03/23/2009 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB70 | |
| HB43 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HCR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 23, 2009
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 70
"An Act establishing the farm-to-school program in the
Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska grown fresh fruit
and vegetable grant program in the Department of Education and
Early Development, the farmers' market technology improvement
pilot program in the Department of Environmental Conservation,
and the farmers to food banks pilot program in the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development."
- MOVED CSHB 70(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- MOVED HB 43 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Requesting that the governor and the attorney general review and
reevaluate the license issued to TransCanada Alaska Company,
LLC, and Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., jointly as licensee, under
the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act to determine whether the
project proposed by the licensee sufficiently maximizes the
benefits to the people of the state and merits continuing the
license, taking into consideration economic changes affecting
project financing, the availability of liquefied natural gas and
natural gas from nonconventional sources, the state's risk of
paying treble damages associated with an in- state gas pipeline,
and the expected budget deficit; and requesting that the
governor and the attorney general report the outcome of the
review and reevaluation within six months.
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 70
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA GROWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) RES, FIN
03/18/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/09 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
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
02/24/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/09 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/26/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
02/26/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/26/09 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/09 (H) FSH RPT 6NR 1AM
02/27/09 (H) NR: MILLETT, JOHNSON, KELLER, BUCH,
MUNOZ, EDGMON
02/27/09 (H) AM: KAWASAKI
03/18/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/09 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/23/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 70.
SANDRA WILSON, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the proposed committee substitute
for HB 70.
FRANCI HAVEMEISTER, Director
Central Office
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB 70.
JEFF HETRICK, Director
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB 43.
RODGER PAINTER, President
Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 43.
DAVE OTNESS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 43.
PAUL FUHS, Co-owner
PACAlaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 43.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:33 PM
CO-CHAIR CRAIG JOHNSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
Johnson, Olson, Guttenberg, and Wilson were present at the call
to order. Representatives Kawasaki and Tuck arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 70-ALASKA GROWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
1:07:36 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 70, "An Act establishing the farm-to-
school program in the Department of Natural Resources, the
Alaska grown fresh fruit and vegetable grant program in the
Department of Education and Early Development, the farmers'
market technology improvement pilot program in the Department of
Environmental Conservation, and the farmers to food banks pilot
program in the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony on HB 70 after
ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
1:09:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
stated that HB 70 is a way to get Alaska farm products into the
classroom and enable schools to have small plots of ground or an
entire farm where students can ally with local farmers.
SANDRA WILSON, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, said the proposed committee substitute, version 26-
LS0284\R, Bannister, 2/12/09, adopted as the work draft on
3/18/09, changes the original bill by removing Sections 4, 6,
and 7. Section 6 was removed at the request of the Department
of Health & Social Services because the department is already
working internally on the directives that were included there.
Sections 4 and 7 were removed because they are not fiscally
responsible to do right now.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO added that Version R essentially takes a
lot of the money out of the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that taking a lot of money out of HB 70
was important. The House Resources Standing Committee will deal
with the policy aspects of the bill, he continued, and the House
Finance Committee can deal with the financial decisions.
1:11:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what Sections 4, 6, and 7 would
have done.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON reminded members that Version R was adopted at
the previous hearing and is before the committee.
MS. WILSON replied that Section 4 was the Alaska grown fresh
fruit and vegetables grant program, a program aimed more toward
low income, farmers' markets, and food banks. Section 6 was
related to allowing food stamps at farmers' markets, which is
the program that the Department of Health & Social Services is
already working on internally. Section 7 was related to getting
fresh fruits, vegetables, and home grown products into the food
banks through a pilot program.
1:12:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether the program at
Calypso Farm & Ecology Center, located near Fairbanks, is
already doing what HB 70 would do.
FRANCI HAVEMEISTER, Director, Central Office, Division of
Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, said young people
do work within Calypso Farm and some of the food does go back
into the school program. She understood, however, that HB 70
would oversee the entire state and not just one community. In
further response, she agreed that Calypso Farm's gardening and
farming program is done at three or four schools in the
Fairbanks area. The farm also hires youth to come in and work
the program for six week slots, she added.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether HB 70 would preclude
Calypso Farm from the program or create another state agency
that is doing what the farm is doing.
MS. HAVEMEISTER said she does not know. The program under HB 70
does not talk about hiring youth to come in and work during the
summer, it only puts agriculture into the classroom as far as
education and possibly summer gardens. However, she allowed,
there is a possibility of an overlap.
1:14:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether adding the word
greenhouse after garden throughout the bill would be beneficial
to the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed that this is a great idea because
the omission was an oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said schools in this program would likely
have a greenhouse, so he wants to ensure there is no distinction
between having the farm in a garden or a greenhouse.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that this would also address the
concerns of some of the students who testified.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO added that some things can only be grown in
greenhouses and those would be excluded if the bill is not
amended as is being suggested by Representative Seaton.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether adding greenhouses to HB 70
would create any problems for the Division of Agriculture.
MS. HAVEMEISTER answered no.
1:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether anything in HB 70
would prevent Calypso Farm or any other farm entity from taking
a grant and becoming the agent to administer this program in
Fairbanks or other communities.
MS. HAVEMEISTER replied there is nothing she is aware of, but
there is no fiscal note in HB 70 for pass-through grants, so a
fiscal note would have to be addressed somewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referenced page 6, lines 11-13, which
state that the school garden or farm must be used for
educational purposes and growing produce that will be served in
the school district's meal program. He asked whether any excess
produce could be sold if the revenues are used to support the
program and make it more self sufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he thinks turning any revenues back to
the state would be applauded by most people.
MS. HAVEMEISTER agreed that it would be a possibility.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON cautioned against the schools getting into
competition with private growers and urged that any revenues
only go toward supporting the program.
1:20:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 as follows:
Page 6, line 10, following "gardens":
Insert ", greenhouses"
Page 6, line 11, following "school garden":
Insert ", greenhouse"
Page 6, line 11, following "The garden":
Insert ", greenhouse"
Page 6, line 14, following "garden":
Insert ", greenhouse"
Page 6, line 17, following "garden":
Insert ", greenhouse"
Page 6, line 20":
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) When a school garden, greenhouse, or farm is
used the excess fruits or vegetables may be sold, if
the revenues are used to support the program."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that he wants to ensure this
applies to school farms and gardens as well as greenhouses.
Therefore, greenhouse or greenhouses needs to be inserted in a
number of places in the bill, and probably in the title as well,
which is why the amendment is conceptual. Regarding the
proposed addition of subsection (d), he said he does not want
this to compete with raising money for other school activities,
so this directs that any revenues must go back to support the
program, which will help to make the program more sustainable.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON removed her objection. [Co-Chair
Johnson's objection was treated at removed.] There being no
further objections, Conceptual Amendment 1 was passed.
1:22:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON returned discussion to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG remarked that encouraging student
understanding of where produce comes from is exactly what should
be done. He said he thinks farmers are more concerned about
economy of scale and developing a larger market than competition
from a school program. He offered his support for HB 70.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report the work draft, labeled
26-LS0284\R, Bannister, 2/12/09, as amended, out of committee
with individual recommendations and forthcoming fiscal notes.
There being no objections, CSHB 70(RES) was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 43-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
1:24:27 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON 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."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, speaking as the sponsor of HB 43, first
showed committee members a live geoduck. Geoducks are a
valuable species that is farmed in Southeast Alaska, he said.
They are sold live and the current farm price is $3.75-$4.00 per
pound and the retail market price in Asia can be up to $30 per
pound.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative Wilson,
said the geoduck shown to the committee weighs three pounds.
Harvestable size for farmed geoducks is one-and-a-half pounds to
three pounds, he explained, but for wild-caught geoducks any
size is taken as long as it meets the minimum. It takes six to
seven years for a [farmed] geoduck to reach three pounds.
1:28:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in further response to Representative
Wilson, specified that HB 43 relates to farmed, not wild,
geoducks. He explained that a few adult geoducks are raised in
Alaska's only mariculture hatchery which is located in Seward.
These adults are spawned by raising the water temperature to
trigger the release of eggs and sperm into the water which then
unite to form larvae. The larvae feed on a particular kind of
plankton that is raised by the hatchery, he continued. When
they reach a quarter-inch in size they are called seed, at which
point the seed is sold to farmers who will plant them. Most
farms are about 5 acres and in Southeast Alaska they are
generally subtidal, so the geoducks are raised underwater and
divers are used. Geoducks require a muddy sea bottom with
little turbulence or wave action. Once settled in, the geoduck
starts growing in that place and never moves because it is
immobile. The harvest cycle is about 6 years.
1:31:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said there is also a wild stock geoduck
fishery in Southeast Alaska. The Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G) conducts population surveys and establishes harvest
areas. Divers with permits for the fishery harvest the geoducks
by injecting water beside the clam which forces them out of the
mud without breakage.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted there is one geoduck farm north of
Juneau that is permitted to grow geoducks intertidally.
However, he said, HB 43 provides that farming north of Southeast
Alaska can only be done subtidally in order to prevent conflicts
with subsistence clam harvesters, recreationists, and others.
The only reason HB 43 is necessary is because of ADF&G's policy
that non-native species cannot be brought in and farmed. He
acknowledged that having an invasive species is undesirable, but
he pointed out that there is a long history of geoducks being
farmed along side wild stock in Puget Sound, Canada, and
Southeast Alaska. Geoducks can live 140-160 years, he added,
which indicates they are not prone to diseases.
1:34:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether HB 43 is being done because
of the hatchery in Seward.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that he is proposing HB 43 because
Alaska has many rural communities that are having a hard time
establishing an economic base. Geoducks are the most valuable
clam species in Alaska and farming them would allow rural
communities to have an economic base. In addition, geoduck
farming would not be dependent on a wild stock coming in like
with salmon runs. Geoducks can be harvested when it is
convenient and allow people to participate in various other
fisheries that occur at specific times. Thus, HB 43 would
provide an economic opportunity throughout the rest of Alaska
that is currently available in Southeast. He said this will not
compete with Southeast Alaska because the market is so large.
Rather, the problem is that Alaska has so few geoducks that the
state is not seen as a major player and therefore cannot get the
highest price. If Alaska were to have a more consistent supply
throughout the year, the price for the state's geoducks would go
up due to a consistency in supply. He noted that the
importation of geoduck seed is not allowed, only native Alaskan
stocks can be used. The business plan for the hatchery in
Seward revolves around being able to sell enough product to
become self-sustaining.
1:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that ADF&G has had
concerns about viability and other things, and there is no
fiscal note for the bill. He asked whether ADF&G will conduct
research before there is an introduction or whether someone will
just put them into the water and, if this is so, would a permit
be needed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON first returned to Representative Wilson's
question, stating that the hatchery in Seward must be able to
sell enough product to be self-sustaining. The areas where
farms would be established in Southeast Alaska are the same
areas where divers are harvesting wild stocks, he explained, so
there has been a slowdown in the development of farms in
Southeast due to this competition. This problem disappears,
however, if farming is done in areas that have no native stocks
of geoducks.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON addressed Representative Guttenberg's
question, saying that permits would be required just like any
other type of clam permit. A permit for geoducks would require
testing for disease, giving notice before any moving of the
geoducks, testing for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) before
selling, and so forth. The only thing HB 43 does is disallow
ADF&G from denying geoduck farming in those parts of the state
where geoducks do not occur naturally, which the department is
currently doing. He pointed out that ADF&G does allow oyster
farming and oysters are not native to Alaska. The reason
oysters work in Alaska is because the water is too cold for them
to reproduce. Oysters become bitter when they are reproducing,
so the cold water is a boon for oyster farmers at it makes the
oysters edible all year round.
1:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that from the science
perspective, not knowing does not mean there is not an adverse
reaction. He asked what local biologists think about this.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said ADF&G is on record as being neutral to HB
43 in the last committee, and that there is no department
representative at today's hearing.
1:42:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired how many larvae are produced by
one pair of geoducks.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that all clams reproduce the
same way. Females produce hundreds of thousands of eggs and
males send out hundreds of thousands of millions of sperm into
the water column. This happens all at the same time for each
individual within each particular species. When the eggs and
sperm find each other they form into larvae. After a certain
amount of time that is specific for each species, the larvae
settle in the substrate that is appropriate for that species;
for example, razor clams will only settle in gravel of a certain
size and geoducks only settle in mud. In further response,
Representative Seaton said he is sure the Seward hatchery
conducts studies to determine the number of sperm and eggs that
each clam releases and how many zygotes are produced per pair.
1:47:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that right now it is unknown
whether geoducks will actually grow in the areas of Alaska where
there are no native stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that he does not see any problems
with growth farther north because the hatchery in Seward is
raising adults, spawning them, and then raising and selling the
seed. Therefore, the chance for rearing farther north is
extremely high, but what is questionable is whether geoducks
will be able to spawn in that water. Studies have shown that
other mud dwelling species, such as polychaetes, tunicates, and
sea worms, actually increase in number when geoducks are
introduced, thus geoducks do not displace them.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON presumed that even though it is unknown
whether geoducks can live in the northern waters outside of the
hatchery, the reason for HB 43 is to provide another income for
communities in that area.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied correct. He reiterated that he
does not think there is a problem with raising planted seed, and
the question is whether the geoducks will reach sexual maturity
and reproduce in the colder northern waters. The farmers would
likely hope they do not because then the geoducks can be sold
all year round. Should they become sexually mature, there must
be certain kinds of upwelling and plankton for the larvae in
addition to a muddy substrate. No state money will need to be
committed for doing research, he added, because private parties
in villages where this farming might work will be the ones
looking for muddy-bottomed areas to put the farms.
1:52:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that he does not anticipate lots of
people running out to start farms if HB 43 passes. They will
have to go to bankers for financing and to ADF&G for permits, he
said. This is just the first step for giving ADF&G the
opportunity to start looking at it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed. To get a farm a person must apply
to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A permit would be
issued if DNR finds there would be no conflicting uses. Permits
for the moving of seed and adults are granted by ADF&G. All
permits for health and safety would also remain in place. He
reiterated that HB 43 only deals with requiring ADF&G to allow
the farming in areas other than Southeast Alaska.
1:53:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether a geoduck permit can be
obtained for areas in Southeast Alaska where there are no native
stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the problem in Southeast
Alaska is that it is hard to get a permit in areas where there
are wild stocks. Since the wild stock is a public resource it
causes numerous problems in separating what belongs to the
public for harvest and what belongs to the farmer. However,
this would not be a problem outside of Southeast Alaska. The
big contention is the larval drift zones and the reason for
these is to ensure there is no contamination of the natural
stocks. This is why introduced stock is prohibited in Southeast
Alaska. Since there are no native stocks outside of Southeast
Alaska, there is no problem of contamination, he maintained.
1:56:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that there have been
introductions of species where it was thought there would be no
problems and then it is discovered that there is a problem.
What would be the ramifications if this were to become the case
here, she asked, such as an unexpected crossing of the larval
drift zones depicted on the map in the committee packets.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that the ramification of the
larval drift zones is to maintain the genetic integrity of the
natural stock in an area. There is no native stock in Larval
Drift Zones One and Two, so there is no native stock that can be
contaminated by other genetic stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that it will not be a problem
because the native stock of Southeast Alaska is the only stock
that would be introduced elsewhere in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said exactly.
1:58:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired what the spawning temperature is.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON deferred to Jeff Hetrick.
JEFF HETRICK, Director, Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery,
explained that the hatchery holds its geoducks at water
temperatures between 7 and 10 degrees Celsius, which is 45-50
degrees Fahrenheit. To initiate spawning, the geoducks are fed
heavily and the temperature is raised to 12 degrees Celsius, or
54 degrees Fahrenheit, for a period of about one week.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether geoducks might be able to
reproduce in areas of Alaska where they are not native.
MR. HETRICK replied that he believes it is possible. However,
the right food source needs to be there and the temperature must
be elevated to 55 or 60 degrees Fahrenheit for a long period of
time, which typically does not happen in Southcentral, but
perhaps could with the currents in the Aleutians and the Kodiak
region.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether there are wild stocks of
geoducks in the Aleutians.
MR. HETRICK responded no, but the temperatures in the Aleutians
during the warmer summer months might exceed those of
Southcentral Alaska.
2:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that his question related to
whether farmed geoducks in the Aleutians could start reproducing
on their own because of the higher temperatures. He asked
whether the geoducks could be harvested should they start to go
into a reproductive state, and how could it be ensured that all
of them are harvested.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that it generally takes about 7
years to reach the size for sexual maturity, so a farmer would
harvest them before they reached that size. The animal uses a
lot of energy and body mass to reproduce and a farmer would not
want this to happen. Also, he continued, should the farmed
geoducks spawn, there are few areas in the Aleutians that would
be proper habitat, which would include a muddy bottom free of
wave impact and the right plankton for them to feed on. People
will have to search long and hard to find the right spot for a
farm and will have to use satellite photos to determine the
upwellings and plankton blooms. No one is currently doing this
research because a permit cannot be issued at this time.
2:04:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised that Kodiak might be able to
sustain this type of mariculture. Once the aforementioned
research is done, he asked, would ADF&G be able to apply
limitations based on reproduction concerns, and does ADF&G have
other concerns in addition to farmed geoducks becoming an
invasive species.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that he has a note from ADF&G which says
that the department does not have anyone to testify and that the
department's official position is neutral, but it does have
concerns. He offered his belief that [reproduction] is the
department's concern.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he likes the idea of HB 43, but that he
wants to ensure existing habitats are safe.
2:05:44 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, in response to Representative Wilson, said
this is the first time this year that HB 43 has been heard in
the House Resources Standing Committee, but that it was heard in
the House Special Committee on Fisheries. Both committees may
have heard the bill last year, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she would like to hear
ADF&G's concerns because she cannot remember what the department
said last year. She asked whether the co-chair planned to move
the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON answered that he wants to move HB 43 out of
committee today. He said he has a note from ADF&G which states,
"Official position is neutral with concerns." Those concerns
are the potential of the reproductive plumes, he added.
2:07:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she wants to ensure that nothing bad
will happen because there are geoducks in her district and it is
a wonderful industry. She inquired whether the demand for
geoducks is being met 90 percent, 50 percent, or some other
number, and could overproduction result in dropping the price.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that farmers supported the
previous bill because Alaska's problem is its limited supply
which makes the state an inconsistent supplier. If Alaska had a
larger percentage of the supply and was a more consistent
supplier, the farmers believe they would be able to get a higher
price. Currently, Alaska is a peripheral player with very small
production compared to Canada or Puget Sound, so it cannot
command a higher price.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON urged witnesses to feel comfortable in
addressing her questions.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony.
2:11:08 PM
RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaskan Shellfish Growers
Association, thanked Trident Seafoods for providing the geoduck
that was shown to members. Geoduck farming on the West Coast
will be worth $80 million this year, he said. The market demand
for geoducks is large and growing, the growth mostly associated
with the expansion of the Chinese economy, and Alaska could
share in and profit from this growth. Aquaculture production of
geoducks will likely increase regardless of what happens with
the wild stocks.
MR. PAINTER maintained that geoducks are not an invasive species
because they are indigenous to Alaska. They are resistant to
disease and there is no concern about genetics. The question
comes down to what is the definition of the natural range of
this species. Range is very fleeting because water temperatures
change and sea ice retreats, with subsequent changes in the
ranges of species. The oceans are very dynamic and predicting a
species range over a period of time is difficult to do, he
continued. For example, it was originally thought that the only
natural stocks of purple hench rock scallops were in Southeast
Alaska, but now oyster farmers in Kachemak Bay have captured
tiny scallops in their oyster gear and these scallops have been
growing to maturity.
MR. PAINTER said this is really about economic development. If
ADF&G truly had concerns about HB 43, representatives would be
at the table. He said species have been moved all around Alaska
and sometimes the results have been good and sometimes the
animals have died out, but that he cannot remember any examples
of serious problems.
2:18:23 PM
DAVE OTNESS stated that he is a third generation Alaskan and
commercial fisherman who has been involved in mariculture for 12
years. There is a huge void in Alaska's coastal economies, he
said, and there is nothing like having a species that will grow
cost-free in the state's waters, which is why he is a strong
advocate for this.
MR. OTNESS said a benefit of farming geoducks in Prince William
Sound is that paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is not an
issue like it is in Southeast Alaska. Geoducks from Southeast
Alaska have to be tested for PSP at the Department of
Environmental Conservation laboratory, so they cannot be shipped
live because the quarantine period is too long and this is a
factor in the price. He related that Cordova was the largest
razor clam source in the world before the 1964 earthquake, but
the clams have not come back due to predation by sea otters.
The muddy substrates and nutrient-rich waters near Cordova would
be perfect for providing a substantial geoduck industry and
Cordova could use that economic help. In addition, geoducks are
an excellent protein source and would help with providing state
food security.
2:22:57 PM
MR. OTNESS maintained that there is no issue with flooding the
markets and with the world's population growing there is the
potential to expand. He said that once committee members taste
the geoduck chowder tomorrow, the question will by why geoducks
cannot be purchased in local stores. Local sales is another
level of development of this industry, he added.
MR. OTNESS understood that geoduck spat does not get out of
Southeast Alaska because it gets hung up in Yakutat and the spat
does not live long enough to get out of the gyre in that area.
In regard to the temperature of Bering Sea waters, he said it is
not as warm as might be expected due to cold water upwelling on
both sides of the [Aleutian Peninsula]. He said HB 43 would
help coastal communities and would have little environmental
effect.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that he commercially fishes in
south Naknek and has seen times when the water did get warm.
MR. OTNESS said he has also works out of Naknek quite a bit and
has seen the Naknek River at 75 degrees and the bay at 65
degrees. However, he continued, the deeper water on both sides
of the Aleutians is quite cold.
2:26:56 PM
PAUL FUHS, Co-owner, PACAlaska, noted that PACAlaska is the
largest farm holding company in Southeast Alaska and has the
longest experience in farming geoducks. He said his company
supports HB 43 because of economies of scale. One economy of
scale is the more spat the hatchery can produce, the cheaper it
is. For example, the cost right now is $.25 per animal, which
is pretty high, and there is not 100 percent survival when the
seeds are planted. The hatchery has been marginal from the
start because of the lack of economies of scale. The other
economy of scale is the market, he continued. The market is
expanding along with the middle class in China, but the biggest
issue is to be able to supply on a year round basis and have
enough production to be able to do this sequentially. Having
this ability would allow for the signing of long-term contracts
to provide the product year round, he said. This means a lot to
a distributor and restaurants and this is where the increase in
price comes from.
MR. FUHS doubted there would be any spawning, but offered his
opinion that even if there was it would just increase the
overall productivity of the area. If the spawn went off the
farm site, people could publicly harvest the geoducks and there
could be a commercial fishery on them if there were enough. He
said it is necessary for the legislature to step into a
situation like this because the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
will be naturally cautious, as the department was when salmon
hatcheries were first proposed many years ago. He urged that
the legislature step in and make this policy call.
2:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether hatchery expansion means
expanding the Seward hatchery or adding hatcheries elsewhere.
MR. FUHS answered that it is much more efficient to have one
large hatchery. Another variant could be to buy the seed from
the hatchery at a much smaller size and hold them in a tank at
the farm until they are large enough to plant.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how geoducks are transported to Asia.
MR. FUHS replied that they are generally shipped out through
Seattle or Vancouver, but they must be held for a period of time
while the Department of Environmental Conservation tests them
for PSP. It is always a race because if there are any delays
there will be substantial dead loss of the animals before they
reach the Asian market.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that he is asking this question
because he recently learned that almost every plane returning to
Asia is returning empty. He said he would like to see those
empty planes being filled with Alaska products going to Asia.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony.
2:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that if there are other
restrictions on an area, HB 43 would not override them. For
example, there is a critical habitat area in Kachemak Bay that
allows suspended mariculture like with oysters, but does not
allow bottom aquaculture, and HB 43 would not override that.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON added that HB 43 does not mandate a farm or
instruct ADF&G to do anything, it just gives a green light if
the economics and biology are there.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that when this bill was
heard by the committee last year, ADF&G opposed it not because
the department did not support it, but because biologists said
they do not know. Studies should have been started long ago, he
maintained, yet there is no money for studies with HB 43. Under
this bill ADF&G cannot stop a farm for the reason that no [wild]
geoducks are present. The scientists are being responsible but
the legislature is not, he said. If problems happen down the
road, people will be asking why it was not studied. Scientists
previously testified that they do not know and therefore they
cannot say, which he would not paraphrase as being neutral, he
said. The success of this bill is because there is no fiscal
note. Legislators owe it to the people of Alaska and the
mariculture industry to be able to tell them exactly what is
going on and a grant to study this would do that.
2:36:29 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that he thinks studies will be funded by
the private sector rather than the government. He said he
thinks ADF&G has within its statutory and regulatory authorities
the ability to see that that information is delivered or else
the permit will be denied. If private industry cannot do the
studies, it can be brought back to the legislature. He said he
supports HB 43 because it clears the way to get started.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that there needs to be a
baseline for how things are before geoducks are introduced, and
there have been no comments indicating that anyone is stepping
up with research funding to do this.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the mission of different departments
must be looked at, and the problem is that mariculture is a
misfit within ADF&G because the department's mission is to
manage wild stocks, not promote economic development. Moving
mariculture from ADF&G to the Division of Agriculture or
elsewhere has been considered, in which case the Division of
Habitat would review the permits when they come from the other
agency. He maintained there has been research because of the
geoduck farms in Canada, Washington, and Southeast Alaska. It
is a "Catch 22" because no research can be done without
transporting the animals to Southcentral to conduct a study. As
with oyster farming, the legislature has to step in to allow
geoduck farming.
2:41:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 43 out of committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, HB 43 was reported out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
2:43:22 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 70 amendment 1.pdf |
HRES 3/23/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 70 |