CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 41(FIN) "An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of shellfish; authorizing certain nonprofit organizations to engage in shellfish enhancement projects; relating to application fees for salmon hatchery permits and shellfish enhancement project permits; relating to the marketing of aquatic farm products by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute; and providing for an effective date." 1:18:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, SPONSOR, reintroduced the bill. He stated that the legislation was a shellfish enhancement bill. He remarked that mariculture was an opportunity to expand Alaskas fishing industry economy. He stated that certain things must be put in place in order to expedite the mariculture industry. He explained that the bill allowed qualified nonprofits to pursue enhancements and/or restoration projects involving shellfish species including red and blue king crab; sea cucumber; abalone; and razor clams. He stated that the bill created a regulatory framework in which the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) could manage shellfish enhancement projects. 1:20:51 PM Senator Olson wondered whether there was opposition to the bill. Representative Ortiz replied that there were some longstanding critics over the years, and stated that there were some recent emails from some folks in the state. He felt that the concerns had been previously addressed in the legislation. Senator Olson wondered whether there were subsistence groups opposed to the bill. Representative Ortiz replied that he was not aware of any subsistence groups opposed to the bill. Co-Chair Stedman asked that DFG present their position on the bill. 1:21:59 PM SAM RABUNG, DIRECTOR OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, JUNEAU (via teleconference), had not heard from the governor about the position on the bill. He remarked that the governors mariculture task force had identified the issue as one of its top five priorities. Senator Wielechowski wondered whether any DFG scientists or biologists were opposed to the legislation. Mr. Rabung replied that scientists and biologists had opinions, and there were some concerns about wild organisms to ensure that there were safe measures. He felt that there were safeguards to address those concerns. Senator Wielechowski asked for documentation in writing of opposition from the scientists and biologists. Mr. Rabung replied that there was nothing in writing, but there were continual and constant conversations. He stressed that there were efforts to take into account all concerns, which were built into the permitting process. He stated that, in the long run, more permits were declined than were approved. 1:25:48 PM Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the department could make the scientists available to the legislature. Mr. Rabung stated that he did not have concerns about commercial fishing staff available for questions. Senator Olson wondered whether the discussion was ongoing discussions or outright opposition. Mr. Rabung replied that it was an ongoing discussion, and the discussions would continue about permitting. Senator Wielechowski queried the definition of traditional fisheries. Mr. Rabung replied that the enhancement projects were intended to benefit existing common property fisheries. The intention was for them to be harvested in already existing fisheries. Senator Wielechowski queried the definition of already existing fisheries. Mr. Rabung replied that enhancement projects would have the resultant organisms from an existing fishery. 1:29:40 PM AT EASE 1:30:23 PM RECONVENED 1:30:33 PM Senator Wielechowski wondered whether there was funding for the bill. Co-Chair Bishop replied that he would cover the fiscal note later in the meeting, but stated that each fiscal note were zero. Senator Wielechowski wondered how the administration intended to fund the bill with zero fiscal notes. Co-Chair Bishop stated that the back up related to the fiscal notes would answer the question. 1:31:19 PM AT EASE 1:31:26 PM RECONVENED 1:31:34 PM Co-Chair Bishop highlighted the fiscal notes. Senator Wilson remarked that the difference with the committee substitutes was the removal of purview of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI). Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether Senator Wilson wanted to address the remaining fiscal notes. Senator Wilson replied that he would not, but merely want to point to the change that was not included in the backup for the fiscal notes. 1:33:11 PM AT EASE 1:33:35 PM RECONVENED 1:34:05 PM Co-Chair Bishop continued to address the fiscal notes. Senator Wilson MOVED to REPORT SCS CSHB 41(FIN) from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SCS CSHB 41(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with two "do pass" recommendations, and three "no recommendation" recommendations and with a new zero fiscal note from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, new zero fiscal note from Department of Fish and Game, new indeterminate fiscal note from Department of Fish and Game, new indeterminate fiscal note from the Office of the Governor, and new indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.