Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
02/26/2026 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 | |
| HB304 | |
| HB253 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 253-FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT LOAN PROGRAM
10:32:23 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 253, "An Act relating to the fisheries
enhancement loan program; and providing for an effective date."
10:32:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JEREMY BYNUM, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 253 to the House Special Committee on
Fisheries. He noted that HB 253 pertains to the Fisheries
Enhancement Loan Program and it has long played a vital role in
sustaining commercial, sport, and subsistence related fisheries
in Alaska by providing critical access to capital. He noted
that this capital supports infrastructure improvements that
strengthen both fish stocks and coastal economies. He explained
that under current law, loan eligibility is limited to qualified
regional associations and approved nonprofit corporations. He
said that HB 253 would extend eligibility to include federally
recognized tribal organizations that operate fish hatcheries.
He said that the proposed legislation would make a few
conforming changes to the authority of the commissioner to
include the eligibility for tribal organizations and maintain
the existing loan caps. He noted that by incorporating
federally recognized tribal organizations in the Fisheries
Enhancement Loan Program, it would strengthen collaboration and
reinforce the long-term sustainability of fisheries in Alaska.
10:35:42 AM
TREVOR SHAW, Staff, Representative Jeremy Bynum, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of prime sponsor, Representative Jeremy
Bynum, gave an overview of the Fisheries Enhancement Loan
Program and read the sectional analysis to HB 253. He explained
that the program was established in 1976 and prior to 1981,
loans were presold to the Department of Revenue for funding. He
said that in 1981, the fisheries revolving loan fund became an
official fund. He said that loans are available for planning,
construction, and operations of a fish hatchery facility. He
said that loans can also support pre-construction operations
necessary to obtain a permit. He explained that the maximum
loan amount is $10 million with a maximum loan term of 30 years;
the first 6-10 years of the loan do not accrue interest. Noted
that in recent fiscal years (FYs), from FY21 to FY25 there was a
total of $22,108,000 in loans issued He said that in FY21, the
fund was the largest of the five years with loan totals at $10.8
million and FY22 was the smallest with only $1.6 million in
loans issued. He said that of the 13 loans over the last fiscal
years, the average amount was $1.7 million dollars.
MR. SHAW noted that HB 253 would amend AS 16.10.500 which
relates to the declaration of policy for the Fisheries
Enhancement Loan Program.
MR. SHAW proceeded to read the sectional analysis to HB 253
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. Amends AS 16.10.500 relating to the
declaration of policy for the fisheries enhancement
loan program. This section updates and clarifies the
state's policy governing the fisheries enhancement
loan program. The section expands loan eligibility to
include federally recognized tribal organizations that
operate fish hatcheries on an Indian reservation or
under a federal permit, in addition to qualified
regional associations.
Section 2. Amends AS 16.10.510 relating to the powers
and duties of the commissioner. This section updates
the commissioner's authority under the fisheries
enhancement loan program to explicitly include
eligible tribal organizations alongside qualified
regional associations and approved local nonprofit
corporations. Conforming changes ensure tribal
organizations are treated consistently throughout the
statute, while retaining existing provisions.
Section 3. Amends AS 16.10.520(a) relating to loan
limits. This section updates the loan limit provisions
of the fisheries enhancement loan program to reflect
the inclusion of eligible tribal organizations as
borrowers. The section further clarifies that loans
for other nonprofit hatchery corporation or tribal
organization projects remain capped at $1,000,000.
Section 4. Establishes an effective date of July 1,
2026.
10:38:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BYNUM thanked the committee, staff, and
department for addressing some of the prior concerns with the
bill and the opportunity to collaborate on it. He said that
there were initial concerns bringing the idea forward but noted
that work has been done to address some of the concerns.
Specifically, one concern had to do with loans issued to tribal
organizations that there may not be a requirement that they
would participate in fish tracking requirements like others. He
said that working with his districts communities and after
consultation, they are willing and wanting to work alongside
other industry partners. He said that there would be a
committee substitute (CS) that would address this concern in
law. He noted that another concern was collateral on a loan.
He noted that legislative legal services and others were
consulted and there were already guardrails in place.
10:41:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP believed there may have been litigation
between the Metlakatla Tribe and the State of Alaska (SOA) that
went to federal court. He said that this pertained to
jurisdiction of fisheries and the waters off the reservation,
and whether fish stocks were tribal or were publicly accessible
state fish. He said that he was unsure of the outcome of the
court case. He wanted to ensure that using state money for a
tribal hatchery operation would allow the public to access those
fish stocks in state waters. He noted that there was
significant litigation in the courts regarding this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BYNUM responded that he did not believe that this
issue was specifically related to the proposed bill, but he
would follow up with the committee. He understood that there is
a permitting program with the tribe that allows fishing
accessibility.
10:44:17 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Department of Fish & Game,
answered committee questions pertaining to HB 253. Commented
that there is an ongoing lawsuit with the Metlakatla Tribe
centered around whether the tribe has traditional fishing rights
outside of their reservation. He noted that they were asking to
fish a few districts around the reserve without needing a
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permit. He said
that the litigation was heard once at a Federal District Court
and was elevated to an Appellate Court with later return to a
District Court where the case continues deliberations. He said
that his understanding with the proposed bill is that if the
tribe received state money, the fish would become common
property resources outside of the reservation. Furthermore, any
funds used to produce fish would be done under the state
permitting system. He said that the state needs to ascertain
how many fish go out and what the composition would be, as this
ties into treaty agreements. He noted that certain procedures
would need to be followed.
10:45:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked how far from the shoreline does the
reservation go into navigable waters.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he read the lawsuit
about two weeks ago and he could not recall. He thought it was
around one or two miles.
10:46:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that the memo talks about not
being able to collateralize unless tribal immunity is waived,
she asked whether this was addressed in the proposed bill.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that initially it was thought that
the bill needed an amendment to address this issue. However, he
said that there is no amendment necessary to ensure that this
legal requirement occurs. He said that the memo points directly
to statute with what requirements are in place for the loan.
The memo also highlights specific information on the Metlakatla
requirements when accepting a loan regarding immunity.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether this could be done in
regulation rather than being a part of the proposed regulation.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that this is correct.
10:48:07 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the committee would hear invited
testimony.
10:48:28 AM
ALBERT SMITH, Mayor, answered questions and gave invited
testimony in support of HB 253. He asked whether there were
questions in which he could answer.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Mr. Smith how far from the shoreline
the reservation extends and how it pertains to tribal control of
the fisheries.
MR. SMITH noted that the reservation had its own Metlakatla
Indian Community Fish & Wildlife Department and it was a
hardworking and outstanding group. He said that the reserve
shares a lot of their information with the state, including
tagging reports and marking fish. He said that the community
currently has 25 million chum salmon fry that are 100 percent
marked.
MR. SMITH responded that tribal waters extend 3000 feet from the
low water mark, which equates to just over a half mile.
10:50:47 AM
MR. SMITH proceeded with his invited testimony and noted that he
was excited about the proposed bill. He said that it is
something that the tribe has been working on for some time. He
said that four years ago the tribe worked with Jim Anderson and
details had been "ironed out" regarding collateral, payments,
and other mechanisms. He said that the tribal hatchery was
built around the same timeframe that the loan program had
started and currently much of the hatchery infrastructure on the
reservation is aging. He noted that Metlakatla was part of the
only reserve in Alaska and contained a federally recognized
fishery and hatchery. He said that in the last ten years, the
tribe has worked on modernizing and expanding. He understood
that the fish that get released migrate like all salmon. He
said that what is good for Metlakatla is good for the region,
and what is good for the region is good for the state. He
understood that many coho salmon that originate from Metlakatla
are caught in coastal waters, including near Sitka before they
return inland. He said that the tribe is all for being good
partners to the region and would love to Southeast and the rest
of Alaska thrive. He said that the proposed bill could help
with this.
MR. SMITH had also noted that he heard Commissioner Vincent-Lang
discussed needing a hatchery permit. He said that the bill to
his knowledge would help with this process. He said that this
was a hangup with previous discussions. He said that Metlakatla
is a federally recognized and sovereign nation. He noted that
Metlakatla was currently doing coded wire tags for Chinook, and
coho at the same level as the state. He noted that chum salmon
were marked slightly differently than other salmon varieties and
was done by changing water temperatures to create otolith marks.
He said that the bottom line is that in the last years, the
tribe has appropriately marked fish and follows the same
regulations as the state. He said that the tribe also
participates in the Pacific Salmon Treaty meetings and were
following Chinook salmon procedures.
10:56:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether other tribes in Southeast
Alaska support the proposed legislation.
MR. SMITH responded that he recommends that she check with the
other tribes since he cannot speak for them and has not asked.
10:57:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BYNUM said that his office did some research and
outreach with other tribes and he has not received any negative
feedback regarding the proposed legislation. He noted that he
would continue outreach efforts and share any insights with the
committee.
10:57:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for clarification regarding a sponsor
substitute or any changes to the proposed bill.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that there would be a change made
to specifically address bill language to align with requirements
for marking fish and ensuring compliance. He said that the
current bill currently does not have this conforming language.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that the bill looks prescriptive to
Metlakatla, she asked what potential is for other federally
recognized tribes. She asked why it was prescriptive rather
than permissive.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that the bill should be
identifying an Indian reservation and/or a Federally Recognized
Tribe.
10:59:30 AM
MR. SHAW added that the wording in the bill talks about an
Indian reservation or operating with a federal permit. He said
that any additional tribal organizations in the future that
obtain a federal or state permit. He said that a future
Committee Substitute could provide a provision that any tribal
organization could meet criteria for an Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) under state statute. He said that the bill
was written this way because there are provisions in federal law
that allow Metlakatla to operate their own hatchery without even
technically needing a federal permit. He said that the proposed
bill was written to be broad.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that this is about the loan program,
and she knows that with it being a tribe, they can access loans
that other Alaska organizations cannot since they are a
federally recognized tribe. She asked if he could describe the
need for why the bill was brought forward.
11:01:35 AM
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that the proposed bill was brought
forward was so that it could be ensured that the Metlakatla
Indian Community has the same equal access that other Alaskans
have.
11:02:36 AM
CHAIR STUTES noted that an amendment deadline would be set once
a Committee Substitute was heard.
11:02:57 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
11:03:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed invited testimony to HB 253.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 304.Ver I Sponsor Statement.2.13.26.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
|
| HB304 Ver I.2.13.26.pdf |
HFSH 2/19/2026 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB304 Ver I Sectional Analysis.2.13.26.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB304 Ver I.Supporting Docs Jan 2026 FG Closures.2.13.26.pdf |
HFSH 2/19/2026 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB304 Ver I. 2007 Economic_impacts_of_fishing Report.2.13.26.pdf |
HFSH 2/19/2026 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB 304 ver I FN DF&G.pdf |
HFSH 2/19/2026 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB 304 ver. I letter of opposition.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB 304 HFSH CS ver. G.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB 304 Explanation of Changes ver. I to ver. G.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB 304 Support State of Alaska 2025 License and Tags Issued 1.22.26.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 304 |
| HB 253 Sponsor Statement - Version N 02.20.2026 (1).pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 253 |
| HB 253 Bill ver. N (2).pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 253 |
| HB 253 Sectional Analysis - Version N 02.20.2026 (3).pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 253 |
| HB 253 FN DCCED 2.20.26 (4).pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 253 |
| HB 253 FN DF&G 2.20.26 (5).pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM |
HB 253 |
| HB 253 Version N Legal Memo on Collateralization 02.24.2026.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2026 10:00:00 AM HFSH 3/3/2026 10:30:00 AM |
HB 253 |