Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/13/2021 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 | |
| HCR2 | |
| HB162 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 13, 2021
10:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Supporting the Alaska Ocean Cluster in its mission, efforts, and
vision for a vibrant coastal economy in the state, its promotion
of a diversified and resilient state economy that creates value
from ocean resources, and its building of a statewide integrated
ecosystem of innovation and entrepreneurship relating to the
state's ocean economy.
- MOVED HCR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a fisheries
rehabilitation permit."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 2
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING ALASKA OCEAN CLUSTER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STUTES
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) FSH, RES
04/08/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/08/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/13/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: FISHERIES REHABILITATION PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
04/05/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/21 (H) FSH, RES
04/13/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA PERMAN, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HCR 2, answered a
question on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 162.
TRYSTIN LUHR, Intern
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 162 on behalf of
Representative Tuck, prime sponsor.
SAM RABUNG, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 162, answered
questions and provided information.
CHARLES PARKER
Alaska Village Initiatives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
162.
EMILY ANDERSON, Alaska Program Director
Wild Salmon Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 162.
CATHERINE BURSCH
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 162, expressed her
concern about hatcheries.
TOM HARRIS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 162.
BRIAN ASHTON
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 162, provided
information at the sponsor's request.
JOSH VERHAGEN, Mayor
City of Nenana
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 162.
JESSICA WINNESTAFFER, Staff
Chickaloon Village Traditional Council
Moose Creek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 162.
PENELOPE HAAS
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 162.
LOUIE FLORA, Government Affairs Director
The Alaska Center
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 162, urged that
the bill have more emphasis on habitat restoration.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:04:30 AM
CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Special Committee on Fisheries
meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Representatives McCabe, Vance,
Story, Kreiss-Tomkins, Ortiz, and Tarr were present at the call
to order. Representative Stutes arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HCR 2-SUPPORTING ALASKA OCEAN CLUSTER
10:05:42 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Supporting the Alaska Ocean
Cluster in its mission, efforts, and vision for a vibrant
coastal economy in the state, its promotion of a diversified and
resilient state economy that creates value from ocean resources,
and its building of a statewide integrated ecosystem of
innovation and entrepreneurship relating to the state's ocean
economy.
CHAIR TARR requested Ms. Sara Perman share the discussion that
was had with Legislative Legal Services regarding the
committee's question from the resolution's previous hearing on
whether this should be a joint or concurrent resolution.
10:06:09 AM
SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, on behalf of
Representative Stutes, prime sponsor, explained that a joint
resolution is usually reserved for addresses outside the state
and is used mainly to express the view or wish of the
legislature to the President, Congress, or agencies of the U.S.
government, whereas a concurrent resolution reflects the will,
wish, or view of the bodies and is usually for internal state
policies. In speaking with the Alaska Ocean Cluster (AOC)
itself, she related, this resolution is not intended to directly
go to the Alaska Congressional Delegation, but rather to be a
tool that AOC could display to the delegation or other parts of
the administration showing that AOC has legislative support.
Therefore, she continued, AOC has not asked for a joint
resolution in this case. She further related that Megan Law
(ph) has agreed that because this is the internal will of the
body, it would be a concurrent resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS thanked Ms. Perman for her
research and said it is helpful to have this clarity.
10:08:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ moved to report HCR 2 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero] fiscal
note. There being no objection, HCR 2 was reported out of the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
10:08:40 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:08 a.m. to 10:10 a.m.
HB 162-FISHERIES REHABILITATION PERMITS
10:10:27 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to certain fish; and
establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit."
10:10:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 162. He deferred to his intern, Trystin
Luhr, to present the bill.
10:11:23 AM
TRYSTIN LUHR, Intern, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 162 on behalf of Representative Tuck,
prime sponsor. He explained that HB 162 is a restoration and
rehabilitation bill which would enable the private sector,
including environmental nonprofits and Alaska Native
corporations, to apply for permits. The permits would be vetted
through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). A
processing fee of $100 would be charged, and any other fees for
prior work or following the permitting process would fall to the
applicant. There are existing similar permits, particularly the
aquatic resource permit (ARP), as well as multiple existing
programs. Two of those are the Chickaloon Tribe Moose Creek
Project and the Buskin River Works Project. The Buskin River
Works Project is similar to what HB 162 proposes, primarily the
fish stock rehabilitation and restoration as well as the
environmental enhancement, particularly the removal of culverts
to better enhance fish survival rates.
MR. LUHR said HB 162 is important culturally, economically, and
environmentally. Culturally, everyone in Alaska talks about
fish, even in landlocked areas. Economically, it is important
to resupply fish stocks where they are taken out, which plays
into the environmental factor. These tools should be used to
leave Alaska's waterways better than they were found. Alaska
has a long history dating back to the late 1970s when ADF&G
successfully planted over 2 million sockeye eggs in the upper
Karluk River, historically the second largest sockeye run in the
world, to restore depleted runs to the pre-1921 population
levels. It is better to have this and not need it, he said in
conclusion, than to need it and not have it.
10:14:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ inquired about whether the bill, if passed,
would all be in the name of trying to enhance existing stocks
through a variety of methods, or whether there would be a set
general area where these projects could have some similarities
to them.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that it would be on a case-by-case
situation because the permit would have to be applied for and
approved by ADF&G and then ultimately approved by the [ADF&G]
commissioner. A study would have to be done beforehand to
determine what the proper stock levels should be for a
particular wild species and then a game plan put together on how
to replenish or rehabilitate those stocks. There would be
criteria [in the permitting process] that ADF&G and the
commissioner would have to follow.
10:16:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ noted the term "wild species" and asked
whether these enhancement projects would be conducted within the
water system itself as opposed to a hatchery format.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that it would be a "moist air
incubation process" - before the eggs become fry they are re-
introduced back into their natural habitat; it is making sure
that there is fertilization success. The warmer temperatures in
Alaska's waters make it more difficult for the first incubation
stages to survive, so this would control the environment to make
sure that the eggs are fertilized and then re-introduced into
their natural habitat.
10:17:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated she is interested in learning about
the moist air incubation process. She asked why the bill is
needed when the department says it already has a process for
doing this. She further asked how many projects are currently
ongoing and using this process.
MR. LUHR answered that the current ARP program is exclusive to
government and university entities. The bill would open it to
more people. He deferred to ADF&G to answer the question in
further detail.
10:18:51 AM
SAM RABUNG, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), responded that the only
entities qualified for the propagative permits under the aquatic
resource permit regulation are accredited institutes of higher
education or cooperative governmental projects. Regarding how
many, he said there is generally very few, he has never seen
more than five at a time, and they are very limited in scope.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her understanding that the bill is
needed to expand it and make it available to other groups that
are not a part of these two limited groups.
10:19:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that he had a hesitant
orientation toward the bill during its previous rounds but is
excited for the renewed conversation. He asked whether ADF&G
has a position on HB 162.
MR. RABUNG replied that he has not inquired as to whether ADF&G
has a position, but in previous administrations ADF&G was
neutral. Noting that several people have referred to [HB 162]
as enhancement, he clarified that enhancement and rehabilitation
are defined terms and HB 162 would specifically not allow for
enhancement, rather it would be rehabilitation. He explained
that enhancement means producing augmented or supplemental
production of a stock above what nature can produce on its own
and continuing that. The purpose of enhancement is to create a
harvestable surplus or additional harvestable surplus, and if
the activity is stopped it drops backs down to its normal
production. A rehabilitation project, he continued, assists a
depressed stock in getting back to its natural level of
production and then the assistance is stopped. Under ADF&G's
genetics policy, rehabilitation projects are limited to not more
than one generation through the process; so, a chum salmon
project would be done after five years and for most stocks it
would be done after four years.
10:22:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she is excited to see the bill again
because of its potential for rehabilitation. She observed that
Section 1 talks about the rehabilitation of freshwater finfish
and eggs. She noted that the razor clams in Ninilchik were once
[plentiful] but are now in need of rehabilitation. She asked
whether a mechanism is already in place to assist in
rehabilitation of shellfish or whether there is a need to
include something specifically for shellfish in this bill.
MR. RABUNG confirmed that Section 1 limits it to anadromous or
freshwater finfish, so it would not apply to razor claims. He
advised that if the language were changed to just say "fish"
then it would apply to all species of fish, which are broadly
defined.
10:23:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked that making such a change could
have a lot of impacts and the legislature may not want to open
it so broadly. She requested Mr. Rabung's opinion given this
would be under ADF&G's oversight. She further asked whether the
commissioner, because it is under the commissioner's direction,
would be able to determine what is and is not appropriate should
the legislature open it that broadly or whether the legislature
should keep the [current] defined language.
MR. RABUNG responded that currently ADF&G can permit the razor
clam restoration work through the aquatic resource permit; it
must be done by a different qualified user. So, a cooperative
governmental project could mean a cooperative agreement with
ADF&G to have a private entity do the work and that would
qualify it. A tribal organization, a tribal government, counts
as a governmental project. So, the ability to do that work is
there now, but it isn't available to every resident of the
state, as HB 162 would make it.
10:25:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the application fee of $100
would be sufficient for the work that would be required within
the department.
MR. RABUNG answered that it is probably a token amount. The
processing and a permit for this would entail having a review by
ADF&G's geneticists, pathologists, a management biologist, and a
research biologist, as well as going through the commissioner's
office chain of command for approval. To put it in context, he
noted that the aquatic resource permit has no fee.
10:26:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE offered his understanding that some of the
genetically modified hatchery fish can take over the habitat and
possibly prevent the natural fish from returning to their
habitat. He further offered his understanding that under HB 162
these fish would not be genetically modified because they would
fall under that one generation clause in the regulations.
MR. RABUNG replied that genetically modified organisms are
illegal in Alaska, no genetically modified organisms are
produced or released in Alaska. He said he therefore he doesn't
follow the question.
10:27:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that the fish released in Diamond
Lake where he lives are different, so perhaps genetically
modified is the wrong term.
MR. RABUNG suggested that Representative McCabe may be referring
to what are called "triploids," which is where a thermal shock
is employed during the egg development stage so that they become
sterile, but they are not genetically modified. He pointed out
that using triploids or sterile organisms for this project would
defeat the purpose because then they could not reproduce and
there would be no rehabilitation, and the idea is for when there
is a depressed stock for whatever reason.
MR. RABUNG described the Buskin Project as an example, which was
done by the Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak through an aquatic resource
permit. Perched culverts that had barred coho from reaching
their spawning grounds for generations were removed and the
streams the coho would have to travel through to get to spawning
grounds were reconditioned. Eggs were taken from the Buskin
Lake stock which had not been using those spawning grounds but
were using other. The eggs were incubated and then the eyed
eggs were put above where the repaired habitat was; the
resulting returns from those fry came back to those areas to
spawn. The same stock was used, the stock wasn't manipulated,
the project just brought the stock productivity back to what it
was before the habitat was damaged.
MR. RABUNG said another example is propagative research. He
related that the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation
(NSEDC) in Nome reconditioned tributary streams to several
mainstem streams that had been impacted by placer mining. The
gravel was reconditioned by cleaning it, breaking up the
compaction, and removing the silt. Eggs were then taken from
mainstem spawners of those rivers, incubated to the eyed stage,
and then replanted into the reconditioned gravel. When those
fish came back as adults, they used those areas. The idea
behind this project is to recondition areas that have been
damaged and help those stocks recover to what they can naturally
produce.
10:30:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated he is a fan. He surmised that the
reintroduction of salmon into Eklutna would be the same sort of
deal. He asked whether candidates for this would be the two
lakes in Chignik.
MR. RABUNG answered that the spawning escapement goals for
Chignik are in the hundreds of thousands. He pointed out that
the scale of the proposal in HB 162 is limited to 500,000 eggs,
which in salmon terms is miniscule when just 2 percent of those
are expected to survive to adulthood, so it probably wouldn't
make an impact in a place like Chignik. Rather, it is more
appropriate for very small-scale reintroduction near communities
and villages that have had road activity. The bill limits it to
very small-scale projects.
10:31:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK paraphrased from pages 1-2 of the written
sectional analysis provided in the committee packet, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided, with some formatting
changes]:
Section 1 Creates a new section in AS 16.05 to
create a fisheries rehabilitation 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
rehabilitation permit: (1) Remove fish from water,
collect gametes and milt, fertilize and incubate eggs,
and place fertilized eggs or un-fed fry back in the
same water (2) Enhance habitat in state water for
survival of the fish.
(b) Creates a new subsection that prescribes an
application form created by the department that states
what type of information must be on the application to
obtain a fisheries rehabilitation permit. This
information includes: 1) The applicant's name (2)
Reasoning and feasibility of the proposed project 3)
Documentation of conditions justifying the project,
any collaboration with local stakeholders, and any
other permits required for the project 4) Locations of
water in which applicant will take fish and place
fertilized eggs or unfed fry; 5) Species and number of
fish taken from water 6) Applicant's management plan
for propagation or repopulation in permitted water 7)
Applicant's goals, schedule, scope of work, budget,
means of data collection, plan for genetics
management, plans for project evaluation, and
watershed habitat rehabilitation plan, if applicable
8) Application fee of $100.
(c) Creates a subsection allowing the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) Commissioner to
issue a permit after determining if a project: (1) May
restore a fish population in a body of water where
subsistence and escapement goals have not been met,
where there are no established escapement goals and
local stakeholders have identified a decline in fish
populations, or the species of fish is limited (2)
Will result in public benefits (3) Will not harm
indigenous wild fish stocks (4) Will not place
fertilized eggs or un-fed fry into a body of water if
there are enough fish for natural propagation of the
species to occur (5) Will not introduce live
fertilized eggs, larvae, or fry of nonindigenous fish
in violations of AS 16.35.210.
(d) Creates a subsection regarding factors that
the commissioner of ADF&G shall consider when
determining if a permit will be issued, including: (1)
The department's assessment of the project (2) The
capabilities of the applicant (3) The degree of
communication that exists between the applicant and
individuals affected by the project (4) Comments
relating to the project, including those by a regional
planning team established under AS 16.10.375. (5) If
the project is consistent with the comprehensive
salmon plan and constitutional and statutory
requirements imposed on the department for the area
(6) If the project will increase scientific knowledge
and understanding of the natural resources affected by
the project.
(e) Creates a new subsection requiring a
permittee: (1) to collect and provide project data and
reports requested by the department. (2) To reasonably
communicate with individuals affected by the project.
(f) Creates a subsection which sets the timeline
for when ADF&G must act on a permit application.
Within 15 days, the department must notify an
applicant whether their application is complete and
can reject an incomplete application if it is not
complete within 30 days of the notification. After the
notification, ADF&G must approve or reject the
application with 90 days, otherwise the application is
automatically approved.
(g) Creates a new subsection to enact
requirements of a permittee to: (1) Collect no more
than 500,000 eggs for fertilization. (2) Implement
controls to avoid the introduction of nonindigenous
pathogens or to increase indigenous pathogens beyond
acceptable levels.
10:36:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired as to the origin of the figure of
500,000 eggs.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that it was from consultation with
ADF&G. He deferred to Mr. Rabung to respond further.
MR. RABUNG explained that the 500,000 limit was the limit in the
aquatic resource permit policy prior to it becoming a
regulation, so the department just kept it consistent.
10:37:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned why it was not situational
depending on the stream and what is trying to be done. For
example, he said, there might be a fishery with a bigger
habitat. He asked how long the 500,000 number has been in
ADF&G's books and whether it has been reconsidered.
MR. RABUNG answered that 500,000 eggs is a pretty low number in
salmon terms. However, he explained, to go much lower than
that, depending on the species, would require violating ADF&G's
genetics policy which has a minimum effective population number
a minimum number of adults must be used to not create a
genetic bottleneck called a "founder effect." The intention is
to maintain the genetic diversity of the stock, and that limits
how small the number can go. The other side is limiting the
upper end of it. If it becomes large and the if the desire is
for large, then there is another avenue which is the private
nonprofit hatchery permit. He said HB 162 is intended to be
small-scale localized, and ADF&G is more comfortable with the
smaller number given that to qualify for one of these the
applicant just has to be a resident.
10:39:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE observed that HB 162 overall allows a
qualified person, which is defined on page 4 of the bill, lines
28-29, as "a state resident under AS 43.23.295 or a corporation
organized under laws of this state". She asked whether there
are other areas under ADF&G like this or whether this is a first
that a qualified individual would be able to take on a project
of this sort.
MR. RABUNG replied that currently there are only two permit
avenues available to propagate finfish in Alaska. One is the
private nonprofit hatchery permit which is a big deal and there
are very few of those. They are intended for professionals with
a background in fish culture, they are not for just anybody or
amateurs. The second avenue is the aquatic resource permit,
which is limited to research and educational objectives and for
propagative research, which these fall under. The qualified
individuals are institutes of higher education and cooperative
governmental projects, so those are also limited to people who
will generally know what they are doing. He said HB 162 opens
it up to anybody who is a resident and that is the biggest
difference. There are no other avenues for finfish in Alaska
other than the two existing permits and this proposal would
allow something that is kind of in between but still maintains a
small scale. The aquatic resource permits can be used by tribal
governments because they are a governmental entity. The
department has entered into cooperative agreements with other
entities that weren't governmental entities, such as NSEDC, to
allow them to do that work because it is of interest to ADF&G to
try to restore runs. The department used to have an entire
division devoted to this kind of work, the Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Development Division (FRED
Division), which went away in the mid-1990s and was absorbed by
the Division of Commercial Fisheries. [The Division of
Commercial Fisheries] no longer does that kind of work, but
still oversee it and permits it.
10:42:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired whether there are any similar
qualified persons on the game side.
MR. RABUNG responded that he is not aware of any, although
something that comes to mind is "moose mamas."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she is trying to get an idea of the
impact that this could have with allowing anyone to undertake
this. She said she likes the idea but sees why there is
reservation from a lot of people. Since it would be under the
oversight of the commissioner, she continued, it's not just
anybody going to be doing this, but rather a qualified person.
10:43:24 AM
CHAIR TARR recalled that when this bill was seen before it was
during many budget cuts and there is work that the department
wants to do but does not have the resources to do. She asked
whether these would be projects that the department would do if
it had the resources, and so the bill would open an avenue for
somebody else's resources to help support this work. She
surmised the department would want to do rehabilitation projects
if it had the resources and money.
MR. RABUNG answered that AS 16.05.092 directs the department to
do all things necessary to do these things, but it is an
unfunded mandate. So, HB 162 would be an avenue for the private
sector to pick up some of those on a small, limited scale. The
department doesn't have an accurate inventory of every single
salmon or finfish producing stream or system in the state, the
department tends to focus on the ones that are "important" and
important is broadly defined as either economically important or
important to the community, it is not a size necessarily. There
are many smaller systems that may have produced more fish in the
past that had something happen that could be addressed and while
ADF&G is not tracking many of those things, locals are. He said
his understanding is that this bill came from stakeholders,
local users.
MR. RABUNG added that he has been aware of this bill for many
years. He worked with Representative Talerico during the bill's
initial drafting to get it to its current state of comporting to
existing statutes, regulations, and policies because it would be
easy to build something that required ADF&G to permit things
that were not in compliance with the statutes, regulations, and
policies, which are designed to safeguard and sustain natural
production. The department's mandate is to provide for
sustained yield of natural production. This current bill
comports with ADF&G's genetics policy, pathology requirements,
and salmon plans for the areas. It would be a way for the
private sector who wanted to do something for their local small
system or stock to be able to do that.
10:47:34 AM
CHAIR TARR commented that the $100 fee seems too modest for
covering the staff work that would be necessary. She requested
Mr. Rabung's thoughts about a number that might more closely
reflect the costs to the department.
MR. RABUNG replied that he was not consulted on the $100 fee and
so doesn't know where it came from. If viewed as a filing fee,
he said, then it may be adequate. The private nonprofit
hatchery permit fee is $100 and that was written in 1974 and is
still in the statute. In inflationary terms the $100 from 1974
is probably closer to $900 or $1,000 today. The department
doesn't charge any fee for the aquatic resource permit, it's a
scientific and educational objective. Regardless of what the
fee amount is, it is unlikely to be a revenue generator as there
probably will not be a lot of people doing this because it is
hard work and expensive work.
10:50:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the need for this around the
state.
MR. RABUNG suggested that the need is probably a personal
decision. He related that during his previous work visiting
smaller communities and villages the elders would talk about
where there used to be a run of reds in a stream but now there
is none because it is full of weeds and mud from people riding
four-wheelers. These are anecdotal sayings and traditional
knowledge, so if they feel there is a need for those things this
would provide them an opportunity to do that. The corporations
can't qualify right now for this work unless they enter into a
cooperative agreement with a governmental entity that is
qualified for it under the aquatic resource permit. This gives
another avenue for doing similar work. It is built into this
bill that one of the first things the applicant must document is
the conditions justifying the project and the applicant must be
in communication with stakeholders, so the nearby communities.
The aquatic resource permits for propagative research came from
local communities saying that there used to be fish here and
they want to have fish here again. But first the applicant will
have to identify what the problem is and have a plan to fix
that, and this would be the rehabilitation step for the stock
itself.
10:52:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that based on one of the letters
received by the committee on traditional knowledge, it seems
very valuable work that needs to be done and this would be an
avenue on how to do that.
MR. LUHR responded that when it comes to need, it is dependent
on the city, village, or town. He said he is originally from
Petersburg, and it is 100 percent fishing. This bill would add
a tool for the private sector to have it and not need it or need
it and not have it. Without fish, his hometown would not be a
thing and that is why he feels so strongly for HB 162 as a tool
for good.
10:53:53 AM
CHAIR TARR opened invited testimony.
10:54:08 AM
CHARLES PARKER, Alaska Village Initiatives, thanked
Representative Tuck for putting HB 162 forward and stated that
his organization has been a supporter of this bill for years.
He explained that this is based on traditional Tlingit culture
and the story of Fog Woman. This is something that has been
utilized in the Pacific Northwest to great success. Currently,
Indiana has a limit of five kings a day, while in Ketchikan it
is only three. In Sacramento 80- and 90-pound kings are being
caught out of rivers that were once thought dead. New Zealand
is also outperforming [Alaska] in king salmon and traditionally
New Zealand didn't even have king salmon.
MR. PARKER said he likens it to an acorn analogy if all the
acorns fall off the tree a very small percentage of them are
going to grow into seedlings, but if someone carefully plants
each one as it drops, three to five times as many are going to
sprout. It is the same thing with salmon eggs if a small
amount of effort is taken at just the right time all it is doing
is maximizing the natural return, so more of those eggs are
going to hatch and they will hatch stronger and be more
successful. It has been proven time and again over thousands of
years.
MR. PARKER related that 18 tribal conservation districts, and
dozens of watershed councils and regional nonprofits, are
looking to implement similar programs. He said [Alaska Village
Initiatives] has been working with the USDA to consider this a
traditional practice and to fund this if Native corporations
were then eligible. This would provide an avenue to allow the
local folks to participate and work with the state to rebuild
stocks, as well as to then provide federal support and funding
to those same projects. Alaska Village Initiatives is excited
to see this move forward.
10:56:31 AM
CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 162.
10:57:01 AM
EMILY ANDERSON, Alaska Program Director, Wild Salmon Center,
testified in opposition to HB 162. She stated that while she
appreciates the sponsor's desire to boost fish populations in
areas where numbers are down, rehabilitation using hatchery
enhancement can have unintended consequences and make the
situation much worse. While they are not perfect, Alaska's
current fish enhancement and hatchery development policies seek
to segregate wild fish from hatchery fish where possible to
avoid interbreeding, competition, and harvest management
problems. The current law also establishes safeguards to
protect wild fish from disease and inbreeding. Alaska's
hatcheries are managed by professionals who work closely with
pathologists to prevent disease outbreaks and geneticists to
ensure inbreeding is not occurring.
MS. ANDERSON said that while HB 162 requires the commissioner to
issue a permit to determine that the project will not harm
indigenous wild fish populations, there is no requirement to
segregate hatchery fish from wild fish. The bill contains
inadequate safeguards to prevent inbreeding or disease outbreaks
and there are no requirements that a permit holder needs to have
any qualifications at all except to demonstrate residency in
this state. From a wild fish perspective when dealing with weak
stocks, more care is needed, not less.
MS. ANDERSON stated that Alaska's policy up to this point has
avoided many of the pitfalls that hatcheries in the Lower 48
have experienced. In the Pacific Northwest hatchery production
is used to enhance and rehabilitate salmon runs that have been
devastated by habitat destruction, dams, and overharvest.
Rather than supporting wild salmon recovery, hatcheries
developed to mitigate damage to fisheries or to increase fish
numbers while wild stocks are struggling to make escapement
goals, have only continued to drive those depleted wild salmon
populations to the brink. As a result, not a single listed
salmon population in the Pacific Northwest has been delisted as
a result of these efforts. In short, hatchery rehabilitation
projects that seek to recover weak stocks may appear to be a
tool for increasing fish numbers but over a relatively short
time they decrease the productivity of wild salmon stocks,
thereby decreasing the ability of wild populations to rebound.
The Wild Salmon Center hopes that efforts will focus on habitat
rehabilitation and strong mixed stock fisheries management.
11:00:20 AM
CATHERINE BURSCH related that in the early 1980s when she first
started fishing in Prince William Sound, she toured the new
hatchery. Hatcheries in Prince William Sound were originally
started to mitigate the habitat differences that happened from
the [1964] earthquake but ADF&G didn't stick to its policy,
which was to get it going again and then back off. It became
big business and now there are hatchery fish in 90 percent of
the creeks of wild fish in Prince William Sound.
MS. BURSCH said it sounds easy to just put eggs in and "spin
gold," but asked why the rest of the world hasn't benefitted
from that. She knows seven people in their twenties who are
starting their careers in commercial fisheries and they're going
to Bristol Bay, not the Pacific Northwest. Nobody goes to a
place that has hatcheries to be a commercial fisherman. It
doesn't work. It has so many promises but in looking around the
world it has never worked. This is not new technology; in
Ireland they knew how to mix sperm and eggs in the 1700s. The
habitat can't be destroyed and then the fish brought back by
just mixing eggs and milt, it doesn't work. This isn't anything
new on the slate. It is scary because it's taking a very well
thought out hatchery system policy and opening it way up with
the only excuse being "we don't have money anymore so we're just
going to let anyone run around and do this." The hatcheries are
the death knell to the wild fish, and she is astounded at the
lack of knowledge of what has happened in the past with
hatcheries.
11:03:52 AM
TOM HARRIS stated he is a member of the Tongass Tribe where the
Fog Woman story came from. He said the story explains a lot and
can be found on YouTube by typing in "fog woman and Alaska
traditional knowledge." Canadian scientists have documented it
as being 14,000 years old.
MR. HARRIS stated that this is not hatcheries, it is in-stream
incubation. He said the video shows evidence in the Great
Lakes, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and New Zealand of
having successfully used this program. These are very small
projects that in many cases cost less than $100. The question
that must be asked of the commercial fishing industry is an old
question feed it and it will grow, starve it and it will die.
Our resources should not be expected to survive without help.
11:05:36 AM
BRIAN ASHTON related that Representative Tuck requested he dial
in to answer questions related to his area of expertise, which
is restoration of wild salmon. He said Mr. Rabung answered the
questions well. Regarding testimony in opposition to the bill,
he said that saying everything fits into hatcheries is highly
inaccurate and that those testifiers have not read the bill.
The restoration of wild stocks using these types of processes in
the Northwest has been highly documented and effective. Last
week an article talked about how sockeye salmon were restored in
the Okanogan tributaries of the Columbia River watershed where
there hasn't been salmon for over 50 years. The data is clear
that this does work.
MR. ASHTON stated that regarding the process for getting a
permit, ADF&G is not going to ignore if someone is not qualified
to do this. The process requires that someone knows what
they're doing and has done the work and received training. He
said he suspects that the number of eggs allowed will relate to
the applicant's capacity to do this so that no harm is done.
11:07:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled one testifier mentioning the
segregating of the wild and the enhanced. She asked whether Mr.
Ashton sees the need to add specific language or whether the
department already uses its discretion in projects like this.
MR. ASHTON replied that the permit was written mostly with ADF&G
input to reflect these issues of genetic integrity. Removing
wild fish from the creek increases the survival of the gametes
and then they are put right back into the creek. When the
little fish swims and makes decisions as a fish it doesn't know
it even left the creek. To differentiate that those eggs that
were touched are different than wild stocks is something he
challenges as a moot point because they are wild fish.
MR. RABUNG added that the person was talking about enhancement,
for which there would be segregation because the intention of an
enhancement project is to create harvestable surplus in addition
to natural production; but this is rehabilitation of natural
stocks so that's why it is intended to be right back where they
came from. The most vulnerable state in a fish's lifecycle is
from egg deposition until a fry. By collecting them, they are
protected during that time when they are most vulnerable and
where most mortality occurs because of drought, freezing,
mudslides, or predation. Then they are put back [in the stream]
and that is where the increase comes from. After that all
things are equal. That is what this is designed to do and that
is the difference. It is another important difference between
enhancement and rehabilitation.
11:10:25 AM
JOSH VERHAGEN, Mayor, City of Nenana, testified in support of HB
162. He said this is not a new idea, is long overdue, and would
help restore Alaska's ever declining wild salmon populations.
Currently there is no policy or permit that allows for a
proactive wild salmon restoration process other than escapement
management and some research projects. What is being proposed
in HB 162 doesn't currently exist - if a qualified experienced
individual wishes to participate in wild restoration processes
right now there is no legal process for them to do so. This
doesn't mean that folks can go tamper with fish without any
oversight, which is why it would have to be through a permitting
process. If an individual cannot prove capability and
competence, then no permit is given.
MR. VERHAGEN stated that the bill specifies wild salmon
specifically because nothing is being done to modify them. This
is not a hatchery, or experimental, or enhancement, it is
rehabilitation. All that is being done here is to increase
their chance of survival by collecting eggs, using a moist air
incubation process, reintroducing them right back to where they
came from, and ensuring that the fertilization process is closer
to 90 percent instead of 2 percent.
MR. VERHAGEN related that he grew up on the Tanana River and has
watched fish populations dwindle and fish wheels and setnets go
away. He said he likes this bill not only because of what it
could do to help restore wild salmon populations but because it
could potentially help with subsistence for tribal and nontribal
members in the Nenana area. He has met with Mr. Ashton who is
one of these qualified individuals and Mr. Ashton advocated for
how this can also be used for educational purposes. He said he
would like for students to see how this process works and he
would like for this bill to become law.
11:13:09 AM
JESSICA WINNESTAFFER, Staff, Chickaloon Village Traditional
Council, testified in support of HB 162. She noted she has
worked for the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council since
2003. She started as a fisheries biologist and implemented
moist air incubation on Moose Creek near Palmer. The council
led an award-winning fish passage restoration project on Moose
Creek, which was directed by traditional ecological knowledge
from the elders. These elders also shared that traditionally
Moose Creek had all five species of salmon and was a major
source of sustenance for the tribe. Since the 1970s when ADF&G
started counting fish in Moose Creek, there have not been all
five species and they have been limited to only the lower three
miles of Moose Creek. The council's fish passage restoration
project bypassed manmade waterfalls at mile three on Moose Creek
and allowed fish passage to the entire stream, which is 10-20
miles depending on which tributaries the fish go.
MS. WINNESTAFFER related that this successful fish passage
restoration project was followed up with fish population
rehabilitation. Chinook salmon were specifically targeted, and
Mr. Ashton's moist air incubation system was used to collect
chinook salmon from the mouth of Moose Creek and plant them in
the upstream reaches at about mile eight. This was done through
partnership with and permission from ADF&G and with ADF&G's
oversight. This project was successful, utilized traditional
knowledge, and was guided by the council's elders.
MS. WINNESTAFFER said the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council
chose this system over ADF&G's major hatchery system because the
council wanted to be in charge of this effort to restore fish
passage and help reintroduce salmon to the upstream reaches.
Also, it is low cost to buy and to operate and requires one
less-than-full-time staff member for a few months. The juvenile
salmon were planted in the eyed egg stage before they required
nutritional supplement by a hatchery. This project was combined
with curriculum at a tribal school and for other community
groups and visitors.
MS. WINNESTAFFER stated that many Alaskan fish populations are
under attack from past and present impacts by known and unknown
threats, including development and climate changes. Alaskan
fish need help to successfully survive and thrive for future
generations. This bill will give an opportunity to aid in
rehabilitation of natural, wild fish populations.
MS. WINNESTAFFER noted that the council's permit for chinook
salmon was for 100,000 eggs, which was approximately 20 females
and approximately 20 males for fertilizing the females. A limit
of 500,000 chinook eggs would only take about 100 females for
this project, which is a very small number and yet the benefit
can be dramatic. She offered to give more information to people
who have concerns about the process or are flat-out against it
and stressed that this is not a hatchery system.
11:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the council's efforts have
been concluded or are ongoing in terms of continuing to try to
rehabilitate the traditional runs that were once in Moose Creek.
MS. WINNESTAFFER replied that the council did the project for
five years, which was what ADF&G initially allowed and guided
the council to do. The council has a small amount of funding to
continue and would like to continue, but at this moment the
council is waiting to see where the policies here go. Success
has been measured. To identify if the juvenile eggs reared in
the moist air system survived, the council collected ear bones,
otoliths, for many years from carcasses that had naturally
spawned and died in Moose Creek. The otoliths were sent to
ADF&G's lab in Juneau to analyze. The moist air incubation
system requires that the council thermally or in other ways mark
the otoliths to identify them as being from its moist air
incubation system. Two pairs of otoliths from the council's
system have been found, so it is known that the eggs reared in
the council's moist air incubation system did successfully
return to spawn and naturally die in Moose Creek.
11:21:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE related that she read about the project on
the internet and finds it fascinating. She inquired about the
dollar amount associated with this five-year project that was
completed.
MS. WINNESTAFFER responded that the council had one moist air
incubation unit, which costs $15,000-$20,000 depending on how
much technical support is received with it, and that one system
was used for the five-year project. The council targeted
chinook salmon and only did one species per moist air incubation
unit as guided by the manufacturer. The brood stock was fished
for and collected in late June and July; that generally took two
staff members for two or three weeks in the field. The moist
air incubation system was maintained until October, which
required very limited checking each day. The staff time costs
more than the unit, but over a period of five years it was
probably in the range of $5,000 per year for staff-time since it
is very part-time once the eggs are in the incubator.
11:23:55 AM
PENELOPE HAAS, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, testified in
opposition to HB 162. She said the intent behind the bill is
appreciated, but it is ill-conceived because it is long on fish
propagation and short on assessment of impacts. This is a
problem endemic to rehabilitation and enhancement efforts across
Alaska because fish are produced but then the impacts are not
looked at. For example, in the project discussed by the last
testifier, it was [20] females and [20] males. In the
commercial hatchery environment, a successful hatchery is going
to have an 80 percent survival rate for those eggs and milt.
What is being done there is prioritizing and selecting for those
particular very narrow genetics and if this is done year after
year it is going to significantly augment the diversity of the
genetic stocks there. So, while it is starting with wild
stocks, what is being done is narrowing the diversity of the
stock, which is so important to the survival of those fish in
that system.
MS. HAAS urged committee members, before voting, to look into
the similarity to what is being proposed here and what is going
on in Washington and Oregon and the failures there. Many listed
species of king salmon are in that area and rehabilitation
efforts with similar methodology have been tried for over 10
years and it is failing. A big part of the reason is that the
fish that are being selected end up competing with the diverse
wild stocks because they are being selected for and it winds up
with losing the whole stock. There needs to be clear concise
language for what is going to happen with the habitat. Any
rehabilitation effort needs to be coordinated with habitat
efforts at the very minimum.
11:27:40 AM
LOUIE FLORA, Government Affairs Director, The Alaska Center,
offered his organization's appreciation for looking at solutions
for problem areas in Alaska's salmon returns. He suggested that
HB 162 have more emphasis on habitat restoration. He said The
Alaska Center shares the concerns expressed by others about the
impacts of this and the potential for decreasing the genetic
diversity of salmon stocks. Alaska's wild salmon populations
already have may stressors impacting them, including increasing
climate change, trawl by-catch, and other factors in the open
ocean such as competition with international hatchery fish.
This would be adding another potential threat to stock diversity
and could have a negative impact down the line. He advised that
thought needs to be given to the long term and the committee
should hear from geneticists within ADF&G and the university.
11:29:48 AM
CHAIR TARR closed public testimony on HB 162 after ascertaining
that no one else wished to testify.
11:30:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ requested Mr. Rabung's opinion regarding
the validity of the concerns expressed by those testifying in
opposition to HB 162.
MR. RABUNG replied that the concerns are valid, which is why the
department has come up with policies and guidance to guide this
kind of work. Much of the concern about genetics is addressed
with ADF&G's finfish policy - there is the minimum effective
population number so there isn't too few; it's a mathematical
calculation. The department requires a minimum number that must
be used, and it's based on the species and the lifecycle. For
pink salmon, a single year class, 400 individuals minimum would
be needed to meet the minimum effective population. For chinook
salmon, which has five-year overlapping age classes, doing 40
fish a year for five years achieves that same mathematical
combination. Chum salmon are 63 pairs per year.
MR. RABUNG specified that another part of that policy is to
reduce the potential for domestication effects by not having
more than one generation can go through a rehabilitation
project. That is what defines a rehabilitation project, so the
progeny from a project would not be spawned and their offspring
put through it again. That would be prohibited by ADF&G's
existing policy. That is how domestication effects, artificial
selective pressures, start to take hold.
MR. RABUNG said he feels [the department] has the tools to
address those concerns and they are valid concerns and that is
one of the things that sets Alaska's program apart from the rest
of the world. Regarding the concerns expressed about how it is
being done down south, he would agree if things were being done
in Alaska like they are done down south, and he would be
testifying in opposition as well. That is not to say Alaska
isn't trying to improve when there is new information.
MR. RABUNG said he believes [the department] has the tools in
hand to make sure that these things have minimal, if any,
negative impacts on natural productivity. Some of the
commenters echoed what he has been saying identify what the
problem is. Part of the prerequisite in this bill is to
identify what is causing the stock to be depressed and try to
fix that and then try to rehabilitate by increasing the number
of eggs that survive after spawning. Examples are the Buskin
and Moose Creek projects. Perched culverts in the Buskin system
that prevented coho from reaching spawning grounds were removed
and the stream gravel was reconditioned. Moose Creek was
reconditioned, and barriers were removed that had prevented fish
from getting where they used to be. Then the work was done to
bring back the fish. Those things are part and parcel of HB 162
as ADF&G sees it. Their comments are valid and are being
addressed. There is no guarantee that if somebody applies for a
project that ADF&G is going to permit it because if it doesn't
meet the department's criteria to protect natural production the
department is not going to be able to permit it.
11:34:58 AM
CHAIR TARR requested Mr. Rabung to send her the link to ADF&G's
genetics policy.
MR. RABUNG agreed to do so.
11:35:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered closing comments. He stated that HB
162 is basically maximizing natural returns of the natural
species of that specific river, because it is known that
chinooks are different between each river system. This does
have the greatest impacts on wild salmon and the reason why it
works is because it is small scale. It's small scale and
dealing with a small window of opportunity for the success of
those eggs to fertilize and move on. This is part of a total
habitat rehabilitation program, it cannot work alone, it must
have some sort of habitat rehabilitation along with it to ensure
it succeeds.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that habitat rehabilitation can only
be taken so far, nothing that can be done about the temperature
of the waters and the temperatures are rising. A study done on
chinook salmon looked at [temperatures between] 10.4 degrees
Celsius, which is 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and 14 degrees Celsius,
which is 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit. It was found that at 50
degrees Fahrenheit [during] moist air incubation salmon start
deteriorating, and the success of those eggs dropped off until
zero success at 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit. A study in 2010 took
30 females and spawned all of them the same day. The 122,256
eggs [were incubated] at 45 degrees [Fahrenheit], which is five
degrees less than when they start deteriorating, and 113,700
eggs were successful, only a loss of 8,000. This is what this
is about, it is using traditional knowledge that has been around
for 14,000 years and applying it modernly so streams can be
rehabilitated.
11:37:52 AM
CHAIR TARR stated that she is thinking about the fee, tightening
up the qualified person language, and making it clearer about
the habitat even though it seems inherent in the process. She
asked whether Mr. Luhr's internship is ending soon.
MR. LUHR replied yes.
CHAIR TARR said she shared her thoughts on the bill so that Mr.
Luhr would know about them in case Mr. Luhr's internship is over
when the bill is next before the committee.
[HB 162 was held over.]
11:39:42 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:39
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR 2 Sponsor Statement 03.16.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/8/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR 2 Version A 3.16.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/8/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR 2 Fiscal Note - LEG-SESS-04-07-21.pdf |
HFSH 4/8/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR 2 Supplemental Document - Alaska Ocean Cluster Overview 4.7.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/8/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR 2 Testimony Received by 4.12.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HB 162 Sponsor Statement 4.7.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 version A 4.7.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 Sectional Analysis 4.7.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 Testimony Tom Harris- Received as of 4.7.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 Testimony Alaska Village Initiatives - Received 4.8.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 Fiscal Note - DFG-DCF 4.11.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 Letter of Opposition - Adkison 4.12.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/13/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |