Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/09/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB60 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
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.
| 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 |