Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project public review draft

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Etolin Island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project
Public Review Dra
'Nay 1988

COASTAL ZONE
1H INFORMATION CENTER
138
,E68
1988
Alaska Department of
NATURAL
@#RESOURCES

ERRATA:
The headings of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 were inadvertently reversed. Chapter 2
should be Capability and Chapter 3 should be Suitability. Chapter tables of content
ETC correct.

Natural Resources
Owner Management
suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99807-1000 (907)465-3400

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

We are pleased to present your copy of the Public Review Draft of the Etolin Island
Area Mariculture Pilot Project.

This draft represents combined efforts of six state, and three federal agencies.
Agencies contributed information in their area of expertise with regards to
mariculture development.

Aquatic farming is a relatively new and -expanding use of tidelands in Alaska This
document examines major issues important for industry development and resource
protection. Both prospective sea farmer and resource managers should find
information and guidelines presented Here useful in siting and operating maricuture
facilities.

Time available for the Etolin Island Project is limited for a project of this size and
scope. This draft contains written contributions from over a dozen writers. At
this draft stage, subject matter and content have taken priority over style and
editing. 'We expect the final document to be correctly edited and presented.

This is an opportunity for you to comment on any aspect of this project. Public
meetings will be held in Petersburg and Wrangell in June. You may comment on the
draft at these meetings or by writing or calling us. After the public comment
period, the project will be revised.

All comments are due by June 30, 1988.

Project Team Leader Terry Rader and Team Assistant Fran Roche are available to
answer questions or provide clarification on any issues of the project. Please feel
free to contact either if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Andrew W. Pekovich, Acting Regional Manage

Terry W Rader
Team Leader

Etolin island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project
Public Review Draft

May 1988

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

t
Financial assistance for this report was provided by the Alaska
Coastal Management Program and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and
astal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Fi n
Cc

Alaska Department Of N3tUral ReSOUrceS
Division of Land and VWter Management
SoUtheast Regional Office

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Page 1 Project Description
4 Development History
6 Planning Processes
9 Other Studies

CHAPTER 2 Site Capability
Page 11 Site Capability Issues
17 Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
21 Cultivation

CHAPTER 3 Site Suitability
Page 25 Characteristics of the Study Area
29 Resource/Use Inventory
35 Environmental Impacts
35 Potential Water Quality- Impacts
37 Potential Impacts on Fish and Wildlife
37 Impacts on Fish and Wildlife
44 Environmental Impacts of Specific Techniques and Facilities
48 Impacts Common to All Species
49 Disease and Parasite Control
53 Conflicts with Other Coastal Users
60 Site Guidelines and Mitigating Measures
61 Siting Guidelines
63 Project Design Guidelines
64 Operational Guidelines

CHAPTER 4 - Project Review and Permitting
Page 67 Siting and Design Phase
79 Stocking Phase
79 Product Distribution Phase
CHAPTER 5 - Implementation and Recommendations
Page 81 Implementation Options
83 Recommendations

"PENDIXES

A Marine Advisory Program's Remote Sensing Project
B Agency Authorities in the Study Area
C 1988 Coastal Project Questionnaire
D Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application
E Agency Contacts
F Ref erences/ Bibliography
G Senate Bill 514

EtOlin island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTERI

Introduction

Pagel PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2 Cooperating Agencies
2 Project Features
3 Study Area

4DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

4 History of Shellfish & Sea Vegetable Mariculture
In Alaska
5 Legislativc/Administrative History of Mariculture
In Alaska

6PLANNING AND CLASSIFICATION

6 State Planning Process
8 Alaska Coastal Management Program Planning
8 U.S. Forest Service Planning
8 Local Planning Process

9OTHER STUDIES

9 Kodiak Scallop Spat Collection Project
9 Macrocystis Research
9 Southeast Alaska Subsistence Survey
10 MAP Remote Sensing Study

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project is a This study is organized into rive chapters:
multi-agency study of shellfish and sea vegetable
mariculture development in the Etolin Island area Chapter I is a brief introduction to the project and
near Wrangell. The project is being conducted provides an historic overview of development his-
under special federal funding from the Office of tory of Alaskan mariculture. It also describes this
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management to ad- projects relationship to -federal, state and local
dress rapidly growing interest in aquatic farming planning processes.
and related land use and regulatory issues this new
industry raises. Interest in mariculture is Chapter 2 discusses site capabilities. This section
reflected by legislative proposals which include explores biological and environmental needs of
bills for shellfish, sea vegetable and finfish. the cultured organism and various cultivation
techniques. It also provides a discussion of
This study has been initiated to examine major paralytic shellfish poisoning.
elements common to mariculture development in
a defined area: biological needs of mariculture Chapter 3 examines site suitability parameters.
species commonly cultivated, their effects on the This is a detailed discussion of major issues in-
native environment, and use conflicts caused by volved in site selection to avoid environmental
siting mariculture facilities in some areas. and impacts with other coastal users.
Guidelines will be developed that apply to siting
and development issues of mariculture sites. Chapter 4 explains various permits required and
systems set up for application and review. The
Existing permit systems set up by state and federal Alaska Coastal Management Program is ex-
agencies to permit and monitor mariculture plained in this section.
developments will also be examined. Permitting
actions provide a vehicle to incorporate guidelines Chapter 5 provides a summary of siting
into siting mariculture activities, and will be use- guidelines, implementation options and recom-
ful to state and federal agencies involved in the mendations. Public comments are also sum-
issue or review of permits for mariculture marized in this chapter.
development. Municipalities may find this study
useful when evaluating land and resource
management issues in other similar areas. It
should also be useful to individuals interested in
getting started in a mariculture venture.

To ensure that study content maintains the dis-
cipline and practicality of site specific application,
the area under discussion is limited geographical-
ly to Etolin Island, and Blashke and related island
complex in Southeast Alaska. The study area was
selected because of high industry interest.

Cooperating Agencies Two federal agencies reviewed material used in
Alaska Department of Natural Resources coor- the project and contributed comments and sug-
dinated the project. Following is a list of cooperat- gestions. These agencies are:
ing and contributing agencies and a brief
description of their primary areas of respon- National Marine Fisheries Service
sibilities: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

State Agencies: In addition to offering expertise in their primary
area of responsibility, all agencies provided
Department of Environmental Conservation clarifying comments and information throughout
(DEC) is responsible for water quality issues and the study.
administration of the National Shellfish Sanita-
tion Program. Project Features
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) con- Species studied in the project are:
tributed information on site capability, cultiva-
tion, and potential environmental impacts on Oysters - Pacif ic Oyster
habitat. ADF&G also provided information for (Crassostrea stigas)
the resource and use inventory. Scallops - Weathervane Scallop
Department of Commerce and Economic (Patinot)ecten caurinus)
Development (DCED) provided industry view- - Purple Hinged Rock Scallop
points on development issues. (Crassadoma gigantea
Mussels - Blue Mussels (Mytilus edulis
Office of Management and Budget, Division of- Kelp - Giant Kelp
Governmental Coordination (DGC) is respon- (Macrocystis integrifolia)
sible for the Alaska Coastal Management - Kombu (Laminaria
Program. DGC also contributed information on - Nori (Porohyra sst))
various aspects of permits and permit review sys-
tems. No attempt is made to address projects which are
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is not within the scope of state law as of January 1,
responsible for land use issues as well as overall 1988. As such, finfish mariculture is not con-
project coordination. sidered within this pilot project.
Marine Advisory Program, University of Alaska Although Department of Natural Resources is
contributed information on their Remote Sensing the agency responsible for producing land use
Project. plans for Alaska state lands, there are several
legally mandated steps that must be completed
Federal Agencies: before a project can be adopted as a DNR Area
and Management Plan. State adopted plans must
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) provided address all resources and uses. As this study
information on Department of the Army permits focuses only on mariculture, it will not be adopted
and their review system. as an area or management plan.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) provided information Public workshops were held in Petersburg and
Wrangell in late February. A 30 day public review
on their Special Use Permits and review proces- period will extend from 'approximately June 1
ses. USFS also contributed to the resource and through June 30, 1988. Additional workshops are
use inventory. scheduled in both communities during the public
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review period. Written comments will be ac-
cepted on the project during, this period.

Study Area

All of Etolin, Deer, Onslow, Eagle, Stone, This island group is located southwest of Wrangell
Brownson and Kashevarof Islan 'ds and the ad- and is remote from any major population center.
jacent smaller islands are included in the project These islands can be characterized as containing
area. The state manages approximately 60,000 mountainous forested uplands, extended inlets,
acres of tide and submerged lands adjacent to the and multiple island groups, surrounded by es-
island seaward from mean high water seaward to taurine coastal waters.
three miles offshore.

With the exception of a state land disposal at Olive
Cove, the uplands are managed by the federal
government as part of Tongass National Forest.

Petersburg

wrangell
S rait

E lin is.
0

PRINCE OF
WALES ISLAND REVILLAGIGEDO
ISLAND

.V:
Klawock kasaa
Craig
Ketchikan

HISTORY
History of Shellfish and Sea reduced natural enemies. He eventually formed
Vegetable Mariculture in Alaska a new Alaska Oyster Company and was issued a
Mariculture efforts in the Pacific Northwest have shellfish handler's permit. The first sale of oysters
focused on Crassostrea gigas, the Pacific oyster. from this company occurred in August, 1983.
It was brought to Washington State in the late 19th In summary, oyster culture industry in Alaska was
century from Japan and subsequently in progress in the early 1900's and has continued
transplanted to British Columbia (B.C.). By the sporadically until now. Past attempts at oyster cul-
1920's significant shipments of seed were coming ture have been undertaken by undercapitalized
into B.C. from Japan, and intertidal culture tech- inexperienced companies. From 1983-1988 a
niques were being developed. renewed interest in culturing oysters has brought
Nearly eighty years ago seed oysters from Japan about a significant fledgling industry spread
were first planted in areas extending from among remote islands in predominantly southern
southeastern Alaska to Kachemak Bay on Cook southeast Alaska. Alaska specific information
Inlet. From 1910 to 1961 Pacific oyster seed was about oyster culture has been compiled in the
planted with little success except in the areas of Alaska Oyster Grower's Manual funded by Alas-
George and Carroll Inlets near Ketchikan. This ka Department of Commerce and Economic
area proved moderately productive for oyster cul- Development and the Alaska Marine Advisory
ture and was used for 50 years. Tidelands were Program.
leased from the federal government under the Blue Mussels Mytilus edulis grow naturally
Oyster Bottom Leasing Act from 1937 until 1960 throughout most Alaskan coastal waters. Enor-
when State of Alaska assumed responsibility for mous amounts of seed settle out each summer in
tideland leases. most locations. Present culturing efforts are lo-
Alaska Oyster Company leased about 300 acres of cated in Kachemak Bay near Homer. To date, 10
Coon Cove and Shoal Cove, both located in Car- mussel farm project reviews have been initiated
roll Inlet, in 1938 for culturing purposes. A mini- for this area. Long line culture has proved unsuc-
Mal amount of oysters were marketed from this cessful in Kachemak Bay, and a type of raft cul-
venture before it went out of business in 1953. ture has now been enlisted.
North Gem Oyster Company of Ketchikan leased In Alaska there has been a growing interest in scal-
10 acres on the east shore of George Inlet in 1955 lop culture. Major efforts have been underway to
and added to their holdings each year until they locate scallop larvae off Kodiak Island. Scallop
held 247 acres by 1957. The company planted its culture has been researched in British Columbia
acreage with 7,000 spat per acre in 1955,5,500 per where various projects and commercial attempts
acre in 1956, and 28,600 per acre in 1957. In April have focused on collecting wild seed and devising
of 1955 North Gem Oyster Company began an ex- cost effective ways of growing it to market size.
periment with raft culture on the east shore of
George Inlet opposite Beaver Falls. This was the Commercial culturing of sea vegetables has not
only known trial of raft culture in Alaska during been researched or tried in Southeast Alaska to
that period.
any extent. Sheldon Jackson College in Sitka has
Newly reorganized, Alaska Oyster Company took active laboratory research on Macrocystis in fall
over North Gem holdings in 1960. During the of 1988 a major project involving ocean growing
winter of 1960-61200 gallons of shucked oysters of MacroZstis will be initiated.
were sold locally. This com- Economic success of shellfish or sea vegetable
pany planted 700,000 spat in 1960 and 2 million farming is unpredictable. Technology for cultur-
spat on 227 acres in 1961. ing these species is developing rapidly. Very little
Robin Larsson brought spat into the Etolin Island actual culturing has occurred in Alaska to date
area in June of 1978. Mr. Larsson built large rafts, with the exception of oysters. Interest in the
which were then experimental, so the oysters aquatic farming industry has remained high
could take advantage of the warmest water and despite the unknown nature of the business.

Legislative/Administrative History July 1987: Attorney General's opinion issued that
of Mariculture in Alaska confirmed ADFG did not have statutory
During the 1980's considerable interest has been authority to issue permits for holding live fish for
expressed in an expanded mariculture industry in commercial fish farming.
Alaska. Analysis of policy issues and develop- Summ .er 1987: ADFG developed a permit system
ment of measures to encourage and accommodate for commercial collection of shellfish spat for
mariculture has been progressing. The following mariculture and revised the Fish Transport Per-
chronology describes significant administrative mit to be appropriate for the shellfish program.
and legislative actions since 1985:
Chronology of significant administrative late 1987: ADFG adopted new regulations
or legislative actions regarding maricul- governing shellfish farm permits. Several bills
ture in alaska were introduced in the legislature to either allow
aquatic farming under different types of
January 1985: Attorney General's opiniorf issued regulatory frameworks, allowing finfish maricul-
that fish farming is neither unconstitutional in ture, or extending the finfish mariculture
Alaska nor is specifically authorized by state moratorium.
statutes. Jan uary 1988: Report of Interagency Mariculture
July 1985: Governor Sheffield appointed an ad Workgroup provided to the Fisheries Cabinet in-
hoe Mariculture Advisory Committee and cluded eight issue papers on biological, land-use
charged them with formulation of a workable and water quality, and product quality issues; a matrix
effective mariculture policy to guide development of how four other areas had addressed the issues
of the industry in Alaska. and a description of present socioeconomic
January 1986: Ad hoc Mariculture Advisory studies.
Committee issued "A philosophy for Aquaculture M arch 1988: Consolidated Shellfish Farm per-
Development in Alaska" which addressed culture mitting system adopted with:
of aquatic plants and animals in fresh and salt 1) a consolidated application form for most
water environments. DFG, DEC, and DNR permits and coastal
Late 1986: Concurrent bills (SB 106, HB 108) zone consistency determination, and
were introduced into the legislature that would
allow mariculture in Alaska. 2) coordinated permit processing.

December 1986: Report "Mariculture in Alaska" May 1988: A bill (CSSB 514) passed the legisla-
issued by inter-agency Alaska Mariculture Tech- ture which;
nical Work Group summarized current
regulatory framework for mariculture in Alaska 1) extended the finfish mariculture
and identified policy issues. moratorium until 1990
2) legalized sea vegetable farming;
June 1987: A compromise bill passed the legisla-
ture which: 3) established additional regulation of
1).placed a moratorium on finfish mariculture shellfish and sea vegetable farming :and
until July, 1988; 4) established an Alaska Finfish Farming
Task Force.
2) legalized shellfish mariculture by authoriz-
ing spat Ouvenile shellfish) collection and use
of spat in commercial aquatic farms. CSSB 514 passed in the waning hours of the 15th
legislature. State agencies are impacted by this
Interagency Mariculture Workgoup was formed legislation and policies and regulations have not
to work on specific tasks to implement the legis- been developed at this printing.
lation.

PLANNING AND CLASSIFICATION

No state land use plan currently encompasses the allocations made by the statewide plan, provide
study area. Prince of Wales Island Area Plan in- guidelines for making management decisions by
cludes areas to the southwest of the study area. delineating primary and secondary uses, and
The uplands of the study area are within the Ton- desired results to be achieved through manage-
gass Land Management Plan boundaries. There ment. Area plans result in classification of state
are no organized local governments within the land based on allocation decisions of the plan.
study area. A coastal resource service area for
local coastal management planning purposes has After an area plan is completed, a management
not been formed for any part of the study area. plan may be prepared. Management plans define
in more detail how allocation and guidelines of an
Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project will area plan will be implemented. A management
not be adopted as a DNR plan because of its plan is usually written for one or a few manage-
limited scope and completion time frame. This ment units of an area plan.
pilot project will compare to a DNR management
plan through its thorough inventory information Site specific plans can be written for sites not
and initial attempt at developing management covered by an area or management plan. They are
guidelines for one tidelands use. Information usually prepared for actions on state lands requir-
presented and guidelines developed as a result of ing classification.
this proj ect will be incorporated when an area plan
is prepared. Information and guidelines may, as State law requires land or tideland be classified
an alternative, be developed into a site specific prior to action which results in assigning any land
plan and used as the basis for classification within use rights. The classification process is based on
the project area. land use planning. Area plans specify land use
designations for land in the study area. These
Aquatic farming development in areas covered by designations are an evaluation of existing and
land use plans receive direction from the potential uses and resources. To ensure multiple
guidelines presented in plans. Although this use and avoid conflicts, the allocations are accom-
project will not be adopted as a plan, the follow- panied by management intent statements which
ing discussions are presented to develop back- give direction to land managers and guidelines for
ground information helpful in applying specific land classifications.
understanding how mariculture is currently
viewed in the planning processes. Alaska Administrative Code provides regulations
which are the basis of the state land classification
system. Land use designations are converted to
State Planning Process appropriate classification by regulation. Several
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) per- land use designations may convert to a single clas-
forms four levels of land use planning which are: sification.
Statewide Resources Plans, Area Plans, Manage- Alaska has adopted land and tideland classifica-
ment Plans and Site Specific Plans. State law re- tions, including: settlement, wildlife habitat,
quires these plans be consistent with local reserved use, public recreation, resource manage-
government land use plans to the maximum extent ment, and others. Mariculture is not currently a
without undermining state interests. land use classification. Mariculture could occur
All resource decisions made by DNR occur within under a variety of other classifications. Classifica-
the Statewide Resources Plan. Development and tions are broader in scope than land use designa-
management of each resource under the tions.
department's jurisdiction are described in the
Statewide Resources Plan.

Area plans implement the Statewide Resources
Plan on a regional basis. They examine statewide

Mariculture in Area Plans mineral access, crucial fish and wildlife habitat, in-
tensive harvest areas, developed recreation,
There are two area plans currently being anchorages, or adjacent to existing or proposed
developed for Alaska coastal areas that have land sale areas may have significant conflicts.
mariculture potential, Prince of Wales Island Siting mariculture activities in these areas may be
Area Plan and Prince William Sound Area Plan. more difficult; Mariculture can be authorized if
Other area plans will be developed in the future. the conflicts can be adequately addressed and if
mariculture operations can meet the management
Guidelines for mariculture are being developed in intent and guidelines for the area.
various offices throughout state government.
Guidelines and state policy for mariculture are 3. Areas where specific requirements may be at-
evolving. Because of this evolution, area plans tached to mariculture locations or operations.
avoid rigid, inflexible guidelines. Instead they in- For example, mariculture will not be sited within
itially develop general guidelines and indicate 300' of the mouth of an anadromous fish stream
several issues guidelines should address. without the approval of ADF&G.
Alaska has declared a moratorium on finfish Offshore of 'Wilderness Areas or Wildlife
development to extend through June, 1990. Refuges, only mariculture growing facilities that
Guidelines of plans are not sufficient to address are submerged and do not impact the visual
complex issues related to these types of maricul- characteristics of the wilderness or refuge may be
ture. Should these activities become legal, plans considered for authorization. Mariculture sup-
recommend the department develop policy for port or caretaker facilities will not be authorized
these activities before authorizing them. Policy in these areas.
development could take the form of a plan, study,
or recommendations of a working group. Plans 4. Performance standards will be attached to a
identify some issues for policy development. permit or lease to ensure the area is used for ap-
propriate activity, use is economically viable, and
Mariculture discussion occurs for two levels of the permit is not used for speculation. Similarly,
management in both Area Plans: 1) area wide development plans will be required before ap-
guidelines give general management direction proval of a permit or lease. Stipulations will be
and limited siting criteria for mariculture and; 2) determined during permit adjudication.
site specific management direction is provided to
give guidance in response to potential competing Area plans also provide guidance for mariculture
uses. in specific areas. This is to clarify policy im-
plementation or to note specific circumstances
Clarification of management intent, ac- that affect mariculture development.
complished by both plans, reflect department
policy requiring other activities to be compatible Examples from the plans include:
with designated primary uses. Mariculture sites
have not been designated due to lack of sufficient 1. Where there is an existing community or state
data to identify appropriate sites. subdivision, mariculture may be allowed if it is
consistent with land sale design and will not 1)
In general, mariculture activities may encounter block access; 2) Detract from the view of
the following situations under area plans. waterfront lots; or 3) require upland owners to
1. Areas which have not been designated for meet higher sewage treatment costs
other specific uses (Resource Management) or 2. Near proposed state land sales, mariculture
have been designated for other uses and resour- may be permitted if adjacent uplands are 1) un-
ces which do not present apparent conflicts. It is likely to be used for residential settlement; 2) un-
reasonable to expect that these areas will be likely to be reserved for public use; or 3) where
easiest for obtaining authorization for maricul- mariculture can accept short term permit or lease.
ture activities. 3. Mariculture will not preclude floathomes in six
2. Areas have been designated for other uses and limited area designations for floathomes in Prince
resources which may present significant conflicts. of Wales Island planning area.
Areas designated for log transfer or storage,

4. Areas known for high recreation or fish and U.S. Forest Service Planning
wildlife harvest values are discouraged from Process
mariculture if there are feasible and prudent al-
ternatives. All uplands of the study area (with the exceptions
5. In areas that have a high potential for maricul- of a state subdivision in Olive Cove) are part of
ture development such as Sea Otter Sound in the Tongass National Forest and managed by the U.S.
Prince of Wales Island planning area, cumulative Forest Service. Management of the national
impacts of mariculture will be periodically as- forest is guided by the Tongass Land Management
sessed. Plan.
Tongass National Forest is presently revising its
Alaska Coastal Management land management plan for National Forest lands
Program Planning including the Etolin Island area. The revised plan
will provide specific direction on how the resour-
With passage of the Alaska Coastal Management ces on Etolin Island will be managed. Recommen-
Act in 1977, local governments, rural regions, and dations in this study regarding the capability and
the state began to cooperatively manage use and suitability of the shorelines in the study area for
protection of Alaska's coastal resources. Thirty- mariculture development could be incorporated
two coastal communities and regions work close- into the revision of the plan. An Environmental
ly with the state to prepare plans that guide Impact Statement for the plan is required. When
development in their respective areas and to take it is completed and the Record of Decision is
part in decisions on permitting of proposed signed, direction for management of mariculture
development projects. facilities on uplands under Forest Service j urisdic-
tion should be consistent with recommendations
These communities and regions, known as coastal made in this stud y.
districts, prepare. management programs that in- Although the goals for the Tongass Land Manage-
clude an inventory and analysis of their natural ment Plan are not mandated for waters below
resources and policies to manage coastal develop- mean high tide, the USFS expects compatibility
ment. Mariculture is a good example of coastal between management direction for their uplands
activity that can be effectively managed through a and permitted activities on adjacent waters.
district coastal management plan. City and
Borough of Sitka and Kenai Peninsula Borough Until such time as the Revised Tongass Land
are currently preparing innovative policies to ad- Management Plan is completed, current Tongass
dress mariculture development through their Land Management Plan direction and guidelines
coastal management plans. will apply to mariculture. Depending upon public
In addition to district coastal management plans, and U.S. Forest Service concern when USFS lands
mariculture activities could be addressed through are involved and/or adjacent for individual
preparation of coastal management planning mariculture proposals, further project specific en-
documents such as this report, which was funded vironmental analysis and public disclosure
by the Alaska Coastal Management Program. through appropriate National Environmental
Areas Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) plans, Policy Act documents may be required.
described in Chapter 5, could also be used to
manage mariculture development. Local Planning Process
Local governments have the authority to prepare
and enforce comprehensive plans and land use
regulations to guide development within their
municipal boundaries. Mariculture development
within cities and boroughs could be regulated
through implementation of local authorities.

OTHER STUDIES
Kodiak Scallop Spat Collection ting. Results from 1986 and 1987 experiments
Project were successful laboratory propagation of Macro-
Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement cyada fronds and subsequent attempts at a grow
Division is involved in research to collect scallop out phase in waters near Sitka. Disturbance of
spat in Alaska. Summer 1988 will be the second grow out plantings occurred in these urban sites
season for joint ADFG/OFCF scallop spat collec- so complete data on this venture has not been
tion efforts centered in waters off Kodiak island. available.
OFCF is Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foun- Continuin research into Macro!@ystis propaga-
dation a quasi governmental Japanese foundation 9
that funds projects that will promote internation- tion and out planting is planned for fall of 1988 at
al good will. Sheldon Jackson College in a joint FRED/OFCF
project. Goal of this expanded effort is once.again
These experiments represent first phase of an to produce Macrocystis fronds through hatchery
Alaska Japan project designed to test the procedures and monitor out planting growth on
feasibility of farming weathervane scallops on an extensive number of plantings in waters off
Kodiak Island. Goal of the 1987 season was to Sitka.
determine whether wild weathervane spat can be
caught in quantities sufficient for commercial Southeast Alaska Subsistence
farming application. If sufficient quantities of Survey
spat are collected, the tiny animals will be moved
into grow out cages where growth rates will be Tongass National Forest, ADFG and University
closely monitored. Efforts in 1987 took place in of Alaska are cooperating in a study of personal
Kalsin Bay just outside the city of Kodiak and six use (i.e., noncommercial harvest) of fish, wildlife,
other cooperator sites utilizing collectors and plants in Southeast Alaska. Data is being col-
developed by Japanese scallop farmers. During lected in form of maps and narratives through in-
1988 the project will expand to more sites in the terviews with community residents. Data
Kodiak area and to sites in Southeast Alaska. collection will systematically identify where
In addition to setting collection gear, project per- people collect what resources (eg., deer, bear, sal-
sonnel which includes Japanese experts are track- mon, plants, berries, etc.) for personal use, how
much they use, and areas of highest productivity.
ing environmental factors (water, temperature,
salinity, and wind) and taking plankton counts Several communities which use the study area are
which can be used to determine where and when included in the survey. Interviews were con-
to set collection gear in future years. A "how to" ducted in winter, 1988 but only preliminary
field manual on scallop spat collection is current- mapped data for Petersburg and Wrangell resi-
ly being prepared (Blackett and Kaill, in prep.) dents was available for review during preparation
of this report. More detailed information on use
Macrocystis Research of specific areas and relative intensity of use by
residents of these and other communities will be
Commercial culturing of sea vegetables has not available in late summer, 1988, and should provide
been tried in Alaska to any extent. Initial research an important data base for use in state and federal
at Sheldon Jackson College in Sitka has been the decision making about prospective mariculture
focus of efforts'to collect sporophylls of Macro@-,ys- sites.
lia for release of gametophytes in a hatchery set

Marine Advisory Program Remote 6) Cataloging the waters/an interpretive process
Sensing Study to aid resource managers in delineating areas
capable of supporting productive operations
Feasibility orusong remote sensing to identif
aquacultur"otei@tial of coastal waters, y the 7) Multiple use system/the project will suggest
location of other economic activities
This project involves the collection, interpreta- 8) Rational use of estuarine resources
tion, and practical application of remotely sensed
environmental data. Study during this project will 9) Improved access to strategic resource informa-
be restricted to a site in central Southeast Alaska tion
with the same boundaries as the Etolin Island
Area Mariculture Pilot Project. A primary objec- Marine Advisory Programs global objective in this
tive of this study is to compare the environmental project is to develop a practical means of identify-
requirements of oysters with the analyzed data ing wetlands capable of supporting productive
charts. The expected outcome will be the delinea- oyster aquaculture in Southeast Alaska. An in-
tion of estuarine areas with a significant potential quiry of this type would normally involve tradi-
for oyster culture. This procedure will assist in the tional oceanographic ("direct sampling")
rational of coastal development, developmental techniques. Although a conventional study of this
strategies, and if adopted throughout this region, sort would provide analysis with high levels of
will serve as a tool for establishment of unified precision, costs would be extreme and the sur-
coastal zone policies. Identification of potential veyed area would be limited. Such studies remain
areas of conflict between coastal zone users will essential in the second stage identification and
be assisted by procedures formulated in this re. verification of specific microenvironments deter-
search. It is hoped that this means of data analysis
will suggest additional avenues for conflict res-olu- mined to be suitable for aquaculture. Proposed
tion. strategies of applied remote sensing has been only
infrequently used in the northeastern Pacific.
The main objectives of this project are; This project plans to make a strategic com-
promise, sacrificing sorne of the precision as-
1 ) Application for remote sensing to the compila- sociated with conventional studies, but gaining in
tion and maintenance of coastal resource catalogs terms of extent of area examined and speed of
2) Development of mapping technique analysis.
The approximate conclusion of the MAP Remote
3) Establishment of .a table of oyster growth re- Sensing study is November 1988. Any finalized
quirements data generated prior to the conclusion of the
Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project will
4) Delineation of potential oyster culture areas be available for inclusion in the final report.

5) Technology transfer/contribution to managers
capabilities to use this type of technology

Etolin Island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTER2

Site Suitability
Page 11 SITE CAPABILITY ISSUES

11 - INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF SITE CAPABILITY
CRITERIA FOR SELECTED SHELLFISH AND KELP

11 - Pacific Oyster
13 - Blue Mussel
14 - Scallops
15 - Sea Vegetables

17 PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING

21 CULTIVATION

21 - CHOICE OF TECHNIQUE IN RELATION TO
SITE CHARACTERISTICS

21 - Stage of Culture and Appropriate Techniques,
by Species
21 - Techniques and Facilities for Shellfish Culture
22 - Culture Techniques and Facilities for
Seaweed Culture

Chapter 2

SITE ANALYSIS/ISSU.ES

CAPABILITY

Site capability is defined for the purpose of this project as: "Environmental and biological ability inherent
in a site to produce a marketable product, in a reasonable amount of time, safe for human consumption."
This section will examine site capability for select species of shellfish and kelp.

Inventory and Evaluation of Site
Capability Criteria for Selected
Shellfish and Kelp Relative criterion importance depends on species
Potential of a particular site for farming of and culture technique being considered. Shellfish
shellfish and/or sea vegetables is limited by a species considered for this project include Pacific
oyster (Crassostrea gas). blue mussel (Mytilus
range of environmental and biological gi= ,
parameters. For purposes of Etolin Island tduda), weathervane scallop (Patinopecten
Mariculture Pilot Project, this potential is a com- mud=), and purple hinged rock scallop (CLalk
ponent of the site's capability. Mariculture site sodoma4igantea). Sea vegetables considered the
capability parameters include: most likely candidates for culture in the Etolin Is-
land area are algal genera Macrog@ystis,
Temperature Laminaria, and Porphyra Of the above species
PSP Pacific Oyster is the only one being successfully
Salinity farmed in the study area. Culture techniques
Dissolved Oxygen developed at other locations for different species
PH Level would have to be used or adapted for use on in-
Estuarine Flushing Rates digenous species in the project area. Options to
Zones of Upwelling & Mixing import species other than Pacific Oyster do not
Substrate Composition currently exist.
Stratification of Water Column
Phytoplankton Production Pacific Oyster
Fresh Water Discharge
Anoxic Conditions Strategies and site selection criteria for estab-
Competitors lishing oyster farms in Southeast Alaska have
Predators been thoroughly examined by Brian Paust and
Parasites and Disease Page Else in Alaska Oyster Grower's Manual
Indicator Organisms (Else, 1987). Most of the following material was
Waste Deposits obtained from this source. Growth of oysters in
Turbidity southeast Alaska is variable, as evidenced by the
Water Depth fact that it may take from two to four years to
Tides produce a marketable product. Rate of growth
Current Velocity depends on such things as water temperature,
Carrying Capacity of Estuary salinity, current velocity, and concentration of
Growth phytoplankton available for food.
Sewage and Industrial Pollutants
Wave Action Although oysters will grow subtidally to a depth of
at least 50 feet, successful commercial culture in

Alaska will probably be limited to a relatively nar- for increased oyster metabolism. Most
row depth range. For various forms of suspended phytoplankton available to oysters is produced
oyster culture, including raft and long line farm- elsewhere and carried to the site by currents.
ing, maximum depth required will be ap-
proximately 15 to 20 feet of water at low tide. Acceptable pH values of 7.9 to 9.0 should not be
Generally, warmest water, and therefore best a problem at most sites. Normal pH range of
growth, will be obtained nearest the water surface. seawater is 7.5 to 8.4, and seawater provides
natural buffering.
Water temperatures of 0-30 C can be tolerated
by oysters. However, feeding ceases below 5 C. Oysters are capable of tolerating turbid water con-
Good growth occurs at temperatures greater than ditions but feeding efficiency may be impaired by
10 C, but optimal growth occurs at greater than 15 ingestion of indigestible material. Sites that are
C. Oysters cultivated in the study area will be sub- chronically influenced by suspended sediment
jected to suboptimal temperatures for most of the may not be suitable for farms. With bottom cul-
year. One of the advantages of oyster farms in ture of oysters, accumulation of silt is unaccep-
Alaska is water temperatures are rarely high table.
enough to precipitate spawning. As a conse-
quence, high meat quality is maintained Sites considered for shellfish farms must not be
throughout the summer. located near sources of industrial, municipal, or
sewage pollution. Industrial pollutants such as
Salinities of 5 to 37 parts per thousand (ppt) can sulfite waste from pulp mills adversely affect
be tolerated by oysters. Optimal growth occurs oysters. Heavy metals such as zinc, copper, and
between 15 and 30 ppt. Lower salinities result in cadmium, as well as other organic and inorganic
more water being absorbed by the oyster which poisons often present in municipal wastewater can
imparts a bland flavor to the meat. At some loca- accumulate in oyster tissues in amounts exceeding
tions, influence of a fresh water lens created by federal standards. Fecal coliform bacteria will
runoff will impact salinity in only the top 1 to 3 result in contamination of oyster products that are
meters of the water column. For this reason, often eaten raw.
salinity should be measured at several depths and
at various times of year to obtain a true salinity Growth of oysters is largely a function of water
profile of the site. temperatures and concentration of food particles
in the water column. An oyster farm should be es-
Oysters are capable of withstanding levels of dis- tablished at a site capable of sufficient production
solved oxygen down to 2 mg/l. It is unlikely low of phytoplankton. Such sites usually exhibit some
dissolved oxygen will be encountered at prospec- surface stratification of the water column.
tive sites in the study area, since expected values Nutrient input from upwelling and surface runoff,
in the water column in marine environments are in combination with surface warming, results in
between 6 and 9 mg/l. In areas of poor water cir- necessary primary productivity. Sites with
culation, decomposition of accumulated fecal suitable productivity for oyster culture are usual-
material from an oyster farm may contribute to ly favorable for growth of potential competitors,
production of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide under including fouling organisms such as mussels, bar-
anaerobic conditions, both of which are toxic to nacles, algae, sponges, tubeworms, and bryozoans.
oysters, even at low concentrations. If bottom cul- Although fouling is unlikely to be fatal to oysters,
ture is planned, consideration should be given to reduced growth may result. Probably the most im-
measurement of dissolved oxygen. portant impact from fouling is the increased cost
associated with control. Biological control
Tidal flushing of the farm area must be sufficient mechanisms described by Matt Dick (Else, 1987)
to provide adequate salinity, dissolved oxygen, should be employed wherever possible.
and nutrients. To accomplish this, current
velocity in excess of 2 cm/sec is required; best Predation on juveniles and adult oysters by sea
growth is obtained at flushing rates of at least one stars, carnivorous snails, various crabs, some
exchange per day (Brown, 1979). Currents of 9 to mammals, and aquatic birds is not likely to be an
75 cm/sec (moderate to fast current) provide insurmountable problem in Alaska. Use of
highest feeding rates. Saline surface water should suspended culture will minimize predation by bot-
remain at the culture site during slack tide long tom dwelling animals. Physical barriers, such as
enough to achieve some temperature elevation nets to protect raft culture, may add to farm costs.

Prospective shellfish farmers will want to avoid Herriott (1984) states mussels would grow in
sites identified as having high concentrations of salinities down to 17 ppt, but sites near rivers
encysted forms of the dinoflagellates responsible should be avoided because low salinity wilt inter-
for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). Abun- fere with feeding and clumping.
dance of encysted PSP organisms in bottom sedi-
ments can be used as an indicator of the potential Dissolved oxygen concentrations will not be of
for future PSP outbreaks in the site vicinity. major concern to potential mussel farmers as mus-
sels can withstand anoxic conditions for up to
A shellfish farm should be relatively free from several days (Hemming and Hemming, 1984).
wind, wave action, and ice formation during However, conditions that could lead to low
winter. Problems associated with these oxygen, such as poor circulation of water, may
phenomena arise mainly from safety and struc- make sites unsuitable for other reasons.
tural damage rather than the oyster's inability to
withstand disruption. However, damage to new Considerations for water depth at prospective
shell growth caused by such disruption could sites are similar to those for oyster culture: depth
result in lower growth rates. Oysters may stop must be adequate for the method of culture
feeding during disruption (Church,1988). chosen. Herriott (1984) suggests a minimum
depth of 6 fathoms for raft culture with 10 meter
ropes. According to Magoon and Vining (1981),
Blue Mussels bottom culture appears to be impractical in most
Many biological and environmental parameters of Washington State because of heavy predation
important for the culture of oysters also apply to by bottom dwellers. Herriott (1984) lists one
blue mussel farming. Perhaps the most notable stake culture disadvantage as lack of extensive in-
difference is the fact that, unlike oysters, mussels tertidal flats with suitable tidal ranges and severe
predation gull predation. Suspended culture min-
occur naturally throughout the study area and are imizes parasite infection and avoids production of
well adapted to environmental conditions there. gritty particles in tissues. Similar problems
Sites for mussel culture have similar basic require- probably would exist in Southeast Alaska, relegat-
ments to those of oyster culture: a reasonable ing mussel farming to suspended types of culture
amount of shelter, good water quality and a fair apparatus (e.g., rafts, racks, or longlines). Loo
amount of phytoplankton for food (Korringa, and Rosenberg (1983) report best results from
1977). Jenkins (1985) lists the most important en- longline gear at 0 to 2 meters below the surface.
vironmental parameters as: oxygen, salinity, Predation by fish, gulls, and sea ducks could still
temperature, food availability, depth, exposure, result (Glude and Chew, 1982, Magoon and
and pollution. As with oysters, various species of Vining, 1981). However, Hemming and Hem-
mussels are widely cultured throughout the world. ming (1984) report no overt signs of predation
In Alaska, commercial farming of mussels has even though numerous scoters were sighted in the
been established in Kachemak Bay (Hemming area. If predation becomes a problem, the only
and Hemming, 1984). Mussel growth in practical solution would be to place netting
Kachemak Bay is reported comparable to that around the culture (Magoon and Vining, 1981).
achieved in Puget Sound with harvestable mussels Sound devices have been used to scare away ducks
produced within one year. but none proves successful (Glude and Chew,
Water temperatures in which mussels are capable 1982).
of growth range from -1 C to 25 C. Optimal Fouling by organisms such as sponges, bryozoans,
growth occurs from 10 to 20 C. (Magoon and barnacles, and algae may restrict water flow
Vining, 1981). Hemming and Hemming (1984) nutrients (Magoon and Vining, 1981). Problem
reported average summer water temperatures of solutions are labor intensive (Herriott, 1984).
11.6 C at 10 feet. Highest temperature in their Hemming and Hemming (1984) indicate bar-
study was 12.5 C. nacles were difficult to remove and left a white
As with temperature, mussels can survive in a marked mussel shell that reduced quality. They
suggest postponing installation of tube or lonaline
wide variety of salinities ranging from 5 to 35 ppt. gear until after barnacles have settled. Hemming
Hemming and Hemming (1984) reports good suc- and Hemming report growth of bryozoans and a
cess culturing mussels in salinities of 24.5 ppt. heavy coating of silt on tube culture mussels. Tur-

bidity is reported to influence growth of mussels Virtually all attempts at scallop culture have been
(Herriott, 1984; Verica, 1982 in Hemming and initiated at sites adjacent to natural populations
Hemming, 1984); however, widespread existence of scallops (Aiken, 1987).
of natural populations in areas of relatively high
turbidity indicate it would not preclude mussel Two species, weathervane scallop (Patinopecten
culture. Suspended solids have been measured as and purple hinged rock scallop (_Cma-
high as 1,200 mg/1 near mussel beds in France sadoma gigantea), show some promise as can-
where growth was comparable to areas with didates for farming. However, distribution of
suspended solids between 10 and 50 mg/l (Hem- weathervane scallops in Alaska is different from
ming and Hemming, 1984). that of related species being cultured in Japan and
New Zealand (Blackett, 1987). Alaskan scallops
Experiments by Rodhouse et al. (1985) indicate tend to be confined to distinct beds of high den-
mussels are efficient filter feeders capable of sity offshore, with numerous scattered pockets of
removing more than half of available chlorophyll low density nearshore; in Japan and New Zealand
and carotenoids from the water column over a scallops are concentrated in more accessible near-
partial tidal cycle. In order to achieve maximum shore areas. This distribution may have con-
growth rates, sites chosen for intensive culture siderable implication procedure development to
should have high phytoplankton abundance and capture and harvest natural spat needed to initiate
sufficient water exchange rates to maintain abun- weathervane scallop culture. Techniques of
dance (Herriott, 1984). releasing large numbers ofjuveniles to repopulate
natural scallop beds may not be practical in Alas-
Annual reproductive cycles will influence mussel ka.
quality and time of sale. Mortalities have been
observed just after spawning, especially on warm In general, literature on scallop culture indicates
days (Magoon and Vining, 198 1). Mussels gown scallops do not respond well to large fluctuations
in raft culture may need to be conditioned to keep in water temperature and salinity, particularly
their valves tightly closed when removed from when they are small in size. However, natural dis-
water for PSP testing and sale. tribution of rock scallops suggests this species is
flexible in temperature and salinity requirements
As with all filter feeding shellfish considered for (Leighton and Phleger, 1981). Low salinity may
culture in the study area, incidence of encysted not be a problem for some species of scallops as
forms of organisms responsible for PSP should be evidenced by their occurrence in brackish water
determined. Mussels become poisonous rapidly, lagoons along the Sea of Okhotsk (Motoda, 1973).
but usually lose toxin faster than other clams Scallop larvae subjected to salinities as low as 11
(Magoon and Vining, 1981). In some areas, PSP ppt and 17-30 ppt swam normally (MacKenzie,
may limit harvesting to periods of winter time 1979). However, Olsen (1983) reports salinities
(Glude and Chew, 1982). Mussel farm sites in less than 23 ppt were detrimental to normal rock
proximity to sources of industrial, municipal, and scallop growth. More research will be needed on
sewage pollution should be avoided. It may be im- temperature and salinity tolerances of Alaska
possible to predict potential problems with dis- rock and weathervane scallops to define capability
ease organisms and parasites in intensive culture parameters needed for culture sites.
situations (Jenkins, 1985). Rock scallop larval development is reported to be
optimal at 12 to 18 C (Leighton and Phleger,
Scallops 1981). Temperatures in excess of 21 C may be
Initial attempts to begin capture and cultivation fatal, especially at relatively shallow depths of less
of scallops are underway in Alaska. Techniques than 20 meters (Mottet, 1979; Motoda, 1973).
developed and in use by Japan are being tried in Scallops may be acclimated to varying tempera-
the Kodiak ared and to a lesser extent in Southeast tures, especially to rising temperatures, and
Alaska. Although technically and biologic temperatures as low as -0.7 C can be tolerated
ally (Aiken, 1987; Mottet, 1979). Since temperature
feasible, Japanese techniques for use of cages to is likely to be inversely related to water depth , cul
culture scallop need to be modified for economic ture near the surface may produce best results.
viability (Cropp, 1983). Commercial scallop cul-
ture is probably still 10 to 15 years away from Wallace and Reinsnes (1985) consider tempera-
development in North America (Talley, 1985). ture and food quantity to be the most important

factors in Iceland scallop growth. Salinity and cur- fouling may be a problem because it increases
rent speed were secondary factors. Mottet (1979) buoyancy requirements for gear and adds to main-
also considers growth rates to be proportional to tenance cost (Aiken, 1987). Blackett (1987) indi-
temperature and phytoplankton concentration. cates scallop hanging culture has been
Growth slows or stops during spawning. Adduc- unsuccessful in New Zealand largely because of
!or muscle condition is highest following spawn- mussels and other organism fouling. Growth
mg when scallops resume growth. rates were not appreciably better on hanging cul--
ture than for scallops grown directly on sea bot-
Culture growth appears dependent on density fac- tom. Mottet (1979) suggests some fouling may be
tors. Scallops of less than 2 cm are particularly beneficial in protecting scallops from predation by
susceptible to low oxygen concentrations because sea stars; however, it usually results in competi-
oxygen consumption is approximately three times tion for food, hampers mobility, may prevent com-
greater than that of adults (Mottet, 1979). plete valve closure or, conversely, may hold valves
Growth of scallops in Japan has been shown to closed. Boring sponges and polychaete worms,
decrease as culture density increases (Ventilla, perhaps more appropriately classified as
1982; Ito, et al., 1975). Motoda (1973) states high parasites, may weaken valves and cause scallops
density should be avoided as accumulation of to waste energy on shell maintenance that could
feces may result in anaerobic conditions with toxic be directed at growth (Ventilla, 1982).
production of hydrogen sulfide. This situation is
likely to result only from extremely intensive cul- Sea stars generate the most important predator
ture situations. problems for a scallop farmer -(Ventilla, 1982):
However, except for bottom culture and spat col-
Siltation has been shown to be detrimental to scal- lector bags, predation by sea stars should not be a
lops as concentrations of .05 % can stop movement major problem. Carnivorous snails, crabs, fish,
of cilia (Mottet, 1979). Spat in size ranges of 17 gulls, sea ducks and other water birds are poten-
to 19 mm are intolerant of siltation (Motoda, tial predators of scallops. Suspended culture
1973). should avoid all but piscine, avian, and mam-
malian predators. As with other shellfish farms,
@callops have been shown to be intolerant of rock- installation of nets may be necessary if predation
mg motion caused by wave action on suspended becomes a problem.
culture gear (Magoon and Vining, 1981; Mottet,
1979; Motoda, 1973). If suspended types of cul- Paralytic shellfish poisoning is not generally con-
ture are used, structures will have to be located far sidered to be a problem with scallops because only
enough below the surface to avoid wave action. the adductor muscle is consumed'and it does not
Shock absorbing structures may have to be incor- accumulate the toxin (Mottet, 1979). However, if
porated into gear in some locations. Raft culture North American markets are developed for whole
may not be appropriate for scallops because of scallops, the same concerns expressed previously
wave action (Motoda, 1973). Culture at depths of for oysters and mussels would apply. Scallops
3 to 8 meters under the surface may be necessary concentrate high levels of heavy metals such as
(Motoda, 1973). Traditional cage culture maybe cadmium, mercury, silver, and arsenic and should
inappropriate for rock scallops because of the not be cultured in polluted areas (Mottet, 1979).
animals' need to cement to substrate (Leighton,
1985). Church (1988) relates that rock scallops
grown in plastic cages eventually stop attaching to
the cages. He suggests, however, that cage growth Sea Vegetables
was extremely slow, perhaps requiring years.
Sea vegetables are cultivated for different pur-
Fouling of culture gear and the scallops themsel- poses including: human food; food for livestock;
ves is a problem in some areas (Mason, 1983). agricultural fertilizer; industrial paste for use in
Fouling by tunicates and mussels is a problem textile and plaster manufacturing; alginic acid,
during culturing of rock scallops in oyster trays components glue, food stabilizers, viscosity rein-
and required weekly cleaning of the trays forcing agents, a water softener, and dental mold-
(Leighton and Phleger, 1981). Motoda (1973) ing material; and medical products, including
considers fouling a problem in cage culture be- anthelminthic drugs and agar. Production of sea
cause organisms cover the cage surface, thereby vegetables for industrial purposes is probably not
reducing nutrient and oxygen exchange. Gear viable in Alaska (Kaill, 1988). Ninety percent of

the harvest in Japan is used for human food. increase in dry weight. Washington Department
Potential is extremely limited in Southeast Alas- of Natural Resources 1984 guidelines for Nori cul-
ka for establishment of a Japanese style sea ture lists a temperature range of 6 to 18 C
vegetable industry (Olson, 1987). Stekoll (1987) (Freeman, 1985). Actual growth rates show site
suggests that a commercial kelp mariculture variance depending on various conditions. Some
operation could be feasible in Southeast Alaska if species thrive only in small, narrowly defined
it were closely linked to the herring roe-on-kelp areas.
fishery in Prince William Sound or if a roe-on-kelp
fishery were reopened in Southeast. Church Sea vegetable culture salinity requirements are
(1988) suggests algae settling naturally on species specific. Kelp generally require water of
shellfish culture gear could be harvested and sold high salinity. Porphyra prefer water slightly less
as a byproduct to supplement shellfish farm in- saline than open ocean (Freeman, 1985).
come. Washington Department of Natural Resources
suggests a range in salinity of 24 to 32 ppt for Por-
Algae growth is primarily controlled by available phyra culture.
light. Green algae grow in shallow water; brown
algae at intermediate depths; and red algae in the Macrorystis and Laminaria require wave action
deepest water. Sea vegetables general[ly grow at for proper growth. Currents of 20 cm/sec or more
depths less than 50 meters; most at less than 20 are desired. However, when currents exceed 80
meters. Macrocystis and Laminaria are classified cm/sec (1.5 knots), problems with anchoring cul-
as brown algae; Porphyra (Nori) is a red algae. ture apparatus arise (Mumford and Melvin,
Contributing factors to successful culture sites in 1983). For small scale operations, it is ad-
Japan are: vantageous to choose a protected site; for large
scale farms of 500 to 1,000 hectares, open ocean
1. Relatively calm water, protected from severe conditions are best where stronger waves, wind,
storms that could tear seaweed loose. and currents provide better growth. For P-Qr--
ph=, Washington Department of Natural
2. Good growing conditions as evidenced target Resources guideline (1984) lists current require-
species in the area. Light, currents, nutrients, and ments of less than 2 knots and less than one foot
temperatures are conducive to plant growth and waves to allow work. Current requirements
no industrial or sewage related pollution is should allow high level maintenance. Nitrogen
present. optimal levels for Laminaria culture are 7 to 14
um/l. At 3.5 um/1 or less, artificial fertilization is
3. Culture site use is restricted by excluding any necessary (Mumford and Melvin, 1983).
form of conflicting use (Olson, 1987). Washington Department of Natural Resources
Macrocystis does not occur in the Etolin Island guidelines (1984) require no nutrient drop be
area (Frye, 1915), but both Laminaria and F - detectable at the culture site.
QL
ph= do. Research and development work would
have to be done with the resident species to deter- Water depth requirements for Laminaria farming
mine cultural parameters for farming. According are 3 to 30 meters. Five to fifteen meters facilitate
to Lindstrom (1987) local species of PoXhyra construction (Mumford and Melvin, 1983).
probably are not suitable for Nori production. Depths from 18 to 60 feet are recommended for
Another potential option is to import Asian Nori farms by Washington Department of Natural
species already under cultivation. Concerns Resources (1984).
regarding importation of disease organisms need
to be addressed. Substrate requirements of relatively smooth bot-
toms, mud to gravel with no cobble, are recom-
For algae considered in this report,.water mended to facilitate anchoring culture apparatus.
temperature requirements are similar to those
discussed previously for shellfish. Upper Pests and disease organisms cause major concern
temperature limit for culture of Macrocystis in algae culture. Fungal, viral, and bacterial dis-
12yrifera in China is 23 C. Frye (1915) finds eases have been discovered in Larnineria and PDx--
naturally occurring kelp (M. integrifolia) at ph= culture and epiphytic growth of various
temperatures ranging from 8 to 14 C manifests ac- organisms is a problem (Neish, 1979). Guidelines
ceptable growth; from 5 to 15 C were optimal for established by Washington Department of

Natural Resources (1984) spell out standard pro- Sea vegetables are similar to shellfish as they
cedures for combating these problems in Nori cul- should be grown only in pollution free areas. Kelp
ture. Grazing by gastropods on cultured seaweed concentrate heavy metals such as copper, zinc, ar-
may be a problem (Saito, 1979). Offering alter- senic, and mercury (Druehl, 1987).
nate food sources or enclosure in synthetic cages
have been tried for protection.

PARALYTIC SHELLFISHPOISONING

Alaskan waters are periodically subject to natural shellfish. Since PSP toxins are not affected by
dinoffagellate plankton blooms which may result heat, cooking shellfish will only slightly reduce
in toxin concentration in bivalve shellfish tissue. toxins present. Freezing also has no significant ef-
Involved species include clams, oysters, geoducks, fect on toxin levels.
mussels, scallops and relatives. These toxins are
known as paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), and PSP dangers in Alaskan waters have been known
!iuman consumption of bivalve shellfish contain- to local Alaskan Natives for centuries. Earliest
ing significant levels of PSP toxin can result in recorded PSP episodes in Alaska date back to
potentially serious illness. 1799, when four of Capital George Vancouver's
men consumed contaminated mussels, resulting
All outbreaks of PSP in the North Pacific, are in three intoxications and one death. A short time
caused by the organism belonging to the later, Baranof lost 100 men after they ate a meal
dinoflagellate genus Gonyaulax (Nishitani and of mussels harvested in Peril Straits. From 1799
Chew, 1984). Gonyaulax species are common through 1982, 160 cases of PSP have been
members of the marine phytoplankton com- reported in Alaska resulting in 103 deaths. Today,
munity. Under normal conditions, their abun- PSP intoxications continue to occur sporadically
dance is usually insufficiently high to create a throughout Alaska.
problem with PSP; however, when favorable con-
ditions arise (recent fresh water runoff, water Dinoflagellate plankton blooms which contain
column stability, increased water temperature, PSP toxins are not uniformly distributed in marine
low winds, and sunlight) these dinoflagellates can waters. Effects of tides, currents, water tempera-
divide very rapidly and cause a bloom, fostering ture, winds and chemical factors tend to con-
PSP toxin concentration in shellfish. centrate organisms in relatively restricted areas,
but this cannot be predicted. Although certain en-
Saxitoxin was the first toxin identified from PSP vironmental factors such as water temperature,
outbreaks, named after the Alaskan butter clam salinity, sunlight, nutrient concentration, and
(Saxidomus giganteus) from which it was isolated. stability of the water column are known to stimu-
Since then about 15 different toxins have been late growth of dinoflagellates. Particular com-
identified as causing PSP. PSP toxins affect binations of factors resulting in a bloom are not
humans and other animals by paralyzing their completely understood. Consequently, all
nervous system when consumed, causing loss of beaches are at risk and no simple test can deter-
critical body functions. Human illness is charac- mine safety of a harvest area.
terized by mild to severe symptoms occurring a
few minutes to several hours after consumption of Inshore protected waters and open coastal locales
contaminated shellfish. Most commonly, nausea, demonstrate different patterns in their rate of
vomiting, and numbness or tingling around lips PSP incidence. Open coastal waters less fre-
and tongue will develop. If a significant amount quently are associated with high levels of PSP, but
of toxins are ingested, and prompt medical atten- when they do occur they are very widespread.
tion is not received, death may result from These events suggest correlation with El Nino, an
respiratory failure. offshore wind present for several days and weeks,
and accompanied by an influx of warm stratified
PSP toxin presence in shellfish cannot be detected. waters frequently stretching from California to
by any simple method because these toxins do not Alaska. (Nishitani, personal communication to
alter appearance, smell, or taste of contaminated Guy Oliver 2 /26/88). Research conducted by

Nishitani and Chew shows one Gonyaulax species ly show no such tendency to plateau, so that PSP
exhibits sips of vertical migration which varies levels continue to rise to a peak.
with the degree of vertical stability of water.
When water is thermally stratified, they are con- Predicting PSP potential for a particular site is dif-
centrated during the day from 0.5 to 3 meters and ficult. Three measures which are useful are: 1)
at night from 4-7 meters. When water is mixed by monitor PSP levels in mussels on a weekly or semi
wind driven turbulencej or by strong tidal currents weekly basis; 2) quantify the number of cysts in
vertical spread and depth of migration are more upper sediments; and 3) obtain and review 3-5
variable. years of oceanographic data on the site to deter-
mine frequency of conditions conducive to
Although bivalve shellfish such as clams, oysters, Gonyaulax blooms. Even if all three of these
geoducks, and mussels are not physically affected methods are utilized, this does not guarantee that
by ingestion of the plankton, PSP toxins are PSP problems will not occur. Nishitani is not cer-
retained in shellfish tissues. Eventually, the tain that quantifying cyst numbers in upper sedi-
bivalve is able to purge toxins through elimination. ments will accurately predict potential for PSP
Different species of shellfish concentrate PSP in outbreaks in a given area, and consequently may
different parts of their bodies and retain it within not be a reliable method for determining a poten-
their tissues for differing periods. Mussels ac- tial shellfish growing site.
cumulate PSP rapidly and after the bloom sub-
sides naturally cleanse their tissue of toxin in a few Some concern exists shellfish mariculture opera-
days to a few weeks. In contrast, butter clams are tions may actually contribute to blooms of PSP
reputed to retain toxins at high levels for up to 3 producing organisms, especially in a bay with
years. Clam siphons contain the highest values (as limited circulation and slow nutrient replenish-
high as 22,000 units) while adductor muscles col- ment. In this situation, rafts used for culturing
lected from Kodiak scallops have never been could further reduce circulation, resulting in a
higher than 80 units even when other parts of the stratified water column, and shellfish feces and
animal show high levels. pseudofeces could act as a source of nutrients.

Different PSP toxins have differing toxicity and PSP awareness has spread throughout the world
some shellfish have evolved physiological because it is a world wide phenomenon. In-
mechanisms to minimize toxic effect upon them- creased awareness has resulted in increased num-
selves. Littleneck clams appear to utilize an en- bers of reported cases worldwide. There are
zymatic process to change hip-her level toxins to indications blooms of PSP causing organisms are
lower level toxins. Butter clams may be doing the occurring more frequently. This pattern is
reverse. Preliminary work by John Sullivan sug- repeated in El Nino events. Since 1972, El Nino
gests they convert lower level toxins into saxitoxin, events have been occurring at a faster rate than
which has greater toxicity, and then shunt this to from the 1930s to the 1970s. Whether this is a
the tip of the siphon. In doing so, the clam may cyclic phenomenon or a result of the greenhouse
be using PSP toxins as an anti-predator device. effect remains open to further study.

Physiological and behavioral mechanism of Concerns for consuming shellfish containing PSP
various shellfish species determine how toxic they toxins are critical because of: inaccurate predict-
may become. When oysters encounter Gonyaulax ability of occurrence of plankton blooms within a
concentrations of about 20 cells per ml. they given area, 2) inability to detect presence of PSP
decrease their pumping rate. If concentration toxins in shellfish without laboratory testing, and
continues to increase they will stop pumping and .3) potency of the toxins, which directly affect
feeding entirely. If the level of Gonyaula human nervous systems and can be life threaten-
remains high the oysters will remain anaerobic for ing without medical attention. Therefore, strict
up to 7-10 days, after which they are forced to start measures must be observed to assure that only
feeding again. In contrast, mussels continue to bivalve shellfish with minimal levels of toxins are
feed regardless of Gonyaulax population level. marketed.
This behavioral mechanism explains why during a
Gonyaulax bloom oysters initially show an in- Monitoring programs are necessary to protect
crease to levels of several hundred units and then public health from possible rapid proliferation of
plateau for 7- 10 days after which PSP units rapid- dinoflagellates, and to promote and protect the
ly increase into thousands. Mussels comparative- shellfish industry. U.S. Food and Drug Ad-

ministration has established a maximum level of Preliminary discussion concerning dry storage
80 micrograms of PSP per 100 grams of shellfish location is a part of the permit review process.
meat as the allowable limit for shellfish marketed
for human consumption. Currently, all PSP test- A dry storage facility must protect the shellfish
ing of Alaskan shellfish is done by ADEC En- from all forms of contamination, including
vironmental Health lab in Palmer. saltwater, while the farmer awaits PSP test results.
Refrigerated storage or the equivalent is required
In most places, PSP is regarded as a seasonal en- for holding during the waiting period.
vironmental problem. Washington and British
Columbia state and province governments Before gaining approval as a shellstock shipper, a
routinely monitor shellfish sites for PSP levels, PSP sampling plan is developed for the operation
and have been able to adequately characterize by DEC. Plans require the shellstock shipper
seasonality of potential outbreaks. This allows notify local ADEC personnel at least two weeks
commercial producers to ship their product in advance of any sale to give the Palmer lab ample
without sampling their lots from late fall through time to prepare for tests. Prior to sale, ADEC
early spring, and implement a progressively more personnel or the farmer obtain official samples of
stringent testing regime as potential for PSP in- mature shellfish which are then sent to the Palmer
crease occurs. lab. Shellfish held in dry storage are not released
for sale until the PSP sampling procedure is com-
Currently ADEC requires every lot of shellfish to pleted and satisfactory results are obtained. The
be tested for PSP prior to being released for dis- farmer is responsible for all costs involved in
tribution or sale. Preliminary data taken in Alas- transporting the samples to Palmer. At the
ka suggests high PSP levels from April through present time, PSP test results of shellfish lots are
late July or early August. However, ADEC feels available within 24 hours of sampling.
that without a more substantial data base on PSP,
it is not yet possible to declare any periods of the PSP test results contained in the following infor-
year safe. As PSP history of each site is extended, mation were taken from 5 farms in the study area.
periods of open season may be applied to Alaskan As previously mentioned, number of results are
sites, and winter clearances may be obtained as al- not enough to develop a reliable data base.
ready exist in British Columbia, Washington, However, it does show variability can result from
Oregon, and California. farms in the same general geographic area.

To date, no shellfish farms in Alaska have Numbers given are in micrograms per 100 grams
provided enough PSP samples over a given period of shellfish meat. Keep in mind maximum allow-
of time to develop a reliable data base. Because able level of PSP intended for human consump-
of this, and the fact that dinofiagellate blooms can tion is 80 micrograms per 100 grams of meat.
develop rapidly, dry storage or quarantine of (Note: numbers from actual samples were
shellfish is required prior to marketing, while PSP rounded off to the nearest whole number for
levels can be tested at the ADEC Palmer Lab. easier reading.)

Farm site #1 (on map) Farm Site #3 (on map)

Month/Year Shellfish tvr)e PSP levels Month/YeaL Shellfish tyr)e PSP levels
8/82 Mussels less than 40 5/83 Mussels 61 - 133
Bent Nose Clams 61 Little Neck Clams 152
Little Neck Clams less than 40 Butter Clams 32

5/83 -10/83 Mussels 47 - 60 10/86 Oysters less than 30
Butter Clams less than 32
Oysters 32 - 39
4/84 -7/84 Mussels 39 - III Farm Site #9 (on map)
Butter Clams 33 - 63
Oysters 30 - 67 Month/Year Shellfish type PSP levels
4/85 Oysters 30 - 33 2/86 Mussels 32
Butter Clams 169
6/86 Oysters 31 Little Neck Clams less than 32
6/87 -12/87 Oysters 30 - 59 7/87 - 8/87 Mussels 32 - 67
Butter Clams 121 - 279 2/88 Mussels less than 30
1/88 Oysters less than 34 Butter Clams 97

Farm Site #2 (on map) Farm Site #11 (on map)

Month/YeaL Shellfish tyi)e PSP levels Month/Year Shellfish tyr)e PSP levels
6/82 - 7/82 Mussels 125 - 268 7/87 - 8/87 Mussels 32 - 88
Butter Clams 56 - 292
Oysters 40 -52
Butter Clams 33 - 49
4/83 - 11/83 Mussels 32 -1989 Little Neck Clams less than 32
Butter Clams 32 -670
Oysters 32 -546

11/84 Oysters 32 -35

10/85 12/85 Oysters 30 -33
Clams 36 - 48

1/86 - 10/86 Oysters 30 -33

CULTIVATION

Choice of Technique in Relation or greenhouses for early stage culture of oysters
to Site Characteristics and mussels ensures a stable supply of seed or
spat. Where natural sets are predictable, devices
Stages of culture and appropriate techni- are used in water to collect floating shellfish seed
ques, by species or spat. In Alaska, experimentation is proceeding
with in water collection for scallops and mussels;
Organisms types currently being considered like- oyster spat is necessarily imported because water
ly candidates for mariculture in Alaska include the temperatures are too low for local spawning by the
Pacific oyster, blue mussel, weathervane scallop, Japanese oyster. Laboratory experimentation is
and various seaweed species. Culture of purple also proceeding for Macrocystis culture.
hinged rock scallop, geoduck (Panope generosa),
and pinto abalone (Haliotis ka may Shellfish larvae may be cultured via one technique
eventually be feasible. to a certain stage, then transferred to another area
or structure for intermediate culture or full
Kinne (1970, in Mason, 1983) classifies shellfish growth to harvest. Scallops and oysters may be
culture into four classes: 1) maintenance (keeping cultured via hanging culture to a certain size then
animals alive without significant growth), 2) rais- placed on the bottom for later growth. They may
ing (fattening young adults), 3) rearing (bringing be moved at various stages of growth from bottom
up early stages, e.g., fertilized eggs and larvae), areas to different tidal ranges or predator situa-
and 4) breeding (production and raising off- tions to maximize growth and survival. Scallops
spring). Alaska oyster and mussel culture cur- and oysters are often transferred to structures
rently consists of the raising stage. Scallop culture where they are separated as individuals (e.g.,
is in the experimental collecting larvae for raising lantern nets or cages) for specialized markets.
stage.
Mumford and Melvin (1983) classify seaweed cul- Techniques and Facilities for
ture into three stages: 1) enhancement (spread of Shellfish Culture
desirable species in natural beds), 2) semi-artifi-
cial culture (control over primary stages of plant Scallop spat collection is being pursued ex-
development but not of seedstocks), and 3) artifi- perimentally near Kodiak Island (Kaill, in prep.)
cial culture (provision of artificial substrates with and experimentation in the Yakutat, Ketchikan,
seedstocks and all stages of plant development and Tenakee Springs areas are planned. Shellfish
under control). Seaweed culture is in the ex- culture can be described in five stages: 1) seed col-
perimental stage. Semi-artificial culture of hLia: lection, 2) rearing of early developmental stages,
tegrifolia and L. groenlandica with maintenance 3) intermediate culture, 4) rearing to marketable
activities is occurring in the herring roe-on-kelp size, and 5) harvest and handling.
fisheries. Various techniques have been developed to suc-
Techniques are discussed below. Additional cessfully culture three shellfish species with
description of successful techniques is necessarily highest potential for Alaska. The following
based on activities occurring in other states or description is generalized, but innovation of new
countries, which may or may not prove to be techniques may occur under specific site condi-
suitable in Alaska. Those discussed below have tions. Floating structures, intertidal zone struc-
been selected because they appear likely to be tures, or natural or modified sea bottom are used
adaptable to Alaskan conditions. for the first four stages of culture. Floating struc-
tures are used to collect spat or seed in the water
Some culture stages are carried out successfully column. Seed can be harvested after it has settled
only in the laboratory or greenhouse hatchery. by using rakes, shovels, or dredges. Early develop-
Early stage seaweed culture occurs in laboratory mental stages, are reared on various structures in-
or greenhouse operation. Use of laboratories cluding trays, nets, or ropes suspended from

floating rafts or longlines; racks or poles in inter- Study Area. It can be anticipated that upland
tidal zones, submerged racks or trays, or without facilities will generally be required as full scale
structures by placing seed directly on suitable bot- production and future expansion occurs in suc-
tom substrates at suitable tidal levels. Transfer- cessful sites.
ring animals of a certain size to different
structures for intermediate stages of growth is a
fairly standard technique in scallop culture in Culture Techniques and Facilities
other areas. This technique may be used in oyster for Seaweed Culture
culture to grow individual oysters for the oyster on
the half shell market. Similar floating structures Seaweed culture has only recently been legalized
(rafts or longlines) are generally used for inter- in Alaska so no sea vegetable maricutture opera-
mediate culture, but animals are placed in baskets tions exist in the study area. Locations within the
or containerized nets (i.e., pearl nets or lantern study area may have considerable potential for
nets) rather than on lines, or collectively in nets, this activity. Seaweed culture reduces impact on
so they don't attach to one another or bite each native stocks if it should become desirable to har-
other with their shells. All three species are also vest them commercially. Seaweed culture is ex-
sawn on the bottom when they reach sufficient tensive in some countries, most notably Japan,
size. Rearing to marketable size occurs either in and experimentation and pilot projects have been
the same location as early rearing or where inter- carried out in California, Washington, and British
mediate culture occurs. Types of structures used Columbia. These efforts have been directed at
for each culture stage and potential impacts of enhancing native seaweed stocks (North, 1973) or
structures and culture techniques are described at creating new stands (Bourne, 1987; Washington
below. DNR, 1987) to sustain commercial harvests for a
variety of purposes. Seaweed culture consists of
Shellfish are generally harvested by boat in float- three stages: 1) seed or spore collection 2) cul-
ing culture situations. Harvest from intertidal tivation of early developmental stages and 3)
structures, such as poles or racks, may require growth to harvestable size or maturity.
truck or tractor access, and harvest from subtidal
beds may occur by dredging or by use of divers. Specific techniques have been developed to en-
The three species can have specialized require- hance natural stocks or to enhance habitat for
ments for immediate handling after harvest that natural stocks, but none have been tried on a large
also requires intertidal zone use. Oysters gown scale in Alaska. In the first stage of culture,
in suspended culture develop brittle shells and reproductive portions of mature plants are
also have adductor muscles too weak to keep the gathered from either natural or cultured stock by
shell closed during storage and transport. They divers or from boats. Induction of spore release
are often laid in intertidal zones for several days and culture of early developmental stages occurs
to harden. Mussels grown in suspended culture in the laboratory for the three species which are
also need to be conditioned to keep their shells most likely candidates for mariculture in Alaska.
closed by storage in the intertidal zone if a longer Techniques for culture of both Macrocystis im-
shelf life is desired. All shellfish are able to clean tegrifolia and Laminaria gcoentandica have been
themselves of impurities if they are provided with successful in both Alaska and British Columbia.
a clean water source for an extended time period. Experimental growth of Laminaria occurred in
To accomplish this in some areas, harvest is fol- Auke Bay (Calvin and Ellis, 1976) and experimen-
lowed by moving the animals to a clean water con- tal maturation of Macrocystis is being attempted
tainer for washing with a continuous flow of water in the Sitka area during 1988 and 1989 (Steckoll,
for several days. In areas where water is polluted 1987). Immediate application of Macrocystis cul-
by sewage, a different process of depuration is re- ture is probably creation of stocks in Prince Wil-
quired. Shellfish are held in disinfected water or liam Sound (outside the natural range of the
placed under ultra violet light before being cer- species) in close proximity to existing herring roe-
tified as fit for human consumption. on-kelp fishery.
Requirements for upland support facilities vary, No Nori culture has been attempted in Alaska, but
depending on operation size and type of facilities culture techniques for species of Nori similar to
used for various culture stages. Storage sheds and those growing in Alaska have been standardized
caretaker residence facilities have often been in- in Japan (Lindstrom, 1987). Impartation of Nori
cluded in proposed oyster farms in Etolin Island on nets from Japan and maturation or harvest has

been successful in Washington (Washington ment, which includes placemen t of rocks or sub-
DNR, 1987). Nori seed growth occurs in a green- strate blocks with large, relatively horizontal sur-
house or hatchery, but nets can be seeded either faces for attachment. Holdfast supports, seeded
indoors or outdoors. with spores, are used in conjunction with struc-
tures in areas with high energy waves. Blasting
Because early stages of seaweed cultivation has been employed in Japan following a
generally occur in the laboratory, requirement for phenomenon termed isoyake which results in
structures is limited to the grow out phase. large areas of rocky bottom converted from
Seaweeds are generally grown on nets or ropes at- productive seaweed to calcareous algae. Blasting
tached to floating frames, rafts or longlines. Nori provides new surface areas which permit success-
is cultured intertidally in Japan with nets or ropes ful sowing or transplantation of Laminaria (Saito,
suspended from poles sunk into substrate. En- 1979). Substrate blocks and rocks are also
hancement techniques have included: 1) place- cleaned periodically by blasting, air drying or coat-
ment of artificial substrates on the bottom, 2) ing concrete blocks with a new layer, or by use of
transplanting mother plants, 3) sowing seed from high pressure hoses (Mottet, 1981).
boats in areas of suitable habitat, 4) weeding un-
desirable species, and 5) blasting reefs to create Harvest of seaweed is accomplished by divers or
suitable substrates. manually from boats. In California, harvest has
been mechanized using a boat with a cutting edge
To rehabilitate former kelp stands off the Califor- held a fixed distance below the surface, and a con-
ni a coast, plant transplantation attached to plas- veyor belt transfer mechanism. Beach areas are
tic rings and glued to rocky substrates with epoxy, sometimes used for seaweed drying, but in
and sowing young plants by pouring concentrated Southeast Alaska, drying sheds may be required
solutions down a hose from a boat have been very if on site drying is to occur.
successful techniques (North, 1973). Japan has an
extensive program of marine habitat enhance-

Etolin Island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTER3

Site Capability
Page 25 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SITE
25 . Topography
25 - Climate
25 - Hydrology
26 - Oceanography and Estuarine Processes
26 - Bottom Sediments and Sedimentary Processes
26 - Currents and Tides
27 - Wave Action
27 - Circulation Patterns
27 - Temperature, Salinity, and Oxygen Patterns
27 - Tidal Flushing
28 - Patterns of Phytoplankton Productivity and
28 Nutrient Dynamics
29 - Carrying Capacity
29 RESOURCE/USE INVENTORY
29 - Timber and Timber Harvest
29 - Minerals and Soils
29 - Private and State Lands
30 - Visual Resources
30 - Cultural, Historical and Archaeological Resources
30 - Transportation Systems
30 - Anchorages
30 - Watersheds and Fisheries
30 - Wildlif e
31 - Fish and Wildlife Harvest
32 - Recreation

35 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
35 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WATER QUALITY
35 - POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
36 - Potential Water Quality Conflicts With
Other Users
37 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FISH AND WILDLIFE
37 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FISH AND WILDLIFE
37 - Environmental Aspects of Siting
37 - Factors Influencing Magnitude of Impact
37 - Size of Operation
38 - Need for Upland Facilities

Page 44 - POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SPECIFIC
TECHNIQUES AND FACILITIES
44 -Anchored Floating Facilities (Rafts & Longlines)
44 -Alteration of Phytoplankton Biomass & Productivity
44 -Effects on Benthic Communities and More Mobile
Invertebrates and Fish
46 Suspension from Poles (Nets, Bouchot Culture)
47 -Intertidal and Submerged Structures
47 -Bottom Culture
48 -Intertidal Handling
48 -Fertilization

48 POTENTIAL IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL FACILITIES
48 - Introduction of Exotic Species and
Importation of Seedstock
49 - Disease Transmission From Cultured to Wild
Animals and Proliferation of Bacteria Pathogenic
to Humans

49 DISEASE AND PARASITE CONTROL
49 - Disease and Parasite Control
50 - Predator Control and Disturbance of Sensitive Species
52 - Fouling Control
53 . Disposal of Waste

53 CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USERS
53 LAND MANAGEMENT ISSUES
54 Mariculture Development Land Use Needs
54 Displacement of Public Use
54 Recreation
55 Anchorages
55 Fish and Wildlife Harvest
56 Conflicts with Other Commercial Uses of The
Tidelands and Submerged Lands
56 - Commercial Fishing
56 - Commercial Recreation
56 - Logging
57 - Mining
57 - Urban Development
57 - Residential Development
57 - Historic or Archeological Sites
58 - Land Speculation
58 - Impacts on Adjacent Land Owners
58 - Upland Access
58 - U.S. Forest Service as Land Managers
59 - Cumulative Effects of Expanding Tideland Use
60 - Summary

60 - SITE GUIDELINES AND MITIGATING MEASURES

60 - RELATIVE MEASURES OF SUITABILITY
60 Guidelines for Siting Shellfish and Sea Vegetable
Mariculture Facilities and Mitigating Impacts
61 Siting Guidelines
63 Project Design Guidelines
64 Operational Guidelines

Chapter 3

SITE SUITAB TY

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY ARFA

Several islands and island groups in Alexander Ar- mouths of inlets and riverine deposits. Stikine
chipelago, Southease Alaska, comprise the study River delta to the northeast of the study area has
area. An irregular shoreline produces many extensive river deltas. Clarence Strait, Stikine
marine areas enclosed or semi enclosed by land Strait, and Ernest Sound are deep channels, while
which may be suitable for mariculture. Terrestrial shallow, rocky areas are characteristic around
and marine factors influence area mariculture Blashke and Kashevarof Islands and areas off-
capability- shore southeastern and southwestern Etolin Is-
land. Snow Passage, Kashevarof Passage, and
Topography Zimovia. Straits are relatively narrow waterways
with shoals and shallow rocks.
Topography can greatly influence local weather
patterns by intercepting and channelling winds, in- Climate
fluencing. amount and form of precipitation
(freshwater run off, and creating micro climates. Climate of Alexander Archipelago is primarily
Topography can influence pattern and amount of maritime. However, continental climatic condi-
solar radiation striking the ocean surface. These tions may influence areas in close proximity to
effects have important implications for maricul- large mainland river drainages, such as Stikine
ture. River, which extend into the interior. Nor-
theastern and eastern portions of Etolin Island
Islands were formed by uplift adjacent to north area likely receive some influence from Stikine
south trending faults, one of which extends up River and mainland weather patterns. Maritime
Clarence Strait. Topography of both areas has climatic conditions result in a relatively narrow
been shaped by glaciers which, at their greatest ex- range of cool daily air temperatures and low
tent covered nearly all of the Alexander Ar- variability between summer and winter. On a
chipelago and extended into the ocean as a huge regional basis, temperatures from 40's to mid 60's
ice shelf. Coastal Foothills are a westward exten- can be expected in summer, and temperatures in
sion of the precipitous Boundary Ranges of main- high teens to low 40's can be expected in winter.
land to the east. Blocks of mountains are However, it must be emphasized that due to con-
separated by flat floored valleys and straits. siderable topographic regional variation,
Mountain tops have been rounded as a result of temperatures vary widely, depending on local in-
being overridden by glaciers and lower portion of fluences. No weather stations exist within the
stream valleys were drowned as glaciers melted study area. Rainfall at nearby Coffman Cove
and receded and inlets and harbors were formed. averages 8 1" per year, which includes 56" of snow.
Streams are generally less than 10 miles long, with Further description is necessarily generalized to
sedimentary deltas formed at stream mouths. provide information on type of considerations
Lakes are abundant on Etolin Island. which may determine weather patterns at a
specific site.
Islands are interspersed along a broad, shallow
ocean trough extending from mainland coastline Although temperature and precipitation patterns
to continental shelf edge. Sedimentary deposits are difficult to summarize and predict for any
resulted from glacial advance and retreat, often in given site in Southeast Alaska, global weather
the forms of incomplete shallow sills across patterns which determine them can be described.

Hydrology Oceanography and Estuarine
Freshwater drainage dynamics are important be- Processes
cause variations in freshwater inputs to marine Physical oceanographic parameters of maricul-
systems can modify salinity and temperature of ture importance are those related to bottom sedi-
seawater, introduce sediment, pollutants, and ments, on going sedimentary processes, currents,
nutrients, and drive circulation patterns under wave action, estuarine circulation patterns, water
some conditions. Amount of freshwater input temperature and salinity patterns, and tidal flush-
depends on size of stream drainage area feedomg ing capacity. Biological parameters are related to
into an embayment, and seasonal climatic pat. patterns of phytoplankton productivity, seasonal
terns, particularly precipitation patterns. If wind nutrient dynamics, and biological carrying
and current patterns carry fresh or brackish water capacity.
plumes into adjacent basins, freshwater flows may
influence several water bodies. Bottom Sediments and
In general, non glaciated watersheds on Sedimentary Processes
Alexander Archipelago Islands exhibit a small Bottom substrate composition will determine
peak flow period in late spring or early summer
following snowmelt and a large peak flow in fall feasibility of bottom culture and of anchoring cul-
during the stormy, rainiest period. ture facilities. It is one factor which will deter-
mine type of benthic community. Waterway
Low flow conditions occur during summer follow- bottom composition within the study area varies
ing snowmelt and in winter as precipitation ac- considerably with local sediment sources. In
cumulates in the form of snow at higher general, sediments in Inside Passage are
elevations. Higher elevation drainages accumu- dominated by silt and clay, with variable amounts
late more snow which melts over a longer period, of sand and gravel near localized sediment sour.
extending periods of higher summer flows. If ces.
lakes are present in a watershed, they act as a buff- Suspended sediment loads are of interest to
er, delaying and moderating both peak and low mariculturists, because sediment filtered by
flows (Wallen and Hood, 1971). James (1956) fur- shellfish can reduce feeding efficiency and sedi-
ther characterized Southeast Alaska watersheds ment suspended in the water can reduce light
as having a combination of steep slopes, heavy penetration, and consequently depth at which
precipitation, and limited water holding capacity. phytoplankton can photosynthesize. Glaciers are
Resulted can be unstable flow characteristics due the major source of inorganic sediments in
to rapid discharge from rainfall intensity and Southeast Alaska. This could be a factor in the
rapid fluctuations between minimum and maxi- area influenced by run off from Stikine River
mum flows. drainage. In the rest of the study area, a major
Hydrology of Stikine River drainage, one of the process of ongoing sedimentation is the delta
largest drainages in the region and one which 'in- building process of streams. Suspended load
cludes several glaciers at headwaters of tributary reaching estuaries is proportional to stream dis-
streams, influence the study area. Glacial melt charge size which, in turn, depends primarily on
moderates effect of summer low flows from snow amount of precipitation. Sediment remains
melt and maintains stable flows throughout the suspended in a surface plume of low salinity water
season, prolonging periods of large volume dis- until mixing with sea water occurs. During dry
charges from Stikine river systems. Stikine River periods, suspended sediments may still occur due
is a considerable source of suspended sediment, to resuspension of sediments over tidal flats
an effect observed by changes in water color some resulting from tidal action (Sharma, 1979).
distance beyond the river delta to the south and In areas of steep topography, runoff may carry
west. Stikine River flow influences oceanic cur- sediment directly from landslides and submarine
rent and tidal flows as well. slides may occur, changing sediment distribution.

Currents and Tides tide, current, and wind events that act to mix fresh-
Northward flowing Alaska current is the major water into seawater.
oceanic current in Southeast Region. Coriolis ef- A rapid increase in size of a freshwater plume can
fect is very pronounced in northern latitudes, occur following rapid, heavy rain run off because
causing a deflection of Alaska current to the east. the ground has low capacity for absorbing
During flood tides, regional currents generally precipitation (e.g., frozen ground, impermeable
flow eastward, northeastward, or northward, soils).
while during ebb tides, flow in opposite directions Enclosed areas with little freshwater inflow exist
(Selkregg, 1975). in areas of low relief, for example Blaske Islands.
Tides throughout Southeast Alaska are mixed, Nutrient conditions within water columns depend
semi diurnal tides of unequal height. Tidal range on replenishment from oceanic sources through
is large, so strong tidal currents are generated tidal mixing. Blashkes and Kashevarof Island
during ebb and flow (Selkregg, 1975). Areas with areas exhibit considerable turbulence as Sumner
large tidal prisms (basin cross section) can Straight flows meet Stikine River outflows and are
generate currents of substantial velocities. deflected southward, mixing with northward flow-
ing Clarence Straight waters. Offshore upwelling
Currents in the study are a result of interactions areas have been reported in this area. (B. Paust,
between Alaska current and tidal currents as per. comm.)
modified by shoreline topography, bathymetry,
freshwater flows, and winds. Unique and Temperature, Salinity and Oxygen
dynamic localized current patterns result. Shore Patterns
line protuberances and islands deflect currents,
resulting in areas of back eddies, while narrow Temperature and salinity profile of the water
passages constrict flows, resulting in falls or rapids column is an end result of estuarine and marine
at certain tidal stages. processes under a particular incident light regime.
Freshwater inputs alter salinity profiles of upper
Wave Action water columns; incidental solar energy striking a
water surface warms the upper layer. At some
Wave action is an important variable for maricul- depths, water mass temperature and salinity is
ture, from the standpoint of operation practicality stable because it is below these influences. Below
as well as food supply for filter feeders and rock- 100-125 meters in Inside Passage, conditions of
ing: effects on cultured shellfish. Protection from the water mass are a result of oceanic conditions
wind driven waves and turbulence afforded by of waters of Gulf of Alaska which enter through
shoreline topography is site specific. Wave or Cape Ornmaney.
swell conditions depend largely on weather in Gulf
of Alaska, which from autumn through spring can During spring, sunlight and long day lengths in-
generate very rough seas. crease surface water temperatures and melt snow,
increasing freshwater runoff, which is colder than
Circulation Patterns surface saltwater. Waterbodies stratify under
these conditions unless winds of sufficient
Bays and coves with freshwater inputs exhibit es- strength and duration cause enough turbulence to
tuarine circulation. Estuarine circulation refers mix layers. Periods of stratification may be inter-
to distribution of a brackish surface layer result- spersed with well mixed conditions throughout
ing from freshwater flows into seawater. Rain and summer and on into fall (depending on fall cloud
rainfall runoff can form a shallow brackish layer cover). Typical fall pattern of storms again mixes
over a large water body. Wherever freshwater water columns.
enters seawater it tends to remain as a top layer Stratification of water columns can result in
because it is less dense than underlying, denser sea anoxic: bottom conditions where oceanic flows are
water. Water column stratification is quite stable restricted and oxygen is eventually depleted by
in absence of mixing events. Extent and depth of biological activity. Deep, silled glacial fjords or
brackish layers vary witfi stream seasonal dis- other waterbodies with restricted circulation may
charge patterns, amount of freshwater discharge, exhibit extremely stable stratification. However,

according to Wallen and Hood (op. cit.), few es- during spring and fall and nitrogen availability
tuaries in Alaska are believed to have conditions during summer. A period of 3-5 days of excep-
sufficient to develop anoxic sediments. Condi- tionally clear weather in mid April when day
tions of Gulf of Alaska oceanic waters, which have lengths are sufficient, was required to initiate
highest bottom salinities and lowest surface spring bloom. Once nitrogen was depleted by
salinities during late summer to early fall, are con- phytoplankton, bloom ceased and was only
sidered sufficient to displace estuarine bottom reinitiated if a wind event of sufficient strength'
waters in Southeast Alaska in absence of sill and duration mixed into a highly stratified water
restrictions. Even waters of silled basins may column, entraining nutrients which had sedi-
overturn eventually during winter. mented to the bottom, bringing nitrogen back up
into the photic zone.
Tidal Flushing Although estuaries in the study area cannot be ex-
Tidal flushing regime is also important in terms of pected to function exactly like Auke Bay, limiting
residence time of nutrients and relatively warm factors are probably similar. These limiting fac-
surface water conditions. In some bays, circula- tors have several key -implications for culture
tion patterns forms gyres. Water entrained in a productivity during spring, summer, and fall:
gyre may warm at the surface and concentrate
nutrients. Tidal flushing is extremely difficult to 1. Factors influencing amount of solar radiation
measure or predict and must be evaluated on a reaching the water column surface (i.e., basin
site specific basis. orientation, topography which provides shading,
cloud cover) will control initiation of spring
Patterns of Phytoplankton phytoplankton blooms. Factors influencing the
amount of solar radiation penetrating the water
Productivity and Nutrient column (i.e., suspended sediment, density of
Dynamics phytoplankton during a bloom) will control depth
of spring phytoplankton blooms, which in many
Bivalves such as oysters, mussels, and scallops are cases is the major annual primary productivity
filter feeders feeding on plankton, and in some event. These factors will similarly influence in-
cases, on organic detritus. Phytoplankton are itiation and depth of photosynthesis by sea
major producers in open ocean and many es- vegetables.
tuaries. In absence of extensive eelgrass or
seaweed beds, they are a major producer group. 2. Factors which influence nitrogen availability in
Their abundance and productivity are key in- euphotic zone (i.e., wind mixing, tidal mixing, up-
dicators of food availability for mariculture (Else, welling phenomena) will influence initiation of
1985). secondary blooms, their magnitude, and duration.
Few studies of primary production patterns have Conversely, processes which tend to stratify water
occurred in Southeast Alaska. A major study columns and increase stability of stratification
(Mathieson et al., 1986; 1987) is now under way in (e.g., freshwater inputs, protection from winds)
Auke Bay. Study is focussing on phytoplankton will likely reduce nitrogen entrainment, and there-
spring bloom. During three years of study, pat- fore reduce potential for secondary blooms and
terns of blooms have varied. Some Southeast sea vegetable photosynthesis.
Alaska bays may have patterns of continuous pul-
ses of phytoplankton production rather than dis- Detrital sources of nitrogen from land runoff may
tinct blooms (B. Paust, pers. comm.). Patterns of play a key role in overall nitrogen budget, par-
blooms may determine growth patterns and cul- ticularly when decaying salmon carcasses provide
tured bivalve productivity. a substantial seasonal input.
Extended sampling is important to determine During late fall and winter, the water column is
feasibility of mariculture because of inherent well mixed, but light levels are too low for
variability of phytoplankton blooms. phytoplankton blooms and nutrients may be lar-
gely bound in detritus. More research is needed
Results of Auke Bay study (Mathieson et. al., on factors which determine food supply and
1987) indicate that factors limiting phytoplankton productivity of candidate culture species during
blooms in subarctic estuaries are light levels this period, particularly roles played by detritus

and phytoplankton during periods following the Some attempts have been made to develop a
spring bloom. Nicholson, a permit holder in the method for estimating carrying capacity for
study area, has observed good oyster growth mariculturd, but none have taken into account ef-
during winter at his Blashke Island site when fects on naturally occurring populations if carry-
water temperatures rose above 45 degrees F. ing capacity for cultured animals is reached.
Carrying Capacity In some production areas in Japan, carrying
capacity was determined when production
Every habitat area has a particular carrying levelled off despite increased stocking rates.
capacity, expressed in terms of maximum or- Sutherland (1986) is attempting to model
ganisms it can support. For cultured species, food capacity of a bay in British Columbia.to grow good
supply is likely the limiting factor, which is, in turn, quality oysters based on food supply, food usage,
limited by factors described above. Habitat has a and bay flushing rate, but estimates are still tenta-
certain carrying capacity for naturally occurrin tive. Rosenberg and Loo (1983) model energy
ing
organisms, before any culture is introduced. Typi- flow through a mussel long line culture in western
cal features of marine and estuarine systems are Sweden. They conclude two main interrelated
dynamic food supply and animal adaptation to ecological factors limiting size of mussel cultures
the moveable feast provided by currents and tides. are food supply and current speed. Adapting
Because of these features, carrying capacity is these models to Southeast Alaska will require a
dynamic and very difficult to quantify. consideration of tidal action effects.

RESOURCE USEANVENTORY

Maps developed for this project are enclosed in- Mineral and Solis
side the back cover. Many resources and uses of
the study have been placed on these maps. Etolin study area is primarily composed of soils
with low, moderate and high mass movement
Following are brief narratives describing major hazard ratings. Some relatively young alluvial
resources and uses of the study area. soils are present in the area. Extensive wetland
areas exist throughout Etolin/Kashevarof Island
Timber and Timber Harvest group.
Timber in the study area consists of Sitka spruce, Four mining claims exist and have been filed on
western and mountain hemlock, western red Etolin Island, only one is currently active.
cedar and Alaska yellow cedar. Etolin and
Kashevarof islands have a logging history. Ap- Private and State Lands
proximately 85 recorded sites near the beach have
been logged by A-frame and tractor prior to 1966. Private lands occur in the study area only in Olive
Cove. Alaska selected 524 acres and in 1983 sold
Recent upland logging began with the Olive Cove approximately 80 acres as a subdivision with 26
Sale which expired in 1981. Granite Timber Sale lots. Alaska retains ownership of the remainder.
of 48 million board feet (MMBF) is being logged Five lots will be transferred from state ownership
and transported to a terminal transfer facility to the University of Alaska as part of a land set-
(TTF) in Anita Bay. Quiet Timber Sale for 11 flement.
MM13F is available as of May 1987. Vestige Tim-
ber Sale in Southwest Cove for .8 MMBF will be Two small parcels of private lands in Olive Cove
offered in 1988. Bushy Island Sale for 15 MMBF were patented prior to state selection. Alaska has
will continue until 1990. A small sale on Middle proposed a selection near Mosman on Etolin Is-
Island was logged in 1986. 15 MM13F on Deer Is- land which could place additional land in state
land have been offered for contract but no opera- ownership.
tions have begun.

Visual Resources over 20. Fishing fleets are major users of these
anchorages, but dispersed recreational boating
Etolin/Kashevarof islands can be viewed from and kayaking occur throughout the area.
Zimovia Strait, Clarence Strait (Alaska Marine
Highway and cruise ship routes) and from Watersheds and Fisheries
numerous bays and anchorages used by
recreationists. Forty ADFG numbered streams exist in the study
area, and approximately one hundred numbered
Cultural, Historical and fish streams. An aquaculture facility (hatchery) is
Archaeological Resources located on Burnette Inlet. An Alaskan steep pass
fishway was installed on Navy Creek during mid-
A number of limited reconnaissance level ar- 1970's. Twelve mariculture permit sites for oyster
chaeological surveys have been conducted in the farming are located in Whaletail Cove, Mos-
study area. Sites identified and recorded have man/Threeway Passage, and Kashevarof Island
been added to the State of Alaska's Heritage group.
Resource Survey. Waters of the study area are rich in both species
and numbers of fish and shellfish. Salmon, her-
Transportation Systems ring, flounder, crab, shrimp are all harvested.
Etolin, Bushy and Shrubby islands have road sys- Kasheverof Island group waters are especially rich
tems extending into various areas for logging pur- in nutrients. Nearby upwellings (B. Paust, per.
poses. Roads are constructed and maintained comm.) and the currents of Clarence Straight
under Forest Service management practices. provide a steady source of phytoplanktons, algae
and other nutrients to this area. South and west
Major portions of the road system on Etolin Is- Etolin Island benefits from the southwesterly
land extend from Anita Bay. Anita Bay road sys- winds and currents.
tem does not connects with the Olive Cove road
system which is old and begins at a log transfer Extensive kelp beds exist in the study area, notab.
facility. Forest Service may examine the potential ly in the Kashevarof Island group. However, no
of connecting these two road systems. Anita Bay Macrocystis is found in the study area.
road system comes within one mile of Quiet Har-
bor and one half mile of Kindergarten Bay. North and east sides of Etolin Island are subject
to influence of the Stikine River drainage which
A road system exists on the western half of Bushy has significant levels of siltation and temperatures
Island. Shrubby Island road system is very old and are thought to be lower than surrounding areas.
begins at an old log transfer facility. A transpor-
tation plan for Deer Island that will be imple- Wildlife
mented as part of the proposed timber sale.
Various wildlife species are found within the study
Road systems will grow to support logging opera- area including deer, black and brown bear, water-
tions. Time frame for road expansion will depend flowl, grouse, beaver, marten, mink, and river
on the economic viability of the timber industry. otter. Approximately 50 Roosevelt and Rocky
Permitted oyster sites in the study area are not Mountain elk were transplanted to Etolin Island
currently served by a road system. Expanding in 1987. Deer populations are currently low on
road systems could serve mariculture operations Etolin Island.
by simplifying and enhancing existing water Approximately 243 bald eagle nests have been lo-
routes. cated in the study area. Waterfowl, seabirds, and
Anchorages shore birds concentrate seasonally in protected
areas or in areas where food is abundant. Large
Coves and protected waters in the study area are concentrations of phaloropes have been observed
. in waters west of Kashevarof Islands during
used extensively as small boat anchorages. spring which may be an indication of food rich up-
Anchorages vary in size from one or two boats to welling areas.

Sea lions and harbor seals are found in waters of Wrangell residents report use of the area for har-
the study area. Offshore rocks and rocky beaches vest of shellfish, marine mammals (harbor seal),
are used as haul out areas. Various whale species waterfowl, deer, salmon, and assorted finfish in-
are likely to be present in the area, at least oc- cluding species such as halibut and rockfish.
casionally. Sea otters are not present in the area, Petersburg residents report using the area for
but are on the west side of Prince of Wales Island deer and waterfowl hunting.
and may expand their range in the future.
Additional information will be available in late
Fish and Wildlife Harvest 1988 on the relative intensity of specific areas use
and on use patterns by residents of other com-
Important commercial and non commercial fish munities such as Coffman Cove, Whale Pass,
and wildlife harvests occur in the area. Commer- Point Baker, Port Protection, and Kassan. Maps
cial fishing occurs for: 1) salmon by purse seine can be produced that will show relative amounts
2) troll and drift net gear 3) halibut and other bot- of use (by numbers of households using an area)
tom fish by longling 4) Dungeness and Tanner for Etolin Island Study Area or other areas in the
crab by pots and 5) shrimp by pots and trawl gear. region.
Beaver, land otter, and wolves are trapped along Subsistence salmon permits are issued for Thoms
the beach fringe of Etolin Island and other small
islands. Place and Olive Cove. In 1986, Wrangell resi-
dents obtained 9 permits for Olive Cove and 44
Information about subsistence use by residents of for Thorns Place, and harvested 190 pink salmon
all southeast Alaska has recently been gathered by and 277 sockeye salmon respectively.
the Subsistence Division of ADF&G. Prelimi- Residents of nearby communities sport fish in the
nary information on harvests by Petersburg and Etolin Island vicinity. A principal day use area by
Wrangell residents shows use of large areas of Wrangell residents is located in waters off the
Etolin Island, including all of the shoreline for north end of Etolin Island. This vicinity is a major
deer hunting, and most nearshore and estuarine regional marine recreational fisheries, based on
areas for fishing and gathering invertebrates. effort and harvest figures.

Recreation

Low level dispersed recreation occurs throughout the study area. Two sites have developed
recreation facilities. Steamer Bay has a Public Use Cabin operated by the USFS and Kunk Lake
has a trail and shelter. Access to recreation sites in the study area is primarily by water. Anchor-
ing, sport hunting, sport fishing, and upland access to freshwater lakes and use of calmer water
in extended inlets are the most common activities.

Table 1. Recreation sites and anchorages in Etolin Island Area.
Identified by the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

RECREATION AREA LM

1. King George Bay Anchorage, used for b lack bear, deer
and furbearers hunting and trapping

2. Kunk Lake Recreational trail and shelter,
anchorage for deer hunting

3. Dog Salmon Creek Anchorage, used for waterfowl hunting

4. Anita Bay Anchorage, used for black bear, deer,
and furbearers hunting and trapping

5. Starfish Cove Anchorage

6. Between Olive &
Whale T. Cove Waterfowl hunting

7. Olive Cove Anchorage, used for black bear, deer
and furbearers hunting and trapping.

8. Whale Tail Cove Wildlife harvest area, anchorage

9. North of Southwest
Cove Anchorage, dispersed recreation

10. Southwest Cove Anchorage

11. Menefee Inlet Anchorages, used for deer, black bear,
and waterfowl harvest, access to lakes

12. Fishermen's Chuck Anchorage

13. Canoe Pass Anchorage, small watercraft use

14. South Brownson Anchorage
Island

15. Stone Harbor Anchorage

RFCREATTON AREA

16.. Stone Island Hunting, beachcombing

17. Eagle Island Anchorage, hunting, beachcombing

18. Onslow Island Hunting, be achcombing

19. McHenry Anchoragd Anchorage

20. McHenry inlet Anchorage, used for black bear, deer
and furbearers hunting and trapping,
access to McHenry Lake

21. Navy Creek Access to Navy Lake

22. Cannery Pt. Anchorage
Anchorage

23. Burnett Hatchery Sightseeing

24. Head of Burnett Hunting
Inlet

25. Head of Mosman Hunting
Inlet
26. Mosman Island Anchorage

27. Three Way Pass Anchorage, used for black bear, deer,
and furbearers hunting and trapping,
beachcombing

28. Johnson Cove Anchorage, access to Streets Lake,
(trout/char concentrations), recreation

29. Steamer Bay Remote USFS cabin & concentrated fish
harvest area, anchorages used for
black bear, deer, and furbearers
hunting and trapping, recreation

30. Kindergarten Bay Anchorage, used for black bear, deer,
and furbearers hunting and trapping, recreation

31. Quiet Harbor Anchorage, used for black bear, deer,
and furbearers hunting and trapping,
recreation

32. Cove east of Quiet Anchorage

33. Bushy Island Limited anchorage, deer hunting

34. Between Bushy Anchorage, used for deer hunting,
& Shrubby furbearer trapping and upland bird
hunting

RECREATION ARRA USE

35. Ossipee Channel Limited anchorage

36. W. Shrubby Island Anchorage

37. Nfiddle & Blashke Anchorages
Island Group

38. Niblack Island Limited anchorage

39. S. Deer Island Anchorage

40. NEddle Deer Island Anchorage

41. N. Deer Island Limited anchorage

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Information concerning potential environmental From the standpoint of potential environmental
impacts of various mariculture operations likely impacts, a good mariculture site for sheUrish cul-
to occur in the study area is summarized and cross ture will have the following characteristics: 1) a
referenced to guidelines for siting and mitigating flushing capacity which will exceed organic
impacts. Many potential impacts have been noted sedimentation rates at maximum production, 2)
as concerns. Proper site selection, stringent con- circulation unrestricted by sills or topog-
trols over importation of exotic animals and dis- raphy/bathymetry, 3) upland and intertidal areas
ease organisms, prohibition of harmful of relatively low biological productivity that can be
techniques, and the use of appropriate mitigative used for support operations, 4) sufficient separa-
measures will help the sea farmer avoiding sig- tion from sensitive or crucial fish and wildlife
nificant adverse impacts that have occurred in habitats (e.g., mouths of anadromous fish streams,
areas other than Alaska. eelgrass beds, herring spawning areas, shellfish
beds), 5) sufficient separation from predator con-
Two types of areas which should be avoided centration areas, and 6) sufficient separation from
during the siting of floating shellfish mariculture concentration areas of wildlife species sensitive to
facilities are: 1) areas where accumulation of or- human disturbance (e.g., seabird nesting colonies,
ganic sediment on productive benthic com- marine mammal pupping areas).
munities can be expected and 2) areas where
predator or wildlife disturbance are problems. Environmental impact of mariculture develop-
Site selection should include areas with suitable ment is examined in this section in two parts: 1)
upland areas for support facilities- and suitable in- impacts on water quality and 2) impacts on fish
tertidal areas for beaching gear, hardening and wildlife. This section is followed by a section
shellfish, and holding shellfish for PSP testing on siting guidelines and mitigating measures.
where impacts to habitat values are minimized. If
other aspects of site selection override environ-
mental concerns, a variety of mitigative measures
have been developed which may minimize poten-
tial impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WATER QUALITY

Potential Water Quality Impacts Sedimentation can result as organic matter
- deposits from wastes, shell fragments, etc. build
Mariculture requires clean water. Water quality up on the bottom below culture rafts. Amount of
surrounding culture facilities, however, can be af- organic matter produced is dependent upon
fected by both mariculture activity or other near- several factors; size of facility, production level,
by uses or activities. Two key water quality issues and environmental factors such as water depth,
associated with mariculture are: 1) changes in current velocity, flushing, and bottom topography.
water quality caused by mariculture operations, Accumulation of wastes and sediments can induce
and 2) potential siting conflicts with other uses or chemical and biological changes in bottom habitat
activities. and water column. Another possible problem
resulting from sedimentation is a change in ben-
One major concern with mariculture operations is thic macroinvertebrate community. Species un-
unfavorable changes in water quality and environ- able to tolerate organic enrichment may
mental conditions that may develop during nor- disappear, and other more tolerant species be-
mal facility operations. Specific changes may come dominant
occur including increases in sedimentation under
culture rafts, changes in water circulation patterns Sediment accumulation is site specific. Location
and changes in water chemistry. of the culturing facility in areas with adequate
depth and tidal flushing will greatly reduce chan-

ces of sedimentation. A study of mariculture en- removed during harvest, and 30% is excreted as
vironmental effects in Puget Sound (Weston feces or pseudofeces. (Ackefors and Grip, 1985;
1986) concludes a high probability of solid waste Ackerfors and Soedergren, 1985; in Weston,
accumulation if less than 15 meters of water was 1986) Weston (1986) reviews potential impacts of
maintained below a mariculture facility. He waste products on water quality and concludes
found most mariculture facilities were sited in ammonia is the only water quality parameter of
waters less than 20 meters deep in Washington any concern from mussel culture. Concentrations
State. downcurrent from farms would be well below toxic
levels for other organisms. In situations of ex-
In the study area, divers observed only a minimal tremely dense and large scale culture, production
dusting of sediment under rafts in Canoe Lagoon of nitrogenous wastes are potentially significant.
(A. Grossman, pers. comm.). This site has been
used for oyster production since 1983. Water A majority of unfavorable changes in water quality
sampling in this area indicated a good tidal ex- and environmental conditions can be avoided by
change even though the lagoon is isolated at low properly siting mariculture facilities. Water
to medium tides. Divers at a proposed oyster quality problems would be anticipated only in
farm in Mosman Inlet observed natural sedimen- areas of limited flushing or intensive culturing ac-
tation in the area possibly due to a sill restricting tivity. Field studies rarely have shown organic
tidal exchange (T. Farris, per. comm.). Sedimen- deposition or any other culture induced water
tation may be a problem in areas like this if stock- quality change to be a problem at facilities located
ing densities exceed flushing capability. in well flushed areas.
Mariculture facilities may reduce water circula- Potential Water Quality Conflicts
tion in the immediate area. A number of variables With Other Users
can affect this flow reduction including flow rate,
density of water, enclosure size and type, stocking Mariculture facilities can conflict with other users
density, and degree of fouling. Reduced water cir- or activities. It is widely recognized most suitable
culation may result in decreased food availability mariculture sites are also suitable sites for other
to parts of the culture structure and increases in water dependent and water related activities. Be-
sedimentation rate under rafts. cause mariculture facilities need pristine water to
Weston (1986) cites one study which measures a operate, water quality in surrounding areas,
reduction in current velocity amidst culture facility location and monitoring vicinity activities
strings of Pacific oyster in Japan. Velocities were are critical. A mariculture facility proposal can be
reduced within the raft by 12 to 14% compared to submitted for an area which has historically been
those outside the raft, but 1 meter below the lower used for other activities. For example, some ex-
end of oyster strings, no consistent effect on cur- isting activities could have an associated discharge
rent velocity was found (Arakawa et al., 197 1). In detrimental to cultured organisms.
Hiroshima Bay in 1968, 6000 oyster rafts (9 meters Sewage discharge from upland development,
x 18 meters each) acted as a floating breakwater caretaker facilities associated with a mariculture
to damp waves and reduce water circulation so the project, boat traffic, or any other pollution source
current speed on the shoreward side was only one- is a conflict. Shellfish are filter feeders and con-
seventh or one-eighth of speed on the seaward centrate fecal coliforms and heavy metals in their
side. A drop in productivity is attributed to a bodies. Alaska Water Quality Standards vary
decline in water quality from changes in water and levels of allowable fecal coliforms by designated
sediment chemistry (mottet, 1981). These water user. For example, in waters designated for
problems occur in areas of inadequate flushing or industrial use allowable level of fecal coliforms is
intensive culturing activity. not to exceed 200 FC/ 1 00ml based on a minimum
Water chemistry changes may occur from of five samples taken over a period of 30 days. Al-
mariculture facilities. Information on mussel cul- lowable level of fecal coliforms for harvesting and
ture indicates the possibility of a net reduction in consumption of raw mollusks or other aquatic life
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) around a cul- is 14 FC/ 100 m. Conflicts arise when an area has
ture facility. Studies show 40% of nutrients are historically been used for something other than
put back into the water column in form of waste mariculture, and the approved level of fecal
products, 30% are concentrated in growth coliforms has exceede the mariculture allowance.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FISH AND WILDUFE

Potential Environmental Impacts this chapter and cross referenced to each impact
On Fish and Wildlife discussion.
Environmental Aspects Of Siting Factors Influencing Magnitude Of Impact
Recently passed legislation requires proposed A number of factors determine whether environ-
farms or hatcheries will not be permitted to sig- mental impacts will occur, whether these impacts
nificantly affect fisheries, wildlife, or their habitats will be beneficial or adverse, and whether impacts
in an adverse manner. Adverse. environmental will be significant.
impacts have occurred in some areas of the world Because mariculture involves an attempt to max-
when mariculture was poorly sited or permitted to
exceed carrying capacity. 1=e productivity of a single species in midst of
an existing complex and diverse marine ecosys-
Careful selection of mariculture sites can avoid or tem, some alteration of natural regimes can be ex-
minimize these adverse impacts. Degradation of pected. As examples, waste products are
habitat quality, particularly water quality, can produced and food that would enter the natural
reduce culture productivity, and in extreme cases, food chain goes into culture production. High
result in massive shellfish culture deaths. Al- productivity may involve elimination of species
though a variety of mitigative measures can be that compete with or prey upo In cultured species.
employed to minimize environmental impacts of Factors which determine extent of impact to
a site chosen for overriding logistical or economic natural regime include species cultured (e.g.
reasons, such measures usually add to the cost of seaweeds as primary producers vs. bivalve
operation. Environmental protection goals of shellfish as filter feeding consumers), size of
regulatory agencies largely overlap economic in- operation (area occupied and stocking densities),
terests of mariculturists. Clean water, preventing culture techniques, need for upland facilities, and
creation of anaerobic sediments below rafts and physical and biological characteristics of the
resulting production of toxic substances, and a waterbody such as: 1) currents and flushing rates
lack of predator, disease, and parasite problems (hydrography and hydrology), 2) nutrient
can ensure sustained productivity. Both dynamics, 3) baseline water quality, 4) existing
regulatory agencies and mariculturists, have a benthic, pelagic, and terrestrial communities; 5)
vested interest in good site selection for im- composition of bottom sediments, and 6) distance
mediate benefit and avoidance of future from facilities to sensitive habitats.
problems.
Subsequent sections describe environmental im- Size Of Operation
pacts which have occurred as a result of shellfish Culture operations in Alaska are small scale.
mariculture in areas other than Alaska. This dis- However, further projections anticipate success-
cussion provides a basis for developing siting ful operations will expand at existing sites and into
guidelines and recommended mitigative suitable new areas. Larger operations may be
measures for use in Alaska. Such impacts need
not occur in Alaska, but they are described to necessary to achieve an economy of scale ensur-
demonstrate potential impacts considered as pos- ing long term profitability.
sible concerns. Based on review of 12 permit applications, range
Guidelines in areal extent of proposed farms employing float-
ing oyster culture facilities in Etolin Island Study
Since environmental considerations are just one Area has been from less than 1 acre to 25 acres.
part of the equation in terms of final site selection Table 1 lists the proposed structures and overall
and permitting, mitigation may be necessary if structure size. Review of approximately 40 other
impacts cannot be avoided. Both guidelines for permit applications suggests size of facilities
avoidance and mitigation are included in the Site proposed for other sites in Southeast Alaska, for
Guidelines and Mitigation Measures section of mussel culture in Kachemak Bay, and for shellfish

mariculture in other regions of Alaska are com- Need For Upland Facilities
parable. Areal extent of proposed facilities range
from 60 sq. ft. for an experimental raft with lantern Development of upland facilities adjacent to float-
nets to 100,000 sq. ft for a log boom enclosing 144 ing structures results in impacts to terrestrial
5'x 20' pens. Area requested ranges from 2 acres ecosystems. Upland areas are generally cleared '
to 10 acres, with multiple sites proposed in some In areas where a gravel source exists, fill may be
cases more than one bay. One proposal was required for building pads, access roads, or to
modified from a request for a 1200 acre lease to provide dock or loading facilities. Timber harvest
8 acres for floating rafts. Longline rearing may occur to provide a source of materials for log
facilities have also been proposed, with longlines raft mariculture facilities or for buildings.
ranging from 15 to 200 feet long, and from 75 to
1600 feet in lineal distance. For comparison pur- Proposals for upland facilities were included in 4
poses, Table 2 summarizes reported extent of of 25 oyster culture operations in the study area,
mariculture operations in other areas of the in addition, floathomes were proposed on two ap-
world. plications. One proposal included an oyster larva
High stocking rates can intensify the magnitude of stage setting facility. Lack of similar requests for
localized environmental impacts where flushing other proposed farms can be attributed to current-
capacity is inadequate. Culture operations could ly small scale experimental projects. Shellfish and
exceed carrying capacity of a given area, in terms seaweed mariculture throughout the world is com-
of both food available and localized flushing monly associated with areas where uplands are al-
capacity. Carrying capacity is site specific and ready developed. This is particularly true ad-
varies on a seasonal basis. jacent to small communities, 'where mariculture
work is accomplished cooperatively. It appears
No specific information is available on stocking reasonable to assume, with the exception of uni-
rates of oyster farms in Etolin Island Study Area que circumstances, most mariculturists will even-
because this information has never been re- tually require availability of suitable uplands ad-
quested by permitting agencies. Stocking rates jacent to their floating facilities for processing,
reported from other areas are shown in Table 2. storage, residence, and caretaking. Nature and
Many significant adverse impacts summarized areal extent of upland facilities will be a major
below occur in areas where large scale intensive factor in determining magnitude of impact.
mariculture has been operating for several years.
Such impacts can be avoided in Alaska with
proper siting and monitoring of culture intensity
with respect to carrying capacity and flushing
regimes.

Table 1. Size of oyster farms proposed in Bolin Island Study Area

Minimum Area Extent
Structures of Structures Acres Area Requested

4-200' long
rafts 8001X ? ?

V-shaped log
boon enclosing
rafts 570lx870'x? ?

20 20'x351 rafts ApOOO .3

24 201x601
rafts in3OO'x9OO'
log-bocm/pole raft 27,000 .6 -

8 sites:
10 llllx5O'rafts 55,500 1.3 20 acTes

10 601xl6l
rafts in 200lx4251
log-boon raft 85,000 1.95

20 131x4l rafts in
425'x2OO' log-boon
raft: 85,000 1.95

100 5'x2O' rafts in
295lx2951 log-bom
raft 87,025- 2 -

72 201x601 rafts
in 200lx4361 log-boan
raft 87,200 2 2 acres

48 5'xlll rafts in
2001x5501 log-boon
raft 111,000 2.5 2 acres

variety of structures
within 1,000lx550'
log-boon raft plus
250'x2501 beach
storage area 500,000 11.5 -

3200 41xlO1 rafts 128,000 2.9 25 acres

Table 2. Summary of reported areal extent and stocking rates of various mariculture operations

AREA Culture Method Areal Extent Stocidng Density Source

SEMUM Washington Nori Net Culture 300-600 net fann Washington,
Porphyra, spp. to cover 25-40 DNR, 1987
acres; nets cover
2.5-4.8 acres

SCALIDPS Thtal area:
. 2
Patinopecten Mutsu Bay, Bottom Culture 14% of 66 mi Av. 24,000- Ventilla,
yessoensis Japan (1660 kmi. ) bay 40,000/acreat max. 1982
density

24,300/acre
recommended density Ventilla,
1982
Thtal area:
2
Mutsu Bay Hanging Culture 31% of 66 5 -M. 40,000/acre Ventilla,
Japan (1660 km. ) bay at max. density; 1982

12,000-14,500/acre
recommended

Japan Longline 50-60 m. long in 10,000 shells/ Ventilla,
shallow, inshore longline 1982
waters

100-120 m. long in 20,000 shells/ Ventilla,
off-shore waters longline 1982

do, so M

Table 2. (Cont'd)

AREA Culture Method Areal Extent Stocking Density Source

SCALIDPS Japan Longline, Iliumboll systern Ventilla,
Patino pecten lantern nets examples: 1982
yessoensis 1) 480 m. long
lines, 22.3
acres

2) 5.6-7.4 40,500-50,500/acre
acres

3) 48 100-200 m. 100 lanterns/line,
lines, 16,200/acre;
44.5 acres 250 lanterns/line,
405,000/acre

Japan Longline 23 1200 m. lines, 56,200/acre Ventilla,
FUnka Bay 222 acres 1982

Japan Iongline, ear- 100 m. longline 450/m. Ventilla,
hanging 1982

IDngline, lantern 100 m. longline 150/m. Ventilla,
nets 1982

Tasmania Longline 8.4 acre lease 225,000/acre Cropp, 1983
(feasibility seeded
study
projections) 190,500/acre
harvested

Pati@@octen Washington Longline 50-100 m. Magoon and
caurinus Vining,
1982

Hinnites Hawaii ? Approx. 200,000 Monical,
multirugosus 400,000/acre 1979
reccwmen@ed
(5-10 m.

Table 2. (Cont I d)

AREA Culture Method Areal Extent Stocking Density Source

OYSTERS

Crassotrea Trevanen Bay, Hanging Culture 60% of bay leased, "minimum. diligent Sutherland,
gigas Vancouver 154 acres total useage"=12,000/acre 1986
Island, B.C. Intense culture
150,000/acre

-S.E. Alaska, Bottcxn Culture 110-227 acres Else, 1985
1938-60 leased

Japan Raft Standard size Glude, 1979
120 m. x 10 m.

Longline 70-75 m. long
Germany Subnerged Bottan area= 2 20,000,000 seed/ Meixner,
cage array approx. 3 m. acre 1979
2,500,000 harves-
table oysters/acre

MUSSLES
Mvtius Riade Arousa, Raft 10% of surface Marino et.
edulis area used, al., 1982
Spain .07 acres/raft;
2,040 rafts, 143
acres (total)

Pbode Island Raft 60 acres (total) Glude and
Chew, 1982

Maine Raft 14 acres (total) Glude and
Chew, 1982

Washington Raft 5 acres (total) Glude and
Chew, 1982

M M M M an M M M M @ @ M mow

AREA Culture Method Areal Extent Stocking Density Source

China Raft 50-60 m. long Zhang, 1984
rafts

Prince Edward Longline 3301 longlines Anonymous,
Island, Nova 1986
Scotia

Ireland Longline 40 m. longlines, Herriott,
5 acre leases 1984

Sweden Longline .2 acre 5arm Rosenberg
(4500 m. and Loo,
1983

MSSLES
Mytitus
edulis Sweden Longline .06 acre farm2 Swedish
(1500-2000 m. Council for
Planning
and Coord.
of Res.,
1985

Italy Intertidal Racks .25 acre plots Korringa,
1979

Netherlands Bottam Culture 11-25 acres Korringa,
plots 1979

Potential Environmental Impacts Alteration Of Phytoplankton Biomass
Of Specific Techniques And And Productivity
Facilities Potential contribution of shellfish culture to
Anchored Floating Facilities (Rafts And phytoplankton blooms (due to recycling f
Longlines) nutrients, particularly nitrogen) was investigateod
by Weston (op.cit.) as a possible concern. Blooms
Anchored floating facilities are the only are important to other shellfish mariculturists if
facility the organism responsible for paralytic shellfish
types currently in use or proposed for use for poisoning (PSP) is involved. Harmful blooms
shellfish or seaweed culture in Alaska. In the have been linked to shellfish culture only in ex-
study area and in other areas of Alaska, oyster tremely intensive culture situations in Japan. In
farms consist of arrays of trays or nets suspended Hiroshima Bay, Japan, Heterosi=a blooms oc-
from rigid raft structures, usually composed of curred for the first time after oyster culture
logs, boornsticks, poles, or plastic pipe. Some productivity began to decline, and it was shown
farms have a log float corral of boornsticks sur- blooms were accelerated by oxidation of partly
rounding raft or tray array. One mussel culture decomposed substances from shellfish excrement.
operation is being carried out on similar raft struc- In Funka Bay, PSP outbreaks from a
tures in Kachemak Bay. Longline systems, similar Protogonyaulax spp. may have been linked to
to those in use in Japan and other countries, are transfer of infected seed scallops from other areas
being used for oyster and scallop spat collection or to changes in nutrition levels at the bottom of
and rearing experiments and have been proposed the bay (Mottet, 1981). Siting to avoid sediment
for mussel and oyster culture. accumulation should minimize potential for this
An indepth literature search indicates potential impact in Alaska.
environmental impacts associated with floating Molulusc filter feeding could reduce
facilities common to all culture techniques. phytoplankton standing stocks on a localized
Weston's study of impacts focused primarily on basis. Imai (1971) documented a reduction of par-
salmon net pen rearing facilities as well as mussel ticulate matter of a magnitude of 76-95% after
rafts and longlines. He summarizes potential en- passage through 11 rafts supporting 50,000 to
vironmental impacts into categories. Categories 90,000 oysters each. Reduced phytoplankton
of impacts relevant to suspended shellfish stocks is a reason to locate large r intensive cul-
mariculture (rafts or longtines) are as follows: 1) 0
changes in water circulation, 2) changes in water ture operations, or several culture operations in
chemistry, 3) sedimentation beneath culture waterbodies with good circulation and produc-
operations, 4) alteration of phytoplankton tivity. Effects of tidal action need to be con-
biomass and productivity, 5) effects on benthic sidered in determining carrying capacity of bays
(bottom dwellers) comm. unities and more mobile for culture operations and separation distances
invertebrates and fish, 6) introduction of exotic between farms.
species, 7) disease transmission from cultured to Guideline lb should address this concern.
wild animals, and 8) proliferation of bacteria
pathogenic to hurnans. Introduction of exotics
and disease transmission are of concern in all Effects On Benthic Communities And
mariculture. Weston summarizes potential im-
pacts of floating mariculture facilities for Puget More Mobile Invertebrates And Fish
Sound (1986). This study provides relevant infor-
mation which can be applied when considering Should organic sediment accumulate on the' bot-
potential environmental impacts of anchored tom below floating mariculture facilities, the
floating facilities. major effects would be on benthic animals, those
living in or on the sediments. Impact studies have
been directed at larger invertebrate animals such
as polychaete worms, molluscs, and crustaceans,
all important components of prey for important
commercial species of bottom feeding fish. Wes-
ton (op. cit.) investigated both impacts on benthic
community, organisms living in close contact with

sediments (burrowers and sessile filter feeders) raft culture that covers 10% of surface area.
and more mobile animals such as crabs, starfish, However, it is very productive due to extensive
and fish which are able to exploit food resource nutrient rich upwelling and high phytoplankton
provided by organic sedimentation but are not as production. It supports about 2000 rafts and has
intimately tied to sediment chemistry effects. one of the highest protein yields per unit area on
earth. A comparison study of Ria de Muros with
He provides an excellent summary of changes in less than 100 rafts documented a high diversity
benthic communities expected if sedimentation and equilibrium assembly on muddy sediments
occurs, from which the following description is (Tenore et al., 1982).
taken. Addition of organic matter initially enhan-
ces a community; number of species, abundance, A study in New Zealand documented decreased
and overall biomass increases as a food source and diversity in sediments under mussel culture and
nutrients attracts detritus and filter feeders. presence of polychaete worms in contrast to brit-
However, if additional organic matter is tle stars, molluscs, and crustaceans in a reference
deposited, eventually species survival is very low. area (Kaspar et al., 1985 in Weston, 1986).
The few species present are very abundant and Golikov et al. (1979) reported increased biomass
biomass is high at this stage of organic enrich- and total respiration under mussel culture in the
ment. At higher rates of organic input there is a White Sea. He did not provide information on
complete absence of benthic: macrofauna, due to species diversity. Abundance and noted
absence of oxygen in bottom waters and sediments decreased productivity in reference areas was af-
as water exchange of oxygen decreases and is fected by siltation and unfavorable anthropogenic
eventually too low to support aerobic organisms. factors.
Release of hydrogen sulphide to the water
column, toxic to shellfish, occurs as a by product Sedimentation and resultant chemical changes
of metabolism by anerobic organisms. Develop- can affect organisms that burrow into sediments
ment of an anerobic sediment layer also affects or- such as clams. They can continue to obtain oxygen
ganisms that live within sediments (i.e., through use of siphons from water overlaying
burrowers) since they also cannot obtain oxygen sediments, but mortality is likely as more sedi-
and they are eventually excluded. ments accumulate.

In mussel farm effects studies in Sweden, Mattson Mobile benthic species appear to benefit from all
and Linden (1983, in Weston, op. cit.) observed but the last stage of organic enrichment. Romero
this progression under a longline in Sweden and et. al. (1982) documents a higher density (up to six
also observed recovery after mussel culture fold) of crabs under rafts than areas without rafts
facility removal that had been in operation for in Ria de Arousa in northwest Spain. He at-
three years. Benthic community reached stages tributes this to their opportunistic and mobile
of low species numbers within 6 months and feeding habits. Other studies in the same area
original species dominant in the community dis- document increases in bottom fish that may
appeared after 15 months. Six months after benefit from cover provided by shell deposits
removal the bottom was still covered by 20-40 cm (Chesney and Iglesias, 1979 in Romero et. al.,
of mussel shells and sediments rich in sulphides. 1982), higher density and biomass values and
Only limited macrobenthic recovery occurred denser populations of echinoderms, especially
within a year and half. The area of organic enrich- seastars (Olaso, 1979 in Romero et. al., 1982)
ment was limited to within 20 m. of the culture under rafts. Weston (1986) cites studies in Puget
site. Dahlbaeck and Gunnarsson (1981) also ob- Sound (Pease and Goodwin, unpub.), in New
served a accumulation of sediments rich in sul- Zealand (Kaspar et. al., 1985), additional studies
phides, and a progression towards anerobic on Ria de Arosa in Spain (Tenore et. al., 1982;
sediments. Lopez-Jamar, 1984), and in Sweden (Mattsson
and Linden, 1983) with similar findings. Mussels
Intensive raft culture studies have been conducted which fall from rafts provide for growth of or-
in the rias of Spain. Two studies (Tenore et. al., ganisms and attract predators. Epifauna from
1982; Lopez-Jamar, 1985 in Weston, 1986) docu- rafts provides a food source for fish and starfish.
mented a benthic community under raft culture Conversely, he cites a study in Japan (Ito and
dominated by polychaete worms, with species Imai, 1955) which documents an elimination of
diversity, abundance, and biomass decreasing starfish in Japan in an area of extreme organic en-
over time. Ria de Arousa supports an intensive richment under oyster cultures. Some areas of in-

tensive scallop culture in Japan appear to have location at a river mouth and connection of an ex-
reached a maximum capacity for production. tensive pole gridwork with interwoven branches
Densely stocked areas, such as Lake Saroma and (Korringa, 1979). Other techniques using stakes
Mutsu Bay, have experienced massive mortality set in intertidal zones extending 6-8" above the
believed to be due, in part, to declining water bottom and "umbrella" culture with radiating
quality and toxic hydrogen sulfide production ropes attached to stakes are described by Magoon
from bottom sediments (Motoda, 1977). This and Vining (1981) as suitable for use in
form of intensive mariculture developed over Washington. They recommended use of cedar,
many years and can be avoided in Alaska with redwood, creosoted fir, or plastic stakes and
careful siting and bottom condition monitoring as reported PVC structures worked well. Nori net
culture intensity increases. poles are traditionally bamboo, but a recent use
In summary, organ .ic matter accumulation and a of fiberglass has been innovative.
typical sequence of benthic changes can be ex- Pole suspension or pilings impact on intertidal
pected under suspended shellfish culture area where used. Driving of piles or stakes might
facilities, unless bottom currents are sufficient to require access by heavy equipment and main-
disperse the sediment. If the accumulation is tenance might require vehicle access. These
deep enough and an anerobic sediment layer operations result in compaction of substrate and
forms, the benthic community -closely tied to life loss of benthic habitat. Similar effects on organic
in or on the sediments and oxygen presence will matter sedimentation could occur in absence of
be eliminated. In addition to loss of habitat for currents sufficient to disperse sediments.
particular species, a decrease in abundance of
food items can affect the food chain. In extreme Guidelines 1b, Ic and 12a were developed to avoid
cases, mortalities or toxic affects may occur in or minimize these impacts.
more mobile species associated with sediments
Washington DNR (1987) identified potential s
and overlying water column. Many site factors in- ig-
fluence occurance of adverse environmental im- nificant impacts from Nori farms to include shad-
pacts. Baseline sediment chemistry and water ing of eelgrass or seaweed beds, disruption of
quality, depth of water beneath the culture, and salmon migration and herring or smelt spawning,
currents and circulation patterns in the waterbody restriction of travel by marine mammals, and dis-
are key variables determining rate of accumula@ turbance of sensitive bird species in nesting areas
tion of organic matter. Areal facility extent and and overwintering areas (bald eagles, osprey,
stocking rate are also key determinants on impact herons, trumpeter swans, peregrine falcons,
magnitude. waterfowl.)

Guidelines # la, 1b, 1c, 8a, 8b and 12c were Nori is generally farmed where the bottom is
developed to avoid or minimize adverse of im- covered with loose sediment for ease in anchoring
pacts to benthic communities as a result of organic structures. Eelgrass grows on similar bottom
sedimentation. types and needs surface light. Nori nets or rafts
sited over eelgrass beds could reduce available
Suspension from Poles (Nets, Bouchot Culture) light for eelgrass, resulting in lower productivity,
food chain effects on fish and birds, and loss of
Use of poles or pilings set in intertidal area is a substrate stability. Other seaweeds, such as bull
method of mariculture for mussels and oysters in kelp (Nereocystis luetk ana) grow attached to
France (Magoon and Vining, 1981) and in Japan rocky substrates and are less likely to be impacted.
for net culture of Nori. Similar techniques are They would foul and damage Nori culture so the
being employed in Washington (Washington presence of kelp would make the site undesirable.
DNR, 1987). Use of intertidal area permits a
period of drying which may kill fouling organisms Structures could disrupt migration of salmon or
on nets and rearing structures. Bouchot culture act as hiding areas for predators on salmon. Her-
of oysters and mussels in France involves attach- ring could spawn on the Nori. Structures offshore
ment of netting or strings directly onto wooden of traditional beach spawning areas could alter
poles. Culture grounds are fairly extensive on a wave action and change conditions for herring and
mudflat area and truck access is used to replace smelt spawning. No data is available on the im-
pilings or perform various culture techniques. Sil- pacts of existing Nori farms on salmon because
tation problems have been encountered due to its they have been sited in depths greaterthan 10 feet

which avoids areas used by outmigration of young types of impacts are impossible to quantify or
salmonids, but potential for adverse impacts ex- predict in general terms.
ists (Washington DNR, 1987).
Certain measures used elsewhere could result in
Guidelines: le, 12a, . 12b and 13d were developed impacts if permitted in Alaska. Resulting bottom
to avoid or minimize potential impacts of Nori alteration to make it suitable for culture or
farming. eliminate competitors or predators offers ad-
vantages and disadvantages. Measures for
Intertidal and Submerged Structures shellfish growing in Puget Sound include place-
ment of shell, gravel, veneer cuttings, thin plastic
Racks are used in intertidal area to keep oysters sheetings below crushed shell, or gavel to provide
separated for half shell trade. In Washington, cut a firmer substrate in areas with soft bottoms; and
lumber or poles are driven into low intertidal ploughing sandy bottoms, destroying eelgrass
areas as uprights to support shallow trays beds by covering them with plastic or roofing, and
(Magoon and Vining, 198 1). Shallow water racks altering tidal levels through fill (Quayle, 1969).
are used for Japanese oyster culture or fixed to Quayle further describes the problem of ghost
the bottom beyond intertidal range, and also in- shrimp which can burrow extensively and soften
tertidally in France (Glude, 1979). In British oyster grounds. Use of heavy equipment or plas-
Columbia, racks built at different tidal levels are tic sheeting to crush or suffocate them is recom-
used to transplant oysters between intertidal and mended. None of these techniques have been
submerged conditions at different life stages proposed in Alaska; they are provided as ex-
(Gunn et. al., 1983). A new technique in British amples of what is described as acceptable techni-
Columbia makes use of rebar supports for cedar que� in other areas to illustrate potential impacts.
frames and plastic "pillow" bags with mesh tubing
for young oysters. Areas are chosen for exposure
to air 1-2 times per month for fouling control (I. In areas other than Alaska where bottom culture
Hemming, pers. conim.). In Germany, a sub- is practiced, predators are eliminated by lethal
merged tray array has been designed. Trays are means. In Japan, starfish and sea squirts are
perforated plastic in a steel framework which is removed by either dredging or liming (Ventilla,
maintained by use of a barge mounted crane 1982; WakuL 1983), fishermen are required to
(Glude, 1979; Meixner, 1979). catch and kill a quota of starfish (Mottet, 1979),
and oyster drills are collected manually at low tide
Guidelines 1b, Ic and 12a were developed to avoid (Glude and Chew, 1982). Starfish were removed
or minimize these types of impacts. from seeded natural beds of scallops in England
(Mason, 1983). Urchins can be a significant kelp
Bottom Culture predator and efforts for control have included use
of quicklime and hammers (North, 1973).
Oyster bottom culture has occurred historically in However, in Japan, where urchins are eaten, one
Alaska (Else, 1985), but it is not currently prac- experiment involved culturing seaweed to fatten
ticed. Bottom culture may involve enhancing urchins, then harvesting them, and eventually es-
natural beds of scallops or mussels or in creation tablishing a natural system producing both kelp
of beds of these species or of oysters in areas and urchins (Mottet, 1981). Labor intensive
where they are not growing naturally. Enhance- means which are not lethal exist to control
ment or creation of sea vegetable beds by place- predators. Dredges have been used to collect seed
ment of artificial substrates could occur, but any (Wallace and Reisnes, 1985), transplant -animals
advantage of localized change to substrate are at certain growth stages to other bottom areas at
generally surpassed by overall productivity of sea a different tidal level or to floating culture or to
vegetable bed habitats. Conversely, the specific harvest the animals. If practiced in Alaska, poten-
impact of bottom culturing shellfish on exist* tial for significant adverse impacts is high. Impact
Ing
benthic communities depends on the following: of dredges on scallop beds has been a problem in
1) composition of communities, 2) outcome of regulating commercial harvests from natural
competition between natural community resi- beds, which eventually decline after repeated har-
dents and cultured species for space and nutrients, vests. Selective harvest of larger scallops is dif-
and 3) predation rates on cultured species. These ficult to achieve because selective gear is soon
clogged with debris and large animals block es-
cape of smaller animals. Caddy (1973, in Mae-

Kenzie, 1979) reports effects of scallop dredging trial in California, however, resulted in a finding
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence include: 1) mortality of no significant differences in growth of either
of younger scallops from mechanical damage Macrocystis or Porphyra following fertilization
during dredging or return to beds, 2) sublethal (FeL 1983)..
damage to scallops left in dredge tracks, 3) distur-
bance and roughening of the bottom, 4) siltation Fertilization may be proposed in Alaska as a tech-
and packing ofyoung scallops with sand or silt, and nique to increase the nutrient supply in a localized
5) attraction of predatory fish and crabs to dredge area. Nutrient addition could offset any localized
tracks. He documents densities of 3 to 30 times effects of nutrient depletion resulting from cul-
greater inside tracks than outside after dredging. ture. As an example, nitrogen, which is generally
A study in New Zealand (cited in Blackett, 1987) the limiting nutrient to production in marine sys-
also documents high mortalities of young scallops tems, will be added. It is possible fertilization
associated with dredging; beds seeded with scal- could lead to eutrophication, reduction in dis-
lops at densities of 10/square meter has a survival solved oxygen content, and changes in bottom
rate of 20% after 9 months while those which had sediment chemistry in areas of restricted water
been dredged has a survival rate of .8%. flows and poor circulation.

Guidelines ld, le and lf were developed to avoid Guideline lb should minimize this type of impact
or minimize these types of impacts. should fertilization ever be proposed.

Interdidal Handling Potential Impacts Common to all
Use of intertidal areas adjacent to floating Facilities
facilities is often desirable to hold animals out of Introduction of Exotic Species and
water or in conditions where they are exposed to
air at least part of the day. Air drying of rafts or Importation of Seedstocks
nets is also a recommended technique to control Introduction of exotic species may compete with
many forms of fouling (Else, 1985; Nicholson, native species and the possibility of introducing
1987). In Alaska, it can be expected at a mini- associated organisms may have negative effects
mum, oysters and mussels will require a period of
holding out of the water while awaiting the out- on native species. Alaska Department of Fish and
come of PSP tests. Game has adopted a conservative policy toward
introductions which should avoid these negative
Impacts on intertidal areas depend on the activity, effects. Currently, the only species that can legal-
particularly if equipment is used to transport or ly be imported into Alaska for use in mariculture
process shellfish or structures are constructed. is Japanese oyster (Crassotrea gigaa) in spat form
Compaction of substrate, pollution, and distur- from approved sources. Due to lack of hatchery
bance and elimination of existing intertidal com- an 'd laboratory facilities in Alaska for early stages'
munities are potential adverse impacts. of shellfish and seaweeds culture, it is likely that
mariculturists will. be interested in importing
To avoid impacts to important habitats, site selec- seedstocks of exotic species and of species native
tion should include gravel or sand beach locations. to Alaska. Nori in particular would have to be cul-
tured as with an exotic species. Otherwise,
Guidelines lf and lg were developed to minimize development of techniques adapted to indigenous
these types of impacts. species would take at least 10 years. This situa-
tion has prompted a continuous effort to develop
Fertilization a plant mariculture policy for Alaska. A commit-
tee of pathologists, botanists, invertebrate
Fertilization is used to increase nutrient supplies zoologists, and prospective mariculturists is work-
to seaweed cultures (Saito, 1979). Report of ing to ensure a responsible approach. (M. Kaill,
Swedish Steering Council for Planning and Coor- ADFG)
dination of Research (1983) described addition of Under current policy, potential for spread of ex-
90% nitrogen/ 10% potassium pellets to Nori otics is extremely low. Japanese oyster should not
farms in Japan and use of 1 kg of fertilizer to compete with native species if accidentally
produce 3.75 kg of Laminaria An experimental released into the wild, because it has never

reproduced under Alaskan conditions. However, currence. Weston (1986) reviews available infor-
Nicholson (1987) reports observing some gonadal mation about linkage between mariculture and in-
development of cultured oysters within the study creased incidence of Vibrio He describes a
area after unusual conditions of high water possible route of increased human infection from
temperatures reached 70 degrees for 3-5 days. sedimentation onto natural shellfish beds where
Conditions were followed by a massive mortality. bacteria would thrive under conditions of high or-
Importation of Japanese Nori strains appear to be ganic input and where filter feeding molluscs
of concern due to performance in Japan. One would bioaccumulate pathogens. He describes
species, Polphyla yezoensis has been cultured several factors which he concludes contributes to
beyond its natural range and has almost entirely a low incidence of infections in humans in general
displaced L tenera (Kafuku and Ikenoue, 1983). and could find little evidence mariculture con-
However, the two Japanese species have been in- tributes to proliferation of bacteria and strains
troduced into Washington and have never been pathogenic to humans. However, he did recom-
found growing wild there. Water temperatures mend floating facilities not be sited over harves-
are colder than those in Japan where reproduc- table shellfish beds to avoid sedimentation effects
tion occurs (Washington, DNR, 1987). and noted this restriction would also minimize risk
of pathogenic bacteria transmission to humans.
Stringent stock certification and inspection
programs currently required in Alaska can avoid Adopting such a siting guideline le adds another
the accidental importation of exotic predators and safeguard to already stringent policy toward im-
disease organisms. It is desirable to avoid affects portation of exotics and certification of stocks as
on native species, such as those created by disease free.
Japanese oyster drill (Qcgnd2ra japDilica), intro-
duced into Washington, and now a major predator
on native oysters (Weston, 1986). Disease and Parasite Control
Guideline 14a currently established in law, is in- In the event disease or parasite infestations
cluded to avoid these types of impacts. should occur, efforts to prevent or control disease
and parasites and disposal of diseased animals
Disease Transmission from Cultured to could result in native stock impacts. Recom-
Wild Animals and Proliferation of mended methods of control vary based on cul-
Bacteria Pathogenic to Humans tured species and disease or parasite involved.
Disease transmission from cultured to wild Tbree shellfish species likely to be cultured in
animals is a major concern related to importation Alaska have all experienced massive mortalities
of broodstocks and exotic species investigated by under some culture conditions in other areas of
Weston (op.cit.). Conservative importation the world. Disease organisms have rarely been
policies of ADFG minimize potential that dis- identified as causative factors; rather, death has
eased organisms would be introduced into Alas- generally been attributed to physiological changes
ka. Cultured animals are at higher densities than resulting from stressful environmental conditions
under natural conditions, facilitating disease such as prolonged high water temperatures
spread. Very dense stocking results in stress that (Chew, 1987) or rough seas and wave rocking, ac-
C, -_
makes organisms more susceptible to diseases tion (Motoda, 1977); improper handling of spat or
and pathogens. Basis for human health concerns seed (Ventilla, 1982; Wakui, 1983), and over
is food chain effects from bioconcentration occur- stocking and resulting changes in water quality
ingwhen pathogens accumulate in shellfish or fish (i.e., self pollution) (Motoda, 1977; Koganezawa;
subsequently harvested from cultures or from na- 1979; Mottet, 1981; Ventilla, 1982; Wakui, 1983).
tive populations, in close proximity to mariculture Sinderman (1979) reviews many different and
operations. complex causes of oyster mortalities and identifies
several oyster disease organisms.
If bacteria of the genus Vibrip were to spread
from cultured stocks to natural stocks, this or- Sinderman (1979) recommends methods for con-
ganism would be of particular concern, because trol of disease in oyster culture to include environ-
various species are pathogenic to shellfish, sal- mental manipulation through cleaning dead shell
mon, and humans and they are widespread in oc- beds, selective use of chemicals, and removal of

intermediate or reservoir hosts; and of stock disturbance and displacement of species which
manipulation through moving oysters to less cannot tolerate noise or pollution. Finally,
saline growing areas, planting at low densities, species such as bears may become problems be-
suspending at specific depths, moving oysters to cause of human confrontation and mariculturists
low nutrient waters for part of the-season, plant- may desire to eliminate them as well. Site selec-
ing seed late, and harvesting early. He notes only tion can avoid impacts to species likely to become
one recommendation has been made for chemical competitors or predators or which are sensitive to
control using organic mercury salts in early 1950's human disturbance by avoiding known concentra-
and this recommendation would not be made at tion areas. Note that wildlife species which are of
the time the article was presented because of concern to the farmer because they are predators
toxicity of these salts to other organisms. He also in one mariculture situation may be protected by
notes artificial propagation and development of regulatory agencies when in concentration areas
disease resistant oyster stocks as a potential con- where human activity disturbs the species.
trol technique.
Hanging culture eliminates the majority of preda-
Methods recommended for disease control do not tion problems from bottom dwelling predators
appear to pose potential adverse environmental such as sea stars, carnivorous snails, and various
impacts. As described above, stringent control of crabs. Efforts are generally undertaken to
exotic seedstock importation should minimize remove starfish and other invertebrate predators
potential spread of exotic disease organisms. that attach to cultures or enter spat collecting
devices and trays by hand, but there is generally
In Scotland, mussels are parasitized by pea crabs no need to kill them. Starfish occasionally enter
(Pinnotheres spp.) and red worm (W@Zicola injaL- suspended trays as larvae and grow large enough
tinalis) (Edwards, 1984). In Netherlands, to consume small oysters (Church, pers. comm.).
parasites are a major mortality factor in culture of Starfish reportedly require only a single removal
oyster species Ostrea gdidij (Glude, 1979). Scal- from mussel culture (Herriott, 1984).
lops also have naturally occurring parasites (Mot- Culture operations in areas other than Alaska
tet, 1979; Ventilla, 1982). Suspended culture has have involved killing of invertebrate predators by
been described as a technique which minimizes use of quicklime (Magoon and Vining, 1981), but
parasite problems (Herriott, 1984). Continued this practice can also kill many other animals as
vigilance and stringent controls over importation well. Some efforts may be made to trap crabs par-
of exotic seedstocks should minimize potential for ticularly in the vicinity of intertidal storage areas;
exotic parasite introduction into Southeast Alas- crabs can be used for human food in accordance
ka ecosystems. to sport fishery regulations. Predation problems
can be minimized with other types of rearing
Fungal, viral, and bacterial diseases have been dis- structures by repeated checking and removal.
covered in Lamineria and Porphyra culture and
epiphytic growth of various organisms is a Marine mammals, -some furbearer species, some
problem (Neish, 1979). Guidelines established by invertebrate species, and a variety of bird species
Washington Department of Natural Resources are attracted to mariculture facilities to prey on
(1984) which spell out standard procedures for concentrated food source of their traditional food
combatting these problems in Nori culture would items. Predators on fish or shellfish cultures in
not cause any adverse environmental impacts. Alaska are likely to include mink, land otters, har-
Offering alternate food sources or enclosure in bor seals, sea lions, sea otters, bald eagles, herons,
synthetic cages has been tried for protection. scoters and other diving ducks, and gulls. Sea
lions, sea otters, scoters and diving ducks, and
Predator Control and Disturbance of gulls are most likely to prey on shellfish cultures.
Sensitive Species Also, sea urchins, herbivorous fish, and some graz-
ing snails may reduce productivity of seaweed cul-
As described above, mariculture involves maxi- ture through intensive grazing.
mizing single species productivity. Depending on Steller sea lions prey on a wide variety of fishes
natural populations present, eliminating com- and invertebrates, including bivalves such as clam
petitors or predators may be desirable from the s
standpoint of the farmer. Mariculture can also and mussels. Based on review of food habit
involve considerable human activity resulting in studies in Gulf of Alaska, researchers speculate
importance of schooling fish species might indi-

cate a foraging strategy that minimizes effort and problems with bird predation on surface trays
conserves energy (ADFG, 1985). While shellfish (John Church, pers. comm.) Gulls are oppor-
are often not the most important component of tunistic predators and may also prey on shellfish
their diet when schooling fish are available, cultures; experimental bouchot culture of mussels
presence of concentrated bivalve cultures may be was subject to severe gull predation in Ireland
extremely attractive to this opportunistic (Herriott, 1984).
predator.
Lethal methods of predator control offer the
Predator sea otters are most likely to result in con- greatest impact mariculture could have on exist-
flicts with shellfish mariculture because of diet ing native wildlife. If facilities are not properly
and expanding range in Alaska. Reduced to near sited to avoid predation problems, killing
extinction in the early 1900's, rehabilitation ef- predators cannot be assumed to be an acceptable
forts have resulted in repopulation of historical means of control due to the current statutory and
habitat, with scattered groups occurring regulatory protection of most species. Alaska
throughout southeastern Alaska. Sea otters have Department of Fish and Game considers maricul-
a highly variable and opportunistic diet which has ture facilities to be attractive nuisances to
included purple hinged scallops, mussels, and a predators and does not favor destruction of
variety of clams. They tend to concentrate on a predators under 5 AAC 92.410 (a)(2) which per-
single prey item, feeding on it until it is drastical- mits taking of animals in defense of life or proper-
ly reduced. They also have an important role in- ty under some circumstances (Alaska Interagency
fluencing stability of nearshore communities. Mariculture Workgroup, 1988). Other restric-
When introduced into an area with kelp beds, they tions on harassment or killing of marine mam-
can control macroinvertebrates feeding on kelp, mals, of migratory birds, or of bald eagles exist in
such as sea urchins. This shifts kelp beds towards federal law, in Marine Mammals Protection Act,
higher productivity which supports higher con- Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Bald Eagle
centrations of small herbivores in turn supporting Protection Act, respectively.
higher populations of fish that prey on small her-
bivores (ADFG, 1985). Sea otters are potentially Jefferds (1987) reports on chronic problems with
serious predators on shellfish cultures while their scoter predation of mussel rafts in Washington. A
presence may benefit seaweed cultures. variety of techniques were tried, of which net
enclosure of rafts was most successful. He notes
Based on a study of food habits in Cholmondeley a problem with gulls able to get between the logs
Sound, land otters are primarily fish eaters in of mussel rafts from above and unable to get out
Southeastern Alaska, although identification of either through net or between logs. Several were
shelled molluscs in scats is difficult if they are able drowned but predation on mussels did not appear
to remove shells (Larsen, 1983). A study in the to be significant. Line or string can also be strung
same area on mink food habits concludes mink as a web to minimize bird predation from the air
forage in lower intertidal zones, feeding primari- (Herriott, 1984; M. King, pers. comm.). Canadian
ly on crabs, nearshore fish, and isopods. Quan- Department of Fisheries and Oceans (1986)
tification of importance of bivalves in their diet recommends sheet metal collars on cables, boom
appears as problematical (Johnson, 1985). sticks, and stiff legs which are attached to shore to
Johnson (op. cit.) cites a study of mink trapped in prevent passage of furbearers onto floating struc-
the Petersburg, Wrangell area which documents a tures. A French crab fence has been designed
high percentage of clams in mink stomachs (Crox- with plastic mesh walls supported by uprights with
ton, 1960 in Johnson, 1985). A shellfish culture outsloping eaves dug into the beach to protect
could attract mink and otter and result in preda- mussel rafts (Herriott, 1984). Finally, netting has
tion, although Church observes mink feed on been used successfully in beach culture of Manil-
crabs and other organisms in surface oyster trays la clam to exclude moon snails and other
but do not feed on oysters at a Blashke Islands cul- predators (Chew 1987) and in culture of butter
ture site. clams to reduce predation by crabs, sea stars, and
scoters (Gunn et al., 1983).
Several species of diving ducks feed heavily on
bivalve molluscs. Scoters, goldeneys, and harle- Alaska Oystergrowers' Manual (Else, 1985)
quin ducks, in particular, feed heavily on mussels recommends use of mesh or plywood covers over
and may however, find oysters palatable. One oyster tray rafts to keep out birds and bears.
oyster farmer in the Blashke Islands reports no Fencing has been recommended to keep crabs out

of intertidal storage areas (Glude, 1979) and cages Fouling Control
have been used to protect seaweed seedlings from Organisms which grow naturally on substrate of
predation by grazing snails (Saito, 1979).
bivalve shells, on surface of seaweed, or. on
Placing crops which wiU not be harvested near the mariculture structures are considered to be foul-
surface has been recommended for seaweed ing the culture. As described in Capability sec-
(Saito, 1979) and for mussels. Gunn et al. (1983) tions for each species, fouling organisms can
finds the provision of a sacrifice crop of mussels reduce productivity through competition for
near the surface results in a productive crop 5-10 nutrients or food items, parasitism, or restriction
rn below surface in an area with severe duck of water flow. Degree of fouling varies with site
predation in British Columbia. conditions; however sites with high phytoplankton
productivity suitable for shellfish culture are ones
Whereas a variety of measures exist to minimize most likely to have a high level of of fouling or-
predation problems on hanging cultures, eliminat- ganisms. Fouling has made culture of some
ing predators from bottom culture areas appears species of seaweeds in Puget Sound (Mumford
to be more difficult to accomplish in Alaska and Melvin, 1983) and of scallops in hanging cul-
without resorting to lethal means used elsewhere. ture in New Zealand (Blackett, 1987) economical-
Starfish are frequent predators on shellfish. They ly unfeasible.
are widespread and abundant in productive inter-
tidal areas which are suitable for bottom culture. Major techniques for fouling control include: (1)
A variety of boring snails (whelks and drills) also air drying rearing structures and cultures to kill
occur; their potential as oyster predators is not fouling organisms which cannot tolerate
known. In fact, many descriptions of bottom cul- prolonged exposure (Korringa, 1979, Magoon and
ture practices emphasize cost considerations of Vining, 1981; Kafuku and Ikenoue, 1983), 2)
methods which are generally less expensive than timing seed/spat collection or outplanting to
floating culture and describe lower productivity avoid the settling of encrusting organisms (Ren-
due to predation as an accepted consequence of Zhi et al., 1984, Mumford and Melvin, 1983), 3)
selecting this method. increasing stock density by reducing spacing on
Human activity associated with all mariculture ropes and strings (Mumford and Melvin, 1983),
4) suspending cultures lower in the water column,
can displace species from preferred habitats or (Motoda, 1977; Mottet, 1979) or lowering them
important concentration areas. These species in@ only during time of settlement (Ventilla, 1982);
clude harbor seals, whale species, bald eagles, and and 5) manual scrubbing or cleaning with high
many species of waterfowl, waterbirds, pressure hoses (Magoon and Vyning, 1981); and
shorebirds, and seabirds. Sensitive habitat areas 6) biological control, using natural herbivores or
include harbor seal haul outs and pupping areas, predators (Else, 1985). Other recommended
heron rookeries, bald eagle nest and perch trees, techniques for seaweed cultures include immer-
waterfowl concentration areas, and seabird nest- sion of seaweed nets in citric acid and use of
ing colonies. chafers, small discs on lines (Mumford and Mel-
vin, 1983). Else (1985) recommends the following
Improper disposal of garbage and wastes from techniques for oyster culture in Alaska: 1) siting
shore based facilities may attract brown or black in areas with tidal action to discourage settling of
bears. Church reports bears have destroyed fouling organisms, 2) deep suspension to dis-
beached oyster culture structures on some oc- courage seaweed attachment and deter barnacle
casions, possibly because of its attractive smell as and mussel setting in the spring, 3) allowing rafts
fouling organisms die and decay. Mariculturists to dry out on a sunny, windy day, 4) cleaning gear
create attractive nuisance in these situations. by removing it from the water for at lease one
Human development, in general, results in nega. week then leaving it in half tide level for scaveng-
tive impacts on bear populations through dis. ing, 5) manual scrubbing, and 6) cleaning with
placement and bear mortalities following bear and pressure hoses. Else describes biological control
human confrontations. of fouling organisms using their natural predators.
Guidelines 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 10a, 10b, In some areas, antifouling chemicals have been
10c, 10d, 10e, 10f, 13a, 13c, and 13d were used on structures but because these work by kill-
developed to avoid or minimize these types of ing marine organisms, they may kill many or-
conflicts.

ganisms and may also bioaccumulate in cultured Disposal of Wastes
animals. One substance, tributyln or TBT, has
been prohibited for sale by statute in Alaska. Mariculture operations can generate a variety of
With exception of the use of antifouling substan- potentially polluting wastes. These wastes include
ces, recommended methods of fouling control solid waste, sewage, waste oil, diseased or spoiled
should not result in adverse environmental im- animals, etc. Improper disposal of garbage or or-
pacts. ganic wastes is of particular concern where it may
become attractive to brown or black bears.
Guideline 9d and 13b were developed to minimize
the impacts of fouling control.

CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USERS

Mariculture is a relatively new use of Alaska water resources manager DNR is responsibility
resources and has the potential to conflict with for developing state land and water resources
more established uses. Many existing uses are dis- while at the same time providing for resource con-
persed over large areas but other actives likely to servation and protection.
produce pollution are often localized. These con-
ditions provide opportunities to site mariculture DNR historically has been the state agency facing
facilities that avoids conflict with other users. Not new industry needing access and use of state land,
all conflicts can be resolved, but most can. such as prospective barley farms, coal mines,
petrochemical plants, shore based seafood
Resource agencies in Alaska sometimes lack processing facilities, geothermal energy develop-
detailed information on all uses occurring in vast ments, and cattle ranching. Developers need as-
coastal areas. Use patterns can be dynamic, vary- surance of long term property rights to secure
ing dramatically in response to changes *in natural financial backing and so they don't lose control of
conditions and government regulations. sites they have made significant capital invest-
Resource agencies conduct planning and permit ments. DNR's responsibility is to ensure commit-
review processes to provide opportunity for exist- ment of state lands will be lawful, in the publics
ing and potential resource users to identify their best interest and will produce viable new in-
needs. dustries, useful products, stable jobs, and a hope-
Stringent water quality standards for growth of fully a fair market value.
marketable seafood products will limit the Other resource agencies such as ADF&G and
suitability of sites to those with physical locations DEC review development proposals and provide
separate from uses that produce pollution. Deter- guidance for development and protection of
mining acceptable separation distances will guide resources in their areas of responsibility. These
any conflict resolution process and will determine agencies and others share in Alaska Coastal
areas where mariculture and other uses are in- Management Program (ACMP) which provides
compatible. for a coordinated review of all coastal develop-
ment in Alaska. (See Chapter 4 for discussion on
This section will discuss major conflicts with other ACMP)
users of Alaska's coastal resources.
Mariculture is a new and expanding industry in
Land Management Issues Alaska, and may become a significant long term
use of state tide and submerged lands. Alaska
Resource agencies share responsibility for must achieve balance in our regulatory programs
development of new industries that depend on which will allow industry to thrive, while at the
public resources for development. Primary land same time protecting existing uses of land. These
use manager for the state is Department of problems may occur if we do not achieve balance;
Natural Resources (DNR). As state land and displacement of public uses such as recreation and

fish and wildlife harvest; conflicts with other com- resource harvest, boating and on aesthetic enjoy-
mercial uses of tide and submerged lands; land ment, but may displace fish and wildlife harvests
speculation; impacts on adjacent land holders; of bottom dwelling species such as crab and clams.
and stifling of an emerging industry.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alas-
Mariculture Development Land Use ka Boards of Fish and Game cannot legally restrict
Needs harvest to single commercial (for profit) users.
State law also requires access to other lands must
Successful mariculture developments share a be preserved.
number of basic requirements. Foremost among Both long lines and rafts can interfere with recrea-
these is a need to secure appropriate sites. tional and commercial harvest activities. While
Desirable features of a mariculture site are also longlines require only surface floats, in contrast to
desirable for other uses, such as anchorages. log boom structures commonly used as rafts, very
Even in rural Alaska, it is a rare mariculture site extensive long line grids are used in other
that does not also attract other users. countries such as Japan (see Table 2).
Resolution of use conflict usually involves two ap-
proaches: Floating culture of shellfish and seaweed are com-
monly kept separate by some form of negotiation
1. Separation of uses. Competing uses can often in other countries. Japanese, fishing cooperatives
be separated to avoid conflicts. allocate conflicting uses, prohibiting fishing boats
and nets in areas of seaweed culture, (Olson,
2. 1@1itigating measures, such as site design, timing 1987) and prohibiting suspended culture in near-
restrictions on use, or access corridors stipula- shore areas where fishing rights are maintained
tions may allow more than one use of a site and over bottom culture areas (Ito et. al., 1975).
resolve conflict. Aesthetic conflicts are less tangible than physical
Unfortunately, not all conflicts can be resolved to displacement. Long lines may be less objec-
allow multiple use of the same site. It is then the tionable than rafts in terms of their visibility,
land managers responsibility to determine best however some people object to floating structures
use of state lands. Such conflicts are more likely in front of recreational homes or cabins, to as-
to occur in areas not covered by an appropriate sociated activities and noise that results from
land use plan. (See section on planning processes mariculture operations. Aesthetic objections
in Chapter 1. Experience has been, however, many from recreational home owners have been an
conflicts can be resolved using a systematic ap- issue in New Zealand (Dias 1984), in Washington
proach developed by state agencies over many (Freeman, 1985; E. Hurlburt, pers. comm., 1988),
years of working on resource use conflicts. and in British Columbia (Butler, 1986).
Displacement of Public Use Recreation
Presence of structures in water can physically dis- ACMP standards for recreation requires state
place other uses requiring surface access. agencies give high priority to maintaining public
Mariculturists sometimes apply for land use of access in coastal waters. Mariculture may block
areas larger than physical dimensions of the struc- or inhibit public access to important recreation
tures (see Table 1) in order to minimize impacts areas.
to their operations from other human activities. Expectations and desires for seclusion when
Physical displacement can exist for farm site as recreating in rural Alaska is highly valued by resi-
well as for upland facilities. This may affect an dents and visitors. A mariculture facility, par-
even larger area if other human activities require ticularly with caretaker facilities located in a
a degree of solitude.
smaller cove, will essentially eliminate that sense
Culture technique is one variable determining if of seclusion for recreation users other than sea
displacement will occur, and the magnitude of farmers. Tendencies are for traditional recrea-
physical displacement. Bottom culture and sub- tional users of the cove to find other secluded and
merged structures have least impact on natural aesthetically pleasing areas. Coastal resources

may receive competing use in many areas. Smaller, secondary anchorages with alternate
Degree and intensity of recreation pursuits are anchorages nearby will probably be more success-
difficult to define and may be dynamic in nature. ful.
Rural coastal areas receive dispersed recreation
activities by. small groups or individuals at Mitigating measures for this conflict usually
widespread and diverse sites. means locating the two facilities far enough apart
so there is no conflict.
Anchorages Another potential mitigating measure might be
Potential conflicts exist between anchorages and adoption of a "relay" system. Under this system
mariculture development. Mariculture sites need shellfish are taken from contaminated or polluted
room for floats, rafts and other water borne struc- areas to non contaminated waters. Shellfish are
tures. They also need pristine waters free from held for a minimum of two weeks to cleanse them-
high coliform counts and other forms of pol- selves. Testing indicates when the acceptable
lutants. Some organisms and growing facilities product is released for sale. Actual time for this
are adversely affected by waves from boat wakes. cleansing process may be considerably more than
two weeks.
Boats need room to maneuver and anchor. Some
boats inadvertently discharge waste products into Relaying has not been tried in Alaska. It may re-
water. Some boat operators may ignore sound quire substantial handling and facilities that would
waste management procedures and choose to dis- add to the cost of products. Further testing would
charge contaminants at will. Not all boat harbors need to be done if this system is considered.
in Southeast Alaska have adequate holding tank
pumping stations available making it difficult for Fish and Wildlife Harvest
even conscientious boaters to comply.
Both long line and rafts involve structures that can
Raw sewage means contamination of marine or- interfere with commercial and non commercial
ganisms by coliforms. Waste products such as harvest of fish and wildlife. Long lines require
chlorine used by some boats to flush sewage tanks only floats on the surface, log boom structures
and bilges are highly toxic to mariculture or- commonly are commonly used as rafts. Other
ganisms. Heavy metals associated with fuel and. countries use very extensive long line grids. (See
oil wastes contain heavy metals readily absorbed table 2)
and held by many species of sea vegetables.
Conflicts between mariculture structures and
Current facts indicate large, heavily used other uses depends partly on if the farmer needs
anchorages and mariculture facilities are incom- to restrict boat traffic. Farmers may wish to limit
patible. Sewage, chlorine from sewage systems, boat traffic to reduce vandalism, or reduce wave
diesel, oils or other waste products discharged action. Personal use crab fisheries could be very
from boats near a mariculture facility may result productive around rafts.
in unacceptably high coliform counts or other
forms of pollution. Infrequent boat activity, that Subsistence harvests are important activities in
does not discharge harmful products into the most areas where mariculture may occur. Con-
water is not a significant problem. flicts between mariculturists and subsistence users
occur as more facilities are developed. Develop-
This situation could be improved by the corn- ment of direct competition for subsistence resour-
pliance by all boats holding sewage and waste ces will increase as new residents enter rural areas
products for acceptable disposal. Development of or loss of subsistence opportunities occur around
dumping facilities in more commercial harbors mariculture facilities placed in important subsis-
may also help to alleviate sewage problems. tence resource areas.

Potential mariculture sites proposed in known Results of a Subsistence Study currently being
anchorages should have alternate anchorages conducted by ADF&G, Division of Subsistence
nearby. High use anchorages with no nearby al- will be helpful in identifying conflicts.
ternative anchorages will have difficulty being
permitted or leased for mariculture sites.

Conflicts with Other Commercial Uses Conflicts may be limited to those times of year fish
of the Tidelands and Submerged Lands harvest occurs. Separation of uses may be the
only practical solution to this type of conflict.
Best sites for mariculture facilities may often be
best sites for other uses such as mineral or timber Commercial Recreation
transfer and support facilities, log storage, com-
mercial fishing grounds or anchorages, or com- Commercial Recreation In The Form Of Hunting
mercial recreation development. Although and fishing guiding, or the establishment of
mariculture is a new industry in Alaska, some con- recreation lodges have potential for conflict with
flicts have surfaced in Kodiak, Prince William mariculture development. Aside from potential
Sound, and Southeast. Experiences in British physical displacement, such recreation develop-
Columbia and Washington have demonstrated ment could provide sources of point pollution.
these conflicts can occur.
Type and degree of conflict can only be deter-
Besides need for space, water quality standards mined on a case by case basis.
for mariculture may preclude use of favored sites
for other commercial or industrial facilities. Forc- Logging
ing more stringent mitigation measures or alter-
native siting for timber, mineral transfer, or Conflicts with timber harvest operations may
tailings disposal could reduce or eliminate occur because floating facilities can interfere with
economic viability of resource extraction in- log transfer and floating storage operations. In
dustries in a given area. the study area, timber harvest on Forest Service
lands is continuing and operations require log
Conversely, mineral or timber transfer sites, log transfer at tidewater, storage of log rafts in
storage sites, and floating camps associated with protected bays and inlets, and towing rafts to mills.
resource development activities may limit space Conflicts may arise because of: 1) the overlap of
available or degrade water quality for mariculture many siting and operational requirements for log
facilities, making mariculture development more transfer and storage and for mariculture, par-
difficult and less likely. ticularly a requirement for protected waters; and
2) the potential for degradation of water quality
Commercial Fishing in the vicinity of log transfer facilities.
Commercial fishing seldom occurs in secluded Log transfer and storage area siting involves a
coves and bays that are more commonly suitable detailed review of potential environmental im-
for mariculture in the study area. Nevertheless, pacts and conflicts with other uses. Suitable sites
these protected coves may be important to the which meet environmental and industry criteria
commercial fishing fleet because they provide safe are generally limited in number. Unless maricul-
anchorages close to fishing grounds or tenders. ture, log transfer, and storage can co exist, there
(See discussion on anchorages earlier in this chap- may be direct competition for sites.
ter.) Bark and other organic debris resulting from log
Potential conflicts may develop due to fishing transfer and storage can have adverse impacts
hook off points. These are locations near shore similar in nature as those associated with floating
where commercial fishing nets are set for harvest mariculture facilities (Pacific Northwest Pollution
of fish. Hook off points can occur virtually Control Council, 1971; Pease, 1974; Schultz and
anywhere along shorelines free of rocks or other Berg, 1976; Duval and Slaney Co., 1980).
obstacles that would tangle nets. Some hook off Anaerobic sediments can form and hydrogen sul-
points are valuable sites for fishing boats as fish phide may be released. Freese and O'Clair (1984)
migration patterns bring them to the same area documented a relationship between low dissolved
year after year. Culture techniques utilized by oxygen concentrations, high hydrogen sulphide
mariculture operations requiring restricted iise of and ammonia concentrations, and mortality in
open shorelines have the potential to conflict with mussels and littleneck clams exposed to decom-
hook off points. posing wood wastes under laboratory conditions.
Decomposition of log wastes can also release

leachates which are toxic to some species of Urban Development
shellfish (Buchanan et al., 1976) Industrial and commercial development of
The close proximity of a log transfer facility and shorelines may conflict with requirements of
floating mariculture facilities in a small or poorly mariculture developments through physical com-
flushed waterbody could result in contamination, petition for space or through a variety of pollution
disease, or mortality of cultured animals. Bottom sources. The degree and type of impact is site
culture should be precluded in areas where large specific..
quantities of bark could potentially be deposited.
Intertidal storage and upland support facilities Tongass National Forest ma nages most lands in
should be located to minimize potential problems. the study area. No urban development is planned
at this time.
Other types of water quality conflicts may also
occur. Use of pesticides at dry land log storage Residential Development
sites has been proposed in Alaska (e.g., the use of
lindane mixed in diesel oil to control ambrosia Residential development along shorelines or
beetle at Thorne Bay in 1983). These substances hoathomes can compete for physical space with
can be bio-accumulated in shellfish. Require- mariculture facilities. Residential development
ments for boat and seaplane traffic for timber har- can also result in point source discharge of
vest and transfer operations also increase the sewage. Presence of shoreline residents can
potential for hydrocarbon pollution. Sewage dis- result in objections to mariculture on aesthetic
charge from logging facilities would also be of con- grounds. One subdivision exists in the study area
cern as a possible point source of pollution. Logs with both private and state ownership. Conflicts
are sometimes lost and floating debris may between mariculture facilities and residential
damage mariculture structures. development may be minimal.
No known mitigating measures exist that could in- Olive Cove contains land in private ownership so
crease compatibility. Distances between TTF's the possibility of conflict could exist. Public and
and mariculture sites are determined largely on a agency review should address these potential con-
case by case basis due to currents and other physi- cerns if a mariculture site is proposed in this area.
cal characteristics of the area in question.
Mining Historic or Archeological Sites
Upland development associated with mariculture,
Potential conflicts in the form of direct competi- or any other upland development, is not com-
tion for suitable sites for mineral transfer and patible with historic or archeological sites. By law,
mariculture are similar in nature as those between
mariculture and Ilogging activities. Remote these sites must not be affected or, as a last resort,
hardrock mine sites require upland facilities to extensive mitigation is required to identify and
process ore, transfer facility operations, and for record values before impact occurs.
load barges transporting ore to markets. Options Because of limited surveys of variable intensity,
for siting mariculture facilities in proximity to the all historical and archeological sites have not been
mine site are limited. Water quality impacts can located within the study area. Location of known
result from mining operations. Disposal of tailings sites will not be provided in an attempt to prevent
in marine waters that contain high concentrations vandalism. Applicants desiring upland use must
of heavy metals or result in high levels of turbidity initiate a site survey by a qualified archeologist.
and suspended sediments are inherent conflicts. A U.S Forest Service Special Use Permit for
The potential for water pollution from sewage dis- upland development will normally be denied when
charge, boat fuel hydrocarbons, and waste oil is historic or archeological values are found on or
similar to that for logging support facilities and adjacent to the requested site. State permits may
operations. similarly require extensive mitigation or be sub-
ject to denial on these grounds.

Land Speculation Land use conflicts for upland facilities are adjudi-
cated in the study area by Forest Service officials
Prior to 1986 British Columbia experienced a utilizing the Tongass Land Management Plan.
dramatic rush for permits which allowed the
holder to enter and occupy a site to conduct re-- Upland Access
search for up to one year. It appears that these
permits were being issued for large areas of land Access is a major consideration under current
with little regard for potential impacts to the permit and lease review processes. A part of the
public. A gold rush image was created'resulting state's "best interest" determination is an evalua-
in a great deal of public concern, and subsequently tion of impacts on access, especially to upland
a moratorium was imposed. Alaska does not have owners. Access is important for recreation and
an investigative permit similar to this permit but hunting on public lands. Water craft, aircraft and
we could experience land speculation in other in some circumstances by land vehicle access can
forms, most notably by applying for permits and occur.
leases to tie up a site. In most circumstances, access can be mitigated on
Land speculation in this case is described as ob- a mariculture site by specification of easements or
taining land use rights with the intent of not using access corridors on permits or leases. In some cir-
the land for proposed uses but selling those rights cumstances there is not sufficient room to
for a profit. This problem is not unique to separate two uses. Under these circumstances ac-
mariculture and it can occur in any use of state cess may be allowed over other forms of develop-
land. Speculation can be greatly reduced by close ment if a reasonable alternative cannot be found.
monitoring of development schedules and writing
conditions in land use documents that would allow U.S. Forest Service As Upland Managers
agencies to revoke permits or leases if the
development is not proceeding as proposed. As primary managers of uplands in the study area,
the U.S. Forest Service has the responsibility of
Impacts on Adjacent Land Owners management of upland permits for mariculture
development. Land use designation (LUD) 1, 11,
Mariculture can impact adjacent land owners in a III, and IV of Tongass Land Management Plan
variety of ways: loss of tidelands access, boat provides guidance for development in Tongass
moorage, loss of view, noise, loss of privacy, loss National Forest.
of habitat, and changes in water quality. This has
been a significant issue in Washington and British Following is a brief description of four major land
Columbia, and may become a concern in Alaska. use designations:

Adjacent land owners have a number of ways to LUD I (and LUD I Release Areas) - This desig-
participate in mariculture facility siting. They nation is primarily a wilderness designation. It
can participate in development of state land use provides for minimal development compatible
plans, coastal zone management programs, and with maintenance of natural character of land.
local comprehensive plans. Adjacent owners are
notified by mail of pending applications and are LUD H - This designation is managed in a road-
given an opportunity to comment on projects. A less state to retain its wildland character but would
30 day public notice pursuant to AS 38.05.945 is permit wildlife and fish habitat improvement and
required for leases. Local governments, regional primitive recreational development. (The study
or village native corporations, and local coastal area contains no LUD II lands)
districts, communities are also notified. Local
government or regional native corporation may LUD III - This land is managed for a variety of
hold public hearings if necessary. Department of uses. Emphasis is on managing for uses and ac-
Natural Resources reviews all of these comments tivities in a compatible and complementary man-
and weights the use and enjoyment of the adjacent ner to provide the greatest combination of
owner against what is considered to be state's best benefits. These areas have either high use or high
interest. amenity values in conjunction with high com-
modity values.

LUD IV - This area will be managed to provide resolving conflicts on individual permits/leases.
opportunities for intensive resource use and Although a regional perspective is preferred, cost
development where emphasis is primarily on com- of management and area plans prohibits their use
modity or market resources. as a routine method of sorting out problems and
resolving conflicts. Lack of a regional perspec-
The southern half of Etolin Island is currently tive could lead to significant conflicts over time
designated as LUD I Release. These lands are and is a major problem with the existing process.
being managed to provide opportunities for
solitude and primitive types of recreation in unal- During development of statewide guidelines,
tered environment. Alaska should evaluate what British Columbia ex-
perienced during its initiation to finfish aquacul-
Components of mariculture projects occurring ture. Immediate needs for coastal planning
above the mean high tide line must be compatible occurred because they were seeing a loss of access,
with the goals of the LUD classifications. a loss of anchorages, impacts on upland owners,
Development in LUD IV areas is more acceptable impacts on recreation, and tourism. British
than within the LUD I Release area. Develop- Columbia placed a moratorium on leases and
ment in all LUD areas will be restricted to struc- licenses for finfish farming and began an inquiry
tures specifically designed to blend into into finfish aquaculture and its impacts. Inquiries
surrounding landscape. Size, location, and color were completed in 1986. How well their con-
of structures and the amount of trees to be clusions or recommendations apply to Alaska con-
removed will be specified by the Forest Service for ditions is uncertain.
development in all LUD's. Although goals for
TLMP do not apply to the waters below mean high Following is a list of recommendations from the
tide the Forest Service expects permitted ac- British Columbia inquiry. They are included here
tivities on water adjacent to the Forest will be for reference only:
compatible with management direction for sur-
rounding uplands. (for additional planning infor- 1. The government should develop an aquacul-
mation see Chapter 1, Land Use Planning) ture policy which clarifies direction, agency roles,
and the responsibilities of both government and
There is currently one Special Use Permit for an the private sector for the industry. The inquiry in-
upland facility to support mariculture develop- dicated that a clear policy would alleviate public
ment in the LUD I Release area. No more per- concerns over lack of controls and lack of protec-
mits will be issued unless the designation changes tion of the public resource. It would also serve to
to LUD II, III or IV. offset creation of the image of an uncontrolled
land rush, which has generated misunderstanding
Tongass National Forest is presently revising its and suspicion about government objectives.
land management plan for National Forest lands
including the Etolin Island area. Specific direc- 2. Initiate land use studies that would identify
tion on how the resources on Etolin Island will be sites of high value for other important coastal in-
managed will appear in the plan. Until the terests. Use these studies to direct aquaculture
revision is completed current Tongass Land away from major resource and use conflict areas.
Management Plan direction and guidelines will
apply to mariculture developments. 3. Local governments should be encouraged to
develop or revise district coastal management
Cumulative Effects of Expanding plans and local land use regulations to address
Tidelands Use mariculture development within their boundaries.
For most of coastal Alaska, mariculture facilities 4. The land management agencies should review
are permitted on an individual basis. Impact from their practices involving advertising and notifica-
one or two farms may be minimal, but cumulative tion for proposed aquaculture facilities. This in-
effects of numerous farms on existing uses may be cludes notification to local governments. The
dramatic. DNR management and area plans inquiry recommended a 60-day review period.
provide a process for resolving use conflicts on a S. The land management agencies should require
regional basis, and best interest finding required a commitment bond to reduce speculation and a
under AS 38.05.035(e) provide mechanisms for clean up bond in the event of abandonment.

6. The aquaculture industry should be en- with mariculture can be resolved. Appropriate
couraged to institute a program to provide land use plans and permit review process are use-
anchorage, access, and emergency assistance to ful to resource agencies to accomplish resolution
other coastal users. of conflict. Developing comprehensive area plans
is desirable but time consuming (2-3 years) and
7. Establish a minimum distance separation expensive. A streamlined process needs to be
guideline for farms as a means of reducing im- developed and implemented which evaluates land
pacts on upland owners and other resource users. use issues, including cumulative effect of multiple
mariculture operations. Such a process should in-
Further study and evaluation of the British clude provisions for local participation and be
Columbia inquiry should be undertaken before designed to reconcile land use conflicts in a time-
determining if these recommendation apply to ly manner.
Alaska.
Refined policies and regulations are being
Summary developed from newer and more accurate infor-
mation by all resource and review agencies. This
While numbers of potential problems are large, it will greatly assist land management agencies in
appears that most land use problems associated resolving conflicts among coastal users.

GUIDELINES AND Ml'nGA7nNG MEASURES

Relative Measures of Suitability Guidelines for Siting Shellfish and Sea
In developing a mariculture facility several factors Vegetable Mariculture Facilities and
need to be considered: 1) if the site is capable of Mitigating Impacts
commercial production, 2) is the site able to meet "Mitigation" is the process of avoiding or mini-
the requirements of the facility design, and 3) is mizing adverse impacts. Proper siting of shellfish
the development an acceptable use of public land and seaweed mariculture facilities should result in
and water? avoiding the majority of adverse impacts that
The interactions between factors are complex, might otherwise occur.
and may fluctuate from season to season or from Conflicts over mariculture siting have resulted in
year to year. The economic environment may the development of siting criteria and zoning in
support development, or can contribute to both Washington and British Columbia. In both
failures. Other uses sometimes compete for areas, the conflict has primarily been over finfish
limited resources. net pen siting, however the guidelines developed
The following discussions are presented to assist are in use for "all aquaculture proposals involving
agencies or individuals in determining the floating structures and improvements" in British
suitability of a site for select species of shellfish or Columbia (B.C. Ministry of Forestry and Lands
kelp. It is unlikely any single site will be the "mil- 1987).
lion dollar" site in all respects. Therefore, these Proposed siting guidelines are based on a review
indicators will be helpful in estimating the relative of the interim guidelines for the management of
suitability of proposed mariculture sites. salmon net pen culture in Puget Sound (Science
Applications International Corporation 1986), on
the draft guidelines fok development and opera-
tion of aquaculture and fish processing facilities
(Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Pacific Region 1986 a,b), on siting guidelines

developed by ADF&G for other forms of coastal bedded in the substrate in areas with least
development and for area plans. productive benthic habitat. Avoid shallow
areas (less than 40 feet deep at Mean Lower
Guidelines proposed here are based on several as- Low Water)-
sumptions: 1) mariculture in the near future will
be similar to that currently practiced (i.e., floating ld - Because bottom culture site require-
structures will be used, but bottom culture techni-
ques may be proposed), 2) regardless of culture ments are likely to conflict with maintenance
technique used, exclusive use of areas will be of existing productive benthic communities,
desired by farmers, 3) sites require expansion detailed site analysis including a dive survey
potential, 4) farms require potential for access to should occur prior to siting. Bottom culture
and use of adjacent uplands for support facilities requirements should be defined. Informa-
and use of intertidal zone and beach above high tion on the existing benthic community,
tide for beaching gear, and storing or hardening proposed methods of reducing or eliminating
shellfish. Some criteria are in conflict (e.g., in- predation, stocking rates, and potential ef-
creasing stocking density to reduce areal extent to fects on competing species should be
minimize user conflicts vs. decreasing stocking provided. Feasibility of cultu're in alternative
density and increasing areal extent to minimize sites which have lower benthic productivity
sedimentation impacts). Applicability of each should be evaluated.
guideline will depend on specific sites and
proposal under review but they are included in the le - Avoid siting within 300 feet of ma or her -
report as guidelines to both prospective sea i
farmer and to project reviewers. ring spawning areas, hard shell clam con-
centration areas, and major eelgrass and kelp
Fish and wildlife concentration areas and human beds. Avoid siting sea vegetables farms
use areas described in criteria have been mapped within 300 feet of major herring spawning
as part of this project for Etolin Island area. areas and eelgrass beds.

Guidelines are organized into three phases; siting, 1f - Select least productive intertidal or
project design, and operations. If sites can be upland areas for activities involving dredging,
selected which avoid areas described under Siting fill, significant compaction of vegetation and
Guidelines, then measures described in sub- sediments (e.g., filling or mechanized access),
sequent sections to mitigate impacts through or flow alterations. Avoid use of equipment
design or operation may be unnecessary. in productive habitat, particularly tideflats
and salt marshes.
Siting Guidelines
1. To minimize adverse impacts on productive Ig - Do not allow floating structures to
benthic habitats: ground at any tidal stage, except for planned
beaching of gear for cleaning or fouling con-
la - Conduct a site survey to determine flush- trol. Beach gear in intertidal area or beach
ing regime, benthic community composition, area of lowest biological productivity. Sand
and baseline water quality (i.e., dissolved or gravel beaches are the preferred sites;
oxygen levels, presence of toxicants or con- avoid tideflats adjacent to streams and salt
taminants) mar shes.
lb - Site floating facilities and intertidal 2. To avoid disturbance of sensitive fish or wildlife
structures where currents are strong enough species or species during sensitive life history
to disperse organic deposits. Avoid siting in stages:
small embayments with sills, natural restric- 2a - Avoid siting within 330 feet or within a
tions to tidal exchange, or existing water distance determined by the U.S. Fish and
quality problems. Wildlife Service of bald eagle nests.
Ic - Site floating facilities or structures em-

2b - Avoid siting within a 300 foot radius of Intensive sport fishing areas
mouths of anadromous fish streams at Mean Intensive commercial fishing areas
Lower Low Water. (purse seine, troll, gill net, set net)
Intensive commercial crab fishing areas
2c - Avoid siting within one mile of. 1) sig- Intensive commercial shrimp fishing areas
nificant harbor seal haul out concentration (pot, trawl)
areas or pupping areas, 2) significant sea otter Intensive comm. clam harvest areas
concentration areas, pupping areas, or feed- (e.g., geoducks)
ing areas, and 3) major seabird colonies. Intensive comm. abalone harvest areas
Intensive hunting areas (waterfowl)
Intensive noncommercial fish and wildlife
2d - Avoid siting within waterfowl and harvest areas
shorebird seasonal concentration areas. Intensive anchorages within day use areas
These guideline distances can be modified on a of major communities for sportfishing
and other anchorages of local or
site specific basis if other measures will mitigate regional importance
the disturbance or if disturbance is determined to Intensive float plane access areas
be insignificant. Areas of restricted navigation
3. To minimize the effect of creating an attractive
nuisance to potential predators or scavengers: 5. To minimize interference with fisheries enhan-
cement activities:
3a - Determine bird or mammal species
which are expected to be a predator on the 5a - Avoid siting facilities adjacent to
cultured species. Guideline distances for hatcheries or within terminal harvest areas
separation from concentration areas to avoid
disturbance (#2 above) should be used as 6. To avoid adverse impacts relating to water
criteria if the species is a potential predator. quality.
Distance of separation between rearing
facilities and predator concentrations can be 6a - Applicant should gather site specific in-
modified on a site specific basis if other formation on possible contamination sources
measures will be implemented to minimize (e.g., sewage, mine tailings, boat use, etc.)
predation. 6b - Applicant should gather site specific in-
3b - Avoid siting mariculture facilities, in- formation on water characteristics (e.g.
cluding upland support facilities, adjacent to salinity, tidal flushing, currents, depths,
brown and black bear concentration areas. temperature, etc.)

3c - Avoid siting shellfish farms within areas 6c - Applicant should gather site specific in-
where diving ducks, particularly scoters and formation on levels of PSP which may occur
goldeneyes, concentrate seasonally. Rafts or naturally in the area, both in native shellfish
longlines may be sited within 1 mile of con- and bottom sediments.
centration areas if they can be sited in deeper
waters than the birds traditionally feed on 7.- Land use permit/lease guidelines:
shellfish beds.
7a - Mariculture and competing uses.
3d - Avoid siting shellfish farms within one Mariculture may be allowed on state
mile of sea otter concentration areas. tidelands where there is no significant conflict
and if the proposal is not in conflict with other
4. To minimize conflicts with and displacement of guidelines. Siting of mariculture' facilities
traditional commercial and non-commercial users may be more difficult on tidelands designated
of fish and wildlife: in area plans for log transfer or storage,
mineral transfer or access, commercial ac-
4a - Avoid siting in or adjacent to: tivities, crucial fish and wildlife habitat, inten-

sive harvest areas, adjacent to existing or W - U.S. Coast Guard approval. Permits or
proposed land sales, or developed recrea- leases will not be given until U.S. Coast Guard
tions. These areas will be available for has certified that proposed facility will not be
mariculture: 1) if land mangers determine it a significant navigational hazard.
is possible to site, design, and operate the two
or more uses compatibly in the area, or 2) Project Design Guidelines
there is no feasible and prudent alternative
for mariculture while one does exist for com- 8. To minimize adverse impacts on productive
peting use. In no case will mariculture be al- benthic habitats:
lowed to foreclose access to mineral, timber, 8a - Increase distance of floating structures
or recreation resources unless feasible or pru-
dent alternative access exists. However, in from shore to avoid shallow, productive
some cases it may be in public interest to con- habitats.
centrate uses in one bay rather than allowing 8b - In areas where potential for adverse im-
proliferation of uses in many bays. pacts from organic sedimentation is high,
7b - Upland owner support for mariculture. minimize density of stocking and increase
Upland owners are encouraged to identify areal extent.
areas where mariculture (including upland Sc - Use flexible floating structures to mini-
facilities) should and should not be developed mize dampening action on waves and current
and to communicate their conclusions to flows (i.e., break water effects) to maintain
DNR and to mariculture industry. natural circulation patterns.
7c - Mariculture caretaker facilities. Float- 9. To minimize adverse impacts of disease or
ing caretaker facilities for mariculture opera- toxicants on natural stocks:
tions may be allowed. Floating caretaker
facilities for mariculture operations will not 9a - Avoid use of creosoted logs and pilings
be allowed in designated recreation or per- in structures.
sonal use areas unless a determination is
made there is no feasible or prudent alterna- 9b - Avoid use of anti fouling chemicals.
tive. Determination will be made available
for public comment. 10. To minimize adverse impacts on predators or
M - Performance standards. DNR will at- species sensitive to disturbance:
tach reasonable performance standards to 10a - Use non lethal means of predator con-
permit or lease for project development and trol.
operation. Performance standards are to en-
sure permitted area is used for the approved 10b - Use netting or other materials such as
activity, the proposal is economically viable, plywood to cover culture structures to provide
and permit is not held for speculation or a physical barrier to potential bird, mammal,
removal of a land base from competition. In and invertebrate predators.
all cases the approved development plan must
be adhered to. If the performance standards 10c - To minimize predation by waterfowl,
are not met, permit or lease may be revoked. waterbirds, and birds of prey, aquaculture
operations should be covered with plywood or
7e - Development plans. A development netting that has a mesh size small enough to
plan will be required before a lease or permit prevent birds from penetrating it and is made
application for mariculture facilities is ap- of a gauge heavy enough to be visible to birds
proved. Preferred approach is for application and to prevent them from becoming en-
and development plan requirements to serve tangled in it. This guideline applies to nets
(at the minimum) as basis for DNR, ADF&G, used for both above water and underwater
DEC, ACMP, and upland owner review. protection.

10d - Plywood or mesh covers on rearing lie - Lower floating structures (e.g. nets, long
structures should be employed to minimize lines) in the water column to avoid confficts
attraction of bears. with navigation and recreational use of the
area.
10e - To prevent access by predators, use
heavy gauge nets to prevent access. Conwwnt. Lowering cultures, either tem-
porarily or permanently within a range of 12
10f - Operations should be designed and meters below the surface, has also been
managed to minimize attraction of fur- recommended to avoid sets of fouling or-
bearers. If netting is employed, it should be ganisms, high surface water temperatures,
of a mesh size small enough to prevent rocking of scallops, and unstable salinity and
entrance and made of a gauge or material that temperature conditions. Growth may be
cannot be chewed or clawed apart. Sheet reduced under these conditions, but dis-
metal collars should be placed on cables, astrous events may also be avoided.
boom sticks, and stiff legs attached to shore
to minimize furbearer predation. 11f - Design size, color, and height of struc-
tures for low visibility where desirable to min -
11. To minimize adverse impacts on other coas- imize impacts to aesthetics and where
tal users: navigational hazards will not be created.
Design high visibility marking devices (e.g.,
11a - Culture technique chosen can mitigate lighted buoys) where necessary for safe
impacts on other users of the area if other navigation.
users are not excluded from access to the
area. Bottom culture avoids impacts to many lig - Consolidate facilities to minimize im-
commercial and non commercial users of fish pacts on other users. However, establish
and wildlife resources, however harvest of separation distances between farms to mini-
bottom dwelling species may be displaced or mize cumulative impacts on water quality and
precluded. Floating facilities are preferable potential for disease transmission.
to structures embedded in intertidal area.
Long line culture facilities can be designed to Operational Guidelines
be less visible than raft facilities, however low
visibility can create navigation hazards. Long 12. To minimize adverse impacts on productive
lines, by their nature, are more able to benthic habitats:
withstand rougher sea conditions than stand-
ard construction rafts and are suitable in 12a - Set poles and anchors carefully during
areas of deeper water. Use of long lines periods of lowest productivity.
provides greater siting flexibility to avoid sen-
sitive areas or use conflicts, and may, in some 12b - If structures (e.g., nets) are periodically
cases, be a feasible and prudent alternatives removed, leave poles and anchors in place.
to raft culture.
12c - Monitor sediment build up and impacts
11b - Reduce areal extent of floating facilities on substrate/water chemistry. Adjust stock-
to minimum size needed in areas where con- ing rates, remove organic deposits, or move
flicting uses occur. Consider increasing facility if anaerobic substrate conditions are
stocking densities as a means to minimize unavoidable.
areal extent. 12d - If herring spawn on structures, leave
11c - Provide navigation lanes or access ease- them in water until the spawn hatches.
me .nts through facilities. 13. To minimize adverse impacts on predator
Ild - Increase distance of floating structures populations or species sensitive to disturbance:
from shore to minimize use conflicts.

13a Use nonlethal predator control 14. To minimize the impacts of disease, toxicants,
measures. or genetic changes on natural stocks:
13b - Use nonlethal means of fouling control.. 14a - In.the case of disease outbreaks, notify
Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
13c - Garbage should be kept to a minimum follow existing procedures for control of dis-
and incinerated daily. Food should be hand- ease. Use of chemicals and disposal of dis-
led to prevent its odor from attracting bears eased plants or animals must be approved by
and stored in bear proof containers. Disposal DEC.
of shellfish by products or dead animals
should be done in such a way as to minimize 14b - No exotic species of plants or animals
attractiori of bears in a site approved by DEC. can be imported without approval by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. (by law)
13d - Remove structures during periods of
conflict with species sensitive to disturbance. 14c - Plants and animals shall not be
transported between culture areas or from
Comment. This measure was identified as a the wild to a culture situation without ap-
mitigating measure for Nori farms in proval by Alaska Department of Fish and
Washington (Washington DNR 1987). In a Game. (by law)
programmatic Federal Environmental Im-
pact Statement, they identified the following 15. To minimize adverse impacts on other users:
mitigative measures: 1) removing all rafts
when not in use for a period of one month for 15a - Remove structures (e.g., Nori, nets)
production, 2) removing nets not actively during periods of conflict with other fisheries.
used for production, 3) removing nets during 15b - Restrict hours or periods of operation
herring spawning season if overspawn of her- to daytime hours.if necessary.
ring outside traditional areas.was anticipated,
4) removing nets and structures in less than
10 feet of water depth between March 15 until
June 15 every year to prevent impacts on
juvenile salmon migration.

Etolin Island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTER4
Project Review and Permitting
Page67 - SITING AND DESIGN PHASE
67 - ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS
68 - Coastal Project Questionnaire and
Preapplication Services
70 - Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application
70 - Project Packet
70 - Project Schedule
70 - Public Notice Systems
71 . Issuance of State Agency Permits

73 APPROVALS ROUTINELY REQUIRED FOR SITING
MARICULTURE PROJECTS
73 Land Management Approvals
73 DNR Land Use Permits & Leases
73 New Process
73 Permits
73 Leases
73 Conflict Resolution
73 U.S. Forest Service Land Use Permits (Special
Use Permits)
75 NEPA Processes

75 OTHER APPROVALS
75 - Other DNR Approvals
75 - DEC Approvals
76 - 401 Certification
76 - Wastewater Discharge and Solid Waste Permits,
and System Plan Reviews
77 - ADF&G Approvals
77 - Shellfish Farm Permit
78 - Fish Habitat Permits
78 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits
78 - Section 10 and 404 Permits

79 ST OCKING PHASE
79 - Fish Transport Permit
79 - Interim-Use Permit

79 PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION PHASE
79 - Site Certification and Development
80 - Product Certification Prior to Marketing

Chapter 4

PROJECT REVIEW AND PERMITTING

INTRODUCTION

Aquatic farms in marine waters and on adjacent consistency with the Coastal Standards of the
uplands can raise'public concerns about environ- Alaska Coastal Management Program under
mental and land use effects. Chapters 2 and 3 dis- 6AAC 80. Statewide standards are in effect in the
cuss these considerations for siting or operating Etolin Island Study Area. Different or more
shellfish or aquatic plant farms. State and federal detailed standards may be in effect within the
agencies have authority to manage or regulate boundaries of Coastal Districts or Coastal
aquatic farms and to resolve or mitigate public Resource Service Areas with approved coastal
concerns. Aquatic farmers must obtain plans. DNR, DEC, and ADF&G review maricul-
authorizations from state and federal authorities ture projects against the coastal standards in the
before initiating farm related work. course of their permit review.

State and federal aquatic farming authorization Authorizations for siting and design, stocking, or
occurs in three primary stages: 1) siting and design product distribution phases involved in aquatic
approvals, 2) stocking approvals, and 3) product farming are listed in Table 4-1. Application
distribution authorization. Aquatic farm siting materials and issuing agencies are also identified
and design involves the most significant commit- in this table.
ment of public resources and therefore has the
most specific regulatory requirements. This
phase also generates the most public interest, This chapter describes the state's interagency
primarily because of land use considerations project review and authorization process used to
necessary to properly site an aquatic farm. schedule timely and thorough project discussions.
Specific information about each state or federal
All development projects occurring in the Coastal resource agency approval required for aquatic
Zone of Alaska as established in the Alaska Coas- farming is also presented.
tal Management Act must undergo review of their

SITING AND DESIGN PHASE

Alaska Coastal.Management
Program Project Review Process within the Office of the Governor established in
regulation (6 AAC 50) a project review system
As interest in developing Alaska's resources in- that: 1) assists applicants in determining what
creased during the last decade, industries state resource agency siting and design authoriza-
demanded state agencies become better or- tions are necessary for coastal projects, 2) gives
ganized and integrated to streamline the permit- state resource agencies and local governments op-
ting processes for coastal project siting and design. portunity for concurrent processing of all ap-
In response to this need, and under Alaska Coas- provals needed to site these proposed projects,
ta.1 Management Program (ACMP) authority, and 3) mediates any objections by applicants to
Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) those proposed ACMP conditions.

Coastal project review process, also known as con- If a permit is required from a federal agency, or
sistency review process, provides a coordinated from more than one state agency, the project
interagency review to determine project com- review process is coordinated by a regional office
pliance with regulatory standards of the Alaska of DGC. If permits from only one state agency
Coastal Management Program. The process is are required, the state agency responsible for is-
designed to concurrently allow agencies to ex- suing those permits coordinates the review.
change resource information and concerns re- Answers to the coastal project questionnaire will
lated to an ACMP consistency determination and determine who the appropriate coordinating
agency decisions on particular project authoriza- agency is.
tions. The coastal project review system is
designed to allow further administrative refine- For initial aquatic farm siting and design, the
ments for specific types of coastal development coordinating agency is always DGC. Table 4-1
projects. Etolin Island Pilot Project provides an lists numerous state and federal permits which
opportunity to present the recently developed maybe coordinated under a DGC project review.
Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application process. Aquatic farms in marine waters will require the
Additional processing improvements will also be following approvals (items 1-8 from Table 4-1):
recommended. (Subject to change from SB 514)

New mariculture legislation has been passed (SB 1. Consistency Determination, from DGC.
514) which will affect processing of shellfish, sea
vegetable, and related hatchery proposals. Im- 2. Certification of Reasonable Assurance, issued
plementation procedures for this legislation are by the Department of Environmental Conserva-
being developed. New procedures must meet re- tion (DEC), to assure the project will meet state
quirements of the bill and maintain existing water quality standards,
ACMP interagency project review systems. 3. Land Use Authorization. This permit or lease,
Coastal Project Questionnaire and issued by Department of Natural Resources
Preapplication Services DNR, conveys interest in state owned tidelands.
A preapplication worksheet, in Coastal Project 4. Approval from upland owner, necessary only if
Questionnaires (CPQ), is designed to help ap- the aquatic farm will need upland facilities.
plicants determine state authorizations necessary Within the study area most uplands are managed
before project construction can begin. It also by the U.S. Forest Service.
cross references related federal permit applica- 5. Shellfish Farm Approvals, issued by Depart-
tion requirements. Completed questionnaires ment of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
are submitted as part of a review packet to help
project reviewers understand a proposals scope. 6. Approval by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
A simple yes/no question series in CPQ have been ensure the aquatic farm does not obstruct naviga-
designed by each permitting agency to identify tion.
permit requirements. A "yes" answer means that
a permit for that aspect of the proposal may be
necessary. An agency contact list is provided with As shown in Table 4-1, most state applications
each CPQ so applicants can speak to appropriate (items 1-6) can be applied for on a single Con-
individuals about specific application require- solidated Shellfish Application.
ments indicated by "yes" answers. To participate in the state's project review
Before finalizing project plans and submitting an process, an applicant must first complete a Coas-
application, an applicant can request the coor- tal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) to determine
dinating agency to arrange meetings between ap- which authorizations are needed, and then submit
plicants and state agency representatives. all necessary applications,
Preapplication meetings can help identify con-
cerns, relay need for more information, and en-
courage a mutual project understanding.
Preapplication meetings can be arranged by call-
ing or writing to the coordinating agency.

111111111 =M M M M man MM M M
Table-4-1 Permits Which May be Necessary for Mariculture Projects
Perm i t/Certification Application Materials Issuing Agency
Siting and Design Phase * Coastal Project Questionnaire
1. Alaska Coastal Management Program 0 Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application. Division of Governmental Coordination

2. Certificate of Reasonable Assurance 9 Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application Dept. of Environmental Conservation
0 Corps of Engineers Application
3. Tideland Permit/Uase a Consolidated Sheffish Farm Application Dept. 'of Natural Resources
4. State Park Use Permit e Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application Dept. of Natural Resources
5. Shellfish Farm Permit a Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application Dept. of Fish & Game
6. Title 16 Permit 9 Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application Dept. of Fish & Game
7. Dept. of the Army Permit * Corps of Engineers Application U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ON 8. Special Use Permit for e Separate Agency Application U.S. Forest Service
Upland Facilities
9. Beachlog Salvage Permit e Separate Agency Application Dept. of Natural Resources
10. Material Sales * Separate Agency Application DepL of Natural Resources
11. Water Rights * Separate Agency Application DepL of Natural Resources
(if greater than 500 galtday)
12. Wastewater Discharge Permit * Separate Agency Application DepL of Environmental Conservation
(if greater than 500 gal(day)
13. Solid Waste Disposal Permit e Separate Agency Application DepL of Environmental Conservation
(if greater than single family use)
Stocking Phase-
14. Interim Use Permit e Separate Agency Application Dept. of Fish & Game
15. Fish Transport Permit e Separate Agency Application Dept. of Fish & Game
Product Distribution Phase
16. Sanitary Survey a Separate Agency Application Dept. of Environmental Conservation
17. Shellstock Shippers Permit @ Separate Agency Application Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application Project Schedule

For a proposed shellfish farm, state authoriza- Aquatic farm reviews are scheduled by DGC to
tions listed above can -be applied for by filing a occur within an established 50-day review
single form, the Consolidated Shellfish Farm Ap- schedule. This schedule is initiated upon receipt
plication (CSFA). (See Appendix D) of a complete project packet. Steps in the state's
review process are illustrated in Figure 4- 1. DGC
If aquatic farms need an assured fresh water supp- sets review schedules and distributes project pack-
ly, the applicant should apply for water rights. The et information to all reviewing agency contacts
applicant will also need to apply for a permit from and to affected local government or coastal dis-
ADF&G to withdraw water if the water source is tricts. (See AS 46.40 or 6 AAC 85. for reference
an anadromous fish stream. Applying to DNR for to establishment of local coastal districts under
water rights is required if use will exceed 500 gal- the ACMP).
lons per day. Similarly, wastewater discharge ex-
ceeding 500 gallons per day requires a permit Comment and decision deadlines are set to bring
from DEC. Applicants must also submit separate certainty and timeliness to the review, and to
applications for purchase of state timber or gravel promote efficient interagency discussion and
from DNR. These permits are not issued from resolution of issues. These schedules may be ex-
CSFA forms because they are not essential for a tended if: 1) incomplete applications result in re-
typical aquatic farm. CSFA was limited to most quests for additional information 2) public
frequently needed authorizations so applicants hearings are conducted, and 3) resource agency
would not have to supply unnecessary informa- field investigations are necessary.
tion.
If a state resource agency, a coastal district with
Project Packet an approved plan, or an applicant does not agree
with a proposed consistency determination and
To initiate the state's coastal project review interpretation of ACMP standards, they may re-
process for aquatic farm project proposals, DGC quest elevation of the finding to division directors
must receive the following completed packet: for reconsideration. Further consideration by
commissioners of those agencies can also be re-
1. Signed Coastal Project Questionnaire. quested if new policy direction must be estab-
lished. Each elevation step will be managed under
2. Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application an additional 15 day review schedule. The general
public is not eligible to elevate, but may request a
3. Any state permit applications needed for the public hearing during ACMP review.
project not included in the CSFA.
Public Notice Systems
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public notice
(which jointly notices the state's project review) The Alaska Coastal Management Program
Project Review Process integrates review of per-
5. Copies of any federal permit applications mits needed for siting and designing a routine
needed for the project (originals go the federal aquatic farm. Although this system can schedule
agency issuing the permit) review of coastal projects by agencies and local
coastal districts, this process cannot alter specific
6. Additional pertinent information including requirements each agency has for public notice.
public notices from agencies. Individual public notice is required for land
management authorizations and most regulatory
Project packet receipt ensures the state can ad- approvals required for mariculture projects.
dress all administrative and regulatory siting and Three separate public notices are generally re-
design matters for this project phase in one inter- quired for proposed mariculture projects.
agency review. Corps of Engineers (COE) routinely issues a
public notice for Section 10 or Section 404 permit
applications. A notice of the state's review for
ACMP consistency certification and Department

of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) "Cer- 3. Concurrent with COE notice, DGC would send
tification of Reasonable Assurance" that the a completed packet to a preestablished distribu-
project will meet the State's water quality stand- tion list which includes Tongass National Forest
ards is also included within public notices printed Ranger District.
by COE.
4. DNR may issue public notice for use of state
In addition to public newspaper notice, COE lands at this time;
sends information packets to a general mailing
list. DGC also sends complete project packets to 5. DNR contacts the Forest Service as upland
all participating state and federal agencies and to owner for comment during consistency processes;
affected local coastal districts. and

Public notice under AS 38.05.945 is required for 6. A public notice is issued at the end of DNR's
all land use authorizations DNR is proposing to preliminary best interest finding, a procedure
issue for aquatic farms and related hatcheries as which follows conclusion of the consistency
a result of recent legislation (see Appendix G). review.
DNR will be working with other state resource
agencies, COE, and DGC to establish procedures These divergent public notices result from specific
to enable concurrent public notice publication agency requirements. During implementation of
where possible. (SB 514), the new mariculture legislation, an ef-
fort will be made to examine and coordinate to the
Under National Environmental Policy Act, U.S. extent possible, public.notice for all State and
Forest Service is required to provide a public Federal permit applications to occur jointly or
notice and comment period to determine issues concurrently.
related to any Special Use permit application.
Timing of this notice is determined independent Issuance of State Agency Permits
of COE or DNR notices.
Under state and federal law, any resource related
Although timing of all three notices is uncertain, permit for coastal activities must be determined
a probable sequence if a aquatic farmer submitted to be consistent with standards of ACMP before
all agency applications concurrently could be: state or federal permit are issued. Consistency
(See Figure 4-1 on next page): review processes previously described are used to
1. The Forest Service would issue a notice ad- make the consistency determination, thereby
dressing caretaker facilities for mariculture finding each related permit consistent. The con-
upland activities. sistency determination is the first decision docu-
ment issued in the state's project review process,
2. Within the same month, COE may issue a because it is required prior to other agency actions
public notice for a waterborne structure. This on coastal projects. A finding of consistency does
notice would also address the state's consistency not guarantee permit issuance or authorities out-
determination and DEC 401 certification. side the scope of ACMP may be placed on per-
mits, leases, or other resource authorizations.

Figure 4-1 PROJECT CONSISTENCY REVIEW PROCEDURES

Formal Request Hearing May Applicant, Applicant,
For More Info Be Requested Approved District Approved District
Or Agency May Or Agency May
May Cause May Cause Request Elevation Request Elevation
Extension Extension Day 49 129) Day 69 1491
Day 25 1151 Day 34 1171

Coordinating
Applicant Applicant Coordinating Agency Develops Project Coordinating Project
Contacts Submits Age" Preliminary Elevated To Agency Tries Elevated To
Agencies And Complete Distributes Everybody Position And Director To Develop + Cabinet Level
Completes Packet To Packet And Comments Notifies Applicam Level Consensus .......... For Policy
Project Coordinating Sets Review Agencies And Direction
Questionnaire Agency Scliedule Day 34 1171 Approved Districts Day 49 1291 Day 64 1441 Day (641
tQ - Day 1 [1) Day 2 (2) Day 44 124)
Optional... Objections
Preapplication No Objections
Conference
Day# Determination Determination Determination
Issued Issued Issued
Day 50 1301 Day 64 1441 Day 84 1641

Agency Agency Agency
Approvals Approvals Approvals
Day 55 [351 Day 69 1491 Day 89 1691
As required by 6AAC 50-070.
Fo 01

Day of review schedule on which milestone occurs.
First number is for a 50 day schedule, (#1 is for 30 day schedule.

.... Optional milestone

M 111111111 M M @ M

Approvals Routinely Required for This legislation mandates DNR to adopt new
Siting Mariculture Projects regulations. Adoption of regulations allows for
public participation in making policy decisions
needed to carry out the law. DNR has begun
Land Management Approvals analyzing SB 514 and will propose regulations to
Development on uplands and tide/submerged interpret it in the near future. In the meantime,
lands in public ownership requires approval from this section sets out major requirements of the
managing agencies prior to such activities. DNR new legislation and of existing laws and regula-
is the state's primary land manager. Division of tions that generally apply to aquatic farm develop -
Land and Water Management (DLWM) within ment.
this Department has primary responsibility for is- Under new legislation, DNR begins the process of
suing the permits or leases necessary for aquatic authorizing new aquatic farms by identifying
farm development on state owned lands or waters. geographic districts within which it will invite site
Several federal agencies manage most federal applications. Any person who wants to obtain
lands in Alaska: U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau property rights to develop an aquatic farm on
of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- state owned tidelands may participate. The ap-
vice, and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. plication period for aquatic farm permits will
remain open for at least 60 days each year. In line
The U.S. Forest Service is the responsible land with current agency practice, the application will
management agency for all federal lands above probably be a consolidated form that provides in-
formation other state agencies will need to
mean high tide line within the Etolin Island process their own permits. The applicant will fill
project area. These lands are managed through out a CPQ and file for any necessary federal per-
the local Ranger District office 'in Wrangell. mits at the same time.

DNR Land Use Permits and Leases After consultation with DFG and DEC, DNR will
prepare a preliminary finding under AS 38.05.035
DNR currently manages approximately 85 million (e) explaining why it believes it is in the state's best
acres of uplands, about 10 million acres of water, interests to grant permits for aquatic farm
and tidelands along the State's 34,000 mile development at particular sites. Conversely, if
coastline. DNR also manages approximately 25- DNR believes a permit should not be issued for a
30 million acres of submerged land off shore out certain site, it will give the applicant a written find-
to the three mile territorial sea boundary. ing explaining reasons for denial. DNR must
prepare land use plans and classification orders
DNR is mandated by Alaska's Constitution to en- for proposed sites that are not classified. Agen-
courage settlement of the state's land and cies are developing procedures to incorporate
development of resources by making them avail- classification requirement into the consistency
able for public use consistent with public interest. review process.
State statutes direct departmental management
of state owned land to establish a balanced land DNR will hold a public hearing in each district
use for both public and private purposes, and to where it proposes to issue aquatic farm permits.
administer state programs for the conservation It will give public notice under AS 38.05.945, in-
and development of natural resources. cluding advertisements in local and statewide
newspapers and notice to affected municipal
New Process governments or Native regional corporations,
regional fish and game advisory councils, coastal
SB 514 was passed in the last hours of the 15th resource service areas (local councils authorized
legislature and state agencies are now reviewing to prepare district coastal management plans
that legislation to decide how best to implement where there is no municipal government to do so)
it. Implementation will be designed to mesh and others, inviting interested people to testify or
smoothly with existing coastal project review to comment in writing on the proposal. If pos-
process to avoid duplication of effort by ap- sible, any public notice necessary for a federal per-
plicants, government agencies, and the general mit or for other state permits will be given at the
public interested in commenting on aquatic farm same time.
proposals.

After considering comments it has received, DNR resource agency commissioners. If necessary, a
will prepare a final finding on the proposed per- final policy decision will be made by the DGC.
mit sites, while DGC issues a conclusive (final) The general public does not have the same right
consistency determination. If a proposal is deter- to require elevation.
mined to be consistent with ACMP and to be in
the state's best interests, an aquatic farm permit Each resource agency also has an administrative
will be'granted. Other agencies will take similar appeal process that gives any aggrieved person an
action under their own statutory authorities. opportunity to dispute that agency's action. The
ultimate recourse by a person who objects to a
Permits final agency decision, including an ACMP deter-
mination, is an appeal to Superior Court.
An aquatic farm permit is a nontransferable right,
valid for three years, to enter, improve, and U.S. Forest Service Land Use Permits
develop a state tidelands site into an aquatic farm (Special Use Permits)
or hatchery. The permittee must post a bond or
other security to cover restoration costs if the site Tongass Land Management Plan provides broad
is later abandoned. DNR has discretion to renew direction for all activities, including mariculture,
the permit, but must again give public notice and occurring on Tongass National Forest. The forest
consider comment received before doing so. If includes most land above mean high tide line.
the permit 'tee succeeds in developing the site for Tongass Land Management Plan has allocated
aquatic farming or as a hatchery and it is offered the study area for the Etolin Island Area Maricul-
for lease, the permittee has first rights to that lease ture Pilot Project to a mixture of land use desig-
(see below). nations. Each land use designation allows a given
range of activities to occur within the land unit.
Leases Management objectives of land use designations
are presented in Chapter 3. Etolin Island Project
As with other leases issued for state owned land, map (in back pouch) delineates land use designa-
aquatic farm leases may be assigned (transferred) tions for this area of Tongass; National Forest.
with the approval of DNR. If the assignee chan- Some land around Olive Cove on the east side of
ges use of the site, the lease reverts to the state. Etolin Island is either privately or state owned so
Leases are long term property rights: their dura- direction from Tongass Land Management Plan
tion can be as much as 55 years, although the does not apply.
department will probably choose a shorter term
(10 to 25 years). If a permittee who developed a Any use of federal lands for development requires
site for aquatic farming chooses not to lease it, the a Special Use Permit. This may include needs for
lease will be offered to the public. Sites will be shoreties, storage facilities, living facilities, water
leased for not less than their appraised fair market lines, and communications equipment. Special
value. The lease will be reappraised and rent ad- Use Permits usually requires an annual permit
justed accordingly every five years. The lessee and a fee. Forest Service reviews and decisions
must post a bond or provide other security to about upland facilities for mariculture proposals
cover restoration costs if the site is later aban- should occur at the same time the state's project
doned. review and COE permit review are occurring.

Conflict Resolution Forest Service approval of permit requests will
depend upon whether or not the need for upland
ACMP project review process provides a method facilities can be accommodated on the tideland
for resolving conflicts via the "elevation" proce- permitted area, or if there are state or private
dure. A state resource agency, a coastal district lands in the vicinity that are suitable. Impacts on
with an approved coastal management plan, or an surrounding environment are evaluated. Ap-
applicant who does not agree with a proposed con- parent suitability of tideland sites for mariculture
sistency determination or with an interpretation purposes is also a determining factor. Com-
of ACMP standards has standing to request patibility with laws, regulations, land use designa-
reconsideration of the determination by state tions and other projected uses are evaluated.
agency division directors. If the dispute is not Public project review occurs in accordance with
resolved, it can be elevated further to the level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NEPA Processes Department Of Environmental
This determination of permit suitability will be ac- Conservation Approvals
complished by following procedures required in DEC has two divisions involved in permits and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is certifications necessary for development of
the basic national charter for environmental aquatic farms. Division of Environmental Health
protection, establishing policy, setting goals and (DEH) has two major mariculture respon-
providing a means for policy implementation. sibilities. One is to conduct sanitary surveys and
certify sites for growing commercial shellfish.
NEPA procedures ensure environmental infor- This is in compliance with the National Shellfish
mation is available to public officials and citizens Sanitation Program. The second responsibility of
before any action is taken. DEH is product certification prior to marketing.
Authorization occurs with issuance of a Shellstock
All sites requested for permits will be examined, Shippers Permit. This ensures a product free from
usually by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) and PSP and other contaminants. Those certifications
they will evaluate the project or facility in relation are described later in this chapter.
to surrounding environment. This evaluation will
then be made available for public review. Both of these certifications are conducted inde-
pendently of ACMP review and time frames are
Other Mariculture Project outside ACMP time frame. ACMP reviews are
Regulatory Approvals Routinely completed without these certifications. However,
Needed during the project siting and design phase, DEQ
will notify DEH of a mariculture proposal. DEH
In addition to approvals for access and use of will contact the applicant with enformation about
public lands, a significant regulatory structure is requirements for the growing site to be certified
in place to address public issues related to impacts and to initiate shellfish product commercial sales.
of these uses. These additional public interest Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is
considerations are administered through state responsible for regulating water quality in Alaska.
and federal regulatory agencies as follows: Water Quality Standard Regulations, 18 AAC 70,
are guidelines which regulate water pollution.
Other DNR Approvals Specific water quality parameters for each desig-
Other authorizations from DNR may be required nated water use are addressed in the Water
for development of an aquatic farm. A person Quality Standards section of Chapter 3. For fresh
may obtain ownership of beach logs to be used in and marine waters these include: fecal coliform
I- bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity,
construction of rafts by purchasing a beach log sa temperature, dissolved inorganic substances,
vage permit. This permit is administered through sediment, toxic and other deleterious organic and
State Division of Forestry. A water appropriation inorganic substances, color, petroleum hydrocar-
may be obtained from DLWM, giving the aquatic bons, oils and grease, radioactivity, total residual
farm developer legal right to continue using a par- chlorine and other residues. DEC uses the follow-
ticular quantity of fresh water. Water rights are ing procedures to apply appropriate water quality
normally transferred with the permit or lease they criteria for any water body:
serve.
1. If a water body is protected for more than one
Materials (sand or gravel) on state uplands or use class the most stringent water quality criteria
tidelands may be purchased from the DLWM to will apply.
use for fill or other purposes. Materials are sold
at fair market value. 2. At the boundary between waters protected for
If an aquatic farm is proposed within a State different use classes the most stringent use class
Marine Park (none in the Etolin study area) will apply.
authorization from the Division of Parks and Out-
door Recreation is required. 3. In estuaries, where fresh and marine water
quality criteria differ within same use classes, the
standard will be determined on the basis of

salinity. However marine water quality criteria any time afterward, be consistent with state water
will apply for dissolved oxygen if salinity is one quality standards. This certification is made con-
part per thousand or greater and for fecal coliform currently with ACMP review. The time frame is
bacteria if salinity is 10 parts per thousand or the same as that for ACMP review.
greater. I
401 certification is required by COE before they
Water Quality Standards apply to siting and will issue a COE permit for structures in navigable
operation of mariculture facilities. Division of waters or to place fill in wetlands. Any stipula-
Water Quality is responsible for issuing the Cer- tions attached to 401 certifications will be at-
tificate of Reasonable Assurance required under tached and become part of the COE Permit.
section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972, as modified by the Under 401 review, DEQ looks at any impacts a
Federal Clear Water Act of 1987. Under section mariculture development might have on sur-
401 any applicant for a federal license or permit' rounding waters. This could include discharge of
to conduct any activity which may result in any dis- organic materials from the animals, or addition
charge into navigable waters of the state must ob- of any substances into the water by the farmer.
tain certification from the designated state agency Projects will also be reviewed for possible conflicts
to assure such discharge will comply with State with other waters uses in the project area. Where
Water Quality Standards. Division of Water appropriate, mitigating measures may be stipu-
Quality also reviews plans for sewage systems and lated.
applications for wastewater discharge and solid
waste disposal permits, if ineeded. A description During 401 reviews, it is important that activities
of each of these approvals follows. associated with caretaker support facilities are
clearly defined. All information on storage of haz-
18 AAC 70.010 states no person may conduct an ardous chemicals and sewage treatment needs to
operation that causes or contributes to a violation be provided. Lack of this information can slow
of the Water Quality Standards. Water Quality down the review process.
Standards establish various protected water use
classes and criteria. Water quality standards set Wastewater Discharge and Solid Waste
by 18 AAC 70.010 specify degree of degradation Permits, System Plan Reviews
that may not be exceeded in a water body as a
result of human actions. All water bodies that are Division of Environmental Quality regulates all
naturally of higher quality than water quality discharges including: sewage, gray water, and
criteria for that use class must be maintained at nondomestic (commercial or industrial) was-
the existing quality. An applicant may apply for a tewater discharges associated with, or affecting,
short term variance that would allow Water mariculture facilities.
Quality Standards to be violated for a predeter-
mined temporary period of time. It is also pos- Wastewater Disposal Regulations, 18 AAC 72, es-
sible to petition for a reclassification of the water tablish treatment and disposal requirements for
body to a less stringent use class. domestic and nondomestic sewage and gray
Section 18 AAC 70.020 sets out specific water water. Wastewater regulations define minimum
quality criteria that must be maintained in various levels of treatment. They also define: discharges
water use classes. These classes are separated exempt from needing waste disposal permits; dis-
into marine and fresh water uses and include such charges exempt from plan review requirements;
things as water supplies, water recreation, and criteria for design of wastewater systems, includ-
growth and propagation of fish, shellfish and other ing separation distances and minimum treat-
aquatic life and wildlife. ments; criteria for plan approval of wastewater
systems; and criteria for subdivision plan ap-
401 Certirication proval.
The two main regulatory procedures for disposal
As part of the responsibilities for regulating water of wastewater are a wastewater permit and system
quality, the Division of Water Quality must issue plan review. Under 18 AAC 72, Wastewater Dis-
a Certificate of Reasonable Assurance that a posal Regulations, a person who disposes of
mariculture project will, during construction and domestic wastewater into or onto waters or lands

of the state must have a waste disposal permit un- the premises. "Solid waste" means garbage,
less discharge is to a soil absorption system, or is refuse, sludge and other discarded material in-
no more than 500 gallons per day, and which cluding solid, liquid, semisolid or contained
meets minimum treatment and system plan gaseous material resulting from industrial, com-
review requirements. mercial and agricultural operations, and from
Normal treatment for domestic wastewater is community activities.
secondary treatment. For discharges into marine Department Of Fish And Game
waters, DEC may grant a waiver down to primary Approvals
treatment. Domestic wastewater includes gay
water, which is defined as wastewater from Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
laundry, kitchen sinks, showers, baths, or other has broad responsibilities to "manage, protect,
domestic sources. A person who disposes of non- maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game and
domestic wastewater into or onto waters or lands aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest
of the state must have a waste dispos .al permit. of the economy and well being of the state". (AS
For wastewater discharges under 500 allonsaday 16.05.020). Because for profit mariculture cur-
9 rently involves private ownership of cultured
no permit is issued and the DEC completes only shellfish, DFG reviews proposed activities
a system plan review. Under 18 AAC 72, system primarily to determine the effects activities will
plan review is not required for single family dwell- have on state owned fish and wildlife resources
ings using an on site domestic wastewater disposal and their yields or harvests. In addition, ADF&G
system meeting requirements of wastewater dis- is statutorily mandated to "encourage the invest-
posal regulations. System plan review is required ment by private enterprise in the technological
for single family dwellings discharging treated development and economic utilization of the
wastewater onto land or into state surface waters fisheries resources" and to "... do all things neces-
and for all wastewater systems that are larger than sary to insure perpetual and increasing produc-
single family facilities and all commercial/ in- tion and use of the food resources of Alaska
dustrial facilities. waters..." (AS 16.05.092) ADF&G regulates
Subdivision' plan reviews are also regulated under shellfish mariculture activities in three ways:
18 AAC 72. DEC reviews all property sub- 1. Through technical review and permitting of
divisions of two or more parcels. The review proposed shellfish farms. Permits related to tech-
determines types of sewage disposal systems, if nical review of mariculture farm proposals are dis-
any, feasible on the parcels. Department condi- cussed below.
tions may be placed on the plat limiting types of
wastewater disposal system allowed. Treatment 2. Through issuance of permits for transporta-
systems that will discharge into water will also tion, possession, and release of live fish including
need further plan review by DEC. An individual exportation or importation of shellfish.
lot owner may propose some type of sewage dis-
posal system, other than the type of system ap- 3. Through issuance of interim-use permits for
proved for subdivisions, by submitting plans for an harvest of larval and juvenile shellfish.
alternative system. DEC will review plans for con-
formance with wastewater regulation and ap- Shellrish Farm Permit
prove, conditionally approve, or deny plan
approval. The Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and
The purpose of Solid Waste Disposal permits is to Development Division of ADF&G has primary
control or eliminate detrimental health, environ- responsibility for review and issuance of Shellfish
mental, and nuisance effects of improper solid Farm permits. Applications are evaluated to
waste disposal practices. A person who con- determine that: 1) physical and biological charac-
structs, modifies, or operates a solid waste dis- teristics of proposed locations are suitable for a
posal site must do so in accordance with shellfish farm, 2) proposed farms do not un-
regulations in 18 AAC 60, which pertain to solid reasonably or adversely affect management of
waste management. A permit is not required for natural stocks or require significant alterations in
a single family or duplex residence on a farm existing uses of fish and wildlife resources, 3)
where solid waste is generated and disposed of on farms will not adversely affect fisheries, wildlife,

or their habitats, and 4) plans for operation and COE also administers Section 404 of the Clean
staffing demonstrate adequate technical and Water Act which regulates discharge of dredged
operational feasibility. or fill material in United States waters (including
wetlands).
Title 16 Permits
The ADF&G Habitat Division has primary Section 10 and Section 404 Permits
responsibility for reviewing applications and issu- Mariculture activity requires a COE permit for
ing permits for use of fish habitat under Title 16. construction of any structure in or over any
These permits are required by ADF&G for ac- navigable water of the United States, and ac-
tivities which affect streams, through blockage of complishment of any other work affecting course,
fish passage or through a variety of activities, such location, condition, or capacity of such waters. If
as water usage, flow diversion or obstruction, pol- upland or shoreline work associated with facilities
lution, or use of equipment in stream beds that requires placement of dredged or fill materials
may cause adverse impacts to anadromous fish into waters or wetlands, a COE permit under Sec-
habitat. Water use for upland facilities or opera- tion 404 is also required.
tions and culvert or bridge installation in streams
during road construction are types of mariculture COE processes mariculture permit reviews by is-
activities that may require Title 16 permits. Spe- suing a public notice for a 30-day permit. A full
cial area permits are also required by ADF&G for review allows the general public, state, and federal
landuse activities in legislatively designated state agencies to formulate responses within this time
game refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat frame. If there are no objections, a permit will be
areas. issued by the COE satisfying Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act and/or Section 404 re-
Under a broad mandate of the Fish and Wildlife quirements. If there are objections, the applicant
Coordination Act, ADF&G reviews COE permits must resolve them before the COE will issue a
to provide recommendations concerning fish and permit. If the project appears to have unresolv-
wildlife resource protection. able aspects, Corps of Engineers will determine if
it is in the public's best interest to issue the per-
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS mit over objections of the reviewer. Permit is-
APPROVALS suance is a broad public interest determination.
It is based on evaluation of probable impacts of a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) ad- proposed activity, intended use, public interest,
ministers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors including conservation, fish, wildlife, economics,
Act of 1899. This law regulates activities which water quality, recreation and general environ-
could obstruct navigable capacity of the nation's mental concerns.
navigable waters. This act prohibits unreasonable Issuance of a COE permit requires the project be
obstructions or use of the nation's waters. constructed within three years. Once this require-
Navigability issues address uses of the entire sur- ment is met the COE permit will be valid for the
face and bed of all water bodies subject to tidal ac-
tion that lie below mean high tide, and all ocean life of the project. If design or operation of the
and coastal waters extending seaward from the project changes a permit modification is neces-
coastline (mean low tide) or a distance of three sary. Complete project modifications review
geographic or nautical miles. must occur prior to instituting any changes in a
COE permit.

STOCKJNG PHASE

Collection and transport of brood stock for A separate Fish Transport Permit form must be
mariculture operations is managed solely by completed for spat collection operations and to
ADF&G. Consistency review requirements, as obtain and possess shellfish for farming. Col-
noted by their absence in Table 4-1, do not apply. lected spat may be staged, prior to transport, in a
central location specified on the permit. A Fish
Fish Transport Permit Transport Permit for spat collection allows only
temporary possession, limited to 90 days. A Fish
Fish Transport Permits are required by ADF&G Transport Permit must be filled out by the buyer
without which "no person may Transport Per- for each transport of shellfish from the staging
mits are required by ADF&G without which "no area to the shellfish farm. The same is true for
person may transport possess, export from the importation of live oysters and any subsequent
state, or release into waters of the state any live movement of them between farms. Fish Transport
fish. Permits are exempted from Coastal Zone
In this instance, fish means any species of aquatic @4anagement permit review. The time frame for
finfish, invertebrate or live amphibian, in any issuance is 45 days.
stage of its life cycle, found in or introduced into
the state." Importation of live fish is also ad- Interim-Use Permit
dressed in these regulations. The only fish that
may be imported into Alaska for rearing or Commercial harvest of any fishery resource in
release into Alaskan waters are oysters originat- Alaska, including larval and juvenile shellfish, re-
ing from locations other than Korea, the Gulf of quires a valid entry or interim use permit or
Mexico, and the Atlantic coast of North America. license. Interim-use permits required by the DFG
Before transport a disease history of the specific is a yearly permit necessary for harvest and sale
stock of fish to be transported must be established of larval or juvenile shellfish.
through inspection and certification by, ADF&G
fish pathology section. Fish Transport Permits
are multiple year permits that allow ADF&G to
monitor pathological and genetic considerations
of stocks used in mariculture operations in the
state.

PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION PHASE

Development of shellfish farms and shellfish tified. Harvesters and processors must be per-
marketing are governed by regulations estab- mitted by the DEC.
lished in Article 11 of State of Alaska Fish Inspec-
tion Regulations, 18 AAC 34. These regulations During project siting and design phase, DEQ will
require an annual permit be obtained in order to notify DEH of a mariculture proposal. EH will
harvest, process, pack, repack@ sell, or possess contact the applicant with information about re-
shellfish for sale. Before a permit is issued, grow- quirements for growing site certification and per-
ing areas must be certified by DEC, Division of mission to initiate shelffish product commercial
Environmental Health. sales.

The main goal of the Seafood Section is to ensure Site Certification and Development
production of safe and wholesome mariculture
products. This is done through a shellfish site cer- A sanitary survey of each proposed site is con-
tification and processing inspection program that ducted by personnel from DEC prior to any har-
meets requirements of the Federal Food and vest of shellfish. This survey is composed of two
Drug Administration. Under this program, all parts, with the first part consisting of water sam-
shellfish growing areas in Alaska must be cer- pling and testing in the area to determine water

quality, and the second part consisting of a Because of limited personnel and time involved,
shoreline investigation to identify any sources of growers are advised to contact DEC Anchorage
pollution that may affect the area. office at lease six months in advance of their
proposed harvest date to schedule their growing
To determine acceptable water quality at the site sanitary survey.
proposed site, water samples are usually collected
from five representative sampling stations Product Certification Prior To
throughout the growing area. A minimum of 10 Marketing
to 15 water samples are collected per station
during the worst pollution conditions. These DEC also tests and approves products prior to
water samples are taken over a five day period at market. The initial step, assuming the growing
both high and low tides. Additionally, native site is certified, is to file an application for a DEC
shellfish species, including clams and mussels, are Shellstock Shippers Permit. This process should
taken for PSP testing. begin several months before the grower expects to
Shoreline investigation consists of identifying all ship any shellfish.
sources of pollution, such as nearby operating in- Applications must include the following:
dustries, development on adjacent properties or
waters, boat harborage, marine traffic, and incom- 1. A description of locations where the shellfish
ing streams. At this time, additional sampling will be grown.
may be done for specific laboratory tests to
evaluate sewage, oil, heavy metals, or pesticide 2. A sketch drawn to scale showing location of any
contamination. Standard measurements of structures. This should include a shorebase plant
oceanographic variables such as pH, salinity, with refrigeration or equivalent, where shellstock
temperature, and water clarity are also done. will be held and packaged.
DEC evaluates laboratory results and determines
if the area can be certified. 3. Labeling information for the shellfish product,
Costs related to area certification are charged to which must include a waterproof and durable tag
the individual making the request and include: 1) or label, must also contain the AK# (to be issued),
costs of submitting samples to DEC Palmer Lab, weight, type of shellfish, a "Keep Refrigerated" or
2) transportation costs of DEC personnel to the "Keep Frozen" statement, specific area of harvest,
site from the nearest town or city which has a com- date of harvest or code, and name and address of
mercial airport, 3) providing a boat for sampling buyer and seller.
and investigation work. If aircraft is provided, the 4. Cleaning and sanitizing procedures used for
airplane must be adequately covered with re- containers in which shellfish will be transported.
quired insurance. Boats which are provided must 5. Documentation format for records of shellfish
be adequate for weather conditions, Coast Guard transported or sold; these records must be kept in
approved, and it must have a radio and basic tool a bound ledger book.
supply for maintenance. Samples are currently
analyzed free of charge by DEC Palmer Lab. DEC recommends applications be submitted at
least 90 days before project initiation to ensure
adequate time for the review process.

Etolin Island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTER5

Implementation and Recommendations

Page 81 - IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS

81 - Adoption of ACMP Mariculture Standard
81 - Adoption of AMSA Plan
82 - Adoption of an Area Plan
82 - Classification of State Tidelands
82 - U.S. Forest Service Area Analysis

83 - RECOMMENDATIONS
t

Chapter 5

IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS

Federal and state agencies review proposed Participating agencies could use study recommen-
mariculture projects to ensure compliance with dations as part of their existing project review pro-
applicable regulations and agency management cedures. Mariculture projects will be reviewed
policies. State and federal agencies participating based on ACMP standards and other agency
in this project are concerned primarily with effects regulations. However, information and recom-
that proposed waterborne and upland mariculture mendations included in this study would be used
facilities would have on environmental resources, as a guide to evaluate proposed mariculture
such as water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; projects against these enforceable requirements.
and compatibility with other existing and planned
uses of the proposed mariculture site. Individual Adoption Of An ACMP Mariculture
agency requirements and management Standard
authorities are contained in Chapter 4.
Siting guidelines for mariculture facilities recom- All projects proposed within Alaska's coastal area
mended in this study could be implemented by must be evaluated against ACMP standards (6
participating agencies in a number of ways. A AAC 80). Projects must be consistent with these
combination of several options may be the best standards, or they cannot be approved by state or
way to implement study recommendations. federal agencies. ACMP standards are general
policies guiding various kinds of coastal develop-
Use Of Existing Project Review ment, such as energy facilities, timber harvest and
Procedures processing, and mining.

A coordinated permit review process is currently Recommendations in this study could be used as
in place among state resource agencies (DEC, a basis for developing a new ACMP standard for
DFG, and DNR). This process, known as consis- mariculture development. A new standard would
tency review process, provides for a coordinated require public and agency review, and approval by
review of a project to determine compliance with the state Coastal Policy Council (CPC). Once ap-
the standards of Alaska Coastal Management proved, the standard would apply to all maricul-
Program (ACMP). State resource agencies ture development proposed within Alaska. A new
review proposed projects against their own agen- standard would be implemented through existing
cy requirements at the same time they review the consistency review process, described in Chapter
project for consistency with ACMP. This consis- 3.
tency review process is coordinated by the state
Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC), Adoption Of An AMSA Plan
a complete description appears inChapter 4.
Chapter 4 also describes how th e Some Coastal areas merit special attention be-
Forest Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer cause they possess unique aesthetic,, ecological,
(COE) review of mariculture development could recreational, geophysical, or industrial values or
be coordinated with the state's consistency review combinations of these values. Such areas may be
process. designated as Areas Which Merit Special Atten-

tion (AMSA). The Alaska Coastal Management public, and approved by the Commissioner of
Act (A.S. 46.40) defines an AMSA as "...a DNR. Once the Area Plan is approved, all DNR
delineated geographic area within the coastal area decisions regarding land classifications, tideland
which is sensitive to change or alteration and leases, land use permits, and other authorizations
which because of -plans or commitments or be- must comply with Area Plan requirements. Area
cause a claim on the resources within the area Plan requirements are not binding on other agen-
delineated would preclude subsequent use of the cies.
resources to a conflicting or incompatible use,
warrants special management attention, or which, There are no Area Plans in effect within the study
because of its value to the general public, should area. Information in this study would be useful if
be identified for current or future planning, an Area Plan for the study area is prepared in the
protection or acquisition". future.
AMSA designation and management plan ap- Classification Of State Tidelands
proval is under the authority of CPC. Any agen-
cy or member of the public could nominate the State law requires that state owned lands, includ-
study area for AMSA designation. With concur- ing tidelands and submerged lands, be classified
rence of CPC, a management plan would be before they can be leased or sold. Land classifica-
prepared for state and private lands (including tion is a formal record of allowable uses for which
tidelands) within the AMSA. This plan would in- each parcel of state land will be managed. Infor-
clude a description of uses and activities allowed mation in this study may serve as the basis for fu-
and prohibited within the AMSA, enforceable ture DNR classification of state tidelands within
policies used to manage the AMSA, and a descrip- the study area.
tion of plan implementation.
Once approved by CPC and the federal govern- Forest Service Area Analysis
ment, AMSA plan provisions are binding on state Tongass National Forest is presently revising its
and federal agencies conducting activities or land management plan for National Forest Lands
granting permits for activities within the AMSA.
Proposed projects would be reviewed against including Etolin Island. The revised plan will
AMSA plan policies during the consistency review provide specific direction on how resources on
process. Etolin Island will be managed. Recommenda-
tions in this study regarding the capability and
Adoption Of An Area Plan suitability of the shorelines of Etolin Island for
mariculture development could be incorporated
DNR prepares and implements management into the plan revision. When the Environmental
plans, known as Area Plans, for state owned Impact Statement for the plan is completed and
uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands. Area Record of Decision is signed, management direc-
Plans do not apply to private lands and differ from tion for mariculture facilities on uplands under
AMSA plans in this respect. Area plans contain Forest Service jurisdiction should be consistent
policies that apply to specific uses and activities, with recommendations made in this study. Until
such as timber harvest, mining, recreation, or set- such time as the Revised Tongass Land Manage-
tlement. Planning areas are usually subdivided ment Plan is completed, current Tongass Land
into management units, and lists of uses allowed Management Plan direction and guidelines will
or prohibited within each unit are developed. apply to mariculture developments.
Area plans are reviewed by other agencies, the

RECOMMENDATIONS

Following are eight general recommendations During permit adjudication it will be the ap-
proposed by this projects participating state and plicants responsibility to demonstrate that future
federal agencies. Legislation passed by the 15th mariculture operations will affect the existing
legislature directs state agencies to process farmers operation. Full consideration should be
mariculture applications unique from all other given at this time to demonstration of possible im-
tideland uses. pacts on present mariculture operations from
proposed developments.
A new system allowing mariculture uses on state
tidelands is presently being developed as a result Recommendation 2: Annual
of this bill. Reports
These recommendations target aspects of An annual report should be required of all per-
mariculture development that this cooperative mitted mariculture developments. This annual
study has indicated to be of greatest concern. As report would contain sufficient information to es-
mariculture development progresses the accep- tablish an information data base for use in manag-
tance, and implementation of this projects recom- ing Alaska mariculture development.
mendations will direct, and solve some areas of
contention previously experienced. Development Issues
of final recommendations from this project will
occur after public comment is received from this State of Alaska does not presently have ability to
Public Review Draft. Expansion of these recom- investigate and record data necessary to establish
menda-tions will be considered and analyzed for a sound systematic information base on maricul-
the Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project ture development. Information gathered from ac-
final report. tual operations would generate a more accurate
picture of development and site capability
Recommendation 1: Minimum parameters than is currently possible any other
Distance Between Sites way.

All issues affecting public safety and environmen- Requirements of the annual report should be well
tal protection should be thoroughly evaluated developed. Information requested from sea
during permit reviews. Appropriate minimum dis- farmers should clearly be identified as pertinent
tances should be established during this process. to area management. Reasonable amounts of in-
formation should be requested and should be
At a minimum, public access shall be maintained. reasonably obtainable by sea farmers.
Affects on other farms should be considered
during permitting. As a top priority, information from PSP testing
should be compiled and made available to
Important considerations in permitting adjacent resource managers. This information will be
farms are: available from each lot of shellfish tested prior to
marketing, and from various tests performed
1. Safe and viable navigational access. during and incidental to the sanitary survey.

2. Water quality degradation due to cumula- Recommendation 3: Farm Viabilitv
tive impacts.
A mariculture farm development plan should be
3. Depletion of food resources for the cul- required for state tideland permitted and leased
tured species. uses. Adherence to the development plan shall be
monitored throughout the life of the project to en-
4. Impacts on habitat. sure continued operation viability. Operations ad-
herence to the development plan should be a

condition of both permits and leases for maricul- If under the proposed tracking and monitoring
ture developments. system a site is not developed as a legitimate busi-
ness venture or according to an approved develop -
Issues ment plan the permit would be revoked.

Mariculture operations on public lands should be Part time farmers contribute to overall develop-
required to maintain a level of enterprise that has ment of mariculture in Alaska. Part time farmers
been identified in their development plan. can postpone high initial capital costs by beginning
Mariculture farms that operate at levels far below with modest investments and adding to facilities
their proposed plans should not be allowed to oc- as expertise and capital are acquired. This ap-
cupy public lands at the possible displacement of proach is acceptable and can continue if progres-
potential farmers and the public. sive development with the goal of independent,
viable enterprise is demonstrated by the sea
Recommendation 4: Permit farmer.
Tracking And Monitoring Recommendation 5: Public
A permit tracking and monitoring system should Notification Process
be developed to determine and monitor commer-
cial viability of mariculture developments. This Mariculture project public notification should in-
system should be based largely on an annual clude all groups with potential information per-
report from actual development sites. tinent to that development.

Issues Issues
Concerns among permitting agencies are that use Current public notification process may not reach
of state resources permitted to individuals and all individuals or organizations with proposed
developers actuallybe developed in a manner con- development information. A list of likely can-
sistent with good business and development prac- didates for notification includes but is not limited
tices. It is in the state's best interest to ensure to:
responsible development balanced with resource
protection. Fish & Game Boards
1. Good potential sites that are permitted and Conservation Groups & Organizations
then not developed for many years preclude more State Parks Advisory Boards
aggressive developers from a legitimate oppor- Commercial Fishing Organizations
tu-nity. Fisheries Enhancement Group
Organized Mariculture Development
2. Good sites may be tied up by farmers whose Groups
goal is to have a cabin at a remote site and a sub-
sistence lifestyle. These farmers may install min- Recommendation 6: Consistency
imal facilities with small numbers of organisms With Other Uses
and in fact.market minimal product quantities.
The concern is that public resources be permitted Mariculture development should be consistent
or leased to legitimate developers, not subsis- with any approved plans. All mariculture
tence users. developments permitted by the State of Alaska
3. Speculation is a concern. An individual or or- adjacent to lands under management of other
agencies should consider any land use designa-
ganization may apply for appropriate permits with tions by those adjacent land managers.
intent of acquiring a sight to obtain land rights that
may be sold or traded at a later date. There is Issues
some concern sites may be permitted for the ex-
press purpose of shellfish and that the site be A variety of uses occur on state tidelands either
developed for finfish if it becomes legal. through natural phenomenon or by law. Maricul-
ture sites should be developed 1) where there is
no significant conflict with existing designated

uses, 2) where conflict with natural fish and Recommednation 8:
wildlife resources are minimal, or 3) where con- Implementation
flicts can be mitigated.
State of Alaska manages lands adjacent to the Siting guidelines and criteria developed in this
federal government, local communities and study should be used by agencies in reviewing
boroughs and private lands. The state manages a proposed projects, with recognition that flexibility
significant majority of all tidelands in Alaska. is required to accommodate specific sites. The
Consistent management designations and objec- evolution of the industry should also be con-
tives on adjacent properties is optimal with sidered in the review of new or innovative techni-
regards to maintaining integrity with the public ques.
and other land management agencies. Issues

Recommendation 7: Future Reasonable regulation of any land use requires
Studies development of consistent siting criteria and
guidelines. During the development phase
Scope and time frame of this project does not measures to mitigate potential impacts in areas
allow for an in depth evaluation of several issues less than ideal can reduce potential social and en-
related to Alaska mariculture viability. Future vironmental impacts. This study has proposed
studies should investigate and report on the fol- criteria and guidelines (see Chapter 3) describing
lowing issues: mitigating measures on a case by case basis in an
effort to refine as the industry continues to grow
1. A PSP data base, should be developed. Sour- and develop.
ces of information include the annual shellfish
farm permit report, PSP testing done by DEC and This study is not mandated to be accepted or
other state and federal agencies. adopted as policy. The intention is to provide a
comprehensive analysis of mariculture develop-
2. Capability parameters of mariculture in Alas- ment within the study area for permitting agen-
ka. cies, prospective sea farmers and interested
public. No other study on mariculture develop-
3. Flushing capabilities of potential mariculture ment in Alaska contains a general discussion such
sites (central to many aspects of mariculture as this one.
Oevelopment). An inventory of situations that
may develop anaerobic conditions would be very Mariculture is in a state of development; new and
helpful to technical agencies and prospective sea innovative techniques and technology that may
farmers alike. alter the growing of sea organisms as we know it
today. Flexibility will be necessary to properly
4. Funds should be made available for work on a evaluate and permit proposed developments in
regular basis to integrate information made avail- the future.
able from studies already underway or planned for
the future. Specifically included here are the cur-
rent Marine Advisory Program's Remote Sensing
Project and the results of the present subsistence
study.

5. Conduct a study similar to the Etolin Island
Area Mariculture Pilot Project if other forms of
sea culture becomes authorized or legalized.

Etolin island Area
Mariculture Pilot Project APPENDIXES

A -Marine Advisory Program's Remote Sensing Project
B -Agency Authorities in the Study Area
C -1988 Coastal Project Questionnaire
D -Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application
E -Agency Contacts
F -Ref erences/Bibliography
G -Senate Bill 514

Appendix A - Marine Advisory Program

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA - MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM
PROJECT TITLE: FEASIBILITY OF USING REMOTE SENSING TO
IDENTIFY THE AQUATACULTURE POTENTIAL OF
COASTAL WATERS

Project Summary

(1) Key words; remote sensing, aquaculture, estuaries, oysters

(2) Objectives:

(A) To test the feasibility of using conventional, free 'access aerial and satellite
sensors to collect selected oceanographic data from estuaries and adjacent waters. In
addition, to test the feasibility of the routine analysis of complex environmental data
by state resource managers.

(B) Using standard bathymetric or navigational charts as base maps, to make use of a
conventional chart overlay system; to identify areas appropriate for the commercial
suspended cultivation of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas). This study will be
limited to the considered essential for the cultivation of oysters. Each variable
(such as mixed layer temperature) will be charted on a Mylar overlay sheet
superimposed on the master chart of the estuary under study.

(C) To establish a set of physical and biological criteria determined to be essential
to the successful cultivation of oysters using standard suspended techniques (i.e. tray
and longline culture). It is anticipated that project results can also be applied to
the selection of culture sites for other species with environmental requirements
occupying relatively narrow ranges.

(D) Major objective of this study is to compare the environmental requirement of
oysters with the analyzed data charts. The expected outcome will be the delineation
of estuarine areas with a significant potential for oyster culture.

(E) This project is restricted to a study site in central Southeast Alaska. The long
term objective of the project is to make a contribution to the development of a
simple, possible automated, environmental assessment procedure that can be applied
to the needs of resource managers.

(F) To establish a set of catalogs, inventorying a set of significant environmental
variables to be considered either individually or in combination to predict the
probable success of oyster culture.

(G) To suggest methods by which the procedure can be used locate areas capable of
supporting other types of aquaculture.

(H) By the identification of prime culture areas, it is hoped that this project will
allow for the protection of potential oyster culture areas and efficient use of coastal
resources.

(1) To assist other states and provinces in the implementation of similar
environmental mapping and cataloging procedures.

(3) Methodology

A) Obtain and refine base map for primary and alternate study sites. These two
areas have existing commercial oyster cultures operations. It is believed that both
areas possess many additional culture sites.

(B) Formulate set of environmental criteria customarily used to select suspended
culture sites (reviews of literature and field practice). Each criterion will be stated
in form of permissible range and as an optimum value (latitudinal corrections to be
made). Selection criteria are as follow:

(a) temperature of mixed layer (degrees C\O)

(b) surface current velocity (cm/sec)

(d) plankton count to be interpreted in form of chlorophyll
a (ug/1)

Note: not included in this list are two major qualifying criteria (depth and wave
energy)

(a) late winter (temperature minimum)

(b) mid spring and late fall (periods of salinity minimum)

(D) Each of the above environmental criteria will be linked to a specific aerial or
satellite sensor(s). Particular to sensor to be used will be based on ease of public
access to data, relative accuracy of data, frequency of data, cost, and ease of
interpretation. Archived as well as actual data to be considered.

(E) As stated in item (C) above, data collection to be most intensive during four
seasonal "windows (each approximately fourteen days long). Multiple data sets will
be acquired within each seasonal window in order to determine "average" values (may
be necessary to place heavy reliance on archived data for several variables).
Accuracy of all remotely sensed data to be verified via "ground truth " data
consisting of direct oceanographic measurements.

(F) Environmental data for each of the five criteria will be mapped and analyzed
using computerized "geographic information system" (GIS) technology. Standard
procedures will be used. A subcontractor (Recon Research, Bend Oregon) has
agreed to perform certain aspects of this work.

(G) This project faces several major challenges. Two anticipated problems to be

overcome are gaining access to some data and resolution difficulties. The major
challenge will be to develop strategies to interpret the seasonal behavior of salinity
which currently is not possible to measure via remote sensing techniques available to
non-military researchers.

(H) Oyster culture requirements (in the form of five environmental criteria) will be
compared to the mapped data. General areas and,hopefully, prime microenvironments,
capable of supporting suspended oyster culture will be mapped. Determining the
feasibility of creating single purpose estuary resource maps of this sort (oyster
culture, scallop culture, salmon farming, etc.) is the major objective of this project.

(I) The system developed by this project will be graded on its accuracy, practical
operation, cost and applicability to other species (assumes focus on aquaculture,
although other economic activities may also benefit). The evaluation will determine
whether this procedure is appropriate for routine large-scale examinations of the
natural world.

Not examined in this study is the potential of computerization and automation of
data collection, analysis, and mapping functions.

(J) Resource maps will be circulated among estuary users prospective oyster farmers,
water resource managers, and policy makers. The decision to implement the system
and proceed with large scale environmental cataloging will be the responsibility of
regional managers.

(4) Expected Results

(A) This project provides for mapping of several types of environmental data using
standard techniques. However, this project is unique in that it attempts to interpret
massive data sets gained by satellite during four seasonal periods. This project will
begin the development of an automated or semi-automated system capable of the
rapid integration of mapped environmental information, the comparison of this
information to the known growth requirement of cultured organisms, and the
delineation of estuarine regions capable of supporting specific aquaculture activity.

(B) It is expected that this method of environmental assessment will have reasonable
accuracy, be relatively inexpensive, and will become an important tool in the initial
identification of potential aquaculture sites.

(C) Preliminary and final project results will be transmitted to regional resource
managers and members of the developing aquaculture industry by means of a Pacific
Sea Grant technical publication.

(5) Summary of Rationale:

(A) The establishment of bivalve aquaculture requires careful consideration of
oceanographic conditions.

(B) Traditional methods of oceanographic examination though of unquestioned
accuracy, are costly, time consuming and unable to cope with the rapid examination
of multiple environmental variables.

(C) Various states and provinces, with the rise of various water resource user
groups (tourism, expanded urbanization, aquaculture, etc.) are faced with the
increased need to catalog the environmental characteristics of coastal regions.

(D) It is unlikely that most states will have available the necessary technical and
financial resources needed to develop comprehensive estuarine resource inventories
using traditional direct sampling procedures. Pacific states and the Province of
British Columbia are now facing steady pressure from a variety of prospective coastal
resource users.

(E) Use of remote sensing may provide a means of acquiring and cataloging
environmental information which, though of significantly lower accuracy than directly
sampled data, can be used in the effective planning of coastal development.

(F) Moreover, it is expected that the practical application of remote sensing will be
both timely and inexpensive.

(G) This project will test the utility of currently available sensors. It is quite
possible that weaknesses uncovered during this project will be resolved through the
advent of a new generation of more sophisticated environmental sensors.

Appendix B - @qency ALdhorifies in the Study Area

STATE AUTHORITIES

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

16 US 661 et seq. Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act

AS 16.05.050(10) Interim-Use Permit, Experimental
Gear Permit

AS.16.05.251 Regulations of the Board of
Fisheries

AS 16.05.840 Fishway Act

AS 16.05.870 Anadromous Fish Act

5 AAC 40. Permits for Private non Profit
Hatcheries

5 AAC 41. Transportation, Possession and
Release of Live Fish

5 AAC 41. Shellfish Farm Permit

5 AAC 95. Protection of Fish & Game Hatcheries

6 AAC 80 ACMP Standards

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Sec. 401 Federal Clean Water Act

Title 33 CFR Federal Dredge and Fill
Regulations

AS 03.05.020 Powers of the Commissioner of DEC

AS 03.05.025 Seafood Processing Permits and Plans
of Operation

AS 03.05.035 Sale and Labeling of Frozen Meat,
Fish, and Poultry

AS 03.05.040 Inspection

AS 03.05.050 Products in Violation of Regulations

AS 03.05-090 Penalty for Violations

AS 17.20.230 Detention or Embargo of Goods

AS 17.20.250 Destruction of Adulterated or
Misbranded Goods.

AS 46.03.020 Powers of the Department

AS 46.03.060 Plan Review for Sewage Disposal

AS 46.03.090 Plan for Pollution Disposal

AS 46.03.100 Waste Disposal Permit

AS 46.03.110 Waste Disposal Permit Procedure

AS 46.30.140 Air Quality

AS 46.07.020 Monitor Public Water Systems

AS 46.03.060 Broad Water Quality Enforcement

6 AAC 80. ACMP Standards

18 AAC 34. Fish Inspection Regulations

18 AAC 60. Solid Waste Management

18 AAC 62. Hazardous Waste

18 AAC 70. Water Quality Standards

18 AAC 72. Wastewater Disposal

18 AAC 80. Drinking Water

Alaska Coastal Management Program

AS 44.19.155. Alaska Coastal Policy Council

AS 46.40. Alaska Coastal Management Act

6 AAC 50. Project Consistency Review Process

6 AAC 80. ACMP Standards

Department of Commerce and Economic Development

No Authorities

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

6 AAC 80 ACMP Standards

DNR - Division of Forestry

AS 41.17.010 Forest Resources and Practices

AS 45.50.235 Log Salvage

AS 38.05.110 Sale of Timber & Materials

AS 38.05.115 Sale Limitations

6 AAC 80. ACMP Standards

I I AAC 71.400 Log Salvage

I I AAC 95. Forest Resources and Practices

DNR - Division of Mining

AS 38.05.185 Mining Rights

AS 38.05.250 Offshore Prospecting Permits

6 AAC 80 ACMP Standards

I I AAC 86.500 Offshore Prospecting Permits

I I AAC 86.135 Mineral Deposits Open to Location

DNR - Division of Land and Water Management

AS 38.04.005 Pub lic and Private Land Use

AS 38.04.010 Public Land for Private Use

AS 38.04.015 Public Retention of Lands

AS 38.04.020 Land Disposal Bank

AS 38.04.021 Municipal Entitlement

AS 38.04.065 Land Planning

AS 38.04.070 Management Categories

AS 38.04.050 Land Disposals

AS 38.04.070 Leasing of State Lands

AS 38.04.082 Shore Fisheries

AS 38.05.127 Access to Public Waters

AS 38.05.290 Land Selections

AS 46.15.030 Appropriation of Water

AS 46.15.050 Instream Flow

AS 46.15.145 Federal Reserve Water Rights

I I AAC 54 Disposal of Lands

11 AAC 55 Planning and Classification

11 AAC 58 Leasing of Lands

I IAAC 62 Tide and Submerged Lands

11 AAC 64 Shore Fisheries Leasing

I IAAC 66 Municipal Entitlement

11 AAC 67 Disposal of Land

11 AAC 71 Timber and Material Sales

11 AAC 86 Mining Rights

11 AAC 93 Water Management

6 AAC 80 ACMP Standards

FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

U.S. Forest Service

The Creative Act (1891)

The Organic Act (1897)

The Weeks Law Act (1911)

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960)

The Wilderness Act (1964)

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1964)

The National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

The Endangered Species Act (1973)

The Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Act (1974)

The Sikes Act (1974)

The National Forest Management Act (1976)

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976)

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) (Section 10)

Clean Waters Act (33 U.S.C. 1344, Section 404)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

16 U.S.C. 668 Bald Eagle Act 1940

16 U.S.C. 742(a) Fish and Wildlife Act 1956

16 U.S.C. 757(a) Anadromous Fish Conservation Act

16 U.S.C. 703 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

16 U.S.C. 1361-1362 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

16 U.S.C. 1371-1384 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

16 U.S.C. 1451 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

16 U.S.C. 1221-1226 Estuary Protection Act

42 U.S.C. 4321 National Environmental Policy Act

National Marine Fisheries Service

16 U.S.C. 1361, 1362 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

16 U.S.C. 1451 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

16 U.S.C. 1371-1384 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

42 U.S.C. 4321 National Environmental Policy Act

Appendix C - 1 Miject Questionnaire

STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR

CENTRAL OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. P.O. BOX AW
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PHONE: (907) 465-3562
DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE
431 NORTH FRANKLIN 2600 DENALI STREET 6 75 SEVENTH A VENUE
P.O. BOX A W, SUITE 101 SUITE 700 S TA TION H
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798 FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99701-4596
PHONE: (907) 465-3562 PHONE: (907) 274-1581 PHONE: (907) 451-2818

1988 COASTAL PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Applicant:

The State of Alaska has a system for reviewing and processing all
the resource-related permits, leases, and approvals which are
required for proposed projects in coastal areas of Alaska. The
project consistency review process is based on the Alaska Coastal
Management Program and is designed to improve management of
Alaska's coastal land and water uses. Project proposals are
reviewed to:

- Determine the project's consistency with the Alaska
Coastal Management Program.

- Identify permits required by the state resource
agencies, that is, the Alaska Departments of Environ-
mental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Re-
sources.

- Trigger the issuance of necessary permits and other
authorizations by state resource agencies.

if a federal permit or permits from more than one state agency
are required, the consistency review process is coordinated by a
regional office of the Division of Governmental Coordination
(DGC). If permits from only one state agency are.required, the
state agency responsible for issuing those permits coordinates
the review. Your answers to this questionnaire will determine
who is the appropriate coordinating agency. Contact-the nearest
DGC regional office for more information.

Before you settle on your final project plans and submit your
application, the state can arrange for meeting-s between you and
state agency representatives to review your completed coastal
project questionnaire. Preapplication meetings can help identify
concerns and information needs, and encourage a mutual under-
standing of your project. To arrange for a preapplication
meeting, call or write the coordinating agency contact.
01-A35LH

To begin the review process you must complete the attached
Coastal Project Questionnaire to determine which permits are
needed. The consistency review begins upon receipt of your
complete application packet. A complete packet includes:

- A signed Coastal Project Questionnaire.

- Copies of any state permit applications needed for the
project (originals go to the state agency issuing the
permit).

- Copies of any federal permit applications needed for
the project (originals go to the federal agency issuing
the permit).

- Any additional pertinent information including public
notices from agencies.

YOUR PROJECT CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNTIL A COMPLETE PACKET INCLUDING
ALL APPLICATIONS IS RECEIVED. You must submit the completed
packet to the appropriate state agency in the region where the
proposed project is to occur. Attached is a list of regional
agency contacts and a map of the coastal area with the regions
delineated. All packets must be submitted to the Division of
Governmental Coordination (DGC), with the following exceptions:

1. If a fee is required, submit the original application,
coastal project questionnaire, and fee to the state
resource agency with the fee requirement (include a
copy of that permit application in the packet to DGC).

2. If a state permit application requires confidential
information, submit the entire packet to the state
resource agency with that requirement.

3. If the project is a placer mining activity, submit the
Annual Placer Mining Application, instead of the
questionnaire, to the Department of Natural Resources,
Division of mining.

4. If you need permits from only one state resource agency
and no federal agencies, submit the entire packet to
the state resource agency requiring the permits.

If one or more federal permits are required, submit the
original federal permit application(s) to the federal agency
and send a copy of those federal applications to the appro-
priate state agency along with your packet of other applica-
tions.

STEPS IN THE REVIEW PROCESS

Start-up: You will be notified when the review starts. You will
receive your project's assigned review number, review schedule,
and other information. Participants in the review process
include:

1. You, the applicant;

2. State resource agencies and the Division of Govern-
mental Coordination;

3. The affected local coastal community; and

4. Other interested members of the public.

Information requests: Agencies may request additional information
from you during the review. The coordinating agency may stop the
review until that information is received.

Proposed determination: After reviewing comments on your project,
the coordinating agency will develop a proposed consistency
determination which will be presented to you, state resource
agencies, and coastal districts.

Conclusive determination: A conclusive consistency determination
will be issued upon agreement of the proposed determination by
you, state resource agencies, and coastal district with an
.approved program.

Elevation (appeal) process: If you do not concur with the
proposed determination for your project, you may request ele-
vation, or further review by division directors within the state
resource agencies. The directors review the proposed determina-
tion and any additional information included in the elevation
request, then issue asecond proposed determination.

You may then elevate the review to the commissioners of the
resource agencies if the director-level review does not satisfy
your interests. This is the final step in the administrative
appeal process. Each elevation review can take no longer than 15
days. State resource agencies and coastal districts with
approved programs may also request elevation.

In addition to the state's elevation process, if your project
requires a federal permit and you disagree with the state's final
conclusive consistency determination, you may appeal to the U.S.
Secretary of Commerce in Washington, D.C., as provided in
15 CFR 930.125(H).

Permits: Agencies will issue state permits covered by the deter-
mination within five days after the conclusive consistency
determination is issued unless that agency finds that additional
review is necessary to fulfill other statutory requirements. The
agency will notify you if their permits will not be issued.

Review Schedules

The coordinating agency must complete the review of your project
within 30 or 50 days. A 30-day review schedule will be used if
all associated state permits must by statute or regulation be
issued in 30 days. A 50-day review schedule will be used for
projects with approvals requiring a 30-day public notice. The
coordinating agency may grant extensions to these schedules as
provided under 6 AAC 50.110. For example, if your project is
located in the unorganized borough, the comment and decision
deadlines may be extended for 10 days. The deadlines may also be
extended at the request of the applicant, or to receive
additional information requested by a resource agency.

30-Day Review 50-Day Review

Consistency review begins Day 1 Day 1

Deadline for regional reviewers Day 15 Day 25
to request additional information

Public and agency reviewer Day 17 Day 34
comments due

Notification for elevation Day 29 Day 49

Conclusive consistency Day 30 Day 50
determination issued (unless
elevation requested)

If elevated, director's Day 45 Day 65
determination

If elevated again, commissioner's Day 60 Day 80
determination

Coastal Project Questionna*ire and Certification Statement

Please answer all questions. Include maps or plan drawings with your packet. An
incomplete questionnaire may be returned -and will delay the review of your packet.
APPLICANT INFORMATION-

2.
Name of Applicant Contact Person

Address Address

City State Zip Code City State Zip Code

Phone Phone

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Provide a brief description of your project and ALL associated facilities (caretaker facilities, etc.):

Starting Date for Project Ending Date for Project

PROJECT LOCATION
1. Please give location of project (Include nearest community or identifiable body of land or water.)

Township Range - Meridian - Section - Aliquot Parts - USGS Map
2. Is the project on: (please mark with V)
State Land - Federal Land - Private Land - Municipal Land
3. Project is located in which region of the state (see attached map):
Northern Southcentral Southeast
PERMIT APPROVALS Yes No
1. Do you currently have any State or federal approvals for this project? If yes, please list below. F-1 El
(Note: approval means permit or any other form of authorization.)
Approval Ty Approval Expiration Date

FEDERAL APPROVALS
1. Will you be placing structures or fills in any of the following: tidal waters, Yes No
streams, lakes, or wetlands*9 00

If you are uncertain whether your proposed project area is in a wetland, contact the Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
at (907) 753-2720 for a wetlands determination. If you are outside the Anchorage area, call toll free 1-800-478-2712.
If yes, have you applied for or do you intend to apply for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Yes No
(COE) perrnit? Please indicate at right and describe below.

2. Have you applied for or do you intend to apply for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Yes No
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? Please indicate at right and 1:1 El
describe below. (Note: Any wastewater discharge requires an NPDES pern-Lit.) Yes No
3. Have you applied for or do you intend to apply for permits from any other federal agency? 0 E3
If yes, please list below.
Agency Approval Type Date submitted (or intend to submit)

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES APPROVALS

Yes No
1. Is the proposed project on state-owned land or will you need to cross State lands for access? 1:1 1:1 1
2. Is any portion of your project placed below the ordinary high water line of a stream, river, Yes No
lake or other water body? 0 0
3. Will you be dredging? If yes, location of dredging is: Yes No
Township Range - Meridian - Section

9 Location of disposal site for dredged materials:
Township Range - Meridian - Section
Yes No
4. Will you be filling with rock, sand or gravel? If yes, amount?
@ Location of source: Township - Range - Meridian Section
e Location of area to be filled: Township - Range - Meridian Section
5. Do you plan to use any of the following state-owned resources? Yes No
L_J L_J
Timber
# If yes, amount?
9 Location of source: Township Range - Meridian Section
Other Materials
@ If yes, what material? (peat@ building stone, silt, overburden, etc.)
o Location of source: Township Range - Meridian Section Yes No
6. Are you planning to use any fresh water? F7
* If yes, amount (gallons per day)?
# Source? Yes No
7. Will you be building or altering a dam? ED M
8. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well? 1:1
9. Will you be exploring for or extracting coal?
10. Will you be exploring for or extracting minerals on state-owned land?
11. Will you be exploring for or extracting oil and gas on state-owned land?
12. Will you be harvesting timber from 10 or more acres? ID 0
13. Will you be investigating or removing historical or archaeological resources Yes No
on state-owned land? 0 F@ I

14. Will the project be located in a unit of the Alaska State Park System? Yes No
If you answered NO to all questions in this section,.you do not need an approval from
the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Continue to the next section.
If you answered YES to ANY questions in this section, contact DNR to identify and
obtain necessary application forms.
Based on your discussion with DNR, please list (below) the approval type needed and date submitted.
Approval Type Date Submitted (or intend to submit)

Have you paid the filing fees required for the DNR permits'? Yes No
El ID
If you are not applying for DNR permits, indicate reason below:
a. (DNR contact) told me on -(date) that no DNR
approvals or permits were required on this project.
b. Other:

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME APPROVALS
1. Will you be working in a stream, river, or lake? (This includes running water or on ice, Yes No
within the acive floodplain, on islands, the face of the banks, or the stream tideflats down Li
to mean low tide.)
Name of stream or river- Name of lake:
If you answered "no", proceed to question #2.
If "yes", will you be doing any of the following: Yes No
a)'Building a dam, river training structure or instream impoundment? E]
b) Using the water? M
c) Diverting or altering the natural channel stream? 1:3 71
d) Blocking or damming the stream, (temporarily or permanently)? El 0
e) Changing the flow of the water or changing the bed? 71
f) Pumping water out of the stream or lake? El
g) Introducing silt, gravel, rock, petroleum products, debris, chemicals or wastes of 1:1
any type into the water?

h) Using the stream as a road (even when frozen), or crossing the stream with tracked
or wheeled vehicles, log-dragging or excavation equipment (backhoes, bulldozers, etc.)?
i) Altering or stabilizing the banks? 1:1 E]
j) Mining or digging in the beds or banks9 E]
k) Using explosives? M

1) Building a bridge (including an ice bridge)?
m) Installing a culvert or other drainage structure? M
n) Constructing a weir? EI 1:3

-3-

o) Other in-stream structure not mentioned above'? Yes No

2. Is your project located in a State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area, or State Game Sanctuary? E] ED
3. Does your project include the construction and operation of a salmon hatchery? 0 11
4. Does your project affect or is it related to a previously permitted salmon hatchery? E:1 ED 1
5. Does your project include the construction of a shellfish or sea vegetable farm? 1:3
If you answered NO to all questions in this section, you do not need an approval from
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Continue to the next section.
If you answered YES to any of the questions under 1 or 2, contact the Regional DFG
Habitat Division Office for information and application forms.
If you answered YES to questions 3, 4 or 5, contact the DFG Private Nonprofit Hatchery
Office at the F.R.E.D. division headquarters for information and application forms.
Yes No
Based on your discussion with DFG, please list (below) the approval type needed and date submitted.
Approval Type Date Submitted (or intend to submit)

If you are not applying for permits, indicate reason below:
a. (DFG contact) told me on -(date) that no DFG
approvals or permits were required on this project.
b. Other:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION APPROVALS Yes No
1. Will a discharge of wastewater from industrial or commercial operations occur?
(See #2 in "Federal Permits" section)

2. Will your project generate air emissions from the following:
a) Diesel generators totaling more than 10,000 hp? E3

b) Other fossil fuel-fired electric generator, furnace, or boiler totaling greater
than 10,000 hp, or 9,000 kWh, or 100,000,000 btu/hr?

c) Asphalt plant?

d) Incinerator burning more than 1000 lbs. per hour?
e) Industrial process? ED F-1

3. Will a drinking water supply be developed that serves more than a single-family residence? M
4. Will you be processing seafood? F-1
5. Will food service be provided to the public or workers? El ED
6. Will the project result in dredging or disposal of fill in wetlands or placement of a structure
in waterways? (Note: your application for this activity to the Corps of Engineers will also
serve as your application to DEC.)
7. Is sewage or greywater disposal involved or necessary? I:] ED

-4-

& Will your project result in the development of a currently unpermitted facility for the disposal IDM
of domestic or'industrW solid waste?

9. Will your project require offshore drilling or vessel transport of oil, or other petroleum
products as cargo, or include onshore facilities with an effective storage capacity of greater
than 10,000 barrels of such products?
10. Will your project require the application of oil or pesticides to the surface of the land?
If you answered NO to all questions in this section, you do not need a permit or
approval from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Please
continue to the next section.
If you answered YES to any of these questions (see #6 Note), contact the DEC Regional
Office for information and application forms.

Based on your discussion with DEC, please list (below) the approval type needed and date submitted.
Approval Type Date Submitted (or intend to submit)

If you are not applying for permits, indicate reason below:
a. (DEC contact) told me on date) that no DEC
approvals or permits were required on this project.
b. Other:

Certification Statement

The information contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that the
proposed activity complies with, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the Alaska Coastal
Management Program.

Signature of Applicant or Agent Date

To complete your packet, please attach your state permit applications and copies of
your federal applications to this questionnaire.

-5-

INTERIM COAS
OF

WHEN ON STATE
TO AN ADOPTEA

-LAWN

@Tl

OFF"

NOT"

ff@ UA

ALF ap

wlft

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL CONTACTS 2/88

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Oil & Gas Activities DFG/Habitat Division

DNR/Commissioner's Office P.O. Box 20
400 Willoughby Ave. Douglas, AK 99824-0020
Juneau@ AK 99801-1796 (907) 465-4290, 465-4291
(907) 465-2400 CONTAM Rick Reed or
CONTACT: Jim Powell Janet Hall

Mining Activities Area Offices

DNR/Mining* Department of Fish and Game
Box 107016 P.O. Box 667
Anchorage, AK 99510-7016 Petersburg, AK 99833
(907) 762-2163 (907) 772-3801
CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher CONTACT: Don Cornelius
Forestry Activities Department of Fish and Game
DNIR/Forestry 2030 Sealevel Drive, Room 205
400 Willoughby Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901
Juneau, AK 99801-1796 (907) 225-2027
(907) 465-2491 CONTACT: Jack Gustafson
CONTACT: Jim McAllister
Department of Fish and Game
Agriculture Activities State Office Building
P.O. Box 510
DNR/Agriculture Sitka, AK 99835
915 S. Bailey (907) 747-5828
P.O. Box 949 CONTACT: Dave Hardy
Palmer, AK 99645-0949
(907) 745-7200 Hatchery Permits
CONTACT: Mark Weaver
DFG/FRED Division
Activities on State Park Lands 1255 West Eighth Street
P.O. Box 3-2000
DNR/Parks Juneau, AK 99802-2000
400 Willoughby Avenue (907) 465-4160
Juneau, AK 99801-1796 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or
(907) 465-4563 Kevin Duffy
CONTACT: Linda Kruger
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
All Other Activities
DEC/Southeast Office
Southeast District Office P.O. Box 2420
DNR/Land and Water Management 9000 Old Glacier Highway
400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99803
Juneau, AK 99801-1796 (907) 789-3151
(907) 465-3400 CONTACT: Dick Stokes
CONTACT: Andy Pekovitch
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Division of Governmental Coordination
*Street Address: Pouch AW
431 N. Franklin Street
3601 "C" Street Juneau, AK 99811-0165
Frontier Building (907) 465-3562
CONTACT: Diane Mayer
Lorraine Marshall

pr8802O4O3kfi

2/88
SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL CONTACTS

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND CAME

Oil & Gas Activities DFG/Habitat Division
333 Raspberry Road
DNR/Oil and Gas* Anchorage, AK 99518-1599
Box 107034 CONTACT: .(Southcentral):
Anchorage, AK 99510-7034 Phil Brna
(907) 762-2547 Gary Liepitz
CONTACT: Bill Van Dyke (907) 267-2284
(Southwest and Western):
Denby Lloyd
Kim Sundberg
Mining Activities (907) 267-2346

DNR/Mining* Hatchery Permits
Box 107016
Anchorage, AK 99510-7016 DFG/FRED Division
(907) 762-4222 1255 West Eighth Street
CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, AK 99802-2000
Forestry Activities (907) 465-4160
CONTACT: Jerry Madden or
DNR/Forestry* Kevin Duffy
Box 107005
Anchorage, AX 99510-7005
(907) 762-2123 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTACT: Dan Ketchum
DEC/Southcentral Office
Agriculture Activities 437 E Street, Second Floor
Anchorage, AK 99501
DNR/Agriculture 274-2533
915 S. Bailey CONTACT: Bob Flint
P.O. Box 949
Palmer, AK 99645
(907) 745-7200 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
CONTACT: Dean Brown
Division of Governmental Coordination
Activities on State Park Lands 2600 Denali Street, Suite 700
Anchorage, AK 99503-2798
DNR/Parks* (907) 274-1581
Box 107001 CONTACT: Patty Bielawski
Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Louisa Rand
(907) 762-4565
CONTACT: Al Miners

All Other Activities

Public Information*
Southcentral District Office
DNR/Land and Water Management
Box 107005
Anchorage, AK 99510-7005
(907) 762-2270
CONTACT: Janetta Pritchard

*Street Address:

3601 "C" Street
Frontier Building

pr88020403kfi

NORTHERN REGIONAL CONTACTS 2/88

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND CAME

Oil & Gas Activities DFG/Habitat Division
1300 College Road
DNR/Oil and Gas* Fairbanks, AK 99709
Box 107034 CONTACT: Al Ott
Anchorage, AK 99510-7034 (907) 452-1531
(907) 762-2547
CONTACT: John Wharam Hatchery Permits

Mining Activities DFG/FRED Division
1255 West Eighth Street
DNR/Mining* P.O. Box 3-2000
Box 107016 Juneau, AK 99802-2000
Anchorage, AK 99510-7016 (907) 465-4160
(907) 762-4222 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or
CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher Kevin Duffy

Forestry Activities DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

DNR/Forestry* DEC/Northern Office
Box 107005 1001 Noble Street, Suite 350
Anchorage, AK 99510-7005 Fairbanks, AK 99701
(907) 762-4500 (907) 452-1714
CONTACT: Dan Ketchum CONTACT: Paul Bateman (Arctic)
Joyce Beelman (interior)
Agriculture Activities
DNR/Agriculture OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
915 S. Bailey Division of Governmental Coordination
P.O. Box 949 675 Seventh Avenue, Station H
Palmer, AK 99645 Fairbanks, AK 99701-4596
(907) 745-7200 (907) 451-2818
CONTACT: Mark Weaver CONTACT: Elizabeth Benson
Patti Wightman
Activities on State Park Lands

DNR/Parks
4418 Airport Way
Fairbanks, AK 99709
(907) 479-4136
CONTACT: Al Meiners or Dave Snarski

All Other Activities

North Central District Office
DNR/Land and Water Management
4420 Airport Way
Fairbanks, AK 99709
(907) 479-2243
CONTACT: Gayle Berger

*Street Address:

3601 "C" Street
Frontier Building

pr8802O4O3kfi

Appendix D - Consolidated Shelffish Farm Permit Application

STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR

CENTRAL OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR P.O. BOX AW
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0,165
PHONE: (907) 465-3562
DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOLITHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE
431 NORTH FRANKLIN 2600 DENALI STREET 675 SEVENTH AVENUE
P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 SUITE 700 S TA TION H
JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811-0165 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798 FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99701-4596
PHONE: (907) 465-3562 PHONE: (907) 274-1581 PHONE: (907) 456-3084

Dear Shellfish Farm Applicant:

The Shellfish Farm Application is designed to help you
obtain the authorizations routinely required by the State of
Alaska Departments of Natural Resources (DNR), Fish and Game
(DFG) , Environmental Conservation (DEC) , and Division of
Governmental Coordination (DGC) to site and construct your
shellfish mariculture project. This form can be used to
apply for the Shellfish Farm Permit or Fish Habitat Permits
from DFG, Water Quality Certification (401) and System Plan
Review Approvals from DEC, Land Use Permits and Leases from
DNR, and the Coastal Zone C 'onsistency Certification from
DGC. It also addresses your use and discharge of up to 500
gallons per day of fresh water and solid waste disposal for
single family use.

A Coastal Project Questionnaire, which is available from any
of these agency offices, must also be submitted with your
application to help determine which specific permits must be
obtained prior to constructing your project. If you deter-
mine that your specific project design requires additional
permits for activities such as an increase in water use,
discharge or solid waste disposal, or use of state owned
timber or gravel you must also file supplementary applica-
tions with the standard Shellfish Farm Application.

Please read this application carefully. A fully completed
application will help the state agencies to process your
request promptly. Incomplete or incorrect information may
result in requests for additional information, processing
delays, or the application may be returned to you for
resubmission. You will receive a notice and processing
schedule for the state coastal zone consistency review from
DGC when your application has been accepted for processing.
Your permits will also be processed on this schedule.
01-A35L.4

If you need technical assistance in completing this applica-
tion, please refer to the list of agency representatives
provided at the back of the coastal project questionnaire -
if you have questions about this application process, or you
are not able to determine which agency can best answer your
technical questions, contact the Division of Governmental
Coordination in Juneau at 465-3562, in Anchorage at
274-1581, or in Fairbanks at 451-2818.

Stocking your Farm or Selling your Products.
In addition to the permits and approvals which you are
applying for in this consolidated permit application, you
will 'also need to separately apply_ for and obtain a Fish
Transport Permit from ADF&G to obtain and hold broodstock,
and a Growing-Area Certification and a Harvester's Permit
from DEC in order to sell your product. These-permits are
not covered by this application since they are required for
later phases of your project.

A Fish Transport Permit is required by ADF&G in order to
hold, transport, and raise live fish including shellfish.
You will need this permit before you can obtain, hold, or
begin raising your product. We encourage you to contact the
Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development (FRED)
Division in Juneau at 465-4160 or in Anchorage at 267-2157
as early as possible in order to apply for and obtain a Fish
Transport Permit.

You should contact DEC regarding area certification
requirements so that you can' be reasonably sure that your
site will qualify. We rec6mmend that you apply for growing
area certification and a harvester's permit at least six
months before you intend to harvest shellfish. To obtain
more information on certification requirement please contact
DEC in Anchorage at 563-0318.

jbak8712240IDMF

State of Alaska
Consolidated Shellfish Farm Permit Application

General Instructions

1. Fill in the blanks on the form provided.

2. If additional space is needed to fully answer a particular question, attach
additional pages marked with the corresponding number in the application.

3. Applications must be typed or printed clearly in ink.

4. Applications must be signed by the applicant or an authorized representative.

5. The application and a coastal project questionnaire must be sent to the
Office of Management and Budget's, Division of Governmental Coordination in
the region in which the farm is to be located.

OM:B/DGC OMBIDGC OMB/DGC
Southeast Regional Office Southcentral Regional Office Northern Regional Office
431 North Franklin Street 2600 Denali Street 675 Seventh Avenue
P.O. Box AW, Suite 101 Suite 700 Station H
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0165 Anchorage, Ak 99503-2798 Fairbanks, AK997014596
(907) 465-3562 (907) 274-1581 (907) 451-2818

6. The Department of Natural Resources requires an application filing fee
of $50. Please submit the filing fee along with a copy of your completed
application to the appropriate regional office.

DNR DNR DNR
Southeast Regional Office Southcentral Regional Office Northern Regional Office
400 Willoughby Avenue 3601 C Street, Anchorage 4420 Airport Way
Suite 400 Mailing Address: Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Juneau, A12sk2 99801 P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510

7. Please note: This application is for a specific mariculture project. You
will need to submit a new application if you change any of the following:

A. The species to be propogated
B. The size or design of your operation
C. The location of your operation '
D. Request a long-term tidelands lease for a previously permitted site

E
PERMIT APPLICATION
State of Alaska Consolidated Shellfish Fam

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Narne

Mailing Address

City State Zip Code

Phone

2. 3.-
Business Name (if applicable) AuLhonzed Agent (if applicable)

BusLaess Address Address

City State Zip Code City State Zip Code
Phone PROCC

PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Provide a brief description of the facility and your overall proposal. Include upland facilities as well as tide
and submerged land facilities.

2. What experience, expertise, and other resources do you have available for this project?

PROJECT LOCATION
I. Is the Project on: (please mark with,/
State Land Federal Land Private Land Municipal Land

2. Township - Range - Meridian - Section
3. Number of acres applied for:
Uplands Tidelands
4. Provide the names and addresses of the landowners of adjacent uplands and tidelands.
Uplands T"idelands

A A

B B
State

C C

5. Attach topographic maps (U.S.G.S. Scale 1; 63360) and nautical charts to this application that show
the site location and general area. Clearly indicate the site location on the charts and maps.
4

SITE PLAN & PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

1 - Provide a site plan drawn to scale (no less than I" = 50') which shows the layout and location
of the following:
A. The rafts or other Production facilities employed (please include size and number).
B. Anchoring systems and shoreties.
C. Docks, floathomes, or caretaker facilities, including source of freshwater for domestic use and
processing water, wastewater disposal systems, and solid waste storage and disposal. (Note: you are
encouraged to use existing permitted sites for the disposal of solid wastes.)
D. Any fi-eshwater discharges.
E. Roads or air strips.
F. OLher upland or tideland facilities at the site associated with the farming operation.
G. Fuel and chemical storage.
H. Properties referenced in #4 of the previous section.

2. On the site plan, draw lines and identify the tide level at the following stages:
� Mean Lower Law Water (MLLW)
� Mean Higher High Water (M1*1W)
� Mean High Water (MHW)
3. Diagram surface tidal current speed and direction at maximum tide flow on the site plan or nautical chart.

4. Water depth at the site of culture gear at NILLW would be:

SITE SUITABILITY

1. Physical and Biological Characteristics
A. Have you conducted an on-site investigation? yes - no

B. Provide any information you may have regarding tidal flushing, water temperature, salinity, and
turbidity/sedimentation at the site. Include the dates these dam were obtaine&

C. Describe the'bottom type composition at the site (if more than one type, indicate percent).

sand - mud - rock - gravel - eelgrass

other.

D. Describe winter conditions at the site (temperatures, icing, storms, etc.).

E. Do anadromous fish (e.-. salmon) use any streams in the area for spawning? yes-no-
0 1
If yes, indicate which streams are used and label them as such on the site plan.

F. Is the target species naturally present in the area? yes- no

If yes, describe abundance and condition.

G. Describe measures you would propose to- control predation by marine mammals, seabirds, or
other potential predators.

WATER QUALITY

NOTE TO APPLICANT. Sewage or industrial discharge(s) may accumulate in, or harm the growth or consumptive use
of your shellfish product. Oysters, mussels and scallops are filter feeders and may accumulate fecal coliform bacteria from
sewage discharges. If a caretaker facility is located near the culturing operation there may be a risk of contamination. DEC
will require that the wastewater treatment systems used on caretaker facilities meet Alaska State Water Quality Standards
criteria for harvest or consumption of raw mollusks or other aquatic life.

A. Were there any sources of past pollution at the site, such as a shorebased seafood processor,
industrial facility, or a town or village? yes- no
If you answered yes to the above, identify:

� The type of previous use (Le. mine, village, sedood processor)

� The last known date of tise

� The distance from site of previous use to your project site

B. Are there any currently active sources of human or industrial pollution in the area?
yes. no

If yes, please describe:
� The type of discharge(s)

� 'Me location and distance from your site

� The name of the discharger(s), if known

C .If there is a caretaker's facility proposed for the site, please submit the fol.lowina information for revieW
of your sewage disposal system plan: 0
(Note: outhouses and septic systems must maintain a minimum 100 foot horizontal separation distance from surface waters
and a minimum of 4 foot vertical separation distance from the high ground water table.)
1. The location and description of proposed and existing domestic wastewater treatment works,
disposal systems, or sewers; _
2. the location of waters, including any drinking water wells, fresh water, salt water within 200 feet
of the proposed wastewater disposal system,
3. the proposed discharge location;
4. (if disposal is into subsurface land) the soil information used to determine absorption-field area required
for domestic wastewater disposal systems, including soil tests, borings, test holes, and percolation tests.

CURRENT LAND USE STATUS
Describe the type and intensity of all present uses of the project site and the surrounding area
(e.g. commercial development, mining, timber harvest or transfer, sheltered anchorage, subsistence,
recreation, commercial fishing, sport fishing, or residential use, etc.).

FARM OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

1. Species to be raised.
Species Annual Production Goal

2. Please provide a timetable showing approximate dates for installation of spat collection gear, placement
of production facilities, date of first sale, and a schedule for reaching expected maximum production.

3. Donor Stock
Have you submitted a Fish Transport Permit application to the Department of Fish and Game?
yes- no
If yes, date of application

Certification Statement
7he information contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
0
1 must separately apply for and hold a Fish Transport Permit from the Department of Fish and Game in
order to hold, transport, and raise shellfish, and a Growing Area Certification and a Harvesters Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation in order to sell my product.

Signature of Applicant or Agent Date

Appendix E - Agency Contact Ust

STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT/LEASE AGENCY CONTACT LIST

DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Oil and Gas Activities Forestry Activities

DNR/ Oil & Gas DNR/Forestry
400 Willoughby 400 Willoughby
Juneau AK 99801 Juneau AK 99801
(907) 465-2400 (907) 465-4500

Mining Activities Agricultural Activities

DNR/Mining DNR/Agriculture
Box 7016 915 S. Bailey
Anchorage AK 99510 P.O. Box 949
(907) 762-4222 Palmer AK 99645
(907) 745-7200
Activities on State Lands All Other Activities

DNR/Parks Southeast District Office
400 Willoughby Division of Land & Water Mgmt
Juneau AK 99801 400 Willoughby
(907) 465-4563 Juneau AK 99801
(907) 465-3400
DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME

DFG/Habitat Division Fisheries Rehabilitation &
Enhancement Division
P.O. Box 20
Douglas AK 99824 Shellfish Farm Permits
(907) 465-4290 1255 West Eighth St.
P.O. Box 3-2000
Area Of f ices:' Juneau AK 99802
Dept. of Fish & Game (907) 465-4160
P.O. Box 667
Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Dept. of Fish & Game
(907) 772-3801 2030 Sealevel Drive,Rm.205
Ketchikan AK 99901
Dept. of Fish and Game (907) 225-2027
P.O. Box 667
Petersburg, Ak.99833
(907)772-3801 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT &
BUDGET
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION Division of Governmental
Coordination
DEC/ Southeast Office P.O. Box AW
P.O. Box 2420 431 N. Franklin St.
9000 Old Glacier Highway Juneau AK 99811
Juneau,Ak 99803 (907) 465-3562
(907) 789-3151

Appendix F - References

REFERENCES

Aiken, K. 1987. Farming the Fundy scallop. Canadian Aquaculture Vol. 3
No. 1.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1978. Alaska's wildlife and habitat. Vol. 11.
Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Marine mammals species accounts.
ADFG tech. Bull. No. 7. Juneau, AK. 96 pp.

Alaska Interagency Mariculture Working Group. 1988. Predation issue paper in
report on activities over the legislative
interim. Juneau, AK. I page mimeo.

Blackett, R. 1987. Trip report--New Zealand mariculture. AK. Dept. of Fish and
Game FRED Div.

British Columbia Ministry of Forestry and Lands. 1987. Coastal resource
identification study: aquaculture opportunities. Vancouver,B.C.Pamphlet series

Brown, P.S. 1979. The production of planktonic herbivorous food chains in large-
scale continuous cultures. Ph.D. Dissertation Univ. British Columbia, Canada.

Buchanan, D.V., P.S. Tate, and J.R. Moring. 1976. Acute toxicities and J.R. Moring.
J. Fish. Res. Brd. Canada. Vol. 33 (6): 1188-1192.

Calvin, N.I. and R.J. Ellis. 1976. Growth and life history of Lgmineria Proenlandica
in southeast Alaska. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. NW Fisheries Ctr. Monthly rep. Seattle,
WA. 7 pp.

Chew, K. 1987. Review of oyster culture in the Pacific Northwest. Paper presented
at the 4th Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, AK.

Cropp, D.A. 1983. Economic feasibility of scallop culture in Tasamania. Project No.
83/52 Fishing Industry Research Trust Account T.F.D.A. Tasmania.

Dahlbaeck, B. and L.A.H. Gunnarsson. 1981. Sedimentation and sulphate reduction
under a mussel culture. Mar. Biol. 63(3): 269-75. Abstract.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Pacific Region. 1986a. Guidelines for
development and operation of aquaculture and fish processing facilities. Draft report.
Dec. 9, 1986. 30 pp. mimeo 1986b.

Aquaculture operational guidelines for protection of wildlife and marine animals.
I page. mimeo.

Druehl, L. 1987. Pers. Comm. 4th Alaska Aquaculture Conference. Sitka, AK. Nov
1987.

Druehl, L. 1987. Laminaria Aquaculture in British Columbia. Paper presented at the

4th Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, AK.

Duvall, W.S. and F.F. Slaney Co. 1980. A review of the impacts of log handling on
coastal marine environments and resources. Prep. for Envir. Rev. Panel of the
COFI/Govt. Estuary, Foreshore, and Water Log Handling and Transportation Study.
Vancouver, B.C. 224 pp.

Edwards, E. 1984. Mussels - The bountiful marine resource. World Fishing. Nov. p.
45.

Else, P.V. 1987. Alaska Oyster Grower's Manual. Univ. AK. Sea Grant Prog. Mar
Adv. Bull. 17 206 pp.

Erickson, Gerald and Louisa Nishitani. 1985. The possible relationship of El Nino/
southern oscillation events to interannual variation in gonyaulax populations as shown
by records of shellfish toxicity. In Warren S. Wooster and David L., Fluharty
(editors) El Nino north: Nino effects in the eastern subartic pacific ocean.
Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle.

Fei, 1983.

Farris, T. 1987. Summary of environmental effects of cage culture on estuarine
habitat. Paper presented at Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, AK.

Fortuine, R. 1975. Paralytic shellfish poisoning in the north pacific: two historic
accounts and implications for today. Alaska medicine, 17(5): 712-76.

Freeman, K. 1985. Fish of the Month: Nori Pacific fishing. July.

Freese, L. and C. O'Clair. 1984. Responses of the littleneck clam (Protothaca
staminea) and the edible mussel (Mytilus edulis exposed to decomposing wood waste
from a log transfer facility. Paper presented at the AK. Chapter AM. Fisheries Soc.
Annual meeting, Juneau, AK. Abstract.

Frye, T.C. 1915. IV. The kelp beds of Southeast Alaska. In Potash from kelps.
Report 100, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Glude, J.B. 1979. Oyster culture - a world review. In Advances in Aquaculture.
pp. 325-331.

Glude, J.B. and K.K. Chew. 1982. Shellfish aquaculture in the pacific northwest. In
Proc. N. Pac. Aq Symp. Aug. 1980. Anchorage,AK. p 291-304.

Golikov, A.N. and O.A. Skarlato. 1979. Effect of mussel culture in the white sea on
the benthos of th@e adjacent water area. Biologiia moria 5(4): 68-73. Abstract.

Gunn, R., D. Valiela, and W. Green. 1983. Review of species available for
mariculture in British Columbia. Discovery Parks, Inc.

Haggstrom and Larsson 1982.

Hemming, J.E. and N. Hemming. 1984. Blue mussel mariculture in Kachemak Bay, AK
Unpublished report 20 pp. Marriott, N. 1984. A guide to longline mussel
cultivation. Aquaculture Tech. Bull. No. 9 National Board for Science & Technology.

Dublin, Ireland 97 pp.

Hurlbur,, E. 1911, Aquacullure Coordinator, Wash. Dept. of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.

Ito, S., H. Kanno, and K. Takahashi. 1975. Some problems on culture of the scallop
in Mutsu Bay. Bull. Mar. Biol. Sta. of Asamushi 15(2): 89-100.

James, G.A. 1956. The physical effects of logging on salmon streams in Southeast
Alaska. USDA For. Serv. Alaska Cent. Sta. Paper. 49 pp.
Jenkins, R.J. 1985 Mussel cultivation in the Marlborough Sounds (New Zealand)
2nd edition. New Zealand Fishery Industry Board.

Johnson, C.B. 1985. Use of coastal habitat by mink on Prince of Wales Island,
Alaska. M.S. thesis, Univ. AK., Fairbanks.179 pp.

Kafuku, T. and H. Ikenoue. 1983. Modern methods of aquaculture in Japan. Elsevier
Sci. Pub. Co. Amsterdam-Oxford-New York. 216 pp.

Kaill, M. In prep. Procedures manual for scallop mariculture. Ak. Dept. of Fish
and Game. Juneau, AK.

Korringa, P. 1979. Economic aspects of mussel farming. In Advances in
Aquaculture. FAO Technical Conference on Aquaculture Kyoto, Japan 26 May-2
June 1976 T.V.R. Pillary and W.A. Dill eds. p 371-379.

Koganezawa, A. 1979. The status of pacific oyster culture in Japan. Pp. 332-337 in
T.V.R. Pillay and W.A. Gill, eds. Advances in aquaculture. Fishing news books ltd.
Norwich, England. 653pp.

Larsen, D.N. 1983. Habitats, movements, and foods of river otters in coastal
southeastern Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 149 pp.

Leighton, D. and C.F. Phleger 1981. The suitability of the purple hinge rock scallop
to marine aquaculture. Aquaculture Rept. No T-SCSGP001. Center for Marine Studies
Contribution No. 50. San Deigo, State Univ.

Leighton, D. 1985. Rock scallop growout. Aquaculture magazine July pp 6-7.

Lindstom, S. 1987. The potential for nori aquaculture in Alaska. Paper presented
at the 4th Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, AK.

Loo, L.O. and R. Rosenburg. 1983. Mytilus edulis. Growth and production in
western Sweden. Aquaculture Vol. 35 No. 2.

Mackenzie, C.L. 1979. Biological and fisheries data on sea scallop,Placovecten
magellanicus (Gmelin). Sandy hook Lab. Tech. Series Rept. No. 19 NE Fish. Ctr.
NMFS 34pp.

Magoon, C. and R. Vining. 1981 Introduction to shellfish aquaculture in the Puget
Sound region. Wash. State Dept. of Nat. Res. Olympia.

Mason, J. 1983. Scallop and queen fisheries in the British Isles. Fishing News
Books Ltd. England.

Mattson, J. and 0. Lindgren. 1984. Impact from cultures of mytilus edulis on the
benthic ecosystem in a narrow sound of the swedish west coast. Vatten-water 40(2):
151-163. Abstract.

Mathieson, O.A. J.J. Goering, and P.K. Bienfang. 1987. APPRISE: association of
primary productive and recruitment in a subarctic ecosystem. Ann. Rept. Jan.1-Dec
31, 1988. Juneau, Ak.

Meixner, R. 1979. Culture of pacific oysters(Crassotrea giga�) in containers in
german coastal waters. Pp. 338-339 Ln T.V.R. Pillay and w.A. Dill, eds. Advances in
aquaculture. Fishing news ltd. Norwich, England. 653 pp.

Motoda, S. 1977. Biology and artificial propagation of Japanese scallop. Proc. 2nd
Soviet-Japan Joint Symp. Aquaculture, Nov. 1973. Moscow 112 pp.

Mottet, M.G. 1981. Enhancement of the marine environment for fisheries and
aquaculture in Japan. Wash. Dept. of Fish. Tech. Rept. No. 69. Olympia, WA. 176
PP.

Mumford & Melvin. 1983.

Neish, F.C. 1979. Developments in the culture of algae seaweeds and the future of
the industry. In advances in Aquaculture FAO Technical Conference on Aquaculture
Kyoto, Japan 22 May - 2 June 1976 TVR Pillary and W.A. Dill eds P. 395-402.

Nicholson, D. 1987. Oyster aquaculture. in Alaska. Paper presented at the 4th Alaska
Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, AK.

Nishitani, Louisa and Kenneth K. Chew 1984. Recent developments in paralytic
shellfish poisoning research. Aquaculture, 39 (1984) 317-329.

North, W.J. 1973. Kelp restoration activities in San Diego county. Kelp hab. Imp.
Proj. Ann. Rept. Keck lab. of Envir. Health Eng., Cal. Inst. of Tech.

Olsen, S. 1983. Abalone and scallop culture in Puget Sound. J. Shellfish Res. Vol.
3 No. I p 113.

Olson, 1987. Seaweed cultivation in Minami Kayabe, Hokkaido Japan: Potential for
similar mariculture in Southeastern Alaska Marine Advisory Bulletin No.27. University
of Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant Program.

Pacific Fishing 1985.

Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Council. 1971. Log storage and rafting in public
waters. Task force report. 56 pp.

Pease, B.C. 1974. Effects of log dumping and rafting on the marine environment of
southeast Alaska. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. Pnw-22. Pac. NW For. and
Range Expt. Sta. Portland, or.58 pp.

Quayle, D.B. 1969. Pacific oyster culture in British Columbia. Fish. Res. Brd. of
Canada bull. 169. Ottawa, Canada. 192 pp.

Ren-zhi 1984.

Rosenburg, R. and L.Loo. 1983. Energy flow in a Mytilus edulis culture in western
Sweden, Aquaculture. 35: 151-161.

Rodhouse, P.G., Roden, C.M., Hensey, M.P. and T.H. Ryan. 1985. Production of
mussels, Mytilus edulis, in suspended culture and estimates of carbon and nitrogen
flow: Killary Harbor, Ireland. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. Vol. 65 No. I pp 55-68.

Romero, p., E. Gonzalez-Gurriaran, and Penas. 1982. Influence of mussel rafts on
spatial and seasonal abundance of crabs in the Ria de Arousa, northwestern Spain.
Mar. Biol. 72: 201-210.

Saito, Y. 1979. Seaweed aquaculture in the northwest Pacific In Advances in
Aquaculture FAO Technical Conference on Aquaculture Kyoto, Japan 26 May - 2 June
1976 TVR Pillary and W.A. Dill eds. p 402-410.

Selkregg, L.L. 1975. Alaska Rdgional Profiles: Southeast Region Arctic Environmental
Information and Data Center, Univ. AK., Anchorage, AK. 233 pp.

Schimuz, Y.. 1982. Shellfish aquaculture and paralytic shellfish poisoning.
Aquaculture: public health, regulatory and management aspects. Proc. 6th U.S.
Food drug administration scientific symposium on aquaculture. Tamu-sg-82-119, pp 3
8-48.

Schultz, R.D. and R.J. Berg. 1976. Some effects of log dumping on estuaries. Natl.
Mar. Fish. Serv. Juneau, AK. 24 pp.

Science Applications Int. Corp. 1986. Recommended interim guidelines for the
management of salmon net-pen culture in Puget Sound. 48 pp. Mimeo.

Shaarma, G.D. 1979. The Alaskan Shelf Hydrographic, Sedimentary Geochemical
environment. Springer-Verlag. New York. 498 pp.

Sinderman, c.J. 1979. Oyster mortalities and their control. Pp. 349-360 in T.V.R.
Pillay and W.A. Dill, eds. Advances in Aquaculture. Fishing news books ltd.
Norwich, England. 653 pp.

Steckoll, M.S. 1987. Alaska Sea Vegetables. Proposal for the Japan-Alaska giant
kelp agriculture feasibility study. Juneau, AK. 13 pp. mimeo.

Sutherland, I.R. 1986. Monitoring the development of intense oyster culture in
Trevenan Bay. The B.C. Aquaculture newsletter 6(4): 17-24.

Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research. 1983. The environmental
impact of aquaculture. Rept. 83-5 to the Swedish steering committee on aquaculture.
Stockholm, Sweden. 74 pp.

Talley, K. 1985. Fish of the month: scallops pacific fishing January.

Taguchi, k. 1977. A manual of scallop culture methods and management. Pac. Bio.
Sta. Fish. and Mar. Serv. Trans. Scr. No. 4198. Nanaimo, British Columbia. 146 pp.

Tenore 1982.

Tianjing ct al. 1984.

Ventilla, R.F. 1982. The scallop industry in Japan. Advances in Marine Biology Vol.
20 J.H.S. Blaxtcr, F. S. Russell and M. Yonge eds. Academic Press, New York.

Wakeman, J.S. and L. Nishitani. 1982. Growth and decline of gonyaulax catenella
bloom associated with parasitism. Abstract. J. Shellfish res. (listed in Press in
Nishitani, Louisa and Kenneth K. Chew. 1984.317-329.)

Wakui, T. 1983. Present status of scallop sea farming in japan. Paper presented at
first Japan-France aquaculture symp., Montpelier, France.

Wallace, J.C. and T. G. Reinsnes. 1985. The significance of various environmental
parameters for growth of the Iceland scallop, Chlamys islandica (Pectinidae , in
hanging culture. Aquaculture Vol. 44. pp 229-242.

Wallen, D.D., and D.W. Hood. 1971. Descriptive oceanography of Southeaast Alaska
and Marine inrerfaces. Inst. Mar. Science, Univ. College, AK. 198 pp.

Washington Dept. of Natural Resources 1984.

Zeimann, D.A. 1986. Patterns of Oceanographic Conditions and Particulate
Sedimentation in Auke Bay, AK. during the spring bloom 1985. APPRISE: Ann. Rept.
Univ. AK., Juneau, Ak. pp. 143-246.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

John Church, former oyster grower in Blashke Islands, Wrangell, Alaska

Eric Hurlburt, Shellfish/Aquaculture Coordinator, Washington Dept. of Fisheries,
Olympia, Washington

Michael Kaill, Mariculture Coordinator Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement
and Development Division Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska

Brian Paust, Maarine Advisory Program Agent, Cooperative Extension Service, Univ.
of AK. Petersburg, Alaska

Dr. Tom Shirley, Professor, School of Fisheries, Univ. of AK. Southeast, Juneau,
Alaska

Appendb(G - Senate Bill No. 514

Offered: 5/9/88 5-217OX
For Today's Supplemental Calendar
Original sponsor: Rules Committee

1 IN THE SENATE BY THE RULES COMMITTEE

2 HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 514 (Rules)

3 IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

4 FIFTEENTH LEGISLATURE - SECOND SESSION

5 A BILL

6 For an Act entitled: "An Act relating to the farming of aquatic plants and

7 shellfish; prohibiting the farming of Atlantic sal-

8 mon; extending the moratorium on finfish farming

9 until July 1, 1990; establishing the Alaska Finfish

10 Farming Task Force; and providing for an effective

11 date."

12 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:

13 Section 1. FINDINGS AND POLICY. (a) The legislature finds that

14 (1) aquatic farming in the state would

15 (A) provide a consistent source of quality food;

16- (B) provide new jobs;

17 (C) increase state exports;

is (D) create new business opportunities; and

19 (E) increase the stability and diversity of the state's

20 economy; and

21 (2) development of aquatic farming in the state would increase

22 the availability of fresh seafood to Alaskans and would strengthen the

Z3 competitiveness of Alaska seafood in the world marketplace by broadening

24 the diversity of products and providing year-round supplies of premium

25 quality seafood.

26 (b) It is the policy of the state

27 (1) to encourage the establishment and responsible growth of an

28 aquatic farming industry in the state; and

29 (2) that allocation of aquatic farming sites be made with full

SB0514C -1- HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I consideration of established and ongoing activities in an area.

2 Sec. 2. AS 16.40 is amended by adding new sections to read:

ARTICLE 2. AQUATIC FARMING.

4 Sec. 16.40.100. AQUATIC FARM AND HATCHERY PERMITS. (a) A

5 person may not, without a permit from the commissioner, construct or

6 operate

7 (1) an aquatic farm; or

8 (2) a hatchery for the purpose of supplying aquatic plants

9 or shellfish to an aquatic farm.

10 (b) A permit issued under this section authorizes the permittee,

11 subject to the conditions of AS 03.05 and AS 16.40.100 - 16.40.199, to

12 acquire, purchase, offer to purchase, transfer, possess, sell, and

13 offer to sell stock and aquatic farm products that are used or reared

14 at the hatchery or aquatic farm. A person who holds a permit under

15 this section may sell or offer to sell shellfish stock to the depart-

16 ment or to an aquatic farm or related hatchery outside of the state.

17 (c) The commissioner may attach conditions to a permit issued

18 under this section that are necessary to protect natural fish and

19 wildlife resources.

20 (d) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the commissioner

21 may not issue a permit under this section for the farming of, or

22 hatchery operations involving, Atlantic salmon.

23 Sec. 16.40.105. CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. The commis-

24 sioner shall issue permits under AS 16.40.100 on the basis of the

25 following criteria:

26 (1) the physical and biological characteristics of the

27 proposed farm or hatchery location must be suitable for the farming of

28 the shellfish or aquatic plant proposed;

29 (2) the proposed farm or hatchery may not require

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) -2- SBO514C

I significant alterations in traditional fisheries or other existing

2 uses of fish and wildlife resources;

3 (3) the proposed farm or hatchery may not significantly

4 affect fisheries, wildlife, or their habitats in an adverse manner;

5 and

6 (4) the proposed farm or hatchery plans and staffing plans

7 must demonstrate technical and operational feasibility.

8 Sec. 16.40.110. PERMIT APPLICATION, RENEWAL, AND TRANSFER. (a)

9 An applicant for an aquatic farming or hatchery permit required under

10 AS 16.40.100 shall apply on a form prescribed by the commissioner. An

11 application for a permit must include a plan for the development and

12 operation of the aquatic farm or hatchery, which must be approved by

13 the commissioner before the permit is issued.

14 (b) An application for renewal or transfer of a permit must be

15 accompanied by fees required by the commissioner, a report of the

16 disease history of the farm or hatchery covered by the permit, and

17 evidence that satisfies the commissioner that the applicant has com-

18 plied with the development plan required under (a) of this section.

19 The commissioner may require a health inspection of the farm or hatch-

20 ery as a condition of renewal. The department may conduct the in-

21 spection or contract with a disease diagnostician to conduct the

22 inspection.

23 (c) A person to whom a permit is transferred may use the permit

24 only for the purposes for which the permit was authorized to be used

25 by the transferor, and subject to the same conditions and limitations.

26 Sec. 16.40.120. AQUATIC STOCK ACQUISITION PERMITS. (a) A

27 person may not acquire aquatic plants or shellfish from wild stock in

28 the state for the purpose of supplying stock to an aquatic farm or

29 hatchery required to have a permit under AS 16.40.100 unless the

SBO514C -3- HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I person holds an acquisition permit from the commissioner.

2 (b) An acquisition permit authorizes the permit holder to ac-

3 quire the species and quantities of wild stock in the state specified

4 in the permit for the purposes of supplying stock to

5 (1) an aquatic farm or hatchery required to have a permit

6 under AS 16.40.100;

.7 (2) the department.

8 (c) The commissioner shall specify the expiration date of an

9 acquisition permit and may attach conditions to an acquisition permit,

10 including conditions relating to the time, place, and manner of har-
11 vest. Size, gear, place, time, licensing, and other limitations

12 applicable to sport, commercial, or subsistence harvest of aquatic

13 plants and shellfish do not apply to a harvest with a permit issued

14 under this section. The commissioner of fish and game shall issue or

15 deny a permit within 30 days after receiving an application.

16 (d) The commissioner shall deny or restrict a permit under this

17 section upon finding that the proposed harvest will impair sustained

18 yield of the species or will unreasonably disrupt established uses of

19 the resources by commercial, sport, personal use, or subsistence

20 users. The commissioner shall inform the Board of Fisheries of any

21 action taken on permit applications for species that support commer-

22 cial fisheries subject to limited entry under AS 16.43 and of any

23 permits denied because of unreasonable disruption of an established

24 use. A denial of the permit by the commissioner must contain the

25 factual basis for the findings.

26 (e) The Board of Fisheries may adopt regulations for the conser-

27 vation, maintenance, and management of species for which an acquisi-

28 tion permit is required.

29 (f) Except as provided in (d) of this section or in a regulation

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) -4- SB0514C

I adopted under (e) of this section, the commissioner shall issue a

2 permit if

3 (1) wild stock is necessary to meet the initial needs of

4 farm or hatchery stock;

5 (2) there are technological limitations on the propagation

6 of cultured stock for the species sought;

7 (3) wild stock sought is not fully utilized by commercial,

8 sport, personal use, or subsistence fisheries; or

9 (4) wild stock is needed to maintain the gene pool of a

10 hatchery or aquatic farm.

11 (g) Aquatic plants and shellfish acquired under a permit issued

12 under this section become the property of the permit holder and are no

13 longer a public or common resource.

14 Sec. 16.40.130. IMPORTATION OF AQUATIC PLANTS OR SHELLFISH FOR

15 STOCK. A person may not import into the state an aquatic plant or

16 shellfish for the purpose of supplying stock to an aquatic farm or

17 hatchery unless authorized by a regulation of the Board of Fisheries.

18 Sec. 16.40.140. LIMITATION ON SALE, TRANSFER OF STOCK, AND

19 PRODUCTS. (a) A private hatchery required to have a permit under

20 AS 16.40.100 may sell or transfer stock from the hatchery only to an

21 aquatic farm or other hatchery that has a permit issued under AS 11

22 40.100, except that shellfish stock may also be sold or offered for

23 sale to an aquatic farm or related hatchery outside of the state *

24 (b) Stock may not be transferred to or from an aquatic farm or

25 hatchery required to have a permit under AS 16,40.100 without prior

26 notice of the transfer to the commissioner. A notice of transfer

27 shall be submitted at least 45 days before the proposed date of trans-

28 fer.

29 (c) A notice of transfer must be accompanied by a report of a.

SB0514C -5- HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

1 health inspection of the stock. The department shall conduct the

2 inspection or contract with a disease diagnostician to conduct the

3 inspection. The cost of inspection shall be borne by the department.

4 (d) The department may restrict or disapprove a transfer of

5 stock if it finds that the transfer would present a risk of spreading

6 disease.

7 (e) A person may not sell, transfer, or offer to sell or trans-

8 fer, or knowingly purchase or receive, an aquatic farm product grown

9 or propagated in the state unless the product was grown or propagated

10 on a farm with a permit issued under AS 16.40.100. The permit must be

11 in effect at the time of the sale, transfer, purchase, receipt, or

12 offer.

13 Sec. 16.40.150. DISEASE CONTROL AND INSPECTION. (a) The de-

14 partment shall order the quarantine or the destruction and disposal of

15 diseased hatchery stock or of aquatic farm products when necessary to

16 protect wild stock. A holder of a permit issued under AS 16.40.100

17 shall report to the department an outbreak or incidence of disease

18 among stock or aquatic farm products of the permit holder within 48

19 hours after discovering the outbreak or incidence.

20 (b) A holder of a permit issued under AS 16.40.100 shall allow

21 the department to inspect the permit holder's farm or hatchery during

22 oparating hours and upon reasonable notice. The cost of inspection

23 shall be borne by the department.

24 (c) The department shall develop a disease management and con-

25 trol program for aquatic farms and hatcheries.

26 (d) The department may enter into an agreement with a state or

27 federal agency or a private, state-certified provider to provide ser-

28 vices under (b) and (c) of this section, or inspections under AS 16.-

29 40.110(b).

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) -6- SB0514C

1 Sec. 16.40.160. REGULATIONS. The commissioner may adopt regu-

2 lations necessary to implement AS 16.40.100 - 16.40.199.

3 Sec. 16.40.170. PENALTY. A person who violates a provision of

4 AS 16.40.100 - 16.40.199, a regulation adopted under AS 16.40.100 -

5 16.40.199, or a term or condition of a permit issued under AS 16.40.-

6 100 - 16.40.199, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

7 Sec. 16.40.199. DEFINITIONS. In AS 16.40.100 - 16.40.199

8 (1) "aquatic farm" means a facility that grows, farms, or

9 cultivates aquatic farm products in captivity or under positive con-

10 trol;

11 (2) "aquatic farm product" means an aquatic plant or shell-

12 fish, or part of an aquatic plant or shellfish, that is propagated,

13 farmed, or cultivated in an aquatic farm and sold or offered for sale;

14 (3) "aquatic plant" means a plant indigenous to state water

15 or that is authorized to be imported into the state under a permit

16 issued by the commissioner;

17 (4) "commissioner" means the commissioner of fish and game;

18 (5) "hatchery" means a facility for the artificial propa-

19 gation of stock, including rearing of juvenile aquatic plants or

20 shellfish;

21 (6) "positive control" means, for mobile species, enclosed

22 within a natural or artificial escape-proof barrier; for species with

23 limited or no mobility, such as a bivalve or an aquatic plant, "posi-

24 tive control" also includes managed cultivation in unenclosed water;

25 (7) "shellfish" means a species of crustacean, mollusk, or

26 other invertebrate, in any stage of its life cycle, that is indigenous

27 to state water or that is authorized to be imported into the state

28 under a permit issued by the commissioner;

29 (8) stock" means live aquatic plants or shellfish

SBO514C -7- HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

1 acquired, collected, possessed, or intended for use by a hatchery or

2 aquatic farm for the purpose of further growth or propagation.

3 Sec. 3. AS 03.05.011(a) is amended to read:

4 (a) To carry out the requirements of this title, the commis-

5 sioner of environmental conservation may issue orders, regulations,

6 permits, quarantines, and embargoes relating to

7 (1) examination and inspection of premises containing

8 products, articles, and commodities carrying pests;

9 (2) establishment of quarantines for eradication of pests;

10 (3) establishment of standards and labeling requirements

11 pertaining to the sale of meat, fish, and poultry;

12 (4) tests and analyses which may be made and hearings which

13 may be held to determine whether the commissioner will issue a stop

14 order or quarantine;

15 (5) cooperation with federal and other state agencies;

16 (6) regulation of fur farming; for purposes of this para-

17 graph, "fur farming" means the raising of and caring for animals for

18 the purpose of marketing their fur, or animals themselves for breeding

19 stock;

20 (7) examination and inspection of meat, fish, and poultry

21 advertised for sale or sold to the public;

22 (8) enforcement of quality assurance plans developed in

23 cooperation with appropriate industry representatives_1

24 (9) establishment of standards and conditions for the

25 operation and siting of aquatic farms and related hatcheries, includ-

26 Ling

27 (A) restrictions on the use of chemicals; and

28 (B) requirements to protect the public from contami-

29 nated aquatic farm products that pose a risk to health;

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) -8- SB0514C

1 (10) monitoring aquatic farms and aquatic farm products to

2 ens ure compliance with this chapter and with the requirements of the

3 national shellfish sanitation program manual of operations publishe

4 by the Food and Drug Administration.

5 Sec. 4. AS 03.05.040(a) is amended to read:

6 (a) On any business day during the usual hours of business the

7 commissioner or an authorized inspector may, for the purpose of in-

8 specting agricultural, [OR] fisheries-, or aquatic farm products or

9 aquatic farm sites subject to regulation, enter a storehouse, ware-

10 house, cold storage plant, packing house, slaughterhouse, retail store

11 or other building or place where those products are kept, s tored,

12 processed or sold.

13 Sec. 5. AS 03.05.100 is amended to read:

14 Sec. 03.05.100. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter,

15 (1) "agricultural products" does not include fish or fish-

16' eries products;

17 (2) "aquatic farm" and "aquatic farm product" have the

18 meanings given in AS 16.40.199;

19 (3) "fish or fisheries products" means any aquatic animal,

20 including amphibians, or aquatic plants or parts of those plants,

21 animals or amphibians that are usable as human food.

22 Sec. 6. AS 16.05.050 is amended by adding a new paragraph to read:

23 (17) to permit and regulate aquatic farming in the state in

24 a manner that ensures the protection of the state's fish and game

25 resources and improves the economy, health, and well-being of the

26 citizens of the state;

27 Sec. 7. AS 16.05.251 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

28 (f) Except as expressly provided in AS 16.40.120(d) and (e) and

29 16.40.130, the Board of Fisheries may not adopt regulations or take

SBO514C -9- HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

1 action regarding the issuance, denial, or conditioning of a permit
2 under AS 16.40.100 or 16.40.120, the construction or operation of a

3 farm or hatchery required to have a permit under AS 16.40.100, or a

4 harvest with a permit issued under AS 16.40.120.

5 Sec. 8. AS 16.05.930 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

6 (g) AS 16.05.330 16.05.720 do not apply to an activity au-

7 thorized by a permit issued under AS 16.40.100 or 16.40.120, or to a

8 person or vessel employed in an activity authorized by a permit issued

9 under AS 16.40.100 or 16.40.120.

10 Sec. 9.' AS 16.05.940(14) is amended to read:

11 (14) "fish or game farming" means the business of propagat-

12 ing, breeding, raising, or producing fish or game in captivity for the

13 purpose of marketing the fish or game or their products, and "captivi-

14 ty" means having the fish or game under positive control, as in a pen,

15 pond, or an area of land or water that [WHICH] is completely enclosed

16 by a generally escape-proof barrier; in this paragraph, "fish" does

17 not include shellfish, as defined in AS 16.40.199;

18 Sec. 10. AS 16.10 is amended by adding a new section to read:

19 Sec. 16.10.269. LIMITATIONS. AS 16.10.265 - 16.10.267 do not

20 apply to the purchase or sale of aquatic farm products from a holder

21 of a permit issued under AS 16.40.100 or stock from a holder of a

22 permit issued under AS 16.40.120.

23 Sec. 11. AS 16.43.140 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

24 (d) This chapter does not apply to activities authorized by a

25 permit issued under AS 16.40.100 or 16.40.120.

26 Sec. 12. AS 16.51.180(5) is amended to read:

27 (5) "seafood" means finfish, shellfish, and fish by-prod-

28 ucts, including but not limited to salmon, halibut, herring, flounder,

29 crab, clam, cod, shrimp, and pollock, but does not include aquatic

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) _10- SB0514C

1 farm product.s as defined in AS 16.40.199;

2 Sec. 13. AS 38.05 is amended by adding a new section to read:

3 Sec. 38.05.083. AQUATIC FARMING AND HATCHERY SITE LEASES. (a)

4 The commissioner may offer to the public for lease a site that has

5 been developed for aquatic farming or related hatchery operations

6 under a permit issued under AS 38.05.856. Before offering the site to

7 the public, the commissioner shall offer the site to the permittee.

8 (b) A site shall be leased under this section for not less than

9 the appraised fair market value of the lease. The value of the lease

10 shall be reappraised every five years.

11 (c) A lease under this section may be assigned, but if the

12 assignee changes the use of the site the lease reverts to the state.

13 (d) Before entering into a lease under this section, the commis-

14 sioner shall require the lessee to post a performance bond or provide

15 other security to cover the costs to the department of restoring the

16 leased site in the event the lessee abandons the site.

17 Sec. 14. AS 38.05 is amended by adding new sections to read:

18 Sec. 38.05.855. IDENTIFICATION OF SITES FOR AQUATIC FARMS AND

19 HATCHERIES. (a) The commissioner shall identify districts in the

20 state within which sites may be selected for the establishment and

21 operation of aquatic farms and related hatcheries required to have a

22 permit under AS 16.40-100.

23 (b) The commissioner shall schedule at least one 60-day period

24 each year during which a person may submit an application that identi-

25 fies a site in a district for which the person wishes to be issued a

26 permit under AS 38.05.856.

27 (c) Based on applications received under (b) of this section,

28 and after consultation with the commissioner of fish and game and the

29 commissioner of environmental conservation, the commissioner shall

SBC514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

1 make a preliminary written finding under AS 38.05.035(e) that proposes

2 sites in each district for which permits may be issued under AS 38.-

3 05.856.

4 (d) After notice is given under AS 38.05.945 and a hearing is

5 held under AS 38.05.946(b), the commissioner shall issue a final

6 written finding under AS 38.05.035(e) that identifies sites in each

7 district for which permits shall be issued under AS 38.05.856 and that

8 specifies conditions and limitations for the development of each site.

9 Sec. 38.05.856. TIDELAND AND LAND USE PERMITS FOR AQUATIC FARM-

10 ING. (a) The commissioner may issue a tideland or land use permit

11 for the establishment and operation of an aquatic farm and related

12 hatchery operations. A permit under this section is valid for three

13 years after the date of issuance. The permit may not be transferred.

14 (b) Before renewing a permit under this section, the commission-

15 er shall allow interested persons to submit written or oral testimony

16 concerning the renewal to the commissioner within 30 days after the

17 date of the notice. The commissioner may hold a hearing to take

18 testimony.

19 (c) Before issuing or renewing a permit under this section, the

20 commissioner shall consider all relevant testimony submitted under

21 this section or AS 38.05.946(b). The commissioner may deny the appli-

22 cation for issuance or renewal for good cause, but shall provide the

23 applicant with written findings that explain the reason for the

24 denial.

25 (d) Before issuing or renewing a permit under this section, the

26 commissioner shall require the permittee to post a performance bond or

27 provide other security to cover the costs to the department of restor-

28 ing the permitted site in the event the permittee abandons the site.

29 (e) The commissioner shall adopt regulations establishing

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) -12- SBO514C

1 criteria for the approval or denial of permits under this section and

2 for limiting the number of sites for which permits may be issued in an

3 area in order to protect the environment and natural resources of the

4 area. The regulations must provide for the consideration of upland

5 management policies and whether the proposed use of a site is compati-

6 ble with the traditional and existing uses of the area in which the

7 site is located.

8 Sec. 15. AS 38.05.945(a) is amended to read:

9 (a) This section establishes the requirements for notice given

10 by the department for the following actions:

(1) classification or reclassification of state land under
1121 AS 38.05.300 and the closing of land to mineral leasing or entry under

13 AS 18,05,185;

14 (2) zoning of land under applicable law;

(3) a decision under AS 38.05.035(e) regarding the sale,

16 lease, or disposal of an interest in state land or resources; [AND]
'5

17 (4) a competitive disposal of an interest in state land or

18 resources after final decision under AS 38.05.035(e)i

19 (5) a public hearing under AS 38.05.856(b);

20 (6) a preliminary finding under AS 38.05.035(e) and 38.05.-

21 855(c) concerning sites for aquatic farms and related hatcheries.

22 Sec. 16. AS 38.05.945 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

23 (g) Notice at least 30 days before action under (a)(5) or (6)

24 shall be given to appropriate

25 (1) regional fish and game councils established under

26 AS 16.05.260; and

27 (2) coastal resource service areas organized under AS 46.-

28 40.110 - 46.40.210.

29 Sec..17. AS 38.05.946 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

SB0514C -13- HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

1 (b) The commissioner shall hold a public hearing in each dis-

2 trict identified under AS 38.05.855 within 30 days after giving notice

3 of a preliminary finding under AS 38.05.035(e) and 38.05.855(c) con-

4 cerning sites for aquatic farms and related hatcheries.

5 Sec. 18. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a person who is

6 lawfully operating an aquatic farm or related hatchery in the state on the

7 effective date of this Act is entitled to continue lawful operations at the

8 existing site. The person may obtain an initial lease or permit for the

9 person's existing operations under AS 38.05.083 or 38.05.856, enacted by

10 secs. 13 and 14 of this Act, but as a condition of obtainin g the lease or

11 permit the person must agree that during the term of the lease or permit

12 the person will not change the use of the site.

13 Sec. 19. LAND MANAGEMENT REPORT REQUIRED. The commissioner of natu-

14 ral resources shall submit to the legislature not later than January 30,

15 1989, a report detailing the department's implementation of AS 38.05.083

16 and 38.05.856, enacted by secs. 13 and 14 of this Act. The report must

17 include

18 (1) the number of applications received under AS 38.05.083 and

19 38.05.856, and the number of leases and permits issued, according to type

20 of aquatic farm product;

21 (2) the restrictions attached to permits and leases;

22 (3) a discussion of th e system the department implements for

23 issuing leases and tideland and land use permits;

24 (4) the level of public involvement in the issuance process; and

25 (5) a discussion of how the program is working, and the depart-

26 ment's plans for modifications of the program.

27 * Sec. 20. ALASKA FINFISH FARMING TASK FORCE. (a) The legislature

28 finds that the farming of finfish raises a series of socio-economic, bio-

29 logical, and environmental issues requiring an in-depth examination.

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) -14- SB0514C

I (b) The Alaska Finfish Farming Task Force is established to study the

2 issue and make a report of findings for administrative and legislative

3 consideration. The governor shall appoint a five-member task force com-

4 posed of state residents who are not state employees and who represent a

5 broad spectrum of expertise, including one representative of commercial

6 salmon fishermen, one aquatic farming advocate, one private economist, one

7 fisheries biologist, and one public member with no involvement in the

8 seafood or aquatic farming industry.

9 (c) The task force shall submit an interim report to the legislature

10 not later than January 30, 1989, and a final report to the legislature not

11 later than January 30, 1990. The reports must address finfish farming in

12 the state in freshwater, in marine environments, and in tanks or other

13 enclosed structures that contain marine water and that are located on land,

14 and shall address related hatchery operations. The reports may address

15 other issues the task force considers appropriate. The reports must exam-

16 ine

17 (1) whether the farming of finfish can be conducted in a manner

18 that protects the health of the state's fishery resources;

19 (2) criteria for the siting of finfish farms to minimize land

20 use conflicts and to protect the environment;

21 (3) net economic costs and benefits of finfish farming in the

22 state to state residents, including jobs created or lost for state resi-

23 dents, tax revenue (assuming an appropriate tax rate), cost of state regu-

24 lation and monitoring, and effects on markets for salmon caught by the

25 state's commercial fishing fleets;

26 (4) the cost of providing adequate regulation of finfish farming

27 to protect wild stocks, the environment, public health, and existing bene-

28 ficial uses of the state's coastal water and land, and the role of the

29 private sector in providing pathological and other services;

SBO514C -15- HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

1 (5). identification and analysis of appropriate sources of supply

2 of stock for finfish farms, including but not limited to private nonprofit

3 hatcheries, private for-profit hatcheries, and wild stock, and their likely

4 effect on existing state policy; and

5 (6) strategies for improving the marketability of Alaska salmon,

6 particularly those high-value species competing with farmed salmon for

7 domestic and export sales.

8 Sec. 21. Section 4, ch. 70, SLA 1987, is amended to read:

9 Sec. 4. Section 1 of this Act is repealed July 1, 1990 (1988].

10 Sec. 22. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) -16- SB0514C

-1
1,
I
III
1111111
-.1- 366 81 1
-3 66-- - --4103 8168 ,
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
k