Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/18/1996 05:03 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 18, 1996
5:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present.
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 514
"An Act repealing the ban against finfish farming."
- PASSED CSHB 514(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 514
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL BAN ON FINFISH FARMING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/12/96 2729 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2729 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/13/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/18/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KARL OHLS, Resources Development Specialist
Division of Trade and Development
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110804
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0804
Telephone: (907) 465-5467
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 514.
JERRY McCUNE, President and Lobbyist
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, Suite 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2820
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 514.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 514.
JAMES O. COCHRAN, Mariculture Coordinator
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Management and Development
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6150
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 514.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-7644
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and proposed
amendments on HB 514.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Austerman, Ogan and Davis.
Members absent were Representatives Moses and Elton.
HB 514 - REPEAL BAN ON FINFISH FARMING
Number 0041
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that the new version of HB 514, as amended
the previous meeting, was before the committee.
Number 0150
KARL OHLS, Resources Development Specialist, Division of Trade and
Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development
(DCED), noted that he had provided written testimony. He testified
that DCED generally supported new, creative ideas and ventures in
the seafood industry. However, he was offering cautions based on
experience with the existing seafood industry. "We found that just
setting up a system for the industry to obtain its permits and
start operating is not enough," he said, adding that the seafood
industry was highly volatile for a number of reasons. Currently,
DCED spent a lot of time trying to help the salmon industry with
the international market, value-added products and competing in the
global marketplace. "Even with a very mature industry like the
Alaska salmon industry," he said, "you can get hit from outside by
forces you might not see for some time. And you have to be
prepared to put considerable government resources into backing up
that industry, especially when there's already a lot of investment
and a lot of constituents who are working in that industry."
MR. OHLS believed oyster farming could have used additional
support. "They've had to struggle to find markets, technical
support on how to design their facilities, on trying to keep up
with new developments in the industry, trying to find a way to
market their products," he said. "This has all been left to them."
He thought there was a better way, where the state could
participate and help. He believed some of those lessons could be
used for finfish farming.
MR. OHLS briefly discussed salmon hatcheries, which had struggled
as well. He emphasized the need for planning. Markets, value-
added products and technical support needed to be considered for a
new industry, he said.
Number 0451
JERRY McCUNE, President and Lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska,
testified that he opposed using non-native stocks. Neither did he
think it would be good to move Arctic char or other species into
areas where they were not native. He suggested there would be
conflicts over water use. In Prince William Sound, for example, in
areas where farms would be appropriate, with tide and flush-out
areas, there would be conflicts with boats during summer, he
indicated.
Number 0599
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if Mr. McCune thought, in
retrospect, that it had been wise to oppose fish farming five or
six years ago.
MR. McCUNE believed it was. "Number one, if we're talking about
wild stocks, which grow real slow because this is cold water and
the feed that you have to transport, I think we made a wise move,
because in Canada, where you can drive to the farms, half the
people that applied for farms are broke," he said, indicating those
farms no longer existed. The farther from the marketplace a farm
was, the higher transportation and other costs would be. "The
processors are looking at that to compete in the world market now,"
he said. "The farms in Canada are right next to the market. I
don't know how we would compete with that. And also, in Norway,
they're subsidized, and in Chile, they have real low labor costs.
So, right now, in the world global market, the Norwegian government
has ordered them to cut back on the farmed fish, because it's too
many fish." He noted that in Chile, Japanese farms had ordered
their farmers to cut back. "In Canada, it's already weeded itself
out," he said, indicating the stronger farms had formed alliances
to survive.
MR. McCUNE suggested that success in fish farming was in Atlantic
stocks, a brown trout. He mentioned that in Norway, escapees had
taken over the wild stocks, necessitating a gene pool to try to re-
establish the wild stocks. "I think we made a wise choice," he
reiterated, "looking at the glut of salmon on the market today."
Number 0744
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS indicated he was looking to see if the
bill discussed exemption of non-native species or relocation of
species from one area of the state to another.
MR. McCUNE referred to Title 16 and said, to his knowledge, that
non-native stocks could not be imported into the state. "We can't
move eggs from one area to another that are not native to that
particular area," he said. "We cannot sell eggs, such as they did
in Washington; they sold a lot of those eggs to make money, to
other countries. And all those things are prohibited, if I
remember right, under Title 16."
Number 0823
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if Mr. McCune was saying they were
already addressed in statute and exempted from participating.
MR. McCUNE replied, "As far as I remember, and I didn't look it up
today."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated he thought that was the intent of
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER, sponsor of the bill, concurred.
Number 0867
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said that since the previous
committee meeting, ADF&G had reviewed the committee substitute and
submitted a new fiscal note, dated 3/18/96. Mr. Bruce explained
he was not addressing economic development or public policy
concerns. Rather, he would outline ADF&G's responsibilities and
address what ADF&G would have to undertake to ensure that
development did not harm wild stocks nor contribute to disease
problems in the state. They needed to ensure any resulting
industry was well managed, well regulated and healthy.
Number 0965
MR. BRUCE pointed out that in net-pen technology, fish could escape
and mix with wild stocks or transmit disease. He stressed the
importance of ADF&G taking steps to protect genetic integrity of
wild stocks. "These animals have evolved, over long periods of
time, a particular genetic make-up that enables them to survive in
the particular environment in which they find themselves," he
explained, adding that changes to that genetic make-up could result
in less success for wild stocks.
Number 1030
MR. BRUCE suggested the shellfish farming industry could give an
idea of challenges facing the state in starting a new industry.
Shellfish farming had depended primarily on entrepreneurs to
pioneer it and was struggling. For example, shellfish farmers
needed a hatchery to provide brood stock, as oysters did not
naturally reproduce in Alaska and farmers had to import brood stock
from out-of-state oyster farms. Although funds had been obtained
from the Exxon Valdez settlement to construct a shellfish hatchery
and mariculture center, proposed for Seward, the state was
struggling with the financial realities of trying to operate that
facility in an era of declining budgets, Mr. Bruce said. He
thought many shellfish farmers would bemoan the lack of regulatory
and technical support from the state in developing their industry,
as they were having a difficult time going it alone.
MR. BRUCE thought similar concerns applied to finfish farming.
"You are going to need some way to get brood stock, for example,"
he said. "You probably are going to require hatcheries. It's not
going to be practical for farmers to go back to the wild each and
every time they want to get more eggs for whatever species they're
working with. They're going to be looking for some cultured source
of eggs." Mr. Bruce asked where the hatchery infrastructure would
come from for fish farming in Alaska. "We're having a devil of a
time getting together one just for the shellfish industry," he
said, "and that's working with a species that has a lot of things
going for it in terms of the market. It's a high-value product.
It's very well-known and there's a lot of demand for it." He
suggested ADF&G would have responsibility for regulating, and
possibly providing, brood stock acquisition for finfish farming.
Number 1230
MR. BRUCE indicated James Cochran, program manager for ADF&G's
shellfish program, could discuss shellfish as a model for starting
up a new industry in the state. He acknowledged the sponsor's
intent to have this be an industry-supported program. He referred
to the fiscal note and said there would be no industry the first
year. "We'd be promulgating regulations and just getting things in
place," Mr. Bruce said. "So, the very first year there, we show a
straight general fund funding source. And then, in subsequent
years, it switches over to program receipts, as the sponsor
envisioned." Mr. Bruce added that ADF&G assumed there would be 50
farm applications the first year.
Number 1333
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN referred to an earlier question about non-native
stocks and moving fish to other parts of the state. He understood
that to be prohibited currently under Title 16.
MR. BRUCE replied, "I don't believe the importation of non-native
stocks is prohibited in statute. The sale of eggs is prohibited in
statute. But I think we have procedures to allow non-native stocks
into the state. For example, the oyster farming ... is using a
non-native stock." He said as a general policy, ADF&G discouraged
such importation and had grave concerns about it. "You can look
all over the world and see the consequences of the importation of
non-native stocks into a situation and then having that situation
get out of control," he said. "So, when we do allow it, we do
exercise great control."
Number 1413
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked about the current perceived problem with
pike that had been introduced into the state.
MR. BRUCE responded, "There definitely is more than a perceived
problem. There's no question that pike are a ferocious predator
and have gotten into some waterways that we would very much like to
get them out of." He added, "And that's a good example of the kind
of thing that we would be very keen to prevent in the future."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that he had just reread AS 16.41.30 and
said, "it speaks to the importation of aquatic plants or shellfish.
It doesn't speak to finfish. And 16.41.40 does talk about the
limitations of transfers of stock by permit only."
Number 1465
MR. BRUCE said, "Right. We do have a system where any transfer,
native or non-native, has to receive a permit and be approved and
go through a process of screening."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN responded, "So, if we wanted to exclude the
importation of non-native stocks of finfish, then we need to
address that in this bill somehow."
MR. BRUCE said, "I believe so. I haven't researched that specific
question, but to the best of my recollection, I don't think there
is a specific prohibition in statute to that effect." He suggested
he would like to research it before giving a final answer.
Number 1497
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked Mr. Bruce if he envisioned ADF&G
issuing a permit for importation of non-native stock.
MR. BRUCE said, "Well, just because we have the situation with
oysters, I can imagine a situation that would develop where you
would. I think it would be unlikely." He suggested one reason for
allowing oysters may have been that the water here was too cold for
oysters to reproduce naturally. They would not proliferate out of
control and affect the natural environment. "But that could be the
case with some other species, as well," he added. He thought it
would be more likely that Alaskans would look to native stocks for
this kind of endeavor.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was his point. He thought the
problem was more perceived than real. "Certainly, the department
is not going to allow or issue a permit for a non-native stock
that's going to endanger a native wild stock," he said.
Number 1574
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked whether halibut bred in Alaska waters.
MR. BRUCE replied, "Generally, we don't know a lot about what the
halibut do," and deferred to James Cochran.
JAMES O. COCHRAN, Mariculture Coordinator, Division of Commercial
Fisheries Management and Development, Department of Fish and Game,
indicated little was known about the natural spawning habits of
halibut. He explained, "Halibut are deep-water spawners, probably
mid-winter. They spawn offshore, as far as we know." Reports did
suggest that halibut larvae were picked up in the open ocean in the
spring. In addition, halibut could spawn in a hatchery
environment, he said. Atlantic halibut had been spawned
commercially, while Pacific halibut had been spawned
experimentally.
Number 1698
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that the non-native stock issue had arisen
several times and said it would be simple to add language to the
bill to address that.
Number 1730
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "My only consideration about that
limitation is when you're introducing it to a semi-wild
environment, rivers, waterways, what have you, in terms of the
farming, that there is an industry that is developing where the
farming is actually done just in tanks, a secure environment, which
doesn't pose a risk to the wild stocks at all." He suggested
retaining flexibility for tank farming and added, "but beyond that,
I haven't got a problem."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "This statute, if we added finfish into
it, the last part of it says, `unless authorized by a regulation of
the Board of Fisheries', so the Board of Fisheries would have the
option of going back through by regulations...."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "It seems to me, through previous
testimony, that the Board of Fish[eries] was not really desirous of
having too large of a role in this process. They basically viewed
themselves as an allocative body, as opposed to a policy body." He
suggested regulation would be left up to ADF&G to provide security
for wild stocks and yet allow the potential of tank farming. He
asked Mr. Bruce if that was his interpretation.
Number 1805
MR. BRUCE replied, "Certainly, I think the department would provide
our best information about the risks and how to manage any risks
that might be associated. But I think the policy call should be
made by some entity other than the staff for the department, either
the legislature or the board."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER concurred and added that he supported the
legislature not trying to endanger wild stocks. "We have the
policy ability here to just make the statement as long as it is not
endangering wild stocks, that on a permit basis, the department
could issue a permit if it was determined by the department it was
not going to endanger a wild stock." He indicated he was not sure
how that fit with the amendment being considered.
Number 1882
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN stated he was thinking more about the pike
situation and the need for protection if, for example, pike were to
be farmed in a river system.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he was advocating the potential window
of allowance for tank farming, if that would be economically
viable. He offered to work with the committee on an amendment.
MR. BRUCE indicated ADF&G would like to be included in working on
that amendment. "We want to make sure the process is consistent,"
he said. "And for the existing fish transport permits, they are
developed under regulations promulgated by the Board of Fisheries.
And the way we read this statute, these would be promulgated under
the commissioner's authority; and we just want to make sure that if
we're not doing it the same way, there's a good reason to do it in
a different way."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said that would be fine. He indicated he,
Representative Mulder and ADF&G would have something drafted up for
the House Resources Committee, the bill's next committee of
referral.
Number 1964
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She referred to page 3, line 30,
and said DEC recommended that subsection 10 be deleted. She
referred to page 4, line 3, Section 3, which DEC also recommended
be deleted. "The rationale here is that Section 10 deals with the
national shellfish sanitation program," she said, "and that ... has
no standards applicable to finfish farming." Instead, DEC
recommended that a new subparagraph (c) be added to page 3,
Section9, to read, "and for finfish farms, water quality". Ms.
Adair explained that water quality was a concern the department
would have in pen-rearing areas. She said in order to deal with
the deletion of Section 3 on page 10, DEC recommended, on line 18,
that finfish farm products be added to the definition of fish or
fisheries products. "I think we get to the same place in a little
big neater and cleaner fashion," she said. Ms. Adair specified she
was working from version C of the bill, dated 3/11/96.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked her to go back over her recommendations.
Number 2125
MS. ADAIR referred to subsection 10 on page 3, starting on line 30,
and said DEC recommended deleting that paragraph in its entirety.
On page 4, starting at line 3, Section 3, DEC recommended deleting
that paragraph in its entirety.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN indicated that would omit Section 3 altogether.
MS. ADAIR affirmed that. She referred to page 3, line 25,
paragraph 9, and said 9 had two subparagraphs, (a) and (b); DEC
recommended adding a subparagraph (c) that would read, "and for
fish farms, water quality". She said that would mean the
department would establish standards and conditions for the
operation and siting of aquatic farms and related hatcheries and of
finfish farms, including water quality. She referred to page 4,
line 18, the definitions section for fish or fisheries products;
DEC recommended that on line 18, after "parts of those plants", the
words "finfish farm products" be added. "That way, they become
what a fish or fisheries product is and subject to the same and
special requirements," she said, indicating that would accomplish
the intent of Section 3 that DEC had recommended deleting.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked Ms. Adair to fax her amendment
recommendations.
Number 2207
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Adair why she recommended the
deletion of the whole paragraph from the existing statute.
MS. ADAIR clarified, "All I meant was to delete it from this bill.
So, including finfish farms or finfish farm products, there on
page3 in subparagraph 10, that doesn't make any sense because that
section deals with the national shellfish sanitation program and
only shellfish. It has no bearing on finfish. So, that amendment
need not be made to that section. And the same on page 4,
Section3; I mean only to delete this from this bill, which would
simply delete the amendment that was being proposed. The amendment
that we're suggesting for the definition of fish or fisheries
products gets us to the same place."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any problems with those
amendments or further suggestions.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER replied, "I have no problem if you would
adopt a conceptual amendment to include that language."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "So moved." There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN, noting that the conceptual amendment had been
adopted, indicated it would be put in writing and added to the bill
before being passed on to the next committee.
Number 2326
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS expressed appreciation that Chairman Austerman
would carry concerns over non-native species to the House Resources
Committee, as it was a valid concern that was not specified in the
referenced statutes. He noted that the sponsor agreed.
Number 2340
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that the committee adopt work draft F,
dated 3/14/96. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Representative Davis then moved that the committee adopt the
conceptual amendments offered by DEC to the work draft copy. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN noted that work draft F, as amended, was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved that CSHB 514(FSH) move from committee
with the conceptual amendment, attached fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. There being no objection, it moved from
committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN
adjourned the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting at
5:48p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|