr. Pryor earlier.
11:32:37 AM
MR. PRYOR replied that the review process for those permits
typically takes around 45 days. He explained that a lot of the
projects ADF&G approves permits for are repeat projects and
research projects that are very small in scale; some of the
projects are classroom incubation projects that consist of 500
eggs in an aquarium. He stated that the projects proposed under
HB 199 would be more in depth than the smaller existing
projects, and he estimated it would take several months to
approve one of these new projects.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how permitting for these
proposed projects would compare to permitting for a newly
proposed hatchery.
MR. PRYOR replied that the hatchery process is much more
involved. He explained that there is a direct Regional Planning
Team (RPT) review, a public comment period, and several
different steps that might not necessarily be involved with the
process for projects proposed under HB 199. He said that the
hatchery process typically takes up to a year and a half.
11:34:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR observed that the language in
[subsection(g)] in the [Sectional Analysis for HB 199] read
"collect no more than 500,000 eggs for fertilization", while
subsection(g) in HB 199 read "collect not more than 500,000 eggs
for fertilization under a single permit". She asked whether the
words "under a single permit" were added because it was thought
that one operator could have multiple permits, or whether it was
a suggestion from Legislative Legal Services.
MR. PRYOR responded that he was not sure of the reason for the
change. He expressed that he did not see a situation where
there would be permit stacking involved in the proposed review
process.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the $100 fee was a realistic
amount to cover the cost of all of the staff work involved in
the permitting process, or whether a $500 fee would better cover
the cost yet still be attainable for individuals who would like
to apply for one of these projects.
MR. PRYOR answered that he wasn't sure that he was the one who
"should answer that question."
11:35:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that he understands that
it isn't Mr. Pryor's "call for what the permit fees should be,"
but he asked whether Mr. Pryor could speak to the staffing needs
and resources involved, and the reasoning behind a zero fiscal
note.
MR. PRYOR replied that ADF&G already has a system for permit
reviews in place, in which one person acts as a permit
coordinator and puts the permits out for review online on a
shared website where every reviewer can see every review at the
same time. He explained that when he first started in the
department this process was done through the mail, and it was a
much slower process in which it was harder to ascertain what
another reviewer had said about the permit. He summarized that
the process requires one person to coordinate six to eight
reviewers and it can be done very efficiently. He added that
ADF&G anticipates that the projects proposed under HB 199 would
only add a "handful of permits" annually, which would not put
much strain on the current system. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, he said that the
basis for the assumption that there would only be a "handful of
permits" issued annually is that he doesn't see it as being very
popular. He explained that there is a lot of science involved
in the hatching process, it can be much harder than it appears,
and there will be areas where it might seem like it could work
but would be unsuccessful.
11:37:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Mr. Pryor whether he thinks that the
process would self-select for the right permittees to engage in
the opportunity.
MR. PRYOR responded that that is correct.
11:38:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether it would have to be an
organization or corporation, and not a "mom and pop operation,"
undertaking these proposed projects given the time, money, and
effort which would be required.
11:39:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered that there has been interest
expressed in undertaking projects like this by the Tanana Chiefs
Conference (TCC), because of the lack of fish in its area. He
added that he was open to suggestions and recommendations from
the committee on the amount that would be required for permits
and the number of eggs allowed with each permit.
11:39:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the 500,000-egg limit per
permit would justify the effort, and whether an increase in the
limit would change the ADF&G's ability to manage the permitting.
She asked what the threshold would be for ADF&G.
11:40:20 AM
MR. PRYOR answered that he thinks the 500,000-egg limit was
chosen because of current aquaculture propagation permit
regulations, which state a goal of no more than 5,000 returning
adult fish. This would be a 1 percent return out of 500,000,
which would be considered a very successful program. He said
that this number was chosen for the proposed legislation under
HB 199 because of its similarity to existing programs.
11:41:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there was anything
problematic, regarding genetics and other management
considerations, about the ratio of fish that would be returning
from the proposed rehabilitation programs to that of the fish
returning from existing natural populations. As an example, he
referenced the sockeye salmon stock in Klawock Lake, which is
seeing small returns on sockeye, such as 800 per year. He
suggested that if a permit were issued to this area under the
proposed bill, and there were 5,000 returning adults from the
permit, there would be a 5:1 ratio of fish from the program to
wild occurring fish.
MR. PRYOR responded that this would not pose a concern, as every
project under the proposed legislation would have to pass
through a genetics review and meet all state policy
requirements. He stated that in the case proposed by
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, where there were 800 returning
fish, the project would receive a permit for only 10 or 20
percent of the available brood stock; the permit would be dialed
down in this case to address genetic concerns.
11:43:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Mr. Pryor whether he could point to an
introductory place to start limiting the number of permits which
would be available under the proposed legislation, which would
allow the program to be established in a way that would ease
initial concerns.
MR. PRYOR replied that he thinks this could be incorporated into
the proposed legislation, but he does not think it would be
necessary.
11:43:59 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining that there were no further
questions, announced that HB 199 would be held over for further
review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 218 Transmittal Letter 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Sectional Analysis 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 218 ADFG Letter of Support 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Logbook Use Summary 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 V. A 1.27.20.PDF |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 ADFG Letter of Support 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 218 Fiscal Note 1.27.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Logbook Use Summary 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Sectional Analysis 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 199 Letter of Support Organized Village of Kasaan 2.6.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 v. M 1.21.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Sponsor Statement 02.11.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Letter of Support Alaska Village Initiatives 2.4.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Letter of Support Harris 2.4.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Letter of Support Shaan-Seet 2.4.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Fiscal Note ADF&G 2.7.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Sectional Analysis 2.11.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 218 Letter of Support SEAGO 2.12.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |