Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/26/2009 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB43 | |
| HB143 | |
| HCR6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 43-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER 10:20:43 AM CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 43, "An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and aquatic farms." 10:21:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, clarified two aspects of the bill: it does not provide for indiscriminate transfer of geoduck/seed between farms, or override transport requirements as permitted by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G); and it stipulates that the farm must be subtidal. 10:22:51 AM RON JOSEPHSON, Section Chief, Fisheries Monitoring, Permitting, and Development, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), restated the pending committee question as to the type of research the department would propose implementing in order to alleviate specific concerns for the bill. He suggested that a study using sterile shellfish would be a direction to consider, and cited the Alutiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery research on salmonids, and certain shellfish, employing the technique of triploid induction. Introducing a sterile animal outside of its zone would be acceptable to the department. Additionally, ADF&G would like to see basic research conducted regarding the viability of subtidal mariculture farms in northern climates. Existing thermographs could be placed in the substrate of proposed farm areas, and existing Southeast mariculture farm locations could be used as a parallel study, to generate data for determining growth rates. 10:25:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for a restating of the department's position. MR. JOSEPHSON said the department is officially neutral, with stipulated concerns. The concerns are for: introducing a non- native species into the larval drift zones of Southcentral Alaska, with minimal information available on the possible impacts to the natural eco systems - analogous to an invasive species; and lack of demonstrated benefits for economic development of geoduck farming in Southeast Alaska. He opined that it would be premature to branch out to other areas of Alaska, and taking the inherent risks, without substantiating data to indicate an economic benefit. 10:28:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON acknowledged that the department is taking a neutral position, and requested Mr. Josephson's scientific opinion. MR. JOSEPHSON opined that the unknown economic viability weighed against the untested risk, does not provide a compelling reason to prematurely expand this type of mariculture development. Geoduck farming is an emerging industry in British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaskan waters, but has not produced a tangible benefit, to date. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that there exists a difference of opinion within the department, which needs to be explored. 10:29:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT allowed that the colder waters of Alaska may retard the grown rate of the geoduck, and asked whether this type of mariculture could ever prove to be economically viable for the state. MR. JOSEPHSON described intertidal farming as being relatively cheap and simple, however, subtidal mariculture requires more effort, is effected by more variables, and is comparatively expensive. He predicted that the geoduck could be economically farmed, despite these constraints. In response to Representative Buch, he agreed to provide a written statement to the committee, prior to further hearings on HB 43. 10:32:38 AM CHAIR EDGMON announced that further departmental comment would be brought to the committee. 10:33:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT cautioned that many private sector ventures in Alaska would not have occurred, had the state stood in judgment of the economic viability prior to allowing development; including arctic drilling. She requested further scientific analysis from ADF&G versus economic viability opinions. 10:34:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI held that economic viability was not being judged. The department, he defended, is showing appropriate concern for existing industries that may be effected by taking the risk of introducing an invasive species. 10:36:24 AM CHAIR EDGMON reopened public testimony, stipulating that it would be limited to the individual before the committee. 10:36:32 AM RAYMOND RALONDE, Professor of Fisheries, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program Participant, State of Alaska Aquaculture Specialist, said that it was his 1992 published research document that served as the basis for establishing the larval drift zones in Alaska. The zones were necessary for creating a formal shellfish transport policy that would ensure minimal genetic impact. Blue mussels and scallops were utilized in the study. Drifting patterns were computed based on considerations for water temperature, surface water velocities, and species developmental growth rates. A delineation was made for Southcentral and Southeast because there appeared to be a probability that larva could drift between these areas and survive. Historically, he said this is why the policy was established. Regarding the economic viability of geoduck, he stated support for the right of independent developers to take business risks. Throughout the years, applied research activities have been jointly conducted with the university and private sector farmers, regarding aquaculture development, utilizing the "try it and see" approach. These studies have paved the way for protocol to be established regarding mariculture of certain species, such as the purple hinge rock scallop and littleneck clam farming. He cautioned that falsely represented economic information may be an issue, if factors particular to the geoduck are not considered. For instance, the slow maturation of the geoduck, or the market price expectations may be misconstrued, and the realistic values lost on an eager entrepreneur. He reported that he is currently in the fifth year of a systematic grow out study specifically on survival and growth rates of geoduck clams. The study, located on Annette Island, is being conducted in an intertidal zone. In the 4th year the clams are slightly less than 1/2 pound, en route to becoming a 2 pound, mature, harvest size clam, which he predicts will take another six or seven years. The survival rate is 48 percent, but the growth rate is 20 percent slower than what occurs in the warmer waters of Puget Sound. He remains cautiously optimistic that geoduck clam farming will become a viable industry in the state. In reading the bill, it appears to ban intertidal aquaculture statewide, and he pondered if that was the intent. He acknowledged that Kachemak Bay poses a unique concern, but considers this an exception to the remainder of the state. In other regions, the industry is appealing for several reasons: it appears to be viable; an orderly permitting process already exists; the common man can enter the field without special training - such as diving; the effort does not require a large capital outlay - no boat or equipment to purchase; and it does not conflict with common property fisheries - harvestable stocks of geoduck do not naturally exist in the intertidal zone. Finally, he said: It can be done by the people who live there and supply the income and the employment for that community. ... I'm concerned that the bill might prohibit that, based upon what's happening in Kachemak Bay. Kachemak Bay is an entirely different argument ... relative to intertidal aquaculture. 10:45:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if he is a proponent or in opposition to the bill. MR. RALONDE opined that risks exist in every enterprise. He noted that in this instance the risk factor is high given the potential problem for separation of stock, and the transport distance required for a single stock. These factors are unknown in regard to geoduck, although other species that have been similarly transported have had unintended consequences. He opined that a population of geoduck may already exist in Prince William Sound, but it is one of the unknowns. He provided an example of the purple hinged rock scallop. This scallop is indigenous to Southeast, however, their transport and introduction for cultivation was denied in Southcentral. Scientists expended effort to find a local, Southcentral, population to draw on, but to no avail. Six or seven years ago, however, juvenile purple hinged scallops began to show up on the ladder nets of the mariculture farmers in Kachemak Bay. Further, in the last year he has discovered the scallops on gear at his mollusk grow-out site for oysters. This proves that a local purple hinged scallop reproductive stock exists, but it could not be located by scientists. If a local geoduck stock exists, and seed is transported in, the genetics of the indigenous species could be swamped by the transported seed. The economic viability research aspect is also an unknown. He stressed the need to provide accurate, adequate information to potential farmers. CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony. 10:49:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that on page 1, lines 8 and 9, it is stipulated that geoduck will not be introduced where a native stock exists. He cited the oyster mariculture, in Southcentral, as a success story of introducing a non-native, and non-reproductive, species to an area and creating an economically viable business opportunity. Additionally, he pointed out that an intertidal study will not provide information to assist the subtidal farmer. He stressed the importance of providing the possibility to create an economic base in coastal villages. The bill has been structured to eliminate conflicts with subsistence and sport users by situating these farms in subtidal areas. Neither does the bill prevent or effect farming in Southeast; a separate management area with wild geoduck stock. To a question from the chair, he cautioned that the product price is subject to fluctuation and investors will need to exercise their own due diligence for proposal purposes. He said that the bill allows any interested party to enter into the due diligence process, and apply for appropriate departmental permits; private individuals or village corporations. An exception, in the bill, is for a policy that disallows the taking of geoduck from the Seward area, where they are raised as seed and planted in specific Gulf locations. 10:55:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that the bill prohibits intertidal permitting, and asked if that was the intent. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that it is the intent for areas in the Gulf of Alaska, but not for the southeastern region. 10:56:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented on the need to exercise caution when introducing an invasive species to an area, however, the release of a bilge pump can release any number of unintended hitchhikers. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 43, Version 26-LS0227\A out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 43 was reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries. 10:58:07 AM The committee took a brief at ease from 10:58 to 11:03.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB143(FSH)--Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| DraftCSHB143(FSH).PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| Work Draft for HCR6 CS.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| HCR6-KPFALetter.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| DraftCSHB143(FSH).PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB143-KRSASupportLetter.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |
| HB143--ProgramRegs.PDF |
HFSH 2/26/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 143 |