HFSH-260423-1000

Meeting of House Special Committee on Fisheries will come to order. Time is 10:06 on Thursday, April 23rd. Members present are Vice Chair— it's been a long morning, right? Vice Chair Edmond. Representative Elam, Representative Vance, and myself, Chair Stutes.

Pardon me for that intermission there. We have a quorum to conduct business. Please silence your cell phones. We're asking nobody approach the desk here. If you have an issue or you need to address one of the members, please get a hold of my committee aide, Jane Pearson, and she would be delighted to help you out.

Andrew Magnuson, nice to see you. Thank you for the help. He's the House Fisheries Secretary, and we have Kyla Tupo— hope I got that right, Kyla— from the Juneau LIO. Great, thank you, and thank you for your assistance today. At today's meeting, we'll be having an introduction hearing of House Bill 356, an act relating to health and sanitary requirements and certain permits for commercial fishing vessels and providing for an effective date, and that Legislation is sponsored by our very own Representative Vance.

Um, here to present the bill is Representative Vance, and her staff Nareesh is also here to give her a hand. So with that, if you would both come to the table and place yourselves on the record and begin your presentation.

Good morning, Chair Stutes, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Representative Sarah Vance of House District 6, and this is my policy advisor.

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Naresh Shrestha, and I help the good representative here with questions and answers and policy decisions. Narush is my lifeline, just in case y'all ask pretty detailed questions that I can't answer. So House Bill 356 is what I like to call the Alaska Coastal Microfisheries Act. The goal is simple: make it easier for small Alaskan fishermen to stay in business and make a living.

Alaska's commercial fishing industry is a cornerstone of our coastal economies. It supports jobs, families, and billions in economic activity. But today, health, sanitation, and permitting requirements are often outdated and overly burdensome, especially for small-scale fishermen operating near shore or selling directly to the local markets. HB 356 updates Alaska statute to allow small-scale commercial fishermen to process their catch on board and sell directly to consumers while still maintaining appropriate food and safety standards. Two years ago, when we decided to have a Seafood Industries Task Force, I conducted meetings with my fishermen in all across my district, and I asked them, what can the legislature do to help your business stay open and thrive?

And I had quite a few of the small boat fishermen and setnetters tell me, we need to be able to process our fish. They said, we— it doesn't pencil out for us in the Cook Inlet to sell to PacStar. But if we could do it ourselves, then we could stay open for business. And these are just the small family operations. I had a fisherman that fishes down in Kodiak say, "My tender said that they aren't going to show up this season because it didn't pencil out for them." If we could process our fish, we would be able to stay open.

I have soldovi of small boat fishermen, and they would love to be able to sell the fish at the dock, but a lot of times people ask, "Can you cut this into two fillets for me?" And under the current strict, uh, food safety standards, they cannot. And so it greatly limits our small Alaskan fishermen from being able to keep their business open, continue the family tradition of fishing, and be able to really compete in this very quickly changing market. So this is the bill that I have brought forward to the committee as a working document. To be able to bring a solution to our small Alaskan fishermen who are the lifeblood of our coastal communities. This bill primarily works with Alaska Statute 17.20, Alaska's Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which governs how seafood is processed and sold.

Under current law, if a fisherman wants to do anything beyond basic handling, they can be treated the same as a large shore-based processor. That triggers requirements under Alaska Statute 17.20.200 including full food establishment permits and facility standards that simply don't fit small operations. HB 356 fixes that by creating a clear, defined pathway for what we call microfisheries. First, under Alaska Statute 17.20, the bill clarifies how food safety law applies to distinguishing small-scale onboard processing from industrial processing. It allows fishermen to clean, fillet, and package up to 5,000 pounds of fish onboard without being classified as a full processing plant.

Second, under Alaska Statute 17.20.200, the bill adjusts permitting by creating a pathway for direct-to-consumer sales, reducing unnecessary burdens and streamlining the process. Permits must be approved within 30 days and fees are reduced to $100 for qualifying fishermen. Third, the bill aligns with AS 16.05 Fish and Game so that if a fisherman is legally allowed to harvest fish, they can also reasonably prepare and sell that product. This resolves a longstanding disconnect in statute. Finally, House Bill 356 maintains the Department of Environmental Conservation's authority under AS 44.46 to enforce sanitation standards and develop appropriate regulations.

This is not deregulation, it is right-sizing regulation. The bill also has major safeguards built in. To qualify, a fisherman must harvest less than 10,000 pounds annually, use a vessel under 50 feet or under 65 feet for streamlined permitting, hold a direct marketing fisheries business license. They are not exempt from all the safety rules. To qualify for the exemption, DEC must determine that the vessel meets federal safety standards under 21 CFR Part 123 and that the species being harvested presents a low risk of spreading pests or disease.

It does not eliminate food safety standards, and it does not allow unsafe handling or processing, and it does not impact large processors or existing facilities. We want to make sure that they— that our processors still remain great partners, but those who simply can't pencil out and stay in business would be able to have the option of being a microprocessor. What this means in practice is simple. Fishermen can add value to their catch instead of losing it to middle processing. Consumers gain more access to locally caught, directly sold seafood.

And small operators are no longer forced into industrial compliance models. Alaska has lost too many small fishing operations to consolidation and bureaucracy. If you're a small Alaskan fisherman, this bill says we're getting out of your way so you can do what you do best. And that's fish. And we want to make sure that we support you.

So this is about working fishermen, reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, and keeping more value in Alaska's communities. So I welcome any questions, thoughts about improvement on this bill, and full dialogue, because as I said at the beginning, I consider this bill a working document that I want to listen to what we can do to make this work for our small boat fishermen. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Vance. Do we have any questions for Representative Vance?

Representative Edgeman. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just to kick things off, the term microfisheries, it's, uh, you know, sit here and think community fisheries, microfisheries, small owners fisheries. There's all kinds of sort of terms of art out there, but does microfisheries— it's not defined anywhere in the bill, but it is basically sort of a term of art. Is that the understanding?

Yes, Mr. Vice Chairman. We wanted something to describe the smaller, you know, family-oriented operations that would not conflict with our processors. Our processors are struggling to stay open as well, and so I wanted to be clear that these are the smaller operations that are generally family-run and and would not try to detract from the processor's business, but allow these guys to stay alive. So that's how we came up with the term microfishery. And if I might, Madam Chair.

Certainly. Certainly. Yeah, I just bring it up because, you know, in the context of electrification, a microgrid, of course, is something that's pretty widely understood, and it's, you know, granted, a pretty picky point, but maybe something that the you as the bill sponsor, maybe the committee might want to consider later on just putting a little bit of meat to those bones. Thank you. Thank you.

And before I— I have a couple questions, and I'm not sure if anybody else does, but let me say online we have Forrest Bowers, who is the Director of Commercial Fisheries for the Department of Fish and Game, and we also have Shawndi Perry, who is the Director of the Division of Health of the DEC. So, uh, for questions. And Madam Chair, I do have, uh, Jamie O'Donnell as, uh, our invited testifier, if she's online. Uh, she's not here. Okay, I do not see her currently, but I'll keep my eye peeled.

Do you have a question, Representative Elam? Yeah, just, uh, thank you for, for bringing the bill. I was just, you know, as I was kind of digging through it, I, I noticed two different vessel length sizes Um, in Section 3, it was under 50 feet in overall length, and then on Section 4, it was not to exceed 65 feet. And so I was just wondering if you— if maybe you could speak to, to the difference there and why, and if there's, you know, something specific to that that I'm not aware of.

I need to phone my friend. Absolutely. Naresh, do you have an answer for that? Uh, let me take a look at this. Through the chair, uh, Representative Ilham, I think we were putting out numbers there to try to capture what smaller vessels are.

Uh, now if an expert came up and said, well, you know, it is too broad we can always make that smaller. But for now, this really— this bill, as the good representative said here, was a starting point. And we will have a lot of questions and suggestions, and we're open to that. So right now, that's where our answer lies, just a starting point. Okay, thank you.

Um, yeah, um, I'm sure—. Certainly, Representative Ka. So yeah, so it's a good, good question. I was just reading the two sections, 3 and 4, together, kind of back and forth, and it does look like that needs to be clarified. Because the— in Section 3, we're clearly talking about DEC kind of exempting those boats that harvest fewer than 10,000 pounds annually and that are under 50 feet in length, and and then who processed that under their direct market fishing license.

Then Section 4, it's very similar. It's now not just DEC, but they're talking about DEC consulting with Fish and Game, working to administratively carry this out. And then again, it says, um, for fisheries business license holders who harvest less than 10,000 pounds annually from a vessel under 50 feet in length, and then it says, or they are harvesting fishery resources from a vessel that does not exceed 65 feet in length. So it seems like they're divorcing themselves of the 10,000-pound requirement annually, and you're under 50 feet, or you're just— have nothing to do with the amount you're doing but you're in that 50 to 65 foot range. Mm-hmm.

So you're giving more volume capacity processing to something that's more like a limit saner. I think that's what they're doing. Well, you know, if I could add, it, it might just have been an oversight because I think currently— I really like the idea of this legislation, but I think currently vessels up to 65 feet, they can apply for a direct marketing business license currently in statute. So it might have just been an oversight in putting 50 instead of 65 or something along those lines. You have a question, Representative McCabe?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, could that be a tender? Would that— would that fit? Because it doesn't give you pounds of fisheries, it just says fishery resources. Is Is that tendering portion of it?

I don't know. I wouldn't think— I'm sorry, go ahead, Representative Vance. Through the chair, Representative McCabe, as far as I know, these are affecting the direct fishers, not the tenders specifically. It was not my intent for that. This is for the harvesters themselves.

Yeah, the tenders don't package them. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, so, um, I noticed that I, I, like I said, I think this is really a great idea, and, and I appreciate the fact that you're open to a little fine-tuning before it heads down the road. Um, I wasn't sure what the fishery species are that— I think it was on page 1, section 2— that's referred to as present a low risk of spreading— the fishery species that present a low risk of spreading pests or disease from the vessel.

I'm not familiar with any species being referred to in that respect, and so I'm I was curious if you could maybe help us understand what species that might apply to. Thank you, Madam Chair. With this, we know that the DEC, you know, requirements can often be pretty high bar, and what we want to do is work with DEC to help open this up to where there can be flexibility but also meet the health requirements that the public And we know that they have to meet a federal guideline, and so we wanted to not be so specific right out of the gate that it would really limit what our fishermen want to do. So that's why we painted it with a broad brush in statute, is to allow the DEC to, to work through that process and make sure that the vessel's in compliance and that they're meeting the health safety standards without us limiting the type of fishery. So in, I guess, in follow-up to that, then I'm hearing you say you'd be working with the department and DEC in identifying what that is, because right now nobody knows how to identify those species, including the department.

So that might be something that you might want to zero in on or, you know, have a conversation about so we know specifically what species that might be referring to. Does anyone have a question besides myself? I think, again, this is pretty exciting, and it's pretty exciting to have it on the ground level here.

And then on page 2, It said that you wanted to exempt them from some health and sanitary requirements. Do you have any idea what those requirements that you're looking to exempt them from are? Uh, Madam Chair, right now they are, they are held to the same standard as an onshore processor or a restaurant, and it's in order for a fisherman to be able to meet all those qualifications, they have to take on a lot of equipment and a lot of regular safety standards. And I'm wanting to reduce that burden but still, still meet safety standards. So I'm wanting to distinguish that these smaller fishermen, these smaller boat fishermen, are not going to be held to the same standard as a larger industrial processor or restaurant, and that they can still have qualifications that DEC says that they need to meet, but exempt them from all the, the need to have the, all the sanitizing equipment and things like that, that really has been a barrier to entry for so many of our fishermen besides the expense.

So, so I imagine you'll be drilling down on that a bit too, just for no other reason, for enforcement. So, so it'll be clear as to what actual policies that these smaller processors or marketers would be— okay, would be exempt from. Is that correct? Yes, Madam Chair. The bill on page 2, line 26, is asked the Department of Environmental Conservation to streamline and simplify the regulations so that they can provide guidance on what that would look like.

And, you know, it's going to be different for someone who is, say, a Setnaadern Cook Inlet versus a Seiner. You know, it's going to look a little bit different. And so we need to have that conversation. And the fiscal note also reflects how the DCC sees this, that they would need an environmental health officer to process, review, and make recommendations on these permit applications, ensuring that there's compliance. And so, you know, this is, this is a dialogue.

I had a conversation with our— I'm not sure how— our appointed DC Commissioner, uh, about how we could work on this. And he made it very clear that as a commercial fisherman, he understood the, the ask and what it would need. And like I said, this is a dialogue. The way that we wrote this bill was to keep it very simple and streamlined, but we know we cannot do this without partnership with DC in an, in cutting a lot of the regulations and the requirements for these smaller people. Gotcha.

That, that makes perfectly good sense. And then my last question would be, is how do you anticipate defining rural communities? I mean, is it fishing in smaller rural communities? Is it you must be a resident of a small rural community? Is it where their permit is located?

Because this, this seems to me something that might be helpful to fishermen across the state that have small boats and small boat operations. So I was just kind of curious as to what rural coastal communities might be defined as. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that is up to us to decide if we want to define that or if we want to remove the word rural from this. That stems from the conversations that I've been having with the fishermen and really the people that we had come before us in the task force that said, hey, we're out here kind of having to fend for ourselves because we can't get to the processor as readily.

The tender isn't showing up. And I wanted to make sure that the people who have that are having more and more limitations on processing have options available to them. We may not need to define that. That could just be intent because I'm not wanting— I want to make this available to every small-scale fishery, microfishery across the state and not limit it to a statutory definition of rural. But that is— that was my intent is those that are seeing changes quickly that is hurting their business operations have options before them.

Appreciate that. Representative Cox. Yeah, Madam Chair. So I, I, I have some familiarity with the direct marketing, and I do want to thank the bill sponsor and just, just for all of our awareness, just point out that this does not exempt them from the Federal Seafood Safety Act. At all.

Correct. It only addresses additional regulations, and it requires the DEC to first find that the vessel itself, the fishery processing operation on the vessel, meet the Federal Seafood Safety Act. So they, first of all, they have to find that all those things are happening and they're meeting safety standards and the Federal Seafood Safety Act, and that they're only harvesting the species that present a low risk. That was a great question, Madam Chair. I'm assuming they're talking about salmon and halibut there.

But, um, and that if they do all those things, only then DEC will not impose additional, uh, it says additional health and sanitary requirements on top of that. So I think they're starting saying you will meet the safety threshold, and then we're just not going to overregulate on top of that. So is my read of the bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Through the chair, Representative Kopp, that is exactly, you know, what this is about is— and we've heard this from fishermen for years— that, you know, it's, it's— they have, they have so many different requirements, they cross over so many different departments and taxes and regulatory things. And what I've been asking is, what can we do to get the government out of the way so so that they can still do what they love, stay in business, and provide fish to Alaskans and to the world. And we have a lot of creative opportunities out there, and there are many who are taking it. But this came from them saying, hey, we just want to— we love the commercial fishing lifestyle. We want to teach our kids this lifestyle.

We want to be able to sell to our community. We're not trying to grow into a huge operation, and this is trying to meet those needs. Thank you. Representative, thank you. Um, yeah, I conceptually love the, the idea, and so I really appreciate you bringing it forward.

Um, as we've had the conversation, I mean, a, a fishing vessel is very different than a restaurant, and that they're, that they're in the same category is Odd. Um, but I mean, I, I get it. I mean, we want to make sure that we're keeping a good, you know, san— or, you know, keeping everything good and clean. Um, what, what types of fisheries or, or, you know, I'm very familiar with Cook Inlet. I'm just thinking, you know, when we start talking about statewide policies, like what, what other kinds of fisheries would you see this supporting, you know, from Southeast up into even potentially the interior and some of those?

Is there What, what, how wide of the, of a scope do you think this would have? Through the chair, Representative Elam, this, because it has a limit on—.

Whoops, briefities.

Back on record. Through the chair, Representative Elam, this is, this is clearly limiting. We'll get the, the size of the vessel worked out, but this is geared toward the smaller vessels, towards the setnetters, the seiners, and even trawlers in Southeast, that they would be able to take advantage of this. So it's impacting thousands of fishermen across the state. Okay, all right, thank you.

Thank you. Representative Edgeman. Yeah, just a couple of points as we go through the discovery process here. I don't really see in the bill— or actually, the way I read the bill is this is the processing is going to take place onshore, right? The harvesting out on the grounds.

Through the chair, Vice Chair Edgeman, it can be on board, on the vessel, or or onshore. But it does specifically say that they can process on their boat directly. But I think the reality is for a smaller boat like that, it's going to be pretty much onshore, right? At least with salmon and things like that, you can't really do like commercial processing in a smaller vessel. It would be limited.

I will say that if you've watched our charter, our saltwater charter operators. It's pretty amazing what they can do in a small space. And, you know, then they bring the fillets and then, you know, put them in packaging. You know, and as I've been thinking about how this could work is, you know, we have lodges across the state who process fish for their clients. We have the Saltwater Charter who fillet right there on the boat when they're coming back in.

And yet our commercial fishermen are not even allowed to cut a fish into 2 fillets. So, um, if they have the capacity, depending on how many pounds of fish they're going to do, they may be able to start that process. But I imagine most of it would be shoreside. It would be a simpler— I think it would be easier. Um, but we are not putting the limitation on that.

So, if I might—. Certainly. —Madam Chair, and some of this is just really out of ignorance, but a licensed commercial fisherman also constitutes a charter boat?

Because the way I'm reading this, it sort of addresses the traditional commercial fishermen. Correct. And so, that might be something to think a little bit more about as you get into Phase 2 or Phase 3. Phase 3 of sort of really digging down deep in this. The other, again, just sort of an observation is on page 2, the Section 4(b), that DEC shall approve or deny a permit requested by commercial fisher basically within 30 days after the application is put forward.

That's very laudable, but I wonder how overly ambitious that might be. Given DEC's lack of staffing and their limited travel funds, if there isn't a DEC individual, like out in my district, for example, they would have to travel out and I have no idea whether how many of these type of situations would require a visual inspection as opposed to just sending in something over, you know, broadband or something. So, more thoughts to contemplate. Thank you. Do we have other questions?

It doesn't appear so. Appreciate it, and I think it's a great idea, and I think, again, I want to commend you for just throwing it out there to be kind of fine-tuned and wordsmithed by everybody here, and that's really opening yourself up, as I well know and we all well know, having kids. Carried legislation. But I think the concept is really a good concept. So we'll look forward to seeing how this transpires and becomes reality.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. We know that our fishermen know what really works out there, and so I look forward to hearing them. And I invite people to email the committee, email myself, and really anyone at this table table. I trust that everyone who sits in the Fisheries Committee has experience, listens to their fishermen, and, you know, I think this is the way that we're going to produce the best legislation for our fishermen is by all of us bringing that, that we see to this document. This isn't something that, that I have personal ownership because I'm not the expert.

The fishermen are, and I think we can, we can best serve them by working on this together. And it's going— I look forward to hearing D.C. They— I appreciate that they did put together a fiscal note in a short amount of time, and that helps us kind of steer through the process of what we need to ask them and really what they see as compliance. And so I think that's going to be a positive way to move forward is because we have a D.C. commissioner currently. Who understands the industry, and I look forward to hearing their recommendations on what we can do to make this bill better as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, let's see. Seeing no other business pertaining to House Bill 356, I'm going to set that legislation aside at this time. I, I do have an announcement for this committee and for anyone who is Listening, tomorrow night we are invited to open house at DIPAC starting at 5:30. That's Friday the 24th.

There will be a tour of the Juneau McCauley Salmon Hatchery to learn about its positive impact on Alaska, followed by a brief question and answer period. The event is sponsored by Senator Keele and Representative Hannon and Representative story. And the dye packing, for those that might not know, is— what's that main road here? Um, Egan Way. Thank you.

It's right out off Egan Way instead of turning right. If you're going from downtown, instead of turning right to the hospital, if you make a left there, it'll take you down to it. So with that, I want to thank the committee. Thank you.

I don't know if that's pertinent information. Oh, did she get— has it been announced? Yeah. Excellent. We have a new CFC commissioner.

I should— since the speaker brought this information, I will let you make the announcement, Mr. Speaker. Well, I think it's more your efforts than certainly anyone else's. Well, that's okay. It's a win for all of us. The committee had expressed concern about a second CFP commissioner being brought forth for confirmation to legislature.

Well, today the legislature has received confirmation that Tracy Welch has been formally submitted for consideration for the legislature to serve as that second commissioner of the Portion Fish and Fishery Commission. And that—. We're very lucky. And for those of you that might not connect the name, Tracy Welch was the executive director of UFA. So, and she's spent a lot of time in this room with us, so that's really good news.

Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. So with that, we are adjourned at 11:30. Was there something else? Oh, we're not adjourned yet. I'm going— we're going to make it.

I want to remind people of the deadline for House Bill Oh, oh, send Bill 158, Jesse Bjorkman's bill, today at 5 o'clock in my office. So now with that, we are adjourned at 11:38.