HB 169-FISHERIES REHABILITATION PERMIT/PROJECT  1:03:33 PM CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 169, "An Act relating to certain fish; and establishing a fisheries rehabilitation permit." [Before the committee was CSHB 169(FSH).] 1:04:19 PM MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, read the sponsor statement for HB 169 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: This legislation would allow individuals, Alaskan corporations, school districts or other organizations to apply for a fish rehabilitation permit through the Dept. Fish & Game. If the commissioner grants a permit, the individuals, Alaskan corporations, school districts or other organizations would be allowed to collect a limited number of fish, fertilize and hatch the eggs and then place the un-fed natural fish back into the water where they were taken. This will boost the survival rate of the fertilized eggs to emergent fry stage from around 5 percent to roughly 90 percent. Similar types of fish rehabilitation permits are already allowed by the department for scientific research or other educational purposes, but these purposes are limited and thus the data collection, fish rehabilitation projects and fish population information is limited. This bill allows the private sector and the department to work together in a responsible collaborative effort to increase the natural salmon populations and scientific data collection throughout the state. This legislation will be one more tool that can be used to ensure that we both today and, in the future, maximize our resources as stated in our state constitution. Thus, Alaskans will benefit from Alaska's natural fish resources to help feed our families. 1:06:32 PM DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor, offered the sectional analysis for HB 169 [included in the committee packet]. He said Section 1 would create a new section [in AS 16.05] to create a fisheries enhancement permit. It would create [subsection (a)] for the activities that would be allowed under the new permit; [subsection (b)] that would prescribe an application form created by the department for those interested in gaining a permit; [subsection (c)] that would allow the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) commissioner to issue a permit under certain determinations; [subsection (d)] regarding factors that the commissioner would consider when deciding whether permit will be issued; [subsection (e)] that would require a permittee to collect and provide project data and reports requested by the department and to reasonably communicate with individuals affected by the project; [subsection (f)] that would set the timeline for when ADF&G must act on a permit; [subsection (g)] to enact requirements of a permittee to collect no more than 500,000 eggs [for fertilization], implement controls to avoid the introduction of nonindigenous pathogens; [subsection (h)] that would ensure that any fish released in state water with an enhancement project permit under this section would be available for common use, as are wild fish; [subsection (i)] that would specify the duration of a permit and how to extend a permit; and [subsection (j)] that would create definitions for the bill. MR. STANCLIFF said Section 2, [related to AS 16.05.871], would add a new subsection to state that fisheries enhancement projects under AS 16.05.855 shall be considered by the commissioner as outlined in AS 16.05.872(d) because precautions in subsection (d) will not damage a fish enhancement project. He explained that Section 3, [related to AS 16.10.375], would amend this section to allow enhancement projects created through this Act to be included in regional comprehensive salmon plans. MR. STANCLIFF reviewed the changes that had been made under CSHB 169(FSH), the version before the committee. He said some of the changes were recommended by people in the fishing industry while other changes were put forth by the department. The first change, on page 3, line 1, was the addition of the term "local wild" to the species of salmon. On page 4, line 5, the following words were deleted: "If the commissioner fails to act within that period, the application is approved and the department shall issue a permit." Another change was on page 4, line 18, where the following was added: "The commissioner may modify, suspend, or revoke a permit issued under this section for cause. If a permittee violates this section, the commissioner may, after providing the permittee notice and an opportunity to be heard, suspend or revoke a permit issued under this section." Finally, the "tribe" was added to page 4, line 24, as an entity to be considered in the issuing of permits. 1:10:02 PM MR. STANCLIFF, in response to Representative Saddler, said this new program would not conflict with existing programs. He added that CSHB 169(FSH) would enhance salmon reproduction by 85 percent. In response to Representative Rauscher, he said the plan would be fluid in terms of maximizing returns [of fish]. Further, he noted that schools districts would be involved in teaching students where salmon come from and how to increase the salmon populations. 1:14:49 PM FLIP PRYOR, Aquaculture Section Chief, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, directed the committee to the last page of CSHB 169(FSH), which describes how existing regional hatcheries would continue with current management plans and incorporate local knowledge into the plan. 1:15:43 PM JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish & Game described the last section of CSHB 169(FSH) as a conforming amendment to existing regional salmon plans and rehabilitation plans already in place. 1:16:17 PM MR. PRYOR, in response to questions from Representative Mears, indicated that each application is judged on its own merit and multiple applications in the same spot would be analyzed according to the annual brood-stock of returning salmon. He said these factors would be taken into consideration during permit review. He reiterated that CSHB 169(FSH) would be an extension of the current aquatic resources and the same processes for evaluation. 1:18:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE observed that the plan proposed under CSHB 169(FSH) differed from a regular hatchery. He understood the genesis of the legislation arose from an individual with a five- gallon bucket that began stocking their own stream with fertilized salmon eggs in gravel bars. He reassured the members that CSHB 169(FSH) would work in concert with the existing hatcheries around the state and would not serve as a mechanism to release too many eggs into a spawning system. 1:19:52 PM MR. PRYOR affirmed each regional hatchery has a plan for salmon enhancement that would fall under the same umbrella as the proposed legislation. In response to follow-up comments from Representative McCabe, he maintained that another level of oversight is a permit for fish transport and where they go. He said the difference is that a permit is not necessary for the program proposed under CSHB 169(FSH). He confirmed Representative McCabe's observation that the "bucket plan" was closer to nature with the limit of 500,000 eggs per person instead of releasing eggs from all over the place into different rivers. 1:23:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for a primer on the different kinds of permits for fish hatcheries. 1:23:46 PM MR. PRYOR, in response to Representative Saddler, spoke about different types of permits for fish hatcheries. He said CSHB 169(FSH) would assess rehabilitation projects which aren't currently the focus of ADF&G. In response to a follow-up question, he spoke about incubation boxes. 1:26:00 PM MR. FELKL, in response to Representative Mears, affirmed that the fiscal note would allow for one part-time biologist to be stationed in Juneau. 1:26:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE MEARS had a science question and asked if there are other things to consider on a small-scale with HB 169. 1:26:59 PM MR. PRYOR replied, HB 169 is addressing egg and fry survival; most places in Alaska where salmon are struggling are not due to a habitat issue similar to the south, HB 169 would increase the number of fry into the spawning system to enhance habitat. 1:27:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE BAKER followed Representative Mears' comment regarding the fiscal note that was coming out of the unrestricted general fund. He wondered if the position could be repurposed into an existing position at Alaska Department of Fish & Game due to staff shortages in recent years. 1:28:21 PM MR. FELKL said the statewide aquaculture permitting and planning section has been reduced in past years. He said the Alaska Department of Fish & Game has looked at other options and it was determined that a part-time position is needed to do the additional work. 1:28:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT said she was curious if this [program] was happening elsewhere and if we can learn from other states across the nation. 1:29:05 PM MR. PRYOR was unfamiliar with other states but said it was similar to aquatic resource permits that have been issued to the Auke Bay Laboratory that produced fish over a 3-year period. 1:29:44 PM CHAIR MCKAY invited Representative Cronk back to the testifiers table to answer further questions. 1:30:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Representative Cronk to elaborate on how far salmon have to travel up the Yukon River to spawn and why HB 169 is necessary for the Alaska Native community subsistence, culture, and day-to-day existence. He used another example from the Salcha River in the Interior that has one of the highest Chinook salmon returns. 1:30:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said the Yukon River is a really long river with a lot of obstacles for salmon. He reported the Yukon River is noticing the lowest returns of salmon in history and fisherman haven't been able to subsistence-fish for Chinook in three years with only a little fishing for Chum salmon. He reemphasized the program design in HB 169 would essentially double the salmon returns that are happening today. He insisted in years past he had seen pictures of 40-60 lbs. Female Chinook in Eagle with a substantial amount of eggs; however, the fish returning in the last few years have been much smaller with fewer eggs. He said the essence of HB 169 is to return more fry to the rivers. He said the most important fish is the fish on the table and HB 169 aims to continue that "lifeway." REPRESENTATIVE CRONK used the Gulkana Hatchery as a global example that has produced millions of salmon in the Gulkana and Copper Rivers that have reached the international market. 1:33:29 PM CHAIR MCKAY invited closing comments. 1:33:35 PM REPRESENATIVE CRONK stated that Alaska is at a crossroads and needs to do something - anything that can benefit the fishery. 1:34:15 PM CHAIR MCKAY thanked staff and set an amendment deadline for January 22, 2024. CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 169 was held over.