Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/11/2014 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Mariculture Overview: "regulatory Structure & Potential for Expansion of the Industry." | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 11, 2014
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
MARICULTURE OVERVIEW: "REGULATORY STRUCTURE & POTENTIALS FOR
EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRY."
- HEARD
Resolution Regarding Community Fishing Associations
- RESOLUTION HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
RONALD JOSEPHSON, Coordinator
Fisheries Monitoring, Permitting and Development
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the mariculture
industry.
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on
mariculture.
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on
mariculture.
ADAM SMITH, Leasing Section Manager
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on
mariculture.
JOSEPH JACOBSON, Director
Division of Economic Development
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave presentation entitled "Mariculture
Industry Overview".
RODGER PAINTER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during mariculture overview.
MARGO REVEIL, Co-Owner
Jakolof Bay Oyster Co.
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during mariculture overview.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:40 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives
Herron, Kreiss-Tomkins, Feige, Johnson, and Seaton were present
at the call to order. Representative Gattis arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^Mariculture Overview: "Regulatory Structure & Potential for
Expansion of the Industry."
Mariculture Overview: "Regulatory Structure & Potential for
Expansion of the Industry."
10:03:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
an overview on the regulatory structure and potential for
expansion of the mariculture industry.
10:03:40 AM
RONALD JOSEPHSON, Coordinator, Fisheries Monitoring, Permitting
and Development, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
stated his section oversees permitting for aquatic farms and
hatchery programs in the state and issues fish resource permits,
which are oriented towards research projects for classrooms.
Today, he would like to discuss the status of aquatic farming in
Alaska, including an overview of the program mission, permitting
process, geographic farm concentration, where farms are located,
and issues in terms of seed acquisition and efforts to
streamline the program.
MR. JOSEPHSON directed attention to slide 3, entitled "Program
Mission." The program mission for aquatic farming is to permit
and regulate aquatic farming in the state in a manner than
ensures the protection of the state's fish, game, and aquatic
plant resources and improves the economy, health, and well-being
of the people of the state.
MR. JOSEPHSON outlined four elements, such as the operation
permit that is issued to an aquatic farm. There are two types
of transport permits within the state since a person cannot
possess or transport any live animal or aquatic plant in the
state without a permit. The second permit allows transport of
brood stock. He related a farm in Seward is hatching geoducks
to produce larvae, which will grow into spat, and when they are
a few millimeters long they will grow into nurseries. He said
the hatchery will need a permit to transport the brood stock.
He stated that disease-free seed source certification relates to
certification of hatcheries in Washington State or from Kona,
Hawaii, that provide oyster seed stock.
10:07:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether importation is limited to only
oysters.
MR. JOSEPHSON answered yes.
MR. JOSEPHSON turned to slide 4, entitled "Permitting Process,"
and said it is "pretty linear." The applicant applies and the
agency reviews the application. The packet includes permitting
from ADF&G and from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The agencies assist the farmer in understanding the lease and
permit requirements. He said it can take six to nine months to
review an application, but it represents a big undertaking,
similar to the hatchery permitting process.
CHAIR SEATON asked for the average time.
MR. JOSEPHSON replied that it ranges from six to nine months to
complete the process.
10:08:53 AM
MR. JOSEPHSON moved to slide 5, entitled "Permitted Farms
Geographic Concentration," and pointed out the locations of the
farms. He estimated approximately one-third of the farms are
located in Southcentral Alaska, in Prince William Sound, and in
the Lower Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay area. In northern
Southeast Alaska, several farms are located in Sitka and in the
Juneau area. In southern Southeast Alaska, most of the farms
near Ketchikan are geoduck operations. The bulk of the oyster
farms are near Naukati Bay on Prince of Wales Island, although
some are located near Klawock.
10:10:04 AM
MR. JOSEPHSON directed attention to slide 6, entitled "Statewide
Production by Region," and reported that the farms have been
stable and active sales have increased. The number of permitted
active farms or farms with sales have crept upward. He
indicated that Southcentral Alaska has higher sales, but
Southeast Alaska has significant numbers as well.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether permitting was by acreage or animal
production.
MR. JOSEPHSON answered that it is both. He explained that all
of the farms have DNR leases for a certain amount of acreage so
farms have a limited geographic area. The ADF&G permits by
species, and the farms submit operation and development plans
that inform the ADF&G on the numbers the farm would like to
produce. This would be limited somewhat by the number of
animals the farmer wants to put on the acreage and how much
effort the farmer wants to put forth. The ADF&G has not yet
limited the number of animals a farmer wishes to grow, he said.
10:11:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked about the difference between
permitted farms and permitted farms with sales.
MR. JOSEPHSON explained that it takes three to four years in
Southcentral Alaska and two to three years in Southeast Alaska
before oysters are ready for sales. He related that some
farmers are hobbyists and may still be in the planning stage.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if there are any limits on permits.
MR. JOSEPHSON replied that the ADF&G permits are issued for 10
years without limits although DNR has usage provisions.
MR. JOSEPHSON turned to slide 7, entitled "Statewide Production
By Species," noting the largest production is oysters, with
gross sales at approximately $712,345; geoducks have increased
in numbers [with sales of $44,064], and there are a smattering
of littleneck clams [with sales of $2,900].
MR. JOSEPHSON turned to slide 8, entitled "SE Production Percent
by Species." The graph highlights two things, first, it shows
the changes in permitted farms and permitted farms with sales;
secondly, it demonstrates a surge in interest for little neck
clams in the 1990s to the extent that it made up 50 percent of
the sales, which has tapered off. One reason could be that
farmers didn't figure out how to be successful in farming them,
although he was uncertain about the decline.
MR. JOSEPHSON directed attention to slide 9, entitled "SE
Production Percent by Species," which shows production in
Southcentral. He noted that mussels were raised in the 1990s,
but have declined. He also pointed out that the number of
permitted farms and permitted farms with sales are nearly equal.
MR. JOSEPHSON turned to slide 10, entitled "Acquired Seed,"
which indicates the farmers' estimated Pacific oyster inventory
and new seed from 2008-2013. Inventories have been diminishing
over the last five years and obtaining new seed has also been
challenging. He said acquisition has been the factor that has
most inhibited the industry from growing. He explained that the
Lower 48 hatcheries had trouble with acid water, which caused
problems in seed and larvae production for export to Alaska as
well as for their own production. Further, very little oyster
spawning has occurred in Alaska, which has also contributed to
lower inventories. He pointed out that sales have increased but
it is doubtful the industry will be able to sustain sales due to
the lack of inventory.
10:17:05 AM
MR. JOSEPHSON turned to slide 11, entitled "State Program
Streamlining Efforts." He described efforts made to streamline
the program, including joint applications and annual reports
with DNR, which are on hold pending DNR regulations.
MR. JOSEPHSON showed slide 12, and explained that the tumbler
sorts the oysters, which tends to encourage a cup shaped oyster
that has been considered desirable by the raw oyster market.
10:19:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there were any permitting problems or
negative consequences in the industry.
MR. JOSEPHSON answered that the biggest challenge has been the
operation and development plan. The division requests farmers
identify the anticipated acquired seed, production, and sales.
The division's feedback has been that the aquatic farmers
couldn't predict but used the approach of "doing the best they
could." He understood this since it's difficult to predict a
10-year plan due to other factors. However, ADF&G regulations
require a 10-year plan. In addition, it can be difficult to
assess inventory since some seed stock dies, and batches are
mixed since the oysters are graded by size. He acknowledged the
department needs to balance necessary information and
information that the department would like to have. Certainly
the farmers like to see the statewide perspective, but at the
same time it is difficult for them to provide the data.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether farmers were aware of the flexibility
in the overall plan since the department isn't sanctioning them
for not adhering to the plan. He assumed the permit wouldn't be
lost during the initial term.
MR. JOSEPHSON responded that there is a little balancing.
Farmers just need to submit any changes to their operational
plans to the department. The department balances farmers'
failure to follow their plans with practical and pragmatic
considerations and tend to rely on what is practical.
10:24:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON, with respect to the big problem with contamination
in Sitka, asked about regulations for importation of gear from
other areas and treating contaminated equipment.
MR. JOSEPHSON replied there was not any specific regulation,
although the state could put conditions on permits to protect
the natural resources of the state. More specifically, a
condition to an aquatic farm permit could require that any
equipment acquired from outside Alaska [be subject to
decontamination procedures]. He stated that the department
would discuss this with the Department of Law.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged that Elodea [canadensis] has finally
been listed as quarantined. He requested the department review
its regulatory authority for requiring decontamination of
previously used imported gear. He asked the department to
advise the committee if it needs statutory changes to accomplish
this.
10:26:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked about any problems for
mariculture that have arisen with ocean acidification.
MR. JOSEPHSON said he was unsure, but he has anecdotally heard
about increased acidity; however, without a long-term consistent
measurement, he could not validate the problem.
10:27:32 AM
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), reviewed the
handout entitled, "Mariculture Overview: Regulatory Structure &
Potential of Expansion of the Industry," dated March 11, 2014,
included in members' packets. She said that once DEC and DNR's
permitting and leasing is completed, DEC is required under its
shellfish sanitation program terms to ensure that the shellfish
is harvested in a region free of contaminants. She described
the process DEC uses to classify a growing area, which is based
on an extensive survey that includes evaluation of pollution
sources, meteorological facts, hydrographic factors that affect
the distribution of pollutants throughout the growing area, and
physical dilution factors. She explained that it's an extensive
process to initially classify a growing area, which includes
taking samples in a variety of environmental conditions over the
course of a one-year period. She noted that the growing area
would be classified according to the information gathered, and
annual water tests are required. Next, the DEC would test
shellfish for pathogens and toxins, in particular, paralytic
shellfish toxin (PST), but also for other toxins to certify that
harvested animals are safe. Either the area will be certified
and ADF&G will authorize the opening of the specific area for a
short time, within five days of sampling, or the DEC does "lot
sampling."
10:31:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON presumed the five-day period was related to wild-
stock harvest by divers or collectors and the farms do the lot
analysis.
MS. BUSSE FLOYD answered that she was unsure of any distinction.
She confirmed the wild harvesters harvest within the five-day
period but she was unsure of the sampling for farms.
CHAIR SEATON, with respect to the DEC's testing facility in
Anchorage, related the testing procedure and efforts to improve
testing.
MS. BUSSE FLOYD declared that the department prides itself on
its environmental health lab facility.
10:33:14 AM
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources, said the department
received a series of questions to address. He referred to
aquatic farm lease fees and reasons these fees are different
from other lease fees. He said the department will review lease
extensions and renewals and lease terms to ensure farmers are
actively using their leases. In addition, the department will
address hitchhiker species on gear. Further, the department has
been under a scoping process for regulation changes. He said
the department recognizes a need to improve certain aspects to
better relate to how the industry works.
10:36:08 AM
ADAM SMITH, Leasing Section Manager, Division of Mining, Land
and Water, Department of Natural Resources, said he is the
leasing section manager with oversight of the DNR's statewide
mariculture program. He reported the department has issued 66
leases statewide. He related he is currently in Homer and that
the department had its first scoping meeting to engage the
public and solicit ideas to revamp the mariculture regulations.
He said the department plans to hold meetings in Juneau on March
24, 2014 and a web-based meeting on April 22, 2014.
MR. SMITH turned to previous questions related to lease rates.
He explained that the mariculture program, under AS 38.05.083,
dictates that sites for lease on state tidelands cannot be
issued for less than the appraised fair-market value of the
land. He noted this is a per acre component. The fee currently
needs to be re-appraised every five years and adjusted
accordingly. One thing DNR has done internally to reduce costs
for farmers is to have the appraisal unit develop a fee schedule
for different activities, such as aquatic farming on tidelands
and uplands. Currently, a minimum entry level farm encompasses
an acre, and lease fees are $450 per acre plus $125 for each
additional acre. The lease rate is intentionally set high to
achieve a fair rate of return to the state and reduce the
requirements for aquatic farmers to complete appraisals at their
expense. He added that if any of the farmers believe that their
fees are set too high, they have the option to have an appraisal
completed and present it to DNR. He said that the fee schedule
is to arrive at a calculated per acreage rate and have that
available for fixing the price for acre.
10:39:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for a comparison of rates between other
activities and uses such as agricultural rates for grazing or
gold mining.
MR. SMITH referred to grazing leases, which indicates that the
value of leased land is determined on the value of the land for
grazing. He acknowledged the rates are somewhat lower than
other fees, since it is based on the carrying capacity, winter
and summer forage, and other factors. The 1970 grazing
regulations indicate that the rate cannot be less than three
cents per acre. Newer leasing rates under 11 AAC 58.410,
indicates that for fewer than 50 animals grazing on state land,
the minimum fee will be $500 and for any other purpose, $1,000.
Typically, grazing leases are for large acreage leases so the
per-acre component is typically relatively low; however, if any
infrastructure supported the lease, it would be carved out and
leased at fair market value.
10:41:31 AM
MR. SMITH turned to mining leases and to a question related to
underwater gold mine leases in Nome. Those leases were offered
under AS 38.05.250 (b) under a competitive auction process in
which the bid is awarded to the highest cash deposit, since
known valuable minerals on the land existed. He pointed out
that other mining opportunities include permits, in instances
without known sources of valuable minerals. In those instances,
a permittee can start out under a permit and perfect that into a
non-competitive lease for the site. He said that production or
royalty taxes are required for mining based on 3 percent of the
net income determined by the mining tax return submitted to the
Department of Revenue each year. Thus, in those instances a
land fee plus a royalty tax are assessed.
10:43:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the land fees perfected in a non-
competitive situation are based on a per acre fee.
MR. SMITH answered yes. In fact, that would be covered under AS
38.05.211, which is the annual rental for mining claims. He
explained that the calculation for determining those fees hinges
on the number of years since the mining claim was first located
and can range from $.50 per acre to $2.50 per acre, which is
readjusted every five to ten years based on the consumer price
index (CPI).
CHAIR SEATON said that gives the committee an idea of the range.
10:43:58 AM
MR. SMITH turned to the next question, how the current
mariculture extension provisions compare to other state land
renewals. In 2012, DNR was successful in passing a lease
renewal statute, AS 38.05.070 (e), which grants the department
the authority to renew a lease term if a lessee is in good
standing. He said the renewal could be identical to the
original lease term. He explained that under aquatic farming
regulations, DNR can renew leases, but it requires a public
noticing process. He hoped to bring this in line with the
current lease renewal statutes. He referred to proposed Section
16, in HB 77, which is language to bring that into alignment.
He related that it will be very similar to the aforementioned
statute, in which lessees in good standing at the end of their
lease terms are granted another lease without undergoing a
public process, although it will be public noticed on the
state's public notice website.
10:45:42 AM
MR. SMITH stated that one question was whether there is a need
to escalate lease terms to ensure that people are actively
working their leases. Another question is whether a timeframe
exists to revoke or terminate the lease. He noted that Mr.
Josephson brought up the commercial use requirement, which is a
regulation in the aquatic farm regulations, under 11 AAC 63.030
(b), which read, "By year five a farmer has to be producing at
least $3,000 in gross sales per acre or $15,000 per farm,
whichever is less." He indicated that these regulations were
adopted in 1998 when the focus was on oysters. One of the
challenges is that other species don't grow in five years so
"one size doesn't fit all." However, the department has used
this measurement tool to engage farmers who reached year five
without reaching their production goal. These farmers
considered either reducing the size of the farm or trying a
different area. One of the things the department has been
soliciting public input for during the scoping process is
whether a better tool exists. In addition to this the
department tries to ensure, by regulation, that farmers are
completely utilizing the space since the leased acreage should
be commensurate with production.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether there was any requirement for
specific distances between farms since farmers need plankton.
He asked whether any regulations address adjoining farms.
MR. SMITH answered no; however, the model that Alaska Sea Grant
and some of the farmers are starting to explore is the cluster
farm approach, whereby two or three farms are placed in a
similar area to share transportation, monitoring, and
classification costs, if necessary. Thus far, this approach has
not taken off.
10:49:41 AM
MR. SMITH added that another idea to explore is to start an
authorization under a land use permit to test suitability and
new gear. This has not yet been built into the regulations but
it something under consideration with the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game and if it moves forward, DNR will make regulatory
changes. He suggested this could help new farmers or new
technology be successful. In response to a question, he
clarified that DNR refers to this as phasing and authorization.
He explained that DNR would write a decision for a 10-year lease
but commence the lease under an early authorization for a
permit, and if the technology is perfected to meet the
benchmarks for production within the first two to three years it
will morph into a lease term.
10:51:23 AM
MR. SMITH turned to prohibition on import of gear. Currently,
DNR doesn't have any regulation to address this, but it could be
added or stipulated on the leases.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether these were being addressed during the
pubic scoping meetings.
MR. SMITH responded that it has been raised but DNR hasn't had
any direct feedback on this year. He reported that public
comment for proposed regulations will be open from March 30,
2014 through April 30, 2014. He noted that DNR will take public
comments online on the aquatic farm website and during the
public meetings.
10:52:58 AM
JOSEPH JACOBSON, Director, Division of Economic Development,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), turned to slide 2, entitled "Mariculture Industry
Support" and said DCCED supports the expansion of the
mariculture industry in two different ways, through financing
and development. He pointed out that DCCED has the Mariculture
Revolving Loan Fund as well as other funds that potentially can
be used for other assets used on a mariculture farm, including
the Rural Development [Initiative] Fund and the Small Business
Economic Development Fund, and perhaps the Alaska Microloan for
vessels or engine repurchase. In addition to the financial
assistance, DCCED can assist through industry assistance and
research and outreach to stimulate investment in the industry
and expansion. He noted that the department has been working
very closely with the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association over
the past several years to come up with different initiatives to
help advance the industry.
10:54:39 AM
MR. JACOBSON directed attention to slide 3, entitled
"Mariculture Revolving Loan Fund," noting that this is primarily
for the planning, construction, and operation of the mariculture
business. This program has been specifically designed for
Alaska residents who have established two years of residency.
They can qualify for a loan up to $100,000 per year with a
maximum balance of $300,000 per borrower. He related that the
maximum loan term is 20 years. Further, interest rates are
fixed at the time of loan approval and payments may be deferred
for the first six years of the loan. He characterized the
program as being flexible, with the current interest rate at 5
percent; however, all loans must be secured, with an expectation
that funds will be repaid. He reviewed internal policies for
collateral to help keep the program secure but more flexible for
expanding shellfish growers who may have a lot of investment
tied up in water or seed and were previously valued differently.
He summarized that the division has been working with industry
to make it more accessible although due to the newness of the
changes he couldn't really assess the effectiveness. Based on
feedback from ASGA the growers seem happy with the changes.
CHAIR SEATON has heard that cooperatives could not qualify for
the loans. He asked whether any provision will allow for that.
MR. JACOBSON offered his belief that loans to cooperatives are
not currently allowed by statute, but he deferred to Mr.
Anderson. He did not have any issue with this, noting the main
considerations will be securing the loan since it would still
need collateral to guarantee the loan.
10:58:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if a group of mariculture farms could make
individual pledges to secure the loan. He explained that the
difficulty has been in obtaining seed oyster in Alaska; however,
the financing has made it nearly impossible to do since
cooperatives cannot qualify for loans. He wanted to explore
enhancing mariculture by addressing the seed stock.
MR. JACOBSON said DCCED will be happy to discuss this and
suggested it would need to be done in close consultation with
cooperatives to be certain the changes will be useful for them.
11:00:06 AM
MR. JACOBSON turned to slide 4, entitled "Fees and Costs." He
explained that loan fees have a $100 non-refundable application
fee, a 1 percent origination fee for closing, and the borrower
is responsible for all costs incurred in processing the
application.
MR. JACOBSON directed attention to slide 5, entitled
"Development Projects," noting that a few years ago the
department conducted a mariculture prospectus to find out how to
address financing concerns, research, infrastructure, and
marketing. The division is working on an audit on both the
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery and OceansAlaska facilities in
Ketchikan and Seward. This recommendation came from the ASGA to
identify some individual hurdles that these hatcheries are
encountering and how to best address any production challenges
that the industry is currently facing. Further, this review is
to get down to the hard industry economics to determine what it
will take to make it commercially viable and to get commitments
for investment dollars to the industry. He pointed out that
many of the larger seafood processors in the state have an
interest in shellfish, but if there is a limited amount of
investment capital, it's important to present a compelling case
on how to make this industry a sound investment that will
generate good returns from a commercial scale. The division has
been developing the scope of work from the ASGA and the Alaska
Fisheries Development Foundation. Once this is in place, it
would be possible to take these findings to industry outside the
state. He pointed out that due to ocean acidification issues,
there have been investments in Hawaii to try to keep hatcheries
for production. He asked why not Alaska, and responded that the
division wants to take that message out and expand the industry
but still needs more information to develop a compelling case
based on hard facts. In general, the division has been working
on a broader maritime industry initiative and how to strengthen
Alaska's maritime economy across all sectors, which has included
evaluation of infrastructure statewide, with mariculture as one
component. He envisioned that the infrastructure investment in
different parts of the state would be incorporated into that
through a complementary project.
11:03:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if they were participating in the scoping
with DNR to meet with the maritime industry to identify
problems.
MR. JACOBSON said they had held discussions, but he has not
intimately involved in those changes.
11:04:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony on mariculture.
11:05:11 AM
RODGER PAINTER stated that he recently stepped down as president
of Alaska Shellfish Growers Association after serving about 25
years in that capacity. He offered some information on
questions raised today, including ocean acidification, noting
the state increased its surveillance of ocean acidification. He
noted that a new permanent monitoring station is in Southeast
Alaska and a new one is also in Resurrection Bay. The intake
lines are being monitored at the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
Hatchery, and surveillance is being installed at OceansAlaska's
facility in Ketchikan. The monitoring has been increased and,
although Alaska has not yet experienced the types of problems
Washington and Oregon have had, the signs are not good anywhere
in the Pacific Ocean, thus, Alaska is bound to have problems at
some point. Directing attention to the loan program, he
commended Mr. Jacobson. He reported that most farmers had the
majority of their assets tied up in their mariculture
operations. The department has been willing to accept
collateral, such as crops in the water, gear, infrastructure,
farm support infrastructure that was previously not accepted.
This should allow farmers greater access to the program.
Further, over the 30 years in the business the industry had
significant struggles with state government, but things have
settled down in the past few years. He said that ADF&G repealed
a whole slew of regulations and DNR has responded to long
standing requests by the industry to address the five-year
production requirement. He explained that it takes from eight
to nine years for a geoduck to grow to maturity and some other
species have a longer life cycle, so it was important to address
that five-year wall. He stated that it's easier and faster to
get a mariculture site permitted in Alaska than anywhere else in
North America, primarily due to Alaska's significant amount of
undeveloped coastline compared to most other locations. It
takes several months to obtain a permit in Alaska, but it takes
years in other states to go through the permitting process.
11:09:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked where the new monitoring
station in Southeast Alaska is located.
MR. PAINTER answered it is located in Icy Strait.
11:10:13 AM
MARGO REVEIL, Co-Owner, Jakolof Bay Oyster Co., stated that she
is also the treasurer for the Alaskan Shellfish Growers
Association (ASGA). She said that last year Jakolof Bay Oyster
Co. was only able to obtain about 25 percent of the seed needed,
thus, the number one issue for her company is seed. She brought
up ADF&G's efforts to streamline the permitting process, but
reported that her company, which is a new mariculture company,
has found it fairly easy to work with the various state
departments. She asked the departments to consider streamlining
the seed certification process and the timing of when this
occurs. She reported that a lot of the seed is obtained toward
the end of the year, which puts it in the water for the winter.
She suggested that having this occur earlier in year would be
very helpful. She said that some issues had occurred with the
pathology report processing. She personally thanked members for
their efforts to get boats out of the water in Jackalof Bay
since it made her business possible. She said that type of
responsiveness by the state is incredibly helpful to oyster
farmers and greatly appreciated.
11:12:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out ADF&G is present if she had questions
with respect to the seed certification process.
MS. REVEIL said she just wanted to bring this to the committee's
attention. She stated that the oceans are changing, and that
continuing to look for ways to have the seed facilities in
Alaska and figuring out ways for them to succeed will be
ongoing. She said she thinks the industry will "take off" since
mariculture in Alaska is very promising. She noted that some
things are out of the division's control.
11:13:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, [closed public testimony on mariculture.]
11:14:07 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:14
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Fisheries Mariculture Overview Final.pdf |
HFSH 3/11/2014 10:00:00 AM |
Mariculture |
| 2014 ADFG Presentation on the Status of Aquatic Farming in Alaska.pdf |
HFSH 3/11/2014 10:00:00 AM |
mariculture |
| DCCED House Fisheries Mariculture.pdf |
HFSH 3/11/2014 10:00:00 AM |
mariculture |