Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/11/2002 10:52 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 208(RES)
"An Act relating to aquatic farming of shellfish; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW SCALZI informed the Committee that the Aquatic
Farm Act, enacted by the State in 1988, was intended to streamline
the process of developing aquatic farms; however, problems have
arisen regarding the Department of Natural Resource's mariculture
review process through which areas are selected for development. He
explained that protests from individuals not wishing to have a
mariculture operation near their property or from user groups such
as lodge owners, have furthered these problems. He explained that
this bill proposes to appropriate money to the Department of Fish
and Game to identify appropriate sites and then coordinate efforts
with the Department of Natural Resources to finalize site
selections. He stated that 90 sites are identified in this bill as
suitable for: suspended culture sites for oysters and mussels; on-
bottom little neck clams; and geoduck mariculture.
Representative Scalzi asserted that some of the 90 identified areas
might incur "common-use" conflicts that would require an Alaska
Coastal Management Plan review. He informed the Committee that the
State of Connecticut has 50,000 acres of land similarly under
lease, whereas Alaska, with more coastline, currently has 500 acres
under lease. He continued that this bill would improve the current
process by providing pre-selected sites, providing for public
hearings in accordance with the Alaska Coastal Management Plan
Review, and establishing the land-lease component. He specified
that the annual lease fee would be $350 for the first acre and $100
per each additional acre, and that, depending on whether half or
all of the sites were leased, the accompanying $220,000 fiscal note
could be recouped in ten years or five years, respectively. He
stressed that this legislation would establish the means to
stimulate new economic development in coastal communities, and
surmised that though the process might be slow; the potential is
immense.
PAUL FUHS, Representative, Alaska Trademark Shellfish, voiced that
this legislation would assist an industry that could provide
benefits to the State. He noted that the Department's lack of
support for mariculture combined with citizen opposition, has
resulted in no sites being available for the aquatic industry, and
asserted that this legislation could provide the needed sites.
Mr. Fuhs pointed out that industry concerns regarding wildstocks
are not addressed in this legislation. He shared with the Committee
that the aquatic industry has proposed to temporarily harvest and
then transplant wildstocks; however, the Department has stated that
this "would be a violation of common property use." He continued
that because of the wildstock issue, the industry is concerned that
the twenty sites pre-selected in this legislation for the shellfish
industry "would have absolutely no animals on them," which is
indicative of "a bad habitat" for growing shellfish.
Mr. Fuhs stated that the organization has worked with the
Department and the bill's sponsor to resolve the habitat concern.
However, he stated a "Catch 22" exists in establishing a common
property habitat policy because the Alaska Court System has
declared that it could not make a ruling on common property because
the Legislature has not established a policy, and the Legislature
states that it could not address the situation because the Court
has not issued a ruling. He asserted that this issue must be
resolved to allow the industry to move forward.
Co-Chair Kelly asked the testifier whether he supports the bill.
Mr. Fuhs relayed that the organization holds a neutral position on
the bill. He commented that while the bill provides benefits to the
suspended culture and little neck clams industries; it offers no
benefits to the geoduck farming industry.
Senator Austerman expressed support for the bill as it does contain
merits.
Mr. Fuhs concurred; however, he declared that the bill should not
be necessary, and that it is unfortunate that the Department is not
actively granting permits.
Representative Scalzi agreed that there are issues involving the
existing geoduck industry applicants; however, he assured that the
Department is committed to providing leases and is addressing the
issue "by offering sites where there are no standing stocks and
that would certainly take care of the problem of common property."
He furthered, "With issue of any standing stocks, their intent is
to have an open access fishery, remove those stocks, and then have
that site suitable for farming." He stated that the bill does
attempt to address the testifier's concern regarding existing
geoduck applicants.
Senator Austerman stated that the concerns of the geoduck industry
should be addressed; however, he stressed that this legislation
should not be delayed as it encourages economic development in the
State.
Senator Austerman remarked that he and two other Committee members
traveled to Chile to witness that country's aquatic farming
operations, and he attested that the government of Chile
aggressively supports the process. He stressed that this
legislation is an attempt to get the State "moving in an aggressive
manner" to stimulate economic development.
Senator Green asked whether issues raised in a letter addressed to
Senators and Representatives from Gary Zaugg, dated March 13, 2002
[copy on file] are similar to those raised by Mr. Fuhs.
Co-Chair Kelly confirmed the concerns are the same.
Senator Ward asked Mr. Fuhs how the concerns of the geoduck
industry could be addressed.
Mr. Fuhs clarified that except for the common property issue, the
Department of Fish and Game has addressed other management concerns
raised by the industry. He explained that the industry has proposed
a plan to conduct an annual geoduck harvest involving no more that
20 percent of the existing resources and, as part of that plan, the
wildstocks harvested would be required to be successfully
transplanted. He continued that the harvested resource must be
completely replaced before the next 20 percent could be harvested,
and he attested, this plan contains the necessary safeguards to
expand the industry.
Senator Ward asked why this language is not included in the bill.
Representative Scalzi responded that efforts were made to
incorporate the industry's suggestions; however it was not included
due to resistance from the Department of Fish and Game and the
Department of Law regarding common property uses.
Senator Ward opined that the Department of Law and the sponsor
"have opted to let the Court" System rather than the Legislature
determine what should be included in the bill.
Representative Scalzi responded that the omitted language pertains
"to an existing applicant, this is not something that is out there
for anybody, this is specific to one or two parties so for those
reasons, it is not. I believe the Department of Law says, [it is]
specific to an individual; therefore, it is not constitutional
where everybody has the same equal access to this proposal. My take
on it, Senator, is that if we changed our law, which I would
support to make it more like what we do with timber, you have a
selected site of geoducks or little necks and you offer to have
that for lease. I think that that would be consistent with what we
do for timber; however, aquaculture and mariculture does not apply
with our Constitution. Our Constitution does not apply the same
standards to those species, so there would need [to be] a change
according to the Department of Law."
Co-Chair Donley asked which fiscal notes are applicable to the
House Resources committee substitute.
Senator Wilken identified the four corresponding fiscal notes by
Department.
AT EASE 11:07 AM /11:12 AM
Senator Wilken continued to clarify the fiscal notes by Department
and date.
AT EASE 11:15 AM /11:16 AM
Co-Chair Donley asked whether departments could absorb the expenses
within their existing annual budgets.
Representative Scalzi responded that some of the expenses are being
covered through existing budgets, and he exampled that the
Department of Environmental Conservation currently performs work
that this bill would require, and therefore, it is included in the
existing budgets.
DOUG MECUM, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Department
of Fish and Game stated that the Department of Natural Resources is
primarily involved in this bill; however, the Department of Fish
and Game would incur additional expenses resulting from the
projected intensive public process and the resource inventory
process this bill would require.
Co-Chair Donley asked whether funds were allotted when the original
program was adopted.
Mr. Mecum replied that the program was adopted more than twelve
years ago, and since that time, the Department's budget has been
reduced 30 percent. He surmised that there is "little likelihood"
that additional monies were funded when the program was adopted.
Co-Chair Donley identified that the Division of Commercial
Fisheries fiscal note contains funds to employ scuba divers as well
as a seasonal biologist to assess potential sites.
Mr. Mecum stated that, although the original fiscal request was
higher; the Department collaborated with the Shellfish Growers
Association to have the Association absorb some of the workload,
which allowed the request to be lowered to this level. He specified
that $50,000 would be required to: conduct the dive surveys to
identify whether soil at the sites are biologically suitable; to
identify the types of standing stocks the areas support as well as
the existing uses of an area in order to not conflict with existing
aquatic life and land; and other traditional uses of the site.
Co-Chair Donley asked for assurance that the project would be
completed if funding were allotted.
Mr. Mecum answered that the Department's obligations would be met.
Representative Scalzi stated that the fiscal note includes lease
revenue, but does not include the contributions to the general fund
resulting from either the State Business Tax or the Raw Fish Tax.
Representative Scalzi stressed that by dedicating this funding the
Departments would be obligated to conduct the required work.
Senator Wilken offered a motion to "report Committee Substitute for
House Bill 208 (Resources) Version 'P' from Committee with
individual recommendations and fiscal notes as set forth" in
earlier discussion.
There being no objections, CS HB 208(RES) was REPORTED from
Committee with a new zero fiscal note dated February 28, 2002 from
the Department of Environmental Conservation; a $98,300 fiscal note
dated March 12, 2002 from the Department of Natural Resources; a
$50,000 fiscal note dated April 21, 2002 from Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game; and a previous
$72,500 fiscal note dated March 5, 2002 from the Division of
Habitat and Restoration, Department of Fish and Game.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|