02/05/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 5, 2007
8:32 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act prohibiting mixing zones in freshwater spawning waters."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 26
SHORT TITLE: GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/05/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. JIM SEEB, Chief Fisheries Scientist
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related ADF&G's support for the goal
embodied in HB 26, with the caveat of inserting the word
"sterile."
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Mariculture Coordinator
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 26, answered
questions.
RAY RALONDE, Aquaculture Specialist
University of Alaska
Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 26, expressed the
need for more research.
ALAN AUSTERMAN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support of the concept embodied in
HB 26.
JEFF HETRICK
Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 26, expressed
interest in allowing a demonstration project to determine how
well geoducks live outside of their larval drift zone.
DAVID OTNESS, Oyster Farmer
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 26, described
ADF&G as having a "can't do" attitude.
BOB LINVILLE, Oyster Farmer
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 26, testified that
aquaculture in Alaska has huge potential that has been stifled
by the regulatory process.
WILLY DUNNE
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
Fritz Creek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 26, specifically
regarding the lack of reference to "sterile" and "subtidal
culture."
GARVAN BUCARIA
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with "railroading" this
proposal [embodied in HB 26].
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:32:36 AM. Representatives
Wilson, Johansen, Holmes, and Edgmon were present at the call to
order. Representative LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 26-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING EXEMPTION
8:32:48 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."
8:34:43 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:36 a.m.
8:36:18 AM
DR. JIM SEEB, Chief Fisheries Scientist, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), provided
the department's support of the goal of HB 26, which is to
promote mariculture throughout Alaska. He pointed out that the
department has been working for a number of years with the
industry and the Seward hatchery to "identify pathways for
success and pathways for responsible regulation." He recalled
that at least two proposals have been co-authored with different
operators to help them adopt and develop the methods for
creating sterile shellfish for culturing in Alaska.
Unfortunately, one of these programs was subsequently
terminated. The department promotes the ambitions, and supports
the goals of HB 26; however, not without some concern for the
wording of the bill as it does not stipulate "sterile"
shellfish. He pointed out that as worded, the bill proposes to
permit the free movement of fertile geoducks throughout the Gulf
of Alaska (GOA), including areas outside of the geoducks native
range. He cautioned:
Whenever entities get involved in introducing new
species, there can often be a lot of unintended
consequences. The states that have gone through these
kind of activities, during the last decades, have ...
encountered unintended consequence, after unintended
consequence. For that reason there was a lot of
effort that was put into this production of sterile
fish and shellfish for aquaculture and mariculture.
The marine ecosystems are made up of intricate food
webs and it's ... not possible to forecast the outcome
if we introduce new species. ... Unfortunately,
sometimes there are ... fatal impacts that occur that
can destroy local ecosystems.
DR. SEEB stressed that economic and social hardships can occur
when introducing new species into areas. The department would
expect to be able to promote responsible culture of sterile
stocks and avoid potentially catastrophic risks. Geoducks are
high fecund and are highly mobile in the larval drift stage,
with possibly hundreds of thousands of eggs from each female
able to drift for great distances. He underscored that
ecological consequences would not be isolated to the competition
that may occur on the beaches but also throughout the food
chain.
8:40:36 AM
DR. SEEB pointed out that the larval drift zones were
established with input from the industry. At the Seward
facility seven species of bivalves are reared. These are
species that are indigenous to the GOA. He advised that it is
important to maintain the genetic integrity of local stocks and
to identify the larval drift zones to provide the industry
guidelines on where stocks can be located in regard to the drift
zones. The larval drift zones are liberal, based on ocean
currents, winds, and water temperature. In summary, Dr. Seeb
reiterated that promoting the movement of fertile geoducks
outside of their native range can be risky, resulting in
unintended consequences. However, by changing the bill language
to "allow the movement of sterile geoducks," those risks would
be removed. He stressed that there would not be industry
support for the movement of fertile geoducks, and the Seward
facility shares the department's concerns for the movement of
fertile geoducks. The current Alaska statute disallows the
movement of sterile stocks of fish, and this bill will correct
that oversight.
8:43:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what is the status for creating, or
the availability of obtaining, sterile geoducks stocks.
DR. SEEB responded that sterile geoduck stocks may not be
available. The initial sterility research was performed
primarily on oysters, and the bivalve work has not been
completed on geoducks. He described the two methods of
sterilization: thermal pressure shock and chemical treatment.
Levels for these methods have not been established to sterilize
geoducks. He opined that this work may not be a priority for
the [Seward hatchery] at this time because its efforts are
focused on developing cultures for so many species at one time.
Neither is the facility meeting the incoming requests for seed
in the GOA. He speculated that delaying the hatchery's efforts
wouldn't place any hardship on the facility while it ramps up
its sterile techniques. In further response to Representative
Holmes, he responded:
I think that the way to handle this would be for the
Seward facility to take the leadership role in
developing sterile geoducks, and this might be a
market niche that they could use to even export
geoducks to other states.
8:45:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that sterilization techniques are
available for oysters, but not for geoduck clams.
DR. SEEB explained that the sterilization techniques have been
widely applied to many species of fish and shellfish. He
offered that the state currently produces sterile rainbow trout
for introduction into non-indigenous waters. Having been well
researched for a number of decades, these techniques should be
adaptable to geoducks and other species.
8:46:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON underscored Dr. Seeb's comment that adapting this
technique from one species to another should prove to be
"simple."
8:47:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired as to whether a sterile species
has ever been able to naturally adapt and become productive;
with adverse effects.
DR. SEEB advised that oysters are highly fecund, similar to
geoducks, and in sterile oyster beds a natural reversion rate of
1 in 10,000, or lower, does occur. In further response, he
stated that he is not aware of this occurring in other species.
Additionally he explained that the sterilization process is
identical for all species via application of a thermal,
pressure, or chemical shock. He emphasized:
Because the process is the same in all species the
"simple" ... challenge is to find the right dosage to
disrupt that [reproductive] process. I'm not aware of
it ... ever having failed in any species.
8:48:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the larval drift zone is
apparently the single criteria being cited for denial of a farm
permit, or for transport of seed beyond natural habitat range.
He asked:
When you address[ed] the larval drift zones, and you
said that [actually] addresses a different problem,
and that problem was ... [maintaining] a genetic
dilution of a local stock - how then are you saying
that the larval drift zone, although it ... doesn't
apply in this case, is the full reason for the denial
of the permit.
8:49:56 AM
DR. SEEB responded that prior to the drift zones being
identified as a concern, laws existed to preclude the
introduction of non-indigenous fish. He cited section AS
16.35.210, directing attention to the committee packet and
January 30, 2007, letter from Tim Barry, Attachment #4, page 4,
paragraph 3. This identifies the various prohibitions against
introducing non-indigenous fish. This statute was in existence
prior to the development of the larval drift zone. The larval
drift zones were designed to deal with species that appear
statewide, such as Weathervane scallops, and provide the
industry guidelines on transporting stocks between zones.
8:51:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON said: "Now we have a situation and that is ...
[larval drift zone] is the number one issue." He drew attention
to Mr. Barry's January 30, 2007, letter titled "Attachment #2
Alaska Larval Drift Zone Development," second paragraph, and
paraphrased from the written statement [original punctuation
provided]:
The Mariculture industry had the need for 1)
transporting mollusks to farms within the natural
range of the species where threat species does not
presently occur and 2) transporting mollusks to farms
outside the natural range of the species. Issue No. 1
for transport within the natural range was considered
a low risk. ... Issue No. 2 on transporting outside
the natural range was not considered as existing
regulations proscribed transfer outside the
"documented" range of a species.
DR. SEEB noted that he didn't prepare the aforementioned
paragraph. He related his understanding that the language is
discussing a larval drift model developed by the Alaska Sea
Grant [Marine Advisory Program], Ray Ralonde.
8:53:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the next paragraph in the
aforementioned document and highlighted the following sentence:
From this collaborative effort it was assured that
reasonable precautions were in place that would
protect wild stocks of species that support commercial
fisheries or may support developing fisheries in the
future and yet ensure continued growth of the
mariculture industry.
CHAIR SEATON questioned, "So, there's nothing in this bill that
is contrary to that; is that correct?"
DR. SEEB pointed out that HB 26 promotes the introduction of
species beyond their native range. He explained that the larval
drift zones were designed to provide a regulatory framework for
limiting the transport of one stock of a species into an area
where another stock of the same species resides. Since geoducks
don't occur in the northern Gulf of Alaska, this doesn't apply,
he opined.
8:56:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired as to the depth of science
available on geoducks.
DR. SEEB informed the committee that geoducks don't occur
naturally in [some portions of] Southeast Alaska as the larval
drift doesn't extend past Cape St. Elias for many species,
including geoducks. Therefore, it might be the case that
geoducks wouldn't be able to reproduce or thrive in Southcentral
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired as to whether geoducks
reproduce in Southeast Alaska where they naturally occur.
8:57:56 AM
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Mariculture Coordinator, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, stated
that geoduck studies for Alaska are minimal. Most studies have
been done in the State of Washington where the conditions differ
from those in Alaska. She said there is no knowledge as to
whether geoducks are spawning "here" or drift from British
Columbia. Ms. Pring-Ham informed the committee that bivalves,
including geoducks, are episodic in their reproductive strategy.
Therefore, under certain conditions they will reproduce, but
they may only reproduce every 30 years. In further response to
Representative Johansen, Ms. Pring-Ham confirmed that generally
the department approaches this with caution in terms of the
management of aquaculture and commercial fisheries. She
emphasized that although the department is trying to learn more
about geoducks, the department doesn't have resources for that
particular research and thus has to do so on an opportunistic
basis. She mentioned that genetics are also an unknown factor
with geoducks as well.
9:00:25 AM
MS. PRING-HAM, in response to Chair Seaton, said that because
geoducks don't occur in Southcentral Alaska there won't
necessarily be impacts on the geoduck wild stocks. In response
to Representative LeDoux, Ms. Pring-Ham reiterated that the
department doesn't have any genetic information on shellfish in
general for Alaska. However, this spring the department will
collect geoducks during surveys for commercial fisheries.
Hopefully, the department will take some genetic information in
Southeast where geoducks occur.
9:01:37 AM
MS. PRING-HAM explained that the department does not have the
funds to collect samples specific to this species; however, when
conducting surveys for other projects, the samples will
"opportunistically pick a few samples up" to be provided to a
laboratory for genetic analysis. To Representative LeDoux's
follow-up question, she responded:
Unfortunately, we [the department] don't have a
mandate for this, ... doing research for ...
shellfish. Most of the monies are going to other
commercial fish endeavors; ... we have to do it on an
opportunistic basis. I have a little money in
mariculture [division] to try and get some of the
analysis done.
MS. PRING-HAM, in further response to Representative LeDoux,
deferred to Dr. Seeb regarding what it would take to perform
"some real research" on geoducks. In response to Chair Seaton,
Ms. Pring-Ham confirmed that the department's situation is
captured, in the letter titled "Attachment #2 Alaska Larval
Drift Zone Development," by the following statement: "The
department doesn't have funding currently to improve our
understanding of the distribution, genetics, and life history of
bivalves/shellfish in Alaska including larval period, larval
drift zones, mechanism for larval retention, reproduction, and
other biological information to identify the stock structure of
these invertebrates and plants species."
9:03:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the state will be slow in coming
with this information and mariculture permits in Southcentral
and Western Alaska will be denied because there is no
information.
MS. PRING-HAM related that the department will attempt to garner
funding sources elsewhere to undertake research. In fact,
professors at the University of Alaska - Southeast are
interested in performing genetic research on geoducks and are
seeking funding sources through the [Alaska Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Program] and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). She expressed hope that additional
outside sources in collaboration with the department will be
able to obtain additional life history information.
9:04:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON highlighted that many species have been
preserved in Alaska due to research. She inquired as to how
long it would take for ADF&G, were it to obtain funding, to
perform research that would allow this type of mariculture. She
then inquired as to the possible consequences of introducing
geoducks in Southcentral Alaska.
MS. PRING-HAM, referring to the timeframe in which the
department would be comfortable, reminded the committee that in
terms of genetics the populations are in Southeast Alaska. A
study comparing the brood and wild stock study can be performed
within a year or two, with adequate analysis. Furthermore, to
obtain samples from multiple areas would take multiple years
unless research funding is secured. In terms of the cost for
analysis it would be $30,000-$60,000 for genetic analysis, which
doesn't include the collection [of the samples].
9:08:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON then asked if there is any possibility
that introducing geoducks in Southcentral Alaska would harm
those in Southeast Alaska.
MS. PRING-HAM directed the committee's attention to a map of the
larval drift zone. In response to Chair Seaton, she specified
that the stock going to the Seward hatchery comes from West
Gravina/Vallenar Bay.
9:09:33 AM
MS. PRING-HAM related her understanding that Representative
Wilson is concerned of a possible situation in which, by chance,
the seed from Southcentral became viable, and the geoducks
reproduced. Since geoducks are very large and dig almost three
feet down, they take up a lot of biomass. Once that seed is
introduced, the predators are attracted and prey on the seeds
and those predators attract their predators as well. Therefore,
the predator-prey interaction/relation may change dramatically.
There isn't enough knowledge, she opined, as to what would
happen in such a situation. The only way to perform an
experiment is to actually [introduce the geoduck seed], which
may actually cause the problem and would require multiple
research projects. She recalled Chair Seaton's earlier remarks
regarding the studies performed in the State of Washington in
which the benthic organisms increased after the harvest of
geoducks. The aforementioned is partly caused because the
benthic zone has been stimulated with nutrients/food for other
organisms.
9:12:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON restated her concern with regard to
negative impacts on Southeast Alaska.
MS. PRING-HAM reminded the committee that geoducks occur
naturally in Southeast, and currently all of the geoduck farms
are located in areas where geoducks are prevalent. However,
that may not be the case for the next set [of geoduck farm
sites]. She noted that there are a couple of intertidal sites
that are devoid of any geoducks.
9:14:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON posed a situation in which a wild population became
established in Kodiak, and asked if there would be an impact on
the geoducks in Southeast that are located in a separate larval
drift zone than those in Kodiak.
MS. PRING-HAM answered that the larval drift zones are fairly
distinct, and therefore the currents won't come down and
displace/interfere with geoduck populations in Southeast Alaska.
9:14:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to the department's concerns
with introducing geoducks that may reproduce in Southcentral
Alaska without prior research.
MS. PRING-HAM reiterated that such a situation would possibly
impact the ecosystem, ranging from the tropic levels to marine
mammals. The aforementioned has occurred in the Lower 48 when
[non-native] species have been introduced and displaced native
species, resulting in disastrous situations. Transferring
aquaculture species from one area to another makes them an
exotic species [in the area in which they aren't naturally
occurring]. For instance, British Columbia has five [larval]
zones and they don't transport from one zone to another until
they are sure that there aren't genetic, disease, or ecological
issues. In fact, there is a committee of essentially federal
and state members to scientifically review applications. The
State of Washington has a similar situation and aquatic farms
must stay within the three zones for geoducks as they have
concern for disease.
9:17:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES posed a situation in which the department,
under existing statutes and regulations, received an application
for a geoduck farm in Southcentral Alaska. She asked whether
the department would have the latitude to approve it if the
science was in place and the department was convinced that was
safe.
MS. PRING-HAM answered that such a decision would be
inconsistent with the current regulations and statutes in that
geoducks couldn't be transferred from Southeast Alaska to
Southcentral Alaska because it would cross larval drift zones.
In further response, Ms. Pring-Ham provided the committee a
handout entitled "ADF&G Testimony on HB 26 (Legal Perspective)"
and directed attention to the fourth bullet, which read:
Allowing the unconstrained transfer of geoduck seed as
proposed in section 2 of the bill would also require
modification to regulations adopted based on current
statutes." The regulation that would be in violation
in this circumstance is "5 AAC 41.295(d) which
prohibits transport of stock between aquatic farm,
hatchery, and stock acquisition sites except within an
approved larval drift zone."
9:20:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to how difficult it would be
to change the aforementioned regulation to accommodate a
situation in which the department has the science and felt it
was safe [to transport geoducks to Southcentral Alaska] or there
were sterile geoducks.
MS. PRING-HAM said that the regulation could be changed such
that it perhaps referenced House Bill 226 changes and specified
"except for geoducks." She explained that essentially one zone
is being created between Southeast and Southcentral Alaska for
geoducks. However, she highlighted that there are other species
that inhabit all areas within Southeast and Southcentral Alaska,
such as little neck clams and cockles. Again, there isn't
enough genetic information to know whether those are different
problems. Furthermore, some of those shellfish have diseases
and the disease provisions wouldn't allow the transfer of
diseased shellfish with diseases that aren't in other areas.
She noted that normally drift zones are used for that purpose.
9:21:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that HB 26 only applies to geoducks, for
which genetics isn't an issue. The bill simply addresses
whether the department can use the established drift zones as a
preventor from allowing farms in any place else in Alaska.
9:22:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that the
department is concerned that if geoducks are allowed in
Southcentral Alaska, they could displace the indigenous species.
She surmised that the aforementioned would occur in any location
where species are enhanced through mariculture or hatcheries.
MS. PRING-HAM reminded the committee that with salmon it took
quite some time to develop provisions to ensure that hatchery-
produced salmon didn't impact wild stock. Many genetic policies
went into effect with regard to salmon. Ms. Pring-Ham said that
the department has made [similar] attempts with shellfish.
9:24:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she isn't referring to
genetics, but rather is referring to the actual displacement of
the naturally occurring fish or geoducks. She asked, "In other
words, if you start out with just this little, tiny population
of salmon or this little, tiny population of geoducks, and then
through aquaculture you enhance it, why aren't you afraid that
all of the other fish are going to be displaced?"
MS. PRING-HAM said that she can only discuss the aquaculture
species. She explained that [the current aquaculture farms] are
defined areas leased by the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) and where ADF&G allows aquaculture. Ms. Pring-Ham said
she doesn't have enough information to know the impacts those
organisms have on existing organisms. "In terms of the
geoducks, they're in areas where there are, at least
commercially, a number of geoducks that would ... attract and
support a commercial fishery," she related. Therefore, certain
areas have been isolated for use with aquaculture.
9:25:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified Representative Ledoux's question to be
that in this case [ADF&G] is saying that the [transfer of
geoducks] may have large ecological ramifications. However,
millions and millions of salmon fry are let out to actively feed
and move around without the same [concern]. Furthermore, salmon
are predators rather than filter feeders. Moreover, there are
oyster farms throughout the state and these oysters do put out
larvae, and again without the same concern with regard to the
ecosystem. Therefore, he inquired as to why geoducks are more
of a concern than salmon or oysters.
MS. PRING-HAM, noting that she isn't an expert on salmon,
pointed out that over the last 20 years many scientists have
discussed the hatchery-produced salmon and its relationship to
wild stocks. She then reminded the committee that with salmon,
the salmon hatcheries are enhancing existing wild stock
populations. However, there are no known naturally occurring
geoducks in Southcentral Alaska. Ms. Pring-Ham acknowledged
that there could be impacts in Southeast Alaska where geoducks
already naturally occur, but it should be minimal because of
their existence.
9:28:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON then referred to the document titled "Attachment 3
Shellfish Importation Prohibition and Disease Policies" and read
the following: "In the stock of geoducks so far examined the
pathology labs have found no pathogens (agents or parasites) of
transport significance in the brood stock collected for the
hatchery of the spat produced at the hatchery." Chair Seaton
surmised then that the concern is in regard to the possibility
of disease, albeit low, that hasn't been detected in the wild
stock or the farmed stock.
MS. PRING-HAM noted her agreement. She informed the committee
that the department annually reviews the brood stock of the
geoduck seed for disease. Thus far, there has not been a
disease, of those listed on Attachment 3, recognized in this
species. Geoducks are a shellfish species that doesn't have any
potential pathogens that would be harmful to humans.
9:31:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON, again referring to the document titled "Attachment
3 Shellfish Importation Prohibition and Disease Policies" and
read the following: "Likewise there have been no pathogens of
transport significance reported in the literature for geoducks
either in BC or WA," and Alaska, he added. He asked if that's
correct.
MS. PRING-HAM confirmed that there are no pathogens currently in
Alaska geoducks.
9:31:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if geoducks have diseases elsewhere.
MS. PRING-HAM said that she doesn't have that information, but
offered to obtain it for the committee. She reminded the
committee that Alaska's geoducks can only come from Alaska's
[wild stock] and Alaska's geoduck hatchery. The geoducks in
Southeast, she reiterated, don't have any pathogens. In further
response to Representative Wilson, Ms. Pring-Ham acknowledged
that there is the possibility that a disease found in geoducks
in other areas might occur in Alaska's geoducks. However,
typically diseases are transferred by something that can
transfer the pathogen.
9:33:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referenced the State of Washington and
British Columbia's policies and procedures for a similar
mariculture industry, which he characterized as a model of an
effective process that could be applied in Alaska. He
acknowledged the "hesitancy" held by the department to support
this measure due to the lack of base-line science. He asked,
"What needs to happen for the department to get that process
rolling?" He mentioned that it would take time to implement
such a process, and therefore he inquired as to the time
required to produce a marketable geoduck.
MS. PRING-HAM responded that the department doesn't have data to
establish the growth rate of geoduck clams in the waters of
Alaska. However, the department estimates that it takes 7-8
years to produce a marketable geoduck in Southeast Alaska, and
about 9-10 years in Southcentral Alaska. She underscored that
the department does not have growth data for Alaska waters and
the available growth information is based on research from
British Columbia and the State of Washington. She said,
Again, there's probably no study we could do in
Southcentral that would make us feel safe that
introducing geoducks there would not cause a problem
to the ecosystem. Once you introduce something,
you've started the whole chain reaction. ... I did
mention that you could do studies in Southeast just to
see the impacts within a plot, but again, the food
chain is so complicated that it's hard to design a
study. You can design the changes to the benthic
organisms ... but we just don't have a good handle on
the ramifications to this particular project.
9:35:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN commented that this has been done
elsewhere, and it seems that the department could follow that
lead. This could be a major addition to those fishermen who
fish only four to five months of the year. Representative
Johansen noted his support of the goal [of geoduck farms], but
he also expressed concern with regard to the lack of science.
9:36:38 AM
MS. PRING-HAM mentioned that there are sites in Southcentral,
which are a result of House Bill 208 that designated areas that
are potentially suitable for farm sites. Some of these sites
are suspended oyster sites while others are intertidal sites.
She related that 106 acres are available for that, of which 19
are located in Southcentral Alaska.
9:37:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that House Bill 208 mandated that the
department issue permits because the department was not moving
forward with any of the leases based on uncertainties.
MS. PRING-HAM confirmed that House Bill 208 designated 90 sites,
60 of which were suspended, 20 intertidal, and 10 subtidal. She
recalled that 158 [sites] were designated as possibly suitable
for farming. However, the aforementioned didn't include data on
the wild stock and thus bio mass surveys must be performed prior
to approval. These sites have been through a preliminary
approval process and through the Alaska Coastal Zone Management
Program review process and are available.
9:38:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that his point is that the legislature
had to make a policy call and mandate through statute that the
department would issue permits.
MS. PRING-HAM confirmed that, and opined that it was a great
idea to have designated areas. The aforementioned has been
contemplated for additional geoduck sites as well. However,
that would require funds.
9:39:27 AM
MS. PRING-HAM, in response to Representative LeDoux, explained
that the State of Washington has the highest concentration of
geoducks, as they range from southern California up to Yakutat.
The State of Washington has zones, not necessarily larval drift
zones, most of which to prevent the transfer of disease.
British Columbia has zones also and areas dedicated in which
aquaculture is performed. Ms. Pring-Ham said that she didn't
know if there are areas in the State of Washington or British
Columbia where geoducks currently exist but didn't before.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her belief that it would be
important to know whether the things of concern for the
department occurred in these locations where geoducks have been
introduced in places where they didn't live before.
MS. PRING-HAM noted her agreement that it could be important.
However, she pointed out that the State of Washington and
British Columbia have fairly extensive groups to review
transport issues of genetics.
9:42:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether the department
would object to the introduction of sterile geoducks.
MS. PRING-HAM opined that although a policy hasn't been
established, the comfort level would be higher if the geoducks
being introduced were sterile. In fact, there are oysters in
Southcentral that don't reproduce.
9:44:40 AM
RAY RALONDE, Aquaculture Specialist, Alaska Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Program, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,
University of Alaska, provided an outline of his experience in
the field which amounts to almost 30 years. Mr. Ralonde said
that he is present to provide the committee with information and
education concerning aquaculture and the larval drift zone. He
then informed the committee that in 1992 he published a paper to
the United State Japanese Aquaculture Panel Symposium regarding
the interactions between cultured species and naturally
occurring species in the environment. The paper included the
concept of larval drift in a descriptive fashion rather than a
definition. Mr. Ralonde emphasized that there are enormous
amounts of missing information that is essential on this matter.
Furthermore, genetic studies don't always proffer the answer.
MR. RALONDE explained that the larval drift zone concept was
based on the concept that shellfish put eggs and sperm in the
water where they unite and create larval forms that drift from
three weeks to a couple of months. At that point, they settle
and grow to adulthood at which point the cycle begins again.
How far the larvae drift is debatable, he opined. The larval
drift model was based on the current velocities in the 1990s and
the life history cycles of blue muscles and scallops, the two
species on which there is the most information. He said that he
took the developmental rates, water temperatures, and current
velocities to determine the farthest location these larvae could
potentially drift. Therefore, a blue mussel, for example,
reproducing at Prince of Wale Island in the Alaska coastal
current could settle anywhere along the coastline as it could
reach up to Yakutat. Furthermore, if larvae drifted into the
right current in the inside waters, it could drift all over
Southeast Alaska. Mr. Ralonde opined that the currents, winds,
temperatures, and tides are very complex and thus the larvae
could drift anywhere. The aforementioned led to his finding
that Southeast Alaska could have large mixed populations. When
reviewing the possible drift of larvae in northern Southeast
Alaska, it would be difficult for a larvae within its normal
life history to make it from northern Southeast to Southcentral
Alaska.
9:51:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the farming of geoducks in Southcentral or
Western Alaska would pose any large potential hazard to any
commercial fishery or ecosystem.
MR. RALONDE said that's a question he can't answer because of
the vacuum of knowledge in Alaska. "The idea that you can pick
one species and transport it to another [location] and have it
do well and not have it impact, is very difficult to deal with,"
he opined. For example, when Pacific oysters were brought from
Japan to the Northwest it did create an enormous industry, but
an oyster (indisc.) was transported with it. In 1998 the
industry argued that shellfish should be grown where they are
known to grow. At the time, the department didn't want farmed
shellfish grown on top of wild stocks. Now, the situation has
reversed. Mr. Ralonde said that there hasn't been enough
research to make any determinations on the matter.
9:53:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee of the department's
statement that it would never conduct a study in Southcentral
Alaska to provide any information.
9:53:56 AM
MR. RALONDE mentioned that he didn't have the opportunity to
explain all the processes that transpired, but he highlighted
that the larval drift zones were created in a rational way.
9:54:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that there would be further hearings on this
bill in the House Resources Standing Committee.
9:54:32 AM
ALAN AUSTERMAN stated support of the concept embodied in HB 26.
The bill addresses an area that needs a lot of work by the
legislature, with regard to economic growth. The problem, he
opined, is that the department was established to manage wild
not farming or cultured stocks. Therefore, the department's
largest problem is trying to manage these dual [populations].
Therefore, Mr. Austerman opined that the legislature should
determine whether ADF&G or DNR should manage farming. The
farming of shellfish is one of the largest economic development
areas of seafood in the state. Mr. Austerman related his
concern that if this bill doesn't move forward or some
resolution to [the geoduck situation] occurs, there could be
impacts on the crab industry which is interested in re-
populating various areas.
9:56:58 AM
JEFF HETRICK, Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery, noted his agreement
with Mr. Austerman's comments with regard to the industry's
experience with the conflict created by a resource agency
managing a farming activity. Perhaps if the aforementioned was
reviewed, some of the issues could be resolved. Specific to HB
26, Mr. Hetrick highlighted that the state has world class
fishery pathologists. He noted that he isn't too concerned with
pathology being an issue for transport because the brood stocks
from hatcheries are carefully scrutinized. With regard to
geoducks in particular, the question is whether geoducks would
be reproductive in the new region in which it was transferred,
and if so would that be problematic. Although it seems
unlikely, it is unknown. Mr. Hetrick expressed interest in
allowing a demonstration project to determine how well geoducks
live outside of their larval drift zone.
9:59:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether geoducks in British Columbia
and the State of Washington are located in areas in which there
wasn't a geoduck population prior to farming.
MR. HETRICK replied yes, adding that such even occurs in Alaska,
although it's a much smaller scale.
10:00:57 AM
DAVID OTNESS, Oyster Farmer, speaking as a third generation
commercial fisherman, opined that people on the coast are being
"choked off." Viable species, he said, are necessary. He
described ADF&G as having a "can't do" attitude, which has
resulted in this legislation demanding that there be an
opportunity to develop this industry as the rest of the world
is. Mr. Otness concluded, "I'm rather emotional about this
because I've seen [ADF&G] doing this for years; these resources
are ours, they're not [ADF&G's]."
10:02:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 26 would be held over.
10:03:09 AM
BOB LINVILLE, Oyster Farmer, expressed the need to provide ways
in which Alaska's young people can make a living in industries
such as aquaculture. He recalled his time as an oyster farmer
and related that it's difficult under the current regulatory
regime to move ahead. Aquaculture in Alaska is a huge potential
that has been stifled by the regulatory process. Therefore, he
opined that whatever the legislature does to encourage geoducks
would be helpful in making aquaculture viable. Mr. Linville
stated that he hasn't heard anything that is concerning and that
"he'd like to see this happen."
10:06:07 AM
WILLY DUNNE, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society (KBCS), stressed
the importance of including the word "sterile" in HB 26 as it
would alleviate many of the department's concerns. He
highlighted the testimony from the university representative and
the shellfish hatchery representative who didn't know the harm
that would result in an ecosystem when a non-native species is
introduced. Mr. Dunne underscored the well-managed fisheries of
Alaska and Alaska's product that is in high demand due to its
natural and clean qualities. The department has put a lot of
effort, concern, care, and thoughtful consideration into
policies that keep the fisheries well-managed. This bill could
potentially have disastrous consequences on the coastal
ecosystem by reversing a policy that doesn't allow the
introduction of non-native species, he opined. He stressed the
need to have further scientific input to the passage of this
bill. Mr. Dunne recalled that at Friday's hearing, the sponsor
mentioned that he was referring to "subtidal culture." However,
that's not included in the bill. He said that the intertidal
culture of shellfish presents another suite of problems and
issues, including public access. Mr. Dunne related that KBCS
might be a little less concerned if HB 26 was restricted to the
subtidal culture and to sterile geoduck stock. In conclusion,
Mr. Dunne said that he would provide the committee with a
position statement and more facts from KBCS.
10:10:20 AM
GARVAN BUCARIA informed the committee that he used to fish for
halibut on a limited basis in Prince William Sound, which is
when he discovered oyster farms in the area that denied
[vessels] protected anchorage. Mr. Bucaria, drawing upon his
experience in zoology with regard to invertebrates, highlighted
that there are many variables in the environment and thus
suggested that the reference to certified hatcheries be specific
to certified hatcheries in Alaska. Then drawing from his time
working with the marine resources branch in California's
department of fish and game, he related that oyster spat from
Japan was placed in the beach to climatize prior to placement in
areas of Tomales Bay. The containers in which the spat was
carried contained toxic materials which tainted some of the
native bivalves in the area and rendered them somewhat inedible.
Mr. Bucaria highlighted that the resources belong to everyone
and haste can make waste when trying to get the economy going.
Therefore, he expressed concern with "railroading" this
proposal. He pointed to the many negative effects in Alaska
relative to the introduction of Atlantic salmon in British
Columbia and Washington. Therefore, Mr. Bucaria opined that
ADF&G should retain the primary lead in this matter in order to
minimize the possible negative effects of introductions,
whatever the species.
10:14:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would ask ADF&G whether the language
"certified hatchery" would be restricted to an Alaska certified
hatchery. He pointed out that currently no importation of
anything other than oysters is allowed and there is no intention
through HB 26 to import geoduck seed.
[HB 26 was held over.]
10:14:34 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:15
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|