Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
02/07/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 26-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING EXEMPTION 8:36:33 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 26, "An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and aquatic farms." 8:38:41 AM CHAIR SEATON opened discussion on HB 26, pointing out that public discussion is closed. He called attention to incoming information from legal services and other additions to the packet. 8:39:38 AM CHAIR SEATON paraphrased from a Legislative Legal and Research Services memorandum dated February 6, 2007, the subject of which was "Aquatic Farming Permits (HB 26; Work Order No. 25- LS0179\K). This memorandum addresses four issues brought up by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. He opined how the opinion, related to the fourth issue, is "backwards." 8:44:42 AM CHAIR SEATON stated that the Governor has indicated a wish to support mariculture. Referring to an excerpt from the Governor's campaign materials, he read a quote as follows: I will work with our shellfish growers to make sure state permitting is not a hindrance to their business. We will grow our mariculture business in a way that does not interfere with the established dive fisheries, but that will produce quality products for the marketplace, and jobs for our coastal communities. 8:46:27 AM CHAIR SEATON reiterated that there are no geoduck or dive fisheries in the areas that will be affected by HB 26. The intent of the bill is to provide jobs in coastal communities. He then offered Amendment 1 as follows: Page 1, line 7, following "section.": Insert "If, under this section, the commissioner issues a permit for an aquatic farm to culture geoducks in a management area that does not have wild geoduck stocks when the permit is issued, the permit may not allow operations for that purpose in the intertidal habitat or environment." 8:46:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected for discussion purposes. CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 1 would address concerns regarding intertidal areas in the northern parts of the state. This would alleviate concerns regarding interference with recreational use of habitat, as this would be a subtidal or dive fishery. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIR SEATON, referring to a statement from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that ADF&G does not have adequate funding for shellfish research. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said: I listened to that statement, and ... was concerned [that] maybe they do need the money before this can be done safely. And then I listened to the other statement ... that there's absolutely no study they could do, that would make them feel comfortable. So, it almost seems like we could throw all of the money in the world at this, and they'd never feel comfortable. 8:50:37 AM CHAIR SEATON stated that he shares this concern. He said "I got the feeling, when we were talking about genetics, and the offer to look at sterile stocks. The quote was that they would ... look at it, but not that if they were sterile they would agree to those." However, there is no wild stock in these areas; therefore genetic problems and solutions are not an issue. This is an issue of ecological considerations in regard to introduction of geoducks into an area where there is no wild stock population. The problem, he said, is stated in the ADF&G handout titled "Attachment 4, Selected Fish and Game Laws, Regulations and Guidelines Related to Shellfish Transport and Aquaculture." He pointed out that the "Northern Exchange" is Tenakee Springs; however, an intertidal geoduck farm has been permitted 35 miles North of Juneau. This is in conflict with ADF&G statements regarding ecological effects, as it is outside of the natural range. 8:53:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether ADF&G was questioned regarding this. CHAIR SEATON replied no, as the information regarding the aforementioned farm was received later. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she would like to hear an explanation. 8:53:43 AM CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Fisheries Biologist III, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that there is an intertidal aquatic farm site at Bridget Cove. The larval drift zone is a result of currents. The aforementioned site is allowed because it is within the larval drift zone. 8:55:09 AM CHAIR SEATON stated that the larval drift zone is intended to prevent the contamination of stocks across genetic lines. He pointed out that Attachment 4 states that the "natural range" is south of Tenakee Springs. He inquired as to why a site that is above the natural range has been permitted, given the previous concerns regarding the ecological interaction beyond the natural range. 8:56:26 AM MS. PRING-HAM replied that anything within Zone 1, which is southeast, may have geoducks due to currents. The natural range is what the ADF&G is currently aware of. She reiterated that geoducks are not typically found in intertidal areas; however, they are found in the aforementioned zone, which is why the site was permitted. CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification that geoducks are not naturally in the intertidal range. MS. PRING-HAM replied that they are typically in the lower intertidal range. CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether those found in Tenakee Springs or in the Northern part of the range are intertidal. MS. PRING-HAM replied that she is unable to answer this question. There is not enough information regarding the full distribution of geoducks in southeast Alaska; however, the currents may carry larvae into the northern area. 8:59:34 AM CHAIR SEATON questioned whether surveys have been done in Northern Lynn Canal, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, or Pelican. MS. PRING-HAM replied that she is not aware of any. However, it is feasible for viable populations to be in these areas. CHAIR SEATON said: It seems that when you are talking about an ecological interaction, and ... in your own paperwork, you say that their range is south of Tenakee Springs, and you are permitting farms north of Tenakee Springs, it's [obvious] that you haven't worried about an ecological interaction in the northern end, which was beyond your established range ... for the species. So, we'll go on to further questions. I think we've found that we don't know a lot of information. 9:01:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that the intent of HB 26 is "going in the right direction." However, this process is "piece meal." He offered his understanding that the Governor is interested in building this industry. Lack of funding is a concern of ADF&G. He expressed concern regarding the science behind it, and opined that many concerns have been brought up. 9:03:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to report HB 26, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 26(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|