Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/08/2001 02:51 PM Senate ARR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
March 8, 2001
2:51 p.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Joe Hayes
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
All House members present
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyda Green
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Drew Scalzi
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Kachemak Bay Closure to Bottom Mariculture
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
ELLEN FRITTS, Deputy Director
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the committee with information
regarding the department's proposed regulation to close Kachemak
Bay and Fox River Flats critical habitat area (CHA) to on-bottom
mariculture.
DR. WILLIAM HAUSER
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
LANCE TRASKY, Southcentral Regional Supervisor
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
CLAUDIA SLATER
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Division of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
RAYMOND RaLONDE
2221 E. Northern Lights Boulevard, Number 110
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns and said that a ban on
[clam farming] isn't necessarily the best way to proceed.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-7, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the Joint Committee on Administrative
Regulation Review to order at 2:51 p.m. Representatives McGuire
and Hayes and Senator Taylor were present at the call to order.
Representative James and Senator Lincoln arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
Kachemak Bay Closure to Bottom Mariculture
Number 0097
ELLEN FRITTS, Deputy Director, Division of Habitat and
Restoration, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), related
her understanding of today's meeting to be to provide the
committee with information regarding the department's proposed
regulation to close Kachemak Bay and Fox River Flats critical
habitat areas (CHA) to on-bottom mariculture. She noted that
the committee [packet] should include a memorandum from Lance
Trasky, Division of Habitat and Restoration, Region II, dated
February 6, 2001. Before beginning her presentation, Ms. Fritts
clarified that today's meeting concerns a two-sentence
regulation that only applies to Kachemak Bay and Fox River
Flats. This regulation would amend 5 AAC 95 to add a new
article, Article 3, Prohibited Activities, [which is included in
the committee packet].
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that this meeting would have to conclude
by 3:30 p.m. She informed Ms. Fritts that the committee has
been given numerous materials, including a copy of the
regulations, the public notice, ADF&G's response to the
extension request, and the memorandum for closure.
Number 0315
MS. FRITTS continued by specifying that she would review the
following topics: Fish and wildlife values in Kachemak Bay, the
applicable statutes and regulations, what generated the need for
the proposed regulation, the public process that was followed,
and the considerations in making the decision to propose the
regulations.
MS. FRITTS informed the committee that Kachemak Bay is one of
the most productive marine ecosystems in Cook Inlet. The far
side of the bay is lined with rocky shores and kelp beds where a
number of species of bivalves: littleneck, butter, soft shell
clams, and blue mussels are found. The north side is composed
primarily of gravel and sand where razor, cockle, and redneck
and littleneck clams are found. She reviewed the abundant birds
in and around the bay as well as the species of marine mammals
and fish. All of these resources combined with Kachemak Bay's
accessibility to the bulk of the state's human population has
made this area extremely important to residents as well as
visitors. Therefore, the legislature created the Fox River
Flats and Kachemak Bay CHAs in 1972 and 1974, respectively. The
primary purpose of these CHAs "is to protect and preserve
habitat areas especially crucial to the perpetuation of fish and
wildlife, and to restrict all other uses not compatible with
that primary purpose." In December 1993 a special area
management plan was adopted for the two areas after a nearly
two-year public planning process. That plan contains goals and
policies on a wide variety of development and other human
activities that occur in that area. Two goals of that plan are
to maintain and enhance fish and wildlife populations in their
habitat and to maintain and enhance public use of fish and
wildlife in CHA land and water. Among the 22 policies in the
plan, there is a policy that states: "Aquatic farming may be
allowed if it's not in conflict with the goals and policies."
However, when this plan was developed, aquatic farming was only
suspended culture; there was no on-bottom concept at the time.
April 1994 the goals and policies of the plan were adopted into
regulation by reference and thus became the primary regulations
used by the department to implement the CHA statute.
MS. FRITTS pointed out that there are a number of special area
regulations that were adopted in the early 1980s. She explained
that division staff are required to review each special area
application received for consistency with the goals and policies
of the plan and the special area permit regulations; only
approve activities that comply with both of the aforementioned
governing documents. Using these documents as guidance, the
department has permitted and approved numerous aquatic farming
applications in Kachemak Bay over the years. Currently, there
are 24 aquatic farm site permits that have been approved for
longline suspended culture in [Kachemak Bay]. Of that type
farm, at least three new farms were approved during the 1999
application period. Ms. Fritts highlighted the fact that
[Kachemak Bay] has the highest concentration of aquatic farms
anywhere in the state.
MS. FRITTS explained that the need for aquatic regulation came
about in 1999 with site-specific review and denial of four
special area permit applications for on-bottom farming. The
denials led to questions regarding how ADF&G was interpreting
the statute and the plan in its review of mariculture
activities. She explained, "Industry felt that because the plan
said aquatic farming 'may be permitted on a case-by-case basis,'
it meant that on-bottom farming may and should be permitted
there or allowed." However, the plan contained no policy
specifically addressing, that is allowing or disallowing, on-
bottom aquatic farming. Therefore, it was suggested that it may
be time for ADF&G to consider amending the plan or the special
area regulations. There was a decision to move forward on that
and gather public comments to be used to help the department
determine what to do.
MS. FRITTS informed the committee that the 18-month planning
process began in September 1999. First an interagency planning
team was established and agencies were sought that could
participate and help guide the department. Nine agencies were
invited and of those, five actively participated. The five
agencies that participated were the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the City of Seldovia. Two separate
rounds of public comment were held.
SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to the four agencies that didn't
participate.
MS. FRITTS deferred to Lance Trasky who deferred to Claudia
Slater. [Ms. Slater provided the names of the four agencies
later in the hearing.]
MS. FRITTS continued by explaining that the two separate rounds
of public comment were held about a year apart. The first
public comment solicitation occurred from November 1, 1999, to
January 7, 2000. There were advertisements in local newspapers
and letters were sent directly to interested parties. Written
comments were accepted throughout the aforementioned period.
Furthermore, three public meetings were held in December 1999 in
Anchorage, Homer, and due to weather the Seldovia meeting was
teleconferenced. During this public review period, 188
individuals or organizations were heard from and of those, 124,
66 percent, advised the department to prohibit on-bottom
mariculture in the specified areas. Thirty-seven, 20 percent,
wanted on-bottom mariculture to be allowed in Kachemak Bay and
Fox River Flats CHAs. Eleven, 6 percent, expressed the need for
restrictions in some way. Sixteen, 8 percent, recommended
something else such as more study. She noted that during this
phase of public review, comments were taken on two issues: on-
bottom clam farming and jet skis. Ms. Fritts pointed out that
this process is different than how public planning processes are
done for CHAs because usually any and all issues are on the
table. She remarked that the department's staff is skilled at
sorting through complex issues, working to facilitate progress
of the planning teams, and developing policies on what the team
feels necessary to do. She explained that because of that
ability, and as a cost-efficiency to the department and
convenience to the public, comments were gathered on both topics
at these meetings. Although some in the mariculture industry
have been critical of this decision, the department leaders are
confident that there has been no bias by comments on the other
issue. She explained that at the time [of the public comment
process] the department agreed with the division's
recommendation to keep regulation development separate for the
issues [of on-bottom clam farming and jet skis].
Number 1097
MS. FRITTS moved on to the second public comment solicitation
regarding on-bottom farming. A formal public notice was
advertised in local newspapers for 30 days. Written comment was
accepted between November 10, 2000, through December 13, 2001.
As before, letters were sent to any interested party that was
known, which consisted of 181 parties. Ms. Fritts said, "Based
on the information at our disposal, besides what was coming in
via the public comment process ... we did choose not to hold a
formal public hearing in that second round." In that second
round, 27 individuals or organizations were heard from and it
was about an even split in regard to whether to support on-
bottom mariculture. "It's noteworthy that the reasons given in
both the 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 public comment periods didn't
differ significantly," she pointed out. Ms. Fritts noted that
the committee packet should include much detail regarding the
types of comments that were received and the responses to those
comments. Some of the responses from ADF&G refer to information
that was gleaned in a review of the scientific literature. That
review was made available to the industry in September 2000, two
months before the formal public comment period.
MS. FRITTS, in response to Chair McGuire, clarified that she was
referring to a review of scientific literature that was
concluded in June 2000.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "And the scientific literature upon which
the review is based was conducted in which year?"
MR. FRITTS deferred to others and requested the ability to
continue with her section first. She continued by noting that
some in industry complain that a scientific peer review of the
document wasn't done. However, she pointed out that [the
department] did reach out to the industry [requesting that it]
provide what it considered to be the most relevant literature.
In all, over 130 pieces of literature were reviewed. Ninety-six
of those 130 were referenced in the [department's] paper. There
is a huge volume of literature that is related to mariculture
and shellfish. A highly qualified individual was assigned to
get the information and review it in order to put it into a
review packet. This individual's work was reviewed by three
senior biologists in-house. Through that review there was no
evidence that any important publication about littleneck clams
was overlooked.
Number 1410
MS. FRITTS then turned to the process. As laid out earlier, the
[department] looked at the statutory mandate. Furthermore, the
goals and policies of the plan were reviewed and much of that
information is before the committee. She noted that there are
sub goals to the plan such as to protect important wildlife
habitat, to minimize harmful disturbance to wildlife, to protect
natural substrates, to maintain aquatic habitat, to maintain or
improve public access to and within the CHAs, and to maintain or
improve opportunities for hunting and fishing.
MS. FRITTS pointed out that a total of eight important pieces
were reviewed. Many items were considered, such as the public
comments from the two processes and the available scientific
literature as well as the recommendations of the planning team,
which was almost unanimous in recommending the prohibition of
on-bottom clam farming in Kachemak Bay and Fox River Flats CHAs.
Consideration was also given to the findings of the Board of
Fish, which said that Kachemak Bay's resources are already fully
allocated and thus giving resources to the clam farmers would
result in taking away [the resource] from others. The
Department of Law was consulted and it confirmed that the
statutes and regulations are being interpreted correctly by
proposing the closure. The results of a legislative audit dated
October 23 were also considered. Ms. Fritts explained that the
legislative audit reviewed ADF&G's, DNR's, and DGC's activities
related to mariculture development in the Aquatic Farm Act. The
audit found, on page 15, "that denial of Kachemak Bay aquatic
farming permits was consistent with the area use plan."
MS. FRITTS remarked:
Which brings me to the conclusion [that the Alaska
Department of] Fish & Game has been meeting the
legislature's intent about mariculture [by] promoting
the mariculture industry in Kachemak Bay, as I
mentioned, it's the site of the most intensive ...
suspended culture anywhere in the state. After an 18-
month process though, Fish & Game views closing these
two critical habitat areas to future applications for
on-bottom farming as, first of all, consistent with
statute. Second, consistent with other regulations
.... It's also ... a better use of limited state
agency resources because the agencies don't spend time
reviewing something that we're not going to approve
anyway. And lastly, it was supported by the
legislature through that audit.
The regulation is designed to make clear to the public
that permitting of on-bottom culture does not meet the
statutory intent for those areas as laid out by the
legislature in the '70s, by the permitting regs in the
'80s, and in the plan itself in the early '90s. We
believe that our review has been thorough,
comprehensive within the limits of our budgets, and
user-friendly to the public. We far exceeded ... the
normal requirements for regulation development in
terms of deliberation and inclusion of the public
prior to proposing regs.
Number 1643
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern with the plan, which
doesn't have the force of the law if it allows something that
isn't statutorily allowed. She asked if that is correct. She
clarified her belief that plans should be amended if something
comes up that determines the intent wasn't [correct].
MS. FRITTS agreed and pointed out that such was being done in
this case. She explained that it was heard that the plan may
need amending and thus a process was undertaken in order to
determine how the public felt and now the regulations have
resulted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding that the
legislative audit found the denial to be consistent with the
plan. Therefore, if there is a flaw in the plan, the audit
isn't necessarily supportive of the outcome.
MS. FRITTS acknowledged Representative James' point, but
highlighted that the other items she mentioned in combination
with the audit would lend support for the proposal moving
forward.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that there is always a tenuous balance
between the statutes and the regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the statutory things
[intent] was designed in 1970 and perhaps times have changed.
Number 1803
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked that the audit he read pointed out that
ADF&G had not passed any regulations on mariculture farming for
six years. Furthermore, the audit was highly critical of the
department for the manner in which it had not done anything on
that. He asked, "Is that the same audit you are using to
justify the closure of Kachemak Bay?"
MS. FRITTS clarified that the audit to which Senator Taylor is
referring covered two issues: the body of statewide mariculture
regulations and the permitting the department has done in
Kachemak Bay. The audit said that the department did follow the
plan that is in regulation and thus followed the law as it
currently stands.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that he had reviewed the literature review
done by Mr. Hauser, Division of Habitat and Restoration, ADF&G;
the response by Mr. RaLonde, Aquaculture Specialist, University
of Alaska - Fairbanks; and [a letter] from Dr. Cheney, Executive
Director, Pacific Shellfish Institute. Senator Taylor said that
he found both comments to contain [identify] serious flaws in
the approach taken by the department and Mr. Hauser. Upon
review of [ADF&G's] 28 comments, Senator Taylor summarized that
[the department felt] that [the department's] people have 70
years of experience and peer review was done so there was no
need to respond. Senator Taylor remarked that he didn't believe
he had seen anything as generalized [as the department's
responses to Mr. RaLonde's and Dr. Cheney's statements].
MS. FRITTS deferred to someone in Anchorage.
Number 2054
DR. WILLIAM HAUSER, Division of Habitat and Restoration, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, testified via teleconference. Dr.
Hauser said, "Although both responders provided some new
literature citation, many were not directly relevant to the
question at hand and they offered very, very little new
information that would affect changing (indisc.) most of the
items we discussed."
DR. HAUSER, in response to Senator Taylor, informed the
committee that he is a biologist. He explained that he has an
undergraduate degree in zoology at the University of Wisconsin,
a Master's degree in fish and wildlife management at Montana
State University, and a PhD in zoology studying marine fishes at
the University of Maine. Dr. Hauser noted that he has, among
other things, been with ADF&G for 20 years.
SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to Dr. Hauser's experience or
expertise in bivalves.
DR. HAUSER answered that through class work and associated
studies he has had experience with bivalves. However, he
pointed out that part of the review was to evaluate available
literature regarding ecological relationships for this organism
and the principles of ecology are basically the same.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered that he understood that an individual
with Dr. Hauser's experience could perform a literature review.
However, the comments made in response by Mr. RaLonde and Dr.
Cheney spoke to the specifics of Kachemak Bay. "We frequently
run into situations down here where somebody sits in a office
and comes up with a 'computer model' after doing literature
research and all of a sudden starts changing the world we live
in based on their computer studies or their model that they've
created," he said. Senator Taylor related his understanding
that there seems to be a complete disregard of the actual on-
ground staff work for surveying and determination of beds, and
so on.
Number 2238
LANCE TRASKY, Southcentral Regional Supervisor, Division of
Habitat and Restoration, Alaska Department of Fish & Game,
testified via teleconference. Mr. Trasky clarified that
[Senator Taylor] is referring to the work done by the
department's shellfish biologist in Kachemak Bay. The
department has had shellfish biologists in Kachemak Bay for 40
years working on all types of shellfish, in particular
littleneck clams. Therefore, the research cited in relationship
to those clams is based on many years of work of the
department's shellfish biologists in that area. In regard to
Mr. RaLonde, Mr. Trasky said, "As far as we know, Mr. RaLonde
has not done any work in Kachemak Bay so he's simply critiquing
the stuff done by other scientists." All the research and
reports are peer-reviewed by biometricians and shellfish
biologists in the department.
Number 2342
SENATOR LINCOLN restated her question regarding the four
entities that didn't participate in the interagency planning
team.
CLAUDIA SLATER, Division of Habitat and Restoration, Alaska
Division of Fish & Game, testified via teleconference that the
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard didn't
participate very much while the City of Homer, which was
primarily interested in the personal watercraft topic, and the
Kenai Peninsula Borough participated at varying degrees.
Number 2388
RAYMOND RaLONDE, testifying via teleconference, informed the
committee that his testimony brings about 20 years of field
experience in aquaculture to this hearing process. He noted
that although he is currently an Aquaculture Specialist in the
Marine Advisory Program with the University of Alaska -
Fairbanks, his comments shouldn't be construed to be the opinion
of the University of Alaska. Mr. RaLonde also noted that at one
time he was a habitat biologist for the Oregon Department of
Fish & Wildlife and thus habitat protection is a major part of
what he considers important. Furthermore, Mr. RaLonde pointed
out that he has been involved in Kachemak Bay issues since 1991
when he was an organizer and participant of the Kachemak Bay
Task Force from 1991-1993. During that time he conducted oyster
culture research in the area of nursery culture from 1994-1997.
Currently, he is involved with this review of this scientific
approach to on-bottom aquaculture in Kachemak Bay.
MR. RaLONDE emphasized that his concerns over the last few years
have been in regard to the distortion of what he considered the
environmental impacts of aquatic farming in Kachemak Bay. "It's
a point of view that's of great departure from what the rest of
the nation is considering concerning on-bottom bivalve
enhancement," he charged. Mr. RaLonde pointed out that there
are a number of nationally recognized scientists as well as the
Pacific Shellfish Institute who support his assessment of the
biased standards adopted by ADF&G. Most recently, Mr. RaLonde
has reviewed the department's literature review entitled,
"Ecological Considerations for On-Bottom Aquaculture of
Littleneck Clams in Kachemak Bay, Alaska". Mr. RaLonde said:
In short, I believe the ADF&G report is highly flawed
and is not a valid document to be used to issue a ban
on aquatic clam farming in Kachemak Bay. Having been
a peer reviewer of major scientific journals and also
[for] a granting agencies for a decade, I'd go so far
as to say that this document by the department goes
far beyond just a difference of opinion or an
ignorance of the issue. But there appears to be a
deliberate selection of documents and misstatements of
(indisc.) material that were purposeful. As an
example, there were examples that were in this
document that were almost beyond belief. How we can
compare the risk of disease transmission, for example,
with clams in Kachemak Bay that are regionally
transported within the same region, no exotic species
allowed in the state at all, to whirling disease in
rainbow trout in the Lower 48. They're not even close
to being represented as the same degree of risk, but
you don't see that in this literature review. As a
result, I'm very concerned about how this document was
used ... particularly how it was used with its
interdisciplinary force. Was this a document that
presented what was considered to be a factual basis
for on-bottom aquaculture?
MR. RaLONDE provided the committee with various faulty
statements from the department. He quoted the following from a
recent document from Mr. Trasky: "If commercial on-bottom
mariculture is allowed in the critical habitat area, habitat
that is presently available to a diversity of organisms would be
managed exclusively for littleneck clam production." Mr.
RaLonde pointed out that clams perform an important function in
the marine environment. Besides providing food for predators,
clams are linked to the nutrients in the water and delivery of
those nutrients to the sediment. Mr. RaLonde explained, "This
linkage mechanism and the influence that clams have on the
composition of the substrate and the food supply for the array
of organism in the bottom can actually add diversity to a marine
system rather than take it away." Furthermore, predator
exclusion netting, which is referred to by the department on a
number of occasions, doesn't eliminate or deny predators access
to bottom feed but rather reduces predation. He explained that
if netting wasn't used in a farming situation, virtually a
hundred percent of the (indisc.) seed would be consumed by
predators. However, even with netting farmers can expect 40
percent or more loss of the clams under the netting due to
predation because many smaller predators can move through the
large predator netting. In fact, on the beaches applied for by
the farmers, the populations of clams are so reduced that if 40
percent of the clams were lost to predation, it would mean that
more clams would be available for the predators if the clams
were farmed. Although ADF&G's current position that clam
farming will alter the abundance or diversity of animals is
correct, the preponderance of evidence illustrates that the
impact of clam farming is rather benign. Furthermore, the
impacted area can quickly restore to its original condition once
the site is left fallow. Mr. RaLonde said, "ADF&G documents are
replete with statements that birds and many marine invertebrates
depend on bivalves, and that is exactly true, and any loss of
habitat would adversely effect the survival of these species.
But the department provides no supporting information concerning
the dependence of these species on on-bottom food supplies in
relation to the amount that is available. Is the food supply
limiting to the point that on-bottom aquaculture jeopardizes
these populations?" He pointed out that under the Kachemak Bay
CHA plan and the current Kenai Area Plan no special protection
is afforded any of these species. For example, juvenile crabs
will still be able to feed on juvenile clams, and shore birds
feed through the large netting and thus account for a
substantial part of the 40 percent mortality of clams.
Moreover, the disease issue is highly overstated. He emphasized
that Alaska has an exotic species import ban and a regional
transport policy requiring only Southcentral brood stock be used
for seed for Southcentral beaches. Disease certification is
performed for brood stock destined for the hatchery and for the
seed between the hatchery and the grow out beaches.
MR. RaLONDE expressed his puzzlement that there was no reference
to the expertise and pathology within ADF&G's department.
Within ADF&G, Dr. Ted Meyers (ph), a noted pathologist who is
internationally recognized, has performed hundreds of shellfish
examinations screening for potential shellfish diseases in
Alaska over the last 20 years. Dr. Meyers (ph) has found no
diseases of significance in Alaskan shellfish. Furthermore,
genetic concerns are overstated due to the aforementioned
regional transport policy that requires that the animals within
the region stay within the region and not be allowed outside.
Mr. RaLonde returned to the issue of predator netting and noted
that it had not be implicated with entanglement. Any problems
with predator nettings can be dealt with in the site selection
process.
MR. RaLONDE turned to the economic opportunities of clam
aquaculture. Alaska imports more than a million clams from
outside of the state. He informed the committee that the Lands
End restaurant in Homer has removed clams from its menu, but
indicates that the restaurant would sell more than 20,000 pounds
of clams annually if they had access to them. Mr. RaLonde said,
"In summary, based on ... the environmental impact, I do not see
a support for banning on-bottom aquaculture in Kachemak Bay.
And the result ... will be an economic loss to the ... region.
I would personally like to see a major effort done to actually
look at environmental consequences of Kachemak Bay." He noted
that he has proposed to the department and sought the first
$10,000 in funding to put together a conference this Fall on the
environmental impacts of shellfish aquaculture.
Number 2883
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR, after being handed the gavel from Chair
McGuire, expressed his hope that Mr. RaLonde will be able to
have the conference he mentioned. However, Vice Chair Taylor
was concerned that no one present at the conference may be
willing to listen to the experts. Vice Chair Taylor asked, "How
much of the decision to close Kachemak Bay to clam mariculture,
in your opinion, is based on ecology and how much of that
decision is based on eco-politics coming out of the Homer area?"
MR. RaLONDE remarked that he wasn't [familiar] with the eco-
politics in the Homer area. This is a situation in which some
of the farmers have applied for beaches that have highly
depleted populations.
TAPE 01-7, SIDE B
MR. RaLONDE said that he could see aquaculture as providing an
opportunity to utilize beaches like that. The environmental
issues haven't focused on clams. He noted that recently much
information has been generated through EVOS [Exxon Valdez oil
spill] studies on clams, but it hasn't been incorporated into
this discussion. In Mr. RaLonde's opinion, the environmental
impact issues haven't been presented in a forum that allows an
unbiased and totally independent view. However, he acknowledged
that the department would probably charge that some of his
documents have been biased, and to some degree he agreed. Mr.
RaLonde related his belief that there is a way to deal with
[clam farming] under the current permitting process. A ban
isn't necessarily the best way to proceed.
Number 2883
SENATOR LINCOLN related her understanding that Mr. RaLonde is
not speaking as a University of Alaska employee, but his
comments represent his own opinions.
MR. RaLONDE agreed and clarified that he represents 20 years of
experience as an aquaculture specialist, part of which has been
with the university. In further response to Senator Lincoln,
Mr. RaLonde recalled that his paper was written in January 2001.
SENATOR LINCOLN quoted the following passage from Mr. RaLonde's
paper: "I again call to question, and have not received an
adequate response, why ADF&G believes that the populations of
littleneck clams in Kachemak Bay are doing fine when all the
evidence I see shows a constant decline in the population and
the commercial and recreational harvest." If that is the case,
it is a major concern.
MS. FRITTS said that clam densities do vary over time and the
department has been doing studies on them. The department
doesn't have any scientific evidence that wild stocks in
Kachemak Bay are depleted or are in need of restoration. She
offered a more in depth response from those in Anchorage.
SENATOR LINCOLN suggested that the answer could be in writing
for the next meeting.
Number 2720
MR. TRASKY, in response to Mr. RaLonde's quote read by Senator
Lincoln, pointed out that the only data that exists on Kachemak
Bay is that which has been collected by ADF&G. The department's
biologists believe that the [littleneck clam] populations are
well within the natural fluctuation because shellfish
populations vary according on environmental conditions. He
noted that these populations are harvested at a very high rate.
Furthermore, they are a very important food source for many of
the animals in the bay such as the otters, scoters, and the
eiders. Moreover, there is a very high human consumption of
clams in Kachemak Bay. Mr. Trasky highlighted the fact that
there is a clam management plan for the bay from the Board of
Fish & Game.
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR related his understanding that at one time
there were a number of commercial harvesters who harvested well
over 100,000 pounds per year. However, this last year there
were only two commercial harvesters that harvested only 17,000
pounds. He indicated that information may be some of the data
to which Mr. RaLonde is referring in his statement that the clam
populations are declining.
MR. TRASKY noted that the board cut back the amount of
commercial harvesting.
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR asked then if the 17,000 pounds per year was
due to the board's decision.
ELLEN SIMPSON, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, testified via
teleconference. Ms. Simpson explained that the board
established an annual guideline harvest level for littleneck
clams at 40,000 pounds for Kachemak Bay.
Number 2578
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR inquired then as to why only 17,000 pounds
were harvested last year if the clams are doing fine.
MR. TRASKY pointed out that the shellfish biologists are in
Homer and could be available for the next meeting.
MR. FRITTS said that "we" haven't seen this document and aren't
able to respond. Therefore, she suggested that the committee
could identify what questions it would like answered so that
[the department] could do so.
SENATOR LINCOLN clarified that she wanted [the department to
respond] in writing to the entire document [from Mr. RaLonde].
Number 2515
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR related his belief that such has already been
done and embodied in the 28 comment responses attached to the
[February 6, 2001, memorandum from Mr. Trasky, which is included
in the committee packet]. Vice Chair Taylor remarked that those
responses seemed "cursory and self-serving."
MR. FRITTS related her understanding that the purpose of this
meeting was to provide the committee with an description of the
public process that was used to prepare these regulations, to
discuss the eight items that the department used to propose the
regulations. "Obviously, we're not prepared today to talk
about, in detail, ... the scientific literature review, ...,"
she said. The questions being asked clearly need to be answered
by some of the biologists in the commercial fisheries division.
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR remarked that the process is not just a report
to the committee that a hearing was held and the public
attended. He asked, "My first question to the department is:
Who came up with the idea to shut them down totally, in the
first place, and why?" Those making the applications certainly
didn't initiate the process.
MS. FRITTS emphasized that she laid out the process that was
used and why the department believed it was being asked to do a
review and possibly propose a change. She reiterated that a key
"driver" is the statutory mandate, "to protect and preserve
habitat areas, especially crucial to the perpetuation of fish
and wildlife and to restrict all other uses not compatible with
that primary purpose." In response to Mr. RaLonde's remarks
regarding predator netting, Ms. Fritts said that excluding
predators from the substrate doesn't help "preserve habitat
areas, especially crucial [to the perpetuation of fish and
wildlife and to restrict all other uses not compatible with that
primary purpose]." Nor does it help follow the law [as laid
out] in the plan. Mr. Fritts reiterated that the combination of
the statute, the plan, and the denial of the permits in Kachemak
Bay, generated the need to review this. Furthermore, public
comment was taken and the public was largely opposed to on-
bottom mariculture in Kachemak Bay. Although a scientific
literature review [was done], she acknowledged that it wasn't
comprehensive, and moreover science can be contradictory.
"There were enough holes ... in the literature to make us
cautious about Kachemak Bay, that has very clear mandates about
what we're to do there in issuing permits or not issuing
permits," she said. A broad planning [team] was established and
it was almost unanimous in recommending the closure of Kachemak
Bay to on-bottom mariculture.
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR clarified that the committee is concerned
because the [legislature] has funded a hatchery for the purpose
that something goes on in the [Kachemak Bay] area. Furthermore,
the commercial activities continue to be diminished in that area
and now the department is ending it all together. With the
closure, Vice Chair Taylor agreed with [Ms. Fritts' conclusions]
that government will be streamlined due to the lack of
applications for permits. Vice Chair Taylor charged:
Maybe what we no longer need is a couple clam
biologists sitting around out there, who no longer
have any reason to be there, especially since after
30/40 some years with both commercial activity and a
significant recreational activity we see no decrease
or harm to the clam population, ... these are normal
... natural cycles that we're watching .... We're not
improving the habitat, we're not hurting the habitat,
we're just watching the habitat.
MS. FRITTS stated, "We're maintaining and protecting it as the
law requires us to do."
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR remarked that he considered that questionable.
He then called in to question the department's management of the
trees in the Kachemak Bay State Park, which [have been eaten by
bugs].
MS. FRITTS informed the committee that there will continue to be
commercial mariculture for suspended culture in Kachemak Bay.
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR echoed the fact that there are only two
commercial operations harvesting 17,000 pounds.
MS. FRITTS clarified, "You're talking about 24 suspended culture
operations."
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the constitutional mandate is to
manage the state's resources for common use under a sustained
yield basis, which is always in conflict. She expressed the
need to strike a balance. She said:
I'm for saving everything, I'm for not destroying the
habitat, ... I'm for doing everything the right way,
but I think we have to do it. I don't think not doing
it is the option for commercializing and utilizing our
resources for our living and for our enjoyment. So,
we have to figure out how to make the two compatible.
And I think that should be our goal.
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI turned to the [department's] belief that
maintaining and enhancing wildlife and public use is
inconsistent with on-bottom mariculture. However, commercial
harvests are still allowed in an area that is supposed to
enhance wildlife. As a clam digger himself, Representative
Scalzi new firsthand that there are lower yields of clams in the
area, which he attributed to commercial harvests. Although
Representative Scalzi noted that he was very sensitive to
disallowing commercial clamming, he found the department's use
of the area's critical habitat status to be inconsistent.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI directed attention to Mr. RaLonde's
evidence of larval drift. He remarked that he had not heard a
good response from the department on that issue. Therefore, he
requested that the department speak to that specifically.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI noted that he attended one of the meetings
that dealt with both the jet ski and aquaculture issues. He
noted that 80 percent of those present were present to oppose
the jet skis, the eco-politics mentioned by Senator Taylor.
Therefore, the people that were present were not going to be
supportive of an added use in Kachemak Bay. He recalled that it
was said that 60 percent of those at that meeting were opposed,
which he felt [was] low [opposition]. He felt that the numbers
were skewed. At the other meeting in which the jet ski issue
[was not heard], the split between supporters and those in
opposition was close to 50/50, which he felt was more realistic.
Representative Scalzi commented:
The jet ski issue along with the mariculture issue, I
think that the [Alaska] Department of Fish & Game ...
need to be consistent with biological management and
not get into reviews that certainly suggest politics
is involved as to what people want to see in a
critical habitat area. I would have more respect for
the department if they stuck to the biological issues.
There is no biological reason why we shouldn't have
jet skis in Kachemak Bay State Park ....
VICE CHAIR TAYLOR announced that another meeting would be
scheduled on this topic.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
Committee on Administrative Regulation Review meeting was
adjourned at an unspecified time.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|