02/24/2009 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation(s): Reappointment to Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission – Judge Peter Froehlich | |
| HB43 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 24, 2009
10:14 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Judge Peter Froehlich - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 43
SHORT TITLE: GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) FSH, RES
02/24/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PETER FROEHLICH, Appointee
to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 43 as sponsor.
RON JOSEPHSON, Section Chief
Statewide Hatchery and Mariculture Program
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concern on HB 43.
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Mariculture Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concern on HB 43.
JEFF HETRICK, Director
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery
Alaska Shellfish Institute
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 43.
RODGER PAINTER, President
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 43.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:14:14 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:14 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, Buch, Munoz, Kawasaki, and Keller were present
at the call to order. Representative Millett arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
10:15:05 AM
^CONFIRMATION(S): Reappointment To Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission - Judge Peter Froehlich
10:15:28 AM
JUDGE PETER FROEHLICH, Appointee, to the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), provided a brief personal history of how he originally
came to sit on the CFEC. His history includes a litany of
positions in the Alaska fishing industry, as well as the field
of law, prior to being appointed District Court Judge in Juneau.
10:20:07 AM
MR. FROEHLICH reviewed the CFEC goals, highlighting the priority
to reduce the adjudication caseload; cut by 2/3 from a high of
250 down to 88. He directed attention to the committee packet
handout to review additional CFEC activities and focus. The
commission has eliminated general fund appropriations to the
budget, as of FY08, he reported, in large part due to the
legislation enacted in FY05 allowing the commission to
reconfigure the fee schedule. The current budget includes $6
million of revenue, of which approximately $4 million comprises
operational costs. The remaining $2 million are funds dispersed
to the Fishermen's Fund, under the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD), and the Division of Commercial
Fisheries at ADF&G. Further, the commission has had no increase
in the operating budget since FY07, save for the mandated pay
raises, and no new positions since FY04. Technological advances
have been made, including the development of the e-landings
program. This project is being accomplished in conjunction with
the Division of Commercial Fish and National Marine Fisheries to
instantly capture computerized fish ticket data. A capital
budget request, of $140,000, was submitted this year to purchase
the necessary equipment. He also pointed out that an on-line
renewal system is being launched this year to assist the
fishermen with their permit requirements. He invited the
committee to visit the CFEC web site, which receives between 3-4
million hits per year.
10:25:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for clarification regarding the permit
renewal process.
MR. FROEHLICH responded that approximately 20,000 fishing
permits and 10,000 vessel licenses are renewed annually.
10:26:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referring to the proposed on-line electronic
system, asked if it would allow anyone access to information
regarding a commercial fishing permit or vessel license; who
owns the vessel, in what port it is registered, and other
specifics.
MR. FROEHLICH replied yes. He also reported that permits have
been tracked since 1975 to provide data on movement from rural
to urban Alaska, and from Alaska to Outside addresses.
10:28:00 AM
CHAIR EDGMON inquired if a trend has been observed.
MR. FROEHLICH indicated that rural permits are moving to urban
Alaska, more than to out of state locations. Additionally, this
movement is more via migration of the permit holder to a new
residence versus sale of the permit. A downward trend for
permits has also been observed. He speculated that it may be
due to fishery consolidation, as well as the reduction of the
pending cases. When a lengthy adjudication is decided the
fishing allowed under the interim permit ceases. "The percent
of non-resident permits is creeping up," he said.
10:29:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked about the opportunities for young
Alaskan's to gain fishing permits.
MR. FROEHLICH acknowledged that it can be financially difficult
for a young person to enter the industry. The commission does
not have many options to address this concern. The best
approach is via the state fishing loan system, he opined.
10:31:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how many of the fisheries indicate a
number of unused permits each year.
MR. FROEHLICH said that it varies considerably by fishery.
Exact numbers are available to the committee. He reported that,
in Southeast, the gillnet fishery has approximately 20 percent
latent permits, and the purse seine 43 percent. Of the 43
percent, he noted that residents not fishing comprise 39
percent, and non-residents 47 percent. This fishery has
recently experienced a buy back, of roughly 30 permits. Other
statistics are available.
10:33:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stipulated that this is a concern because
the counsel is considering termination of the license limitation
permits (LLPs). By eliminating these permits, the ability for
coastal Alaskans to participate is diminished. The existence of
latent permits is not necessarily a concern, he opined, as it
leaves options open. Many fishermen hold permits for different
fisheries, and it would be important to maintain this
flexibility in the industry.
MR. FROEHLICH agreed, and said that the points made are
important. A fairly high percentage of the latent permits may
become available for purchase or otherwise be dispersed, he
suggested.
10:35:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked him to comment on the cod fishery,
and the possibility that it may become a limited fishery.
MR. FROEHLICH stated that the commission is poised to deal with
the fishery, and is monitoring the actions of the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). He said there is a valid
concern for fishermen who may be pushed into the three mile
zone, should the NPFMC decide to take action. Unfortunately the
board must take a reactionary stance to whatever the federal
government decides.
10:37:29 AM
CHAIR EDGMON queried if there is a trend analysis for crew
members that parallels the permit holder trends, previously
reported.
MR. FROEHLICH replied, no, there is not adequate data on crew
members. The crew member licenses are sold by various vendors
and it is not possible to receive information with a consistent
level of confidence; however, an effort is being made to gain
this data.
10:39:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the modification of the crew
license in recent years, with the introduction of Dude licenses.
When these licenses appeared, there was concern that there could
be misuse, and he asked if there is information available on how
the system is working.
MR. FROEHLICH pointed out that crew licenses come under the
purview of ADF&G.
10:41:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to forward Judge Peter Froehlich's
nomination to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to the
full body for confirmation. There being no objection, the
confirmation of Judge Peter Froehlich was advanced from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
10:41:33 AM
HB 43-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
10:42:06 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 43, "An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting
involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers between
certified hatcheries and aquatic farms."
10:42:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, provided
an introduction to HB 43, describing the physical nature and
biology of the geoduck as being a bi-valve, harvestable product
of approximately seven inches/two pounds, non-predatory filter
feeder, sedentary/non-transient species, which inhabits tidal
mud flats to depths of 350 feet. The geoduck achieves maturity
in five to seven years, but its life span is 140-163 years.
Further, he explained that the species is basically disease
free, with the ability to migrate any invasive microbes to the
exterior of its shell. The geoduck range includes the Pacific
Northwest coasts of Washington, British Columbia, and southeast
Alaska. The bill specifies that ADF&G cannot use the absence of
wild geoduck populations in an area, to deny a [mariculture]
permit. This species does exist in Alaska, and outside stock is
not permitted for import, unlike oysters. He explained that the
animal begins life as a larvae, settles to become spat, and
develops into the marketable seed.
10:46:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON continued his presentation of HB 43,
paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Mariculture has the potential to diversify the
economic base of coastal communities impacted by the
changing dynamics of the fishing industry. HB 43
allows this expansion of this clean water industry by
permitting geoducks to be farmed sub tidally in the
Gulf of Alaska even if wild geoducks are not present.
The bill does not exempt farmers from any health,
safety, or other transfer provisions relating to
hatchery seed.
The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery is the only
hatchery that supplies mariculture spat and seed in
the State. It was initiated by the State to be a
self-sustaining operation in association with the
private mariculture farms permitted by the State.
Their business plan relies on the sale of geoduck
seed. However, the informal policy of the Department
of Fish and Game prevents geoduck seed from being
utilized by farms anywhere outside of southeast
Alaska. These restrictions on the sale of geoduck
seed cause the sole hatchery for the mariculture
industry in Alaska to require continual subsidy by the
State. HB 43 will allow the mariculture industry to
develop around the Gulf of Alaska, providing a
potentially strong market for seed and private sector
financing for the operation of the hatchery.
As non-mobile filter feeders, farmed geoducks will not
prey on any local commercial, sport or personal use
fish. There have been no reports of species
displacement in sedimentary habitat by geoduck clams.
Farmed geoducks will not interfere with personal
recreational boaters as they are cultivated in the
sediment below low tide and without the numerous buoys
and floating cages used in oyster farms. No
infectious disease has been identified in any wild
geoduck population or the geoduck farming industries
of Washington, British Columbia, or Alaska.
The conflict surrounding geoducks in southeast Alaska
is between the dive fishermen who harvest wild stock
and farmers who wish to farm in areas with existing
wild stock. HB 43 would evade this conflict because
there is no wild stock in the proposed area. This
bill will not override any Department of Natural
Resources farm site leasing or Department of Fish &
Game permit regulation.
HB 43 eliminates unnecessary hindrances to the growth
of the mariculture industry in Alaska providing a
potential alternative economic base for coastal
communities while adequately considering the health of
our marine ecosystem.
10:52:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to an often asked question of
whether the geoduck will supplant animals, such as polycyte
worms and other benthos activity, said that it appears there is
no displacement, and that the eco diversity is increased by the
geoducks presence. Farming this species may provide year-round
ocean farming jobs, he opined.
10:53:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what is the size of a typical farm.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that a farm is limited to five
acres, the same limitation that DNR allows for other farm
permits. This does not change any basic regulations required by
DNR or ADF&G. He pointed out the letters of support from the
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery and Alaskan Shellfish Growers
Association, in the committee packet, and touted that there is
no competition occurring between companies, just a desire to see
this budding industry unfold. However, these are the most
valuable clams on the market today, commanding prices that far
exceed other shellfish: $30.00 to $125.00 each in the retail
Asian market.
10:55:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for a description of the geoduck farm
harvesting process.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that this bill calls for
subtidal farms, which are harvested by shallow water divers, at
a depth under 35 feet. Referring to the handout, he paraphrased
from the description to say that the "hookah" divers utilize a
high pressure pump [streaming 50 gallons per minute to liquefy
the sediment around the geoduck,] which is then extracted by
hand. In planting the seed, a plastic tube is embedded upright
in the sand, the seed is dropped down, and a net is rubber
banded over the end of the tube to guard against debris. After
a year the tubes are pulled, and the bay appears undisturbed.
10:57:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for a definition of subtidal, and how
it is determined from intertidal.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded, "Mean low, or low water, is the
generally accepted; out of the intertidal range. So that which
would not be exposed on any of the normal low tides." The
purpose of the bill is to eliminate the concern for interaction
between subsistence or sport harvest activities of clams. The
geoduck will only be grown in water depths where hookah gear
will be used for harvest.
10:59:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH cited the coldness of the Alaskan water.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that using a dry suit makes cold
water diving plausible.
10:59:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ clarified that the activity of growing and
harvesting these clams occurs below the surface, and does not
disturb or impose barriers on the surface.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON affirmed that all activity is accomplished
in the substrate. In an oyster farm, the nets are suspended and
the surface area is occupied, causing conflict with other
activities. He noted that Kachemak Bay is a critical habitat
area, which does not allow bottom farming, and would be exempt
from the benefit of passing HB 43. The villages on the outer
coast, however, could benefit from the possibility of this as a
valuable economic base.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ reported that the high school in Metlakatla
teaches diving specifically because of the geoduck farming
industry and opportunities in that area.
11:02:46 AM
RON JOSEPHSON, Section Chief, Statewide Hatchery and Mariculture
Program, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G), said that the department is supportive of
continued mariculture growth and the economic development of the
industry. The development must be balanced with the need to
facilitate programs that offer protection to the natural
resources. The department is officially neutral on HB 43, with
specific concerns regarding the bills intent including:
allowing unconstrained transfer and culturing of geoduck into
Southcentral Alaska subtidal areas. This would be analogous to
an invasive species transfer, he opined, and given the lack of
information the possible impacts cannot be foreseen. Despite
predictions, the stock may become productive, and the natural
food web could be at risk. He cited how zebra mussel and green
crab species have triggered an alert, due to their progression
north. He provided the committee copies of a larval drift zone
map, and said that the department's current policy allows
mariculture seed source to be obtained only from animals that
occur within their identified zone. Thus, transporting geoduck
seed from the Southeast Zone 1, to Southcentral Zone 2 would be
considered an introduction of species and contrary to
departmental policy.
11:06:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to the sponsor statement, and
read, "However, the informal policy of the Department of Fish
and game prevents geoduck seed from being utilized by farms
anywhere outside of southeast Alaska." He asked the sponsor to
state the informal policy.
MR. JOSEPHSON declined to offer a determination on what
constitutes a formal or informal policy in this regard.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the larval drift zone
prohibition is not in regulation, but held as a policy. These
zones are used to minimize genetic interference, however, in
this case, there is no competing genetic stock, which presents a
different scenario.
11:08:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI determined that the study has not been
completed on what type of competition this species might impose.
Referring to a 1,000 page report, he said only a small note has
been included on the species invasive possibilities.
11:10:13 AM
MR. JOSEPHSON recognized that the British Columbia drift zones
were established for the same reasons mentioned. He stressed
the need for caution when dealing with the complex ocean
environment. Many species are difficult to observe and study in
an ocean setting.
11:11:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ queried if examples exist in BC, or
Washington State, of the wild stock moving outside of their
natural waters.
MR. JOSEPHSON replied, "Not to my knowledge."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ surmised that the stock generally remains
in its natural area.
MR. JOSEPHSON stressed that the answer to that question is
unknown. In areas where the animal already exists, there is no
means to determine its origin, or ascertain if the individual
clam was farm reared or naturally occurring.
11:12:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to the drift zone map, and asked
how verification is established for the existence of the species
in a given area. Additionally, what is the confidence level of
the information gathered.
MR. JOSEPHSON reported that the department surveys each area,
and unusual or unique species are documented.
11:14:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if aquaculture of this species
occurs in other areas of the world.
MR. JOSEPHSON stated that the geoducks are unique to the Pacific
Northwest.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that Alaska does have a
mariculture farm rearing geoduck, and they are the stocks that
would be utilized for populating a permitted farm. He asked
whether the department has given permits for clam population
enhancement in coastal areas.
11:15:54 AM
MR. JOSEPHSON stipulated that hard shell permits are allowed in
the specified zones, utilizing the local stocks [as the genetic
source.] The department considers those as non introduced
species. The department does not have the same comfort level
for allowing the transport of geoduck stocks and is taking a
precautionary approach; considering the lack of knowledge
available. He suggested that the Southeast geoduck farms be
studied to allow the department a means for gaining a degree of
confidence. Further, he clarified that the larval drift zones
do exist in regulation.
11:17:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether the regulations allow
research to be conducted, should this legislation pass.
Wouldn't a permitted, five acre test bed be beneficial in
solving some of the "I don't knows," that surround this species,
he asked.
MR. JOSEPHSON emphasized that this clam would difficult to
study, outside of a contained area. The hatchery would be a
helpful setting, however, to study this in a non controlled open
ocean setting would be nearly impossible, he opined.
11:19:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON theorized a situation of this clam being
farmed, studied, and at some point identified as an invasive
species. What is the trigger mechanism to indicate "we've gone
too far," he asked.
MR. JOSEPHSON suggested that the research could be conducted in
the Southeast drift zones where these animals exist naturally.
The farms in Southeast are young, and it is indeterminate how
they will perform, and what level of success they will attain.
The department would like to study these endeavors prior to
introducing the species into another area.
11:22:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked why would a pure scientific test
could not be conducted, if a farm were established in an area
known to be void of the species.
MR. JOSEPHSON clarified that the department is not undertaking
these tests, the industry is by being permitted. The farm will
establish its own level of success whenever the farmer
experiences a return/income on the investment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON exclaimed, "Is that how we manage all our
fisheries - if they just make a profit then they're OK?"
11:24:00 AM
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Mariculture Coordinator, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that specific regulations in both
DNR and ADF&G, require production to be increased over time, and
also meet a commercial use requirement after five years. It is
based on acreage: $3,000 per acre, or a maximum of $15,000 if
they have more than five acres. For most mariculture endeavors,
that would not be a difficult achievement, however, geoducks
require several years to reach maturity or attain a harvestable
size. The farming efforts in Southeast have not produced a
marketable geoduck, to date. She pointed out that the growth of
this species is slower in Alaska, than in warmer waters.
11:25:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how a farm raised animal is
identified, if it is within a zone where wild stock spat could
also be present.
MS. PRING-HAM disclosed that the exact identification cannot be
ascertained unless dye is introduced; which is a possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated confusion as to why ADF&G would be
reluctant to allow private industry to initiate a project that
the department could monitor, at minimal cost to the state, and
tax payers. It appears to be a viable means to explore an
economic opportunity.
11:28:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the department has not
indicated that a successful farm in Southeast would clear the
way for geoduck farms elsewhere. Also, a major roadblock for
getting geoduck farms in Southeast has been
contention/competition with the harvest of wild stock and
commercial divers. He pointed out that the department has not
delineated how studies of Southeast farms will provide the
required comfort zone, and alleviate concerns for further
development. He requested a statement from the department to
answer the question:
How would a successful [geoduck] farm in Southeastern
answer your questions about larval drift zones and
give you more comfort about having [geoduck] farms ...
outside of ... larval drift zone [number] one?
MR. JOSEPHSON agreed to provide further information to the
committee.
11:30:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH acknowledged the need for caution, and asked
for any similar examples [of species introduction] where
unintended consequences have occurred. He asked if such caution
is based on previous experience.
MR. JOSEPHSON described what occurred in Flathead Lake
[Montana]. The intent was enhancement of the existing kokanee
fishery by providing an abundant food source, and mysis were
introduced. However, the mysis larvae compete for the same
plankton food source as the emergent kokanee. The unintended
consequence has been a lake full of the small shrimp like mysis,
and the loss of the kokanee fishery. Additionally, given the
size of the lake, there does not appear to be a means to reverse
the situation.
11:34:01 AM
JEFF HETRICK, Director, Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery, Alaska
Shellfish Institute, argued that the geoduck would not be
reproductive in South Central Alaska, similar to the oyster that
is farmed in Southcentral. Geoduck culture is currently being
practiced in Mexico, and China is beginning to enter the market.
He has also been contacted by British Columbia, which has one
hatchery in the southern area. He indicated that the industry
supports maintaining the genetic zones.
11:36:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Hetrick to address the economic
viability of Alutiiq, as the only state certified hatchery, and
the effects of geoduck farming being restricted to Southeast.
MR. HETRICK provided that each year the hatchery requests
operational funding from the legislature. He predicted that if
geoduck seed sales were allowed, outside of southeast Alaska,
the hatchery could become self sufficient. The hatchery
operating plan uses geoduck seed sales for a major base of
income.
11:39:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that the food web has been a
concern, and asked what might be interrupted by geoduck farming.
MR. HETRICK responded that the species which could be directly
effected might be the horseshoe crab. He agreed with the
departmental statement that the food web is a complicated
concern.
11:40:30 AM
RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association,
explained that farm size is not regulated by the department.
Five acres is the average size for a geoduck farm, but a farm
could be any size. He pointed out that ADF&G has stocked
species, of various types, in areas where they would not
otherwise exist, in locales throughout the state. The caution
for farming geoduck has not proven to be founded. He pointed
out that the ocean is a dynamic force, which changes through
natural occurrences and ranges. He cited various species
appearance/disappearance that reflect these changes. In terms
of viability of a geoduck farm in SE, he said, the permits were
only issued in the last seven years. The product has not yet
been harvestable.
MR. PAINTER, in response to Representative Munoz, explained that
the crops are planted annually, allowing for continued harvest
following the initial crop, which is not anticipated to be
abundant.
11:45:57 AM
CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony and announced that the bill
would be held.
11:46:25 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:46
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CFEC--FroehlichCV.PDF |
HFSH 2/24/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| HB43--AquaticFarmingStatutes.PDF |
HFSH 2/24/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 43 |
| HB43-Sponsor Statement and Sectional.PDF |
HFSH 2/24/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 43 |
| HB43-What is a Geoduck.PDF |
HFSH 2/24/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 43 |
| HB43-Fish and Wildlife News.PDF |
HFSH 2/24/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 43 |
| HB43-SupportLtrs.PDF |
HFSH 2/24/2009 10:15:00 AM |
HB 43 |