Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/23/2019 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB116 | |
| HR8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 116-AQUATIC FARM/HATCHERY SITE LEASES
10:04:10 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to
the renewal or extension of site leases for aquatic farming and
aquatic plant and shellfish hatchery operations."
10:04:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
SSHB 116 as the sponsor. She said SSHB 116 would simplify the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) renewal process for
aquatic farms that grow such things as oysters, kelp, and other
shellfish. If enacted, the bill would help small Alaska based
aquaculture businesses succeed by reducing administrative
burdens and expediting the lease renewal process. Aquaculture
is an industry with a lot of promise and Alaska with more
coastline than all the other states combined has bountiful
potential as a site for aquatic farms of oysters, kelp, and
other shellfish. The Alaska Mariculture Task Force set a goal
of making this a $100 million industry in the next 20 years.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY drew attention to the flow chart in the
committee packet and noted that the requirements to permit and
receive regulatory approval to operate an aquatic farm or
related hatchery are complex. She said the most rigorous and
time-consuming portion of the approval process is the DNR
aquatic farming site lease for both the original lease and the
lease renewal. Because of the recent increase in the number of
aquaculture farm lease applications - one for a new aquatic farm
in 2016, 17 in 2017, and 16 in 2018 coupled with recent cuts
to agency staff, it now takes on average 18 months or more to
approve an aquatic farm lease. Simplifying the renewal process
for aquatic farm leases would reduce the burden on division
staff, allowing them more time to focus on new lease
applications.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY pointed out that an aquatic farm lease
renewal must undergo the same lengthy approval process similar
to an original lease. This is not required of numerous other
DNR lease types, and SSHB 116 would align the lease renewal
process for aquatic farms to the lease renewal process for other
DNR leases. This change would significantly shorten the first
renewal process while still allowing appropriate regulatory
oversight, public engagement, and appeal of any DNR lease
decision. She emphasized that the bill does not affect leases
for salmon hatcheries.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that as a new legislator she is
pleased with how SSHB 116 began and how it was developed.
Shortly after taking office she was contacted by a constituent
who was in the process of transferring an aquatic farm lease, a
process that would not be affected by SSHB 116. The constituent
shared the experience of the lease transfer process and
suggested a few possible changes that might help applicants.
After subsequent conversations with DNR, DNR staff mentioned the
streamlining of the aquatic farm renewal process to reduce
regulatory burden on applicants while also reducing workload on
an understaffed state agency. She said her staff person, Mr.
Greg Smith, is available to explain the four proposed changes to
the statute included in the bill.
10:08:20 AM
CHAIR STUTES requested the sponsor to explain the changes
between the root version of the bill and the sponsor substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied that the only change is in the
title. She explained that after talking with people about the
bill, she wanted to make it very clear what the bill affected
and that it did not affect salmon hatcheries.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE observed that time for public comment and
testimony is provided for an initial lease. She asked whether
public comment would still be taken under the renewal process
proposed by SSHB 116.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded yes and deferred to Mr. Smith to
elaborate.
10:09:21 AM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Story, sponsor,
explained there would still be public notice and public appeal
during the renewal process. He said someone who is personally
affected would be able to reach out to the director and the
commissioner to request a review or an appeal of the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested a review of the bill's
mechanics.
MR. SMITH explained Section 1 of SSHB 116, Version 31-LS0696\U,
would add AS [38.05.083], the section of law specific to
aquaculture farm and related hatchery leases, to AS
[38.05.070(e)], which is the subsection empowering the director
to renew a lease under this section. Section 2 would remove the
words "or renew" from two places so that those sections would
then focus on the requirements of only a new lease application.
Section 3 would do the same thing of removing the renewal
process from AS 38.05.083(b). Section 4 would [add a new
subsection] that explicitly states the commissioner may, under
AS 38.05.070(e)-(g), extend or renew a lease under AS 38.05.083,
which is the aquaculture farm and related hatcheries section.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referenced a letter in support of
the bill from the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation
(AFDF), dated 4/15/19. He observed that page 2, paragraph 2, of
the letter states the bill would allow for one renewal of an
aquatic farm site through a simpler internal process that does
not require public comment [if the lease is in good
standing/compliance]. He inquired whether that is basically
what this bill does.
MR. SMITH responded yes, it aligns the renewal process for an
aquatic farm or related hatchery lease to a process that DNR
follows for many other types of leases that the department does,
such as hydroelectric facilities, fish processing docks, power
lines, telecommunication sites, grazing, cabins, hunting and
fishing lodges, and other uses.
10:13:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS further observed that page 2,
paragraph 2, of AFDF's letter of support goes on to state,
"However, the second renewal would still be required to go
through the extended process similar to a new application." He
asked whether there is a section of law that would provide for
that more exhaustive process with the second renewal that is not
excerpted in SSHB 116.
MR. SMITH answered that the language not being changed in AS
38.05.070(e) can be seen on page 1, lines 8-9, of the bill,
which state that the lease may be renewed only once [for a term
not longer than the initial term of the lease]. For the second
attempt at a renewal the applicant would have to again go
through the original lease application process. So, if the bill
were to pass, the original lease for an aquatic farm would have
a more exhaustive process, less so on the renewal, and then
after a period of 20 years total there would again be a very
exhaustive process for the third period.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said this information is helpful
and he will read that section of law to become more familiar.
He commented that he has heard from across Southeast Alaska that
it is a royal headache getting these leases and trying to get a
site up and running even when a person has the capital and
energy to do it. He stated he is glad to see the bill coming
forward and inquired whether there are other things that should
be done to make this easier.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied there have been other suggestions,
but it was thought that this was a good place to start.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested to the committee that
there might be a receptive audience to doing even more if there
are other "cut and dry changes" that could be added. He said he
has his differences with this governor, but he thinks there is
probably alignment in streamlining things as much as possible.
10:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said it seems like this is a regulatory
issue that the department could do internally to reduce the
regulation. But, she continued, it seems the bill would clear
up a statutory obligation that would clean up the process a
little to allow [aquaculture farm owners] to get that renewal
quicker and easier.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded yes and related that through
conversation DNR suggested that simplifying the renewal process
would be one thing that could be done for those exact reasons.
10:17:05 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked what the length of time is between the
inception of starting a shellfish farm and producing and
generating revenue from that farm.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY answered that the process has been taking
18 months, but there are people online who have been living and
breathing this and could answer the question. She deferred to
Mr. Smith to answer further.
MR. SMITH suggested it might be better to have DNR clarify.
CHAIR STUTES specified she is talking about the length of time
between deciding to have an aquatic or shellfish farm and the
time where that product is taken to market. She invited Ms.
Julie Decker to respond.
10:18:43 AM
JULIE DECKER, Chair, Alaska Mariculture Task Force; Executive
Director, Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, replied that
as far as revenue production once a lease is issued it can take
one year for seaweed, an annual crop; seven to eight years for a
species like geoducks, a longer lived animal; and three to four
years for oysters. That time span, she pointed out, is before
the initial $1 is generated. There is much investment and it
will take even longer before the farm operator is in the black.
CHAIR STUTES opened invited testimony.
10:19:40 AM
META MESDAG, Owner, Salty Lady Seafood Company; Board Member,
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association, on behalf of herself and
the association, provided invited testimony in support of SSHB
116. She said she has a farm site in Juneau with a lease for
oysters, kelp, and geoduck, and for which she submitted a lease
transfer last year. She currently has oysters and is getting
ready to seed geoduck. The oysters will take about three years
to grow before they are ready for the market and the geoduck
will take seven. Unfortunately, she only has five years left on
her lease so will not see any revenue from her geoduck sales
before she must go through the renewal process all over again.
The intention with her very small family farm in Juneau is to
grow food for the community. Ms. Mesdag said SSHB 116 would
allow DNR to renew a lease one time so people like her who are
in good standing have an opportunity to actually earn revenue at
the farm site. The bill means a lot to her and her family as
well as to the other growers in the state.
10:21:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his belief that Ms.
Mesdag's husband is the lobbyist, so to speak, that he
previously spoke with. He thanked Ms. Mesdag for her testimony
and for being in the vanguard of mariculture in Alaska. He
inquired whether there are statutory changes on Ms. Mesdag's
wish list beyond what is presently in the bill that are onerous
or don't create value.
MS. MESDAG responded that the bill is a great place to start.
She said another change that has been talked about is regulatory
and is about changing the lease terms. To get that done is a
bit more tedious, so this approach was taken first as the place
to start that would alleviate some of the burden on people
looking to invest in the industry as well as the agencies that
must regulate it. During that period new businesses are not
being put to work. A lot of people are lined up waiting to
start with capital in line and the gumption to do this, but it
is going to take them up to two years before they see their
lease and then they start the build-out process. It takes
people with vision. She isn't exactly sure what other statutory
changes could be made to help the process, but she knows there
is room for improvement. There needs to be due process, she
advised, when talking about tideland leases. She suggested
looking to DNR for ways that would help the department.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he realizes that regulatory
changes are outside the scope but asked what those regulatory
changes are.
MS. MESDAG answered it would be the duration of the lease terms,
changing it from a 10-year lease to match the other DNR leases,
which are 20-25 years on average for a tideland lease or land
leases. This congruence for mariculture is desirable because of
the length of time that it takes to have a marketable product
and before farmers start seeing any revenue, and this is not
even talking about profit.
10:23:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referenced the goal of the Alaska
Mariculture Task Force to grow a $100 million industry in 20
years. She asked Ms. Mesdag to speak to how much capital it
takes to start this type of venture and the amount of capital it
takes each year.
MS. MESDAG replied her small family farm has half an acre of
oysters and half an acre of geoducks. She will be investing
upwards of $150,000 with the hope of making an income of about
$70,000 a year working full time with her kids. She and her
husband want to provide their kids with an opportunity unique to
Alaska where they can grow up as part of the family business
working outside. As a micro-scale farm, she is not looking at
making hundreds of thousands of dollars; rather, she is looking
at making a livable wage that provides intrinsic value to her
family.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that it is labor
intensive and that the $70,000 would not be just Ms. Mesdag's
wage, but her entire family's wage. Given the contribution that
aquaculture makes to Alaska, she said it makes sense to ease the
regulatory and statutory burden and she sees SSHB 116 as
necessary for all aquaculture farmers.
10:26:52 AM
MS. DECKER on behalf of the Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation (AFDF) and the Alaska Mariculture Task Force (MTF)
provided invited testimony in support of SSHB 116. She related
that members of AFDF comprise a broad spectrum of the seafood
industry and the board of directors is comprised of harvesters,
processors, and support sector businesses from across Alaska.
Founded in 1978, AFDF's mission is to identify opportunities
common to the Alaska seafood industry and develop efficient,
sustainable outcomes that provide benefits to the economy,
environment, and communities.
MS. DECKER stated that the mariculture initiative is spearheaded
by AFDF and grew into the Alaska Mariculture Task Force. She
drew attention to the 2018 Alaska Mariculture Development Plan
included in the committee packet, which has a goal of growing a
$100 million industry in 20 years. A result of MTF's work is
increased interest by the private sector in aquatic farming in
Alaska. This has led to a backlog of lease applications with
DNR and SSHB 116 would help alleviate some of that backlog.
MS. DECKER explained the bill was yet to be written at the time
of MTF's last meeting, but attendees did conceptually discuss
what is contained in SSHB 116 plus had thorough discussions with
DNR. Conceptually MTF agrees with SSHB 116 as a piece of a
broader solution to reduce the backlog and focus DNR's time on
new permit applications so those folks can get up and running.
MS. DECKER noted that another possible change discussed by MTF
and DNR was potentially changing the lease term from 10 years to
20 years. She offered her understanding that this could be done
via regulation but that it also has broader impacts, which is
why [MTF] has not yet moved this forward. Going to a longer
lease term automatically kicks in DNR's requirement for a site
survey, but surveys on the water in some of these remote areas
might be expensive and would also slow down the process. So,
given the possible complications, the easiest and simplest
solutions were started with first and this bill is that.
MS. DECKER said SSHB 116 would reduce the workload for DNR
staff; prioritize DNR staff time on the new farm lease
applications, which would help grow the industry; and give more
certainty to farmers who have invested in site infrastructure
for those first 10 years. She pointed out that DNR has many
other leases that are anywhere from 20 to 50 years in terms, so
this would remain a very conservative leasing program.
10:31:41 AM
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether Paula Cullenberg is still involved
in the Alaska Mariculture Task Force.
MS. DECKER replied no, Ms. Cullenberg has retired from Alaska
Sea Grant and Heather Brandon is now the director and on the
task force.
CHAIR STUTES [closed invited testimony] on SSHB 116 and opened
public testimony.
10:32:24 AM
MARGO REVEIL, President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association,
testified in support of SSHB 116. She said it is a modest bill
that would bring the aquaculture lease process more into line
with other leases. Her farm is one of 13 in Kachemak Bay and is
coming up for its second renewal because she bought an existing
farm that had already been through the first renewal.
Therefore, the bill would not directly impact her farm except in
that it might free up the staff time and allow more effort to be
put into the building of a stronger blue economy and achieving
economic diversification of Alaska. As well, she would like to
see DNR putting more effort into running the program.
10:33:42 AM
TAMSEN PEEPLES, Alaska Mariculture Manager, Blue Evolution,
testified in support of SSHB 116. She stated the bill would
improve the permitting and leasing process. Blue Evolution, she
related, has worked closely over the last four years with
independent farmers across Alaska to pioneering and establishing
commercial seaweed mariculture in a sustainable and responsible
fashion. Over this time Blue Evolution has witnessed firsthand
the challenges and frustration of this entire permitting process
and has seen the direct impact that this glacial pace can have
on individual farms and the entire industry. There is currently
a large amount of interest in the industry. She has talked with
several individuals who are prospective kelp farmers and the
inability to bring farms online quickly is a huge issue and most
likely will hamstring further development and growth of the
industry. Changing and improving the entire lease process is
paramount for this industry to grow, and the hope is that this
amendment will lighten the load for DNR.
MS. PEEPLES strongly urged the committee to consider that farm
size is not accounted for in the bill. She reported that there
have been multiple 100-plus acre farms applied for and approved,
some of which are scheduled to begin operation this fall. The
impacts of these farms are unknown, and it can only be assumed
that larger farms will have larger impacts on the environment,
the ecosystem, and communities, but to what degree is unknown.
Currently there are no additional state regulations for these
larger farms and Blue Evolution believes there is going to be a
need for strong agency and public insight during the initial
years of operation, including that initial renew process. Blue
Evolution believes it is unfair and unwise to regulate farms the
same regardless of their size. A single farmer with an acre or
less is going to be underneath the exact same regulation, cost,
and leasing process as a huge corporate entity with lots of
personnel and money at its disposal. Blue Evolution believes
this is especially true given the current regulations that allow
large leases to be held but are only charged for the small
percentage of the area of that farm that is currently being
farmed; certain farmers across the state are already utilizing
this. Blue Evolution believes this will lead to a land grab,
which will inundate DNR even further with more applications.
MS. PEEPLES said Blue Evolution is glad progress is being made
and that these amendments are happening. However, she added,
more needs to be done to continue to develop the industry.
10:36:48 AM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, testified that her
company is a processing business that helped start the oyster
farms in Kachemak Bay by building an oyster cooler to assist
them in getting started. She said she is concerned about the
very large sized oyster farms. She wants to help the small,
Alaska based businesses, but is also concerned for the affected
stakeholders. Problems have been seen in Kachemak Bay when
people want to expand, or new people come in, because people
live in these remote areas and these are navigable waters. The
April issue of National Fisherman included a full-page ad about
the East Coast's problems between fishermen and these larger
mariculture businesses.
MS. HILLSTRAND inquired about a definition for "small" farms and
suggested consideration be given as to how big it is wanted for
these farms to get. She urged that the bill be for small
businesses as indicated by the sponsor. Some of the proposed
farms are 150 acres or more, which is a blanket over navigable
waters. She suggested the committee look at a [size] cap or at
densities within regions or bays. She advised that the
notification system is archaic, so people don't even know
permits have been applied for and suddenly an oyster farm
appears in their area. Unforeseen issues arise and become
evident after initial permits are required; therefore, a strong
renewal process is needed so affected stakeholders can voice
their concerns.
MS. HILLSTRAND reiterated that it is important to define "small"
Alaska based businesses because oyster farming can be noisy with
a lot of added traffic. She said it is important to protect the
common good, which is the waters of the state of Alaska.
10:39:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR acknowledged the concerns expressed by the
last two witnesses regarding farm size. She asked whether Ms.
Hillstrand had in mind a specific size or density restriction.
MS. HILLSTRAND replied that 34 percent of all the oysters from
Alaska come out of Kachemak Bay, yet there is pressure to put
more and more. When is enough and how large should they be?
She advised that even farms of half an acre or an acre are a
large size in the middle of navigable waters. She further
advised that 10 acres is huge, and 150 acres is gigantic. One
farm in Kachemak Bay wants to enlarge to 10 acres and she
understands that about 50 comments were submitted requesting
this not be done because it pretty much closes off that bay.
The farm in the National Fisherman article that is causing
controversy is 40 acres. She suggested this be addressed and
figured out by the committee, the shareholders, the
stakeholders, and DNR because the scale and magnitude of what is
being done is often forgotten about and suddenly these farms
located in the common waters of the state are causing
controversy. Because this is still new, care must be taken to
not make mistakes at the beginning to prevent problems and
controversies.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her understanding that SSHB 116
relates to the step after the initial tideland lease has been
issued by DNR; a renewal would be something on which the local
community has already weighed in. She offered her understanding
that the [initial] part of the process would not be changed and
Ms. Hillstrand's concern would be addressed under that review
and public comment, and so there wouldn't be a lease renewal
that would be of the size or production level that became
overwhelming of that particular area.
10:43:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN observed the aquatic farm application flow
chart states that the leases go through a 10-year term and will
then be looked at, and what is looked at is extensive. He
surmised Ms. Hillstrand's concerns about farms growing too large
would be addressed by this being checked every 10 years because
the check would include how the operation is going and whether
the waters are staying clean and such. He noted 20 years is
being considered, but 10 years seems practical. He requested
Ms. Hillstrand's opinion in this regard.
MS. HILLSTRAND responded that that allows people to see what did
happen during that time and voice their concerns. Things happen
during the year; for example, power washers running all day long
to clean gear. People who have spent a lot of money on their
homes didn't realize there would be loud noise and lots of boat
traffic created by the farm. She is concerned because she has
dealt with many people and seen these problems arise. Ten years
is a long time for the opportunity to address any problems, but
at least it isn't a whole generation, which would be 20 years.
In the past the magnitude of what is being done hasn't been
looked at and suddenly it grows out of control. She expressed
her hope that this can be kept for the small Alaskan businesses
and local communities and not let it become huge international
sales where the state receives little or no money.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated that a company needs at least 10
years to establish itself before being put under the microscope.
He concluded that the proposal is accurate, practical, and
addresses concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired whether a farm that wanted to
expand in size after the 10 years would have to start with a new
application or could do so through the renewal application.
10:46:47 AM
CHRISTIANNA COLLES, Leasing Unit Manager, Southcentral Regional
Land Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), answered that a farm wanting to expand
in size at any time during its operation would have to re-apply
and the application would go back out for public notice. It is
not automatic, she continued; for example, a farm in Kachemak
Bay that wanted to expand in size is currently going through the
public notice process.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there is a limitation on the
size and scope of a farm in the current permitting process.
MS. COLLES replied yes, regulations require that a farm not take
up more than one-third of a bight or bay, so DNR looks at the
placement of where these leases are going to be located. She
said DNR also works with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) on where a site might be located to see whether
complications might be caused for navigation or marine mammals.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired whether Ms. Colles has any
recommendations on how to ease or address the concerns about
larger corporations coming in and taking up extensive acreage.
MS. COLLES responded that new farms of this magnitude in size
are new to Alaska, so there hasn't been much chance to think
about how to address them. She said they are usually located in
areas that are much larger and aren't in a bay or bight that
might cause navigation issues. Regarding a size restriction
that says if it is over a certain size it must go through the
full process, she is unsure and doesn't have any clear answers
to the question.
10:48:58 AM
CHAIR STUTES surmised that there really isn't a size limitation
because if it was a huge bay the farm could not take up more
than one-third of that bay.
MS. COLLES answered correct.
10:49:27 AM
MARKOS SCHEER, CEO, Premium Aquatics, LLC, testified in support
of SSHB 116. He said his farm is located south of Craig and has
127 acres for kelp and shellfish mariculture. He noted he sits
on the board of the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation
(AFDF) and Southeast Conference but is testifying on behalf of
Premium Aquatics. He supports SSHB 116 as a good step in the
right direction, one reason being the kind of capital and grow-
out time that are needed. Committing to that kind of capital on
a 10-year lease materially increases the risk to potential
investors. Longer lease terms provide more opportunity to get
an operation up and running, particularly when farming longer-
lived shellfish species like geoduck, which take 7-9 years to
reach market size. The capital and labor cost must be carried
until that product reaches market size.
MR. SCHEER maintained it is incorrect that a lease fee is paid
only for the area that is being used. He said a lease fee is
paid for the whole area regardless of whether it is used. Under
a revenue production requirement, the lease will be lost if, by
year five, a farm is not producing the minimum amount of revenue
on an annual basis. The regulation already provides an avenue
that if something isn't being used the lease will be lost.
MR. SCHEER further maintained that the idea that these sites are
large is an inaccurate assessment. For example, he said, Taylor
Shellfish Farms on the West Coast is 17,000 acres. His own
operation has 25 acres allocated to shellfish, which is like
other farms, and the rest is kelp production. Only so much kelp
can be produced on a particular acreage. In a global
marketplace where the world production of kelp is some 30
million tons, a farm must have some space to do that production
to be relevant. Although this is a new transition for Alaska,
the relative scale of what is being done here is modest at best.
10:53:49 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN observed the bill's original title stated,
"aquatic farming and hatchery site leases", while the title of
the sponsor substitute (SS) states "site leases for aquatic
farming and aquatic plant and shellfish hatchery operations."
He requested the sponsor to explain why the differences were
included in the title.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied to make more clarity. She related
that with the original title there were questions about whether
hatcheries included salmon hatcheries and she wanted to make it
clear it was aquatic and not salmon.
10:55:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether it is correct that an
expansion would fall outside of this renewal process and would
require another public process that would allow the opportunity
for concerns to be raised.
MR. SMITH responded that for granting of the initial lease DNR
reaches out heavily, sends out postcards to neighbors, and must
respond to every question and comment. Currently, as well as in
the proposed renewal process, a renewal is publically noticed
and there is a grievance process if someone is personally
affected, but [the proposed process] is not as broad and time
consuming and the notice is not as great. However, a proposed
change in footprint or size would require a broader and involved
public process.
10:57:22 AM
CHAIR STUTES invited the sponsor to make closing comments.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said SSHB 116 would be an advantage to
streamline the renewal process and help this business grow.
CHAIR STUTES held over SSHB 116.