CSHB 208(RES)-AQUATIC FARMS FOR SHELLFISH  CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced HB 208 to be up for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE DREW SCALZI, sponsor of HB 208, said the Aquatic Farm Act was established in 1988 and it was a comprehensive approach to licensing of farm sites. While it has worked, there are some conflicts when people pick a site but then have to go back to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to get approval. A lot of the sites conflict with personal use. This bill makes the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) select 90 sites ahead of time, 60 of which will be for suspended culture, such as scallops and oysters, 20 for on-bottom clamming of little necks and 10 sites specifically for geoducks. This will hopefully preclude the NIMBY syndrome. CSHB 208(RES) has a fiscal note of $260,000. He noted the New Sagaya Market in Anchorage has said it has a one million pound clam market that it can't seem to satisfy on an annual basis. It has to import shellfish from out of state. The State of Connecticut has about 500,000 acres under lease and the State of Alaska has about 500 acres under lease. This bill is modeled after Senator Torgerson's SB 141, which has moved through the House quicker. SENATOR TAYLOR said Representative Peggy Wilson had received one letter of concern from Ben Mitchell of Sitka who felt that in reality this bill would tie up every protected cove in Anchorage and Southeast. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI responded that's why they want this bill. ADF&G would be the agency to go out ahead of time to find out where those conflicts may arise and hold public hearings ahead of time. The 90 sites are going to be located statewide, not just in Southeast. SENATOR ELTON said he assumed the private sector would identify its needs and potential sites and then come tell ADF&G what it want to do rather than the state spending the money to identify sites and telling the private sector where it can go. He asked him to comment on the philosophical difference. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI replied that the state has been trying to use that philosophical approach since the Aquatic Farm Act passed in 1988. An example is in Kachemak Bay, a critical habitat area, where a person now wants to put in a little neck clam site just below his property. He has met with resistance from his neighbors who say it is a subsistence area or that they don't want the nets on the beach. To him, it makes sense, because he would have direct access to this site from his property. The part about the private sector identifying sites is still going to go forward, but ADF&G will say yes or no to those sites ahead of time. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he thought all the sites would be nominated in the first go-round by private enterprise. SENATOR TAYLOR asked how they will resolve the problem of DNR and ADF&G having resident clams within an area. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that is the common property issue, which has been a roadblock. ADF&G is using the criteria now that sites with no standing stocks would be applicable. If there are standing stocks, the intent is through regulation to have a common property fishery - commercial, subsistence or personal use or a combination. The intent of this bill is not to go after sites that have standing stocks on them. He noted, "Standing stocks would have to be addressed separately." SENATOR TAYLOR said his only concern is that ADF&G will have to find areas where there are no clams so someone can raise clams on that site. However maybe the clams are not there because the area is not conducive to them. He stated, "It's totally self defeating." REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that is a concern and HB 513 addresses a request to do just that. There is no problem with suspended culture; so they are basically talking about clams. ADF&G has explained that if an area had 100 acres, it would allow a 2% harvest out of that area. ADF&G would take all of the standing stocks out, then that site would be available for clams. The Constitution also says that they could allow for aquaculture to take place provided that a certain amount of the available clams are used to propagate the species. MR. BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Lands and Water, DNR, said DNR has been working closely with industry and Representative Scalzi and is pleased with the bill and the fiscal note. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked how he dealt with conflicts in critical habitat areas and parks. MR. LOEFFLER said the habitat question of how the standing stocks are allocated is an ADF&G question that he can't answer. DNR will deal with the conflicts of land use as it has in the past by first seeing what uses are compatible and, if they aren't, to decide between them. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he heard that there is a regulation that says you can't have a site in front of a park. MR. LOEFFLER replied that he didn't know if that regulation exists. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked how DNR would handle this if it was a law, not a regulation. MR. LOEFFLER replied that the law suggests regulation, but he didn't think it would conflict with that regulation. SENATOR ELTON said it seems to him that if he is in charge of identifying numerous sites, he might be causing a lot of angst and public outcry even thought there be no interest in some instances by industry to do anything in the area. He asked if that is a correct supposition. MR. LOEFFLER replied that it is but in the final planning process DNR could deal with that by working with the applicants and communities to figure out where they are looking. Right now an applicant goes out and finds a site and brings that back to the department who might reject it and have them try it again and so on. This would happen at the beginning of the process and be more of a cooperative approach. MR. GERON BRUCE, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, ADF&G, said he worked closely with the sponsor and interested parties and is appreciative of the flexibility and effort put into the legislation, which he supports. He explained: It will clear the brush away so to speak so that people, when they get ready to go out and find a site and start a farm, they have a good chance of picking a spot that they will encounter no problems with, because it will have been looked at [carefully] and will be identified as a place where there aren't problems and it will be suitable from that standpoint. He said they intend to work very closely with industry folks to identify areas where they think suitable sites would lie. A fair amount of groundwork has already occurred over the years in Southeast and Kachemak Bay. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if the bill addresses the common use issue. MR. BRUCE replied that it is a separate issue and Representative Scalzi described the approach they are taking. He said it is possible to find areas that could be productive with the application of existing technology that currently don't have standing stocks. SENATOR ELTON asked why the fiscal note from March was higher than the one from April. MR. BRUCE explained that as they worked through the process with the bill, they had a better understanding of the scope of work involved. Initially they were thinking of taking it farther than is really necessary to accomplish the scope of the goals. SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many of these farms exist now. MR. BRUCE replied that ADF&G has issued about 250 permits or leases since 1988, but not all of them are still operating. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they are all hanging mariculture permits. MR. BRUCE answered that they are primarily. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the only clam leases are in Kachemak Bay. MR. BRUCE replied that clams are a recent development and most of the sites have been focused on Prince of Wales Island. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if ADF&G has actually licensed some of those. MR. BRUCE replied it has. MS. DORIS CABANA, Homer resident, said she had quite a few reservations about this bill because in Homer there are commercial fishermen. When they go over to the bays, all they see are buoys. She understands that the same people are asking for additional sites and wanted to know where it would end. She thought that sites that failed for some reason needed to be restored. She said she is totally against this bill because it takes beach away from the public and fishermen who might want to fish the area. MS. VI HERRELL, Ph.D, said she is from the Homer and Anchor Point area and opposed HB 208. She thought it would deny use of public beaches and water by everyone. MR. PAUL SEATON, Homer resident, said this bill would override traditional habitat and state park regulations. He pointed out that the fiscal note only covered funding for identifying sites and they would be back in the same box of people leasing sites, but not being able to get them permitted due to a lack of funding. MS. JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries, expressed support for CSHB 208(RES) because it would resolve conflicts beforehand. MR. PAT VEESART, Executive Director, Sitka Conservation Society, asked why this bill is even being considered. There is already a process by which the aquatic farming industry can apply for lease sites suitable for shellfish farming. The state is also in the process of creating management plan for state tidelands in Southeast Alaska. He thought it was premature to vote on this bill before the legislature has an opportunity to review the planning process. He asked, "Is it appropriate and wise for the state to be promoting an industry that leads to privatization of public lands that are already being utilized by Alaskans?" He questioned what will happen, under section 2(g), if the lessee doesn't restore the site and wild stocks or shellfish back to their original condition. He asked whether penalties and funds for enforcement are attached. He also asked how, under section 3(b), the state would solicit nominations for sites from the public, whether DNR would have adequate funds to do a thorough job communicating with the public, and how DNR will know if a site is an established subsistence or personal use fishery. MR. VEESART said that CSHB 208(RES) promotes the privatization of public resources at the expense of local economies. In Sitka, the tidelands are already being utilized by Sitkans. He has faxed the committee materials that demonstrate the concerns that both Sitka and Tenakee have over shellfish mariculture. MR. RON LONG, Director, Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery, supported HB 208. He said that no public process would be eliminated through this bill. All nominations will still go through coastal zone planning review processes. The object is to eliminate the conflicts and not trump one conflict over another. He commented, "Within that vast amount of coastline, there is room enough for us all to live and work together. We're not taking food off anyone's table. We're attempting to add to the table and grow the economic pie." MR. LONG said there will be no exotic species brought in and the cost of the permits will be borne by the farmer, as it is currently. He said that 219 acres are under cultivation now in Alaska with 50 active farms. MR. JOHN AGOSTI, Alaska Shellfish Growers, supported CSHB 208(RES) for all the aforementioned reasons. He thought this was a safe investment that would more than repay in years to come. Added advantages are increased employment and economic activity in coastal Alaska. SENATOR WILKEN asked Mr. Loeffler if he had seen the letter from Ben Mitchell of Sitka that Senator Taylor was referring to. MR. LOEFFLER said he hadn't. SENATOR WILKEN said he would send it to him so they could get a response from DNR when it comes up in the next committee. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSHB 208(RES) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.