Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/15/2011 05:00 PM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Sportfish Sector | |
| HB60 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 60-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING/SEED TRANSFER
5:58:33 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 60, "An Act relating to aquatic farm
permitting involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers
between certified hatcheries and aquatic farms."
5:58:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature,
established that the premise of HB 60 is to prevent the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) from citing the absence of
wild geoducks as a basis to deny a geoduck farming permit. He
then provided a three minute video; illustrating the geoduck
species.
6:02:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said HB 60 upholds all existing
mariculture farming conditions regarding health, safety, and
transfer. Additionally, the bill permits sub tidal farming in
areas north of Alaska's southeastern region. Sub tidal farming
will eliminate the concerns for interfering with existing uses,
such as subsistence, sport fisheries, and boat landings.
Questions have also arisen specifically related to shellfish
farming that occurs in Kachemak Bay, however, as a designated
critical habitat area, restrictions would prohibit geoduck
cultivation. Another point of concern has to do with the
esthetic of an area being used as a geoduck farm; oyster farms,
for instance require a myriad of buoys. He explained that the
sub tidal geoduck farm is not visible on the surface. Thus, the
areas where these farms are developed will receive an economic
benefit, with no visual impact. Further, because of the water
temperature, the geoduck will not spawn in the cold northern
waters, which will be helpful with marketing, producing no
spawning stage bitter taste, as well as dispel introduced
species concerns. Mature, native geoduck will be collected in
the southeast region, transported to the Seward hatchery for
spawning purposes, and reared to seed in preparation for
introduction to a subtitle bed in waters north of Yakutat.
Currently, geoducks are only allowed to be farmed where they
naturally occur, which generates concern for management of wild
and farmed stocks in proximity to each other. Locating the
farms north of Yakutat will eliminate these concerns. Genetic
contamination has been discussed, as well as the need to
maintain stocks only in larval drift zones where the species is
indigenous. However, there will not be genetic contamination
given the described scenario. He provided specific, salient
points regarding this species, to wit: the geoduck industry
relies on clean water; geoducks dig down one inch a year to a
depth of three feet where they reside to maturity; these are not
mobile animals; as filter feeders, geoducks feed on plankton and
algae; no reportable disease of transport significance has been
found; a muddy/silt landscape is the animals preferable habitat,
resulting in minimal disruption of habitat for other species;
and studies indicate the primary species that shares the same
habitat are polychaetes, a segmented worm whose numbers appear
to increase with the introduction of geoducks. Representative
Seaton reviewed the farming method and said it's good for Native
communities as harvest time is variable and would not interfere
with other activities/industry of a local coastal economy. When
the geoduck is marketed, the farmer can expect to receive $12-
$15 per pound. The bill retains the current regulatory
protections regarding mariculture farming, and testing for
paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is required.
6:11:24 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON inquired about the timeframe for rearing a
marketable geoduck.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded five to seven years, depending
on the water temperature; it may be longer in colder climates.
He elaborated that, unlike oysters which are reared in hanging
bags requiring pull-out three times a year to perform various
cleaning tasks, geoducks seeds are not disturbed until maturity.
To a follow-up question, he stated his belief that geoducks will
not reproduce in the colder climate, but it would not
necessarily be a negative impact should that occur.
6:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired why geoducks are not found in
regions of the state outside of southeast, and asked if there is
a possibility that a natural population would eventually occur.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that ocean currents, as well as
water temperature, appear to restrict geoducks populations. The
natural range is from Puget Sound, through British Columbia, and
into the southern aspect of Southeast Alaska.
6:15:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN commented that HB 60 represents good
economic development.
6:15:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether controversy might arise
regarding the introduction of a non-native species into various
areas of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON assured the committee that introduction of
a species is of great concern. A thorough investigation has
indicated that this species will not prove to be problematic;
the rearing substrate does not conflict with other clam species,
and the restriction for importing geoduck seed from outside of
state waters is not being overturned by HB 60.
6:19:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN interjected that ADF&G has opposed this
concept, and may continue to object, based on the invasive
species concern.
6:20:00 PM
SUE ASPELUND, Acting Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries,
stated that the division is neutral on HB 60, and noted that
precautionary policies are in place. Although the department
has limited knowledge regarding this species, she said due to
the lack of wild stocks and the minimal likelihood of
reproduction, the passage of HB 60 appears to pose no
significant risks.
CHAIR THOMPSON commented that the possibility of geoducks
becoming an invasive species is perhaps the biggest concern.
6:21:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what scientific background would
be required in the permitting process, particularly regarding
the invasive species aspect.
MS. ASPELUND replied that there is an existing process model
that would be used, and deferred comment on the particular
details.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI cited how various, costly, invasive
species situations have occurred, even when assurances were
given that it would be an impossibility. He said that, although
reproduction is not expected to occur, he maintains concerns
that introducing a species could present unforeseeable problems.
Noting the speaker's previous statement that ADF&G lacks in-
depth science/research to answer questions surrounding geoduck
introduction, he said asked for further comment on introducing
this possibly invasive species.
MS. ASPELUND offered the theory that, due to an unidentifiable
reason, there is an ecological block keeping geoducks from
naturalizing in the Southcentral Gulf of Alaska. She indicated
that a research project was begun, but not completed, in
Washington State, and maintained that the division is
comfortable that geoduck will not represent an invasive species.
6:25:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI began to ask a question, acquainting the
placement of Wood bison, in the Fairbanks area, with the
introduction of geoducks on the Seward Peninsula, but retracted
the question stating that perhaps it would be better directed to
the Department of Law (DOL).
6:26:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN raised the possibility that geoducks
haven't always been resident to Southeast Alaska.
MS. ASPELUND concurred with the possibility, and pointed out how
climatic changes have allowed pink salmon runs to expand to the
North Slope. She said further geoduck history can be provided
to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated his assumption that geoducks did
migrate to Alaska, and thus doesn't believe it will become an
invasive species.
6:27:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether there have been issues in
Southeast Alaska regarding the presence of geoduck.
MS. ASPELUND said none has been reported.
6:28:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT presented a theoretical scenario of an
area, introduced with geoduck, and then becoming a protected
area, to ask how this type of situation would be handled; would
the removal of geoduck be required, at what cost, and would
other measures be required.
MS. ASPELUND deferred.
6:30:33 PM
JEFF HETRICK, Director, Alutiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery, stated
support for HB 60, and indicated that this provides an
opportunity for the hatchery to expand the customer base and
allow alternative revenue streams; rearing geoduck seed will be
lucrative. How geoducks will behave in Southcentral waters is
not known, but he stated his belief that they will prove to be a
species that can be grown, won't reproduce, and will be easy to
manage.
6:32:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled that the hatchery warms the
sea water to encourage the geoducks to spawn and hatch.
MR. HETRICK said it's necessary to maintain a higher temperature
for prolonged periods. He opined that it is not plausible that
the bottom temperatures, of the Southcentral waters, could
stimulate natural reproduction of geoduck.
6:34:02 PM
RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaskan Shellfish Growers
Association, stated support for HB 60, noting that this is the
third time this legislation has been brought forward and the
reasons for not passing it remain nebulous. He agreed with
Representative Austerman's statement that geoducks migrated to
Southeast Alaska, and cited the fluctuation in the various
Alaskan fisheries to illustrate how dynamic the ocean
environment has been in recent decades. The currents of the
Gulf of Alaska (GOF) could be the reason that geoducks have not
populated Southcentral. He pointed out that Prince William
Sound once supported an abundance of razor clams; prior to the
1964 earthquake. Following the tremors, the razor clams were
wiped out and he suggested it would be good to reintroduce clams
to the substrate that still exists.
6:38:47 PM
WILLARD DUNNAM, Mayor, City of Seward, stated support for HB 60,
indicating that it may provide stabilization for the hatchery,
which has struggled through ups and downs. He reported that he
has dug horse clams, referred to today as geoducks, in two areas
of Resurrection Bay, out of Seward, in the 1940s and 1950s. The
earthquake affected many changes in the clam populations and the
shrimp, which at one time supported five canneries around
Seward. He said he views the geoduck industry as a plus for
Alaska, and he urged passage of HB 60, without further holdup.
6:43:14 PM
PAUL FUHS stated support for HB 60, reported that the first
harvest of farmed geoducks in Southeast has occurred, and passed
around market sized clams; one and one half to two pound
animals. He reviewed the complete process: purchase of seed
from the Seward hatchery; air shipment to Southeast; hiring of
commercial divers to plant and harvest; contract with boat to
support divers; and finally delivery of product to the local
processing plant - in this case, the Ketchikan Trident facility.
The clamming activity allows Trident to keep workers for longer
periods of the year. Following processing, the product is flown
to Anchorage for packaging, and then sent to the markets of
China and Japan. He reported that, thus far, the company has
planted about 250,000 seed, but next year that will be doubled;
perhaps as many as one million will be planted. The farming
situation seems similar to oysters, and should not pose any
problems.
6:46:23 PM
DAVID OTTNESS stated support for HB 60, and said he has been
involved in the shellfish industry on a number of occasions. He
applauded the efforts of the sponsor for bringing this
opportunity to Alaska. Geoduck production represents a good
food source to have close at hand, as well as providing coastal
communities economic diversity.
CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony.
6:49:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated support for passage of the bill.
6:49:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI expressed concerns that science is not
available to back up introduction of this species. The proposed
legislation states that the commissioner can't use the absence
of geoduck stock as a reason for disallowing the introduction of
seed, and, recalling that a previous version used the term "sole
reason," asked the sponsor to comment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the reference could be
considered insignificant, and pointed out that five permitting
requirements/conditions remain in the bill.
6:51:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted the comment that the proposed
farmer hatchery may not significantly affect the fishery, and
there's appropriate science to back up it up, and asked for
elaboration.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the substrate inhabitants
and associated species of Southeast are similar, to those of
Southcentral. It is difficult to determine why with similar
habitats, geoducks would somehow become invasive in one region
and not the other. Geoducks appear in concert with the species
mix of Southeast and it is fully expected that similar
cohabitation will occur further north. Neither will geoduck
become competitors with other clam species, which reside on high
energy beaches in alternative habitat. There is no real
indication that this animal will become invasive, he finished.
6:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to report HB 60, 27-LS0318\A, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying two zero fiscal notes. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.