Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/25/2020 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 199-FISHERIES REHABILITATION PERMITS
11:18:21 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 199, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit."
11:18:55 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:18 a.m. to 11:19 a.m.
11:19:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 199.
11:19:33 AM
MILO ADKINSON, PhD, testified in opposition to HB 199. He
stated that he has a doctorate in fisheries and approximately 30
years of research and teaching on salmon biology and management.
He said that when salmon stocks go through a downturn due to
poor climatic conditions, a very effective rehabilitation
strategy is to maintain their habitat, maintain escapements, and
be patient. He stated that this approach worked in Bristol Bay
where he is from; sockeye salmon numbers went from 2.5 million
in the early 1970s, to routinely seeing 40 to 60 million a year
now. He said that when downturns last for a long time people
tend to get frustrated and want to "make fish," which he said
seems like a good idea on the surface but the risks to wild
stock are significant and not appreciated by everyone. He
expressed that Dan Dunaway had sent in written testimony
discussing the risks if enhancement is done poorly, but he
wanted to talk about the risks wild stocks would face if the
proposed enhancement program was done successfully.
DR. ADKINSON stated that salmon are notorious for being adaptive
to the habitat in which they are spawned. As an example, he
said that in Iliamna Lake salmon spawn in big rivers, small
rivers, cold rivers, in the lake, on islands in the lake, and
even in ponds with upwelling; these salmon all have different
genetics, morphologies, and spawning timing. He remarked that a
fish put into one of these locations from a different stock
would not do as well. He expressed that mixing stocks becomes
particularly troubling in areas like the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and
Susitna Rivers, because all the different stocks mix at the
mouth of a river where the fisheries occur. During a poor
productivity period, when wild stocks are not capable of
sustaining a harvest, if the enhanced stocks are fished wild
stocks will be harvested as well, which will hurt the wild
stocks. He expressed that this might be overlooked as
escapement numbers for wild stocks may be strengthened by strays
from enhanced stocks.
DR. ADKINSON explained that rivers are particularly problematic
locations for enhancement; an enhancement project must be
carefully evaluated, sub stock structure must be investigated,
and the mixture of the fisheries must be considered in addition
to many other factors. He expressed that his assessment of HB
199 is that the language of the bill does not provide enough
time and resources to the commissioner to properly evaluate and
permit proposed projects. He added that he noticed
Representative Vance would be introducing an amendment, and
other amendments would be coming through. He said he thinks HB
199, at the minimum, needs to be significantly modified to allow
for more careful evaluation of projects before they are
permitted.
11:23:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that she thinks the amendment
Representative Vance would be proposing would address a concern
raised by Dr. Adkinson, as it would eliminate default permitting
if the commissioner has not acted on it within the specified
amount of time; however, it would not remove the language that
specifies the 90-day time limit. She asked whether Dr. Adkinson
might offer some insight based on research into what would be an
appropriate timeline for an approval process.
DR. ADKINSON replied that he thinks speaking with the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) commissioner would provide
more insight to staffing levels, but his understanding is that
ADF&G is short staffed and if it needed to send someone into the
field to gather more data on an application, then 90 days would
not be long enough.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed that she shared some of Dr.
Adkinson's concerns regarding fish genetics and one of the
explanations given previously to address those concerns was page
4, lines 8-10, of HB 199, "The department shall require a
permittee under this section to collect not more than 500,000
eggs for fertilization under a single permit." She explained
that other people had said that the proposed number of eggs was
so low that the possibility for negative impacts would be
minimized. She asked Dr. Adkinson whether he could speak to
that.
DR. ADKINSON answered that the larger an enhancement project
gets even small problems become big problems. He expressed that
it would depend on the situation, but limits on the number of
eggs would be helpful.
11:27:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that 8 out of 12 fisheries in
Susitna have stocks of concern. He asked whether there would be
a problem with artificial enhancement in situations where there
is not a problem with the habitat and a plan was in place for
"escapement from the escapement." He expressed that if there is
an escapement issue in a fishery, the problem will show up 3-7
years down the road, and he asked why it would be a negative
thing to have a "management tool in your pocket" to boost a
fishery in specific years.
11:29:14 AM
DR. ADKINSON replied that the use of hatcheries to restore fish
populations in deep trouble is effective and common in the Lower
48. He expressed that he gets concerned when hatcheries are
used to maintain a robust fishery. He mentioned the issue of
domestication selection, which is the tendency for fish
characteristics to adapt to be more suited for a hatchery than
for the wild; like losing predator avoidance, surface feeding,
and relaxation regarding nesting sites and habitat selection.
He said that the conservation hatcheries he has seen have the
goal to not have more than 10 percent of the population on the
spawning ground come from a hatchery, which is a very careful
and modest level.
11:31:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN remarked that it was interesting to him
that fish were able to adapt to the environment they are
nurtured in through domestication selection, as mentioned by Dr.
Adkinson. He spoke about "pulsing" with fish stocks, regarding
escapement, and asked Dr. Adkinson whether he could shed some
light on the effect of this on raw stock and enhanced stocks in
a natural habitat.
DR. ADKINSON answered that the ability to differentially harvest
the enhanced stock is critical. He remarked that that is why
there is a policy in existing hatcheries to situate stock in
areas where there is minimum interaction with wild stocks, which
gets very difficult in a river system where stocks are naturally
mixed.
11:33:16 AM
EMILY ANDERSON, Alaska Program Director, Wild Salmon Center,
testified in opposition to HB 199. She stated that she
appreciates the bill sponsor's desire to boost fish populations
in areas where numbers are down; however, she expressed that
fishery enhancement, in the context proposed under HB 199, is
simply not the way to do it. She remarked that while it is not
perfect, the current fish enhancement and hatchery development
policy seeks to segregate wild fish and hatchery fish to avoid
interbreeding, competition, and harvest management problems.
She stated that although HB 199 would require the commissioner
to determine that a project would not harm indigenous fish
populations when issuing a permit, there would not be a
requirement to segregate hatchery fish from wild fish stocks.
She expressed that HB 199 does not contain adequate safeguards
to protect wild stocks in her view.
MS. ANDERSON stated that Alaska's policy up to this point has
avoided many of the pitfalls that hatchery schemes in the Lower
48 have experienced. She explained that in the Pacific
Northwest hatchery production is used to enhance salmon runs
which have been devastated by habitat destruction, dams, and
overharvesting; however, rather than supporting wild salmon
recovery, a lot of those hatchery schemes have only continued to
drive down depleted salmon stocks. She expressed that HB 199
would depart from Alaska's current policy and sets up a scheme
which mirrors that taken in hatcheries in the Lower 48, which
she thinks is troubling. She said that HB 199 specifically
targets weak stock fisheries, and decades of scientific research
indicate that fish enhancement projects that seek to restore
depleted stocks only really mask the problem and make it more
difficult to recover wild stocks. She expressed that hatchery
enhancement projects that seek to recover weak stocks may appear
to be a good tool for increasing fish numbers, but over a
relatively short period of time they actually decrease the
productivity of those salmon stocks, thereby decreasing the
ability of those wild populations to rebound. She summarized
that to truly protect weak stocks and help them rebound, as Dr.
Adkinson had said, efforts need to be focused on habitat
rehabilitation and the temptation to fix the problem by
increasing numbers through enhancement needs to be resisted.
11:35:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked Ms. Anderson what her thoughts were
on escapement regarding the total biomass and focused efforts,
like an enhancement program. He asked her why she thinks the
current hatchery management system is better than a more
targeted system, like something proposed under HB 199.
MS. ANDERSON answered that she was referring very specifically
to the idea in current policy that hatchery stocks should be
segregated from wild stocks as much as possible. She expressed
that it is not a perfect system, and from her perspective as an
attorney, the law was originally designed to prevent some of the
problems that are starting to be seen in the Lower 48 with
mixing of wild and hatchery stocks. She added that most of the
interbreeding was focused on targeting weak stocks. She stated
that when increased pressure is put on weak stocks with
enhancement projects several problems come with it, including
increased predation, interbreeding, inbreeding, and other
problems which put pressure on these stocks from recovering.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that he thinks he understands,
and he would see it as being able to target fisheries that are
really needed, as opposed to putting fish in to compete with all
the fisheries in the ecosystem.
11:39:30 AM
DUNCAN FIELDS testified in support of HB 199. He expressed that
he thinks the previous testifiers who were in opposition to the
proposed legislation were confusing a whole host of issues and
were "painting with a broad brush" regarding hatchery operations
in the Lower 48. He said that fisheries enhancement throughout
the world has had many iterations including failures and
successes. He remarked that the concept of the proposed program
was simple and "like early childhood education." The fish are
taken, the environment they are raised in is enhanced, the
probability of success is increased, and the fish are put back
in the stream. He expressed that there is not a genetic issue
involved, and much of the testimony he heard was like testimony
heard relative to Alaska's hatchery programs in general. He
said that he thinks those concerns and issues could be addressed
in the context of the larger hatchery program but are not issues
associated with HB 199 as he understands it.
11:41:18 AM
SAM RABUNG, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, stated that it is important to note
that HB 199 is related to restoration, which is a defined term,
and not enhancement, which is something else entirely. He
explained that enhancement involves increasing productivity
above what the natural environment can produce in perpetuity,
and if production is stopped the numbers will drop back down to
what they were before. Restoration involves taking a depleted
stock and restoring it to its natural level of productivity and
then stopping production and the levels become self-sustaining
moving forward. He stated that ADF&G views restoration and
enhancement very differently when issuing permits.
MR. RABUNG expressed that HB 199 would authorize small scale
restoration work, which is short term, and there is nothing
proposed under HB 199 that ADF&G could not permit through its
current permit structures, primarily through the Aquatic
Resource Permit (ARP), which is a research and education permit.
As an example of how the proposed programs would work, he said
that many streams in the Norton Sound and Nome area have had
salmon runs extirpated because of placer mining, and the Norton
Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC) has gone back in,
reconditioned the gravel, taken broodstock from the main stem,
incubated the eggs, and replanted the eggs in the reconditioned
gravel in the tributaries to restore runs on a small scale. He
expressed that this effort has been successful with Coho salmon
stocks in Nome. He said that another example was the Chickaloon
Tribe; it has done restoration work in Moose Creek by taking
broodstock from the Matanuska River, incubating the eggs, and
putting them back in the Moose Creek. He added that he doesn't
think those efforts have produced any returns yet. He said that
in Kodiak the Sun'aq Tribe had removed some culverts at the
Buskin River drainage, which were preventing Coho salmon from
reaching spawning areas. The culverts were removed, the area
was reconditioned, and then eggs were planted from Buskin
broodstock and now the fish return to those areas to spawn. He
summarized that these were all "do it and be done" projects, and
ADF&G effectively views the projects proposed under HB 199 in
the same light.
11:44:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether specific damaged areas, be
it from beaver dams, man made destruction, or natural causes
would be assisted or hurt by enhancement or restoration projects
in specific tributaries.
MR. RABUNG answered that he thinks what is important is that a
problem be fixed before restoration work begins, so that the
project works, and salmon fry don't have to be continually
released. He expressed that for a restoration project to work,
the cause of the decline needs to be addressed; the fish can
then be given a jumpstart back towards their natural
productivity, and then "get out of their way."
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, referencing the Alaska State Salmon
Management Plan, asked whether part of that plan allows Mr.
Rabung, as director, to address fishery stocks in tributaries in
which it is imminently apparent that it will soon be void of a
specific species of salmon.
MR. RABUNG answered that he does not think there is a specific
plan for anything like that specified in any one place. He
remarked that there are salmon fishery enhancement plans
throughout the state on a regional level which are developed by
regional planning teams that could address those things, but he
could not think of a specific example.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that there is a difference
between optimum and optimal in a management plan; optimum is the
minimum amount of escapement, but optimal is not clearly defined
and there is not a clear plan for what to do if a tributary is
"going to go down under." He expressed that he thinks it would
be practical to have a "tool like this in our pocket," like that
proposed under HB 199.
MR. RABUNG replied that in that regard ADF&G does have a plan in
place, which is conservative management; fisheries are
restricted to bring back numbers which is different than an
enhancement plan, which is what he was referring to earlier.
11:48:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that she noticed the title from the
Sectional Analysis for HB 199 referenced "fisheries enhancement
permit", and HB 199 as it is before the committee says,
"fisheries rehabilitation permit". She said she had not noticed
much change in the language of the bill aside from the number of
eggs allowed to be collected and asked whether Mr. Rabung could
speak to what prompted the title change.
MR. RABUNG answered that he recalled a discussion on what
enhancement and rehabilitation are, and it was determined that
rehabilitation is a more accurate term for what the permitting
proposed under HB 199 would allow; therefore, the title was
changed at that time. He remarked that Representative Talerico
may be able to speak more on this topic.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that she recalled Mr. Rabung
stating earlier that any of the permitting that would be
possible under the proposed legislation could already be done
with existing permits, and she asked Mr. Rabung why it would be
better to specifically have the proposed fisheries
rehabilitation permit.
MR. RABUNG replied that there are some constraints on who is
qualified to receive an Aquatic Resource Permit; it requires the
applicant to be a government entity or university, which
excludes a lot of entities.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that it seems to her like there
would be on-site evaluation work in the permitting process which
would require funding, and it seems like the permitting fees
might be slightly low to cover those costs. She asked whether
there was a positive way to incorporate opportunities to work
with organizations that have the funding to make these projects
happen, but also be mindful of concerns that may exist regarding
the projects in order to strike a balance.
MR. RABUNG replied that his understanding is that as ADF&G looks
at these projects, most of the legwork would be done by the
applicants, since ADF&G does not have the resources to go out
and do the "boots-on-the-ground prework" that would be required.
He said that ADF&G would vet the information, but the heavy
lifting would be required of the applicant as part of the
application process. He remarked that the fee would just be the
cost of processing the permit, and not the cost of the prework
required to get to a review and approval point in the permitting
process.
11:52:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that the $100 fee seems
rather low to him. He added that he had prepared an amendment
to change the fee from $100 to $1000, which was chosen
arbitrarily, but he wanted to touch base with the sponsor before
he submitted it. He said that it seems to him like it is
important for an applicant to have "some sort of financial skin
in the game," instead of having permits "flying in willy-nilly."
He added that it seems inconsistent with Alaska's current fiscal
position for ADF&G to be taking on more work without having
applicants "pay as they go," or a user fee.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that Dr. Adkinson's
written testimony [hard copy included in committee packet] noted
that "local stakeholders have identified a decline in the number
of the species of fish," which seemed to be a low standard. He
remarked that it seems subjective to him as well and asked Mr.
Rabung whether he could comment on his perspective on what an
appropriate standard should be.
MR. RABUNG replied that it is a somewhat subjective answer. He
said he had spent quite a bit of time working with
representatives from the Yukon who are very invested in local
knowledge; the feedback he had received from those stakeholders
is that there is no one who knows better than they do "what used
to be there and what should be there." He explained that these
stakeholders rely on their elders to tell them which streams and
slews had fish but don't anymore. He expressed that was one end
of the spectrum, and the other end of the spectrum would be if a
known quantity somewhere were extirpated by some activity, and
it could be restored as well.
MR. RABUNG stated that his view is that this language is a
safeguard for locals who would be affected by one of the
proposed projects, that someone is not going to "come in and put
something in their backyard that they're not on board with."
MR. RABUNG reiterated that the permitting fee would only cover
the cost of the processing and not the cost of the pre-research
that would go into developing the application. He stated that
he understands the desire to bring in more revenue to ADF&G with
a higher fee. He explained that under AS 16.05.092 ADF&G is
required to perform specific functions but does not have the
funding for them. He expressed that the proposed legislation
could be a vehicle for partnering with willing entities who have
the resources to restore some fishery runs that ADF&G should be
able to restore, but for which it does not have the funding. He
referenced a few areas with extirpated runs that salmon can no
longer reach which could be restored, including: The Matanuska-
Susitna Valley, the Buskin River, and Norton Sound. He
explained that someone with the money could go into those areas,
recondition the gravel, and jumpstart the runs back to those
areas from main stems of local fish stocks. He summarized that
these are things ADF&G should be able to do but does not have
the funding for; therefore, he said that he is reluctant to
discourage any willing partners from doing beneficial work, but
understands the need to protect the resource from misuse.
11:57:47 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:57 a.m. to 11:58 a.m.
11:58:39 AM
MONTE ROBERTS, Fishing Guide, expressed that he agreed with
earlier testimonies on both sides of the issue. He said that
his biggest concern is, "When you introduce not naturally
spawned fish, a lot of bad things can happen." He stated that
he would recommend caution when determining what constitutes a
fishery that needs restoration and is not just over fished. He
summarized that it seems possible that areas licensed to be
restored will be regarded with less concern, and result in
"fishing them to next to extinction."
12:00:35 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Seafood Processor, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries,
testified in opposition to HB 199. She stated that she had
worked previously as a fish culturist for 21 years with the
ADF&G's Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Development
(FRED) Division, and had experience with all five species of
salmon and two species of trout. She expressed that she thinks
HB 199 would pose a very real risk to wild stocks. She said
that in her 21 years of experience she has seen mishaps and
mishandlings of small wild salmon broodstock. She said that
brood stock can be mishandled, which leads to genetic and other
problems. She said that ADF&G no longer has a FRED Division,
and there isn't really a division that can provide oversight
like in the early 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
MS. HILLSTRAND expressed that a program devoted to natural
spawning habitats and the culvert problem in Alaska would be
"farther ahead." She said she had emailed information, to the
committee, that ADF&G has on locations of thousands of culverts
across Alaska that are blocking natural production of salmon up
into streams. She said that the culvert problem should be
addressed before approving HB 199. She referenced the
productive culvert restoration in Kodiak that Mr. Rabung had
mentioned previously and noted that the Matanuska-Susitna Basin
Salmon Habitat Partnership has worked on culverts in that
region, but there are at least 70 to 100 more. She summarized
that she would appreciate if the committee reviewed her
comments.
12:02:49 PM
SAM SNYDER, PhD, testified in opposition to HB 199. He stated
that he has a PhD in environmental studies with a focus on
fisheries and has spent a good bit of his graduate and
professional career studying the history of fisheries in
America; he said he has published extensively on the matter. He
expressed that he did not need to repeat the testimonies of
people like Milo Adkinson and Dan Dunaway, who have long
respected and proven track records of fisheries work in the
state. He said that when he reads legislation like that
proposed under HB 199, he is struck with a sense of "d?j? vu,"
and not in a good way; he said he thinks the clock is being
turned back 120 or more years.
DR. SNYDER stated that at the turn of the 1800s hatchery
technology was discovered and Americans took matters into their
own hands; they set up individual hatchery programs with no
understanding of local ecosystems and the impacts that spreading
fish could have. He said that what started as good intentions
to restore fish stocks, resulted in a widespread self-driven
"bucket brigade" putting fish where they should not be. He
expressed that these efforts were well-intended but ended up
putting already weakened fisheries further at risk and
jeopardized other aquatic ecosystems. He said that on top of
development related impacts, "We have, in a sense, been cleaning
up some of those messes around the country for 100-plus years."
DR. SNYDER stated that Alaska has a proven track record and a
progressive careful approach to hatchery development in state
waters, and he asked: "Why would we jeopardize this trajectory
and good work?" He said that Mr. Rabung just noted that the
current scheme restricts who can acquire permits to government
and agency actions, and he expressed that this is the way it
should be; allowing just any individual to establish a hatchery
would be counterintuitive to any reasonable fisheries management
program. He said that even with good oversight, it would set up
a slippery slope that would quickly slide away from science-
based management. He explained that HB 199 would depart from
Alaska's current strong policy and set up a scheme that mirrors
failures in the Pacific Northwest and the Lower 48. He
expressed that mistakes would be repeated, and this needs to be
stopped. He said that there is plenty of experience with fish
management and restoration in Alaska, and the focus should
remain on habitats, culverts, and restoration projects, not on
allowing individual Alaskans and small private operations to set
up hatchery programs at will, with little oversight and little
cost. He said this would cost the state much more in the long
run. He summarized that this is not the approach that should be
taken, and he urged the House Special Committee on Fisheries to
oppose HB 199 outright.
12:06:14 PM
DAN DUNAWAY testified in opposition to HB 199. He stated that
he is retired from ADF&G, where he worked as the area biologist
for Bristol Bay Sport Fisheries for approximately 22 years. He
said that he was in a class in Juneau recently and had heard
Representative Talerico extolling the virtues of HB 199, but he
thinks it is a poor idea. He expressed that he thinks the
proposed program is not really needed, except for in some of the
locations mentioned by Mr. Rabung previously. He expressed that
the potential for disease, disruption, genetic dilution, and
misuse are too high. He said that as noted by other testifiers,
ADF&G does not have the staff, funding, or time to monitor the
proposed program, and from his experience in Bristol Bay there
are far too many people willing to take matters into their own
hands without an understanding on the impacts of their projects.
He said that he thinks the state should operate within the rules
and guidelines ADF&G already has in place. He said that he was
unaware of some of the topics Mr. Rabung had mentioned and he
does think that is an excellent approach; however, he said that
he does not think that the "hatchery box idea" needs to move
forward.
12:07:49 PM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 199.
12:08:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS0169\M.2, Klein, 2/17/20, which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 6 - 7:
Delete "If the commissioner fails to act within
that period, the application is approved and the
department shall issue a permit."
Page 4, following line 19:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(j) The commissioner may modify, suspend, or
revoke a permit issued under this section for good
cause. If a permittee violates this section, a
regulation adopted under this section, or a condition
of a permit issued under this section, the
commissioner may, after providing the permittee notice
and a hearing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under
this section."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
12:08:23 PM
CHAIR STUTES objected to the motion, for the purpose of
discussion.
12:08:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that Amendment 1 would give the
commissioner of ADF&G more discretion and oversight in the
permitting process and proposes that, "If a permittee violates
this section, a regulation adopted under this section, or a
condition of a permit issued under this section, the
commissioner may, after providing the permittee notice and a
hearing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under this section."
She expressed that she thinks Amendment 1 would address many of
the concerns raised in public testimony regarding ADF&G
oversight on the proposed permitting process. She summarized
that Amendment 1 would give the commissioner the oversight to
ensure that permits issued under the proposed legislation would
be in line with what ADF&G is already doing regarding
rehabilitation projects.
12:09:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 12:09 p.m. to 12:10 p.m.
12:10:10 PM
CHAIR STUTES withdrew her objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
12:10:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Rabung whether the permit
application fee possibly being raised would inhibit "good
prospects" from applying for permits under the proposed
legislation.
12:11:31 PM
MR. RABUNG replied that he is certain that there are some good
prospects who might think otherwise, but his perspective is that
prospects are going to need to have the wherewithal to do the
project from start to finish, and setting the bar higher through
a fee to apply would probably get that point across. He
expressed that it might provide a hardship for well-meaning
people that would not have the means, but ADF&G would hope that
whoever applies for a permit under the proposed legislation
would have the means to follow through during all stages of a
project; therefore, that should not be a barrier for someone who
has those resources.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Rabung to clarify whether he
thinks HB 199, as amended, would create a program considered to
be at-will or low oversight into rehabilitation, as far as the
state's management is concerned.
MR. RABUNG replied that ADF&G is confident that no permit would
go through that it thinks could do any harm; he expressed that
"first do no harm" is the ADF&G's mantra. He explained that the
proposed permits would be scrutinized under the same rigorous
review process as any other permits currently processed by
ADF&G.
12:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that she has some faith in ADF&G to
have a high level of scrutiny in the permitting process, but
based on some of the comments from testifiers there might be an
opportunity to adjust the definition of the proposed
legislation, to narrow the field of who would qualify for the
permit. She expressed that it looks like most of the letters of
support were from tribal interest groups, and it seems to her
that it would be difficult to consider not allowing the people
who have lived on this land for 10,000 years to be more involved
in fisheries management. She asked whether language could be
provided in the proposed legislation to limit the permitting to
tribal and native corporations, in addition to government and
universities, and whether that would alleviate some of the
concerns for unqualified participants in the program. She asked
whether ADF&G expects any applicants beyond the tribal groups
who have already expressed interest in the proposed legislation.
MR. RABUNG replied that he thinks this would be a policy call,
and ADF&G would process permits for any applicant qualified
through the statute or regulations, regardless of who he/she is.
He said that if provisions were placed in the statute that gave
specific guidance, ADF&G would adhere to those provisions.
12:15:31 PM
CHAIR STUTES remarked that HB 199, as amended, would be more
thoroughly vetted in its next committee of referral, the House
Resources Standing Committee.
12:15:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to report HB 199, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 199(FSH) was
reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB199 Letter of Opposition- Adkison.pdf |
HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| John Wood Board Application_Redacted.pdf |
HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
|
| Marilyn Charles Board Application_Redacted.pdf |
HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
|
| 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 199 Letter of Opposition Dunaway 2.24.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Amendment #1 Rep. Vance.pdf |
HFSH 2/25/2020 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |