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.