03/09/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB60 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2011
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 60
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to the Southeast State Forest; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 60
SHORT TITLE: GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) FSH, RES
02/15/11 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/15/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/15/11 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/16/11 (H) FSH RPT 2DP 3NR 1AM
02/16/11 (H) DP: AUSTERMAN, THOMPSON
02/16/11 (H) NR: HERRON, PRUITT, JOHNSON
02/16/11 (H) AM: KAWASAKI
03/09/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) RES, FIN
02/14/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/14/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/14/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/09/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor HB 60.
RODGER PAINTER, President
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 60.
JEFF REGNART, Director
Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that ADF&G doesn't foresee any
significant risk with the passage of HB 60.
JOHN THIEDE, Natural Resource Specialist
Division of Mining, Land, & Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 60, answered
questions.
RICK ROGERS, Forest Resource Program Manager
Central Office
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 105, answered
questions.
ROBERT CLAUS
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Craig, Alaska (SEACC)
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 105, testified in
opposition to including the Hook Arm parcel.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:36:03 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Representatives Munoz,
Foster, Dick, P. Wilson, Seaton, and Feige were present at the
call to order. Representatives Herron, Gardner, and Kawasaki
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 60-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
1:36:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 60, "An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting
involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers between
certified hatcheries and aquatic farms."
1:37:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 60, showed a short video regarding
geoducks.
1:40:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON commented that the video illustrates that
geoducks are part of the culture of the Northwest and Southeast
Alaska. He noted that geoducks are native to Southeast Alaska.
He then explained that the goal of HB 60 is to provide an
economic base for the Gulf of Alaska and communities from
Yakutat to Sand Point, places where it's difficult to establish
a new economic base. Farmed geoducks are worth $12-$15 per
pound when sold live. He explained that geoducks are farmed in
sub tidal zones and nothing has to be done to them during the
peak of the salmon season or any other fishery, and therefore it
doesn't conflict with other economics in coastal Alaska.
Furthermore, geoducks can be harvested at any time of the year.
1:42:30 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON informed the committee that HB 60 would extend
the time for getting geoduck seed, which can only be obtained
from Alaska. Geoduck seed used in Alaska cannot be imported.
Although geoducks are a native species, they don't occur in the
wild north of Juneau. Therefore, geoducks from Southeast Alaska
are taken to the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery, the only
certified hatchery in the state, where they are bred, spawned,
and the seed is then purchased by farmers for planting. He
explained the methods used to farm the geoduck seeds, which grow
to a harvest size of 1.5 pounds in about 5-7 years.
1:44:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that HB 60 specifies that geoduck
farming can only occur at the sub tidal level, and therefore it
won't interfere with where boat landings or subsistence
harvesting occurs. Geoducks prefer a low energy beach with a
muddy, sandy bottom, and thus they don't compete with razor
clams or hard shell clams that are found in the intertidal zone,
which has a lot of energy on the beach. In the sub tidal, low
energy habitat that geoducks prefer only tunicates and polychete
worms are found. Studies found that in areas where a geoduck
farm was established there was an increase in worm populations.
The aforementioned occurs because the habitat is broken up such
that more than just a muddy bottom exists. However, there
hasn't been a decrease in other fauna in the area of the geoduck
farm.
1:45:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON informed the committee that no diseases, even
those of transport significance, have been found in geoducks.
Therefore, there is no concern with moving geoducks from one
area to another area. As mentioned in the video, geoducks can
live to be 160 years old. He noted that around the state there
are larval drift zones, which are areas in which the goal is to
maintain genetic integrity such that a clam isn't taken from one
area to another in order to avoid disruption of the local
genetics. This legislation, on the other hand, refers to moving
clams to an area where there is no local population. Therefore,
there is no concern with regard to genetic contamination by
moving geoduck clams from Southeast Alaska to anywhere in the
Gulf of Alaska because north of Juneau there are no such clams.
1:46:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that geoducks are a
highly prized species that is sold live and won't interfere with
other animals. Moreover, geoducks will likely be non-
reproductive like oysters are in Alaska. In response to Co-
Chair Feige, Co-Chair Seaton explained that it's thought that
geoducks don't reproduce because the water temperature does not
reach a high enough temperature to start the spawn cycle. In
the hatchery, for an extended period the water temperature has
to be raised higher than what naturally occurs north of Juneau
in order to reproduce. In regard to what would happen if
geoducks did spawn [north of Juneau], he related that
calculations estimate that it would create a $750 million a year
industry for the dive fishery. Currently, there is no dive
fishery [north of Juneau] because there aren't clams there.
However, in Southeast Alaska there is a wild stock dive clam
fishery. He explained that the controversy in Southeast has
revolved around the desire to have a geoduck farm where wild
stock is located. The aforementioned won't happen up north
since there is no wild stock north of Juneau. Co-Chair Seaton
informed the committee that the state-built Alutiiq Pride
Shellfish Hatchery (hatchery) in Seward has not become self-
sufficient, as intended, because it hasn't been able to sell
enough product, clam seed, to do so. Therefore, the state has
had to subsidize the hatchery. Co-Chair Seaton opined that
developing a number of [geoduck] farms would allow the hatchery
to become self-sufficient as it would have a source to sell its
geoduck seed, which is more valuable than is oyster seed. In
conclusion, Co-Chair Seaton highlighted that HB 60 wouldn't
change the parameters of the required permits. The legislation
merely says that permits to those in the Gulf of Alaska won't be
denied just because wild geoducks aren't already present in that
area.
1:51:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE observed that HB 60 has two zero fiscal notes,
and surmised that HB 60 would reduce the need for the state to
fund the hatchery as much.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that is correct. In further response
to Co-Chair Feige, Co-Chair Seaton explained that funding for
the hatchery hasn't been built into the base as it has been a
capital request item because it's not intended to be long-term.
1:53:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to the optimum harvest window
and whether it's before they change sex.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that generally geoducks are harvested
in five to seven years. Geoducks are sedimentary, stay in one
spot, and are filter feeders. Unlike razor clams, once geoducks
are in the substrate they cannot be pulled out and don't dig
back in.
1:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that the hatchery in Seward
wasn't sustainable to begin with because it was to be used for
Southeast.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied no, specifying that through various
administrations the plan has always been that mariculture would
expand across Alaska. However, there has been reluctance to
allowing geoducks to be farmed outside of Southeast Alaska.
Moreover, there have been problems with the wild stock, the wild
stock harvesters and the farmers, which have resulted in delays
in the growth of mariculture in the state. In further response
to Representative P. Wilson, he estimated that the hatchery is
10-12 years old.
1:56:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised then that even if HB 60 is
passed, the hatchery would still need to be subsidized for at
least another five to seven years. She likened allowing geoduck
farming in the Gulf of Alaska to an experiment since there is no
knowledge that geoducks will grow in that area.
CO-CHAIR SEATON disagreed, "No, we know they'll grow up there."
The only question is whether geoducks will become reproductive
in the Gulf of Alaska. No one believes geoducks will become
reproductive in the Gulf of Alaska. Geoducks grow fine in the
hatchery at Seward, but they don't become reproductive unless
the water temperature is raised above the regular water
temperature. He reiterated that this will be a similar
situation to that of oysters, which don't become reproductive.
There is no desire for the shellfish in the hatchery to become
reproductive because they're being grown for seed to sell.
Therefore, the purchase of seed from the hatchery will result in
the hatchery becoming self sustaining.
1:57:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained that she still didn't
believe it wouldn't cost money because it took a long time to
get [geoduck farming] started in Southeast Alaska. Although
more areas in Southeast Alaska are desired, the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) doesn't have the funds to
check out these sites. Therefore, she said she found it
difficult to believe that there will be enough [funding] to
allow geoduck farming in the Gulf of Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that part of the problem in Southeast
Alaska is that surveys of the wild stock in the farming area
must be conducted. However, in the Gulf of Alaska there are no
wild stocks and thus they won't be on the farming sites, which
will eliminate part of the difficulty. Furthermore, prior to
obtaining a farming site, the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) has put GPSs on boats in order to track them
and determine where the water sample was taken, which lowers the
cost of the water quality sampling. He said that those
entities/individuals who apply for the farm sites will have to
make the necessary investments, including buying seed. The seed
can only be purchased from the hatchery as it's illegal to
import seed or take animals from another area. The state has
good controls on the aforementioned in order to maintain high
quality and safe non contaminated clam spat.
2:00:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the hatchery sells geoduck
seed outside of Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that he didn't believe there are any
sales to areas outside of Alaska. He highlighted that the seed
from Alaska wouldn't be sold to British Columbia or Puget Sound
because those areas want to ensure their wild stocks aren't
contaminated. In further response to Representative Munoz,
geoducks exist in Puget Sound and British Columbia. He noted
that Tenakee Springs is the farthest north that wild geoducks
are known to naturally exist. With regard to the primary market
for geoducks, Co-Chair Seaton specified that it's Asia.
Geoducks are highly prized seafood. Alaska has such a small
piece of the market that it can't supply product throughout the
year, and thus it can't get a very good price. Therefore, more
geoduck farms would be helpful to all in terms of the economic
structure.
2:03:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to the investment necessary to start
a geoduck operation.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said that he is unfamiliar with the cost of the
sites and surveys. He then informed the committee that when
Kachemak Bay was established as a critical habitat area, on-
bottom farming of clams wasn't allowed. Therefore, geoduck
farming wouldn't be allowed in Kachemak Bay.
2:04:36 PM
RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association,
related support for HB 60, which he considered an economic
development tool. He stressed that Alaska has very stringent
regulations governing the movement of shellfish about the state.
When geoduck is harvested in Southeast Alaska and sent to the
Seward hatchery, it must be certified by the Fish Pathology
Laboratory within ADF&G. The seed must also be certified prior
to being sent to the farms. Mr. Painter relayed that the ADF&G
Fish Pathology Laboratory believes that geoducks are one of the
cleanest animals ever tested. Although he acknowledged that
it's a little unclear how well geoducks will do beyond Southeast
waters, it won't be known until it's tried. He highlighted that
in the 15 years farmers in Washington State began working with
geoducks, they have built a $20 million industry. That industry
will likely double or triple in value over the next 10 years.
2:07:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated the earlier question regarding
how much of an investment is required from the time seed is
placed in the ground to harvest time.
MR. PAINTER said that the biggest problem with farming geoducks
is the long time required for them to reach marketable size,
which is about 1.5 pounds. The geoducks planted in Southeast
Alaska were just harvested this year, and thus the estimate is
seven to eight years to reach marketable size. Most of the
investment cost is the purchase of the seed, which cost about 25
cents apiece. A farmer should plan on purchasing at least twice
the amount of seed as animals desired to produce. The only
other costs are regulatory costs, certification of the water,
and survey fees for those in Southeast Alaska. Survey fees in
Southeast Alaska are $5,000 for the pre-lease survey in order to
determine how many geoducks might be on the site. Another cost
is for a vessel and divers. Therefore, the total cost would
depend on the size of the operation. An operation that wanted
to harvest 10,000 animals would require the purchase of 25,000
animals at 25 cents apiece.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the geoducks in Southeast
Alaska multiply [after the initial seed is placed in the ground]
so that more seed doesn't need to be purchased. Or, does seed
have to be purchased and planted each year, she asked. She then
restated her earlier question regarding the amount of the
initial investment in a geoduck farm.
MR. PAINTER estimated it would be in the range of $100,000 by
the time eight to nine years of seed is purchased and diver and
vessel costs have been covered.
2:11:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the permit fees through
ADF&G. She also inquired as to whether there is a holding
period for the collection of fees pending the first harvest.
MR. PAINTER said he would like to convince the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) to do that because it's difficult to
cover the front-end costs when no revenue is being brought in.
He reminded the committee that the costs include not only the
capital investment but also the operating costs, tide land fees,
and water quality certification. The water quality
certification alone will cost about $6,000-$8,000. Moreover,
the state and regulatory costs are a considerable part of the
investment.
2:13:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how confident one can be
that these geoduck stocks will be unable to reproduce.
MR. PAINTER answered, "We don't know; we're guessing based on
what's happened with other animals." He related that geoducks
have not spread beyond Southeast Alaska probably because of the
currents off the coast. At Cape Fairweather, the end of
Southeast, the currents go out into the Gulf of Alaska before
coming back to the coastline. During that time geoduck larvae
is floating in the water, but it can only live for a certain
period of time. Therefore, the seed can't make the transition
to the new water. There is no definitive knowledge regarding
how the geoducks will perform or how fast they will grow.
Although it seems unlikely they will reproduce, it's unknown at
this point. In response to Co-Chair Feige, Mr. Painter
confirmed that his theory that geoducks won't reproduce [in the
Gulf of Alaska] is based on laboratory work done at the
hatchery, which has been producing geoducks for well over 10
years. Temperatures need to be raised several degrees to
actually make geoducks spawn, and therefore it seems highly
unlikely they would spawn.
2:16:19 PM
JEFF REGNART, Director, Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game, stated that ADF&G takes a cautious approach to
farming, although in this case it doesn't foresee any
significant risk with the passage of HB 60.
2:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to the permits required for
geoduck farming and how the leasing of the land works. She also
inquired as to what's required annually after the initial
permitting.
MR. REGNART said that he is unfamiliar with the permitting
process, and noted that the tide land portion of the permitting
would be DNR's purview.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that AS 16.40.100 addresses aquatic
farms and specifies the criteria for issuing permits. He
explained that first and foremost the biological characteristics
of the area being applied for permit is reviewed as is whether
there would be any significant interactions or disruptions.
There is also the aquatic stock acquisition permit and the
transfer of stock permit as well as disease inspection.
Furthermore, when the land is leased the corners must be
identified by DNR. The DEC is involved with the water quality
as the water must be certified because the geoducks are being
raised for human consumption. Water samples are taken over the
course of one year in order to ensure a farm isn't placed in an
area with water pollution. Co-Chair Seaton opined that
mariculture is beneficial because it requires good clean water,
and thus the farmers make sure things aren't occurring that
pollute the area.
2:21:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to who owns the land that
the farmers lease.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that the state is the owner.
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that since the state owns the sub
tidal lands, a DNR lease permit has to be obtained. The ADF&G
controls the biological criteria, and thus all of those permits
come from ADF&G. There is also the water quality review by DEC.
The lease fees are paid to the state through DNR, he clarified.
2:22:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to whether ADF&G has denied
a permit based on the absence of a wild stock.
MR. REGNART said that he didn't know, but offered to find out.
2:23:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:23 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
2:25:22 PM
JOHN THIEDE, Natural Resource Specialist, Division of Mining,
Land, & Water, Department of Natural Resources, in response to
Representative P. Wilson, informed the committee that to lease
the first acre or portion thereof would cost $450 and each
additional acre would cost $125. Therefore, it depends upon the
size of the farm. In further response to Representative P.
Wilson, Mr. Thiede stated that it's a 10-year lease that's paid
annually.
2:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there is any other annual fee.
MR. THIEDE related that there is a list of all the fees on the
application and there are fees for water quality certification.
Since HB 60 addresses farming geoducks in areas where there is
no wild stock, he said he was unsure whether ADF&G would require
a bottom survey, which is required for on-bottom farming. In
further response, he clarified that once the bottom survey is
performed, it doesn't have to be performed again.
2:28:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI restated his earlier question regarding
whether a permit has been denied based on the absence of wild
geoduck stock.
MR. THIEDE said he does not believe so, noting that he has been
in the program practically since its inception. He noted that
there have been no on-bottom lease applications outside of areas
where there already are geoducks.
2:28:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the state has ever leased
areas to people who never farm the area. If so, how does it
work for the state to obtain the land again, she asked.
MR. THIEDE reminded the committee of House Bill 208 [22nd Alaska
State Legislature], which requested that the state specify a
certain amount of shellfish sites. The aforementioned led to
folks nominating sites. He explained that when he was hired for
that program, he reviewed all the shellfish permits and why
permits were closed out. If a permit was closed out for
anything other than a biological problem, then those specific
sites were reoffered to the public in the department's over-the-
counter program. Those who wish to expand one of these
reoffered sites has to make an amendment to the [lease], which
then goes through the process again including the public comment
period. He opined that the main reason folks close out their
leases in the aquatic shellfish program is because they discover
it's too much work. In further response to Representative P.
Wilson, Mr. Thiede stated that there aren't very many out-of-
state aquatic shellfish farmers. In fact, he estimated that
about 99 percent of the 67 leases are held by in-state people.
2:31:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to the permit process for a
geoduck farmer.
MR. THIEDE explained that there is an opening every other year
from January to April. Interested individuals are encouraged to
perform some background checking with the various departments
involved. Once an individual applies, the process begins by the
application going to the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP) and a public comment period, after which he pens a
preliminary decision. The preliminary decision is then let for
public comment and those public comments are incorporated into
DNR's final decision. The ACMP performs a consistency review,
provides a preliminary review, takes comments, and ultimately
pens a final [decision]. If the application isn't found to be
in compliance with ACMP regulations, the application doesn't go
forward. Once the permit is finalized, there is a 15-day
waiting period to make sure there is no appeal. If there is no
appeal, the lease is issued. Simultaneously, ADF&G reviews the
biological aspects of the project and then issues a permit. Mr.
Thiede noted that ADF&G works with DNR. After [the permit] is
issued, the applicant can seek the water quality [approval]. If
10-12 applications are received, the process can be completed
and leases approved by late fall or early winter, which allows
the applicant time to order the necessary spat for planting in
the spring.
2:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to how much study goes into
the biological review of introducing a non Native species into a
new habitat before a final determination to proceed with a
permit is made.
MR. THIEDE said that would be best addressed by ADF&G. However,
he pointed out that there has never been a geoduck farm site
where there were none before, and therefore he wasn't sure what
ADF&G would review. Mr. Thiede noted that ADF&G is very
concerned with invasive species, which can be transported via
non Native species and thus there would be serious review of
this.
2:36:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether there is a provision in DNR's
regulations that allow fees to be waived during the production
phase and until the first harvest occurs.
MR. THIEDE replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined that it would be helpful to consider
an option requiring the fees be due at the first harvest because
of the high ongoing costs and the difficulty in making these
aquatic farms pencil out financially during the preproduction
period.
2:37:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to the average size of an
aquatic farm.
MR. THIEDE specified that it depends upon the species. For
oyster farms, very few are over 2 acres, although the farmer may
have a lease for up to 3 acres. Geoduck farms would require a
larger size farm. Although it takes longer to produce a
harvest, once the seed is sown and the predator netting is
placed over the seed there is really no intensive work involved
for the next 5-10 years. However, for oyster farming gear has
to be purchased and cleaned, and thus the operation is more
intense. In further response to Representative P. Wilson, Mr.
Thiede related that generally a geoduck farmer may have 5-10
acres, although the entire acreage may not be used. He noted
that he would discourage an individual applying for a 10-acre
oyster farm permit from starting with such a large amount of
land. However, geoduck farming is relatively new and when House
Bill 208 was enacted the geoduck applicants chose their acreage.
2:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled when House Bill 208 was
enacted that several farmers bought as many geoduck farm sites
as they could at the time. She asked if DNR has gotten any of
those sites back.
MR. THIEDE replied yes, a few. He told the committee that it
has been difficult for geoduck farmers because of insufficient
amounts of available spat. The biggest concern, he said, is
that there is no data regarding growth, mortality, or how close
to harvest these animals are. The DNR has encouraged the
geoduck farmers to keep going rather than close the lease, but
at this point the department is in a bit of quandary because
it's nearing the end of the lease period. In further response
to Representative P. Wilson, Mr. Thiede related that the geoduck
farmers are required to submit an annual use report to ADF&G,
which questions farmers regarding the following: how much
product the farmer has; how much product the farmer plans to
plant; how much product the farmer planted; how many worker days
were there; how many workers were utilized; and what was the
income? The aforementioned is then compared to the 10-year
operation and development plan that each farm is required to
complete and have approved at the outset of the process.
However, DNR has been very lenient and not required the farmers
to fill out the forms any better because of it being a new
industry. Although there is nothing like the fish ticket that
is used for commercial fishing, there has been talk of such
within DNR. Of course, there has been resistance from the
[geoduck farming] community because it's a burden on them.
2:43:45 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to the reasoning behind ADF&G's
informal policy to prevent geoduck seed from being used anywhere
outside of Southeast Alaska.
MR. REGNART responded that the policy had to do with the
concerns regarding invasive species and the unknown impacts of
introducing a species to an area where the species isn't
[naturally occurring]. He said that for geoducks ADF&G has
backed away from that policy a little bit and is instead urging
caution in moving ahead with the permitting program.
2:44:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if the passage of HB 60, which
allows the farming of geoducks in areas where wild geoducks
aren't present, would hamper ADF&G's ability to perform due
diligence on a project or request for a project.
MR. REGNART replied no, adding that ADF&G would still have the
ability to review the pros and cons of a proposal while keeping
in mind the best interest of the resource. "I don't feel it
would compromise our ability to do our job, carry out our
mission," he stated.
2:46:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI commented that he has seen this
legislation for the last five years in a row and he recalls that
initially ADF&G was 100 percent opposed to it. Although the
sponsor has done much to reach the point at which the
legislation is today, Representative Kawasaki said that he still
has concerns, particularly with regard to the potential
introduction of invasive species. He also expressed concern
with threatened species issues in terms of a non native species
that's introduced to an area becoming a hindrance to the
development of a natural resource that competes with the
introduced species, such as in the case of the Wood bison. In
conclusion, Representative Kawasaki said he would cautiously
support HB 60 today.
2:48:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON appreciated the caution, but he pointed out that
the geoduck exists in Alaska with the same species mix [present
in the Gulf of Alaska]. "So, it's not as if we are moving
something into an unknown ecology because this is the same
ecology, they just don't go that far north," he said.
2:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HB 60 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 105-SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST
2:50:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to the Southeast State
Forest; and providing for an effective date."
2:51:31 PM
RICK ROGERS, Forest Resource Program Manager, Central Office,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, recalled
that at the last hearing there was concern regarding whether
logs from the Southeast State Forest would go overseas in the
round without any processing in the local sawmills. Upon review
of the past six years, it was found that 87 percent of the logs
from state timber sales remained in the state for manufacturing
in Alaska while 13 percent were exported. Of that 13 percent, 3
percent were exported by sawmills because that percentage of
logs had more value as exported in the round than if processed.
To achieve the aforementioned, sawmills request a variance under
their contract requirements to export a small percentage for
their logs. In balance, the data demonstrates the state is
doing a good job of encouraging instate manufacture of timber
off state lands. Upon review of this statewide, it was found
that only 5 percent of the logs are going out of state in the
round.
2:55:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to the level of processing
sawmills perform on the 87 percent of logs that remain in the
state.
MR. ROGERS answered that it varies by mill. Under the long-term
forest contracts, the past practice was the production of cants,
which was crude processing in which 8-12 inch cuttings were made
and large cants were sent overseas for secondary manufacturing
at mills. However, that has changed quite a bit. In fact, the
Viking Sawmill, the state's largest sawmill, is producing
finished products. He noted that some mills also provide
secondary manufacturing such that they perform planing and have
kilns. In the northern part of Alaska, much of the [logs] are
being used for fuel in which case processing may be as simple as
cutting and splitting firewood. Most importantly, for the state
to see additional investment in manufacturing, there must be a
reliable supply of timber. In Southeast, particularly with the
dominance of federal land, there hasn't been new investment in
manufacturing because there's too much risk involved when there
isn't enough of a reliable supply to amortize the investment.
2:57:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reminded the committee that his community
is primarily situated in the tundra. He then asked if there are
different harvest practices on state lands as opposed to the
clear cuts in the Tongass National Forest in the past.
MR. ROGERS related that the Alaska Forest Resources & Practices
Act guides timber harvest on both state and private lands in
Alaska. State land has a higher standard for riparian buffer
retention. In Southeast Alaska, in particular, anadromous fish
and salmon are another extremely valuable resource to Alaska.
Timber harvest in or outside of the state forest requires a 100-
foot no-cut buffer on each side of salmon bearing waters. The
aforementioned includes a small Coho rearing stream that may be
only a couple of feet wide. Additionally, there is a 100-300
foot zone beyond the aforementioned buffer where additional
consideration is given to the water quality and impacts to the
stream. Also, the land management plans for state land provide
additional guidance. The land to which he is referring is
guided under both the Prince of Wales Area Plan and the Central
Southeast Area Plan, both of which generally have a 500 foot no-
cut zone along the coast. The aforementioned no-cut zone
provides for habitat as well as visual appeal and protection of
eagle nests. Typically, there is a 330-foot radius around any
known eagle tree. Mr. Rogers opined that the state has some
very good protections and a credible program that balances the
state's interest in managing timber along with other resources.
3:00:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that at the last meeting it was
related that the target amount of allowable harvest in the state
forest is 8.3 million board feet. She inquired as to the actual
demand from the existing sawmills in terms of the target
allowable harvest.
MR. ROGERS explained that per the Alaska State Constitution the
division is required to manage the timber in a sustainable
fashion, and therefore the 8.3 million board feet is the result
of the state's inventory and the calculation of growth and
yield. Essentially, the 8.3 million board feet is a sustainable
output of timber from the land base that can be harvested in
perpetuity. However, that is nowhere near meeting the demand
for Alaska's existing mills and certainly wouldn't allow for any
growth and investment in new mills. Mr. Rogers said, "What's
somewhat frustrating about this situation is given the state's
land base, I think this bill represents the state doing what it
can to help the situation on timber supply. And yet, it's not
enough to really overcome the supply issues that industry faces,
but that's really a function of what the land entitlement is for
the State of Alaska." He reiterated that [HB 105] offers a good
balance and package to support the industry.
3:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he understands the idea of a no-cut
zone along salmon streams, but in the Interior that's about the
only location of trees. Therefore, that regulation basically
means there would be no logging at all in the Interior. He
opined that the provision would encourage poaching.
MR. ROGERS clarified that the riparian standards he mentioned
earlier are for coastal Alaska and there are different standards
in the Interior as they are somewhat more permissive. Again, he
stated that it's a balance between protecting important water
quality and fisheries and managing the timber. In spite of the
riparian protections, there is a significant amount of
underutilized allowable cut in Interior Alaska. In further
response to Representative Dick, Mr. Rogers agreed to talk with
him further regarding this matter.
3:04:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the lands
specified in HB 105 are already available for cutting.
Therefore, the purpose of HB 105 is to provide for pre-
management of the lands on a rotation cycle, and the legislation
doesn't place lands unavailable for cutting in an [allowable
harvest zone].
MR. ROGERS said that's correct. He explained that under the
area plan designation, these lands are in the category of
general use, which allows for timber harvest. These are the
lands for which the allowable harvest has been calculated.
Furthermore, these are lands on which the state is already
actively managing timber sales. However, one exception is a
small parcel that is in selection status and is currently in the
adjudication process with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
This land, though, has already been planned for in the Prince of
Wales area plan and has a general use designation.
3:05:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether that 87 percent in state
use will continue if the timber supply is increased or will the
increase merely result in export.
MR. ROGERS remarked that is doesn't really make any difference
because these lands are already part of the timber base the
state is managing. What could make a difference in the future
is whether the state can maintain its existing sawmills to have
the processing capacity to process the timber. One of the
purposes of HB 105 is to provide certainty in the long-term
tenure of the lands in order to perform more aggressive
management. In fact, the state could actually increase the
allowable harvest if the trees can be grown faster. If the
lands will be managed as a state forest, it makes more sense to
consider practices such as pre-commercial thinning, whereby the
allowable cut of these lands could conceivably be more than
doubled over the long term.
3:07:34 PM
MR. ROGERS, in response to Representative Gardner, explained
that if lands are designated general use under an area plan, as
is the case today, the state in the future can sell the land or
subdivide it or move into some other use. Therefore, HB 105 is
deciding whether the state is committing to growing trees on
these designated lands, subject to all the other multiple use
considerations. This legislation provides a commitment and
doesn't include lands that the Division of Mining, Lands and
Water felt were better suited for subdivision or other purposes.
3:10:09 PM
ROBERT CLAUS, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, began by
relating that SEACC supports small mills, micro sales, and the
ability of folks to make a living from the state's forests
through a value-added processing of timber products. However,
SEACC believe that the public lands should remain multiple use
lands and not be [managed] for timber as a first priority, as is
the case in the state forest. Most of the parcels in the state
forest aren't areas that SEACC finds controversial and they do
support small mills, particularly in Thorne Bay. However, SEACC
does object to the Rowan Bay parcel and Hook Arm parcel, which
is on the west coast of Dall Island. As a resident of Prince of
Wales Island, he related that he uses the west coast of Dall
Island and all the outer islands of Prince of Wales for hunting,
fishing, and recreation. Moreover, tourism businesses in the
small town of Craig use the Hook Arm parcel for their business.
Therefore, Mr. Claus opined that Hook Arm wouldn't be a good
addition to the state forest rather it should remain a multiple
use parcel and not be logged.
3:11:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
[HB 105 was held over.]
3:12:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1.HB 60 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 2.HB0060A.PDF |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 3.HB0060-2-2-021611-DNR-N.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 4.HB060-DFG-CFD-02-10-11.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 5.Sponsor Statment HB 60.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 6.Article 02 Aquatic Farming.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 7.Interesting Geoduck Facts.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 8.Home page for three minute trailer for "3 feet under - Digging Deep for the Geoduck".pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 9.Alutiiq Pride Hatchery Geoduck Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |