Subsistence representatives for Southeast have weighed in on a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration planning process that is working to identify potential sites for commercial seaweed, kelp and shellfish farms in Alaska waters.
In its comments to NOAA, the Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council stated its concern that additional mariculture sites not conflict with subsistence harvest areas.
NOAA is tasked with identifying 10 Aquaculture Opportunity Areas in the U.S. by 2025, in an effort to advance domestic aquaculture in the U.S. Planning work is already underway in defined areas off the Southern California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.
More than 90 aquatic farms and hatcheries already have active permits to grow shellfish, seaweed, sea cucumbers and sea urchins in Alaska waters. Alaska aquaculture product sales in 2022 totaled $1.9 million, according to NOAA information, though state and federal grants in the past year are aimed at increasing production, particularly seaweed and oysters, to tens of millions of dollars a year.
NOAA is taking public comments until mid-December as it looks to identify potential sites in Alaska waters, and hear from the public about their concerns over farm size and density, navigation, environmental, cultural and subsistence issues.
The agency’s study area maps include all of the waters around Wrangell Island, reaching north of the Stikine River flats, as far south as the end of the island, and west to cover the waters around Zarembo and Etolin islands.
The Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, which met Oct. 24-26 in Klawock, approved a lengthy set of comments to NOAA:
“The council believes that all of the shore and intertidal areas of Southeast Alaska are part of traditional (Indigenous peoples’) clan and Kwáan territories and may have subsistence uses. The starting point should be assuming that all shore and intertidal areas are used for subsistence uses. Projects or plans to develop aquaculture in specific areas will need to be cleared with people who may use these areas.”
The council letter also states: “A broad-brush approach identifying areas is not appropriate. The council suggests and prefers that the economic benefit of developing aquaculture in Southeast Alaska should go to local tribes and communities and be of benefit to subsistence users. … The council knows that (commercial) aquaculture locations are likely to be unavailable for subsistence uses.”
Advisory council Member Michael Douville, of Craig, said mariculture projects need to be kept out of subsistence areas as well as established commercial fishery areas.
Albert Howard, of Angoon, said too much development could harm the tourism industry because ocean farming installations run counter to the idea of “pristine Alaska.” He explained, “If you do enough of these, you’re going to have buoys all over Southeast Alaska. We’re going to look like just one big farm.”
Larry Bemis of Yakutat added, “The thing we need to really emphasize is we don’t want it to take away from normal usage, passage, food, subsistence, our way of doing things.”
Reader Comments(0)