Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
01/26/2016 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 | |
| HB177 | |
| HB220 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 220-FISH ENHANCEMENT PERMITS
10:27:28 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 220, "An Act relating to fish; and establishing a
fisheries enhancement permit."
10:27:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 220, labeled 29-LS1039\N, Bullard,
1/21/16, as the working document. Without objection Version N
was before the committee.
10:28:40 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
10:28:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature,
described the scope of the interior district, which he serves,
and the important watersheds it includes, from Tanana east to
the Canadian border. Introducing the legislation, he
paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Fish have been one of the most valuable natural
resources for Alaskans to harvest for recreation,
business, and as a source of food. Most Alaskans want
to see sustainable fisheries in the State so that all
major user groups receive the benefits. Subsistence,
commercial, and sport fishers have worked hard through
the current fish management system to keep our
fisheries strong. This system however, focuses more on
how to maintain current fish levels instead of finding
ways to increase fish for all users.
House Bill 220 will create another tool that Alaskans
can use to increase fish populations through a
Fisheries Enhancement Permit. This permit will allow
Alaskan residents and organizations to increase
natural fish populations, introduce fish to new bodies
of water, and improve fish habitat for natural
populations. HB 220 lets individuals and organizations
to give back to Alaska and help ensure that future
generations can enjoy the bounteous blessing of
healthy natural fisheries.
HB 220 also contains effective controls in order to
ensure that projects approved under this bill do not
harm Alaskan fisheries. These include a prohibition of
projects using invasive species or nonindigenous fish
food sources, projects will only be allowed in areas
that have low or nonexistent fish populations, and a
requirement for applicants to reasonably communicate
with local stakeholders including native tribes,
governmental organizations, and other affected people.
House Bill 220 will benefit Alaskans by increasing
natural fish populations, increasing scientific
knowledge of our State's fisheries, and allowing
residents and local organizations to invest their own
time and money into sustaining our natural resources.
HB 220 will be one more tool that we can use to ensure
that all Alaskans, both today and in the future, can
participate and benefit from Alaska's natural fish
resources
10:33:32 AM
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative David Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, provided the sectional analysis to review the
changes proposed in Version N, paraphrasing from the committee
packet handout titled "Sectional Analysis - House Bill 220,"
which states [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 following subsections:
(a) Creates a new subsection for the activities that
are allowed under the new fisheries enhancement
permit:
(1) Remove fish from water, incubate or fertilize
eggs, and place eggs back in water
(2) Enhance habitat and augment nutrients in state
water
(3) Create a hatchery subject to AS 16.10.375-
16.10.480
(b) Creates a new subsection setting 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 and
any collaboration with local stakeholders
(4) Locations of water in which applicant will take
fish and place fish eggs or fish
(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, and watershed enhancement plan, if
applicable.
(8) Application fee of $100
MR. BANKS, in reviewing these initial changes, added that the
intent is to include language which allows enhancement for trout
and other species outside of the salmonid family. He also
clarified that the CS removes language from the original bill to
alleviate any confusion regarding the current statutes governing
hatchery permits.
10:38:10 AM
MR. BANKS continued paraphrasing:
(c) Creates a subsection requiring that the Department
of Fish & Game (DF&G) determine, before issuing a
permit, that the project:
(1) May restore or introduce 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 or absent due to a lack of
access to the body of water
(2) Will result in public benefits
(3) Will not introduce a nonindigenous fish species to
a body of water in violation 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
(5) If the project is consistent with the
constitutional and statutory requirements imposed on
the department
(6) If the project will increase scientific knowledge
and understanding of the natural resources affected by
the project
(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 new subsection to allow a permit that is
issued to be transferred to another qualified person
as defined by subsection (k).
(g) 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 60 days,
otherwise the application is automatically approved.
(h) Creates a new subsection setting requirements for
public notice and comment for a permit application.
DF&G will provide public notice of an application on
the department's website and by e-mail to individuals
who request notification within 15 days after the
department receives the application. A person may
submit public comment within 30 days after public
notice is given. DF&G will also provide public notice
of the approval or rejection of an application within
30 days after a determination is made.
10:42:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for clarification regarding the
transferability of the permit. Permit actions are managed under
the auspices of ADF&G, she noted, and asked whether appeals to
adjudication, regarding permit rulings, are also handled within
the department.
MR. BANKS responded that the bill does not include an appeal
process. The permit is a basic, self-contained document
designed for acceptance or rejection by authorities. If the
applicant fails to provide complete information, it would
constitute a cause for rejection; the applicant then has 30 days
to comply.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that any transfer would be to
a third party who would not have filed original paperwork with
the department. If denied, she conjectured, adjudication may be
pursued.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO assured the committee that the intent is
to have anyone receiving a permit, via transfer, be required to
file the same paperwork for review by ADF&G, as the original
permit holder.
10:48:40 AM
CHAIR STUTES read from the analysis, page 2 (e), "...reasonably
communicate..." to ask whether the bill defines the term.
MR. BANKS said yes, under subsection [(k)].
MR. BANKS continued to review the proposed timeline for
application review. He said the sponsor is still working with
the department on the timelines and is open to hearing arguments
for adjusting the number of days proposed in subsections (g) and
(h). He continued paraphrasing:
(i) Creates a new subsection to enact requirements of
a permittee to:
(1) Preserve natural fish feeding behavioral patterns
(2) If necessary, use supplemental nutrients derived
from indigenous sources in the state
10:52:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed concern for introducing
biological agents into waterways, citing a need for caution
regarding invasive species, and asked how the process will be
overseen.
MR. BANKS MR. BANKS said the intent is to have the process
reviewed by ADF&G to determine the viability and appropriateness
of any proposals. Also, the proposed CS places a 500,000 egg
limit on projects to restrict the size of any undertaking; the
intent being not to allow large scale operations of this nature.
10:54:50 AM
MR. BANKS said the term bucket biology has come to the fore,
referring to the indiscriminate introduction of species by
anyone with the financial means to obtain a permit. He pointed
out the proposed language to limit such activity, as he
continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis, subsection (i),
paragraph [3]:
(3) Implement controls to avoid the introduction of
nonindigenous pathogens or to increase indigenous
pathogens beyond acceptable levels
(j) Creates a new subsection requiring that
information provided under subsection (e) must be made
available on the department's website for at least six
months, unless it is confidential by law.
MR. BANKS explained that any scientific information garnered
will be available for use by ADF&G, not private entities.
Further, the enhanced fish resources are to benefit the public;
targeting these runs for commercial harvest is disallowed.
10:58:59 AM
MR. BANKS continued paraphrasing:
(k) 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,
a corporation organized under Alaska law, or a
corporation not organized under Alaska law that
collaborates with a resident or Alaskan corporation
(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
MR. BANKS interjected that the definitions for "person,"
"qualified person," and "reasonably communicate," have been
included to ensure local control and transparency, while taking
into consideration the limitations of Alaska's rural settings.
11:01:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned "reasonably communicate," as a
working definition, due to the subjectivity invoked.
CHAIR STUTES echoed similar concerns regarding the subjectivity
of the language.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT underscored the need to elaborate and
clarify the definition. She suggested soliciting assistance
from the drafting attorney to gain an understanding of the
proposed usage of the term.
11:04:23 AM
MR. BANKS finished the sectional analysis, paraphrasing Sec. 2,
which read:
Sec. 2 - AS 16.05.871
Creates a new section that requires the commissioner
of DF&G to consider a fisheries enhancement project
when determining if a project will provide sufficient
protections of fish and game resources from project
related damages.
11:05:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ directed attention to the expert letters
included in the packet, outlining the techniques for moist air
incubation. He asked about the level of usage for this type of
technology and any reports available showing success/failure
rates, or perhaps citing particular issues.
MR. BANKS deferred.
11:07:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned the need to consider the
importance of maintaining Alaska's commercial fisheries as
certifiably sustainable. Outside groups have requirements to
review and hold to strict guidelines for rating the Alaskan
products as sustainable, when working in conjunction with
enhancement/hatchery operations. He asked whether the
sustainability status has been applied to the proposed
legislation.
MR. BANKS deferred.
11:09:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed interest in enhancing fish
populations. She turned to the fiscal note to ask about the
mariculture positions being deleted from ADF&G. Predicting that
the bill would create a good program, she asked about the zero
fiscal note and what support the department might require in
order to absorb the legislative action.
MR. BANKS deferred.
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
11:12:03 AM
BRIAN ASHTON said hatchery efforts have had a positive effect on
harvest numbers, and helped in stabilizing the salmon industries
economy. However, wild runs require protection, and the concern
for preservation of wild runs has prompted him to study
methodologies that might be useful. He shared that, when the
federal government identifies a species of concern, it becomes a
listed fish. It's impossible not to harvest listed fish, in the
pursuit of the non-listed species. One option, being used in
the lower 48, is to intervene by incubating the eggs and feeding
the smolt, prior to releasing them in the wild. He conjectured
that this results in a form of domestication, which could be
avoided through more conservative measures. Directing attention
to the committee packet and the handout entitled, "Egg Survival
Rate Comparison," he pointed out how, from 5,000 King salmon
eggs, a survival rate of only 5 percent, or 250 fish, could be
expected; whereas, with assistance, the rate could be increased
to 95 percent, or 4,750 fish. Intervention might include:
physical interception in the stream, manual fertilization,
incubation, and same location release as early in the life cycle
as possible. He cited several areas, including tributaries of
the Stikine River, which no longer support wild runs do to
hatchery encroachment and deforestation. The department has
provided good management for fifty years; however, addressing
the decline among discreet subpopulations of fish presents a
problem. The public could be trained to handle the necessary
steps, as outlined in the bill. The proposed legislation allows
approval of an intermediary permit process for conservative
enhancement of specific subpopulations of fish. Strict genetic
controls would be adhered to, as developed by ADF&G, ensuring
healthy run management and protection. Through these measures,
if should the federal government should deem it necessary to
list any fish in Alaska, the department would be able to present
an existing plan, which the government would then monitor rather
than needing to intervene. Residents are an important factor in
ensuring healthy runs, and community involvement is necessary
along with appropriate education of the local stakeholders.
11:22:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for a definition/description of wild
salmon and how it differs from fish produced in the existing
hatcheries.
MR. ASHTON opined that a wild fish must survive in the wild
throughout its entire life cycle. He related the traditional
method that was once used, by the Natives, when, concerned with
escapement numbers, they collected and manually fertilized the
eggs. Buried in the gravel to hatch in protective cedar
baskets, this practice effectively enhanced the fish
populations. In keeping with his definition, he said a fish
that has been assisted to survive can still be considered wild.
11:26:14 AM
WILL MAYO, Executive Director, Tribal Government and Client
Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), stated support for HB
220, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I speak in favor of HB220.
Our member communities live first and foremost on a
subsistence economy. Many people augment their
livelihood with the cash economy, but living off the
land is the true source of their food security.
Historically, 60% of the diet is derived from salmon,
specifically King (Chinook) salmon. Chum salmon,
though numerous, are not of equal quality, and Silver
salmon have made up for some of the loss but the
traditional methods of processing is difficult due to
colder, wetter weather.
In recent years the Kings have declined alarmingly to
the point that our member communities have even self-
imposed a moratorium on harvesting Kings. This last
season our fishermen worked cooperatively with ADFG
in-season managers to take all necessary measures to
increase escapement, agreeing to stringent management
actions and limitations. The level of concern is
extremely high. The commitment to recovery is total
among our rural communities.
I spend many hours boating the Yukon River between my
ancestral territory around Tanana, Rampart, and
Stevens Village. I am a tribal member of Tanana and my
father is from Rampart where my family has a camp.
This last summer I traveled the river extensively with
my family and witnessed the unbelievable. Fish camps
sat empty for most of the season with no fish on the
drying racks and smokehouses unused. There were few
Kings to be had and camp activity was very minimal. It
is a sad sight compared to my childhood memories of
camp after camp full of activity with drying racks
full. A low level of camp activity occurred toward
fall-time with the arrival of the Silvers.
Under the direction of our tribes, TCC has been an
active participant with the fisheries management
systems. Our activities cover a wide spectrum of
efforts, including regulatory processes, close
interaction with state and federal managers, the
creation of the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission (YRITFC), participation in the Yukon River
Panel, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council,
training and advocacy, and scientific data collection
projects with our biologists and local fishermen.
One area that we want to develop capacity in is in
recovery and enhancement programs.
Everyone knows the great success of the Gulkana
Hatchery program. This program successfully provides a
personal use fishery in the Copper River drainage that
contributes to food security for a broad swath of
Alaskans all along the Alaska Highway system,
including Anchorage and Fairbanks. The Chitna dipnet
fishery is one opportunity many Alaskans participate
in annually.
We believe that there are also opportunities for the
enhancement and recovery of Yukon River stocks that
can be utilized along with the escapement model to
address specific sub-species.
There is an advance in recovery technology that show
promise for recovery efforts and with a track record
in Alaska, Washington and California. It holds great
potential promise for our interior discreet sub-
species fisheries. This technology could benefit our
remote communities similarly to what the Gulkana
program has done for the urban populations. We wish to
add this tool to our efforts, building skills and
capacity for a well-balanced approach to fishery
management. We want to do so with full cooperation and
oversight by the ADFG through an expanded permitting
system spelled out in this proposed measure.
This bill provides structure to the states' permitting
system that is fair to everyone, allowing proposals to
move forward while providing assurance that sound
scientific processes are preserved.
We are not talking about hatcheries because we don't
want that. We are only interested in the recovery of
wild stocks through with as minimal intervention as
possible, to preserve the wild nature of our resource.
Over the years, we have seen different discreet sub-
species drop in returns to the point of cutting off
important fisheries such as the crash of the Fall Chum
runs in the 90's and now the Kings. We want to be
effective partners in recovery efforts, working hand
in hand with state managers to develop tools that
work.
In these times of financial challenge, it makes good
sense to work together utilizing affordable technology
breakthroughs that can be scientifically applied under
stringent controls and sound biology to aid in
recovery efforts.
HB220 is a big step in the direction of sound
scientific practices, applied to discreet sub-species
recovery efforts. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
11:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT agreed with the sentiments expressed by
the witness and with the importance for the legislation. She
asked if TCC shares any concern for how the stock will be fed,
during the rearing process. The fewer human hands touch a
stock, the better, she opined, and stressed the importance of
preserving the wild status of the return.
MR. MAYO said feeding would not occur, as the effort is for the
smolt to emerge into a natural habitat. Any process undertaken
would be noninvasive and the fry would make their way to the
sea, with minimal intervention. Ancient Tlingit methodologies
would be considered and adopted for modern implementation.
11:45:58 AM
SARAH O'NEAL, Biologist, University of Washington, stated
opposition to HB 220 and reported having worked extensively in
the Pacific Northwest, while pursuing a doctorate degree. She
said that maintaining the high standards of commercial fishing
management, already in place, and not creating additional
hatcheries, would be the best means for success. The history of
hatcheries in the lower 48 states, has shown that the
enhancement expected eventually becomes a liability and a
detriment to the wild stocks. The hatcheries are primarily an
unsuccessful attempt to satisfy existing treaty obligations.
She reported that hatcheries systematically fail and impact
natural runs negatively, for numerous reasons including:
increase of introduced disease, competition for food in fresh
and salt water, increase in predatory animals, over harvest of
wild stocks with the hatchery catch, and gene pool dilution of
wild and hatchery stock. The interbreeding result is a school
of fish that are not as hardy and do not possess the same
instinctive return and survival skills. Increasing hatchery
production is not helpful, she stressed.
11:50:24 AM
LINDSEY BLOOM stated concern for the proposed legislation and
concurred with the concerns of the previous witness.
Additionally, she said, what occurs in the tributary stream, to
assist the smolt, may not support the ocean phase of the salmon.
Also, parameters for the maximum number of small enhancement
projects in a given watershed system is not included in the
bill. Finally, the application process may become unmanageable,
she said, and offered to provide other concerns in writing.
11:53:46 AM
ALEXUS KWACHKA stated absolute opposition to HB 220, without
elaboration.
11:54:18 AM
CHRIS BERNS suggested that areas could form regional aquaculture
associations (RAAs) to address the situation. The bill is not
well fleshed out, he opined, such as enhancement details. He
conjectured whether enhancement might mean removal of beaver
dams, or other such actions. Neither is funding addressed, he
pointed out. Regional aquaculture associations have access to
funds for start-up projects, and individuals should not be
issued permits, only associations, he opined. The bill appears
to be trying to reinvent the wheel.
11:57:52 AM
JOEL RANDRUP, Commercial Fisherman, stated opposition to HB 220,
and opined that fish management should remain within the purview
of ADF&G. The bill presents additional burdens to the
department, at a time of budget cuts. If there is a problem
that needs to be addressed, appropriate resources should be
allocated to the department, he said.
11:59:47 AM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Owner, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, commented
that the bill appears to be well intentioned, but cautioned on
opening the door to this type of enhancement. She opined that
the action could result in fish wars beyond comprehension.
Although it can seem good to add fish to a system, she said it
can also be devastating to the existing populations. Further,
she suggested that maintaining self-sustaining habitats would be
a better focus. The factory pink and chum salmon hatcheries,
already operating, may be a contributing factor to the low
numbers in the various wild stocks. The American Fisheries
Society, during its 2015 symposium, spoke on the topic "Hatchery
Versus Wild Salmonids," and in the opening statement indicated
that one of the most controversial and hot topics in fisheries
biology today is the interaction between hatchery and wild
salmon. She paraphrased from a statement, which read:
To address and better understand these interactions,
fisheries managers and researchers are re-evaluating
how hatchery programs are managed; if these programs
may be contributing to the decline of wild
populations. Further, as the relationship becomes
better understood, there is a growing need to inform
policy makers, resource managers, recreational,
tribal, and commercial fishing communities and the
general public, on the importance of wild populations.
They prescribe understanding the limitation of
hatchery origin fish and stocking programs. They
emphasize that maintaining healthy habitat is
critical, not only to maintaining viable self-
sustaining natural populations, but also to adequately
controlling [sic] the risks of hatchery programs.
MS. HILLSTRAND stressed the need to review literature compiled,
during the last 10 years, regarding this topic, adding that a
bill, such as HB 220, would serve to open another door that may
further damage wild stocks. Finally, the funding for monitoring
this type of program could result in huge costs, and she
suggested reviewing the fiscal requirements. She stated that
she is against this bill.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
[HB 220 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 220 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Sectional.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Ver E.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Testimony List.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 177 Sponsor.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 ver A.PDF |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Research salmon stamps.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Research alaska duck stamps ebay.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 220 - Fiscal Note DFG.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support - Tanana Chiefs Conference.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 177 Fiscal Note DFG.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 220 - Ver N (CS).pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Summary of Changes (Ver E to N).pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support Bellingham Tech College use of Moist Air Incubators.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support Egg Survival Rate Comparison.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support Fish Enhancement Terminology.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support Monterey Bay MAI Endorsement.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support Will Mayo Testimony.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support Olsen.PDF |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Oppose Adkison.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 - Support Velsko.pdf |
HFSH 1/26/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |