ETOLIN ISLAND AREA Mariculture Pilot Project

~ NAruRAttof .RESOURCES

1988

I I

ETOLIN ISLAND AREA I Mar1cultUre PilOt PrOJect

I Greetings: We are pleased to present this final report of the Etolin Island Area Mariculture I Pilot Project. Major elements of this project arc: 1. An examination of biological and environmental issues of aquatic farm siting, and I 2. A presentation of current permit and permit review processes required by state and federal agencies for establishing aquatic farms.

Other elements include a brief history of mariculture in Alaska, development issues, I an examination of the Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application, project recommendations, and a summary of public comments received. Siting guidelines were developed as a result of environmental and biological investigations. The study is I limited to shellfish and sea vegetable mariculture and does not address fin-fish farming issues. I This report is intended to be used primarily by state and federal agencies when processing or reviewing permit applications for aquatic farms. It should also be helpful to active or prospective sea farmers, and other individuals interested in the I development of aquatic farming. Six state and five federal agencies participated in the Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot project. Preparation of this report included literature reviews, interagency I dialogue and cooperation, and field research in the study area. Public workshops were held in Petersburg and Wrangell, and a thirty day review period of a public I review draft of the project provided opportunities for public involvement. Aquatic farming is a relatively new and expanding use of tidelands in Alaska. Sea farming technology applicable to conditions encountered in Alaskan waters is evolving. State and federal agencies are responding to this new industry by I developing permits, leases, review processes, policies and procedures to support development while at the same time providing for protection of all natural resources. This report presents an evaluation of processes currently adopted by industry and I governing agencies.

I Sincerely, I Andrew W. Pekovich, Acting Regional Manager By: 7 fjA.P~ 'ftrftti. Radi:C I ProJ;c{Team Leader

I Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources • Div. of Lana & water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400 • Juneau, Alaska 99801·1000 • !907l 465-3400 I

I I I I I Etolin Island Area I Mariculture Pilot Project

I 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 Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and I Atmospheric Administration. I

I ()0 ~ o- I - J J I 1.ll c:,o .-(1 I -::t: V> I r us DC:::jll['L"'~=-'C~_-,_;1; of Commerce NOAA Cac:.~ '::::' c~-- .-:::::::: Center Library I 223.:::. Souti1 i....:::.;i:Json Avenue l Charleston, SC 29405-.2413

I Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Management I Southeast Regional Office I 1988 I

I I Project Team

The Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project report was prepared by a inter-dis­ I ciplinary team of individuals representing state and federal agencies. This project team was coordinated by the staff of the Division of Land and Water Management, Department of Natural Resources. Following is the list of agency representatives who I contributed throughout this project by researching, writing, reviewing, and contribut­ ing their expertise. I DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Terry Rader I Fran Roche Diane Martin I DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Steve McGee I Marilyn Sigman DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Susan Braley Kerry Howard I Amy Kruse

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I Guy Oliver

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET I Nancy Holguin Diane Mayer

I MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM Brian Paust

I U.S. FOREST SERVICE Keene Kohrt

I U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Nevin Holmberg I ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Jeanne Marx I I I I

I Cooperating Agencies I

Alaska Department of Natural Resources coordinated the project. The following is I a list of cooperating and contributing agencies and a brief description of their primary areas of responsibility during this study: State Agencies: I

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was responsible for water quality issues and information about the administration of the National Shellfish Sanitation I Program.

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) contributed information on site capability, I cultivation, and potential environmental impacts on habitat. ADF&G also provided information for the resource and use inventory. I Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) provided industry viewpoints on development issues and explained development projects undertaken by the state to support mariculture development. I

Office of Management and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) was responsible for information on the Alaska Coastal Management Program includ­ I ing coordination of the state's permitting process for projects in Alaska's Coastal Zone. DGC also contributed information on various aspects of permits and permit review systems. I Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was responsible for land use issues as well as overall project coordination. I Marine Advisory Program (MAP), University of Alaska contributed information on their Remote Sensing Project. I Federal Agencies:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) provided information on Department of the I Army permits and their review system.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) provided information on their Special Use Permits and I review processes and the resource and use inventory. They provided M/V Chugach and crew for field investigations. I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) provided use of the M/V Curlew and crew for field investigations. They also provided SCUBA divers for underwater investiga­ tions of existing and potential mariculture sites. I

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provided assistance with on site SCUBA dives and technical review of the project. I In addition to offering expertise in their primary area of responsibility, all agencies provided clarifying comments and information throughout the study. I ii I

I I Acknowledgements

The Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project team would like to acknowledge the I assistance of the following additional people in all the tasks involved in preparing, I reviewing, and guiding this project. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Bill Paulick I Paul Peyton

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET I J oaqulin Estes

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME I Dr. Michael Kaill Rick Reed David Benton I Don Cornelius DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I Sara Hunt Bob Palmer Janet Burleson Paula Burgess I Dee Koester Chas Dense

I NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES Tamara Farris

I UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE DickAho Willie Lowe I Art Rosvold

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE I Andy Grossman Chuck Osborne I Ted Estrada AQUATIC FARMERS Don Nicholson I Robin Larsson Don Hull I I 111 I

I Table of Contents I

Chapter 1- Introduction I Page I Project Description 3 Study Area I 4 Developmental History 7 Planning and Classification 11 Development 12 Other Mariculture/Resource Studies I Chapter 2 - Site Capability I Page 15 Site Capability Issues 23 Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning 27 Cul ti va tion I Chapter 3 - Site Suitability I Page 31 Characteristics of the Study Area 38 Resource/Use Inventory 45 Environmental Impacts I 53 Environmental Impacts, Water Quality 55 Environmental Impacts, Fish and Wildlife 67 Conflicts with Other Coastal Users I 75 Development 79 Site Guidelines and Mitigating Measures I Chapter 4- Project Review and Permitting Page 87 Introduction I 88 Siting and Design Phase 102 Stocking Phase 103 Product Distribution Phase I Chapter 5- Implementation, Recommendations and I Summary of Public Comment Page 109 Implementation 112 Recommendations I 116 Summary of Public Comment I I

iv I I

I I I Appendixes I Appendix A - Marine Advisory Program's Remote Sensing Project Appendix B - Agency Authorities in the Study Area Appendix C - 1988 Coastal Project Questionnaire Appendix D - Consolidated Shellfish Farm Permit Application I Appendix E - Agency Contacts Appendix G - Senate Bill 514 Appendix H - Definitions I Appendix I - Acronyms Appendix J - Table A-1 Oyster Production Monthly I Table A-2 Southeast Alaska Raft Culture I I I I I I I I I I

I v I

I I List of Tables I Page 26 Table 2-1 : P.S.P. Data From Farm Sites In The Study Area I

40 Table 3-1 : Harvest Data Summary for Etolin Island Area

42 Table 3·2: Recreation Sites and Anchorages in the Etolin Island Area I 48 Table 3-3 : Size of Oyster Farms Proposed in the Etolin Island Area I 49 Table 3-4 : Summary of Reported Areal Extent and Stocking Rates of Various Mariculture Operations I 90 Table 4-1: Permits Which May Be Necessary for Madculture Projects 94 Table 4-2 : Project Consistency Review Procedure I I I I I I I I I I

vi I I

Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTER I

Introduction Page - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2 - Project Features 3 - Study Area

4 - DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

4 - Shellfish and Sea Vegetable Mariculture History in Alaska 5 - Legislative/ Administrative History of Mariculture in Alaska

7 - PLANNING AND CLASSIFICATION

7 - State Planning Process 8 - Mariculture in Area Plans 9 - Alaska Coastal Management Program Planning 9 - U.S. Forest Service Planning Process 10 - Local Planning Process

11 - DEVELOPMENT

12 - Other Mariculture/ Resources Studies 12 - Kodiak Scallop Spat Collection Project 12 - Macrocystis Research 12 - Marine Advisory Program (MAP) Remote Sensing Study 13 - Southeast Alaska Subsistence Survey

I

I Chapter! I INTRODUCTION I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION Interest in aquatic farming in Alaska is grow­ on this examination, project participants ing. This interest is reflected in increased developed guidelines for siting and develop­ I numbers of permit applications for aquatic ment of mariculture projects which are in­ farm projects and in legislative proposals ad­ cluded in this report. dressing management of mariculture, includ­ I ing bills on shellfish, sea vegetables and finfish. Permitting is important in managing maricul­ The Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot ture activities because it provides a way to Project was initiated to address this growing bring state policies and guidelines to bear I interest in aquatic farming, related land use, them. The report describes permit systems and the regulatory issues mariculture set up by state and federal agencies to review development raises. and monitor mariculture projects. This per­ mitting analysis will be useful background in­ I This report is the result of a multi-agency pilot formation for mariculture project applicants, project. The project was funded by the federal state, and federal agencies involved in issuing Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource or reviewing permits for mariculture develop­ I Management through the Alaska Coastal ment. Management Program. The Alaska Depart­ ment of Natural Resources coordinated the Municipalities may find the study useful when I pilot project and development of this report. evaluating land and resource issues in areas similar to the Etolin Island Area. It should In the Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot also be useful to individuals interested in start­ Project, participants studied shellfish and sea ing a mariculture venture. I vegetable mariculture development in the Etolin Island area near Wrangell, in Southeast The study area was geographically limited to Alaska. This report presents results of the Etolin Island, Blashke Island, and the related I study. The project addresses major elements island complexes in Southeast Alaska. The of mariculture development in a defined area. study area was selected because of high in­ These include: biological needs of commonly dustry interest in locating mariculture projects I cultivated mariculture species, effects of mariculture development on native environ­ in the area, and the absence of local and state ments, and use conflicts caused by siting land use plans for the area to guide coastal I mariculture facilities in certain areas. Based development. I I

I 1 I

I

This study is organized into five chapters: The study does not address projects which were outside the scope of state law as of I Chapter 1 is a brief introduction to the January 1, 1988. As such, finfish mariculture project and provides an historical overview of is not considered within this pilot project. Alaskan mariculture development. It also I describes this project's relationship to federal, This study will not be adopted as a DNR land state and local planning processes. use plan. There are several legally mandated steps that must be completed before a project Chapter 2 discusses site capabilities. This can be adopted as a DNR Area or Manage­ I section explores biological and environmental ment Plan. State adopted plans must address needs of cultured organisms and various cul­ all resources and uses. As this study focuses tivation techniques. It also provides a discus­ only on mariculture, it will not be adopted as I sion of paralytic shellfish poisoning. a plan. Chapter 3 examines site suitability Public workshops were held in Petersburg and I parameters. This is a detailed discussion of Wrangell on two occasions during the project. major issues involved in site selection to avoid The first workshops were held in late negative environmental effects and impacts February 1988 and provided an opportunity on other coastal users. for local residents to contribute information I on resources and uses of the study area. Chapter 4 explains permits that may be re­ quired for mariculture development, and The second set of workshops were held in I review systems for mariculture projects. The June and were attended by representatives of Alaska Coastal Management Program is ex­ most cooperating agencies. Public comments plained in this section. on the project were accepted at these public I hearings and in writing or by phone during a Chapter 5 provides a summary of siting 30 day public review period from June 1 guidelines, implementation options and recommendations. Public comments are also through June 30. Public comments are sum­ I summarized in this chapter. marized in Chapter 5. I Project Features The following species were studied: I Oysters o Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Scallops I o Weathervane Scallop (Patinopecten caurinus) I o Purple Hinged Rock Scallop ( Crassadoma gigantea) Mussels • Blue Mussels (Mytilus edulis) I Kelp o Giant Kelp (Macrocystis integrifolia) o Kombu (Laminaria ssp.) I o Nori (Porphyra ssp.) I

2 I I

I

I Study Area

I All of Etolin, Deer, Onslow, Eagle, Stone, This island group is located southwest of Brownson and Kashevarof Islands and the ad­ Wrangell and is remote from any major jacent smaller islands are included in the population center. These islands can be I project area. The state manages ap­ characterized as containing mountainous proximately 60,000 acres of tide and sub­ forested uplands, extended inlets, and multi­ merged lands adjacent to the island from ple island groups, surrounded by estaurine mean high water seaward to three miles off­ coastal waters. I shore.

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

I 3 I

I

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY I

Shellfish and Sea Vegetable I Mariculture History in Alaska Ions of shucked oysters were sold locally. This company planted 700,000 spat in 1960 and 2 Mariculture efforts in the Pacific Northwest million spat on 227 acres in 1961. have focused on Crassostrea gigas, the Pacific I oyster. It was brought to Washington State in In the mid 1970's several additional in­ the late 19th century from Japan and sub­ dividuals became interested in growing I sequently transplanted to British Columbia oysters and from their interest and efforts the (B.C.). By the 1920's significant shipments of present industry has grown. Robin Larsson of seed were coming into B.C. from Japan, and Wrangell, and Warren Pellet of Sitka, were in­ intertidal culture techniques were being strumental in moving the industry from the ex­ I developed. tensive production methods of the beach and bed methods to the intensive surface tray and Nearly eighty years ago ~eed oysters fr?m net methods currently used. Robin Larsson I Japan were first planted m areas extendmg brought spat into the Etolin Island area in from southeastern Alaska to Kachemak Bay June of 1978. Mr. Larsson experimented with on Cook Inlet. From 1910 to 1961 Pacific large rafts so oysters could take advantage of oyster seed was planted with little success ex­ the warmest water. This also reduced natural I cept in the areas of George and Carroll Inlets enemies. He eventually formed a new Alaska near Ketchikan. This area proved moderate­ Oyster Company and was issued a shellfish ly productive for oyster culture and was used handler's permit. The first sale of oysters I for 50 years. Tidelands were leased from the from this company occurred in August, 1983. federal government under the Oyster Bottom Leasing Act from 1937 until 1960 when the In summary, the oyster culture industry in I State of Alaska assumed responsibility for Alaska began in the early 1900's and has con­ tideland leases. tinued sporadically to present. Early attempts at culturing oysters have been undertaken by In 1938, the Alaska Oyster Company leased I undercapitalized and inexperien~ed co~­ about 300 acres of Coon Cove and Shoal Cove, panies. From 1983-1988 a renewed ~te~:st m both located in Carroll Inlet, for culturing pur­ culturing oysters brought about a s1gn~1cant poses. A minimal amount of oysters were fledgling industry which spread predommant­ I marketed from this venture before it went out ly among the remote islands of Southeast of business in 1953. North Gem Oyster Com­ Alaska. Specific information about oyster cul­ pany of Ketchikan leased 10 acres on the east ture in Alaska has been compiled in the Al.as: I shore of George Inlet in 1955 and added to ka Oyster Grower's Manual funded by their holdings each year until they held 247 Department of Commerce and Economic acres by 1957. The company planted its Development and the Alaska Marine Ad­ acreage with 7,000 spat per acre in 1955, 5,500 visory Program. I per acre in 1956, and 28,600 per acre in 1957. In April of 1955 North Gem Oyster Company Blue Mussels MytUus edulis grow naturally began an experiment with raft culture on the throughout most Alaskan coastal waters. I east shore of George Inlet opposite Beaver Enormous amounts of seed are produced Falls. This was the only known trial of raft cul­ naturally each summer in most coastal are~s. ture in Alaska during that time period. Present culturing efforts are located m I Kachemak Bay near Homer. To date, 10 mus­ Newly reorganized, the Alaska Oyster Com­ sel farm project reviews have been initiated pany took over the North Gem holdings in for this area. 1960. During the winter of 1960-61, 200 gal- I

4 I I

I

I In Alaska there has been a growing interest in effective mariculture policy to guide maricul­ scallop culture. Major efforts have been un­ ture development in Alaska. derway to locate scallop larvae near Kodiak Island. Scallop culture has been researched in January 1986: The ad hoc Mariculture Ad­ I British Columbia where various projects and visory Committee issued "A Philosophy for commercial attempts have focused on collect­ Aquaculture Development in Alaska" which ing wild seed and devising cost effective ways addressed culture of aquatic plants and I of growing it to market size. animals in fresh and salt water environments.

Commercial culturing of sea vegetables was Late 1986: Concurrent bills (SB 106, HB 108) I legalized in 1988 under Chapter 145 SLA 88. were introduced into the legislature that The only Alaskan research on sea vegetable would allow mariculture in Alaska. growth has occurred at Sheldon Jackson Col­ lege in Sitka. This continuing laboratory re­ December 1986: A Report "Mariculture in I search on Macrocystis has been occurring Alaska" issued by the interagency Alaska over a three year period. In the fall of 1988 a Mariculture Technical Work Group sum­ major project involving ocean growing of marized current regulatory framework for I Macrocystis will be initiated at the college. mariculture in Alaska and identified policy is­ sues. Economic success of shellfish or sea vegetable I farming is unpredictable. Technology for cul­ June 1987: A compromise bill passed the turing these species is developing rapidly. legislature which: Very little actual culturing has occurred in Alaska to date with the exception of oysters. 1) placed a moratorium on finfish I Interest in aquatic farming has remained high mariculture until July, 1988, and despite the unknown nature of the business. 2) legalized shellfish mariculture by I authorizing spat Guvenile shellfish) col­ Legislative/Administrative lection and use of spat in commercial I History of Mariculture in Alaska aquatic farms. During the 1980's considerable interest has An Interagency Mariculture Work Group was been expressed in an expanded mariculture formed to work on specific tasks to implement I industry in Alaska. Analysis of policy issues this legislation. and development of measures to encourage and accommodate mariculture have been July 1987: An Attorney General's opinion progressing. The following chronology was issued confirming that ADF&G did not I describes significant administrative and legis­ have statutory authority to issue permits for lative actions since 1985: holding live fish for commercial fish farming.

I Chronology of significant administrative Summer 1987: ADF&G developed a permit or legislative actions regarding system for commercial collection of shellfish mariculture in Alaska spat for mariculture and revised the Fish I Transport Permit to be appropriate for the January 1985: An Attorney General's shellfish program. opinion was issued that fish farming is neither unconstitutional in Alaska nor specifically Late 1987: ADF&G adopted new regulations I authorized by state statutes. governing shellfish farm permits. Several bills were introduced in the legislature to either July 1985: Governor Sheffield appointed an allow aquatic farming under different types of I ad hoc Mariculture Advisory Committee and regulatory frameworks, allowing finfish • charged it with formulation of a workable and • 5

I

mariculture, or extending the finfish maricul­ May 1988: A bill (Chapter 145 SLA 88) ture moratorium. passed the legislature which: I

January 1988: A report from the Interagency 1) extended the finfish mariculture Mariculture W ark Group provided to the moratorium until1990, I Fisheries Cabinet included eight issue papers on land use, water quality, biological, and 2) legalized sea vegetable farming, product quality issues and a matrix of how four I other areas had addressed these issues and a 3) established additional regulation of description of present socioeconomic studies. shellfish and sea vegetable farming in­ cluding the statutory requirement for March 1988: The Consolidated Shellfish I DNR to identify sites for aquatic farms Farm permitting system was adopted with: and hatcheries to be known as "districts", 1) a consolidated application form for and I most ADF &G, DEC, and DNR permits and coastal zone consistency determina­ 4) established an Alaska Finfish Farming tions; and Task Force. I 2) a coordinated permit process. I I I I I I I I I I

6 I I

J

I PLANNING AND CLASSIFICATION

I No state land use plan currently encompasses sistent with local government land use plans the study area. DNR Prince of Wales Island to the maximum extent without undermining Area Plan includes areas to the southwest of state interests. I the area. The uplands of the study area are within the Tongass Land Management Plan All resource decisions made by DNR are boundaries. There are no organized local documented within the Statewide Resources governments in the study area nor has a coas­ Plan. Development and management of each I tal resource service area for local coastal resource under DNR's jurisdiction are management planning purposes been formed described in the Statewide Resources Plan. for any part of it. I Area plans implement the Statewide Resour­ The Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot ces Plan on a regional basis. They examine Project will not be adopted as a DNR plan be­ statewide allocations made by the statewide I cause of its limited scope and completion time plan, provide guidelines for making manage­ frame. Resource inventories and initial at­ ment decisions by delineating primary and tempts at developing management guidelines secondary uses, and desired results to be for mariculture in this project are similar to achieved through management. Area plans I those developed in DNR plans for all resour­ result in classification of state land based on ces. allocation decisions of the plan.

I Information presented and guidelines After an area plan is completed, a manage­ developed as a result of this project will be in­ ment plan may be prepared. Management corporated into an area plan if one is plans define in more detail how allocations I prepared. They may also be developed into a and guidelines of an area plan will be imple­ site specific plan and used as the basis for clas­ mented. A management plan is usually writ­ sification within the project area. ten for one or a few management units of an area plan. I Aquatic farming development in areas covered by land use plans receive direction Site specific plans can be written for sites not from guidelines presented in those plans. covered by an area or management plan. I State and federal planning processes are a They are usually prepared for actions on state basic land use tool for development of any lands requiring classification. resource in Alaska. Land use classifications developed from DNR plans provide a basic State law requires all state land, including I guideline for approving mariculture activities tideland, be classified prior to action which on public land. The following discussions are results in assigning any land use rights. The presented to develop background information classification process is based on land use I helpful in understanding how mariculture is planning. Area plans specify land use desig­ currently viewed in the planning and clas­ nations for land in the study area. These sification process. designations are an evaluation of existing and I potential uses and resources. To ensure mul­ tiple use and avoid conflicts, the allocations State Planning Process are accompanied by management intent state­ I ments which give direction to land managers Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and guidelines for applying specific land clas­ performs four levels of land use planning sifications. which are: A Statewide Resources Plan, Area I Plans, Management Plans and Site Specific The Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) Plans. State law requires these plans be con- provides regulations which are the basis of the

I 7 I

state land classification system. Land use Clarification of management intent reflects designations are converted to appropriate department policy requiring other activities to classification by regulation. Several land use be compatible with designated primary uses. designations may convert to a single classifica­ Mariculture sites have not been designated I tion. due to lack of sufficient data to identify ap­ propriate sites. Alaska has adopted land and tideland clas­ sifications, including: settlement, wildlife In general, mariculture activities may en­ I habitat, reserved use, public recreation, counter the following situations under area resource management, and others. Maricul­ plans. ture is not currently a land use classification. I Mariculture could occur under a variety of 1. Areas which have not been designated for other classifications. Classifications are other specific uses or have been designated for broader in scope than land use designations. other uses and resources which do not present I apparent conflicts. It is reasonable to expect that in these areas it will be easier to obtain Mariculture in Area Plans authorization for mariculture activities. I Area plans are currently being developed for 2. Areas that have been designated for other two Alaska coastal areas with mariculture uses and resources which may present sig­ potential: Prince of Wales Island Area Plan nificant conflicts. Areas designated for log I and Prince William Sound Area Plan. Other transfer or storage, mineral access, crucial fish area plans will be developed in the future. and wildlife habitat, intensive harvest areas, developed recreation, anchorages, or adjacent Guidelines for mariculture are evolving and to existing or proposed land sale areas may I being developed in various offices throughout have significant conflicts. Siting mariculture state government. Because of this evolution, activities in these areas may be more difficult. area plans avoid rigid, inflexible guidelines. Mariculture can be authorized if the conflicts I Instead, they initially develop general can be adequately addressed and if maricul­ guidelines and indicate issues additional ture operations can meet the management in­ guidelines should address. tent and guidelines for the area. I The Alaska legislature has declared a 3. Areas where specific requirements may be moratorium on finfish mariculture develop­ attached to mariculture locations or opera­ ment to extend through June, 1990. Plan tions. For example, mariculture will not be I guidelines are not sufficient to address com­ sited within 300' of the mouth of an plex issues related to these types of maricul­ anadromous fish stream without the approval ture. Should these activities become legal, ofADF&G. I area plans recommend development of policies for these activities prior to authoriz­ Offshore of Wilderness Areas or Wildlife ing them. Policy development could take the Refuges, mariculture growing facilities that I form of a plan, study, or recommendations of are submerged and do not impact the visual a working group. Area plans identify some is­ characteristics of the wilderness or refuge may sues for policy development. be easier to permit than floating types. However, support or caretaker facilities will I Mariculture discussion occurs for two levels of not be authorized in these areas. management in Prince of Wales Island and Prince William Sound Area Plans: 1) area 4. Performance standards will be attached to I wide guidelines give general management permits or leases to ensure the area is used for direction and limited siting criteria for the appropriate activity, use is economically mariculture and; 2) site specific management viable, and the permit or lease is not used for I direction is provided to guide the state's speculation. Similarly, development plans response to potential competing uses. will be required before approval of a permit

8 I I

I

or lease. Stipulations will be determined manage use and protection of Alaska's coas­ I during permit processing. tal resources. Thirty-two coastal communities and regions worked closely with the state to Area plans can provide guidance for maricul­ prepare management plans that guide I ture in specific areas. This is to clarify policy development in their respective areas and to implementation or to note specific cir­ take part in permitting decisions of proposed cumstances affecting mariculture develop· development projects. I ment. These communities and regions, known as Examples of proposed area plan guidelines in­ coastal districts, prepare management clude: programs that include an inventory and I analysis of their natural resources and policies 1. Where there is an existing community or for the management of coastal resources and state subdivision, mariculture may be al­ development. Mariculture is a good example I lowed if it is consistent with land sale design of coastal activity that can be effectively and will not: 1) block access, 2) detract from managed through a district coastal manage­ the view of waterfront lots, or 3) require ment plan. The City and Borough of Sitka and I upland owners to meet higher sewage treat­ Kenai Peninsula Borough are currently preparing innovative policies to address ment costs. mariculture development through their coas­ tal management plans. The Etolin Island 1- 2. Near proposed state land sales, maricul· study area is not within the boundaries of any ture may be permitted if adjacent uplands coastal district. are: 1) unlikely to be used for residential set· I tlement, 2) unlikely to be reserved for public In addition to district coastal management use, or 3) where mariculture can accept a plans, mariculture activities could be ad­ short term permit or lease. dressed through preparation of coastal I management planning documents such as this 3. Mariculture will not preclude floathomes study, which was funded by the Alaska Coas­ in six limited area designations for tal Management Program. Areas Meriting floathomes in Prince of Wales Island plan· Special Attention (AMSA) plans, described in I ning area. Chapter 5, may be developed under the ACMP. AMSA plans also could be used to 4. Areas known for high recreation or fish manage mariculture development. I and wildlife harvest values are discouraged from mariculture if there are feasible and prudent alternatives. U.S. Forest Service Planning I Process 5. In areas that have a high potential for mariculture development such as Sea Otter All uplands of the study area (with the excep­ I Sound in the Prince of Wales Island planning tions of a state subdivision in Olive Cove) are part of the Tongass National Forest and area, cumulative impacts of mariculture will managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USPS). be periodically assessed. Management of the national forest is guided I by the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). Alaska Coastal Management I Program Planning The U.S. Forest Service is presently revising its land management plan for the Tongass Na­ With passage of the Alaska Coastal Manage­ tional Forest including the Etolin Island area. I ment Act in 1977, local governments, rural The revised plan will provide specific direc­ regions, and the state began to cooperatively tion on how resources on Etolin Island will be

9

I managed. Recommendations in this study gass Land Management Plan direction and regarding capability and suitability of guidelines will apply to mariculture. Depend­ I shorelines in the study area for mariculture ing upon public and U.S. Forest Service con­ development could be incorporated into the cerns, when federal lands are involved, further revision. An Environmental Impact State­ project specific environmental analysis and I ment for the plan is required. When it is com­ public disclosure through appropriate Nation­ pleted and the Record of Decision is signed, al Environmental Policy Act documents may direction for management of mariculture be required. I facilities on uplands under Forest Service jurisdiction should be consistent with recom­ mendations made in this study. Local Planning Process I Although goals for the Tongass Land Manage­ Local governments have authority to prepare ment Plan are not mandated for waters below and enforce comprehensive plans and land mean high tide, the USFS expects com­ I use regulations to guide development within patibility between management direction for their uplands and permitted activities on ad­ their municipal boundaries. Mariculture jacent waters. development within cities and boroughs could be regulated through implementation of local I Until such time as the Revised Tongass Land authorities. There are no local governments Management Plan is completed, current Ton- in the study area. I I I I I I I I I I

10 I I

I

I DEVELOPMENT

I The Department of Commerce and Economic and the Alaska Mariculture Association Development's Division of Business Develop­ (AMA). ASGA is the older of the two, and ment (and formerly the Office of Commercial serves the growers through information ex­ Fisheries Development), has been significant­ changes and lobbying on issues pertaining to I ly involved in evaluating the feasibility of shellfish mariculture. AMA was formed in mariculture in Alaska. DCED has actively 1986, and supports the rational development pursued development of a state policy on of all forms of mariculture. AMA has been in· I mariculture, assisted in the formulation of the volved in supporting Alaskan involvement in Alaska Mariculture Association, and advo­ finfish mariculture, whereas the ASGA has cated the establishment of the Governor's remained on the sidelines in that controver· I Mariculture Task Force in 1985. sial debate. DCED has assisted development of the ADF&G has also been active on many fronts mariculture industry by funding, contracting to encourage the development of mariculture I and supervising production of the following in Alaska. ADF&G's Fisheries Rehabilita· publications: tion, Enhancement, and Development Division (FRED) has a full-time mariculture I The Alaska Oyster Grower's Manual, Edition coordinator working to develop this potential III, 7/87; industry for the benefit of Alaskans in a man­ ner that will minimize negative impacts. I Mariculture in Alaska: a discussion of the is­ sues involved in sea farming development in DCED was instrumental in establishing the coastal Alaska, 1/87; Alaska/Japan Fisheries Cooperation Com· mittee, and in establishing mariculture tech· I Mariculture in Alaska: an examination of nology transfer as the main cooperation government programs by the Alaska Maricul­ projects in 1985. DCED jointly manages two ture Technical Work Committee, 12/86; projects with ADF&G in cooperation with the I Japanese: 1) a scallop spat collection Two organizations have been active in feasibility project in Kodiak, and 2) a macro­ promoting mariculture in Alaska, The Alas­ I ka Shellfish Growers Association (ASGA) cystis kelp farming feasibility project in Sitka. I I I I I

I 11 I

I

OTHER MARICULTURE I RESOURCE STUDIES I

Kodiak Scallop Spat Collection sporophylls of Macrocystis for release of I Project gametophytes in a hatchery setting. Results from 1986 and 1987 experiments were suc­ ADF&G's FRED Division is involved in re­ cessfullaboratory propagation of Macrocyst is I search to collect scallop spat in Alaska. The fronds and subsequent attempts at a grow-out summer of 1988 will be the second season for phase in waters near Sitka. Disturbance of scallop spat collection efforts centered in grow-out plantings occurred in these urban I waters off Kodiak Island. This project is a sites so complete data on this venture has not joint effort of ADF&G and the Overseas been available. Fisheries Cooperation Foundation (OFCF), a quasi-governmental Japanese foundation Continuing research into Macrocystis I that funds projects promoting international propagation and out-planting is planned for good will. fall of 1988 at Sheldon Jackson College in a joint FRED/OFCF project. The goal of this I These experiments represent the first phase expanded effort is once again to produce Mill:: of an Alaska-Japan project designed to test rocystis fronds through hatchery procedures feasibility of farming weathervane scallops on and monitor growth on an extensive number I Kodiak Island. The goal of the 1987 season of plantings in waters off Sitka. was to determine whether wild weathervane spat can be caught in quantities sufficient for I commercial farming application. If sufficient Marine Advisory Program quantities of spat are collected, the tiny animals will be moved into cages where (MAP) Remote Sensing Study growth rates will be closely monitored. Ef­ Feasibility of using remote sensing to I forts in 1987 took place in Kalsin Bay just out­ identify the aquaculture potential of side the city of Kodiak and six other coastal waters. cooperator sites using collectors developed by I Japanese scallop farmers. During 1988 the This project involves the collection, inter­ project will expand to more sites in the Kodiak pretation, and practical application of en­ area and to sites in Southeast Alaska. vironmental data gathered through remote I sensing techniques. Study during this project In addition to setting collection gear, project will be restricted to a site with the same boun­ personnel, which includes Japanese experts, daries as the Etolin Island Area Mariculture are tracking environmental factors (water, Pilot Project. A primary objective of this I temperature, salinity, and wind) and taking study is to compare environmental require­ plankton counts which can be used to deter­ ments of oysters with analyzed data charts. mine where and when to set collection gear in The expected outcome will be delineation of I future years. A "how to" field manual on scal­ estuarine areas with a significant potential for lop spat collection is currently being prepared oyster culture. This procedure will assist in (Blackett and Kaill, in prep.) development of rational for coastal develop­ ment and developmental strategies. If I adopted throughout this region, it will further Macrocystis Research serve as a tool for establishment of unified coastal development policies and will help I Commercial culturing of sea vegetables has identify potential areas of conflict between not been tried in Alaska to any large extent. coastal zone users. It is hoped that this means Initial research at Sheldon Jackson College in of data analysis will suggest additional I Sitka has been the focus of efforts to collect avenues for conflict resolution.

12 I I

I

I. Main objectives of this project are: aquaculture. Proposed strategies of applied remote sensing has seldom been used in the 1) Application for remote sensing to com­ northeastern Pacific. This project plans to pilation and maintenance of coastal make a strategic compromise, sacrificing I resource catalogs; some of the precision associated with conven­ tional studies, but gaining in terms of extent 2) Development of mapping techniques; of area examined and speed of analysis. I Approximate conclusion date of the MAP 3) Establishment of a table of oyster growth Remote Sensing study is November 1988. requirements; Data generated prior to the conclusion of the I Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project 4) Delineation of potential oyster culture will be available for inclusion in the final areas; report.

I 5) Technology transfer: a contribution to resource managers capabilities for using this Southeast Alaska Subsistence I type of technology; Survey 6) Cataloging of waters: develop an inter­ The U.S. Forest Service, ADF&G, and the pretive process by which resource managers University of Alaska are cooperating in a I can delineate areas capable of supporting study of personal use (i.e., noncommercial productive operations; harvest) of fish, wildlife, and plants in Southeast Alaska. Data is being collected in I 7) Multiple use: the project will suggest the form of maps and narratives through in­ location of other economic activities; terviews with community residents. Data col­ lection will systematically identify where I 8) Rational use of estuarine resources; and people collect what resources ( eg., deer, bear, salmon, plants, berries, etc.) for personal use, 9) Improved access to strategic resource in­ how much they use, and areas of highest I formation. productivity. The Marine Advisory Program's main objec­ Several communities which use the study area tive in this project is to develop a practical are included in the survey. Interviews were means of identifying wetlands capable of sup­ conducted in winter, 1988 but only prelimi­ porting productive oyster aquaculture in nary mapped data for Petersburg and Wran­ Southeast Alaska. An inquiry of this type gell residents was available for review during I would normally involve traditional preparation of this report. More detailed in­ oceanographic "direct sampling" techniques. formation on use of specific areas and relative Although a conventional study of this sort intensity of use by residents of these and other communities will be available in late summer would provide analysis with high levels of ' I precision, costs would be extreme and the sur­ 1988, and should provide an important data veyed area would be limited. Such studies base for use in state and federal decision remain essential in the second stage iden­ making about prospective mariculture sites. I tification and verification of specific microen­ vironments determined to be suitable for For more information on this study see Chap­ I ter 3, Fish and Wildlife Harvest. I

I 13 I

Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project ....., CHAPTER2 I ("l.l ;--· n Site Capability ~ •c::r' Page 15 - SITE CAP ABILITY ISSUES -· ~--· 15 - INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF SITE CAPABILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED SHELLFISH AND KELP

16 - Pacific Oyster 17 - Blue Mussels 18 - Scallops 20 - Sea Vegetables

23 - PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING

27 - CULTIVATION

27 - Stages of Culture and Appropriate Techniques, by Species 27 - Techniques and Facilities for Shellfish Culture 28 - Culture Techniques and Facilities for Seaweed Culture

I

I Chapter2 I I SITE CAPABILITY I SITE CAPABILITY ISSUES

Proper siting of mariculture developments is Zones of Upwelling & Mixing I crucial for successful production. For that Substrate Composition reason, site capability should be thoroughly in­ Stratification of Water Column vestigated prior to installation of facilities, or Phytoplankton Production large scale introduction of seed. Fresh Water Discharge I Anoxic Conditions Site capability is defined for the purpose of Competitors this project as: "Environmental and biological Predators I ability inherent in a site to produce a Parasites and Disease marketable product, in a reasonable amount Indicator Organisms of time, safe for human consumption." Waste Deposits I Turbidity Site capability is determined by conducting an Water Depth inventory of the site's environmental and Tides biological properties and an evaluation of this Current Velocity I data based on individual species require­ Carrying Capacity of Estuary ments. This section will examine site Growth capability for select species of shellfish and Sewage and Industrial Pollutants I kelp. Wave Action Relative importance of each criterion I Inventory and Evaluation of depends on the species and culturing techni­ Site Capability Criteria for que being considered. Shellfish species con­ sidered for this project include Pacific oyster I Selected Shellfish and Kelp (Crassostrea gigas), blue mussel (Mytjlus ~), weathervane scallop (Patinopecten Potential of a particular site for farming of caurinus), and purple hinged rock scallop shellfish and/or sea vegetables is limited by a (Crassodoma gigantea). Sea vegetables con­ range of environmental and biological sidered the most likely candidates for culture I parameters. For purposes of the Etolin Island in the Etolin Island area are algal genera~ Mariculture Pilot Project, this potential is rocystis, Laminaria, and Porpbyra, Of the termed the site's capability. Mariculture site above species, the Pacific Oyster is the only capability parameters include: I one being successfully farmed in the study area. Culture techniques developed at other Temperature locations for different species would have to I Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning be used or adapted for use on indigenous Salinity species in the project area. Options to import Dissolved Oxygen species other than Pacific Oyster do not cur­ pH Level (Acidity) rently exist. I Estuarine Flushing Rates

I 15 I

I

Pacific Oyster I Oysters are capable of withstanding levels of Strategies and site selection criteria for estab­ dissolved oxygen down to 2 mg/1. It is unlike­ lishing oyster farms in Southeast Alaska have ly low dissolved oxygen will be encountered at I been thoroughly examined by Page Else and prospective sites in the study area since ex­ Brian Paust in the Alaska Oyster Grower's pected values in the water column in marine Manual (Else, Paust, and Burns 1987). Most environments range between 6 and 9 mg/1. In of the following material was obtained from areas of poor water circulation, decomposi­ I this source. Growth of oysters in southeast tion of accumulated fecal material from an Alaska is variable, as evidenced by the fact oyster farm may contribute to production of that it may take from two to four years to ammonia or hydrogen sulfide under I produce a marketable product. Growth rate anaerobic conditions, both of which are toxic depends on such things as water temperature, to oysters, even at low concentrations. If bot­ salinity, current velocity, and concentration of tom culture is planned, consideration should I phytoplankton available for food. be given to measuring dissolved oxygen.

Although oysters will grow subtidally to a Tidal flushing of farm areas must be sufficient depth of at least 50 feet, successful commer­ to provide adequate salinity, dissolved oxygen, I cial culture in Alaska will probably be limited and nutrients. To accomplish this, current to a relatively narrow depth range. For velocity in excess of 2 em/sec is required. Best various forms of suspended oyster culture, in­ growth is obtained at flushing rates of at least I cluding raft and longline farming, the maxi­ one exchange per day (Brown, 1979). Cur­ mum depth required will be approximately 15 rents of9 to 75 cmjsec (moderate to fast cur­ to 20 feet of water at low tide. Generally, rent) provide highest feeding rates. Saline warmest water, and therefore best growth, will surface water should remain at culture sites I be obtained nearest the water surface. during slack tide long enough to achieve some temperature elevation for increased oyster Water temperatures of 0-30 C can be metabolism. Most phytoplankton available to I tolerated by oysters. However, feeding ceases oysters is produced elsewhere and carried to below 5 C. Good growth occurs at tempera­ the site by currents. tures greater than 10 C, but optimal growth I occurs at greater than 15 C. Oysters cul­ Acceptable pH values of 7.9 to 9.0 should not tivated in the study area will be subjected to be a problem at most sites. The normal pH suboptimal temperatures for most of the year. range of seawater is 7.5 to 8.4, and seawater However, one of the advantages of oyster provides natural buffering. I farms in Alaska is water temperatures are rarely high enough to precipitate spawning. Oysters are capable of tolerating turbid water As a consequence, high meat quality is main­ conditions but feeding efficiency may be im­ I tained throughout the summer. paired by ingestion of indigestible material. Sites that are chronically influenced by Salinities of 5 to 37 parts per thousand (ppt) suspended sediment may not be suitable for I can be tolerated by oysters. Optimal growth farms. With bottom culture of oysters, ac­ occurs between 15 and 30 ppt. Lower cumulation of silt is unacceptable. salinities result in more water being absorbed by the oyster which imparts a bland flavor to Sites considered for shellfish farms must not I the meat. At some locations, fresh water len­ be located. . near sources of industrial ' ses createq by runoff will impact salinity mumc1pal, or sewage pollution. Industrial within the. top 1 to 3 meters of the water pollutants such as sulfite waste from pulp mills I column. For this reason, salinity should be adversely affect oysters. Heavy metals such as measured at several depths and at various zinc, copper, and cadmium, as well as other or­ times of year to obtain a true salinity profile gani~ ~nd inorganic poisons often present in I of the site. mumc1pal wastewater, can accumulate in oyster tissues in amounts exceeding federal

16 I I

I

standards. Fecal coliform bacteria will result Oysters may stop feeding during disruption I in contamination of oyster products that are (Church, 1988). often consumed raw.

I Growth of oysters is largely a function ofwater Blue Mussels temperatures and concentration of food par­ ticles in the water column. An oyster farm Many biological and environmental should be established at a site capable of suf­ parameters important for the culture of I ficient production of phytoplankton. Such oysters also apply to blue mussel farming. sites usually exhibit some surface stratifica­ Perhaps the most notable difference is that tion of the water column. Nutrient input from unlike oysters, mussels occur naturally I upwelling and surface runoff, in combination throughout the study area and are well with surface warming, results in necessary adapted to environmental conditions there. primary productivity. Sites with suitable I productivity for oyster culture are usually Sites for mussel culture have similar basic re­ favorable for growth of potential competitors quirements to those of oyster culture: a also, including fouling organisms such as mus­ reasonable amount of shelter, good water sels, barnacles, algae, sponges, tubeworms, quality and a fair amount of phytoplankton for I and bryozoans. Although fouling is unlikely to food (Korringa, 1977). Jenkins (1985) lists be fatal to oysters, reduced growth may result. the most important environmental Probably the most important impact from parameters as: oxygen, salinity, temperature, I fouling is the increased cost associated with food availability, depth, exposure, and pollu­ control. Biological control mechanisms tion. As with oysters, various species of mus­ described by Matt Dick (Else, Faust, and sels are widely cultured throughout the world. I Burns 1987) should be employed wherever In Alaska, commercial farming of mussels has possible. been established in Kachemak Bay (Hem­ ming and Hemming, 1984 ). Mussel growth in Predation on juvenile and adult oysters by sea Kachemak Bay is reported comparable to that I stars, carnivorous snails, various crabs, some achieved in Puget Sound with harvestable mammals, and aquatic birds is not likely to be mussels produced within one year. an insurmountable problem in Alaska. Use of I suspended culture will minimize predation by Water temperatures in which mussels are bottom dwelling animals. Physical barriers, capable of growth range from -1 C to 25 C. such as nets to protect raft culture, are help­ Optimal growth occurs from 10 to 20 C. I ful but may add to farm costs. (Magoon and Vining, 1981). Hemming and Hemming (1984) reported average summer Prosp~ctive shellfish farmers will want to water temperatures of 11.6 C at 10 feet. The avoid sites identified as having high con­ highest temperature in their study was 12.5 C. I centrations of encysted forms of the dinoflagellates responsible for paralytic As with temperature, mussels can survive in a shellfish poisoning (PSP). The abundance of wide variety of salinities ranging from 5 to 35 I encysted PSP organisms in bottom sediments ppt. Hemming and Hemming ( 1984) can be used as an indicator of the potential for reported good success culturing mussels in future PSP outbreaks in the vicinity. salinities of 24.5 ppt. Herriott (1984) stated I mussels would grow in salinities down to 17 A shellfish farm should be relatively free from ppt, but sites near rivers should be avoided be­ wind, wave action, and ice formation during cause low salinity will interfere with feeding the winter. Problems associated with these and clumping. I phenomena arise mainly from safety and structural damage rather than the oyster's in­ Dissolved oxygen concentrations will not be of ability to withstand disruption. However, major concern to potential mussel farmers as I damage to new shell growth caused by such mussels can withstand anoxic conditions for disruption could result in lower growth rates.

I 17 I

I

up to several days (Hemming and Hemming, sels (Herriott, 1984; Verica, 1982 in Hemming 1984 ). However, conditions that could lead to and Hemming, 1984); however, widespread I low oxygen, such as poor circulation of water, existence of natural populations in areas of may make sites unsuitable for other reasons. relatively high turbidity indicate it would not preclude mussel culture. Suspended solids I Considerations for water depth at prospective have been measured as high as 1,200 mg/1 sites are similar to those for oyster culture: near mussel beds in France where growth was depth must be adequate for the method of cul­ comparable to areas with suspended solids be­ I ture chosen. Herriott (1984) suggested a min­ tween 10 and 50 mg/1 (Hemming and Hem­ imum depth of 6 fathoms for raft culture with ming, 1984). 10 meter ropes. According to Magoon and Vining (1981), bottom culture appears to be Experiments by Rodhouse et al. (1985) indi­ I impractical in most of Washington State be­ cate mussels are efficient filter feeders cause of heavy predation by bottom dwellers. capable of removing more than half of the Herriott (1984) listed some disadvantages of available chlorophyll and carotenoids from I stake culture such as lack of extensive inter­ the water column over a partial tidal cycle. In tidal flats with suitable tidal ranges and severe order to achieve maximum growth rates, sites predation by gulls. Suspended culture mini­ chosen for intensive culture should have high mizes parasite infection and avoids produc­ phytoplankton abundance and sufficient I tion of gritty particles in tissues. Similar water exchange rates to maintain abundance problems may exist in Southeast Alaska, (Herriott, 1984). relegating mussel farming to suspended types I of culture apparatus (e.g., rafts, racks, or Annual reproductive cycles will influence longlines). Lao and Rosenberg (1983) report mussel quality and time of sale. Mortalities best results from longline gear at 0 to 2 meters have been observed just after spawning, espe­ I below the surface. cially on warm days (Magoon and Vining, 1981 ). Mussels grown in raft culture may need Predation by fish, gulls, and sea ducks could to be conditioned to keep their valves tightly still result (Glude and Chew, 1982, Magoon closed when removed from water for PSP test­ I and Vining, 1981). However, Hemming and ing and sale. Hemming (1984) report no overt signs of predation even though numerous seaters were As with all filter feeding shellfish considered I sighted in the area. If predation becomes a for culture in the study area, incidence of en­ problem, the only practical solution would be cysted forms of the organisms responsible for to place netting around the culture (Magoon PSP should be determined. Mussels become I and Vining, 1981). Sound devices have been poisonous rapidly, but usually lose toxin faster used to scare away ducks but none have than other clams (Magoon and Vining, 1981). proven successful (Glude and Chew, 1982). In some areas, PSP may limit harvesting to I periods during the winter time (Glude and Fouling by organisms such as sponges, Chew, 1982). Mussel farm sites in proximity bryozoans, barnacles, and algae may restrict to sources of industrial, municipal, and sewage water flow and thus available nutrients pollution should be avoided. However, it may I (Magoon and Vining, 1981). Solutions to be impossible to predict potential problems these problems are labor intensive (Herriott, with disease organisms and parasites in inten­ 1984). Hemming and Hemming (1984) indi­ sive culture situations (Jenkins, 1985). I cate barnacles were difficult to remove and left a white mark on the mussel shell that reduced quality. They suggest postponing in­ Scallops stallation of tube or longline gear until after I barnacles have settled. Hemming and Hem­ Initial attempts to begin capture and cultiva­ ming report growth of bryozoans and a heavy tion of scallops are underway in Alaska. Tech­ coating of silt on tube-cultured mussels. Tur­ niques developed and in use in Japan are I bidity is reported to influence growth of mus-

18 I I

I

being tried in the Kodiak area and to a lesser Rock scallop larval development is reported I extent in Southeast Alaska. Although techni­ to be optimal at 12 C to 18 C (Leighton and cally and biologically feasible, Japanese tech­ Phleger, 1981). Temperatures in excess of niques of using cages to culture scallops need 21 C may be fata~ especially at relatively shal­ I to be modified for economic viability (Cropp, low depths of less than 20 meters (Mottet, 1983). Commercial scallop culture is probab­ 1979; Motoda, 1973). Scallops may be ac­ ly still 10 to 15 years away from development climated to varying temperatures, especially I in North America (Talley, 1985). Virtually all to rising temperatures, and temperatures as attempts at scallop culture have been initiated low as -0.7 C can be tolerated (Aiken, 1987; at sites adjacent to natural populations of scal­ Mottet, 1979). Since temperature is likely to lops (Aiken, 1987). be inversely related to water depth, culture I near the surface may produce best results. Two species, weathervane scallop (Patin opec­ ten caurjnus) and purple hinged rock scallop Wallace and Reinsnes (1985) considered I (Crassadoma gigantea), show some promise temperature and food quantity to be the most as candidates for farming. However, distribu­ important factors in Iceland scallop growth. tion of weathervane scallops in Alaska is dif­ Salinity and current speed were secondary fac­ ferent from that of related species being tors. Mottet (1979) also considered growth I cultured in Japan and New Zealand (Blackett, rates to be proportional to temperature and 1987). Alaskan scallops tend to be confined phytoplankton concentration. Growth slows to distinct beds of high density offshore, with or stops during spawning. The condition of I numerous scattered pockets of low density the adductor muscle is highest following nearshore; in Japan and New Zealand scallops spawning when scallops resume growth. are concentrated in more accessible near­ I shore areas. This distribution may have con­ Culture growth appears dependent on density siderable implication on development of factors. Scallops of less than 2 em are par­ procedures to capture and harvest natural ticularly susceptible to low oxygen concentra­ I spat needed to initiate weathervane scallop tions because oxygen consumption is culture. Techniques of releasing large num­ approximately three times greater than that of bers of juveniles to repopulate natural scallop adults (Mottet, 1979). Growth of scallops in beds may not be practical in Alaska. Japan has been shown to decrease as culture I density increases (Ventilla, 1982; Ito, et al., In general, literature on scallop culture indi­ 1975). Motoda (1973) stated high density cates scallops do not respond well to large fluc­ should be avoided as accumulation of feces I tuations in water temperature and salinity, may result in anaerobic conditions with toxic particularly when they are small in size. production of hydrogen sulfide. This situa­ Howeyer, natural distribution of rock scallops tion is likely to result only from extremely in­ suggests this species is flexible in temperature tensive culture situations. I and salinity requirements (Leighton and Phleger, 1981). Low salinity may not be a Siltation has been shown to be detrimental to problem for some species of scallops as scallops as concentrations of .05% can stop I evidenced by their occurrence in brackish movement of cilia (Mottet, 1979). Spat in size water lagoons along the Sea of Okhotsk ranges of 17 to 19 mm are intolerant of silta­ (Motoda, 1973). Scallop larvae subjected to tion (Motoda, 1973). I salinities as low as 11 ppt and 17-30 ppt swam normally (MacKenzie, 1979). However, Scallops have been shown to be intolerant of Olsen (1983) reports salinities less than 23 ppt rocking motion caused by wave action on were detrimental to normal rock scallop suspended culture gear (Magoon and Vining, I growth. More research will be needed on 1981; Mottet, 1979; Motoda, 1973). If temperature and salinity tolerances of Alaska suspended types of culture are used, struc­ rock and weathervane scallops to define tures will have to be located far enough below I capability parameters needed for culture sites. the surface to avoid wave action. Shock ab­ sorbing structures may have to be incor-

I 19 I

I porated into culture gear in some locations. As with other shellfish farms, installation of I Raft culture may not be appropriate for scal­ nets may be necessary if predation becomes a lops because of wave action (Motoda, 1973). problem. Culture at depths of 3 to 8 meters under the surface may be necessary (Motoda, 1973). Paralytic shellfish poisoning is not generally a I Traditional cage culture may be inappropriate concern with most species since only the ad­ for rock scallops because of the animal's need ductor muscle is consumed and, in most to cement to substrate (Leighton, 1985). species, it does not accumulate the toxin. Church (1988) related that rock scallops However, rock scallops do accumulate toxin in grown in plastic cages eventually stop attach­ the adductor muscle and harvesting this - ing to the cages. He suggested, however, that species should be closely monitored. cage growth was extremely slow, perhaps re­ I quiring years. If North American markets are developed for whole scallops, the same concerns expressed ,, Fouling of culture gear and the scallops them­ previously for oysters and mussels would selves is a problem in some areas (Mason, apply. Scallops concentrate high levels of 1983). Fouling by tunicates and mussels was heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury, sil­ a problem during culturing of rock scallops in ver, and arsenic and should not be cultured in I oyster trays and required weekly cleaning of polluted areas (Mottet, 1979). the trays (Leighton and Phleger, 1981). Motoda (1973) considered fouling a problem I in cage culture because organisms cover the Sea Vegetables cage surface, thereby reducing nutrient and oxygen exchange. Gear fouling may be a Sea vegetables are cultivated for different pur­ problem because it increases buoyancy re­ poses including: human food, food for live­ I quirements for gear and adds to maintenance stock, agricultural fertilizer, industrial paste cost (Aiken, 1987). Blackett (1987) indicated for use in textile and plaster manufacturing, scallop hanging culture has been unsuccessful alginic acid for glue, food stabilizers, viscosity I in New Zealand largely because of fouling by reinforcing agents, a water softener, dental mussels and other organisms. Growth rates molding material, and medical products, in­ were not appreciably better on hanging cul­ cluding anthelminthic drugs and agar. ture than for scallops grown directly on sea Production of sea vegetables for industrial I bottom. Mottet (1979) suggested some foul­ purposes is probably not viable in Alaska ing may be beneficial in protecting scallops (Kaill, 1988). Ninety percent of the harvest in from predation by sea stars; however, it usual­ Japan is used for human food. The potential I ly results in competition for food, hampers is extremely limited in Southeast Alaska for mobility, may prevent complete valve closure, development of a Japanese style sea vegetable or conversely, may hold valves closed. Boring industry (Olson, 1987). Stekoll (1987) sug­ I sponges and polychaete worms, perhaps more gests a commercial kelp mariculture opera­ appropriately classified as parasites, may tion could be feasible in Southeast Alaska if it weaken valves and cause scallops to waste were closely linked to the herring roe-on-kelp energy on shell maintenance that could be fishery in Prince William Sound or if a roe-on­ I directed at growth (Ventilla, 1982). kelp fishery were reopened in Southeast. Church (1988) suggested algae settling Sea stars generate the most important naturally on shellfish culture gear could be I predator problems for a scallop farmer (Ven­ harvested and sold as a byproduct to supple­ tilla, 1982). However, except for bottom cul­ ment shellfish farm income. ture and spat collector bags, predation by sea I stars should not be a major problem. Car­ Algal growth is primarily controlled by avail­ nivorous snails, crabs, fish, gulls, sea ducks and able light. Green algae grow in shallow water; other water birds are potential predators of brown algae at intermediate depths; and red I scallops. Suspended culture should avoid all algae in the deepest water. Sea vegetables but piscine, avian, and mammalian predators.

20 I I

I

generally grow at depths less than 50 meters; Salinity requirements for sea vegetable cul­ I most at less than 20 meters. Macrocystis and ture are species specific. Kelp generally re­ I ,aminaria are classified as brown algae; Em­ quire water of high salinity. Porphyra prefer ~ (Nori) is a red algae. Contributing fac­ water slightly less saline than open ocean I tors to successful culture sites in Japan are: (Freeman, 1985). Washington Department of Natural Resources suggests a range in 1. Relatively calm water, protected from salinity of 24 to 32 ppt for Porphyra culture. severe storms that could tear seaweed loose. I Macrocystis and Laminada require wave ac­ 2. Good growing conditions as evidenced by tion for proper growth. Currents of20 em/sec target species in the area. Light, currents, or more are desired. However, when currents I nutrients, and temperatures are conducive to exceed 80 em/sec (1.5 knots), problems with plant growth and no industrial or sewage re­ anchoring culture apparatus arise (Mumford lated pollution is present. and Melvin, 1983). For small scale opera­ I tions, it is advantageous to choose a protected 3. Culture site use is restricted by excluding site; for large scale farms of 500 to 1,000 hec­ any form of conflicting use (Olson, 1987). tares, open ocean conditions are best where stronger waves, wind, and currents provide 'I Macrocystis does not occur in the Etolin Is­ better growth. For Porphyra, Washington land area (Frye, 1915), but both Laminaria Department of Natural Resources guidelines and Porphyra do. Research and development (1984) list current requirements of less than 2 I work would have to be done with the resident knots and less than one foot waves to allow species to determine cultural parameters for work. Current requirements should allow farming. According to Lindstrom ( 1987) local nutrient levels to be maintained at high levels. I species of Porphyra probably are not suitable Optimal levels of nitrogen for Lamjnaria cul­ for Nori production. Another potential op­ ture are 7 to 14 um/1. At 3.5 um/1 or less, ar­ tion is to import Asian species already under tificial fertilization is necessary (Mumford cultivation. Concerns regarding importation and Melvin, 1983). I of disease organisms need to be addressed. Washington Department of Natural Resour­ ces guidelines (1984) require that no nutrient For algae considered in this report, water drop be detectable at the culture site. I temperature requirements are similar to those discussed previously for shellfish. The Water depth requirements for Laminaria upper temperature limit for culture of Macro­ farming are 3 to 30 meters. Depths of five to cyst is pyrifera in China is 23 C. Optimal fifteen meters facilitate construction (Mum­ I temperature for female gametophytes is 13 C ford and Melvin, 1983). Depths from 18 to 60 to 17 C. Frye (1915) found naturally occur­ feet are recommended for Nod farms by ring kelp (M. integrjfo)ja) at temperatures Washington Department of Natural Resour­ I ranging from 8 C to 14 C in Southeast Alaska. ces (1984). Mumford and Melvin (1983) reported for raft culture of Lamjnarja japonjca in China that Substrate requirements of relatively smooth I temperatures from 1 C to 13 C provided ac­ bottoms, mud to gravel with no cobble, are ceptable growth; from 5 C to 15 C were best recommended to facilitate anchoring culture for growth in length; and from 13 C to 20 C apparatus. were optimal for increase in dry weight. I Washington Department of Natural Resour­ Pests and disease organisms cause a major ces (1984) guidelines for Nori culture lists a concern in algae culture. Fungal, viral, and temperature range of 6 C to 18 C for this bacterial diseases have been discovered in I species. A temperature range of 7 to 15 C was Lamjnaria and Porphyra culture and listed for Nori by Freeman (1985). Actual epiphytic growth of various organisms is a growth rates show site variance depending on problem (Neish, 1979). Guidelines estab­ I various conditions. Some species thrive only lished by the Washington Department of in small, narrowly defined areas. Natural Resources (1984) spell out standard

I 21 I

I

procedures for combating these problems in Sea vegetables are similar to shellfish in that Nori culture. Grazing by gastropods on cul­ they should be grown only in pollution free I tured seaweed may be a problem (Saito, areas. Kelp concentrates heavy metals such 1979). Offering alternate food sources or as copper, zinc, arsenic, and mercury (Druehl, enclosure in synthetic cages have been tried 1987) potentially rendering it unsafe for I for protection. human consumption.

I', I I

I"' I I I I I ·I I I I I

22 I I

I

I PARALVTIC SHELLFISH POISONING

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

I 23 I

I tion varies with the degree of vertical stability less of Gonyaulax population level. This be­ I of water. When water is thermally stratified, havioral mechanism explains why during a they are concentrated during the day from 0.5 Gonyaulax bloom oysters initially show an in­ to 3 meters and at night from 4-7 meters. crease in levels of several hundred units and When water is mixed by wind driven tur­ then plateau for 7-10 days after which PSP I bulence or by strong tidal currents, vertical units rapidly increase into thousands. Mus­ spread and depth of migration are more vari­ sels comparatively show no such tendency to able. plateau, so that PSP levels continue to rise to a peak. Although bivalve shellfish such as clams, oysters, geoducks, and mussels are not usual­ Predicting PSP potential for a particular site ' ly physically affected by ingestion of the is difficult. Three measures which are useful I plankton, PSP toxins are retained in shellfish are: 1) monitor PSP levels in mussels on a tissues. Eventually, the bivalve is able to weekly or semi-weekly basis, 2) quantify the purge toxins through elimination. Different number of cysts in upper sediments, and 3) ob­ I species of shellfish concentrate PSP in dif­ tain and review 3-5 years of oceanographic ferent parts of their bodies and retain it within data on the site to determine frequency of their tissues for differing periods. Mussels ac­ conditions conducive to Gonyaulax blooms. I cumulate PSP rapidly and after the bloom sub­ Even if all three of these methods are utilized, sides they naturally cleanse their tissue of it does not guarantee that PSP problems will toxin in a few days to a few weeks. In contrast, not occur. Nishitani is not certain that quan­ butter clams are reputed to retain toxins at tifying cyst numbers in upper sediments will I high levels for up to 3 years. Clam siphons accurately predict potential for PSP outbreaks contain the highest values (as high as 22,000 in a given area, and consequently may not be ,1' units) while adductor muscles collected from a reliable method for determining a potential Kodiak scallops have never been higher than shellfish growing site. 80 units even when other parts of the animal show high levels. Some concern exists that shellfish mariculture I operations may actually contribute to blooms Different PSP toxins have differing toxicity of PSP producing organisms, especially in a ., and some shellfish have evolved physiological bay with limited circulation and slow nutrient mechanisms to minimize the toxic effect upon replenishment. In this situation, rafts used for themselves. Littleneck clams appear to utilize culturing could further reduce circulation, an enzymatic process to change higher level resulting in a stratified water column, and toxins to lower level toxins. Butter clams may shellfish feces and pseudofeces could act as a I be doing the reverse. Preliminary work by source of nutrients. John Sullivan suggests they convert lower level toxins into saxitoxin, which has greater PSP awareness has spread throughout the I toxicity, and then shunt this to the tip of the world because it is a world wide phenomenon siphon. In doing so, the clam may be using and has resulted in increased numbers of PSP toxins as an anti-predator device. reported cases. There are indications that blooms of PSP causing organisms are occur­ I Physiological and behavioral mechanisms of ring more frequently. This pattern is repeated various shellfish species determine how toxic in El Nino events. Since 1972, El Nino events they may become. When oysters encounter have been occurring at a faster rate than from I Gonyaulax concentrations of about 20 cells the 1930's to the 1970's. Whether this is a per ml. they decrease their pumping rate. If cyclic phenomenon or a result of the green­ the concentration continues to increase they house effect remains open to further study. I will stop pumping and feeding entirely. If the level of Gonyaulax remains high the oysters Concerns regarding consumption of shellfish will remain anaerobic for up to 7-10 days, after containing PSP toxins are critical because of: which they are forced to start feeding again. 1) inaccurate predictability of occurrence of I. In contrast, mussels continue to feed regard- plankton blooms within a given area, 2) in-

24 I I

I

.a ability to detect the presence of PSP toxins in Because dinoflagellate blooms can develop shellfish without laboratory testing, and 3) rapidly, dry storage of shellfish is required in potency of the toxins, which directly affect most areas prior to marketing, while PSP human nervous systems and can be life levels are tested at DEC's Laboratory in Pal­ I threatening without medical attention. mer. Therefore, strict measures must be observed to assure that only bivalve shellfish with min­ A dry storage facility must protect the shellfish imallevels of toxins are marketed. from all forms of contamination, including I,' saltwater, while the farmer awaits PSP test Monitoring programs are necessary to protect results. Refrigerated storage or the public health from possible rapid proliferation equivalent is required for holding during the I of dinoflagellates, and to promote and protect waiting period. the shellfish industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has established a maxi­ Before gaining approval as a shellstock ship­ I mum level of 80 micrograms of PSP per 100 per, a PSP sampling plan is developed for the grams of shellfish meat as the allowable limit operation by DEC. Plans require that the for shellfish marketed for human consump­ shellstock shipper notify local DEC personnel .I tion. at least one week in advance of any sale to give the Palmer lab ample time to prepare for tests. In most places, PSP is regarded as a seasonal Prior to the sale, DEC personnel or the farmer environmental problem. Washington state obtain official samples of mature shellfish I and British Columbia provincial governments which are then sent to the Palmer lab. routinely monitor shellfish sites for PSP levels, Shellfish held in dry storage are not released and have been able to adequately characterize for sale until the PSP sampling procedure is I seasonality of potential outbreaks. This al­ completed and satisfactory results are ob­ lows commercial producers to ship their tained. The farmer is responsible for all costs product without sampling their lots from late involved in transporting the samples to Pal­ I fall through early spring, and implement a mer. At the present time, PSP test results of progressively more stringent testing regime as shellfish lots are available within 24 hours of the potential for PSP increase occurs. sampling.

I In some areas, DEC requires every lot of PSP test results contained in Table No. 2 were shellfish to be tested for PSP prior to being taken from 5 farms in the study area. As pre­ released for distribution or sale. Data taken viously mentioned, the number of results are I in Alaska suggest highest PSP levels from insufficient to develop a reliable data base. April through late July or early August. However, it does show variability between I farms in the same general geographic area. I I .I I

I 25 I

I I.

Table 2-1 PSP DATA FROM FARM SITES IN THE STUDY AREA* I

Farm site #1 !on mae} Farm Site #3 (on map) D.are Species Concentration .12a.t.e Species Concentration 'I 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 -l 0/83 Mussels 47 - 60 10/86 Oysters less than 30 Butter Clams less than 32 Oysters 32 - 39 I' 4/84 . 7/84 Mussels 39 - Ill Farm Site #9 ~on map} Butter Clams 33 - 63 I Oysters 30 - 67 ~ Species Con~entration 2/86 Mussels 32 4/85 Oysters 30 • 33 Butter Clams 169 Little Neck Clams less than 32 I 6/86 Oysters 31 7/87 - 8/87 Mussels 32 - 67 6/87 -12/87 Oysters 30 • 59 I Butter Clams 121 - 279 2/88 Mussels less than 30 Butter Clams 97 1/88 Oysters less than 34 I

Farm Site #2 ~on maE} Farm Site #11 (on map} I D.ali! Spedes Con~entration ~ Species Concentration 6/82 - 7/82 Mussels 125 - 268 7/87 - 8/87 Mussels 32 • 88 Butter Clams 56- 292 I Oysters 40- 52 Butter Clams 33 - 49 4/83 - 11/83 Mussels 32 - 1989 Little Neck Clams less than 32 I Butter Clams 32 - 670 Oysters 32 - 546

11/84 Oysters 32 - 35 * Numbers represent micrograms per 100 I grams of shellfish meat. 10/85 - 12/85 Oysters 30 - 33 Clams 36 - 48 Maximum allowable level of PSP for human I consumption is 80 micrograms per 100 grams 1/86- 10/86 Oysters 30 - 33 of meat. Numbers were rounded off to the nearest I whole number for easier reading.

26 I I

I

I CULTIVATION

I Stages Of Culture And Appropriate Technology Some culture stages are carried out success­ fully only in laboratories or greenhouse I Organism types currently being considered hatcheries. Early stage seaweed culture oc­ likely candidates for mariculture in Alaska in­ curs in laboratories or greenhouse operations. clude the Pacific oyster, blue mussel, weather­ Use of laboratories or greenhouses for early vane scallop, and various seaweed species. stage culture of oysters and mussels ensures a I The culture of purple hinged rock scallop, stable supply of seed or spat. Where natural geoduck (Panope generosa), and pinto sets are predictable, devices are used in water abalone (Haliotis kamshatkana) may even­ to collect floating shellfish seed or spat. In I tually be feasible. Alaska, experimentation is proceeding with collection of scallops and mussels; oyster spat Kinne ( 1970, in Mason, 1983) classifies is necessarily imported because water I shellfish culture into four classes: 1) main­ temperatures are too low for localspawning tenance (keeping animals alive without sig­ by the Japanese oyster. Laboratory ex­ nificant growth), 2) raising (fattening young perimentation is also proceeding for Macro­ adults), 3) rearing (bringing up early stages, cysti£ culture. I e.g., fertilized eggs and larvae), and 4) breed­ ing (production and raising offspring). Alas­ Shellfish larvae may be cultured via one tech­ ka oyster and mussel culture currently consists nique to a certain stage and then transferred I of the raising stage. Scallop culture is in the to another area or structure for intermediate experimental collecting larvae for raising culture or full growth to harvest. Scallops and stage. oysters may be cultured via hanging culture to I a certain size, then placed on the bottom for Mumford and Melvin (1983) classify seaweed later growth. They may be moved at various culture into three stages: 1) enhancement stages of growth from bottom areas to dif­ (spread of desirable species in natural beds), ferent tidal ranges or predator situations to I 2) semi-artificial culture (control over maximize growth and survival. Scallops and primary stages of plant development but not oysters are often transferred to structures of seedstocks ), and 3) artificial culture where they are separated as individuals (e.g., (provision of artificial substrates with lantern nets or cages) for specialized markets. seedstocks and all stages of plant development under control). Seaweed culture is in the ex­ perimental stage. Semi-artificial culture of Techniques and Facilities for M.integrifolia and L. groenlandica with main­ tenance activities is occurring in the herring Shellfish Culture roe-on-kelp fisheries. Scallop spat collection is being pursued ex­ '~ Techniques are discussed below. Additional perimentally near Kodiak Island (Kaill, in description of successful techniques is neces­ prep.) and experimentation in the Yakutat, I sarily based on activities occurring in other Ketchikan, and Tenakee Springs areas is states or countries, which may or may not planned. Shellfish culture can be described in prove to be suitable in Alaska. Those dis­ five stages: 1) seed collection, 2) rearing of cussed below have been selected because they early developmental stages, 3) intermediate I appear likely to be adaptable to Alaskan con­ culture, 4) rearing to marketable size, and 5) ditions. harvest and handling. Various techniques have been developed to I successfully culture three shellfish species

I 27 I

I with the highest potential for Alaska. The fol­ shells closed by storage in the intertidal zone I lowing description is generalized, but innova­ if a longer shelf life is desired. All shellfish are tion of new techniques may occur under able to clean themselves of impurities if they specific site conditions. Floating structures, are provided with a clean water source for an intertidal zone structures, or natural or extended time period. To accomplish this in I modified sea bottom are used for the first four some areas, harvest is followed by moving the stages of culture. Floating structures are used animals to a clean water container for wash­ to collect spat or seed in the water column. ing with a continuous flow of water for several I Seed can be harvested after it has settled by days. In areas where water is polluted by using rakes, shovels, or dredges. Early sewage, a different process of depuration is re­ developmental stages are reared on various quired. Shellfish are held in disinfected water I structures including trays, nets, or ropes before being certified as fit for human con­ suspended from floating rafts or longlines; sumption. racks or poles in intertidal zones, submerged racks or trays, or without structures by placing Requirements for upland support facilities I seed directly on bottom substrates at suitable vary, depending on operation size and type of tidal levels. Transferring animals of a certain facilities used for various culture stages. size to different structures for intermediate Storage sheds and caretaker residence I stages of growth is a fairly standard technique facilities have often been included in in scallop culture in other areas. This techni­ proposed oyster farms in Etolin Island Study que may be used in oyster culture to grow in­ Area. It can be anticipated that upland I dividual oysters for the oyster-on-thehalf­ facilities will generally be required as full scale shell market. Similar floating structures (rafts production and future expansion occurs at or longlines) are generally used for inter­ successful sites. mediate culture, but animals are placed in bas­ I' kets or containerized nets (i.e., pearl nets or lantern nets) rather than on lines, or collec­ Culture Techniques and tively in nets, so they don't attach to one I another or bite each other with their shells. facilities for Seaweed Culture All three species are also sown on the bottom Seaweed culture has only recently been legal­ when they reach sufficient size. Rearing to ized in Alaska so no sea vegetable mariculture marketable size occurs either in the same I operations exist in the study area. Locations location as early rearing or where inter­ within the study area may have considerable mediate culture occurs. Types of structures potential for this activity. Seaweed culture I used for each culture stage and potential im­ reduces impact on native stocks if it should be­ pacts of structures and culture techniques are come desirable to harvest them commercial­ described below. ly. Seaweed culture is extensive in some countries, most notably Japan, and ex­ I Shellfish are generally harvested by boat in perimentation and pilot projects have been floating culture situations. Harvest from in­ carried out in California, Washington, and tertidal structures, such as poles or racks, may British Columbia. These efforts have been require truck or tractor access, and harvest I directed toward enhancing native seaweed from subtidal beds may occur by dredging or stocks (North, 1973) or at creating new stands by use of divers. The three species can have (Bourne, 1987; Washington DNR, 1987) to specialized requirements for immediate han­ sustain commercial harvests for a variety of I dling after harvest that also requires intertidal purposes. Seaweed culture consists of three zone use. Oysters grown in suspended culture stages: 1) seed or spore collection, 2) cultiva­ develop brittle shells and also have adductor tion of early developmental stages, and 3) I muscles too weak to keep the shell closed growth to harvestable size or maturity. during storage and transport. They are often laid in intertidal zones for several days to Specific techniques have been developed to harden. Mussels grown in suspended culture ·I enhance natural stocks or to enhance habitat also need to be conditioned to keep their

28 .I I

I

I for natural stocks, but none have been tried on cial substrates on the bottom, 2) transplanting a large scale in Alaska. In the first stage of cul­ mother plants, 3) sowing seed from boats in ture, reproductive portions of mature plants areas of suitable habitat, 4) weeding un­ are gathered from either natural or cultured desirable species, and 5) blasting reefs to stock by divers or from boats. Induction of create suitable substrates. spore release and culture of early develop­ mental stages occurs in the laboratory for the To rehabilitate former kelp stands off the three species which are most likely candidates California coast, plant transplantation at­ for mariculture in Alaska. Techniques for cul­ tached to plastic rings and glued to rocky sub­ ture of both Macrocystis integrifolia and strates with epoxy, and sowing young plants by I Laminaria groenlandica have been successful pouring concentrated solutions down a hose in both Alaska and British Columbia. Ex­ from a boat have been very successful techni­ perimental growth of Lamjnaria occurred in ques (North, 1973). Japan has an extensive Auke Bay (Calvin and Ellis, 1976) and ex­ program of marine habitat enhancement, I perimental maturation of Macrocystis is being which includes placement of rocks or sub­ attempted in the Sitka area during 1988 and strate blocks with large, relatively horizontal 1989 (Steckoll, 1987). Immediate application surfaces for attachment. Holdfast supports, I of Macrocystis culture is probably creation of seeded with spores, are used in conjunction stocks in Prince William Sound (outside the with structures in areas with high energy natural range of the species) in close proximity waves. Blasting has been employed in Japan to .existing herring roe-on-kelp fishery. following a phenomenon termed isoyake I which results in large areas of rocky bottom No Nori culture has been attempted in Alas­ converted from productive seaweed to cal­ ka, but culture techniques for species of Nori careous algae. Blasting provides new surface I similar to those growing in Alaska have been areas which permit successful sowing or standardized in Japan (Lindstrom, 1987). Im­ transplantation of Laminaria (Saito, 1979). portation of Nori on nets from Japan and Substrate blocks and rocks are also cleaned I maturation or harvest has been successful in periodically by blasting, air drying or coating Washington (Washington DNR, 1987). Nori concrete blocks with a new layer, or by use of seed growth occurs in a greenhouse or high pressure hoses (Mottet, 1981). hatchery, but nets can be seeded either in­ I doors or outdoors. Seaweed harvesting is accomplished by divers or manually from boats. In California, harvest Because early stages of seaweed cultivation has been mechanized using a boat with a cut­ I generally occur in the laboratory, requirement ting edge held a fixed distance below the sur­ for structures is limited to the grow-out phase. face, and a conveyor belt transfer mechanism. Seaweeds are generally grown on nets or Beach areas are sometimes used for seaweed I ropes attached to floating frames, rafts or drying, but in Southeast Alaska, drying sheds longlines. Nori is cultured intertidally in may be required if on site drying is to occur. Japan with nets or ropes suspended from poles sunk into substrate. Enhancement tech­ I niques have included: 1) placement of artifi- I I I

I 29 I

Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTER3 Site Suitability Page 31 -CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA

31 - Topography 32 - Climate 32 - Hydrology 33 - Oceanography and Estuarine Processes 34 - Bottom sedimaents and Sedimentary Processes 34 - Currents and Tides 34 - Wave Action 34 - Circulation Patterns 35 - Temperature, Salinity, and Oxygen Patterns 35 Tidal Flushing 36 - Patterns of Phytoplankton Productivity and Nutrient Dynamics 37 - Carrying Capacity

38 - RESOURCE USE/INVENTORY

38 - Timber and Timber Harvest 38 - Minerals and Soils 38 - Private and State Lands 38 - Visual Resources 38 - Cultural, Historical and Archaeological Resources 38 - Transportation Systems 39 - Anchorages 39 - Watersheds and Fisheries 39 - Wildlife 40 - Fish and Wildlife Harvest 42 - Recreation

45 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS

46 - Guidelines 46 - Factors Influencing Magnitude of Impact 47 - Size of Operation 47 - Need for Upland Facilities

53 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WATER QUALITY

53 - Potential Water Quality Impacts 54 - Potential Water Quality Conflicts With Other Users

55 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FISH AND WILDLIFE 55 - Potential Impacts of Specific Techniques 55 - Anchored Floating Facilities (Rafts and Longlines) 56 - Sedimentation 56 - Alteration of Phytoplankton 57 - Effects on Benthic Communities 58 - Suspension From Poles 59 - Intertidal and Submerged Structures 59 - Bottom Culture 60 - Intertidal Handling 61 - Fertilization 61 -POTENTIAL IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL FACILITIES 61 - Introduction of Exotics 62 - Disease Transmission 62 - Disease and Parasite Control 63 - Predator Control Techniques and Disturbance 65 - Fouling Control Techniques 66 - Disposal of Wastes 67 - CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USERS 67 - Land Management Issues 67 - Mariculture Development Land Use Needs 68 - Displacement of Public Use 68 - Recreation 69 - Anchorages 69 - Fish and Wildlife Harvest 70 - Conflicts With Other Commercial Uses of Tidelands and Submerged Lands 70 - Commercial Fishing 70 • Commercial Recreation 71 - Logging 71 - Mining 72 - Urban Development 72 - Residential Developement 72 - Historic or Archeological Sites 72 - Land Speculation 73 - Impacts on Adjacent Owners 73 - Upland Access 73 - U.S. Forest Service As Upland Managers 74 - Cummulative Effects of Expanding Tideland Use 74 - Summary 75 - DEVELOPMENT 75 • Costs of Production 75 - Start - Up Costs 75 - Labor 76 - Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Costs and Concerns 77 - Transportation 77 - Marketing 79- GUIDELINES AND MITIGATING MEASURES 79 - Relative Measures of Suitability 79 - Guidelines for Siting Shellfish and Sea Vegetable Mariculture Facilities and Mitigating Impacts 80 • Siting Guidelines 82 - Project Design Guidelines 84 - Opera tiona! Guidelines

I

I Chapter3 I I SITE SUITABILITY I CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA

Several islands and island groups in the tions of stream valleys were drowned as I Alexander Archipelago portion of Southeast glaciers melted, receded and inlets and har­ Alaska comprise the study area. An irregular bors were formed. Streams are generally less shoreline of the archipelago produces many than 10 miles long, with sedimentary deltas marine areas enclosed or semi-enclosed by formed at stream mouths. Lakes are abun­ I land which may be suitable for mariculture. dant on Etolin Island. Terrestrial and marine factors influence the area's mariculture capability. The Kupreanof Lowlands province is charac­ I terized by areas of lower relief (300-500 feet) and rolling terrain. Glacial features are Topography present, with freshwater drainages following I depressions carved by the glaciers. No well­ Topography can greatly influence local developed stream systems exist on either the weather patterns by intercepting and chan­ Blashke or Kashevarof Islands; some runoff nelling winds, influencing the amount and occurs through muskegs which have I form of precipitation (freshwater runoff), and developed in depressions. creating micro climates. Topography can in­ fluence the pattern and amount of solar radia­ Islands are interspersed along a broad, shal­ I tion striking the ocean surface. These effects low ocean trough extending from the main­ have important implications for mariculture. land coastline to the continental shelf edge. Sedimentary deposits resulted from glacial I Etolin and Deer Islands are located within the advance and retreat, often in the form of in­ Coastal Foothills physiographic province of complete shallow sills across mouths of inlets Alaska;. the Blashke and Kashevarof Island and riverine deposits. The Stikine River delta groups are within the Kupreanof Lowlands to the northeast of the study area is extensive. I province. These islands were formed by uplift Clarence Strait, Stikine Strait, and Ernest adjacent to north-south trending faults, one of Sound are deep channels, while shallow, rocky which extends up Clarence Strait. Topog· areas are characteristic around Blashke and I raphy of the study area has been shaped by Kashevarof Islands and areas offshore of glaciers which, at their greatest extent, southeastern and southwestern Etolin Island. covered nearly all of the Alexander Ar­ Snow Passage, Kashevarof Passage, and I chipelago and extended into the ocean as a Zimovia Straits are relatively narrow water­ huge ice shelf. The Coastal Foothills ways with shoals and shallow rocks. physiographic province, which includes Etolin and Deer Islands, are a westward extension of I the precipitous Boundary Ranges of mainland Climate to the east. Blocks of mountains are separated by flat-floored valleys and straits. The climate of the Alexander Archipelago is I Mountain tops have been rounded as a result primarily maritime. However, continental of being overridden by glaciers. Lower par- climatic conditions may influence areas in

I 31 I

I close proximity to large mainland river During summers, interactions between con­ drainages, such as that of the Stikine River, tinental InteriorI Arctic High and a marine I which extend into the interior. Northeastern low pressure system to the south in the North and eastern portions of the Etolin Island area Pacific result in variable conditions. When likely receive some influence from the Stikine the marine system dominates, winds are from I River and mainland weather patterns. the west and precipitation is high; when the Maritime climatic conditions result in a rela­ continental system dominates, winds are from tively narrow range of cool daily air tempera­ the northwest or north and conditions are I tures and low variability between summer and warmer and drier. winter. On a regional basis, temperatures from 40's to mid 60's can be expected in sum­ During all seasons except summer, the region mer, and temperatures in high teens to low lies within the path of major storm tracks from I 40's can be expected in winter. However, it the Gulf of Alaska. During winter, the often must be emphasized that due to considerable stationary Interior High also diverts storms regional topographic variation, temperatures towards Southeast Alaska from further west. I vary widely, depending on local influences. Storms are most frequent and precipitation is highest during the period of November No weather stations exist within the study through January as the Aleutian Low moves I area. Rainfall at nearby Coffman Cove southward into the region, bringing a steady averages 81" per year, which includes 56" of onslaught of high-velocity air masses snow. Further description is necessarily saturated with moisture from the south­ generalized to provide information on the southeast. I type of considerations which may determine weather patterns at a specific site. Hydrology I Although temperature and precipitation pat­ terns are difficult to summarize and predict Freshwater drainage dynamics are important for any given site in Southeast Alaska, global because variations in freshwater inputs to weather patterns which determine them can ocean water can modify salinity and tempera­ I be described. The following is a general ture of seawater, introduce sediment, pol­ description derived from Wallen and Hood lutants, and nutrients, and drive circulation (1971) and Selkregg (1975). Three large pres­ patterns under some conditions. The amount I sure systems, Aleutian Low, InteriorI Arctic of freshwater input depends on the size of high, and North Pacific High interact on a drainage areas of streams feeding into an em­ seasonal basis. Interactions of Aleutian Low bayment, and seasonal climatic patterns, par­ I and Interior High bring warm moist air from ticularly precipitation patterns. If wind and the south and southeast in winter which results current patterns carry fresh or brackish water in precipitation as the air is forced to move up plumes into adjacent basins, freshwater flows I over mountains or colder air is encountered. may influence several water bodies. Amount of precipitation which falls and whether it falls as snow or rain depends on air In general, nonglaciated watersheds on the temperatures which result from the location Alexander Archipelago exhibit a small peak I of the Arctic Front as well as elevational and flow period in late spring or early summer fol­ latitudinal influences. In general and on lowing snowmelt and a large peak flow in fall average, southern Southeast Alaska has during the stormy, rainiest period. milder temperatures, and consequently lower I or more intermittent precipitation and less Low flow conditions occur during summer fol­ snow accumulation. However, this pattern is lowing snowmelt and in winter as precipita­ I not always present on an annual basis. Also, tion accumulates in the form of snow at higher because of the effect of elevation as moist air elevations. Higher elevation drainages ac­ is forced upward, more precipitation falls on cumulate more snow which melts over a windward slopes of mountains than on longer period, extending periods of higher I leeward sides.

32 I I

I

I summer flows. !flakes are present in a water­ Bottom Sediments and shed, they act as a buffer, delaying and Sedimentary Processes moderating both peak and low flows (Wallen and Hood, 1971). James (1956) further Bottom substrate composition will determine I characterized Southeast Alaska watersheds as feasibility of bottom culture and of anchoring having a combination of steep slopes, heavy culture facilities. It is also one factor which precipitation, and limited water holding will determine the type of benthic community. I capacity which results in unstable flow charac­ Bottom composition within the study area teristics due to rapid discharge from rainfall varies considerably with local sediment sour­ intensity and rapid fluctuations between min­ ces. In general, sediments in the Inside Pas­ I imum and maximum flows. He noted minor sage are dominated by silt and clay with peaks in flow may occur during summer fol­ variable amounts of sand and gravel near lo­ lowing summer storms, and high runoff events calized sediment sources. Glacial activity has which can occur during winter following rains carved many steep-walled basins with bedrock I which fall on frozen, snow covered drainages. walls and smooth, flat, sediment-filled centers.

Hydrology of the Stikine River drainage in­ I fluences the study area. It is one of the largest Suspended sediment loads are of interest to drainages in the region and one which in­ mariculturists because sediment filtered by cludes several glaciers at the headwaters of shellfish can reduce feeding efficiency. Sedi­ I tributary streams. Glacial melt moderates ef­ ment suspended in the water can reduce light fects of summer low flows from snow melt and penetration and consequently the depth at maintains stable flows throughout the season, which phytoplankton can photosynthesize. prolonging periods of large volume discharges Glaciers are the major source of inorganic I from Stikine river systems. The Stikine River sediments in Southeast Alaska. This could be is a considerable source of suspended sedi­ a factor in the area influenced by runoff from ment, an effect observed by changes in water the Stikine River drainage. In the rest of the I color some distance beyond the river delta to study area, a major process of ongoing the south and west. The Stikine River flow in­ sedimentation is the delta building process of fluences oceanic current and tidal flows as streams. The suspended load reaching es­ well. tuaries is proportional to stream discharge I size which, in turn, depends primarily on the amount of precipitation. Sediment remains Oceanography and Estuarine suspended in a surface plume of low salinity I water until mixing with sea water occurs. Processes During dry periods, suspended sediments may Bottom sediments, ongoing sedimentary still occur due to resuspension of sediments I processes, currents, wave action, estuarine cir­ over tidal flats resulting from tidal action culation patterns, water temperature and (Sharma; 1979). salinity patterns, and tidal flushing capacity I are important physical oceanographic In areas of steep topography, runoff may carry parameters in mariculture operations. sediment directly from landslides and sub­ Biological parameters are related to patterns marine slides may occur, changing sediment I of phytoplankton productivity, seasonal distribution. nutrient dynamics, and biological carrying I capacity. I

I 33 I

I

Currents and Tides seawater. Rain and rainfall runoff can also I The northward flowing Alaska Current is the form shallow brackish layers over large water major oceanic current in the Southeast bodies. While the entire Inside Passage can Region. Coriolis effect is very pronounced in technically be considered estuarine under I northern latitudes, causing a deflection of the some conditions, each protected body of water Alaska Current to the east. During flood exhibits a unique circulation pattern resulting tides, regional currents generally flow from freshwater influences. Wherever fresh­ I eastward, northeastward, or northward while water enters seawater it tends to remain as a during ebb tides, flow is in opposite dir~ctions top layer because it is less dense than under­ (Selkregg, 1975). lying, denser sea water. Water column stratification is quite stable in absence of I Tides throughout Southeast Alaska are mixing events. Extent and depth of brackish mixed, semi-diurnal tides of unequal height. layers vary with seasonal discharge patterns of When tidal range is large, strong tidal currents streams, amou~t offreshwater discharge, tide, I are generated during ebb and flow (Selkregg, current, and wmd events that act to mix fresh­ 1975). Areas with large tidal prisms (basin water into seawater. cross-section) can generate currents of sub­ I stantial velocities. A rapid increase in the size of a freshwater plume can occur following rapid, heavy rain Currents in the study area result from inter­ runoff because the ground has low capacity for I actions between Alaska current and tidal cur­ absorbing precipitation (e.g., frozen ground rents as modified by shoreline topography, impermeable soils). Some effort has bee~ bathymetry, freshwater flows, and winds. dire~ted ~owar~ studying and describing es­ tuarme crrcl!lati~:m patterns in typical fjord­ I Unique and dyna~ic localized current pat· terns result. Shoreline pr~t~1herances and is­ type estuanes m Southeast Alaska, which lands deflect currents, resulting it.

34 I I

I

I ces through tidal miXmg. Water bodies tion may be interspersed with well mixed con­ around the Blashke and Kashevarof Islands ditions throughout summer and on into fall exhibit considerable turbulence as Sumner depending on fall cloud cover. Typical fall Straight flows meet Stikine River outflows and patterns of storms again mixes the water I are deflected southward, mixing with column. northward flowing Clarence Straight waters. Offshore upwelling areas have been reported Stratification of the water column can result I in this area. (B. Paust, pers. comm.) in anoxic bottom conditions where oceanic flows are restricted and oxygen is eventually depleted by biological activity. Deep, silled Temperature, Salinity and glacial fjords or other waterbodies with I restricted circulation may exhibit extremely Oxygen Patterns stable stratification. However, according to I Temperature and salinity profiles of the water Wallen and Hood (op. cit.), few estuaries in column is an end result of estuarine and Alaska are believed to have conditions suffi­ marine processes under a particular incident cient to develop anoxic sediments. Condi­ light regime. Freshwater inputs alter salinity tions of the Gulf of Alaska oceanic waters, I profiles of the upper water column; incident which have highest bottom salinities and solar energy striking a water surface warms lowest surface salinities during late summer to the upper layer. At a certain depth, water early fall, are considered sufficient to displace I temperature and salinity is stable because it is estuarine bottom waters in Southeast Alaska below these influences. Below 100-125 meters in absence of sill restrictions. Even waters of in the Inside Passage, conditions of the water silled basins may overturn eventually during mass are a result of oceanic conditions of winter. I waters of Gulf of Alaska which enter through Cape Ommaney. Tidal Flushing I Conditions in the upper water layer exhibit seasonal patterns. They can also fluctuate As described above, general patterns of rapidly in response to localized influences. oceanic currents at depth likely displaces bot­ I Wallen and Hood (1971) described the tom water of most Southeast Alaska estuaries seasonal pattern. In most enclosed embay­ at least on an annual basis. The exceptions ments in Southeast Alaska, the entire water would be "basins of most extreme geomorphic column is generally well mixed (i.e., no distinct restriction or most extreme overturn charac­ I warmer, more brackish layer is maintained) teristics" or silled basins with further seaward during all seasons except spring and summer. sills (Wallen and Hood, 1971). However, the Winds and storms combined with low fresh­ frequency of flushing will also determine I water input keep water columns mixed during whether anoxic sediments will be formed or these seasons. As an exception to this persist. Infrequent flushing can still result in generalization, stratification may occur under the release of anoxic products. i some conditions: 1) during periods of excep­ tionally clear fall weather, 2) in enclosed bays Tidal flushing regime is also important in with poor circulation, and 3) in very deep terms of residence time of nutrients and rela­ fjords with sills. tively warm surface water conditions. In some I bays, circulation patterns forms gyres. Water During spring, sunlight and long day lengths entrained in a gyre may warm at the surface increase surface water temperatures and melt and concentrate nutrients. Tidal flushing is I snow increasing freshwater runoff, which is extremely difficult to measure or predict and colder than surface saltwater. Waterbodies must be evaluated on a site specific basis. The stratify under these conditions unless winds of presence of sand or a clean gravel bottom is sufficient strength and duration cause enough an indicator of a well-flushed area; silt and I turbulence to mix layers. Periods of stratifica- sand bottoms indicate the opposite.

I 35 I

I

Patterns of Phytoplankton phytoplankton blooms in subarctic estuaries I Productivity and Nutrient are light levels during spring and fall and Dynamics nitrogen availability during summer. A period of 3-5 days of exceptionally clear I Bivalves such as oysters, mussels, and scallops weather in mid-April when day lengths are are filter feeders feeding on plankton, and in sufficient, was required to initiate spring some cases, on organic detritus. bloom. Once nitrogen was depleted by Phytoplanktons are a major group of phytoplankton, the bloom ceased and was only I producers in the open ocean and many es­ reinitiated if a wind event of sufficient tuaries. In the absence of extensive eelgrass strength and duration mixed the highly or seaweed beds, they are the major producer stratified water column, entraining nutrients I group. Their abundance and productivity are which had sedimented to the bottom, thus key indicators of food availability for maricul­ bringing nitrogen back up into the photic zone. ture (Else, Faust, and Burns, 1985). I Although estuaries in the study area cannot be Few studies of primary production patterns expected to function exactly like Auke Bay, have occurred in Southeast Alaska. A major limiting factors are probably similar. These study (Mathieson et al., 1986; 1987) is now limiting factors have several key implications I under way in AukP "!lay iG the northern part for culture productivity during spring, sum­ of the region, fG.:ussing on the_phytoplankton mer, and fall: spring bloo~ which is hypothesized as the key I process in the subsequent success of recruit­ 1. Factors influencing the amount of solar ment of commercially important species of in­ radiation reaching the water column surface vertebrates and fish in subarctic (i.e., basin orientation, topography which I environments. During three years of study, provides shading, cloud cover) will control patterns of blooms have varied. The spring initiation of spring phytoplankton blooms. bloom was characterized each year by an ini­ Factors influencing the amount of solar tial period of slow but constant growth of I phytoplankton, a short period of very rapid radiation penetrating the water column (i.e., growth and period of decline (Ziemann et. al., suspended sediment, density of 1986; 1987). The second year, a secondary phytoplankton during a bloom) will control I bloom with much lower biomass was docu­ depth of spring phytoplankton blooms, mented after an interim period. (Ziemann, which in many cases is the major annual 1987). In the third year, an extended series of primary productivity event. These factors I secondary blooms occurred throughout the will similarly influence initiation and depth summer with a final fall bloom (T. Shirley, of photosynthesis by sea vegetables. pers comm. ). The pattern of blooms may vary similarly between bays in the study area and 2. Factors which influence nitrogen I on an annual basis. Some Southeast Alaska availability in the euphotic zone (i.e., wind bays may have patterns of continuous pulses mixing, tidal mixing, upwelling phenomena) of phytoplankton production rather than dis­ I tinct blooms (B. Paust, pers. comm. ). Patterns will influence initiation of secondary blooms, of blooms may determine growth patterns and their magnitude, and duration. productivity of cultured bivalves. Conversely, processes which tend to stratify I Extended sampling of phytoplankton con­ water columns and increase stability of centrations is important to determine stratification (e.g., freshwater inputs, protec­ feasibility of mariculture because of inherent tion from winds) will likely reduce nitrogen I variability of phytoplankton blooms. entrainment, and therefore reduce potential for secondary blooms and sea vegetable Results of the Auke Bay study (Mathieson et . photosynthesis. I .---aL, 1987) indicate factors limiting

/_/-/ 36 I I

I

I Detrital sources of nitrogen from land runoff effects on naturally occurring populations if may play a key role in overall nitrogen budget, carrying capacity for cultured animals is particularly when decaying salmon carcasses reached. provide a substantial seasonal input. I In some production areas in Japan, carrying During late fall and winter, the water column capacity was determined when production is well mixed, but light levels are too low for levelled off despite increased stocking rates. I phytoplankton blooms and nutrients may be Sutherland (1986) is attempting to model largely bound in detritus. More research is capacity of a bay in British Columbia to grow needed on factors which determine food good quality oysters based on food supply, supply and productivity of candidate culture food usage, and bay flushing rate, but es­ I species during this period, particularly roles timates are still tentative. He described the played by detritus and phytoplankton during periods following the spring bloom. Nichol­ key variables determining food supply to the I son (pers. comm. ), a permit holder in the site as phytoplankton concentrations and cur­ study area, has observed good oyster growth rent speeds. Measurements being taken in­ during winter at his Blashke Island site when clude growth and quality of oysters in "nonim­ I water temperatures rose above 45 degrees F. pacted" and potentially intense (impacted) culture areas, bathymetry of the bay, tempera­ ture profiles and stratification during dif­ I Carrying Capacity ferent seasons, and near surface currents at different periods of the tides. Rosenberg and Every habitat area has a particular carrying Loa (1983) modeled energy flow through a I capacity, expressed in terms of maximum mussel longline culture in western Sweden. number of organisms it can support. For cul­ They concluded two main interrelated tured species, food supply is likely the limiting ecological factors limiting the size of mussel factor, which is, in turn, limited by factors cultures are food supply and current speed. I described above. Habitat has a certain carry­ ing capacity for naturally occurring organisms, However, they described the site as having a before any culture is introduced. Typical fea­ very low tidal amplitude of only .1 meter. In­ tures of marine and estuarine systems are a creasing the number of longlines that an area I dynamic food supply and animal adaptation to could support required both a corresponding the moveable feast provided by currents and increase in current speed and in quantity of tides. Because of these features, carrying food. They noted that theoretical carrying I capacity is dynamic and very difficult to quan­ capacity could vary from the one which could tify. be realized due to decreased currents in the center of cultures. Adapting these models to I Some attempts have been made to develop a Southeast Alaska will require a consideration method for estimating carrying capacity for of tidal action effects. I mariculture, but none have taken into account I I I

I 37 I

I I RESOURCE USE I INVENTORY

Maps developed for this project are enclosed Private and State Lands I inside the back cover. Many resources and uses occurring within the study area have been In the study area, private lands occur only in placed on these maps. Olive Cove. The state selected 524 acres in I the cove, and in 1983 sold approximately 80 The following narrative describes major acres as a subdivision with 26 lots. The state resources and uses of the study area: retains ownership of the remainder. Five lots I will be transferred from state ownership to the University of Alaska as part of a land settle­ Timber and Timber Harvest ment. I Tiffiber in the study area consists of Sitka Two small parcels of private land in Olive spruce, western and mountain hemlock, Cove were patented prior to state selection. western red cedar and Alaska yellow cedar. The state has proposed a selection near Mos­ I Etolin and Kashevarof islands have a history man on Etolin Island which could place addi­ of approximately 85 sites near beaches being tional land in state ownership. logged by A-frame and tractor prior to 1966. I Recent upland logging began with the Olive Visual Resources Cove Sale which ended in 1981. The Granite I Timber Sale of 48 million board feet (MMBF) Etolin/Kashevarof islands can be viewed from is being logged and transported to a terminal Zimovia Strait, Clarence Strait (Alaska transfer facility (TTF) in Anita Bay. The Marine Highway and cruise ship routes) and Quiet Timber Sale for 11 MMBF was avail­ from numerous bays and anchorages used by I able at the beginning of M:>~' 1:~~ ~cs: recreationists. tige Timber Sale. ~·· ~uillhwest'Cove for .8 MMBF will b~ otfered in 1988. The Bushy Is­ I land Sal~J;.1 /15 MMBF will continue untiL Cultural, Historical and 1990. ,/}.\ small sale on Middle Island was : Archaeological Resources logg&:d in 1986. 15 MMBF on Deer Island I /h:t~i'been offered for contract but no opera­ A number of limited reconnaissance level ar­ ' tions have begun. chaeological surveys have been conducted in /'// the study area. Identified and recorded sites have been added to the State of Alaska's I Mineral and Soils Heritage Resource Survey. The Etolin study area is composed of soils I with low, moderate and high mass movement Transportation Systems hazard ratings. Some relatively young alluvial soils are present in the area. Extensive wet­ Etolin, Bushy and Shrubby islands have road I land areas exist throughout ~stems extending into various areas for log­ Etolin/Kashevarof Island group. gmg purposes. Roads are constructed and maintained under Forest Service manage­ Four mining claims exist and have been filed ment practices. I on Etolin Island, only one is currently active. I

38 I I

I

Major portions of the road system on Etolin mid-1970's. Twelve mariculture permit sites I Island extend from Anita Bay. The Anita Bay for oyster farming are currently located in road system does not connect with the Olive Whaletail Cove, MosmanjThreeway Passage, Cove road system which is old and begins at a and the Kashevarof Island group. I log transfer facility. The U.S. Forest Service may examine the potential ofconnecting these Waters of the study area are rich in both two road systems. The Anita Bay road system species and numbers offish and shellfish. Sal­ I comes within one mile of Quiet Harbor and mon, herring, flounder, crab, and shrimp are one-half mile of Kindergarten Bay. all harvested.

A road system exists on the western half of The Kasheverof Island water bodies are I Bushy Island. The Shrubby Island road sys­ thought to be especially rich in nutrients (B. tem is very old and begins at an old log trans­ Paust, per. comm.). Nearby upwellings and fer facility. A transportation plan for Deer the currents of Clarence Straight likely I Island will be implemented as part of the provide a steady source of phytoplankton, proposed timber sale. algae and other nutrients to this area. South and west Etolin Island benefit from the south­ I Road systems will grow to support logging westerly winds and currents. operations. The time frame for road expan­ sion will depend on the economic viability of Extensive kelp beds exist in the study area, the timber industry. notably in the Kashevarof Island group. I However, no Macrocystis is found. Existing oyster sites in the study area are not The north and east sides of Etolin Island are currently served by a road system. The subject to influence from the Stikine River I proposed expansion of the road systems on drainage which also adds significant levels of Etolin Island could serve mariculture opera­ siltation. Water temperatures are thought to tions by augmenting existing water transpor­ be lower here than surrounding waters due to tation routes with roads across Etolin Island this influence. I thereby offering farmers an alternative in case of extreme sea or weather conditions. I Wildlife Anchorages A variety of wildlife is found within the study area including species harvested by area resi­ I Coves and protected waters in the study area dents: deer, black and brown bear, waterfowl, are used extensively as small boat anchorages. grouse, beaver, marten, mink, and river otter. Anchorages vary in size from one or two boats Approximately 50 Roosevelt and Rocky I to over 20. Fishing fleets are major users of Mountain elk were transplanted to Etolin Is­ these anchorages, but dispersed recreational land in 1987. Deer populations are currently boating and kayaking occur throughout the low on Etolin Island. area. I Approximately 243 bald eagle nests have been located in the study area. Waterfowl, Watersheds and Fisheries seabirds, and shorebirds concentrate I seasonally in protected areas or in areas Forty anadromous fish stream systems exist in where food is abundant. Large concentra­ the study area. Including all tributaries, ap­ tions of phalaropes have been observed in I proximately one hundred fish streams have waters west of Kashevarof Islands during the been surveyed and catalogued by the spring, which may be an indication of nutrient ADF&G. An aquaculture facility (hatchery) rich upwelling areas. Sea lions and harbor is located on Burnette Inlet. A steep pass fish· seals are found in waters of the study area. I way was installed on Navy Creek during the Offshore rocks and rocky beaches are used as

I 39 I

I haul out areas. Various whale species are Beaver, mink, land otter, and wolves are I likely to be present in the area, at least oc­ trapped along the beach fringe ofEtolin Island casionally. Sea otters are not present, but are and other small islands. on the west side ofPrince of Wales Island and may expand their range in the future. Information about the hunting and fishing ac­ I tivities of Southeast Alaska has recently been gathered by the Subsistence Division of Fish and Wildlife Harvest ADF&G, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest I Service and the University of Alaska. Quan­ Important commercial and noncommercial titative harvest data were gathered during the fish and wildlife harvests occur in the Etolin winter of 1988. Study communities included I Island area. Commercial fishing occurs for: 1) Coffman Cove, Meyers Chuck, Wrangell, salmon by purse seine, troll and drift net gear, Petersburg, Point Baker /Port Protection and 2) herring, 3) halibut and other bottom fish by Kasaan. These fish and wildlife harvest data, longline, 4) Dungeness and Tanner crab by gathered for 1987, are included below. I pots, and 5) shrimp by pots and trawl gear. I Table 3-1 Harvest Data Summary for Etolin Island Area I 1987 Fish and Wildlife Harvest in Pounds per Capita I Salmon Other Marine Fish Inverts Mammals Birds Deer Other Plants Total Petersburg 45 45 35 6 45 18 7 199 I Wrangell 30 42 42 2 21 24 3 164 Coffman cove 53 56 11 2 60 1 4 186 Whale Pass 41 26 34 1 50 18 3 175 Kasaan 32 32 74 0 40 2 5 185 I Meyers Chuck 105 175 52 14 21 37 11 414 Pt. Protection 111 91 47 3 40 3 15 311 Point Baker 89 63 49 5 94 25 14 344 I I I I I I

40 I I

I

I As part of the recent harvest study by tence studies, including amounts of household ADF&G, maps were developed that indicated participation in food harvest activities, quan­ areas where fish and wildlife harvest activities tities and types of food distributed among have occurred. Most of these maps are in the households, harvest technologies, cultural and I process of being drafted and will be available economic values, seasonality of resource use, in late 1988. However, report-quality maps of and harvest customs and traditions. The Petersburg and Wrangell use areas will be Board of Fisheries and Game use this and I available in mid-August. other information to identify communities that meet criteria for a subsistence priority in Wrangell and Petersburg residents show use the harvest of fish and wildlife. At this time, oflarge areas on and around Etolin Island, in­ all communities in the Etolin Island study area I cluding virtually all of the shoreline for deer have been determined to be rural for the pur­ hunting and most nearshore and estuarine pose of the state subsistence law. Future areas for fishing and gathering invertebrates. decisions by the Boards will determine the I Wrangell residents report use of the area for species, populations and stocks to which sub­ harvest of shellfish, marine mammals (harbor sistence priorities will apply in these areas. seal), waterfowl, deer, salmon, and assorted I finfish including species such as halibut and Subsistence salmon permits are issued for rockfish. Petersburg residents report using Thoms Place and Olive Cove. In 1986, Wran­ the area for deer and waterfowl hunting. gell residents obtained 9 permits for Olive Cove and 44 for Thoms Place, and harvested I Additional information will be available in 190 pink salmon and 277 sockeye salmon late 1988 on the relative intensity of use of respectively. portions of the Etolin Island area by residents I of nearby communities. Maps can be Residents of nearby communities sport fish in produced that will show relative intensity of the Etolin Island vicinity. A principal day use use (by percent of a community's households) area by Wrangell residents is located in waters I of the study area or other areas in the region. off the north end of Etolin Island. This area is a major marine recreational fishery for the Other measures of fish and wildlife harvest region,, based on effort and harvest figures. I and use are available from Division of Subsis- I I I I I I

I 41 I

I

Recreation I

Dispersed recreation occurs throughout the sites in the study area is primarily by water. I study area. Two sites have developed recrea­ Anchoring, sport hunting, sport fishing, and tion facilities. Steamer Bay has a Public Use upland access to freshwater lakes and use of Cabin operated by the USFS and Kunk Lake calmer water in extended inlets are the most I has a trail and shelter. Access to recreation common activities. I Table 3-2 Recreation Sites and Anchorages in Etolin Island Area. Identified by the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I

Recreation Area Use I

1. King George Bay Anchorage, used for black bear, deer and furbearers hunting and trapping I

2. Kunk Lake Recreational trail and shelter, anchorage for deer hunting I 3. Dog Salmon Creek Anchorage, used for waterfowl hunting I 4. Anita Bay Anchorage, used for black bear, deer, and furbearers hunting and trapping

5. Starfish Cove Anchorage I

6. Between Olive & Whale T. Cove Waterfowl hunting I 7. Olive Cove Anchorage, used for black bear, deer and furbearers hunting and trapping. I 8. Whale Tail Cove Wildlife harvest area, anchorage

9. North of Southwest I Cove Anchorage, dispersed recreation 10. Southwest Cove Anchorage I II. Menefee Inlet Anchorages, used for deer, black bear, and waterfowl harvest, access to lakes I 12. Fishermen's Chuck Anchorage I I 42 I

I

I Recreation Area use

13. Canoe Pass Anchorage, small watercraft use

I 14. South Brownson Anchorage Island

I 15. Stone Harbor Anchorage I 16. Stone Island Hunting, beachcombing 17. Eagle Island Anchorage, hunting, beachcombing I 18. Onslow Island Hunting, beachcombing 19. McHenry Anchoragd Anchorage

I 20. McHenry Inlet Anchorage, used for black bear, deer and forbearers hunting and trapping, I access to McHenry Lake 21. Navy Creek Access to Navy Lake

22. Cannery Pt. Anchorage I Anchorage I 23. Burnett Hatchery Sightseeing 24. Head of Burnett Hunting Inlet

I 25. Head of Mosman Hunting Inlet I 26. Mosman Island Anchorage 27. Three Way Pass Anchorage, used for black bear, deer, and furbearers hunting and trapping, I beachcombing 28. Johnson Cove Anchorage, access to Streets Lake, I (trout/ char concentrations), recreation 29. Steamer Bay Remote USFS cabin & concentrated fish harvest area, anchorages used for I black bear, deer, and furbearers hunting and trapping, recreation

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

I 43 I

I

Recreation Area Use I

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

32. Cove east of Quiet Anchorage I

33. Bushy Island Limited anchorage, deer hunting I 34. Between Bushy Anchorage, used for deer hunting, & Shrubby furbearer trapping and upland bird hunting I 35. Ossipee Channel Limited anchorage I 36. W. Shrubby Island Anchorage 37. Middle & Blashke Anchorages I Island Group 38. Niblack Island Limited anchorage I 39. S. Deer Island Anchorage

40. Middle Deer Island Anchorage I 41. N. Deer Island Limited anchorage I I I I I I I

44 I I

I

I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

I Information concerning potential environ­ human disturbance (e.g., seabird nesting mental impacts of various mariculture opera­ colonies, marine mammal pupping areas), and tions likely to occur in the study area is 7) sufficient separation from sewage outfalls. I summarized and cross referenced to guidelines for siting and mitigating impacts. Sea vegetable farms result. in ~ewer typ~s. of Many potential impacts have been noted as documented impacts. Gmdelines for siting concerns. Proper site selection, stringent con­ and mitigating impacts are cross-referenced I trols over importation of exotic animals and to impacts discussions. disease organisms, prohibition of harmful techniques, and the use of appropriate mitig~­ The environmental impact of aquatic farm I tive measures will help the sea farmer avmd development is examined in this. section in t_wo significant adverse impacts that have occurred parts: 1) impacts o~ w~ter qu~lity, a~d ~) Im­ in areas other than Alaska. pacts on fish and wildlife. This sectmn 1s fol­ lowed by a section on siting guidelines and I Types of areas which should be avoided when mitigating measures. siting floating shellfish mariculture facilities are: 1) areas where accumulation of organic I sediment on productive benthic communities Environmental Aspects of Siting can be expected, 2) areas where predator or wildlife disturbance are problems, 3) areas Recently passed state legislation prohibits I with limited flushing and/or poor water cir­ aquatic farms or hatcheries from significantly culation, and 4) areas with waste discharges. affecting fisheries, wildlife, or their habitats in Sites suitable for development should have an adverse manner. Adverse environmental I adequate upland areas for support facilities impacts have occurred in some areas of the and intertidal areas suitable for beaching gear, world when mariculture was poorly sited or hardening shellfish, and holding shellfish for permitted to exceed carrying capacity. PSP testing where impacts to habitat values I are minimized. If other aspects of site selec­ Careful selection of mariculture sites can tion override environmental concerns, a avoid or minimize these adverse impacts. variety of mitigative measures have been Degradation of habitat quality, particularly I developed which may minimize potential im­ water quality, can reduce culture productivity, pacts. and in extreme cases, result in massive shellfish culture deaths. Although a variety of I From the standpoint of reducing conflicts, a mitigative measures can be employed to min­ good mariculture site for shellfish culture will imize environmental impacts of a site chosen have the following characteristics: 1) a bottom for overriding logistical or economic reasons, flushing capacity which will exceed organic such measures usually add to the cost of I sedimentation rates at maximum production, operation. Environmental protection goals of 2) circulation unrestricted by sills or other regulatory agencies largely overlap economic bathymetric features, 3) upland and intertidal interests of mariculturists. Clean water, I areas of relatively low biological productivity preventing creation of anaerobic sediments that can be used for support operations, 4) suf­ below rafts which may result in production of ficient separation from sensitive or crucial fish toxic substances, as well as a lack of predator, I and wildlife habitats (e.g., mouths of disease, and parasite problems can ensure sus­ anadromous fish streams, eelgrass beds, her­ tained productivity. Both regulatory agencies ring spawning areas, shellfish beds), 5) suffi­ and aquatic farmers have a vested interest in cient separation from predator concentration good site selection for immediate benefit and I areas, 6) sufficient separation from con­ avoidance of future problems. centration areas of wildlife species sensitive to

I 45 I

I

Subsequent sections describe environmental ly, the guidelines advise nonlethal means for I impacts which have occurred as a result of control offouling organisms (i.e. hand-picking shellfish mariculture in areas outside Alaska. from hanging culture facilities). Prospective This discussion provides a basis for develop­ farmers will be required to identify predator ing siting guidelines and recommended and fouling control measures and unaccep­ I mitigative measures for use in Alaska. Such table means will not be approved. impacts need not occur in Alaska, ~ut t.hey are described to demonstrate potentml Impacts Factors which determine the extent of impact I considered as possible concerns. to the natural regime include the type of species cultured (e.g. seaweeds as primary producers vs. bivalve shellfish as filter feeding I consumers), size of operation (area occupied Guidelines and stocking densities), culture techniques, Since environmental considerations are just need for upland facilities, and physical and I one part of the equation in terms of final site biological characteristics of the waterbody selection and permitting, mitigation may be such as: 1) currents and flushing rates necessary if impacts cannot be avoided. Both (hydrography and hydrology), 2) nutrient guidelines for avoidance and mitigation are dynamics, 3) baseline water quality, 4) exist­ I included in the Site Guidelines and Mitigation ing benthic, pelagic, and terrestrial com­ Measures section of this chapter and cross munities, 5) composition of bottom referenced to each impact discussion. sediments, and 6) distance from facilities to I sensitive habitats.

Size of Operation Factors Influencing Magnitude I of Impact Culture operations in Alaska are currently small scale. However, further projections an­ A number of factors determine whether en­ ticipate successful operations will expand at I vironmental impacts will occur, whether these existing sites and into suitable new areas. impacts will be beneficial or adverse, and Larger operations may be necessary to whether impacts will be significant. achieve an economy of scale ensuring long term profitability. I Because mariculture involves an attempt to maximize productivity of a single species Based on review of 12 applications for amidst an existing complex and diverse mariculture facilties on tidelands within the I marine ecosystem, some alteration of natural study area, the range in area for proposed regimes can be expected. For example, addi­ farms employing floating oyster culture tional waste products are produced and food facilities has been from less than 1 acre to 25 I that would normally enter the natural food acres. Table 3-3 lists the proposed structures chain goes into culture production. High and overall structure size. Review of ap­ productivity goals may make elimination of proximately 40 other permits suggests the size species that compete with or prey upon cul­ of facilities proposed for other sites in I tured species desireable to farmers. Southeast Alaska, for mussel culture in Kachemak Bay, and for shellfish mariculture Guidelines developed for the project would in other regions of Alaska are comparable. I avoid siting facilities in areas with con­ The areal extent of proposed culture facilities centrated populations of predators. If preda­ range from 60 sq. ft. for an experimental raft tion problems develop, the guidelines advise with lantern nets to 100,000 sq. ft. for a log I nonlethal control measures and use of a boom enclosing 144 5' x 20' pens. The area re­ variety of design measures to prevent preda­ quested ranges from 2 acres to 10 acres, with tion. Current ADF&G policies do not con­ multiple sites proposed in some cases more done destruction of predators after the than one bay. One proposal was modified I creation of an "attractive nuisance". Similar- from a request for a 1200 acre lease to 8 acres

46 I I

I

for floating rafts. Longline rearing facilities pads, access roads, or for dock or loading I have also been proposed, with longlines rang­ facilities. Timber harvest may occur to ing from 15 to 200 feet long, and from 75 to provide a source of materials for log raft 1600 feet in lineal distance. Upland facilities mariculture facilities or for buildings. I development could add substantially to the total development area. Proposals for upland facilities were included in 4 of 25 oyster culture projects in the study I For comparison purposes, Table 3-4 sum­ area; in addition, floathomes were proposed marizes the reported extent of mariculture for two projects. One proposal included an operations in other areas of the world. High oyster eyed-larva setting facility. Lack of stocking rates can intensify the magnitude of similar requests for other proposed farms can I localized environmental impacts where flush­ ing capacity is inadequate. Culture opera­ be attributed to currently small scale ex­ tions could exceed carrying capacity of a given perimental projects. Shellfish and seaweed I area, in terms of both food available and lo­ mariculture throughout the world is common­ calized flushing capacity. Carrying capacity is ly associated with areas where uplands areal­ site specific and varies on a seasonal basis. ready developed. This is particularly true ad­ I jacent to small communities where maricul­ No specific information is available on stock­ ture work is accomplished cooperatively. It ing rates of oyster farms in the Etolin Island appears reasonable to assume that, with the I study area. Stocking rates reported from exception of unique circumstances, most other areas are shown in Table 3-4. mariculturists will eventually require availability of suitable uplands adjacent to Need for Upland Facilities I their floating facilities for processing, storage, Development of upland facilities adjacent to residence, and caretaking. The nature and floating structures results in impacts to ter­ areal extent of upland facilities will be a major restrial ecosystems. Upland areas are factor in determining their magnitude of im­ I generally cleared. In areas where a gravel pact. I source exists, fill may be required for building I I I I I I

I 47 I

I

Table 3-3 Size of Oyster Fanns Proposed in the Etolin Island ShJdy Area I Minimum Area Extent Structures of Structures Acres Area Reguested I 4-200 1 long rafts 800'x ? ? I V-shaped log boan enclosing rafts 570 1 x870'x? ? I 20 20 1 x35' rafts 14,000 .3 I 24 20 1 x60 1 rafts in300'x900' loq-boan/];X:lle raft 27,000 .6 I 8 sites: 10 111 'xSO'rafts 55,500 1.3 20 acres I 10 60'x16' rafts in 200'x425' loq-lxx:m raft 85,000 1.95 I 20 13 1 x4' rafts in 425 1 x200' loq-boan raft 85,000 1.95 I

100 5 'x20' rafts in 295'x295' log-boom I raft 87,025 2 72 20 1 x60' rafts I in 200'x436' log-boom raft 87,200 2 2 acres

48 S'xll' rafts in I 200 1 x550' loq-bocm raft 111,000 2.5 2 acres I variety of structures within 1,000 1x550 1 loq-boan raft plus I 250 I X250 I beach storage area 500,000 11.5

3200 4'xl0 1 rafts 128,000 2.9 25 acres I I

48 I I

1987 Source 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 Ventilla, Ventilla, Ventilla, Ventilla, Ventilla, DNR, Washington, max. Operations density Density density; shells/ shells/ - line line 24,000- max. Stocking Mariculture 24,300/acre long 40,000/acreat 40,000/acre 20,000 long 10,000 12,000-14,500/acre recx::moonded recx::moonded density at Av. in Various 2 in 2 fanm cover bay bay of long mi ) ) waters inshore 25-40 long net acres m. Extent 66~ 662-mi. nets area: area: km. km. m. Rates of of cover Areal -- (1660 (1660 2.5-4.8 31% 300-600 100-120 shallow, to 14% 50-60 acres~ off-shore Total 'lbtal waters Stocking and Extent CUlture Culture Method CUlture Net Areal Culture Bottan Nori Hanging I.ongline Reported of Bay, AREA Japan Japan Washington Mutsu Japan MutsuBay Summary spp. 3-4 yessoensis Porphyra SEAWEED SCALLOPS Patinopecten Table -1>­ \0 ------

- 1983 and - - Source 1982 1982 1982 1979 1982 Cropp, 1982 Ventilla, Vining, Magoon Monical, Ventilla, Ventilla, Ventilla, - - ) Density 200,000 m. - lanterns/line, lanterns/line, Stocking (5-10 400,000/acre 225,000/~cre recarnenqed seeded 190,500/acre 150/m. 40,500-50,500/acre 405,000/acre 450/m. 250 harvested Afprox. 100 56,200/acre 16,200/acre; -- m. lines, long 22.3 lease acres system m. -- longline longline m. Extent m. 100-200 acre acres m. m. 48 44.5 lines, 5.6-7.4 480 lines, 1200 acres acres Areal - 50-100 2) 23 222 3) 8.4 1) 100 100 "Jumbo" exanples: - - I lantern ear- nets Method - line, line line line, ? lantern nets Long Long Long Loi'Y}line Long hanging Longline, Culture -- Bay study projections) (feasibility Hawaii Tasmania Funka Japan Japan Washington Japan AREA - (cont'd) -- pecten 3-4 - Hinnites caurinus Patinopecten SCALI.DPS mult~rugosus Patino yessoensis Table - 0 lll -

et. 1979 1982 1982 1982 and and and land, 1985 1982 Source al., Chew, Chew, Glude Glude Chew, Marino Glude 1979 1986 Glude, Meixner, Else, Suther = seed/ harves- diligent - - - - Density culture - - oysters/acre Stocking 20,000,000 2,500,000 Intense "minimum table 150,000/acre acre useage"=12,000/acre 143 2 m. leased, total (total) (total) 10 long size (total) 3m. acres Extent surface area= x bay (total) rafts, m. used, acres/raft; of acres of m. acres acres acres Areal 07 • 2,040 10% 14 5 area acres 60 leased 120 60% 70-75 154 110-227 approx. StaOOard Bottan CUlture Method CUlture Raft Raft Raft Raft Raft array line ture SUbnerged Hanging Bottan cage Long Cui Bay, B.C. Island Arousa, Alaska, AREA Riade Rhode Spain Maine Washington Island, 1938-60 S.E. Japan Trevanen Vancouver Gennany (cont'd) 3-4 edulis MJSSLES Myt.ius Table OYSTERS g~gas Crassotrea Vt ------

for 1984 Coord. Loo, Res., 1979 1979 1985 Korringa, and swedish Planning Korringa, Council of 1986 Zhang, and 1984 1983 Rosenberg Herriott, Anonynous, Source ------Density Stocking ) m. f~ ) lines long plots ~ann leases longlines, acres m. m. long Ex.tent acre acre acre m. acre (1500-2000 (4500 .06 .25 .2 11-25 330' 50-60 5 40 plots rafts Areal Racks CUlture Raft Method line line line Intertidal long Bottan Long wngline Long Culture Nova Edward Italy Island, Sweden Ireland Netherlands Prince SWeden Scotia China AREA (cont'd) 4 3- edulis KJSSLES Mytitus Table tv VI ------

I

I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WATER QUALITY

I Potential Water Quality Impacts ture facilities in Washington State were sited in waters less than 20 meters deep. Mariculture requires clean water. Water I quality surrounding culture facilities can be af· In the study area, divers observed on!y a min­ fected by both mariculture activity or other imal dusting of sediment under rafts m Canoe nearby uses or activities. Two key water Lagoon (A. Grossman, pers. comm.): This. site I quality issues associated.with mariculture .are: has been used for oyster product10n smce 1) changes in water quahty caus~d b~ ?lancul­ 1983. Water sampling in this area indicated .a po.t~~ttal ture operations, and 2) s1t1ng con· good tidal exchange ev~n th~ugh the.lagoon IS flicts with other uses or actlvttles. isolated at low to medmm tides. Dtvers at a I proposed oyster farm in Mosman Inlet ob­ One major concern with mar:iculture ope~a­ served natural sedimentation in the area pos­ tions is unfavorable changes m water quality sibly due to a sill restricting. tidal e~change I and environmental conditions that may (T.Farris, pers. coinm.). Sedtmentatlon may develop during normal facili~ ope~atio?s. be a problem in similar areas if stocking den­ Specific changes may occur mcludmg m­ sities exceed flushing capability. I creases in organic deposition under culture rafts, changes in water circulation patterns Mariculture facilities may reduce water cir­ and changes in water chemistry. culation in the immediate area of culture facilities. A number of variables can affect I Sedimentation can result as organic matter flow reduction including flow rate, density of deposits from wastes, shell fragments, etc. water enclosure size and type, stocking den­ build up on the bottom below culture rafts. sity, a~d degree offouling. Reduced water cir­ I The amount of organic matter produced is de­ culation may result in decreased food pendent upon the size of the facility, produc­ availability to parts of the culture structure tion level and environmental factors such as and i.Qcreases in sedimentation rate under water de~th, current velocity, ~ushing, and rafts. I bottom topography. Accumulatmn of wastes and sediments can induce chemical and Weston (1986) cites one study which biological changes in bottom habitat and measures a reduction in current velocity I water columns. Another possible problem amidst culture strings of Pacific oyster in resulting from organic sedimentation is a Japan. Velocities were reduced within the change in the benthic macroinvertebrate (e.g., raft by 12% to 14% compared to those outside polycheate worms, snails, insects) community. the raft, but 1 meter below the lower end of I Species unable to tolerate organic enrichment oyster strings, no consistent effect on current may disappear, and other more tolerant velocity was found (Arakawa et al., 1971). In species become dominant. I Hiroshima Bay in 1968, 6000 oyster rafts (9 meters x 18 meters each) acted as a floating Organic enrichment is site specific. Locating breakwater to damp waves and reduce water culturing facilities in areas with adequate circulation so the current speed on the I depth and tidal or wind induced flushing will shoreward side was only one-seventh or one­ greatly reduce bottom accumulation through eighth of speed on the seaward side. A drop greater disperison of wastes. A study of in productivity is attributed to a decline in mariculture environmental effects in Puget water quality from changes in water and sedi­ I Sound (Weston 1986) concludes a high prob­ ment chemistry (Mottet, 1981). These ability of solid waste accumulation if less than problems could occur in areas of inadequate 15 meters of water is maintained below a flushing or intensive culturing activity. I mariculture facility. He found most maricul-

I 53 I

I

Water chemistry changes may occur from Potential Water Quality I mariculture facilities. Information on mussel Conflicts culture indicates the possibility of a net reduc­ tion in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) Mariculture facilities can conflict with other I around a culture facility. Studies show 40% of uses or activities. It is widely recognized most nutrients filtered by mussels are put back into suitable mariculture sites are also suitable the water column in the form of waste sites for other water-dependent and water-re­ products, 30% are concentrated in growth lated activities. Because mariculture facilities I removed during harvest, and 30% is excreted need pristine water to operate, water quality as feces or pseudofeces (Ackefors and Grip, in areas surrounding mariculture facilities is 1985; Ackerfors and Soedergren, 1985; in critical. Some existing activities could have an I Weston, 1986). Weston (1986) reviews poten­ associated discharge detrimental to cultured tial impacts of waste products on water quality organisms. and concludes ammonia is the only water I quality parameter of any concern from mussel Sewage discharge from upland development, culture. Concentrations downcurrent from caretaker facilities associated with a maricul­ farms would be well below toxic levels for ture project, boat traffic, or any other pollu­ other organisms. In situations of extremely tion source can lead to operational problems I dense and large scale culture, production of for aquatic farmers. Shellfish are filter nitrogenous wastes are potentially significant. feeders and readily concentrate fecal coliform bacteria and heavy metals in their bodies. I A majority of unfavorable changes in water Aquatic farms proposing to locate near exist­ quality and environmental conditions can be ing subdivisions must be properly sited and avoided by properly siting mariculture separated from the effluent discharge to en­ I facilities. Water quality problems would be sure that ambient water quality at the maricul­ anticipated only in areas of limited flushing or ture site is at levels suitable for that use. intensive culturing activity. Field studies rare­ ly have shown organic deposition or any other Alaska Water Quality Standards establish I culture induced water quality change to be a levels of allowable fecal coliforms by desig­ problem at facilities located in well flushed nated. water use. For example, in waters areas. designated for industrial use, allowable levels I of fecal coliforms is not to exceed 200 Fecal Coliforms/100 rnl based on a minimum offive samples taken over a period of 30 days. Al­ I lowable level of fecal coliforms for harvesting and consumption of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life is 14 FC/100 mi. Conflicts arise I when an area has historically been used for something other than mariculture, and the ap­ proved level of fecal coliforms has exceeded I the mariculture allowance. I I I

54 I I

I

I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FISH AND WILDLIFE I Potential Impacts of Specific in water circulation, 2) changes in water Techniques chemistry, 3) sedimentation beneath culture operations, 4) alteration of phytoplankton I Anchored Floating Facilities biomass and productivity, 5) effects on benthic (bottom dwellers) communities and more Anchored floating facilities are the only mobile invertebrates and fish, 6) introduction I facility types currently in use or proposed for of exotic species, 7) disease transmission from use for shellfish or seaweed culture in Alaska. cultured to wild animals, and 8) proliferation In the study area and in other areas of Alas­ of bacteria pathogenic to humans. The next I ka, oyster farms consist of arrays of trays or four types of impacts are discussed under the nets suspended from rigid raft structures, Potential Water Quality Impacts Section; the usually composed of logs, boomsticks, poles, other six are discussed under the section on or plastic pipe. Some farms have a log float Potential Impacts to Fish and Wildlife and I corral of boomsticks surrounding the raft or their habitats. Introductions of exotics, dis­ tray array. One mussel culture operation is ease transmission, and proliferation of bac­ being carried out on similar raft structures in teria pathogenic to humans are of concern in I Kachemak Bay. Longline systems, similar to all types of mariculture and is discussed in the those in use in Japan and other countries, are section on impacts common to all facilities. being used for oyster and scallop spat collec­ tion, and rearing experiments have been Sedimentation I proposed for mussel and oyster culture. Two types of sediment could potentially occur Potential environmental impacts of floating as a result of suspended shellfish culture: 1) I mariculture facilties have been summarized suspended sediment settling out of the water by Weston (1986) for Puget Sound and poten­ column, and 2) deposition of organic matter tial impacts of nori farms have been sum­ from wastes, dead animals, shells, etc. W es­ I marized by the Washington Department of ton ( op cit.) concluded that settling of the Natural Resources (1987) Programmatic En­ suspended load was unlikely in Puget Sound, vironmental Impact Statement. Weston's an area with very low suspended sediment I study of impacts focused primarily on salmon loss, but that sedimentation could be expected net pen rearing facilities but also on mussel to be greater in areas of major riverine inflow, rafts and longlines. and consequently unsuitable for mariculture due to variable salinity regimes and I Studies of environmental impacts on shellfish phytoplankton blooms. This form of culture include scallop and oyster culture in . sedimentation may be more significant in Japan (Motoda, 1977; Mottet, 1981; Ventilla, areas of Alaska where suspended loads of gla­ I 1982; Kafuka, and Ikenoue, 1983; Wakui, cial sediments are high. Hemming and Hem­ 1983), oyster raft culture in British Columbia ming (1984) described siltation of mussels (Sutherland, 1986); and of mussel culture in growing on rafts at farms located fairly close I Spain (Tenore and Gonzalez, 1976; Olaso, to a glacier terminus. Their farm location is a 1979; lglesius, 1981), along the west coast of unique situation; Halibut Cove Lagoon is per­ Sweden (Dahlbaeck and Gunnarsson, 1981; ched slightly above the waterbody into which Mattson and Linden, 1984), and in the White a glacier empties and the two waterbodies are I Sea (Golikov and Skarlato, 1979). Weston connected by a narrow opening which ( op. cit) grouped potential environmental im­ develops a tidal rapids. Thus, siltation occurs pacts into categories. Categories of impacts only under certain tidal conditions when a I relevant to suspended shellfish mariculture back-eddy forms. (rafts or longlines) are as follows: 1) changes

I 55 I

I

Deposition of materials underneath rafts or production since 1983. Water sampling in this I longlines can also be significant in areas where area indicated a good tidal exchange even bottom currents are insufficient to disperse though the lagoon is isolated at low to medium them. Mussels, oysters, and scallops filter tides. Divers at a proposed oyster farm in large volumes of water and excrete feces and Mosman Inlet observed natural sedimenta­ I pseudofeces (rejected particles which are tion in the area possibly due to a sill restrict­ handled but not ingested). Shell debris and ing tidal exchange (T. Farris, per. comm.). dead animals also drop off suspended struc­ Sedimentation may be a problem in areas like I tures. While currents can disperse a certain this if stocking densities exceed flushing amount of material, Weston (1986) concluded capability. there would be a high probability of solid I waste accumulation if less than 15 m. of water Alteration of Phytoplankton was maintained below a mariculture facility. He found that most mariculture facilities were The potential contribution of shellfish culture sited in waters of less than 20 m. in depth but to phytoplankton blooms (due to recycling of I that data was lacking on facilities in deeper nutrients, particularly nitrogen) was inves­ waters (longlines are often employed in tigated by Weston ( op.cit.). Blooms are im­ deeper water situations in many areas rather portant to other shellfish mariculturists if the I than rafts). organism responsible for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is involved. Harmful blooms Dahlbaeck and Gunnarsson (1981) reported have been linked to shellfish culture only in ex­ I a sedimentation rate from a mussel raft in tremely intensive culture situations in Japan. Sweden as three times higher than nearby In Hiroshima Bay, Japan, Heterosigma reference stations. Deposition was about 7 kg blooms occurred for the first time after oyster of dry matter per square meter. According to culture productivity began to decline, and it I the Swedish Council for Planning and Coor­ was shown blooms were accelerated by oxida­ dination of Research (1983), mussel farms in tion of partly decomposed substances from Sweden are usually dimensioned to yield 100 shellfish excrement. In Funka Bay, PSP out­ I tons of mussels, including shells, and require breaks from a Protogonyaulax spp. may have 1500 to 2000 square meters, the sedimenta­ been linked to transfer of infected seed scal­ tion of dry matter would amount to about 10 lops from other areas or to changes in nutri­ I tons and the growth of sediments would be tion levels at the bottom of the bay (Mottet, about 10 em per farming season. A 100 m 1981). Siting to avoid sediment accumulation longline of scallops in Saroma Lake, Japan, should minimize potential for this impact in was estimated to produce 2.5 tons of excreta Alaska. I per year. The lake which is 160 square kilometers and 20 m deep at the deepest, is Mollusc filter feeding could reduce reportedly silting up due to restriction of cur­ phytoplankton standing stocks on a localized I rent flow through culture systems and basis. Imai (1971) documented a reduction of sedimentation from the rafts (Ventilla, 1982). particulate matter of a magnitude of 76-95% In Hiroshima Bay, Japan, depositon from a 9 after passage through 11 rafts supporting x 18 m. oyster raft was estimated to be 40-50 50,000 to 90,000 oysters each. Reduced I tons (dry weight) annually and 6000 rafts were phytoplankton stock is a reason to locate large in the bay (Mottet, 1981). or intensive culture operations, or several cul­ ture operations in waterbodies with good cir­ I The potential for sediment buildup on the bot­ culation and productivity. Effects of tidal tom is highly site-specific. It may occur at action need to be considered in determining shallow Alaska sites where circulation is carrying capacity of bays for culture opera­ I restricted and tidal flushing does not occur tions and separation distances between farms. regularly. In the study area, divers observed only a minimal dusting of sediment under rafts Guideline 1b should address this concern. I in Canoe Lagoon (A. Grossman, pers. comm.). This site has been used for oyster

56 I I

I

I Effects On Benthic Communities reached stages of low spec~es num?ers ~ithin 6 months and original species dommant m th.e Should organic sediment a:cumulate ~~ ~he community disappeared after 15 months. S~ I bottom below floating manculture facilities, months after removal the bottom was stt~l the major effects would be on ?enthic animals, covered by 20-40 em of mussel s~e~s and sedi­ those living in or on the sediments. It;npact ments rich in sulphides. Only limited macro­ studies have been directed at larger mver­ benthic recovery occurred within a year and I tebrate animals such as polychaete worms, half. The area of organic enrichment ~as molluscs and crustaceans, all important com­ limited to within 20 m of the culture s1te. ponents 'of prey for ~po~tant commercial Dahlbaeck and Gunnarsson (1981) also ob­ I species of bottom feedmg fish. Weston (oJ?. served an accumulation of sediments rich i_n cit.) investigated it;npact~ ?ot~ on the benthic sulphides, and a progression towards anerobic community, orgamsms hvmg m close. con.tact sediments. I with sediments (burrowers and sessile filter feeders) and more mobile animals such as Intensive raft culture studies have been con­ crabs, starfish, and fish which are able to e~­ ducted in the rias of Spain. Two studies ploit food resource provi?e? by or~amc (Tenore et. al., 1982; Lopez-Jamar, !985 in I sedimentation but are not as mtlmately bed to Weston, 1986) documented a be~thic com­ sediment chemistry effects. munity under raft culture d?mm~ted. by polychaete worms, with species diversity, Weston (op cit.) provides. an excelle~~ sum­ I abundance, and biomass decreas~ng o~er mary of changes in benthic commumtles ~x­ time. Ria de Arousa supports an mtensive pected if sedimentation occurs, from wh1c~ raft culture that covers 10% of the surface the following description is taken. The addi­ area. However, it is very productive due to ex­ I tion of organic matter initi~lly enhances a tensive nutrient rich upwelling and high community; number of spectes, abundance, phytoplankton production. It s?pports abo?t and overall biomass increases as a food source 2000 rafts and has one of the highest protem I and nutrients attracts detritus and filter yields per unit area on earth. A comparison feeders. However, if additional organic mat­ study of Ria de Muro~ wit~ less than ~0,0 r:=tfts ter is deposited, eventually the number of documented a high diversity and equilibnum I species that can survive is very low. The few assembly on muddy sediments (Tenore et al., species present are very abund.ant ~nd 1982). biomass is high at this stage of orgamc ennch­ ment. At higher rates of organic input there A study in New Zealand documented I is a complete absence of benthic macrofauna, decreased diversity in sediments under mus­ due to absence of oxygen in bottom waters and sel culture and presence of polychaete worms sediments as water exchange of oxygen in contrast to brittle stars, molluscs, and crus­ I decreases and eventually becomes too low to taceans in a reference area (Kaspar et al., 1985 support aerobic organisms. Release of in Weston, 1986). Golikov et al. (19!9) hydrogen sulphide into the water column is reported increased biomass. and total ~esprra­ I toxic to shellfish, and occurs as a by-product tion under mussel culture m the Wh1te Sea. of metabolism by anerobic organisms. He did not provide information on species Development of an anerobic. sed~e~t lay~r diversity. Abundance and noted decreased also affects organisms that live Withm sedi­ productivity in reference areas was affec.ted by I ments (i.e., burrowers) since they also cannot siltation and unfavorable anthropogemc fac­ obtain oxygen and are eventually excluded. tors.

I In mussel farm effects studies in Sweden, Mat­ Sedimentation and resultant chemical chan­ tson and Linden (1983, in Weston, op. cit.) ob­ ges can affect organisms that burrow in!o sedi­ served this progression under a longline and ments, such as clams. They can contmue to also observed recovery after removal of a mus­ obtain oxygen through use of siphons from I sel culture facility that had been in operation for three years. The benthic community

I 57 I

I

water overlaying sediments, but mortality is decrease in abundance of food items can ef­ I likely as more sediments accumulate. fect the food chain. In extreme cases, mor­ Mobile benthic species appear to benefit from talities or toxic affects may occur in more all but the last stage of organic enrichment. mobile species associated with sediments and Romero et. al. (1982) documents a higher the overlying water column. Many site factors I density (up to six fold) of crabs under rafts influence occurance of adverse environmental than areas without rafts in Ria de Arousa in impacts. Baseline sediment chemistry and northwest Spain. He attributes this to their water quality, depth of water beneath the cul­ I opportunistic and mobile feeding habits. ture, and currents and circulation patterns in Other studies in the same area document in­ the waterbody are key variables determining creases in bottom fish that may benefit from the rate of accumulation of organic matter. I cover provided by shell deposits (Chesney and Areal facility extent and stocking rate are also Iglesias, 1979 in Romero et. al., 1982), higher key determinants on impact magnitude. density and biomass values and denser populations of echinoderms, especially sea Guidelines # 1a, 1b, 1c, Sa, 8b and 13c were I stars (Olaso, 1979 in Romero et. al., 1982) developed to avoid or minimize adverse im­ under rafts. Weston (1986) cites studies with pacts to benthic communities as a result of or­ similar findings in Puget Sound (Pease and ganic sedimentation. I Goodwin, unpub.), in New Zealand (Kaspar et. al., 1985), additional studies on Ria de Arosa in Spain (Tenore et. al., 1982; Lopez­ Suspension from Poles I Jamar, 1984), and in Sweden (Mattsson and Linden, 1983). Mussels which fall from rafts Use of poles or pilings set in an intertidal area provide for growth of organisms and attract is a method of mussel and oyster mariculture I predators. Epifauna from rafts provides a utilized in France (Magoon and Vining, 1981) food source for fish and starfish. Conversely, and for net culture of Nori in Japan. Similar he cites a study in Japan (Ito and Imai, 1955) techniques are being employed in Washington which documents an elimination of starfish in (Washington DNR, 1987). Use of the inter­ I Japan in an area of extreme organic enrich­ tidal area permits a period of drying which ment under oyster cultures. Some areas of in­ may kill fouling organisms on nets and rearing tensive scallop culture in Japan appear to have structures. Boucbot culture of oysters and I reached a maximum capacity for production. mussels in France involves attachment of net­ Densely stocked areas, such as Lake Saroma ting or strings directly onto wooden poles. and Mutsu Bay, have experienced massive Culture grounds are fairly extensive on a mortality believed to be due, in part, to declin­ mudflat area and truck access is used to I ing water quality and toxic hydrogen sulfide replace pilings or perform various culture production from bottom sediments (Motoda, techniques. Siltation problems have been en­ 1977). This form of intensive mariculture countered due to its location at a river mouth I developed over many years and can be and connection of an extensive pole gridwork avoided in Alaska with careful siting and with interwoven branches (Korringa, 1979). monitoring of bottom conditions as culture in­ Other techniques using stakes set in intertidal I tensity increases. zones extending 6-8" above the bottom and "umbrella" culture with radiating ropes at­ In summary, organic matter accumulation and tached to stakes are described by Magoon and a typical sequence of benthic changes can be Vining (1981) as suitable for use in I expected under suspended shellfish culture Washington. They recommended use of facilities, unless bottom currents are sufficient cedar, redwood, creosoted fir, or plastic to disperse the sediment. If accumulation is stakes, and reported PVC structures also I deep enough and an anerobic sediment layer worked well. Nori net poles are traditionally forms, the benthic community closely tied to bamboo, but a recent use of fiberglass has life in or on the sediments and oxygen been innovative. presence will be eliminated. In addition to I loss of habitat for a particular species, a

58 I I

I

Pole suspension or pilings result in impacts to Guidelines 1e 13a, 13b and 14d were I the intertidal area. Driving of piles or stakes developed to av~id or minimize potential im­ might require access by heavy equipment and pacts of Nori farming maintenance might require vehicle access. I These operations result in compaction of the substrate and loss of benthic habitat. Similar Intertidal and Submerged effects on organic matter sedime~t~tion cou_ld Structures I occur in absence of currents sufficient to dis­ perse sediments. Racks are used in the intertidal area to keep oysters separated for the half-shell trade: In I Guidelines lb, lc and 13a were developed to Washington, cut lumber or poles are dnven avoid or minimize these impacts. into low intertidal areas as uprights to support shallow trays (Magoon and Vining, 1981). Washington DNR (1987) id~ntified p~tential Shallow water racks are used for Japanese I significant impacts from Non farms to ~elude oyster culture or fixed to the ?otton,t beyo~d shading of eelgrass or seaweed beds, disrup­ intertidal range, and also mterttdally m tion of salmon migration and herring or s~elt France (Glude, 1979). In British Columbia, I spawning, restriction of travel b~ .man.ne racks built at different tidal levels are used to mammals and disturbance of sensttlve brrd transplant oysters between intertidal and sub­ species i~ nesting areas and overwintering merged conditions at different life stages areas (bald eagles, osprey, herons, trumpeter (Gunn et. al., 1983). A new technique in I swans, peregrine falcons, waterfowl.) British Columbia makes use of rebar supports for cedar frames and plastic "pillow" bags with Nori is generally farmed where the bottom is mesh tubing for young oysters. Areas are covered with loose sediment for ease in I chosen for exposure to air 1-2 times per month anchoring structures. Eelgrass grow~ on for fouling control (J. Hemming, pers. similar bottom types and needs surface light. comm.). In Germany, a submerged tray array Nori nets or rafts sited over eelgrass beds I has been designed. Trays are perforated plas­ could reduce available light for eelgrass, tic in a steel framework which is maintained resulting in lower productivity, food chain ef­ by use of a barge mounted crane ( Glude, 1979; fects on fish and birds, and loss of substrate Meixner, 1979). I stability. Other seaweeds, such as bull kelp (Nereocystis Juetkeana) grow attached to Potential impacts of this technique are similar rocky substrates and are less likely to be im­ as those for pole culture. The racks would also pacted. They would foul and damage Nori I shade areas underneath them. culture so the presence of kelp would make the site undesirable. Guidelines lb, lc and 13a were developed to I Structures could disrupt migration of salmon avoid or minimize these types of impacts. or act as hiding areas for predators on salmon. Herring could spawn on the Nori. Structures I offshore of traditional beach spawning areas Bottom Culture could alter wave action and change conditions for herring and smelt spawning. No data is Oyster bottom culture has occurred historical­ I available on the impacts of existing Nori farms ly in Alaska (Else, Paust, and Burns, 1985), but on salmon because they have been sited in it is not currently practiced. Bottom culture depths greater than 10 feet which avoids areas may involve enhancing natural beds of scal­ used by outmigration of young salmonids, but lops or mussels or in creation of beds of these I potential for adverse impacts exists species or of oysters in areas where they are (Washington DNR, 1987). not growing naturally. Enhancement or crea­ tion of sea vegetable beds by placement of ar­ I tificial substrates could occur, but any effect of localized change to the substrate would be

I 59 I

I outweighed by the generally productive na­ them, and eventually establishing a natural I ture of sea vegetable bed habitats. Converse· system producing both kelp and urchins (Mot­ ly, the specific impact of bottom culturing tet, 1981). Labor intensive means which are shellfish on existing benthic communities not lethal exist to control predators. Use of depends on the following: 1) composition of lime may have negative impacts on nontarget I communities, 2) outcome of competition be­ organisms. Dredges have been used to collect tween natural community residents and cul­ seed (Wallace and Reisnes, 1985), transplant tured species for space and nutrients, and 3) animals at certain growth stages to other bot­ I predation rates on cultured species. These tom areas at a different tidal level or to float­ types of impacts are impossible to quantify or ing culture and to harvest animals. Should this predict. practice be proposed in Alaska, potential for I significant adverse impacts is high. The im­ Certain measures used elsewhere could result pact of dredges on scallop beds has been a in impacts if permitted in Alaska. Elimination problem in regulating commercial harvests of competitors or predators offers advantages from natural beds, which eventually decline I and disadvantages. Measures described in after repeated harvests. Selective harvest of the manual about shellfish growing in Puget larger scallops is difficult to achieve because Sound include placement of shell, gravel, selective gear is soon clogged with debris and I veneer cuttings, thin plastic sheetings below large animals block escape of smaller animals. crushed shell, or gravel to provide a firmer Caddy (1973, in MacKenzie, 1979) reports ef­ substrate in areas with soft bottoms as well as fects of scallop dredging in the Gulf of St. I ploughing sandy bottoms, destroying eelgrass Lawrence include: 1) mortality of younger beds by covering them with plastic or roofing, scallops from mechanical damage during and altering tidal levels through fill. Magoon dredging or return to beds, 2) sublethal and Vining (1981), report the pesticide Sevin, damage to scallops left in dredge tracks, 3) dis­ I which can be lethal to young crabs and other turbance and roughening of the bottom, 4) sil­ organisms, is used extensively by Washington tation and packing of young scallops with sand oyster-growers. Quayle (1969) describes the or silt, and 5) attraction of predatory fish and I problem of ghost shrimp which can burrow ex­ crabs to dredge tracks. He documents den­ tensively and soften oyster grounds. Use of sities of3 to 30 times greater inside tracks than heavy equipment or plastic sheeting to crush outside after dredging. A study in New or suffocate them is recommended. None of Zealand (cited in Blackett, 1987) also docu­ I these techniques have been proposed in Alas­ ments high mortalities of young scallops as­ ka; they are provided as examples of what is sociated with dredging; beds seeded with described as acceptable techniques in other scallops at densities of 10/square meter has a I areas and to illustrate potential impacts. survival rate of 20% after 9 months while those which had been dredged has a survival In areas other than Alaska where bottom cul­ rate of .8%. I ture is practiced, predators are eliminated by lethal means. In Japan, starfish and sea Guidelines 1d, 1e and 1f were developed to squirts are removed by either dredging or avoid or minimize these types of impacts. liming (Ventilla, 1982; Wakui, 1983), fisher­ I men are required to catch and kill a quota of starfish (Mottet, 1979), and oyster drills are lntertida~ Hand~ing collected manually at low tide (Glude and I Chew, 1982). Starfish were removed from Use of intertidal areas adjacent to floating seeded natural beds of scallops in England facilities is often desirable to hold animals out (Mason, 1983). Urchins can be a significant of water or in conditions where they are ex­ I kelp predator and efforts for control have in­ posed to air at least part of the day. Air drying cluded use of quicklime and hammers (North, of rafts or nets is also a recommended techni­ 1973). However, in Japan, where urchins are que to control many forms of fouling (Else, I eaten, one experiment involved culturing Paust, and Burns, 1985; Nicholson, 1987). In seaweed to fatten urchins, then harvesting

60 I I

I

I Alaska, it can be expected that at a minimum, Guideline lb should minimize this type of im­ oysters and mussels will r~quire ? ,Period of pact should fertilization ever be proposed. holding out of the water while awa1tmg results of PSP tests. I Potential Impacts Common to Impacts on intertidal areas depend on the ac­ tivity particularly if equipment is used to all Facilities I transport or process shellfish, or if structures Introduction of Exotics are constructed. Compaction of the substrate, pollution, disturbance, and elimination of ex­ The introduction of exotic species is of pos­ I isting intertidal communities are potential ad­ sible concern from the standpoint of competi­ verse impacts. tion with native species and the possibility of introducing associated organisms that may Site selection should include the location of have negative effects on native species. The I intertidal areas with relatively low produc­ ADF&G has adopted a conservative policy tivity (i.e., gravel or sand beaches) that can be toward introductions which should avoid used for equipment drying and hardening so these negative effects. Currently, the only I that impacts to high-value habitats (e.g. species that can legally be imported into Alas­ vegetated tideflats or sensitive habitats such ka for use in mariculture is Japanese oyster as shellfish beds) can be avoided. (Crassotrea gigas) in spat form from approved I sources. Due to lack of hatchery and Guidelines 1f and lg were developed to min­ laboratory facilities in Alaska for early stages imize these types of impacts. of shellfish and seaweeds culture, it is likely mariculturists will be interested in importing I seedstocks of exotic species and of species na­ Fertilization tive to Alaska. Nori in particular would have to be cultured as an exotic species. Otherwise, I Fertilization is used to increase nutrient sup­ development of techniques adapted to in­ plies to seaweed cultures (Saito, 1979). A digenous species would take at least 10 years. Report from the Swedish Steering Council for This situation has prompted a continuous ef­ I Planning and Coordination of Research fort to develop a plant mariculture policy for ( 1983) described the addition of 90% nitrogen Alaska. A committee of pathologists, - 10% potassium pellets to Nori farms in Japan botanists, invertebrate zoologists, and and use of 1 kg of fertilizer to produce 3. 75 kg prospective mariculturists is working to en­ I of Lamjnaria. An experiment in California, sure a responsible approach. (M. Kaill, however, resulted in a finding of no significant ADF&G) differences in growth of either Macrocyst is or I Porpbyra following fertilization (Fei, 1983). Under current policy, potential for spread of exotics is extremely low. Japanese oyster Fertilization may be proposed in Alaska as a should not compete with native species if ac­ I technique to increase the nutrient supply in a cidentally released into the wild, because it has localized area. Nutrient addition could offset never reproduced under Alaskan conditions. any localized effects of nutrient depletion However, Nicholson (1987) reports observing resulting from culture. As an example, some gonadal development of cultured I nitrogen, which is generally the limiting oysters within the study area after unusual nutrient to production in marine systems, will conditions of high water temperatures be added. It is possible fertilization could lead reached 70 degrees for 3-5 days. Conditions I to eutrophication, reduction in dissolved were followed by a massive mortality. Impor­ oxygen content, and changes in bottom sedi­ tation of Japanese Nori strains appear to be ment chemistry in areas of restricted water of concern due to their performance in Japan. flows and poor circulation. One species, Porpbyra yezoensis, has been I cultured beyond its natural range and has al-

I 61 I

I most entirely displaced f.~ (Kafuku and creased human infection from sedimentation I Ikenoue, 1983). However, the two Japanese onto natural shellfish beds where bacteria species have been introduced into would thrive under conditions of high organic Washington and have never been found grow­ input and where filter feeding molluscs would I ing wild there. Water temperatures are colder bioaccumulate pathogens. He describes than those in Japan where reproduction oc­ several factors which he concludes contribute curs (Washington, DNR, 1987). to a low incidence of infections in humans in general and could find little evidence maricul­ I Stringent stock certification and inspection ture contributes to proliferation of bacteria programs currently required in Alaska can and strains pathogenic to humans. However, avoid accidental importation of exotic he did recommend floating facilities not be I predators and disease organisms. It is sited over harvestable shellfish beds to avoid desirable to avoid adverse effects on native sedimentation effects and noted this restric­ species, such as those created by Japanese tion would also minimize risk of pathogenic oyster drill (Ocenebra japonica), introduced bacteria transmission to humans. I into Washington, and now a major predator on native oysters (Weston, 1986). Adopting a siting guideline such as 1e adds another safeguard to already stringent policy I Guideline 15a currently established in law, is toward importation of exotics and certifica­ included to avoid these types of impacts. tion of stocks as disease free. I Disease Transmission Disease and Parasite Control

Disease transmission from cultured to wild In the event disease or parasite infestations animals is a major possible concern related to should occur, efforts to prevent or control dis­ I importation of broodstocks and exotic ease and parasites, and disposal of diseased species investigated by Weston ( op.cit. ). Con­ animals could result in impacts on native servative importation policies of ADF&G stocks. Recommended methods of control I minimize potential that diseased organisms vary based on cultured species and disease or would be introduced into Alaska. A stringent parasite involved. policy is needed because cultured animals are at higher densities than under natural condi­ Three shellfish species likely to be cultured in I tions, facilitating disease spread. Very dense Alaska have all experienced massive mor­ stocking results in stress that makes organisms talities under some culture conditions in other more susceptible to diseases and pathogens areas of the world. Disease organisms have I which may only become virulent under such rarely been identified as causative factors; conditions. The basis for human health con~ rather, death has generally been attributed to cerns is the food chain effects ofbioconcentra­ physiological changes resulting from stressful I tion occuring when pathogens accumulate in environmental conditions such as prolonged shellfish or fish which are subsequently har~ high water temperatures (Chew, 1987) or vested from cultures or from native popula~ rough seas and wave rocking action (Motoda, tions, in close proximity to mariculture 1977); improper handling of spat or seed I operations. (Ventilla, 1982; Wakui, 1983), and over stock­ ing and resulting changes in water quality (i.e., If bacteria of the genus Yi.brio. were to spread self pollution) (Motoda, 1977; Koganezawa, I from cultured stocks to natural stocks, this or­ 1979; Mottet, 1981; Ventilla, 1982; Wakui, ganism would be of particular concern, be­ 1983). Sinderman (1979) reviews many dif­ cause various species are pathogenic to ferent and complex causes of oyster mor­ I shellfish, salmon, and humans and they are talities and identifies several oyster disease widespread in occurrence. Weston (1986) organisms. reviews available information about linkage between mariculture and increased incidence Sinderman (1979) recommends methods for I of Yi.brio.. He describes a possible route of in- control of disease in oyster culture to include

62 I I

I

I environmental manipulation through cleaning Predator Control Techniques and dead shell beds, selective use of chemicals, and Disturbance removal of intermediate or reservoir hosts; As described above, mariculture involves I and of stock manipulation through moving oysters to less saline growing areas, planting maximizing single species productivity. at low densities, suspending at specific depths, Depending on natural populations present, moving oysters to low nutrient waters for part eliminating competitors or predators may be I of the season, planting seed late, and harvest­ desirable from the standpoint of the farmer. ing early. He notes only one recommendation Mariculture can also involve considerable has been made for chemical control using or­ human activity resulting in disturbance and I ganic mercury salts in early 1950's and this displacement of species which cannot tolerate recommendation would not be made at the noise or pollution. Finally, species such as time the article was presented because of bears may become problems because of toxicity of these salts to other organisms. He human confrontation and mariculturists may I also notes artificial propagation and develop­ desire to eliminate them as well. Site selec­ ment of disease resistant oyster stocks as a tion can avoid impacts to species likely to be­ potential control technique. come competitors or predators or which are I sensitive to human disturbance by avoiding Methods recommended for disease control do known concentration areas. Wildlife species not appear to pose potential adverse environ­ that are of concern to the aquatic farmer be­ I mental impacts. As described above, strin­ cause they are "preditors" on a particular cul­ gent control of exotic seedstock importation ture may be a concern to regulatory agencies should minimize potential spread of exotic ?ecause th_e newly found food supply is bring­ disease organisms. mg them m human contact. The intruding I human presence may disturb species in their In Scotland, mussels are parasitized by pea habitat and the availability of the new food crabs (Pinnotheres spp.) and red worm supply may turn them into predators which if I (Myticola intestinalis) (Edwards, 1984). In undisturbed, they would not be. ' Netherlands, parasites are a major mortality factor in culture of oyster species Q.s.trea. Hanging culture eliminates the majority of predation problems from bottom dwelling I ~ (Glude, 1979). Scallops also have naturally occurring parasites (Mottet 1979· predators such as sea stars, carnivorous snails Ventilla, 1982). Suspended culture h~s bee~ and various crabs. Efforts are generally un~ described as a technique which minimizes dertaken to remove starfish and other inver­ I parasite problems (Herriott, 1984). Con­ tebrate predators that attach to cultures or tinued vigilance and stringent controls over enter spat ~ollecting devices and trays by hand, importation of exotic seedstocks should mini­ but there ts generally no need to kill them. I mize the potential for exotic parasite intro­ Starfish occasionally enter suspended trays as duction into Southeast Alaska ecosystems. larvae and grow large enough to consume small oysters (Church, pers. comm.). Starfish Fungal, viral, and bacterial diseases have been reportedly require only a single removal from I discovered in Lamjnaria and Porphyra culture mussel culture (Herriott, 1984 ). and epiphytic growth of various organisms is Culture operations in areas other than Alas­ a problem (Neish, 1979). Techniques sug­ ka have involved killing of invertebrate I gested by guidelines established by predators by use of quicklime (Magoon and Washington Department of Natural Resour­ Vining, 1981), but this practice can also kill ces (1984) which spell out standard proce­ many other animals as well. Some efforts may I dures for combatting these problems in Nori be made to trap crabs particularly in the culture would not cause any adverse environ­ vicinity of intertidal storage areas; crabs can mental impacts. Offering alternate food sour­ be used for human food in accordance with ces or enclosure in synthetic cages has been sport fishery regulations. Predation problems I tried for protection. can be minimized with other types of rearing structures by repeated checking and removal.

I 63 I

I

Marine mammals, some furbearer species, tures while their presence may benefit I some invertebrate species, and a variety of seaweed cultures. bird species are attracted to mariculture facilities to prey on concentrated food source JBased on a study of food habits in Cholmon­ I of their traditional food items .. Predators on deley Sound, land otters are primarily fish fish or shellfish cultures in Alaska are likely to eaters in Southeastern Alaska, although iden­ include mink, land otters, harbor seals, sea tification of shelled molluscs in scats is dif­ lions, sea otters, bald eagles, herons, seaters ficult if they are able to remove shells (Larsen, I and other diving ducks, and gulls. Sea lions, 1983). A study in the same area on mink food sea otters, seaters and diving ducks, and gulls habits concludes mink forage in lower inter­ are most likely to prey on shellfish cultures. tidal zones, feeding primarily on crabs, near­ I Also, sea urchins, herbivorous fish, and some shore fish, and isopods. Quantification of the grazing snails may reduce productivity of importance of bivalves in their diet was seaweed culture through intensive grazing. described as problematical (Johnson, 1985). Johnson ( op. cit.) cites a study of mink trapped I Steller sea lions prey on a wide variety of in the Petersburg -Wrangell area which docu­ fishes and invertebrates, including bivalves ments a high percentage of clams in mink such as clams and mussels. Based on review stomachs (Croxton, 1960 in Johnson, 1985). A I offood habit studies in the Gulf of Alaska, re­ shellfish culture could attract mink and otter searchers speculate importance of schooling and result in predation. Church observed fish species might indicate a foraging strategy mink feeding on crab and other organisms in I that minimizes effort and conserves energy surface oyster trays but not on oysters at a (ADF&G, 1985). While shellfish are often Blashke Islands culture site. not the most important component of their diet when schooling fish are available, Several species of diving ducks feed heavily on I presence of concentrated bivalve cultures may bivalve molluscs. Seaters, goldeneyes, and be extremely attractive to this opportunistic harlequin ducks, in particular, feed heavily on predator. mussels and may also find oysters palatable. I One oyster farmer in the Blashke Islands Sea otters are the predators most likely to con­ reported no problems with bird predation on flict with shellfish mariculture because of diet surface trays (John Church, pers. comm.) preferences and their expanding range in Gulls are opportunistic predators and may I Alaska. Reduced to near extinction in the also prey on shellfish cultures; experimental early 1900's, rehabilitation efforts have bouchot culture of mussels was subject to resulted in repopulation of historical habitat, severe gull predation in Ireland (Herriott, I with scattered groups occurring throughout 1984). southeastern Alaska. Sea otters have a high­ ly variable and opportunistic diet which has in­ Lethal methods of predator control offer the I eluded purple hinged scallops, mussels, and a greatest impact mariculture could have on ex­ variety of clams. They tend to concentrate on isting native wildlife. If facilities are not a single prey item, feeding on it until it is dras­ properly sited to avoid predation problems, tically reduced. They also have an important killing predators cannot be assumed to be an I "keystone" role influencing stability of near­ acceptable means of control due to the current shore communities. When introduced into an statutory and regulatory protection of most area with kelp beds, they can control macro­ species. ADF&G considers mariculture I invertebrates feeding on kelp, such as sea ur­ facilities to be attractive nuisances to chins. This shifts kelp beds towards higher predators and does not favor destruction of productivity which supports higher concentra­ predators under 5 AAC 92.410 (a)(2) which I tions of small herbivores in turn supporting permits taking of animals in defense of life or higher populations of fish that prey on small property under some circumstances (Alaska herbivores (ADF&G, 1985). Sea otters are Interagency Mariculture Workgroup, 1988). potentially serious predators on shellfish cui- Other restrictions on harassment or killing of I marine mammals, of migratory birds, or of

64 I I

I

I bald eagles exist in federal law, in Marine areas appears to be more difficult to ac­ Mammals Protection Act, Migratory Bird complish in Alaska without resorting to lethal Treaty Act, and Bald Eagle Protection Act, means used elsewhere. Starfish are frequent respectively. predators on shellfish. They are widespread I and abundant in productive intertidal areas Jefferds (1987) reports on chronic problems which are suitable for bottom culture. A with seater predation of mussel rafts in variety of boring snails (whelks and drills) also I Washington. A variety of techniques were occur; their potential as oyster predators is tried, ofwhich net enclosure of rafts was most not known. In fact, many descriptions of bot­ successful. He notes a problem with gulls able tom culture practices throughout the world to get between the logs of mussel rafts from emphasize cost considerations of methods above and unable to get out either through the which are generally less expensive than float­ net or between logs. Several were drowned ing culture and describe lower productivity but predation on mussels did not appear to be due to predation as an accepted consequence I significant. Line or string can also be strung of selecting this method. as a web to minimize bird predation from the air (Herriott, 1984; M. King, pers. comm.). Human activity associated with all maricul­ I Canadian Department of Fisheries and ture can displace species from preferred Oceans (1986) recommends sheet metal col­ habitats or important concentration areas. lars on cables, boom sticks, and stifflegs which These species include harbor seals, whale are attached to shore to prevent passage of species, bald eagles, and many species of I furbearers onto floating structures. A French waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and crab fence has been designed with plastic seabirds. Sensitive habitat areas include har­ mesh walls supported by uprights with out­ bor seal haul outs and pupping areas, heron I sloping eaves dug into the beach to protect rookeries, bald eagle nests, perch trees, water­ mussel rafts (Herriott, 1984). Finally, netting fowl concentration areas, and seabird nesting has been used successfully in beach culture of colonies. I Manilla clam to exclude moon snails and other predators (Chew 1987) and in culture of but­ Improper disposal of garbage and waste from ter clams to reduce predation by crabs, sea shore based facilities may attract brown or stars, and seaters (Gunn et al., 1983). black bears. Church (pers. comm.) reported I bears have destroyed beached oyster culture The Alaska Oystergrowers' Manual (Else, structures on some occasions, possibly be­ Paust, and Burns 1985) recommends use of cause of its attractive smell as fouling or­ I mesh or plywood covers over oyster tray rafts ganisms die and decay. Mariculturists create to keep out birds and bears. Fencing has been an attractive nuisance in these situations. recommended to keep crabs out of intertidal Human development, in general, results in I storage areas (Glude, 1979) and cages have negative impacts on bear populations through been used to protect seaweed seedlings from displacement and bear mortalities following predation by grazing snails (Saito, 1979). bear and human confrontations.

I Placing crops which may be taken by predators Guidelines 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, lOa, near the surface has been recommended for lOb, lOc, lOd, 10e, 10f, 14a, 14c, and 14d were seaweed (Saito, 1979) and for mussels. Gunn developed to avoid or minimize these types of I et al. (1983) finds the provision of a sacrifice conflicts. crop of mussels near the surface results in a productive crop 5-10 m below surface in an Fouling Control Techniques I area with severe duck predation in British Columbia. Organisms which grow naturally on a sub­ strate of bivalve shells, on the surface of Whereas a variety of measures exist to mini­ seaweed, or on mariculture structures are con­ I mize predation problems on hanging cultures, sidered to be fouling the culture. As described eliminating predators from bottom culture in Capability sections for each species, fouling

I 65 I

I organisms can reduce productivity through to dry out on a sunny, windy day, 4) cleaning I competition for nutrients or food items, gear by removing it from the water for at least parasitism, or restriction of water flow. De­ one week then leaving it in half tide level for gree of fouling varies with site conditions; scavenging, 5) manual scrubbing, and 6) clean­ however sites with high phytoplankton ing with pressure hoses. Else, Paust, and I productivity suitable for shellfish culture are Burns ( op. cit.) describe biological control of ones most likely to have a high level of fouling fouling organisms using their natural organisms. Fouling has made culture of some predators, an innovative approach which I species of seaweeds in Puget Sound (Mum­ would restore some of the complexity to the ford and Melvin, 1983) and of scallops in hang­ culture habitat which is necessarily reduced by ing culture in New Zealand (Blackett, 1987) attempts to cultivate monocultures. economically unfeasible. I In some areas, antifouling chemicals have Major techniques for fouling control include: been used on structures but because these ( 1) air drying rearing structures and cultures work by killing marine organisms, they may I to kill fouling organisms which cannot tolerate kill many nontarget organisms and may also prolonged exposure (Korringa, 1979, Magoon bioaccumulate in cultured animals. One sub­ and Vining, 1981; Kafuku and Ikenoue, 1983), stance, tributyltin or TBT, has been prohibited I 2) timing seedjspat collection or outplanting for sale by statute in Alaska. Impacts could to avoid the settling of encrusting organisms occur in beach or intertidal areas where gear (Ren-Zhi et al., 1984, Mumford and Melvin, or cultures are beached, particularly if 1983), 3) increasing stocking density by reduc­ wheeled or heavy equipment is used. Siting of I ing spacing on ropes and strings (Mumford mariculture facilities should take into account and Melvin, 1983), 4) suspending cultures the proximity of beach areas of low biological lower in the water column e.g. below 5-6 m. for productivity (e.g., gravel or sand beaches I scallops in Japan, (Motoda, 1977; Mottet, suitable for beaching or treating equipment to 1979) and below 5-10 m. for mussels in British the site of floating culture structures. With ex­ Columbia (Gunn et. al., 1983) or lowering ception of the use of antifouling substances, I them only during time of settlement, e.g. to recommended methods of fouling control below 30m. in Japan for scallops to avoid bar­ should not result in adverse environmental nacle setting (Ventilla, 1982); and 5) manual impacts. scrubbing or cleaning with high pressure hoses I (Magoon and Vyning, 1981); and 6) biological Guideline 9d and 14b were developed to min­ control, using natural herbivores or predators imize impacts of fouling control. (Else, Paust, and Burns 1985). Other recom­ I mended techniques for seaweed cultures in­ Disposal of Wastes clude immersion of seaweed nets in citric acid and use of chafers, small discs on lines (Mum­ Mariculture operations can generate a variety I ford and Melvin, 1983). Else (1985) recom­ of potentially polluting wastes. These wastes mends the following techniques for oyster include solid waste, sewage, waste oil, dis­ culture in Alaska: 1) siting in areas with tidal eased or spoiled animals, etc. Improper dis­ action to discourage settling of fouling or­ posal of garbage or organic wastes is of I ganisms, 2) deep suspension to discourage particular concern where it may become at­ seaweed attachment and deter barnacle and tractive to brown or black bears. mussel setting in the spring, 3) allowing rafts I I I

66 I I

I

I CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USERS

I Mariculture is a relatively new industry in energy developments, and cattle ranching. Alaska and has potential to conflict with es­ Developers need assurance of long term tablished uses. Many existing uses are dis­ property rights to secure financing and so they I persed over large areas while other activities don't lose control of sites in which they have likely to produce pollution are localized. made significant capital investments. DNR's These conditions provide opportunities to site responsibility is to ensure that commitment of mariculture facilities to avoid conflict with state lands will be lawful, in the public's best I other users. Not all conflicts can be resolved, interest and will produce viable new in­ but most can. dustries, useful products, stable jobs, and hopefully a fair market value. I Resource agencies in Alaska sometimes lack detailed information on all uses occurring in Other resource agencies such as ADF&G and Alaska's vast coastal areas. Use patterns can DEC review development proposals under I be dynamic, varying dramatically in response their statutory authorities and also provide to changes in natural conditions and govern­ guidance to DNR for development and ment regulations. Resource agencies conduct protection of resources in their areas of planning and permit review processes to responsibility. These agencies and others I provide opportunities for existing and poten­ share in the Alaska Coastal Management tial resource users to identify their needs. Program (ACMP) which provides for a coor­ dinated review of all coastal development in I Stringent water quality standards for growth Alaska. of marketable seafood products will limit the Aquatic farming may become a significant suitability of sites to those physically located long term use of state tide and submerged I separate from areas with waste discharges. lands. Alaska must achieve balance in its Determining acceptable separation distances regulatory programs which will allow this in­ will help guide any conflict resolution process dustry to thrive, while at the same time and will determine areas where mariculture protecting existing uses of land. Problems I and other uses are incompatible. that may occur if balance is not acheived in­ clude displacement of public uses such as This section will discuss major conflicts with recreation and fish and wildlife harvest, con­ I other users of Alaska's coastal resources. flicts with other commercial uses of tide and submerged lands, land speculation, impacts on adjacent land holders, and stifling of an I Land Management Issues emerging industry. Resource agencies share responsibilities for I development of new industries that depend on Mariculture Development Land public resources for development. Primary Use Needs land use manager for the state is the Depart­ ment of Natural Resources (DNR). DNR is Successful mariculture developments share a I responsible for developing these resources number of basic requirements. Foremost while at the same time providing for resource among these is a need to secure appropriate conservation and protection. sites. Desirable features of a mariculture site I are also often desirable for other uses, such as DNR historically has been the state agency anchorages. Even in rural Alaska, it is a rare facing new industries needing access and use mariculture site that does not also attract of state land, such as prospective barley farms, other users. I coal mines, petrochemical plants, shore based seafood processing facilities, geothermal

I 67 I

I

Resolution of use conflict usually involves two tivities. While longlines require only surface I approaches: floats in contrast to log boom structures com­ monly used as rafts, very extensive longline 1. Separating uses geographically. Compet­ grids are used in other countries such as Japan ing uses can often be separated to avoid con­ (see Table 3-4). I flicts. Floating culture of shellfish and seawe~d ~re commonly kept separate through negot1at10n I 2. Mitigating measures, such as site de~ign, timing restrictions on use, or access corndor in other countries. Japanese, fishing coopera­ tives allocate uses, prohibiting fishing boats stipulations may allow more than one use of and nets in areas of seaweed culture, (Olson, I a site and resolve conflict. 1987) and prohibiting suspended culture .in nearshore areas where fishing rights are mam­ Unfortunately, not all conflicts can _be tained over bottom culture areas (Ito et. al., resolved to allow multiple use of the same site. 1975). I It is then the land managers responsibility to determine best use of state lands. Such con­ Aesthetic conflicts are less tangible than flicts are more likely to occur in areas not physical displacement. Lo~glines may be le~s I covered by an appropriate land use plan. Ex­ objectionable than rafts m tert?s of then perience has been, however, that many con­ visibility, however some people obJect to float­ flicts can be resolved using the State's coastal ing structures in front of .recreatio_n?l. homes management program project consistency or cabins, and to associated actlvttles and I review system. This system ha~ been noise resulting from mariculture operations. developed and refined by st~te agenctes ov_er Aesthetic objections from recreational home many years of permit revtew and confhct owners have been an issue in New Zealand I resolution. (Dias 1984), in Washington (Freeman, 1985; E. Hurlburt, pers. comm., 1988), and in British Columbia (Butler, 1986). I Displacement of Public Use Structures on tidelands can physically displace or obstruct other uses requiring surface ac­ Recreation I cess. Mariculturists sometimes apply for use Expectations and desires for seclusion when of areas larger than the physical dimensions recreating in rural Alaska is highly valued by of proposed structures (see Table3-3) to min­ residents and visitors. A mariculture facility, I imize impacts to their operations from other particularly with caretaker facilities located in human activities. Physical displacement can a smaller cove, will essentially eliminate that exist for farm site as well as for upland sense of seclusion for recreation users. Those I facilities. This may affect an even larger area recreation users tend to find other secluded if other human activities require a degree of and aesthetically pleasing areas. Coastal solitude. resources may receive competing uses in I many areas. Degree and intensity of recrea­ Culture technique is one variable determ~ing tion pursuits are difficult to define and may be if displacement will occur, and the magnitude dynamic in nature. Rur~l coas~a.l. areas of physical displacement. Bottom c~lture and receive dispersed recreatiOn activities by I submerged structures have least tmpact on small groups or individuals at widespread and natural resource harvest, boating and on aes­ diverse sites. thetic enjoyment, but may displace fish a~d I wildlife harvests of bottom dwelling spectes Mariculture development has the potential to such as crab and clams. block or inhibit public access to coastal recrea­ tion areas. The ACMP recreation standard I Both longlines and rafts can interfere with requires state agencies to give high priority to recreational and commercial harvest ac-

68 I I

I

maintaining public access to coastal waters. ment of dumping facilities in more commer­ I Mariculture operations that would form a bar­ cial harbors may also help to alleviate sewage rier between coastal waters and shorelines, or problems. that would prohibit access to important costal I areas, could be found inconsistent with ACMP Proposals for mariculture sites proposed in requirements. known anchorages should include alternate anchorages nearby. High use anchorages with I no nearby alternative anchorages will have difficulty being permitted or leased for Anchorages mariculture sites. Smaller, secondary I Potential conflicts exist between anchorages anchorages with alternate anchorages nearby and mariculture development. Mariculture will probably be more successful in obtaining sites need room for floats, rafts and other necessary authorizations. waterborne structures. They also need pris­ I tine waters free from high coliform counts and Mitigating measures for this conflict usually other forms of pollutants. Some organisms means locating the two facilities far enough and growing facilities are adversely affected apart so there is no conflict. Another poten­ I by waves from boat wakes. tial mitigating measure might be adoption of a "relay" system. Under this system shellfish Boats need room to maneuver and anchor. are taken from contaminated or polluted I Some boats inadvertently discharge waste areas to noncontaminated waters. Shellfish products into water. Some boat operators are held for a minimum of two weeks to may ignore sound waste management proce· cleanse themselves. Testing indicates when dures and choose to discharge contaminants the acceptable product is released for sale. I at will. Not all boat harbors in Southeast Alas· Actual time for this cleansing process may be ka have adequate holding tank pumping sta­ considerably more than two weeks. tions available making it difficult for even conscientious boaters to comply. Relaying has not been tried in Alaska. It may I require substantial handling and facilities that Raw sewage means contamination of marine would add to the cost of products. Further organisms by coliforms. Waste products such testing would be needed if this system is con­ I as chlorine used by some boats to flush sewage sidered. tanks and bilges are highly toxic to mariculture organisms. Heavy metals associated with fuel I and oil wastes are readily absorbed and held Fish and Wildlife Harvest by many species of sea vegetables. Recently passed legislation requires that I Current information indicates large, heavily regulations must provide for the considera­ used anchorages, or small, strategically lo­ tion of upland management policies and cated anchorages and mariculture facilities whether the proposed use of a site is com­ are incompatible. Sewage, chlorine from patible with the traditional and existing uses I sewage systems, diesel, oils or other waste of the area in which the site is located. Both products discharged from boats near a longline and raft culture techniques involve mariculture facility may result in unacceptab­ structures that can interfere with commercial I ly high coliform counts or other forms of pol­ and noncommercial harvest of fish and lution. Infrequent boat activity, that does not wildlife. Longlines require only floats on the discharge harmful products into the water is surface, in contrast to log boom structures I not a major problem. commonly used as rafts. Extensive longline grids are in use in other countries. (See table This situation could be improved by the com­ 3-4) pliance by all boats holding sewage and waste I products for acceptable disposal. Develop-

I 69 I

I

Conflicts between mariculture structures and sociated with resource development activities other uses depend partly on if the farmer may limit space available or degrade water I needs to restrict boat traffic. For example, quality for mariculture facilities, making farmers may wish to limit boat traffic to min­ mariculture development more difficult and imize potential for vandalism and pollution less likely. I from fuel and sewage. Conversely, personal use crab fisheries may be very productive around rafts used for culturing sea organisms. Commercial Fishing I Because communities that use the study area In the study area, commercial fishing seldom are currently considered subsistence com­ occurs in secluded coves and bays that are munities, subsistence harvests are important more commonly suitable for mariculture. I activities in most areas where aquatic farming Nevertheless, these protected coves may be may occur. Conflicts between mariculturists important to the commercial fishing fleet be­ and subsistence users could occur as more cause they provide safe anchorages close to I facilities are developed. Development of fishing grounds or tenders. direct competition for subsistence resources may increase as new residents enter rural Potential conflicts may develop due to fishing I areas. Loss of subsistence opportunities hook-off points. These are locations near could occur if mariculture facilities are placed shore where commercial fishing nets are set in important subsistence resource areas. for harvest of fish. Hook-off points can occur virtually anywhere along shorelines free of I Results of a subsistence study currently being rocks or other obstacles that would tangle conducted by ADF&G, Division of Subsis­ nets. Some hook-off points are valuable sites tence will be helpful in identifying potential for fishing boats as fish migration patterns I conflicts. bring them to the same area year after year. Culture techniques utilized by mariculture operations that restrict use of open shorelines I Conflicts with Other have the potential to conflict with hook-off Commercial Uses of Tidelands points. and Submerged lands Conflicts may be limited to those times of year I The best sites for aquatic farm facilities may fish harvest occurs. Separation of uses may be often be the best sites for other uses such as the only practical solution to this type of con­ mineral or timber transfer and support flict. I facilities, log storage, commercial fishing grounds, anchorages, or commercial recrea­ tion development. Although mariculture is a Commercial Recreation I new industry in Alaska, some conflicts have surfaced in Kodiak, Prince William Sound, Commercial recreation in the form of hunting, and Southeast. Besides need for space, water fishing, and guiding, or the establishment of I quality standards for mariculture may recreation lodges have potential for conflict preclude use of favored sites for other com­ with mariculture development. Aside from mercial or industrial facilities. Forcing more potential physical displacement, such recrea­ stringent mitigation measures or alternative tion development could provide sources of I siting for timber, mineral transfer, or tailings point pollution. disposal could reduce or eliminate economic viability of resource extraction industries in a Type and degree of conflict can only be deter­ .I given area. mined on a case by case basis. Conversely, mineral or timber transfer sites, I log storage sites, and floating camps as-

70 I I

I

Logging and upland support facilities should be located I to minimize potential problems. Conflicts with timber harvest operations may occur because floating facilities can interfere Other types of water quality conflicts may also I with log transfer and floating storage opera­ occur. Use of pesticides at dry land log tions. In the study area, timber harvest on storage sites has been proposed in Alaska Forest Service lands is continuing, and opera­ (e.g., the use of lindane mixed in diesel oil to I tions require log transfer at tidewater, storage control ambrosia beetle at Thorne Bay in of log rafts in protected bays and inlets, and 1983). These substances can bio-accumulate towing rafts to mills. Conflicts may arise be­ in shellfish. Requirements for boat and cause of: 1) the overlap of many siting and seaplane traffic for timber harvest and trans­ I operational requirements for log transfer and fer operations also increase the potential for storage and for mariculture, particularly a re­ hydrocarbon pollution. Sewage discharge quirement for protected waters, and 2) the from logging facilities would be of concern as I potential for degradation of water quality in a possible point source of pollution. Logs are the vicinity of log transfer facilities. sometimes lost and floating debris could damage mariculture structures. Log transfer and storage area siting involves I a detailed review of potential environmental No known mitigating measures exist that impacts and conflicts with other uses. could increase compatibility. Distances be­ Suitable sites which meet environmental and tween TIF's and mariculture sites are deter­ industry criteria are generally limited in num­ I mined largely on a case by case basis due to ber. Unless mariculture, log transfer and currents and other physical characteristics of storage can coexist, there may be direct com­ the area in question. I petition for sites. Bark and other organic debris resulting from log transfer and storage can have adverse im­ Mining I pacts similar in nature to those associated with floating mariculture facilities (Pacific Potential conflicts in the form of direct com­ Northwest Pollution Control Council, 1971; petition for suitable sites for mineral transfer I Pease, 1974; Schultz and Berg, 1976; Duval and mariculture are similar in nature as those and Slaney Co., 1980). Anaerobic sediments between mariculture and logging activities. can form and hydrogen sulphide may be Remote hardrock mine sites require upland I released. Freese and O'Clair (1984) docu­ facilities for processing ore, transfer facility mented a relationship between low dissolved ?perations, and for loading barges transport­ oxygen concentrations, high hydrogen sul­ mg ore to markets. Options for siting maricul­ phide and ammonia concentrations, and mor­ ture facilities in close proximity to mine sites I tality in mussels and littleneck clams exposed are limited. Water quality impacts can result to decomposing wood wastes under from mining operations. Disposal of tailings laboratory conditions. Decomposition of log i? marine waters that contain high concentra­ I wastes can also release leachates which are tion~ o.f heavy metals or result in high levels of toxic to some species of shellfish (Buchanan turbidity and suspended sediments are in­ et al., 1976). herent conflicts. The potential for water pol­ I lution from sewage discharge, boat fuel Close proximity of log transfer facilies and hydrocarbons, and waste oil is similar to that floating mariculture facilities in small or poor­ for logging support facilities and operations. ly flushed waterbodies could result in con­ I tamination, disease, or mortality of cultured animals. Bottom culture should be precluded in areas where large quantities of bark could I potentially be deposited. Intertidal storage

I 71 I

I

Urban Development may similarly require extensive mitigation or I be subject to denial on these grounds. Industrial and commercial development of shorelines may conflict with requirements of I mariculture developments through physical competition for space or through a variety of Land Speculation pollution sources. Degree and type of impact Prior to 1986, British Columbia experienced a I is site specific. " dramatic rush for permits which allowed the The U.S. Forest Service manages most lands holder to enter and occupy a site to conduct in the study area. No urban development is research for up to one year. It appears that I planned at this time. these permits were being issued for large areas of land with little regard for potential impacts to the public. A gold rush image was created resulting in a great deal of public con­ I Residential Development cern, and subsequently a moratorium was im­ Residential development along shorelines or posed. Alaska does not have an investigative floathomes can compete for physical space permit similar to this permit but we could ex, I with mariculture facilities. Residential perience land speculation in other forms, most development can also result in point source notably by applying for permits and leases to discharge of sewage. Shoreline residents can tie up a site. I object to mariculture on aesthetic grounds. One subdivision, Olive Cove, exists in the Land speculation in this case is described as study area with both private and state owner­ obtaining land use rights with the intent of not I ship. Conflicts between mariculture facilities using the land for proposed uses but selling or and residential development may be minimal. trading those rights for a profit. This problem However, public and agency review should ad­ is not unique to mariculture and can occur in dress these potential concerns if mariculture any use of state land. Speculation can be I development is proposed in this area. greatly reduced by close monitoring of development schedules and writing conditions in land use documents that would allow agen­ cies to revoke permits or leases if the develop­ I Historic or Archeological Sites ment is not proceeding as proposed. Upland development associated with maricul­ I ture is not compatible with historic or ar­ cheological sites. By law, these sites must not Impacts on Adjacent Land be affected or, as a last resort, extensive Owners mitigation is required to identify and record I values before impact occurs. Mariculture can impact adjacent land owners in a variety of ways: loss of tidelands access or Because of limited surveys of variable inten­ boat moorage, loss of view, noise, loss of I sity, all historical and archeological sites have privacy, loss of habitat, and changes in water not been located within the study area. Loca­ quality. This has been a significant issue in tion of known sites will not be provided in an Washington and British Columbia, and may I attempt to prevent vandalism. become a concern in Alaska.

If a U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit is Adjacent land owners have a number of ways required, applicants must initiate a site survey to participate in mariculture facility siting. I by a qualified archeologist. The Special Use They can participate in development of state Permit will normally be denied when historic land use plans, coastal zone management or archeological values are found on or ad­ programs, and local comprehensive plans. I jacent to the requested site. State permits Adjacent owners are notified by mail of pend-

72 I I

I

I ing applications and are given an opportunity Following is a brief description of the four to comment on projects. A 30 day public major land use designations for Forest Service notice pursuant to AS 38.05.945 is required for lands: leases. Local governments, regional or village I native corporations, local coastal districts, and LUD I (and LUD I Release Areas) - This communities are also notified. Local govern­ designation is primarily a wilderness designa­ ment or regional native corporations may hold tion. It provides for minimal development I public hearings if necessary. Department of compatible with maintenance of natural Natural Resources reviews all of these com­ character of land. ments and weighs the use and enjoyment of the adjacent owner against what is considered LUD II - This designation is managed in a I to be state's best interest. roadless state to retain its wildland character but would permit wildlife and fish habitat im­ Land use conflicts on uplands are adjudicated provement and primitive recreational I in the study area by Forest Service officials development. (The study area contains no utilizing the Tongass Land Management Plan. LUD II lands) I LUD III - This land is managed for a variety Upland Access of uses. Emphasis is on managing for uses and activities in a compatible and complementary I. Access is a major consideration under current manner to provide the greatest combination permit and lease review processes. A part of of benefits. These areas have either high use the state's "best interest" determination is an or high amenity values in conjunction with evaluation of impacts on access, especially to high commodity values. I upland owners. Access is important for recreation and fish and wildlife harvest on LUD IV - This area will be managed to public lands. Access by water craft, aircraft provide opportunities for intensive resource I and in some circumstances by land vehicle can use and development where emphasis is occur. primarily on commodity or market resources.

In most circumstances, access problems can The southern half of Etolin Island is current­ I be mitigated on a mariculture site by specifica­ ly designated as LUD I Release. These lands tion of easements or access corridors on per­ are being managed to provide opportunities mits or leases. In some circumstances there is for solitude and primitive types of recreation I not sufficient room to separate two uses. In in unaltered environment. these cases access may be allowed over other forms of development if a reasonable alterna­ Components of mariculture projects occur­ I tive cannot be found. ring above mean high tide line must be com­ patible with the goals of the LUD classifications. Development in LUD IV areas is more acceptable than within the LUD I U.S. Forest Service as Upland I Release area. Development in all LUD Managers areas will be restricted to structures specifical­ ly designed to blend into surrounding I As primary managers of uplands in the study landscape. Size, location, and color of struc­ area, the U.S. Forest Service has the respon­ tures and the amount of trees to be removed sibility of management of upland permits for will be specified by the Forest Service for mariculture development. Land use designa­ development in all LUD's. Although goals for I tion (LUD) I, II, III, and IV of Tongass Land 1LMP do not apply to the waters below mean Management Plan provides guidance for high tide the U.S. Forest Service expects per­ development in Tongass National Forest. mitted activities on water adjacent to the I Forest will be compatible with management direction for surrounding uplands.

I 73 I

I

There is currently one Special Use Permit for problems and resolving conflicts. Lack of a I an upland facility to support mariculture regional perspective could lead to significant development in the LUD I Release area. No conflicts over time and is a major problem more permits will be issued unless the desig­ with the existing process. nation changes to LUD II, III, or IV. I During development of statewide guidelines, The U.S. Forest Service is presently revising Alaska could evaluate British Columbia ex­ its land management plan for the Tongass Na­ perience during its initiation to finfish I tional Forest including the Etolin Island area. aquaculture. Immediate needs for coastal Specific direction on how the resources on planning occurred when it became apparant Etolin Island will be managed will appear in that a loss of access, a loss of anchorages, im­ the plan. Until the revision is completed cur­ pacts on upland owners, impacts on recrea­ I rent Tongass Land Management Plan direc­ tion, and tourism. British Columbia placed a tion and guidelines will apply to mariculture moratorium on leases and licenses for finfish developments. farming and began an inquiry into finfish I aquaculture and its impacts. Inquiries were completed in 1986. How well their con­ Cumulative Effects of clusions or recommendations apply to Alaska I Expanding Tidelands Use conditions is uncertain. For most of coastal Alaska, mariculture I facilities are permitted on an individual basis. Summary Impact from one or two farms may be mini­ mal, but cumulative effects of numerous farms While numbers of potential problems are on existing uses may be dramatic. DNR large, it appears most land use problems as­ I management and area plans provide a process sociated with mariculture can be resolved. for resolving use conflicts on a regional basis, Appropriate land use plans and permit review and best interest findings required under AS processes, such as ACMP consistency deter­ I 38.05.035( e) provide mechanisms for resolv­ minations, are useful to resource agencies to ing conflicts on individual permits/leases. accomplish resolution of conflict. Developing The ACMP consistency review process also comprehensive area plans is desirable but I provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts regarding use of state tide and submerged time consuming (2-3 years) and expensive. lands. Refined policies and regulations are being developed from newer and more accurate in­ I Although a regional perspective is preferred, formation by all resource and review agencies. cost of management and area plans limits This will greatly assist land management agen­ their use as a routine method of sorting out cies in resolving conflicts among coastal users. I I I I I

74 I I

I

I DEVELOPMENT I Costs of Production Other major out of pocket expenses include a ReLonde ( 1987) has created an economic survey of the land ($1,500-4,000) and I model of oyster operations. which appears in transportation for water certification samples the Alaska Oyster Grower Manual. He ex­ which cost approximately $1500. Construc­ amined costs associated with raising oysters in tion of the caretakers cabin, storage facilities, shallow trays supported by rafts and in lantern purchase and operating expenses for boats I nets. From this model he concluded that for and skiffs are also necessary. oyster farms to be profitable in Alaska they must plant at least 250,000 spat a year. Re­ I Londe estimated that a positive cash flow will Labor be generated in the third year, and the facility will be paid off in ten years. The Westcott Oyster Company is one of the I most successful oyster operations along the Most farmers feel that his estimates are high, Pacific coast. It produces about 1,000,000 because they, by necessity, economize oysters a year. It employs 12 persons on a full wherever possible. For example many time basis with an average wage of $5 an hour I farmers use logs found along the beach for raft for an annual payroll of $124,800. Westcott construction. In areas where there are no on­ makes little money on its sales of adult oysters, going logging operations, these beach logs are and generates its profit from its sales of spat I readily available, but at sites such as those in and equipment to other farmers (personal the Blashke Islands, there is an abundant communication from Don Nicholson to Guy supply. Oliver 1-23-88). I Farming generates local income. Initially this Start-up Costs contribution is small. Individuals who are suc­ ceeding at oyster farming are those who are I Rafts ( 4' by 12' to 4' by 20') cost $45-60 each willing to work hard, be their own boss, and to construct: materials cost $25-40 and labor enjoy living and working in a remote setting. costs about $20. Don Nicholson currently has It is not only a business decision to get into I over 60 such rafts, and is continually construct· shellfish mariculture, but also a choice of life­ ing more. To hold 200,000 oysters (50% style. Oyster farming is a labor-intensive juveniles and 50% adults) requires at least 65 operation. Don Nicholson estimates that he I rafts. Additional rafts are needed to hold the must handle every oyster 6-7 times from the trays for spat and about 15% of the rafts time that he receives them as spat until he packs them for shipping. To produce oysters ~hould be beached to kill boring worms which, if left unattended, will destroy a raft in 2 years. for the gourmet market, which is the only I Thus, approximately 100 rafts are necessary. market in which Alaskan oysters can effective­ ly compete, each handling involves scrubbing Rafts can also be constructed out of 6" PVC and sorting not by the bucket load or shovel­ I pipe, and these do not suffer from the damage ful, but individually. caused by boring organisms. However, the in­ itial cost ofthe rafts is $140-160 each. Fifteen I percent less PVC rafts are needed, because there is no need to beach them for extended periods to kill the boring organisms. Total raft I costs would be between $5,500 and $12,750.

I 75 I

I

The following is an example of a timetable for Monitoring for PSP should be initiated im­ I oyster farm development: mediately upon start-up and continue on a regular and frequent basis throughout at least Year 1 the first 5 years of the operation. obtain initial permits I construct rafts Don Nicholson of Canoe Lagoon Oyster Farm place test spat at several sites estimates that PSP testing costs him about learn the basics of oyster farming $114 per lot, and this assumes no increased I mortality due to oysters being refrigerated out Year2 of water. Detailed costs are: 80 oysters construct more rafts valued at $0.40 apiece ($32), round trip from I Blashke Island to Coffman Cove ($12), ex­ tend juveniles press mail shipment of the parcel to Palmer place more spat in water ($20), and 6 hours of his time ($60). DEC compare growth rates from test sites does not charge farmers to perform the test. I David Wieler of D&B Labs in Ketchikan is Year3 seeking to become the first private lab obtain final permits authorized to conduct PSP testing and he an­ I build more rafts ticipates charging $60 per sample. Whether tend juveniles farmers will decide that the additional costs of place spat in water the testing offset the in-transit time to the Pal­ first harvest of adults mer lab remains to be determined. For I farmers seeking to provide customers with Year4 regular shipments of fresh oysters (weekly to build more rafts biweekly), PSP testing may be a significant ex­ I tend juveniles pense. place spat in water harvest adults About 2-4 days lapse from the time the oysters I are removed from the water until the time that YearS test results are received from DEC and the replace rafts constructed first year shipment is authorized. Transit time for the I tend juveniles samples from the remotely situated farms in the Etolin Island area to Palmer is responsible place spat in water for most of the delay since the DEC lab ex­ harvest adults pedites the testing as soon as samples are I received. The grower is generally notified of certification by telephone in less than one Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning working day after samples arrive at the Pal­ I (PSP) Costs and Concerns mer lab. The oysters can not be released for distribution until DEC certification is Growers and regulators have expressed the received. common concern that farms not be located too I close together. They believe that water which While the Palmer DEC facility expedites flows over on operator's rafts should not samples for PSP testing, the Palmer location directly flow over another's until it has had is viewed as a significant handicap by some I adequate opportunity to be well mixed with growers in Southeast Alaska who believe that water from other sources. Without this by decreasing shipping distance, in-transit mixing, depletion of food and nutrients, pos­ time for samples and total waiting time for I sible transmission of disease, or increased JPSP clearance would be reduced. likelihood of fostering conditions for PSP­ producing blooms could occur. Kn addition to possible mortality during the wait for PSP certification, there is the problem I

76 I I

I

I of product degradation. This especially im­ Transportation pacts products destined for the gourmet market. DEC requires refrigeration or the While historically a large portion of oysters produced in Southeast Alaska were consumed equivalent for all oysters awaiting results from I locally, most oysters produced today are des­ PSP tests. Oysters have a limited shelf life. tined for distant markets. Alaskan oyster When stored at 60-70o F maximum shelf life growers are aiming their product and market­ I is 5-6 days, when refrigerated at 36-44o F it is ing strategies at the high end half shell gour­ 7-10 days, and when maintained at 32o F it met market. Only here, they believe, can the may increase to 21 days. However, products market support sufficiently high prices to I near the end of their maximum shelf life, while cover the Alaskan costs of production and safe to eat, frequently have deteriorated transportation. quality to where they are no longer acceptable . in the gourmet market. Products aimed at capturing a portion of the I gourmet market must be shipped as quickly as possible from the farms to distant markets. There are no alternatives to air shipping if the I oysters are to be in prime condition when they reach Anchorage, Seattle, and New York. Shipping adds $1.00 per dozen to oysters delivered to Anchorage and Seattle and up to I $1.85 for East Coast markets. I I I I I I I I I

I 77 I

Marketing Mariculture markets are no longer supplied Marketing requires different skills than farm· by single producers, rather suppliers from ing. However, the current small mariculture around the world may be competing in a single production offers little incentive for persons market. Alaskan growers are in competition other than farmers to be involved in the with growers I marketing of their products. The result is that from other states and British Columbia. Alas­ farmers must increase volume to lower their kan oysters are high quality and have an ex· costs of production and to offer the incentive otic appeal because of the perceived pristine I for distributors and marketers to handle their quality of Alaskan waters. British Columbian products. To increase production farmers oysters are also perceived as being grown in must spend more time at their farms, but now pristine waters and are less expensive. British I they must market and distribute their own Columbian farmers currently receive $3.00 product, which is difficult to do adequately (Canadian) per dozen oysters or about $0.20 from remotely situated farms. As shown in (U.S.) per oyster. To remain competitive the previous sections it is often remotely situated Alaska oyster industry must increase its I farms which have the least land and water use volume, reduce its costs of production and es­ conflicts. tablish a different marketing and distribution network which will allow the growers to con­ I Farmers are currently selling oysters for centrate efforts on the farms. $4.70/dozen FOB Ketchikan. Subtracting costs associated with transportation to I Ketchikan and PSP testing yields a price of $0.31 per oyster. This price is adequate for the farmer, but leaves little for marketing costs. Don Nicholson (pers. com.) estimates I that with volume sales a farm price of $0.20- $0.25 may be realistic. I I I I I I I I

78 I I

I

I GUIDELINES AND MITIGATING MEASURES

I Relative Measures of Suitability Proposed siting guidelines are based on a review of interim guidelines for management In developing a mariculture facility several of salmon net pen culture in Puget Sound I factors need to be considered: 1) if the site is (Science Applications International Corpora­ capable of commercial p~oduction, 2) if .t~e tion 1986), on draft guidelines for devel~p­ site is able to meet reqmrements of facility ment and operation of aquaculture and ftsh design, and 3) if the development is an accept­ processing facilities (Department of Fisheries I able use of public land and water. and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region 1986 a, b), and on siting guidelines developed by Interactions between factors are complex, and ADF&G for other forms of coastal develop­ I may fluctuate from season to season or from ment and by DNR for area plans. year to year. The economic environment may support development, or can contribute to Guidelines proposed here are based on I failures. Other uses sometimes compete for several assumptions: 1) mariculture in the limited resources. near future will be similar to that currently practiced (i.e., floating structures will be used, The following discussions are presented to as­ but bottom culture techniques may be I sist agencies or individuals in determining the proposed), 2) regardless of culture technique suitability of a site for select species of used, exclusive use of areas will be desired by shellfish or kelp. It is unlikely any single site farmers, 3) sites require expansion potential, I will be the "million dollar" site in all respects. 4) farms require potential for access t~ .a~d Therefore, these indicators will be helpful in use of adjacent uplands for support facilities estimating the relative and use of intertidal zone and beach above I suitability of mariculture sites. high tide for beaching gear, and storing or har­ dening shellfish. Some criteria are in conflict (e.g., increasing stocking density to reduce Guidelines for Siting Shellfish areal extent to minimize user conflicts vs. I and Sea Vegetable Mariculture decreasing stocking density and increasing Facilities and Mitigating areal extent to minimize sedimentation im­ pacts). Applicability of each guideline will I Impacts depend on specific sites and proposal under review but they are included in this report as "Mitigation" is the process of avoiding or min­ guidelines to both prospective sea farmer and imizing adverse impacts. Proper siting of to project reviewers. I shellfish and seaweed mariculture facilities should result in avoiding the majority of ad­ Fish and wildlife concentration areas and verse impacts that might otherwise occur. human use areas described have been mapped I as part of this project for the Etolin Island Conflict over mariculture siting has resulted area. in development of siting criteria and zoning in both Washington and British Columbia. In Guidelines are organized into three phases: 1) I both areas, conflict has primarily been over siting, 2) project design, and 3) operations. If finfish net pen siting. However, guidelines sites can be selected which avoid areas developed are in use for "all aquaculture described under Siting Guidelines, then I proposals involving floating structures and im­ provements" in British Columbia (B.C. Minis­ measures described in subsequent sections to mitigate impacts through design or operation try of Forestry and Lands 1987). I may be unnecessary.

I 79

I-.

I I Siting Guidelines access), or flow alterations. Avoid use of 1. To minimize adverse impacts on equipment in productive habitat, particular­ productive benthic habitats: ly tideflats and salt marshes. I la - Conduct a site survey to determine lg - Do not allow floating structures to flushing regime, benthic community com­ ground at any tidal stage, except for planned position, and baseline water quality (i.e., dis­ beaching of gear for cleaning or fouling con­ I solved oxygen levels, presence of toxicants er trol. Beach gear in the intertidal area or contaminants). beach area of lowest biological productivity. Sand or gravel beaches are the preferred I lb - Site floating facilities and intertidal sites; avoid tideflats adjacent to streams and structures where currents are strong enough salt marshes. to disperse suspended organics and organic I deposits. Avoid siting in small embayments 2. To avoid disturbance of sensitive with sills, natural restrictions to tidal ex­ fish or wildlife species or species during change, or existing water quality problems. sensitive life history stages: I

lc- Site floating facilities or structures em­ 2a - Avoid siting within 330 feet or within a bedded in the substrate in areas with least distance determined by the U.S. Fish and .I productive benthic habitat. A void shallow Wildlife Service of bald eagle nests. areas (less than 40 feet deep at Mean Lower 2b - A void siting within a 300 foot radius of Low Water). mouths of anadromous fish streams at Mean I ld - Because bottom culture site require­ Lower Low Water. ments are likely to conflict with maintenance 2c- Avoid siting within one mile of: 1) har­ of existing productive benthic communities, I bor seal haul out concentration areas or pup­ detailed site analysis including a dive survey should occur prior to siting. Bottom culture ping areas, 2) sea otter concentration areas, pupping areas, or feeding areas, and 3) requirements should be defined. Informa­ I seabird colonies. tion on the existing benthic community, proposed methods of reducing or eliminat­ 2d - Avoid siting within waterfowl and ing predation, stocking rates, and potential I shorebird seasonal concentration areas. effects on competing species should be provided. Feasibility of culture in alterna­ These guideline distances can be modified on I tive sites which have lower benthic produc­ a site specific basis if other measures will tivity should be evaluated. mitigate the disturbance or if disturbance is determined to be insignificant. le- Avoid siting within 300 feet of herring I spawning areas, hard shell clam concentra­ 3. To minimize the effect of creating an tion areas, and eelgrass and kelp beds. attractive nuisance to potential Avoid siting sea vegetables farms within 300 predators or scavengers: I feet of herring spawning areas and eelgrass beds. 3a - Determine bird or mammal species which are expected to be a predator on the I 1f - Select least productive intertidal or cultured species. Guideline distances for upland areas for activities involving dredg­ separation from concentration areas to ing, fill, significant compaction of vegetation avoid disturbance ( #2 above) should be used I and sediments (e.g., filling or mechanized as criteria if the species is a potential

80 I I

I

I predator. Distance of separation between comment. Due to the variety of uses and lack rearing facilities and predator concentra­ of data it is difficult to set specific thresholds. tions can be modified on a site specific basis Intensi~e uses identified here have been iden­ if other measures will be implemented to tified as ones likely to constitute a conflict in minimize predation. specific situations.]

3b - Avoid siting mariculture facilities, in­ s. To minimize interference with fisheries enhancement activities: I cluding upland support facilities, adjacent to brown and black bear concentration areas. Sa - A void siting facilities adjacent to hatcheries or within terminal harvest areas. I 3c- Avoid siting shellfish farms within areas where diving ducks, particularly seaters and 6. To avoid adverse impacts relating to goldeneyes, concentrate seasonally. Rafts water quality: I or longlines may be sited within 1 mile of concentration areas if they can be sited in 6a - Applicants should gather site specific waters deeper than the birds traditionally information on possible contamination I feed on shellfish beds. sources, and avoid siting facilities in areas with waste discharges. (e.g., sewage, mine 3d- Avoid siting shellfish farms within one tailings, boat use, etc.) mile of sea otter concentration areas. 6b - Applicants should gather site specific 4. To minimize conflicts with and information on water characteristics to en­ displacement of traditional commercial sure that adequate water quality can be and noncommercial users of fish and maintained once culture operations com­ wildlife: mence. (e.g. salinity, tidal flushing, currents, 4a- Avoid siting in or adjacent to: depths, temperature, etc.) 6c- Applicants should gather site specific in­ o Intensive commercial crab fishing areas formation on levels of PSP which may occur I o Intensive commercial shrimp fishing areas (pot, trawl) naturally in the area, both in native shellfish and bottom sediments. o Intensive commercial clam harvest areas (e.g., geoducks) I 7. DNR Land use permit/lease o Intensive commercial abalone harvest guidelines: areas I o Intensive hunting areas (waterfowl) 7a - Mariculture and competing uses. o Intensive noncommercial fish and wildlife Mariculture may be allowed on state harvest areas tidelands where there is no significant con­ I o Intensive anchorages within day use areas flict and if the proposal is not in conflict with of major communities for sportfishing and other guidelines. Siting of mariculture other anchorages of local or regional im­ facilities may be more difficult on tidelands I' portance used for, or designated in area plans for use o Intensive float plane access areas by, log transfer or storage, mineral transfer o Areas of restricted navigation or access, and commercial activities. Ap­ I provals to locate mariculture facilities ad­ ["Intensive Use" will have to be determined on jacent to existing or planned land sales, in a case-by-case basis. Generally, ADF&G con­ crucial fish and wildlife habitat areas, ducts an assessment of the importance of a I particular harvest area during permit reviews. developed recreation areas, and areas used The public will also have an opportunity to intensively for harvest of fish and wildlife or i - 81

I

for anchorage will also be more difficult to Project Design Guidelines I obtain. 8. To minimize adverse impacts on Consistent with other guidelines, these areas productive benthic habitats: I will be availqble for mariculture: 1) if land mangers determine it is possible to site, Sa - Increase distance of floating structures design, and operate the two or more uses com­ from shore to avoid shallow, productive I patibly in the area, or 2) there is no feasible habitats. and prudent alternative for mariculture while one does exist for competing use. In no case Sb- In areas where potential for adverse im­ will mariculture be allowed to foreclose access pacts from organic sedimentation is high, I to mineral, timber, or recreation resources un­ minimize density of stocking and increase less feasible or prudent alternative access ex­ areal extent. ists. However, in some cases it may be in I. public interest to concentrate uses in one bay Sc - Use flexible floating structures to mini­ rather than allowing proliferation of uses in mize dampening action on waves and cur­ many bays. rent flows (i.e.,. break water effects) to I maintain natural circulation patterns. 7b - Upland owner support for mariculture. Upland owners are encouraged to identify 9. To minimize adverse Impacts of areas where mariculture (including upland disease or toxicants on natural stocks: facilities) should and should not be developed and to communicate their con­ 9a - A void use of creosoted logs and pilings clusions to DNR and to the mariculture in­ in structures. dustry. Tideland development for mariculture should not conflict with 9b - Avoid use of anti-fouling chemicals. management goals of adjacent uplands as provided by approved plans or policy of the 1 o. To minimize adverse impacts on managing agency. predators or species sensitive to disturbance: I 7c- Mariculture caretaker facilities. Float­ ing caretaker facilities for mariculture lOa - Use nonlethal means of predator con­ operations may be allowed. Floating trol. I caretaker facilities for mariculture opera­ tions will not be allowed in designated lOb - Use netting or other materials such as recreation or personal use areas unless a plywood to cover culture structures to I determination is made there is no feasible or provide a physical barrier to potential bird, prudent alternative. Determination will be mammal, and invertebrate predators. made available for public comment. ·a lOc - To minimize predation by waterfowl, 7d- U.S. Coast Guard approval. Permits or waterbirds, and birds of prey, aquaculture leases will not be given until U.S. Coast operations should be covered with plywood ·t Guard has certified that proposed facilities or netting that has a mesh size small enough will not be a significant navigational hazard. to prevent birds from penetrating it and is made of a gauge heavy enough to be visible to birds and to prevent them from becoming I entangled in it. This guideline applies to nets used for both above water and under­ water protection. I

82 I I

I

IOd - Plywood or mesh covers on rearing lld - Increase distance of floating structures 'I structures should be employed to minimize from shore to minimize use conflicts. attraction of bears. lle - Lower floating structures (e.g. nets, I IOe - To prevent access by predators, use longlines) in the water column to avoid con­ heavy gauge nets to prevent access. flicts with navigation and recreational use of the area. I lOf - Operations should be designed and managed to minimize attraction of fur­ Comment: Lowering cultures, either tem­ bearers. If netting is employed, it should be porarily or permanently within a range of 12 I of a mesh size small enough to prevent meters below the surface has also been entrance and made of a gauge or material recommended to avoid sets of fouling or­ that cannot be chewed or clawed apart. ganisms, high surface water temperatures, Sheet metal collars should be placed on rocking of scallops, and unstable salinity and cables, boom sticks, and stiff legs attached to temperature conditions. Growth may be shore to minimize furbearer predation. reduced under these conditions, but dis­ astrous events may also be avoided. 11. To minimize adverse impacts on other coastal users: llf · Design size, color, and height of struc­ tures for low visibility where desirable to lla - The culture technique chosen can minimize impacts to aesthetics and where mitigate impacts on other users of the area navigational hazards will not be created. if other users are not excluded from access Design high visibility marking devices (e.g., to the area. Bottom culture avoids impacts lighted buoys) where necessary for safe to many commercial and noncommercial navigation. users of fish and wildlife resources, however I harvest of bottom dwelling species may be llg - Consolidate facilities to minimize im­ displaced or precluded. Floating facilities pacts on other users. However, establish are preferable to structures embedded in in­ separation distances between farms to min­ I tertidal area. Longline culture facilities can imize cumulative impacts on water quality be designed to be less visible than raft and potential for disease transmission. facilities, however low visibility can create I navigation hazards. Longlines, by their na­ llh - Development plans. A site plan and ture, are more able to withstand rougher sea other relevant information is requested on conditions than standard construction rafts the Consolidated Shellfish Farm Applica­ I and are suitable in areas of deeper water. tion. An additional development plan will Use of longlines provides greater siting not usually be required. The preferred ap­ flexibility to avoid sensitive areas or use con­ proach is for the site plan and other infor­ I flicts, and may, in some cases, be a feasible mation to constitute a development plan to and prudent alternatives to raft culture. serve (at a minimum) as basis for DNR, ADF&G, DEC, ACMP, and upland owner llb - Reduce areal extent of floating review. I facilities to minimum size needed in areas where conflicting uses occur. Consider in­ 12. Upland facility sewage disposal. creasing stocking densities as a means to I minimize areal extent. 12a - A sewage disposal system adequate to protect nearby shellfish from contamination He - Provide navigation lanes or access will be required for any caretaker facilities I easements through facilities. associated with a mariculture operation.

83

I

Operational Guidelines for production, 2) removing nets not active­ I 13. To minimize adverse impacts on ly used for production, 3) removing nets productive benthic habitats: during herring spawning season if over­ spawn of herring outside traditional areas I 13a - Set poles and anchors carefully during was anticipated, 4) removing nets and struc­ periods of lowest productivity. tures in less than 10 feet of water depth be­ tween March 15 until June 15 every year to I 13b - If structures (e.g., nets) are peri­ prevent impacts on juvenile salmon migra­ odically removed, leave poles and anchors in tion. place. I 115. To minimize the impacts of disease, 13c - Monitor sediment build up and im­ toxicants, or genetic changes on natural pacts on substrate/water chemistry. Adjust stocks: I stocking rates, remove organic deposits, or move facility if anaerobic substrate condi­ 15a- In the case of disease outbreaks, notify tions are unavoidable. Alaska Department of Fish and Game and follow existing procedures for control of dis­ 13d - If herring spawn on structures, leave ease. Use of chemicals and disposal of dis­ them in water until the spawn hatches. eased plants or animals must be approved by DEC. 14. To minimize adverse impacts on predator populations or species 15b - No exotic species of plants or animals sensitive to disturbance: can be imported without approval by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (by law) 14a - Use nonlethal predator control measures. 15c - Plants and animals shall not be transported between culture areas or from 14b - Use nonlethal means of fouling con­ the wild to a culture situation without ap­ trol. proval by Alaska Department of Fish and I Game. (by law) 14c- Garbage should be kept to a minimum and incinerated daily. Food should be hand­ 16. To minimize adverse impacts to I led to prevent its odor from attracting bears other users: and stored in bear proof containers. Dis­ posal of shellfish by products or dead 16a - Remove structures (e.g., Nori nets) animals should be done in such a way as to during periods of conflict with other I minimize attraction of bears in a site ap­ fisheries. proved by DEC. 16b - Restrict hours or periods of operation I 14d - Remove structures during periods of to daytime hours if necessary. conflict with species sensitive to disturbance. 17 - Performance standards I Comment: This measure was identified as a mitigating measure for Nori farms in DNR will attach reasonable performance Washington (Washington DNR 1987). In a standards to permits or leases for project I programmatic Federal Environmental Im­ development and operation. Performance pact Statement, they identified the following standards are to ensure permitted area is used for the approved activity, the proposal is I mitigative measures: 1) removing all rafts economically viable, and the permit or lease is when not in use for a period of one month

84 I I

I

not held for speculation or removal of a land I base from competition. In all cases approved development plans must be adhered to. If the performance standards are not met, the per­ mit or lease may be revoked. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - • 85 -=

Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTER 4 Project Review and Permitting

Page 87 - INTRODUCTION

88 - Siting and Design Phase

88 - Alaska Coastal Management Program Project Review Process 88 - Coastal Project Questionaire and Preapplication Services 91 - Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application 91 - Project Schedule 91 - Conflict Resolution 92 - Public Notice Systems 93 - Issuance of State Agency Permits

95 - Approvals Routinely Required For Siting and Mariculture Projects 95 - Land Management Approvals 95 - New Process 96 - Tideland Permits 96 - Leases 96 - Other DNR Approvals 96 - U.S. Forest Service Land Use Permits (Special Use Permits) 97 - NEPA Processes

97 - Other Mariculturc Project Regulatory Approvals Routinely Needed 97 - Department of Environmental Conservation Approvals 98 - 401 Certification 99 - Wastewater Discharge and Solid Waste Permits, System Plan Reviews 100 - Department of Fish and Game Approvals 100 - Shellfish Farm Permit 100 - Title 16 Permits I 00 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Approvals I 01 - Section 10 and Section 404 Permits

102 - STOCKING PHASE

102 - Fish Transport Permit 102 - Aquatic Stock Acquistion Permit

105 -CONSOLIDATED SHELLFISH FARM APPLICATION EVALUATION

106 - Comments 107 - Summary 107 - Annual Reports

103 - PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION PHASE l 03 - National Shellfish Sanitation Program 103 - Procedures to be foUowed by the State 104 - Procedures to be foHowed by the Food and Drug Administration 104 - Procedures to be foHowed by the Industry 104 - The NSSP Manual of Operation 104 - Site Certification and Development 105 - Product Certification Prior to Marketing

I

I Chapter4 I I PROJECT REVIEW AND PERMfl,fiNG I INTRODUCTION Aquatic farms in marine waters and on ad­ go review to ensure their consistency with the I jacent uplands can raise public concerns about standards of the Alaska Coastal Management environmental and land use effects. Chapters Program under 6 AAC 80. Statewide stand­ 2 and 3 discuss these considerations for siting ards are in effect in the Etolin Island Study or operating shellfish or aquatic plant farms. Area. Different or more detailed standards I State and federal agencies have authority to may be in effect within the boundaries of coas­ manage or regulate aquatic farms and to tal districts with approved coastal plans. No resolve or mitigate public concerns. Aquatic local coastal district has been organized in the I farmers must obtain authorizations from state study area. DNR, DEC, and ADF&G review and federal agencies before initiating farm-re­ mariculture projects against the coastal stand­ I lated work. ards in the course of their permit review. State and federal aquatic farming authoriza­ Authorizations for siting and design, stocking, tion occurs at three primary stages: 1) siting or product distribution phases involved in and design approvals, 2) stocking approvals, aquatic farming are listed in Table 4-1. Ap­ I and 3) product distribution authorization. plication materials and issuing agencies are Aquatic farm siting and design involves the also identified in this table. most significant commitment of public resour­ I ces and therefore has the most specific This chapter describes the state's interagency regulatory requirements. This phase also project review and authorization process used generates the most public interest, primarily to schedule timely and thorough project dis­ 1/ because of land use considerations necessary cussions. Specific information about each to properly site an aquatic farm. state or federal resource agency approval re­ quired for aquatic farming is also presented. All development projects occurring in the ·a coastal zone of Alaska as established in the Alaska Coastal Management Act must under- I I I

I 87 I

I

SITING AND DESIGN PHASE I

Alaska Coastal Management this legislation are being developed. These ·I Program Project Review procedures must reflect the intent, incor­ Process porate the requirements of the bill and main­ tain the existing ACMP interagency I As interest in developing Alaska's resources consistency review process. (See process dis­ increased during the last decade, industries cussion on page 73.) demanded state agencies become better or­ I' ganized and integrated to streamline the per­ mitting processes for coastal project siting and Coastal Project Questionnaire and design. In response to this need, and under Preapplication Services Alaska Coastal Management Program I (ACMP) authorities, the Division of The first step in the consistency review Governmental Coordination (DGC), within process is to fill out a coastal project question­ the Office of the Governor established in naire (CPQ), which, is designed to help ap­ I regulation ( 6 AAC 50) a project review system plicants determine what state authorizations that: 1) assists applicants in determining what are necessary before project construction can state resource agency siting and design begin. It also cross references related federal I authorizations are necessary for coastal permit application requirements. Completed projects, 2) gives state resource agencies and questionnaires are submitted as part of a local governments opportunity for concurrent review packet to help project reviewers under­ and coordinated processing of all approvals stand a proposals scope. A simple yesjno I needed to site these proposed projects, and 3) question series in the CPQ has been designed mediates any objections by applicants to by each permitting agency to identify permit proposed ACMP conditions. requirements. A "yes" answer means that a I permit for that aspect of the proposal may be The coastal project review process, also necessary. An agency contact list is provided ,, known as the consistency review process, with each CPQ so applicants can speak to ap­ provides a coordinated interagency review to propriate individuals about specific applica­ determine project compliance with regulatory tion requirements indicated by "yes" answers. standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. This process is designed to concur­ Before finalizing project plans and submitting I rently allow agencies to exchange resource in­ applications, an applicant can request that formation and concerns related to an ACMP the coordinating agency arrange meetings be­ consistency determination and agency tween applicants and state agency repre­ I decisions on particular project authorizations. sentatives. Preapplication meetings can help The consistency review process is designed to identify concerns, relay a need for more infor­ allow further refinements for specific types of mation, and encourage a mutual project un­ I coastal development projects. The Etolin Is­ derstanding. Preapplication meetings can be land Pilot Project provides an opportunity to arranged by calling or writing to the coordinat­ present the recently developed Consolidated ing agency. Shellfish Farm Application process. Addi­ I tional processing improvements will also be For initial aquatic farm siting and design, the recommended. coordinating agency is always DGC. Table 4- 1 lists numerous state and federal permits I Aquatic farm legislation was passed (Chapter which may be coordinated under a DGC 145 SLA 88) which will affect processing of project review. Aquatic farms in marine shellfish, sea vegetable, and related hatchery waters will require the following approvals proposals. Implementation procedures for (items 1-8 from Table 4-1): I

88 I I

I

1. Consistency Determination, from DGC. As shown in Table 4-1, most state applications I (items 1-6) can be applied for on a single Con­ 2. Certification of Reasonable Assurance, is­ solidated Shellfish Farm Application. sued by the Department of Environmental I Conservation (DEC), to assure the project To participate in the state's project review will meet state water quality standards. process, an applicant must first complete a Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) to I 3. Land Use Authorization. This permit or determine which authorizations are needed, lease, issued by the Department of Natural and then submit all necessary applications. Resources (DNR), conveys interest in state I owned tidelands. 4. Shellfish Farm Approvals, issued by the I Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 5. Approval by the U.S. Army Corps of En­ gineers to ensure the aquatic farm does not I obstruct navigation. 6. For upland facilities proposed on public lands, a land use permit is required. The U.S. I Forest Service is the upland land manager for the majority of public uplands in the study I area. I I I I I I I I

89 I

_ Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation Engineers of Agency Resources Resources Resources Resources Resources Game Game Game Game & & & & Service Corps Governmental Natural Natural Natural Fish Environmental Environmental Environmental of Natural Natural Fish Fish FISh Environmental Environmental Issuing of of of of of of of of of of of of of of Anny Forest Dept Dept Dept. Dept. U.S. Dept. Dept Dept. Dept. Dept. U.S. Dept. Division Coordination Dept. Dept. Dept. Dept. ·---(--~- PROJECTS Application Application Application Application Application Application Fann Fann Fann Fann Fann Farm MARICULTURE Application Application Materials Application Application Application Application Application Application Application Application Application Application Questionnaire FOR ShellfiSh ShellfiSh ShellfiSh ShellfiSh Shellfish Shellfish Engineers Agency Engineers Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Project of of Application Consolidated Corps Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Coastal Consolidated Separate Separate Separate Separate Separate Separate Separate Consolidated Corps Separate Separate Separate . < ~ NECESSARY -~--'·---~- BE ,_ MAY use) Program Permit .. Assurance WHICH Permit Permit family Permit gaVday) gaVday) for Phase Pennit Phase Pennit 500 500 single Management Permit Permit Acquisition Pennit/Lease Reasonable Disposal Permits Discharge Determination Permit Pennit ______Shippers of Use than than Facilities than PERMITS Salvage Survey Farm Use Sales Stock Use Coastal Rights Design Waste stock Park Habitat Phase Distribution 4-1 greater greater greater Upland and Sanitary Shell Material Fish Transport Aquatic Water Wastewater Solid (if Permit/Certification (If (If State AJaska Shellfish Fish Navigation Tideland Certificate Consistency Special Beachlog 1. 16. 17. 14. 15. 4. 2. 13. 10. 11. 12. 5. 3. 6. 7. 9. 8. Siting TABLE Product Stocking _'_'_(_ ~ -

I

Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application 6. Additional pertinent information i.e., I maps, site design sketches, and public For a proposed shellfish farm, state authoriza~ notices from agencies. tions listed above can be applied for by filing I a single form, the Consolidated Shellfish Farm Receipt of the project packet ensures that the Application (CSFA) (see Appendix D). state can address all administrative and regulatory siting and design matters for this I' If an aquatic farm needs an assured fresh project siting and design phase in one inter­ water supply, the applicant should apply for agency review. water rights on a separate application. Apply~ ing to DNR for water rights is required if use I will exceed 500 gallons per day. Similarly, Project Schedule wastewater discharge exceeding 500 gallons per day requires a permit from DEC. Ap· Aquatic farm reviews are scheduled by DGC I plicants must also submit separate applica· to occur within an established 50-day review tions for purchase of state timber or gravel schedule. This schedule begins upon receipt from DNR. These permits are not issued of a complete project packet. Chapter 145 I from CSFA forms because they are not essen­ SLA 88 requires that DNR accept the land use tial for a typical aquatic farm. CSFA was application for aquatic farm projects only limited to most frequently needed authoriza­ during an annually scheduled "opening" for tions so applicants would not have to supply defined districts. Steps in the state's consis­ I unnecessary information. tency review process are illustrated in Figure 4-1. This process will be modified to incor­ porate the new requirements of Chapter 145 I Project Packet SLA 88. DGC sets review schedules and dis­ tributes project packet information to all To initiate the state's coastal project review reviewing agency contacts and to the affected I process for aquatic farm project proposals, local government or coastal districts. (See AS DGC must receive the following completed 46.40 or 6 AAC 85 for reference to the estab­ packet: lishment of local coastal districts under the ACMP). I 1. Signed and completed Coastal Project Questionnaire. Comment and decision deadlines are set to bring predictability and timeliness to the I 2. Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application review process, to promote efficient inter­ agency discussion and resolution of issues 3. Any state permit applications needed for relating to coastal management issues. These I' the project not included in the CSFA (i.e. schedules may be extended if: 1) incomplete water right application or material sale ap· applications result in requests for additional plication). information 2) public hearings are con­ I ducted, and 3) resource agency field investiga­ 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public tions are necessary. notice (which jointly notices the state's project review) I Conflict Resolution 5. Copies of any federal permit applications If a state resource agency (DNR, DEC, I needed for the project (originals go the ADF&G), a coastal district with an approved federal agency issuing the permit) plan, or an applicant does not agree with a proposed consistency determination and in­ terpretation ofACMP standards, they may re­ I quest elevation of the finding to division

I 91 I

I

directors for reconsideration. Further con­ Appendix G). DNR is working with other I sideration by commissioners of those agencies state resource agencies, COE, and DGC toes­ can also be requested if new policy direction tablish procedures to enable concurrent must be established. Elevation steps will be public notice publication where possible. managed under an additional 15 day review I schedule. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the U.S. Forest Service is required to Each resource agency also has an administra­ provide a public notice and comment period I tive appeal process that gives any aggrieved to determine issues related to any Special Use person an opportunity to dispute that agency's permit application. Timing of this notice is action. The ultimate recourse by a person determined independent of COE or DNR I who objects to a final agency decision, includ­ notices. ing an ACMP determination, is an appeal to the Superior Court. Although timing of all three notices has not been determined, a probable sequence if an I aquatic farmer submitted all agency applica­ Public Notice Systems tions concurrently could be: (See Figure 4-2 on next page): I The Alaska Coastal Management Program review process integrates the review of per­ 1. The Forest Service would issue a notice mits needed for siting and designing a routine addressing caretaker facilities for maricul­ I aquatic farm. Although this system can ture upland activities. schedule review of coastal projects by agencies and local coastal districts, this process cannot ., 2. Within the same month, COE may issue alter specific agency requirements for public a public notice for a waterborne structure. notice. Individual public notice is required for This notice would also address the state's land management authorizations and most consistency determination and DEC 401 regulatory approvals required for mariculture I projects. Three separate public notices are certification. generally required for proposed aquatic farm projects. 3. CConcurrent with COE notice, DGC would send a completed packet to a prees­ I The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers (COE) tablished distribution list which includes routinely issues a public notice for Section 10 Tongass National Forest Ranger Districts. or Section 404 permit applications. A notice I of the state's review for ACMP consistency 4. DNR may issue public notice for use of certification and Department of Environmen­ state lands at this time; tal Conservation's (DEC) "Certification of I Reasonable Assurance" that the project will 5. DNR contacts the Forest Service as meet the State's water quality standards is also upland owner for comment during consis­ included within public notices printed by tency processes; and I~ COE. 6. A public notice is issued at the end of In addition to public newspaper notice, COE DNR's preliminary best interest finding, a sends information packets to a general mail­ I ing list. DGC also sends complete project procedure which follows conclusion of the packets to all participating state and federal consistency review. agencies and to affected local coastal districts. I These divergent public notices result from Public notice under AS 38.05.945 is required specific agency requirements. During im­ for all land use authorizations DNR is propos­ plementation of Chapter 145 SLA 88, the ing to issue for aquatic farms and related aquaticfarm legislation, an effort will be made I hatcheries as a result of recent legislation (see to examine and coordinate to the extent pos-

92 I I

I

sible, public notice for all state and federal ACMP before any state or federal permits are I permit applications to occur jointly or concur­ issued. The consistency review process pre­ rently. viously described is used to make a consisten­ cy determination, thereby finding each related I permit consistent. The consistency deter­ Issuance of State Agency Permits mination is the first decision document issued in the state's project review process because it Under state and federal law, any resource-re­ I lated permits for coastal activities must be is required prior to other agency actions on coastal projects. I determined to be consistent with standards of I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 93

[64] To Level 84 Policy Day For Direction Project Elevated Cabinet May [49) District Elevation 69 ...... t ·······•·• Day Agency Objections Approved Request Applicant, Or No [44) Tries ~ 64 Develop Day Agency Consensus To Coordinating 1 • • To [29] 49 Project Elevated Level Director Day May (29] District ...... PROCEDURES* Elevation + 49 .... ;ections Day Agency Applicant. Approved Request Or I I [24] Districts And And Applicant, fNo REVIEW 44 Develops --- Day NotifJes Agencies Approved Agency Preliminary Position Coordinating (17] I 34 I CONSISTENCY Day E~ Comments [17) May schedule. 34 ...... + Requested day Day Be Hearing 30 II IIMayc.,.. for occurs. PROJECT . is Info 1151 ...... Request t 25 4-1 Mce Day (2J milestone FonnaJ For Extension Extension MayCase And 2 Review schedule,[#] Day Agency which Sets Packet Disttibutes Coordinating Schedule FIGURE day on ~ 50.070. 50 a [1) To 1 for 6AAC schedule Day is Applicant Submits Agency Pocket Complete Coordinating by milestone 1- review number of ( ] And ... required First Optional As Day application Day" • # -4 \:;) Applicant Agencies Project Cmtacts Pre Conference Completes Optional Questionnaire ••••• ~---~~~-~~~-~~~-~-~

I

I Approvals Routinely Required New Process for Siting Mariculture Projects Chapter 145 SLA 88 was passed in the last Land Management Approvals hours ofthe 15th legislature. Implementation I will be designed to mesh smoothly with the ex­ Development on uplands and tide/submerged isting coastal project review process to avoid lands in public ownership requires approval duplication of effort by applicants, govern­ I from managing agencies prior to such ac­ ment agencies, and the general public inter­ tivities. DNR is the primary land manager for ested in commenting on aquatic farm state owned lands. The Division of Land and proposals. Water Management (DLWM) within this I Department has primary responsibility for is­ This legislation mandates DNR to adopt new suing the permits or leases necessary for regulations. Adoption of regulations allows aquatic farm development on state owned for public participation in making policy I lands or waters. decisions needed to carry out the law. This section sets out major requirements of the Several federal agencies manage most federal legislation and of existing laws and regulations I lands in Alaska: U.S. Forest Service, U.S. that generally apply to aquatic farm develop­ Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and ment. Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Indian I. Mfairs. Under the aquatic farm legislation, DNR begins the process of authorizing new aquatic The U.S. Forest Service is the responsible land farms by identifying geographic districts management agency for all federal lands within which it will invite site applications. I above mean high tide line within the Etolin Is­ Any person who wants to obtain permits to land project area. These lands are managed develop an aquatic farm on state owned through the local Ranger District office in tidelands may participate. The application I Wrangell. period for aquatic farm permits will remain open for at least 60 days each year. In line with current agency practice, the application DNR land Use Permits and Leases will probably be a consolidated form that provides information other state agencies will DNR currently manages approximately 85 need to process their own permits. The ap­ million acres of uplands, about 10 million plicant will fill out a CPQ and submit applica­ I' acres of water, and most tidelands along the tions for any necessary federal permits at the State's 34,000 mile coastline. DNR also same time. manages approximately 25-30 million acres of I submerged land offshore out to the three mile Mter consultation with ADF&G and DEC, territorial sea boundary. DNR will prepare a preliminary finding under AS 38.05.035 (e) explaining why it believes it DNR is mandated by Alaska's Constitution to is in the state's best interests to grant permits I encourage settlement of the state's land and for aquatic farm development at particular development of it's resources by making them sites. Conversely, if DNR believes a permit available for public use, consistent with public should not be issued for a certain site, it will I interest. State statutes direct departmental give the applicant a written finding explaining management of state owned land to establish reasons for denial. DNR must prepare land a balanced land use for both public and private use plans and classification orders for I purposes, and to administer state programs proposed sites that are not classified. Agen­ for the conservation and development of cies are developing procedures to incorporate natural resources. classification requirement into the consisten­ I cy review process.

I 95 I

I

DNR will hold a public hearing in each district aquatic farming chooses not to lease it, the I where it proposes to issue aquatic farm per­ lease will be offered to the public. Sites will mits. It will give public notice under AS be leased for not less than their appraised fair 38.05.945, including advertisements in local market value. The lease will be reappraised and statewide newspapers and notice to af­ and rent adjusted accordingly every five years. I fected municipal governments or Native The lessee must post a bond or provide other regional corporations, regional fish and game security to cover restoration costs if the site is advisory councils, coastal resource service later abandoned. I areas (local councils authorized to prepare district coastal management plans where there is no municipal government to do so) O'th~r DNR Approvals and others, inviting interested people to tes­ I tify or to comment in writing on the proposal. 'fo develop an aquatic farm an applicant may need other authorizations from DNR. A per­ After considering comments it has received, son may obtain ownership of beach logs to be I DNR will prepare a final finding on the used for construction of rafts by purchasing a proposed permit sites, while DGC issues a beach log salvage permit. This permit is ad­ conclusive (final) consistency determination. ministered through DNR's Division of I If a proposal is determined to be consistent Forestry. A water appropriation may be ob­ with ACMP and to be in the state's best inter­ tained from DNR's Land and Water Manage­ ests, an aquatic farm permit will be granted. ment Division, giving the aquatic farm Other agencies will take similar action under developer legal right to continue using a par­ I their own statutory authorities. ticular quantity of fresh water. Water rights are normally transferred with the permit or lease they serve. I Tideland Permits Materials (sand or gravel) on state uplands or An aquatic farm permit is a nontransferable tidelands may be purchased from the DLWM I right, valid for three years, to enter, improve, to use for fill or other purposes. Materials are and develop a state tidelands site into an sold at fair market value. aquatic farm or hatchery. The permittee must post a bond or other security to cover restora­ If an aquatic farm is proposed within a State I tion costs if the site is later abandoned. DNR Marine Park (none in the Etolin study area) has the discretion to renew permits, but must authorization from the DNR, Division of again give public notice and consider com­ Parks and Outdoor Recreation is required. I ment received before doing so. If the permit­ tee succeeds in developing the site for aquatic farming or as a hatchery and the site is offered U.S. forest SeNice Land Use Permits for lease, the permittee has first rights to that (Special Use Permits} I lease (see below). The Tongass Land Management Plan provides broad direction for all activities, in­ I Leases cluding aquatic farming, occurring on the Tongass National Forest. The forest includes As with other leases issued for state owned most land above mean high tide line. The I land, aquatic farm leases may be assigned Tongass Land Management Plan has allo­ (transferred) with the approval of DNR. If cated the study area for the Etolin Island Area the assignee changes use of the site, the lease Mariculture Pilot Project to a mixture of land I reverts to the state. Leases are long term use designations. Each land use designation property rights: their duration can be as much allows a given range of activities to occur as 55 years, although the department will within the land unit. Management objectives probably choose a shorter term ( 10 to 25 of land use designations are presented in I' years). If a permittee who developed a site for Chapter 3. The Etolin Island Project map (in-

96 I I

I

I side back cover) delineates land ~se designa­ ment. This evaluation will then be made avail­ tions for this area of Tongass National For~st. able for public review. Some land around Olive Cove on the east stde of Etolin Island is either privately or state I owned so direction from the Tongass Land Other Mariculture ProJect Management Plan does not apply. Regulatory Approvals I Any use of federal lands f?r de~elop~ent re­ In addition to approvals for access and use of quires a Special Use Permit. Th1s.~~y m~l~de public lands, a significant regulatory structure needs for shoreties storage facihhes, livmg , . . is in place to address public issues. relate~ to I facilities, water lines, and commumcatlons the impact of uses related to aquatic far.mmg. equipment. Special Use P~rmits are usually These additional public interest considera­ issued annually and a requrre a fee. Forest tions are administered through state and Service reviews and decisions about upland federal regulatory agencies as follows: I facilities for mariculture proposals should occur at the same time the state's project review and COE permit review are occurring. Department Of Environmental I Conservation Approvals The U.S. Forest Service approval of permit re­ quests will depend upon whether or not the DEC has two divisions involved in permits and I need for upland facilities c~n be acco~­ certifications necessary for development of modated on the tideland permitted area, or if aquatic farms. The Division of Environmen­ there are state or private lands in the vicinity tal Health (DEH) and Division o~ I?~viron­ that are suitable. Impacts on surrounding en­ mental Quality (DEQ). The DIVISIOn . of I vironment are evaluated. Apparent Environmental Health (DEH) has two maJOr suitability of tideland sites for mariculture mariculture responsibilities. One is to con­ purposes is also a determinin~ factor. Com­ duct sanitary surveys and certify sites for patibility with laws, regula~10ns, land use I growing commercial shellfish. "J?is is i~ c~m­ designations and other proJected uses are pliance with the National Shellfish Samtahon evaluated. Public project review occurs in ac­ Program. The second responsibility of D~H cordance with the National Environmental is product certification prior to marketmg. Policy Act (NEPA). I Authorization occurs with issuance of a Shellstock Shippers Permit. This ensures a product free from ~.SP. and other ~on­ I NEPA Processes taminants. Those certifications are descnbed later in this chapter. The determination of permit suitabilitywill be accomplished by following procedures ~e­ Both of these certifications are conducted in­ I quired in the National Environmental Pohcy dependent of an ACMP review and outside Act (NEPA). This document is the basic na­ the ACMP time frame. However, during the tional charter for environmental protection, project siting and design phase, Divison of En­ establishing policy, setting goals and providing I viommental Quality (DEQ), who does par­ a means for policy implementation. ticipate in the ACMP review process, will notify DEH of a mariculture proposal. DEH NEPA procedures ensure environmental in­ I will contact the applicant with information formation is available to public officials and about requirements for the growing site to be citizens before any action is taken. certified and to initiate shellfish product com­ mercial sales. I All sites requested for permits will be ex­ amined, usually by an interdisciplina~ team DEQ is responsible for regulating water (IDT) and they will evaluate th~ proJe~t or I facility in relation to its surroundmg envrron- quality in Alaska. Water Qu~lity. Stand~rd Regulations, 18 AAC 70, are gmdelines wh1ch

I 97 I

I regulate water pollution. Specific water 18 AAC 70.010 states no person may conduct I quality parameters for each designated water an operation that causes or contributes to a use are addressed in the Water Quality Stand­ violation of the Water Quality Standards. ards section of Chapter 3. For fresh and Water Quality Standards establish various marine waters these include: fecal coliform protected water use classes and criteria. I bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, Water quality standards set by 18 AAC 70.010 temperature, dissolved inorganic substances, specify the degree of degradation that may not sediment, toxic and other deleterious organic be exceeded in a water body as a result of I and inorganic substances, color, petroleum human actions. All water bodies that are hydrocarbons, oils and grease, radioactivity, naturally of higher quality than water quality total residual chlorine and other residues. criteria for that use class must be maintained DEC uses the following procedures to apply at the existing quality. An applicant may apply I appropriate water quality criteria for any for a short term variance that would allow water body: Water Quality Standards to be violated for a predetermined temporary period of time. It I 1. If a water body is protected for more than is also possible to petition for a reclassifica­ one use class the most stringent water quality tion of the water body to a less stringent use criteria will apply. class. I 2. At the boundary between waters Section 18 AAC 70.020 sets out specific water protected for different use classes the most quality criteria that must be maintained in I stringent use class will apply. various water use classes. These classes are separated into marine and fresh water uses 3. In estuaries, where fresh and marine and include such things as water supplies, water recreation, growth and propagation of I water quality criteria differ within same use fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life and classes, the standard will be determined on wildlife. the basis of salinity. However marine water quality criteria will apply for dissolved I oxygen if salinity is one part per thousand or 401 Certification greater and for fecal coliform bacteria if salinity is 10 parts per thousand or greater. As part of the responsibilities for regulating I water quality, the Division of Environmental Water Quality Standards apply to siting and Quality (DEQ) must issue a Certificate of operation of mariculture facilities. DEQ is Reasonable Assurance that a mariculture I responsible for issuing the Certificate of project will, during construction and any time Reasonable Assurance required under sec­ afterward, be consistent with state water tion 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Con­ quality standards. This certification is made I trol Act Amendments of 1972, as modified by concurrently with the ACMP review. The the Federal Clear Water Act of 1987. Under time frame is the same as that for an ACMP section 401 any applicant for a federal license review. or permit to conduct any activity which may I result in any discharge into navigable waters 401 certification is required by COE before of the state must obtain certification from the they will issue a COE permit for structures in designated state agency to assure such dis­ navigable waters or to place fill in wetlands. I charge will comply with State Water Quality Any stipulations attached to 401 certifications Standards. DEQ also reviews plans for will be attached and become part of the COE sewage systems and applications for was­ Permit. I tewater discharge and solid waste disposal permits, if needed. A description of each of Under 401 review, DEQ looks at any impacts these approvals follows. a mariculture development might have on sur­ rounding waters. This could include dis­ charge of organic materials from the animals,

98 I I

I

or addition of any substances into the water to primary treatment. Domestic wastewater I by the farmer. Projects will also be reviewed includes gray water, which is defined as was­ for possible conflicts with other waters uses in tewater from laundry, kitchen sinks, showers, the project area. Where appropriate, mitigat­ baths, or other domestic sources. A person I ing measures may be stipulated. who disposes of non domestic wastewater into or onto waters or lands of the state must have During 401 reviews it is important that ac­ a waste disposal permit. I tivities associated with caretaker support facilities are clearly defined. All information For wastewater discharges under 500 gallons on storage of hazardous chemicals and sewage a day no permit is issued and the DEC com­ treatment needs to be provided. Lack of this pletes only a system plan review. Under 18 I information can slow down the review AAC 72, a system plan review is not required process. for single family dwellings using an on site domestic wastewater disposal system meeting I requirements of wastewater disposal regula­ Wastewater Discharge and Solid Waste tions. A system plan review is required for Permits, System Plan Reviews single family dwellings discharging treated I wastewater onto land or into state surface DEQ regulates all discharges including: waters and for all wastewater systems that are sewage, gray water, and nondomestic (com­ larger than single family facilities, and all com­ mercial or industrial) wastewater discharges mercia!/ industrial facilities. I associated with, or affecting, mariculture facilities. Subdivision plan reviews are also regulated under 18 AAC 72. DEC reviews all property I Wastewater Disposal Regulations, 18 AAC subdivisions of two or more parcels. The 72, establish treatment and disposal require­ review determines types of sewage disposal ments for domestic and nondomestic sewage systems, if any, feasible on the parcels. I. and gray water. Wastewater regulations Department conditions may be placed on the define minimum levels of treatment. They plat limiting the types of wastewater disposal also define: discharges exempt from needing system allowed. Treatment systems that will waste disposal permits; discharges exempt discharge into water will also need further I from plan review requirements; criteria for plan review by DEC. An individual lot owner design of wastewater systems, including may propose some type of sewage disposal separation distances and minimum treat­ system, other than the type of system ap­ I ments; criteria for plan approval of was­ proved for subdivisions, by submitting plans tewater systems; and criteria for subdivision for an alternative system. DEC will review plan approval. plans for conformance with wastewater regulation and approve, conditionally ap­ I The two main regulatory procedures for dis­ prove, or deny plan approval. posal of wastewater are a wastewater permit and a system plan review. Under 18 AAC 72, The purpose of Solid Waste Disposal permits I Wastewater Disposal Regulations, a person is to control or eliminate detrimental health, who disposes of domestic wastewater into or environmental, and nuisance effects of im­ onto waters or lands of the state must have a proper solid waste disposal practices. A per­ I waste disposal permit unless discharge is to a son who constructs, modifies, or operates a soil absorption system, or is no more than 500 solid waste disposal site must do so in accord­ gallons per day, and which meets minimum ance with regulations in 18 AAC 60, which treatment and system plan review require­ pertain to solid waste management. A permit I ments. is not required for a single family or duplex residence on a farm where solid waste is Normal treatment for domestic wastewater is generated and disposed of on the premises. I secondary treatment. For discharges into "Solid waste" means garbage, refuse, sludge marine waters, DEC may grant a waiver down and other discarded material including solid,

I 99

I liquid, semisolid or contained gaseous physical and biological characteristics of I material resulting from industrial, commer­ proposed locations are suitable for a shellfish cial and agricultural operations, and from farm, 2) proposed farms do not unreasonably community activities. or adversely affect management of natural stocks or require significant alterations in ex­ I isting uses of fish and wildlife resources, 3) Department Of Fish And Game farms will not adversely affect fisheries, Approvals wildlife, or their habitats, and 4) plans for I operation and staffing demonstrate adequate Alaska Department of Fish and Game technical and operational feasibility. (ADF&G) has broad responsibilities to I "manage, protect, maintain, improve, and ex­ tend the fish, game and aquatic plant resour­ Title 16 Permits ces of the state in the interest of the economy and well being of the state". (AS 16.05.020). The ADF &G Habitat Division has primary I Because for-profit mariculture currently in­ responsibility for reviewing applications and volves private ownership of cultured shellfish, issuing permits for use of fish habitat under ADF&G reviews proposed activities primari­ Title 16. These permits are required by I ly to determine the effects activities will have ADF&G for activities which affect streams, on state owned fish and wildlife resources and through blockage of fish passages or through their yields or harvests. In addition, ADF&G a variety of activities, such as water usage, flow I is statutorily mandated to "encourage the in­ diversion or obstruction, pollution, or use of vestment by private enterprise in the tech­ equipment in stream beds that may cause ad­ nological development and economic verse impacts to anadromous fish habitat. utilization of the fisheries resources" and to" ... Water use for upland facilities or operations I do all things necessary to insure perpetual and and culvert or bridge installation in streams increasing production and use of the food during road construction are types of maricul­ resources of Alaska waters ... " (AS 16.05.092) ture activities that may require Title 16 per­ I ADF&G regulates shellfish mariculture ac­ mits. Special area permits are also required tivities in three ways: by ADF&G for land use activities in legisla­ tively designated state game refuges, 1. Through technical review and permitting sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas. I of proposed shellfish farms. Permits related to technical review of mariculture farm Under a broad mandate of the Fish and proposals are discussed below. Wildlife Coordination Act, ADF&G reviews I COE permits to provide recommendations 2. Through issuance of permits for transpor­ concerning fish and wildlife resource protec­ tation, possession, and release of live fish in­ tion. I cluding exportation or importation of shellfish. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Approvals I 3. Through issuance of interim-use permits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) ad­ for harvest of larval and juvenile shellfish. ministers Section 10 of the Rivers and Har­ bors Act of 1899. This law applies in all I navigable waters of the United States. It Shellfish Farm Permit prohibits unreasonable obstructions or use of the nation's waters. Navigability issues ad­ I The Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, dress uses of the entire surface and bed of all and Development Division (FRED) of water bodies subject to tidal action that lie ADF&G has primary responsibility for review below mean high tide, and all ocean and coas­ and issuance of Shellfish Farm permits. Ap­ tal waters extending seaward from the I' plications are evaluated to determine that: 1)

100 I I

I

coastline (mean low tide) or a distance of are no objections, a permit will be issued by I three geographic or nautical miles. the COE satisfying Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and/or Section 404 require­ The COE also administers Section 404 of the ments. If there are objections, the applicant I Clean Water Act which regulates discharge of must resolve them before the COE will issue dredged or fill material in United States a permit. If the project appears to have un­ waters (including wetlands). resolvable aspects, Corps of Engineers will I determine if it is in the public's best interest to issue the permit over objections of the Section 10 and Section 404 Permits reviewer. Permit issuance is a broad public in­ terest determination. It is based on evalua­ I Mariculture activity requires a COE permit tion of probable impacts of a proposed for construction of any structure in or over any activity, intended use, public interest, includ­ navigable water of the United States, and ac­ ing conservation, fish, wildlife, economics, I complishment of any other work affecting water quality, recreation and general environ­ course, location, condition, or capacity of such mental concerns. waters. If upland or shoreline work associated I with facilities requires placement of dredged Issuance of a COE permit requires the project or fill materials into waters or wetlands, a be constructed within three years. Once this COE permit under Section 404 is also re­ requirement is met the COE permit will be quired. valid for the life of the project. If design or I operation of the project changes a permit The COE processes mariculture permit modification is necessary. A complete project reviews by issuing a public notice for a 30-day modification review must occur prior to in­ I permit. A full review allows the general public, state, and federal agencies to formu­ stituting any changes in a COE permit. I late responses within this time frame. If there I I I I I I I

I 101

I

STOCKING PHASE I

Collection and transport of brood stock for transport, in a centrallocation specified on the I mariculture operations is managed solely by permit. A Fish Transport Permit for spat col­ ADF&G. Consistency review requirements, lection allows only temporary possession, as noted by their absence in Table 4-1, do not limited to 90 days. A Fish Transport Permit I apply. must be filled out by the buyer for each transport of shellfish from the staging area to the shellfish farm. The same is true for impor­ Fish Transport Permit tation of live oysters and any subsequent I movement of them between farms. Fish Fish Transport Permits are required by Transport Permits are exempt from ACMP ADF&G without which "no person may consistency review permit review. The time I transport, possess, export from the state, or frame for issuance is 45 days. release into waters of the state any live fish. In this instance, fish means any species of I aquatic finfish, invertebrate or live am­ Aquatic Stock Acquisition phibian, in any stage of its life cycle, found in Permit or introduced into the state." Importation of I live fish is also addressed in these regulations. Recently passed legislation included The only fish that may be imported into Alas­ provisions for issuance of an aquatic stock ac­ ka for rearing or release into Alaskan waters quisition permit to obtain seed stock from the are oysters originating from locations other I than Korea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the At­ wild for shellfish and sea vegetable farms. Un­ lantic coast of North America. Before less sustained yield of the species in question transport a disease history of the specific stock would be impaired, established uses of that I of fish to be transported must be established species unreasonably disrupted, or a Board of through inspection and certification by Fisheries regulation contravened, a permit to ADF&G fish pathology section. Fish obtain. wild stock will be issued to persons Transport Permits are multiple year permits holding valid Aquatic Farm Permits. The I that allow ADF&G to monitor pathological aquatic stock acquisition permit is intended to and genetic considerations of stocks used in supply wild stock if necessary to (1) meet the mariculture operations in the state. initial needs of a farm or hatchery; (2) if there I are technological limitations on propagating A separate Fish Transport Permit form must cultured stock; (3) if wild stock is not being be completed for spat collection operations I and to obtain and possess shellfish for farm­ fully used; and ( 4) if wild stock is needed to maintain the gene pool of a hatchery or farm. ing. Collected spat may be staged, prior to I I I

102 I' I

I

I PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION PHASE

I Development of shellfish farms and shellfish reaching the consumer are grown, harvested, marketing are governed by regulations estab­ and processed in a sanitary manner. Num­ lished in Article II of the State of Alaska Fish bered certificates are issued annually to inter­ I Inspection Regulations, 18 AAC 34. These state shellfish shippers who comply with the regulations require an annual permit be ob­ sanitary operating standards, and copies of tained in order to harvest, process, pack, the certificates are forwarded to FDA. repack, sell, or possess shellfish for sale. I Before a permit is issued, growing areas must Maximum standards for water quality, be certified by DEC, Division of Environmen­ microbiological levels in shellfish, and tal Health,(EH). paralytic shellfish poison (PSP) toxins were I established by the NSSP and are regulated by the State. Any shellfish or growing area that National Shellfish Sanitation does not meet these standards is in violation of the NSSP, and the product may not be I Program marketed. Article II of the State of Alaska Fish Inspec­ It is the responsibility of the State to use its tion Regulations, regulatory authority to classify all coastal I­ 18 AAC 34, adopts the National Shellfish waters for shellfish harvesting on the basis of Sanitation Program (NSSP) Manual of sanitary quality; regulate the harvesting of the Operations, Part I and II, which includes shellfish; prosecute persons harvesting I standards for sanitation, harvesting, handling, shellfish from restricted, prohibited, or non­ shucking and shipping of fresh or frozen approved areas for sale; regulate and super­ shellfish. An overview of the NSSP is given in vise the shipment and storage of shellstock, the following paragraphs. and the shucking, packing, and repacking of I shellfish; conduct laboratory examinations of In 1925, the National Shellfish Sanitation ~hellfish from particular areas; and suspend Program was developed from public health mterstate shipper certificates during public I principles and program controls that were health emergencies. created as a result of concerns over the sanitary quality of shellfish shipped in inter­ Procedures to be Followed by the Food I st~t~ comm.erce. Control of the program was ongmally gtven to the Public Health Service and Drug Administration: but is now administered by the Food and Drug I Administration (FDA), and is dependent The FDA makes an annual review of each upon the cooperative and voluntary efforts of State's control program, which includes in­ the FDA, the state regulatory agencies, and specting a representative number of shellfish the shellfish industry. processing plants. On the basis of the infor­ I mation obtained, FDA determines the degree In order to carry out this cooperative control o~ conformity the State shellfish program has program, each party accepted responsibility With the NSSP. A monthly list of valid inter­ I for certain procedures, as outlined below. state shellfish shipper certificates is published by FDA and is available to State agencies and individuals upon request. I Procedures to be Followed by the State: Each shellfish shipping State adopts adequate laws and regulations for sanitary control of the I shellfish industry to insure that shellfish

I 103

I

Procedures to be Followed by the tion and permission to initiate shellfish I Industry: product commercial sales.

The shellfish industry cooperates by obtaining A sanitary survey of each proposed site is con­ shellfish from approved sources, by process­ ducted by personnel from DEC prior to any I ing in facilities which meet the sanitary harvest of shellfish. This survey is composed operating standards, by placing the proper of two parts, with the first part consisting of certificate number on each package of water sampling and testing in the area to I shellfish, and by keeping and making available determine water quality, and the second part to regulatory authorities records which show consisting of a shoreline investigation to iden­ the origin and distribution of all shellfish. tify any sources of pollution that may affect I the area.

The NSSP Manuai of Operation: To determine acceptable water quality at the proposed site, water samples are usually col­ I The NSSP created a two part manual which lected from five representative sampling sta­ deals with the sanitation of the growing, har­ tions throughout the growing area. A vesting, processing, and distribution of minimum of 10 to 15 water samples are col­ I shellfish. The manual is used as a guide by lected per station during the worst pollution States in developing their shellfish sanitation conditions. These water samples are taken laws. It is intended that States participating in over a five day period at both high and low the NSSP will follow the manual in exercising tides. Additionally, native shellfish species, I sanitary supervision over harvesting, shuck­ including clams and mussels, are taken for ing, packing, repacking, and reshipping of PSP testing. shellfish, and in issuing interstate shellfish I shipper certificates. The shoreline investigation consists of iden­ tifying all sources of pollution, such as nearby This manual is also followed by the shellfish operating industries, development on ad­ I industry in developing and maintaining jacent properties or waters, boat harborage, proper sanitary operating conditions while marine traffic, and incoming streams. At this harvesting, processing, and distributing time, .additional sampling may be done for shellfish. specific laboratory tests to evaluate sewage, I oil, heavy metals, or pesticide contamination. Standard measurements of oceanographic Site Certification and variables such as pH, salinity, temperature, I and water clarity are also done. DEC Development evaluates laboratory results and determines if The main goal of the Seafood Section is to en­ the area can be certified. I sure production of safe and wholesome mariculture products. This is done through a Costs related to area certification are charged shellfish site certification and processing in­ to the individual making the request and in­ I spection program that meets requirements of clude: 1) costs of submitting samples to DEC the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Palmer Lab, 2) transportation costs of DEC Under this program, all shellfish growing personnel to the site from the nearest town or areas in Alaska must be certified. Harvesters city which has a commercial airport, 3) provid­ I and processors must be permitted by the ing a boat for sampling and investigation work. DEC. If aircraft is provided, the airplane must be adequately covered with required insurance. I During project siting and design phase, EQ Boats which are provided must be adequate will notify EH of a mariculture proposal. EH for weather conditions, Coast Guard ap­ will contact the applicant with information proved, and it must have a radio and basic tool I about requirements for growing site certifica- supply for maintenance. Samples are current-

104 I I

I

ly analyzed free of charge by the DEC Palmer shorebase plant with refrigeration or I Lab. equivalent, where shellstock will be held and packaged. Because of limited personnel and time, I growers are advised to contact DEC 3. Labeling information for the shellfish Anchorage office at least six months in ad­ product must include a waterproof and vance of their proposed harvest date to durable tag or label and must contain the I schedule their growing site sanitary survey. AK# (to be issued), weight, type of shellfish, a "Keep Refrigerated" or "Keep Frozen" statement, specific area of harvest, date of I Product Certification Prior to harvest or code, and name and address of Marketing buyer and seller.

DEC also tests and approves products prior to 4. Cleaning and sanitizing procedures used I market. The initial step, assuming the grow­ ing site is certified, is to file an application for for containers in which shellfish will be a DEC Shellstock Shippers Permit. This transported. I process should begin several months before the grower expects to ship any shellfish. 5. Documentation format for records of shellfish transported or sold; these records I Applications must include the following: must be kept in a bound ledger book. 1. A description of locations where the DEC recommends applications be submitted shellfish will be grown. at least 90 days before project initiation to en­ I sure adequate time for the review process. 2. A sketch drawn to scale showing location I of any structures. This should include a I I I I I I I

I 105 I

I

CONSOLIDATED SHELLFISH FARM APPLICATION I EVALUATION I The Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application 2. For wastewater discharges exceeding 500 (CSFA) is used to apply for most permits gallons a day, a permit from DEC is re­ routinely required by the state to develop quired. A Solid Waste Disposal Permit is I mariculture facilities. The application was necessary for disposal of solid wastes m developed by an interagency working group amounts exceeding simple family use. consisting of representatives from all state I resource agencies responsible for issuing ap­ 3. DNR permits are required if an applicant provals for mariculture projects. This state wishes to use state timber, gravel or logs sal­ application form is used to process the state permits most frequently needed for maricul­ vaged from beaches. I ture developments. The CFSA must be sup­ plemented with applications for additional Detailed information is often unavailable to permits if an aquatic farm proposal includes resource agencies evaluating proposed I unique requests for uses of state resources or mariculture sites. Obtaining sufficient on-site other regulated activities (See Table 4-1). information can be time consuming and ex­ pensive. Detailed resource information from I As shown on Table 4-1, the following permits site investigations must be provided by ap­ and certifications are issued from the Con­ plicants. solidated Shellfish Farm Applications: In areas covered by land use plans, land clas­ I sifications are assigned to specific areas which o Alaska Coastal Management Program con­ sistency determination. aid land managers in determining allowable uses. Information is requested from prospec­ I tive aquatic farmers on the application to as­ o Land use authorizations from the Depart­ sist the state resource agencies in evaluating ment of Natural Resources. farm proposals and to focus the applicants at­ tention on important site criteria. I o Shellfish Farm approvals issued by Depart­ ment of Fish and Game. While much information exists on mariculture development worldwide, a limited amount of I o Certificate of Reasonable Assurance is­ information is available specifically for Alas­ sued by the Department of Environmental ka. As mariculture industries grow in Alaska, Conservation. more data will be generated and add to the I somewhat limited capability information o Title 16 permit issued by the Department available at the present time. New annual of Fish and Game reporting requirements will provide a mechanism to correlate information on site I

o Special Park Use permit issued by the capability parameters and production. Infor­ Department of Natural Resources. mation gathered annually at each farm site will provide a valuable data base that both I As discussed, an aquatic farmer will need to resource agencies and applicants will be able submit additional applications for other uni­ to use to extrapolate Alaska specific criteria que uses, and activities such as: for optimum site operations. I

1. For an assured fresh water supply, an ap­ Concerns have been expressed by permitting agencies and by industry representatives that plication to DNR for water rights may be re­ "speculation" could keep potentially produc­ I quired. tive sites from legitimate farming activities.

106 I I

I

Issuing mariculture permits to those who seek ing specific capability and suitability informa­ I wilderness cabin sites, or hope to benefit tion that project reviewers and aquatic financially by selling or trading land use rights farmers need in order to adequately review or other forms of speculation would be new proposals. I detrimental to the legitimate interests of the state and the mariculture industry. Under the 1. Pollution source information requests are aquatic farm legislation Chapter 145 SLA 88 minimal. The applicant is asked to determine I a three year aquatic farm tideland use permit which types of activities may have polluted the will be issued prior to a lease commitment to site. Agencies are unlikely to maintain com­ allow farmers a time frame to install facilities prehensive databases on past and existing and begin operations according to the point sources. While sanitation surveys by I development plan required in the CSFA. DEC will ensure polluted products will not be marketed, the potential exists for sites to be Continuing ADF&G and DNR aquatic farm permitted and developed at the risk of con­ I permits and/or leases will be dependent upon siderable time and effort only to be refused a development plan as outlined by informa­ authorizations required for marketing tion obtained in the CSFA and by products. Although the cover letter to the ap­ I demonstrated results described in the annual plicant discusses this DEC requirement a sen­ report. Development proposals need to be tence added to the" Note to Applicant" under sufficiently described in the application to the water quality section indicating that a site present a clear picture of expected farm must pass the Grower Site Certification prior I growth and development. Permits or leases to marketing seafood products. This addi­ will not be issued to individuals who do not tional reference would emphasize the neces­ demonstrate good faith in following proposals sity of investigating pollution sources early. I outlined in the CSFA without good reason. 2. Information on stocking density is not re­ The CSFA is a major improvement over prior quired on this application, a variable which applications and reflects genuine agency ef­ can greatly affect areal extent of sedimenta­ I fort to: tion. An estimation of proposed stocking den­ sity for the operation is provided by jointly o Simplify the application process for ap- assessing the production goals to the produc­ I plicants, tion facility dimension. However, a more o Consolidate information for agencies, defined stocking density figure could be easi­ o Reduce paperwork. ly presented by the applicant that would I o Addition of an annual report requirement enable reviewers to assess environmental im­ byADF&G pacts. I 3. Project reviewers must rely on descriptions Comments of tidal flushing, information on surface tidal currents at maximum flow, water depth under The Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot floating facilities, and bottom type composi­ I Project work plan outlined the need for field tion to indirectly assess the likelihood of sedi­ evaluation of the CSFA. Project participants ment accumulation and the type of benthic traveled to the study area in April of 1988 to community subject to impact. Nautical charts I perform a number of field investigations in­ or USGS map bases may not provide ade­ cluding evaluating the CSFA. Approximately quate shoreline and tidal detail. Because eight aquatic farms were visited and the ap­ aquatic farmers will out of necessity gain in­ I plication was filled out for each farm by agen­ formation on current and tide patterns and on cy people. the location of shallow sills, shelves, and rocks, more detailed information could be requested The following are comments evaluating the on the application to enable a more complete I required questions on the application regard- and thorough review during this initial siting stage.

I 107 I

I

Summary Site Capability/Production/Physical and I Biological Characteristics: The Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application o Water Column Profiles (salinity, tempera- represents a major improvement in the ture, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen I aquatic farm permitting and review processes. demand, ph, depth of light extinction, water Consolidation of information requests color, turbidity, suspended and settleable simplifies the application process for permits solids, conductivity) with a specified sam­ most commonly issued for mariculture pling schedule I development. The CSFA reflects a genuine o Frequency/occurrence of summer mixed agency effort to achieve a balance between water column conditions and having applicants provide adequate informa­ I tion to equip agencies to make reasonable phytoplankton blooms permit decisions distinct from the annual o Chlorophyll production reporting detail which will provide a basis for o Abundance and size distribution of refining the generalized knowledge of phytoplankton (specified sampling I mariculture for Alaska specific conditions. schedule) o Presence/relative densities of indicator or­ Better defined policies based on legislative ganisms or fouling organisms I mandates, administrative guidelines, and in­ formation gained by correlating detailed site Site Capability/Marketability: characteristics to productivity, as reported in o Fecal Coliform Concentrations I the annual report, will continue to provide o PSP Concentrations more specific guidelines to resource agencies and application requirements to the maricul­ Site Suitability/Significant Adverse I ture industry. It is expected the application Impacts to Fish, Wildlife, or their will undergo revisions as actual use Habitats: demonstrates how adequate and appropriate o Summer water column profiles and fre- questions are based on the direction provided quency /duration of thermal stratification I by policies developed after the review of ac­ o Presence/proximity of potential predators tual farm reports. o Degree of protection from prevailing winds I Annual Reports o Distribution/relative abundance of The Department of Fish and Game requires epibethic species below raft locations that a person who holds a permit for a shellfish o Presence/absence of benthic algae below farm submit an annual report no later than raft locations I December 15. During evaluation of the o Benthic infauna (species, relative den­ CSFA, resource agencies developed the fol­ sities) below raft locations lowing list of site characteristics which deter­ I mine a site's capability to be utilized for Results of Sediment Core Samples: aquatic farm purposes and its suitability to be Presence/Absence of Anaerobic occupied by mariculture operations from an Sediments I impact standpoint. Although it is known that More specific information re: potential for these characteristics are critical to farming tidal flushing: size of waterbody, location of success they have not been researched suffi­ facility with respect to restrictions to circula­ ciently in Alaska to set exact parameters or to tion and/or freshwater and marine water con­ I require applicants to describe them in their ditions, tidal regimes (do approaches go dry applications. at any tidal stage?), sills I These characteristics would best be obtained Suitability of Shoreline for Upland from aquatic farmers through the annual Development:: report and this will enable ADF&G to develop absence of eelgrass beds, bald eagle nests, in­ I a data base of comprehensive site informaw tertidal substrate and beach fringe vegetation tion.

108 I I

Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project CHAPTERS Implementation Options, Recommendations & Summary of Public Comment

Page 109 - IMPLEMENTATION

109 - Option 1 : Use of Existing Project Review Procedures 110 - Option 2: Adoption of an ACMP Mariculture Standard 110 - Option 3: Adoption of an AMSA Plan 110 - Option 4: Adoption of an Area Plan 110 - Option 5: Classification of State Tidelands 110 - Option 6: Establish Regulatory Siting Guidelines 110 - Option 7: Tongass Land Management Plan Revision

112 - RECOMMENDATIONS

112 - Recommendation I: lmplemen ta tion of this Report 112 - Recommendation 2: Compatibility with Other Uses 113 - Recommendation 4: Minimum Distance Between Sites 113 - Recommendation 5: Monitoring Farm Viability 1 14 - Recommendation 6: Future Studies

116 - SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT

Ul I ...... El

l1:1 i g...

I

I ChapterS I IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS, I RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY I OF PUBLIC COMMENT I IMPLEMENTATION

Federal and state agencies review proposed the state Division of Governmental Coordina­ I mariculture projects to ensure compliance tion (DGC). A complete description of the with applicable regulations and agency consistency review process appears in Chap­ management policies. Agencies participating ter 4. Chapter 4 also describes how the U.S. I in this project are concerned primarily with ef­ Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of fects proposed waterborne and upland Engineer (COE) review of mariculture mariculture facilities would have on environ­ development could be coordinated with the mental resources, such as water quality and state's consistency review process. I fish and wildlife habitat; and compatibility with other existing and planned uses of Participating agencies could use recommen­ proposed mariculture sites. dations in this section as part of their existing I project review procedures. Mariculture Initially, Option 1, Use of Existing Project projects will be reviewed based on ACMP Review Procedures will be used to implement standl!rds and other agency regulations. I the results of this project. This report will be However, information and recommendations used informally by agencies during the review included in this study would be used as a guide of proposed mariculture projects. to evaluate proposed mariculture projects I against these enforceable standards. Implementation Options: Option 2: Adoption of an ACMP Marlculture Standard I Option 1: Use of Existing Project Review Procedures All projects proposed within Alaska's coastal area must be evaluated against ACMP stand­ I A coordinated permit review process is cur­ ards. Projects must be consistent with these rently in place among state resource agencies standards, or they cannot be approved by state (DEC, ADF&G, and DNR). This process, or federal agencies. ACMP standards are known as the consistency review process, general policies guiding various kinds of coas­ I provides for a coordinated review of projects tal development, such as energy facilities, tim­ to determine compliance with standards of ber harvest and processing, and mining. the Alaska Coastal Management Program I (ACMP). State resource agencies review Recommendations in this study could be used proposed projects against their own agency re­ as a basis for developing a new ACMP stand­ quirements at the same time they review ard for mariculture development. A new I projects for consistency with ACMP. This standard would require public and agency consistency review process is coordinated by review, and approval by the state Coastal

I 109 I

I

Policy Council (CPC). Once approved, the uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands. I standard would apply to all mariculture Area Plans do not apply to private lands and development proposed within Alaska. A new differ from AMSA plans in this respect. Area standard would be implemented through ex­ plans contain policies that apply to specific isting consistency review process described in uses and activities, such as timber harvest, I Chapter 4. mining, recreation, or settlement. Planning areas are usually subdivided into management Option 3: Adoption of an AMSA Plan units, and lists of uses allowed or prohibited I within each unit are developed. Area plans Some coastal areas merit special attention be­ are reviewed by other agencies, the public, and cause they possess unique aesthetic, ecologi­ approved by the Commissioner of DNR. I cal, recreational, geophysical, or industrial Once an Area Plan is approved, all DNR values or combinations of these values. decisions regarding land classifications, Under the ACMP, such areas may be desig­ tideland leases, land use permits, and other nated as Areas Which Merit Special Attention authorizations must comply with the Area I (AMSA). The Alaska Coastal Management Plan requirements. Area Plan requirements Act defines an AMSA as "... a delineated are not binding on other agencies. geographic area within the coastal area which I is sensitive to change or alteration and which There are no Area Plans in effect within the because of plans or commitments or because study area. Information in this study would be a claim on the resources within the area useful if an Area Plan for the study area is delineated would preclude subsequent use of prepared in the future. I the resources to a conflicting or incompatible use, warrants special management attention, Option 5: Classification of State or which, because of its value to the general Tidelands I public, should be identified for current or fu­ ture planning, protection or acquisition." State law requires state owned lands, includ­ ing tidelands and submerged lands, be clas­ I AMSA designation and management plan ap­ sified before they can be leased or sold. Land proval is under the authority of the Coastal classification is a formal record of allowable Policy Council. Any agency or member of the uses for which each parcel of state land will be public could nominate the study area for managed. Information in this study may serve I AMSA designation. With concurrence of the as the basis for future DNR classification of CPC, a management plan would be prepared state tidelands within the study area. for state and private lands (including I tidelands) within the AMSA. This plan would Option 6: Establish Regulatory Siting include a description of uses and activities al­ Guidelines lowable and prohibited within the AMSA, en­ I forceable policies used to manage the AMSA, Reasonable regulation of any land use re­ and a description of plan implementation. quires development and consistent use of siting criteria and guidelines. This study Once approved by the CPC and the federal recommends a number of siting guidelines; I government, AMSA plan provisions are bind­ additional ones may also be developed. ing on state and federal agencies conducting Adoption of all or a portion of these activities or granting permits for activities guidelines through regulation is one way to en­ I within the AMSA. Proposed projects would sure reasonable and consistent regulation of be reviewed against AMSA plan policies the aquatic farming industry. during the consistency review process. I Option 7: Tongass Land Management Option 4: Adoption of an Area Plan Plan Revision

DNR prepares and implements management The U.S. Forest Service is presently revising I plans, known as Area Plans, for state owned the Tongass Land Management Plan which in-

110 I I

I

eludes Etolin Island. This revised plan will signed, management direction for mariculture I provide specific direction on how resources on facilities on uplands under Forest Service Etolin Island will be managed. Recommenda­ jurisdiction should be consistent with recom­ tions in this study regarding the capability and mendations made in this study. Until such I suitability of shorelines of Etolin Island for time as the Revised Tongass Land Manage­ mariculture development could be incor­ ment Plan is completed, current Tongass porated into the plan revision. When the En­ Land Management Plan direction and I vironmental Impact Statement for the plan is guidelines will apply to mariculture develop­ I completed and the Record of Decision is ments. I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 111 I

I

RECOMMENDATIONS I

Following are six general recommendations Recommendation 2: Public I developed by state and federal agencies par­ Notification Process ticipating in the Etolin Island Area Maricul­ ture Pilot Project. These recommendations Public notices for mariculture projects should I target aspects of mariculture development in­ be sent to all groups with potential informa­ dicated by this study to be of greatest concern. tion pertinent to that development. In­ Revisions were made to these recommenda­ dividual public notices required by regulatory tions based on public comments made during and land management agencies for maricul­ I this study. ture development should be coordinated to the extent possible, so that notices are issued jointly or concurrently and coordinated with I notice of the public hearing required by Chap­ Recommendation 1: ter 145 SLA 88. Implementation of this Report Issues I Siting guidelines and criteria developed in this study should be used by agencies in reviewing Current public notification processes may not proposed projects, with recognition that reach all individuals or organizations likely to I flexibility is required to accommodate specific have information or comments about a sites. Industry evolution should be considered proposed mariculture operation. A list of in reviewing new or innovative techniques. likely candidates for notification includes but I is not limited to: This study is not intended to be accepted or adopted as formal policy. The intent is to o Conservation Groups & Organizations provide a comprehensive analysis of maricul­ I ture development within the study area for o State Parks Advisory Boards permitting agencies, prospective sea farmers o Commercial Fishing Organizations and the interested public. This study repre­ o Fisheries Enhancement Group I sents one of the most comprehensive analysis o Organized Mariculture Development of mariculture in Alaska to date. Groups

Issues I Recommendation 3: Reasonable land use regulation must be based Compatibility With Other Uses on ~onsistent siting criteria and guidelines. I Durmg the development of an aquatic farm, Mariculture development should be consis­ measures to mitigate potential impacts can tent with any approved federal, state or local reduce potential social and environmental government plans. All mariculture develop­ I concerns. This study has proposed criteria ments permitted by the State of Alaska ad­ a~d. gu.idelines (see Chapter 3) describing jacent to lands under management of other m1t1gatmg measures on a case-by-case basis. agencies should consider any land use desig­ I nations by those adjacent land managers. Mariculture is in a state of development. New and innovative techniques and technology A task force should be formed to develop pro­ may alter the culturing of sea organisms as we cedures for identification of significant use I know it today. Flexibility will be necessary to conflicts, policies to resolve conflicts during properly evaluate and approve permits for the. distri~t ~eview process, and to develop proposed developments in the future. review cntena to assign "best use" of public I lands and waters.

112 I I

I

Issues feet existing farm operations. Full considera­ I tion should be given at this time to demonstra­ A variety of uses occur on state tidelands tion of possible impacts on present either through natural phenomenon or by law. mariculture operations from proposed I Mariculture sites should be developed: 1) developments. where there is no significant conflict with ex­ isting or designated uses, 2) where conflict I with natural fish and wildlife resources are Recommendation 5: Monitoring minimal, or 3) where conflicts can be mitigated. Farm Viability Development Plans I The State of Alaska manages lands adjacent to those managed or owned by the federal A mariculture farm development plan is re­ government, local communities and boroughs quired for use of state tidelands authorized by I and private interests. The state manages a sig­ a lease or permit from DNR. Elements of nificant majority of all tidelands in Alaska. development plans are included in the Con­ Mariculture development should be consis­ solidated Shellfish Farm Application. These I tent with adjacent management designations are: species to be raised; site plan and physi­ and objectives to maintain integrity with the cal description; timetable for production and public and other land management agencies. production goals. Information about the I facility and its operation will also be taken from COE permits. Adherence to the Recommendation 4 : Minimum development plan obtained through the ap­ Distance Between Sites plication and COE permit should be I monitored throughout the project's life to en­ All issues affecting public safety and environ­ sure continued operation viability. Ad­ mental protection should be thoroughly herence to development plans should be a I evaluated during agency review of proposed condition of both permits and leases for mariculture projects. Appropriate minimum mariculture developments. distances should be established during this I process. Annual Report At a minimum, public access shall be main­ A coordinated effort to develop annual tained. Effects on other farms should be con­ reporting requirements should occur between I sidered as part of the permit review process. the state resource agencies. The goal of this effort should be to require a single annual Important considerations in permitting ad­ report which will serve to fulfill each agencies I jacent farms are: needs for information. A detailed list of possible annual report re­ 1. Safe and viable navigational access. quirements was generated through this study during the field test of the Consolidated I 2. Water quality degradation due to Shellfish Farm Application evaluation located cumulative impacts. in Chapter 4.

I 3. Depletion of food resources of the cul­ A permit tracking and monitoring system tured species. should be developed based on information contained in the annual report required by the I 4. Impacts on habitat. Shellfish Farm permit. The annual report will be used in part to determine and monitor During permit adjudication it will be the commercial viability of mariculture develop­ I applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that ments. If under the proposed tracking and proposed mariculture operations will not af- monitoring system a site is not developed as a

I 113 I

I legitimate business venture or according to ~n Part time farmers can and do contribute to I approved development plan, the permits overall development of mariculture in Alaska. would be revoked. Part time farmers can postpone high initial capital costs by beginn~~ ~ith modest .invest­ Information requested from sea farmers in ments and adding to facilihes as expertise and I the annual report should be clearly identified capital are acquired. This approach is accept­ as pertinent to area management. Moderate able and can continue if progressive develop­ amounts of information should be requested ment with the goal of independent, I and should be reasonably obtainable by sea economically viable enterp~ise is farmers. demonstrated by the sea farmer. Thts recom­ mendation is not intended to preclude small I Issues or part time sea farmers. Use of public resources authorized by the I state should be developed by applicants in a Recommendation 6: Future manner consistent with good business and development practices. It is in the state's best Studies interest to ensure responsible development of The scope and time frame of this project does I state lands and resources balanced with not allow for a detailed evaluation of several resource protection. issues related to Alaska mariculture viability. The following recommendations are I Mariculture operations on public lands sho~ld proposed for future stu~ies a~d investi~ations be required to maintain a level of enterpnse to obtain more detailed mformatwn on that has been identified in development specific mariculture issues in Alaska. plans. Mariculture farms operating at levels I far below their plan proposals should not be 1. A PSP data base should be developed. allowed to occupy public lands at the risk of Sources of information include annual possible displacement of other uses of state shellfish farm permit reports, and results of I land. PSP testing done by DEC and other state and federal agencies. 1. Mariculture sites with good potential that I are permitted but not developed for many 2. Site capability parameters for sea or­ years preclude more aggressive developers ganisms grown in Alaska should be studied by from a legitimate opportunity. the state, and/ or universities and results made I available to permitting agencies and the 2. Good sites may be tied up by individuals public. whose goal is to have a cabin at a remote site and a subsistence lifestyle, enjoy recreation 3. Flushing capabilities of potential maricul­ I opportunities, obtain desirable access to com­ ture sites are central to many aspects of mercial fishing or secure interests for pur­ mariculture development. An inventory of poses other than mariculture development. situations that may develop anaerobic condi­ I These individuals may install minimal tions would be very helpful to technical agen­ facilities with small numbers of organisms and cies and prospective sea farmers alike. in fact market minimal product quantities. Public resources should be permitted or 4. Funds should be made available for work I leased to legitimate developers, not subsis­ on a regular basis to integrate information tence or recreation users. generated from studies already underway or planned for the future. Specifically included I 3. Speculation is a concern among resource here are the current Marine Advisory agencies. An individual or organization may Program's Remote Sensing Project and the apply for appropriate permits with ~he intent results of the present Southeast Alaska subsis­ of acquiring a site to obtain land nghts that I tence study. may be sold or traded at a later date.

114 I I

I

I 5. A study similar to the Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project should be conducted for other forms of sea culture if they are I authorized by the Alaska legislature. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 115 I

I

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT I

The Public Review Draft of the Etolin Island Comment 2: An "Alaska strain" of oyster spat I Area Mariculture Pilot Project was available should be developed. Some growers believe a for public examination and comment for a 30 strain of oysters could be developed that day period in June. Comments were accepted would grow better in conditions commonly I at public workshops held in Wrangell and found in Alaska. Petersburg and by mail and telephone. Several comments and observations were Response: No effort is currently underway, receiv'ed. and none is planned to create an "Alaska I strain" of oysters. There are some question, Since the project will not be adopted as a plan, among agencies responsible for monitoring or be implemented as policy, comments ef­ oyster spat sources, if such development I fected the project in two ways: would be desirable environmentally or biola gically. 1. Several areas of the project received addi­ I tional detail to clarify issues. Inaccuracies Until these questions are answered, it is un­ were corrected. likely an "Alaska strain" will be developed or authorized for growing in Alaska. 2. Comments were made available to I cooperating agencies. Major issues and con­ cerns were brought to the attention of Comment 3: Farm development plans are not resource managers involved in mariculture practical because no secure and reliable I development. source of spat exists for oyster growers. Therefore,it is not possible to predict how The following is a summary of comments many oysters could be sold on a yearly basis received during the Public Review Draft com­ making a development plan difficult if not im­ I ment period with a summary of current policy, possible. clarification of issues and proposals effecting the comment if applicable: Response: A separate detailed development I plan is not proposed for aquatic farmers at this Comment 1: Some oyster growers would like time. However, information required on the to see state assistance in developing an Alas­ Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application I ka oyster spat hatchery. Some growers provides information that constitutes a believe the state should design, develop, build "development plan". Accomplishing and support a hatchery in Alaska to provide proposed yearly production goals is only one spat to Alaska oyster growers. element of farm viability. Other elements in­ I clude the following: Response: Currently, no oyster spat is produced in Alaska. Oyster spat is available 1. A site plan drawn to scale (no less than 1"- I from three hatcheries, located in Washington, 50' which shows the layout and location of the California and British Columbia. Although at following: least one of the hatcheries report efforts to en­ I large spat production, Alaska oyster growers a. The rafts or other production facilities report shortages and inability to secure all employed (size and number). spat needed for farm maintenance and I growth. b. Anchoring systems and shore ties.

The State of Alaska has no plans for develop­ c. Docks, floathomes, or caretaker ment of an oyster spat hatchery. facilities including: sources of freshwater I

116 I I

I

for domestic use and for processing, waste Comment 4: There needs to be a PSP I water disposal systems, and solid waste laboratory located closer to oyster growing storage and disposal. areas.

d. Any freshwater discharges. Response: Currently, the state maintains and I operates a PSP testing laboratory in Palmer Alaska. It is the only one available to oyster e. Roads or airstrips. growers, and its services are provided free of I charge to the sea farmer. The farmer must f. Other upland or tideland facilities at pay for shipping costs of samples to the lab the site associated with the farming however. I operation. There is interest from private laboratories lo­ g. Fuel and chemical storage. cated in Ketchikan in obtaining PSP testing certification. I h. properties of adjacent upland and tideland owners (location). The state has no plans for any additional state operated PSP testing facilities in Alaska. I 2. Species to be raised and annual production goals. Comment 5: A tideland classification needs I 3. Description and location of proposed to be adopted for mariculture. sewage systems. Response: Classifications result from state 4. Timetable of approximate dates for: instal­ planning and regulatory processes. Tideland I lation of spat collection gear, placement of classifications could be implemented through production facilities, date of first sale, changes in existing regulations. I schedule for reaching maximum production. Inability to obtain spat could easily prevent a Comment 6: A data base needs to be created farmer from reaching proposed productions for PSP and pathogens in oyster growing areas goals, as could mass natural mortality and a in Alaska. I number of other circumstances. Permitting agencies acknowledge the potential of "crop" Response: The annual report required for failures common to growing food crops. Shellfish Farm Permit holders should provide I However, a farmer continually unable to some information on farm environment con­ procure spat while neighboring farms are suc­ ditions. No other systematic collection and cessful may be required to provide additional analysis of data is planned at this time. I information on development efforts and in­ tentions of the farm. Comment 7: A graduated scale for permit and Failure to obtain necessary permits and lease fees needs to be adopted that would I authorizations, lack of progress on installation charge higher fees for land use when larger of facilities, lack of efforts to secure spat, amounts of products are being produced. development of facilities grossly inconsistent I with site plans, or failure to develop farms Response: Current policy is to charge a fixed consistent with resource protection could amount with no graduated scale for permits. cause permit review and farm evaluation. If Lease fees are established at fair market I the situation warrants, the permit may be value. revoked and the area made available for a I more aggressive farmer.

I 117 I

I

Comment 8: Some information presented is Comment 13: Would the public have an op­ too technical and not very comprehensible to portunity to comment on the acceptability of I the nonscientific public. the controversial techniques if they were proposed for Alaska? Response: The final report reflects much I clarification of issues due to comments during Response: Public comment periods are man­ the review period. Efforts were made dated for proposed mariculture development throughout the document to clarify technical in recently enacted legislation. Public com­ I "jargon" and information. However, much of ments can be made through a variety of chan­ these sections retain their technical nature nels including Fish and Game Boards, due to subject matter. advisory councils and through the Depart­ ments directly on management actions not I covered through the permit review processes. Comment 9: Areas known for high recreation of fish and wildlife harvest should be I prohibited, not simply discouraged. Comment 14: Is public notice required for Decisions to reject a proposal should not be permits since permit holders are given prior dependent upon having "feasible and prudent right to that lease? I alternatives". Existing uses may have a very high value to area residents and should be Response: Public notice for permits and respected and protected by state agencies. leases is required. I Response: Comments referred to permitting agencies for consideration. Comment 15: We feel areas adjacent to LUD I Release Areas should remain in undisturbed I condition and that no new permits should be Comment 10: We are glad to see that there issued in the future. will be periodic assessment of the cumulative impacts in areas of high potential develop­ Response: This study recommends manage­ I ment. However, what is meant by periodic? ment goals of properties adjacent to proposed mariculture facilities should be evaluated Response: Aquatic farms will initially be during the adjudication process and permit I monitored yearly through the annual report. decisions made accordingly. Agencies have yet to develop policy on a com­ prehensive evaluation program. I Comment 16: We agree that "lack of regional perspective could lead to significant conflicts Comment 11: How will conflicts be resolved? over time". Is there anything that can be done to alleviate this problem? I Response: Conflicts are resolved during per­ mit processing and adjudication process. Response: Recent legislation has given con­ siderable guidance on the development of I mariculture in Alaska. Continued develop­ Comment 12: A method should be developed ment of policy and regulations should address to determine when too much of the natural the regional perspective issue. Referred to I balance is at risk. permitting agencies for consideration.

Response: Referred to permitting agencies for consideration. Comment 17: A social impact study should be I done in the future.

Response: Referred to cooperating agencies I for consideration.

118 I I

I

In addition to the above listed comments, I several requests for clarification of issues were received. Some of these issues included: intensive use, significant conflicts, and I ADF&G numbered streams. Additional re­ quests were for clarification of other studies I cited in the report. I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 119 I

Etolin Island Area Mariculture Pilot Project APPENDIXES

Appendix A - Marine Advisory Program's Remote Sensing Project Appendix B - Agency Authorities in the Study Area Appendix C- 1988 Coastal Project Questionnaire Appendix D - Consolidated Shellfish Farm Permit Application Appendix E - Agency Contacts Appendix G- Senate Bill514 Appendix H - Definitions Appendix I - Acronyms Appendix J - Table A-1 Oyster Production Monthly Table A-2 Southeast Alaska Raft Culture

I I Appendix A I UNIVERSITY OF AlASKA- MARINE I ADVISORY PROGRAM I Project Title: Feasibility of Using Remote Sensing to Identify the Aquataculture Potential of Coastal Waters I Project Summary (D) Major objective of this study is to com­ I (1) Key words; remote sensing, pare the environmental requirement of aquaculture, estuaries, oysters oysters with the analyzed data charts. The ex­ pected outcome will be the delineation of es­ (2) Objectives: tuarine areas with a significant potential for I oyster culture. (A) To test the feasibility of using conven­ tional, free access aerial and satellite sensors (E) This project is restricted to a study site in I to collect selected oceanographic data from central Southeast Alaska. The long term ob­ estuaries and adjacent waters. In addition, to jective of the project is to make a contribution test the feasibility of the routine analysis of to the development of a simple, possible I complex environmental data by state resource automated, environmental assessment proce­ managers. dure that can be applied to the needs of resource managers. (B) Using standard bathymetric or naviga­ I tional charts as base maps, to make use of a (F) To establish a set of catalogs, inventory­ conventional chart overlay system; to identify ing a set of significant environmental variables areas appropriate for the commercial to be considered either individually or in com­ I suspended cultivation of Pacific oysters ( Cras­ bination to predict the probable success of sostrea gigas). This study will be limited to oyster culture. factors considered essential for the cultivation of oysters. Each variable (such as mixed layer (G) To suggest methods by which the proce­ I temperature) will be charted on a Mylar over­ dure can be used locate areas capable of sup­ lay sheet superimposed on the master chart of porting other types of aquaculture. the estuary under study. I (H) By the identification of prime culture (C) To establish a set of physical and biologi­ areas, it is hoped that this project will allow cal criteria determined to be essential to the for the protection of potential oyster culture I successful cultivation of oysters using stand­ areas and efficient use of coastal resources. ard suspended techniques (i.e. tray and longline culture). It is anticipated that project (I) To assist other states and provinces in the results can also be applied to the selection of implementation of similar environmental I culture sites for other species with environ­ mapping and cataloging procedures. mental requirements occupying relatively nar­ I row ranges.

I Al I

I

(3) Methodology (E) As stated in item (C) above, data collec­ tion to be most intensive during four seasonal I A) Obtain and refine base map for primary "windows (each approximately fourteen days and alternate study sites. These two areas long). Multiple data sets will be acquired have existing commercial oyster cultures within each seasonal window in order to deter­ I operations. It is believed that both areas pos­ mine "average" values (may be necessary to sess many additional culture sites. place heavy reliance on archived data for several variables). Accuracy of all remotely I (B) Formulate set of environmental criteria sensed data to be verified via "ground truth " customarily used to select suspended culture data consisting of direct oceanographic sites (reviews of literature and field practice). measurements. Each criterion will be stated in form of per­ I missible range and as an optimum value (F) Environmental data for each of the five (latitudinal corrections to be made). Selec­ criteria will be mapped and analyzed using tion criteria are as follow: computerized "geographic information sys­ I tem" (GIS) technology. Standard procedures (a) temperature of mixed layer (degrees will be used. A subcontractor (Recon Re­ C\0) search, Bend Oregon) has agreed to perform I certain aspects of this work. (b) surface current velocity (em/ sec) (G) This project faces several major challen­ I (c) salinity (parts per thousand) ges. Two anticipated problems to be over­ come are gaining access to some data and (d) plankton count to be interpreted in resolution difficulties. The major challenge form of chlorophyll will be to develop strategies to interpret the I seasonal behavior of salinity which currently a (ug/1) is not possible to measure via remote sensing techniques available to non-military re­ (e) turbidity (NTU- with extreme bias searchers. I favoring sites lacking turbidity) (H) Oyster culture requirements (in the form Note: not included in this list are two major of five environmental criteria) will be com­ I qualifying criteria (depth and wave energy) pared to the mapped data. General areas and,hopefully, prime microenvironments, capable of supporting suspended oyster cul­ I (C) Study to concentrate on conditions ture will be mapped. Determining the during four seasonal periods: feasibility of creating single purpose estuary resource maps of this sort (oyster culture, scal­ I (a) late winter (temperature minimum) lop culture, salmon farming, etc.) is the major objective of this project. (b) mid spring and late fall (periods of salinity minimum) (I) The system developed by this project will I be graded on its accuracy, practical operation, (c) late summer (temperature maximum) cost and applicability to other species (as­ sumes focus on aquaculture, although other I (D) Each ofthe above environmental criteria economic activities may also benefit). The will be linked to a specific aerial or satellite evaluation will determine whether this proce­ sensor( s). Particular to sensor to be used will dure is appropriate for routine large-scale ex­ be based on ease of public access to data, rela­ aminations of the natural world. I tive accuracy of data, frequency of data, cost, and ease of interpretation. Archived as well Not examined in this study is the potential of as actual data to be considered. computerization and automation of data col­ I lection, analysis, and mapping functions.

A2 I I

I

(J) Resource maps will be circulated among (B) Traditional methods of oceanographic I estuary users prospective oyster farmers, examination though of unquestioned ac­ water resource managers, and policy makers. curacy, are costly, time consuming and unable The decision to implement the system and to cope with the rapid examination of multi­ I proceed with large scale environmental ple environmental variables. cataloging will be the responsibility of regional managers. (C) Various states and provinces, with the I rise of various water resource user groups (tourism, expanded urbanization, aquacul­ (4) Expected Results ture, etc.) are faced with the increased need to catalog the environmental characteristics of I (A) This project provides for mapping of coastal regions. several types of environmental data using standard techniques. However, this project is (D) It is unlikely that most states will have I unique in that it attempts to interpret massive available the necessary technical and financial data sets gained by satellite during four resources needed to develop comprehensive seasonal periods. This project will begin the estuarine resource inventories using tradi­ I development of an automated or semi­ tional direct sampling procedures. Pacific automated system capable of the rapid in­ states and the Province of British Columbia tegration of mapped environmental are now facing steady pressure from a variety information, the comparison of this informa­ of prospective coastal resource users. I tion to the known growth requirement of cul­ tured organisms, and the delineation of (E) Use of remote sensing may provide a estuarine regions capable of supporting means of acquiring and cataloging environ· I specific aquaculture activity. mental information which, though of sig­ nificantly lower accuracy than directly (B) It is expected that this method of environ­ sampled data, can be used in the effective mental assessment will have reasonable ac­ planning of coastal development. I curacy, be relatively inexpensive, and will become an important tool in the initial iden­ (F) Moreover, it is expected that the practi­ tification of potential aquaculture sites. cal application of remote sensing will be both I timely and inexpensive. (C) Preliminary and final project results will be transmitted to regional resource managers (G) This project will test the utility of cur­ I and members of the developing aquaculture rently available sensors. It is quite possible industry by means of a Pacific Sea Grant tech­ that weaknesses uncovered during this project nical publication. will be resolved through the advent of a new I generation of more sophisticated environ­ (5) Summary of Rationale: mental sensors.

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

I A3 I

I I AppendixB I AGENCY AUTHORITIES IN THE STUDY I AREA I State Authorities I I Alaska Department of Fish and Game 16 US 661 et seq. Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act I AS 16.40.100-199 Aquatic Farm and Hatchery Permit; Aquatic Stock Acquistion Permits

AS 16.05.251 Regulations of the Board of I Fisheries I AS 16.05.840 Fishway Act AS 16.05.870 Anadromous Fish Act

5 AAC 40. Permits for Private non Profit I Hatcheries

5 AAC 41. Transportation, Possession and I Release of Live Fish I 5 AAC 41. Shellfish Farm Permit 5 AAC 95. Protection of Fish & Game Hatcheries

I 6 AAC 50 Project Consistency Review Process I 6 AAC 80 ACMP Standards I I

I Bl I

I

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation I

Sec. 401 Federal Clean Water Act I Title 33 CFR Federal Dredge and Fill Regulations I AS 03.05.020 Powers of the Commissioner of DEC AS 03.05.025 Seafood Processing Permits and Plans I of Operation

AS 03.05.035 Sale and Labeling of Frozen Meat, Fish, and Poultry I AS 03.05.040 Inspection I AS 03.05.050 Products in Violation of Regulations AS 03.05.090 Penalty for Violations I AS 17.20.230 Detention or Embargo of Goods

AS 17.20.250 Destruction of Adulterated or I Misbranded Goods. AS 46.03.020 Powers of the Department I AS 46.03.060 Plan Review for Sewage Disposal

AS 46.03.090 Plan for Pollution Disposal I AS 46.03.100 Waste Disposal Permit I AS 46.03.110 Waste Disposal Permit Procedure AS 46.30.140 Air Quality I AS 46.07.020 Monitor Public Water Systems

AS 46.03.060 Broad Water Quality Enforcement I 6 AAC 50. Project Consistency Review Process I 6 AAC 80. ACMP Standards 18 AAC 34. Fish Inspection Regulations I 18 AAC 60. Solid Waste Management

18 AAC 62. Hazardous Waste I

B2 I I

I

I 18 AAC 70. Water Quality Standards 18 AAC 72. Wastewater Disposal

I 18 AAC 80. Drinking Water

I Alaska Coastal Management Program I AS 44.19.155. Alaska Coastal Policy Council AS 46.40. Alaska Coastal Management Act I 6 AAC 50. Project Consistency Review Process I 6 AAC 80. ACMP Standards Department of Commerce and Economic Development I No Authorities

I DNA - DMsion of Foresby

I AS 41.17.010 Forest Resources and Practices AS 45.50.235 Log Salvage

I AS 38.05.110 Sale of Timber & Materials I AS 38.05.115 Sale Limitations 6 AAC 50. Project Consistency Review Process I 6 AAC 80. ACMP Standards 11 AAC 71.400 Log Salvage

I 11 AAC 95. Forest Resources and Practices

I DNR - Division of Mining

I AS 38.05.185 Mining Rights AS 38.05.250 Offshore Prospecting Permits

I 6 AAC 50. Project Consistency Review Process

I B3 I

I 6 AAC 80 ACMP Standards I 11 AAC 86.500 Offshore Prospecting Permits 11 AAC 86.135 Mineral Deposits Open to Location I DNR - DMsion of Land and Water Management I AS 38.04.005 Public and Private Land Use I AS 38.04.010 Public Land for Private Use AS 38.04.015 Public Retention of Lands I AS 38.04.020 Land Disposal Bank

AS 38.04.021 Municipal Entitlement I AS 38.04.065 Land Planning I AS 38.04.070 Management Categories AS 38.04.050 Land Disposals I AS 38.04.070 Leasing of State Lands AS 38.04.082 Shore Fisheries I AS 38.05.127 Access to Public Waters I AS 38.05.290 Land Selections AS 46.15.030 Appropriation of Water I AS 46.15.050 Instream Flow AS 46.15.145 Federal Reserve Water Rights I 11 AAC 54 Disposal of Lands

11 AAC 55 Planning and Classification I 11 AAC 58 Leasing of Lands I 11 AAC 62 Tide and Submerged Lands 11 AAC 64 Shore Fisheries Leasing I 11 AAC 66 Municipal Entitlement

11 AAC 67 Disposal of Land I

B4 I I

I

I 11 AAC 71 Timber and Material Sales 11 AAC 86 Mining Rights I 11 AAC 93 Water Management I 6 AAC 50 Project Consistency Review Process 6 AAC 80 ACMP Standards I Federal Authorities

I U.S. Forest Service

I The Creative Act (1891) The Organic Act (1897)

I The Weeks Law Act (1911) I The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960) The Wilderness Act (1964) I The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1964) The National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

I The Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) I The Endangered Species Act (1973) The Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Act(1974) I The Sikes Act (1974) The National Forest Management Act (1976) I The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) I Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) (Section 10) I Clean Waters Act (33 U.S.C. 1344, Section 404) The Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) I B5 I

I

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I

16 u.s.c. 668 Bald Eagle Act 1940 I 16 U.S.C. 742(a) Fish and Wildlife Act 1956

16 U.S.C. 757(a) Anadromous Fish Conservation Act I 16 U.S.C. 703 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 I 16 U.S.C. 1361-1362 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 16 u.s.c. 1371-1384 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act I 16 u.s.c. 1451 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 1221-1226 Estuary Protection Act I 42 u.s.c. 4321 National Environmental Policy Act I National Marine Fisheries SeiVice I 16 u.s.c. 1361, 1362 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 16 u.s.c. 1451 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 I 16 u.s.c. 1371-1384 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act I 42 u.s.c. 4321 National Environmental Policy Act I I I I I I

B6 ,I I

I

I AppendixC I 1988 Coastal Project Questionnaire I STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR

I CENTRAL OFFICE P.O. BOX AW OFFI£E OF THE GOVERNOR. JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811..0165 PHONE. (907) 465-3562 I OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION I. SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN 2600 DENALI STREET 675 SEVENTH AVENUE P.O. BOX A W, SUITE 101 SUITE 700 STATION H JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811..()165 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503-2798 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 PHONE (907) 274-1581 PHONE: (907) 451·2818 I 1988 COASTAL PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE I Dear Applicant: I 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 I Management Program and is designed to improve management of Alaska's coastal land and water uses. Project proposals are I reviewed to: Determine the project's consistency with the Alaska I 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 I sources. Trigger the issuance of necessary permits and other I 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 I regional of=ice 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 I the review. Your answers to this questionnaire will determine who is the appropriate coordinating agency. Contact the nearest DGC regional office for more information. I· Cl I

I

Before you settle on your final project plans and submit your I application, the state can arrange for meetings between you and state agency representatives to review your completed coastal project questionnaire. Preapplication meetings can help identify I conce~ns 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. I

To begin the revie~ process you must complete the attached Coastal Project Questionnaire to determine which permits are needed. The consistency review begins upon receipt of your I complete application packet. A complete packet includes: A signed Coastal Project Questionnaire. I Copies of any state permit applications needed for the project (originals gc to the state agency issuing the permit) • · I Copies of any federal permit applications needed for the project (originals go to the federal agency issuing I the permit). Any additional pertinent information including public I notices from agencies. YOUR PROJECT CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNTIL A COMPLETE PACKET INCLUDING ALL APPLICATIONS IS RECEIVED. You must submit the completed I 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 I delineated. All packets must be submitted to the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC), with the following exceptions: I 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 I 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 I resource agency with that requirement. 3. If the project is a placer mining activity, submit the I Annual Placer Mining Application, instead of the questionnaire, to the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining. .I 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. I I C2 I

I

I If one or more federal permits are required, submit the original federal permit application(s) to the federal agency and send a ~ of those federal applications to the appro­ I priate state agency along with your packet of other applica­ tions. I STEPS IN THE REVIEW PROCESS I 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 I include:

1. You 6 the applicant; I 2. State resource agencies and the Division of Govern­ mental Coordination; I 3. The affected local coastal community; and 4. Other interested members of the public. I Information requests: Agencies may request additional information from you during the review. The coordinating agency may stop the I review until that information is received. Proposed determination: After reviewing comments on your project, the coordinating agency will develop a proposed consistency I determination which will be presented to you, state resource agenciesu and coastal districts. Conclusive determination: A conclusive consistency determination I will be issued upon agreement of the proposed determination by

you, state resource agencies 6 and coastal district with an I approved program. Elevation (appeal) process: If you do not concur with the proposed determination for your project, you may request ele­ I 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 I request, then issue a second proposed determination. You may then elevate the review to the commissioners of the resource agencies if the director-level review does not satisfy I 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 I approved programs may also request elevation. I C3 I

I

In addition to the state's elevation process, if your project I 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 I 15 CFR 930.125(H). Permits: Agencies will issue state permits covered by the deter­ I 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. I Review Schedules I 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 I 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 I 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 I additional information requested by a resource agency. 30-Day Review 50-Day Review I Consistency review begins Day 1 Day 1

Deadline for regional reviewers Day 15 Day 25 I to request additional information Public and agency reviewer Day 17 Day 34 I comments due Notification for elevation Day 29 Day 49 I Conclusive consistency Day 30 Day 50 determination issued (unless elevation requested) I

If elevated, director's Day 45 Day 65 determination I If elevated again, commissioner's Day 60 Day 80 determination I I I C4 I

I I I Coastal Project Questionnaire 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. I APPLICANT INFORMATION

1.~~~~~----~~------~ I Name of Applicant 2.~~~~------Contact Person Address I City State Zip Code City State Zip Code Phone Phone I PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Provide a brief description of your project and ALL associated facilities (caretaker facilities, etc.): I I Starting Date for Project =~~-~---~ Ending Date for Project PROJECT LOCATION I 1. Please give location of project (Include nearest community or identifiable bcxiy of land or water.)

Township~ Range ~ Meridian - Section - Aliquot Parts- USGS Map_

I 2. Is the project on: (please mork wirh

*If you are WICertain whether your proposed proj~ct area is in a wetland, contact the Corps of Engineers. ReguiaJory Branch. I aJ (907) 753-2720 for a wetlands determiNUio11. If you are olllside tlwl 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 I (COE) permit? Please indicate at right and describe below. DO C5 I

I

2. Have you applied for or do you intend to apply for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Yes No I National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? Please indicate at right and DO describe below. (Note: Any wastewater discharge requires an NPDES permit.) Yes No 3. Have you applied for or do you intend to apply for permits from any other federal agency? I If yes, please list below. DO Agency Approval Type Date submitted (or intend to submit) I I 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? DO I Yes No 2. Is any portion of your project placed below the ordinary high water line of a stream, river, DO lake or other water body? I Yes No 3. Will you be dredging? If yes, location of dredging is: DO Township __ Range -- Meridian _ Section __ I • 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? ----- DO I • Location of source: Township - Range - Meridian - Section -- • Location of area to be ftlled: Township - Range _ Meridian _ Section Yes No I 5. Do you plan to use any of the following state-owned resources? DO Timber • If yes, amount?----- I ' Location of source: Township __ Range __ Meridian _ Section _ Other Materials • If yes, what material?-----...,-~'"~""'"'':"":""".__~-~-..,...... ,...-...... ,..----­ I (peat, building stone, silt, overburden, etc.) • Location of source: Township-- Range -- Meridian _ Section- Yes No 6. Are you planning to use any fresh water? DO I • If yes, amount (gallons per day)?------• Source?------Yes No I 7. Will you be building or altering a dam? DO 8. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well? DO I 9. Will you be exploring for or extracting coal? DO 10. Will you be exploring for or extracting minerals on state-owned land? DO I 11. Will you be exploring for or extracting oil and gas on state-owned land? DO 12. Will you be harvesting timber from 10 or more acres? DO Yes No I 13. Will you be investigating or removing historical or archaeological resources DD on state-owned land? I C6 I

I

Y~s No I !4. Will the project be located in a unit of the Alaska State Park System? DO If you answered NO to all questions in this section, you do not need an appro,·al from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Continue to the next section. I 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. I Approval Type: Dale S11bmit1Cd (or iatccd to s11bmit) I Yes No Have you paid the filing fees required for the DNR pennits? DO I If you are not applying for DNR pennits, indicate reason below: __ a. (DNR contact) told me on ____ (date) that no DNR approvals or pennits were required on this project. I ---b.Other. -=-=---=------DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME APPROVALS Yes No I 1. Will you be working in a stream, river, or lake? (This includes running water or on ice, within the acive floodplain, on islands, the face of the banks, or the stream tideflats down DO to mean low tide.) I Name of stream or river;..·------Name oflake=------­ If you answered "no", proceed to question #2. If "yes", will you be doing any of the following: Yes No I a) Building a dam, river training structure or instream impoundment? DO b) Using the water? DO I c) Diverting or altering the natural channel stream? DO I d) Blocking or damming the stream. (temporarily or permanently)? DO e) Changing the flow of the water or changing the bed? DO f) Pumping water out of the stream or lake? DO I g) Introducing silt, gravel, rock, petroleum products, debris, chemicals or wastes of DO any type into the water? I h) Using the stream as a road (even when frozen), or crossing the stream with tracked DO or wheeled vehicles, log-dragging or excavation equipment (backhoes, bulldozers, etc.)? I i) Altering or stabilizing the banks? DO j) Mining or digging in the beds or banks? DO I k) Using explosives? DO 1) Building a bridge (including an ice bridge)? DO I m) Installing a culvert or other drainage structure? DO n) Constructing a weir? DO

I C7 I

I

Yes No o) Other in-stream structure not mentioned above? DO I 2. Is your project located in a State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area, or State Game Sanctuary? 0 0 3. Does your project include the construction and operation of a salmon hatchery? 0 0 I 4. Does your project affect or is it related to a previously permitted salmon hatchery? 0 0 5. Does your project include the construction of a shellfish or sea vegetable farm? 0 0 I 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. I 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 S, con~act the DFG Private Nonprofit Hatchery Office at the F.R.E.D. division headquarters for information and application forms. I Based on your discussion with DFG, please list (below) the approval type needed and date submitted. DYes DNo Approval Type Date Submitted (or intend to s11bmit) .I I If you are not applying for permits, indicate reason below: -- a. (DFG contact) told me on ____(date) that no DFG I. __ b.Otha:approvals ______or pennits were required on this project _

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION APPROVALS Yes No I 1. Will a discharge of wastewater from industrial or commercial operations occur? DO (See #2 in "Federal Permits" section) 2. Will your project generate air emissions from the following: DO I a) Diesel generators totaling more than 10,000 hp? DO b) Other fossil fuel-fJ.red electric generator, furnace, or boiler totaling greater I than 10,000 hp, or 9,000 kWh, or 100,000,000 btu/hr? DO c) Asphalt plant? DO I d) Incinerator burning more than 1000 lbs. per hour? DO e) Industrial process? DO I 3. Will a drinking water supply be developed that serves more than a single-family residence? DO 4. Will you be processing seafood? DO I 5. Will food service be provided to the public or workers? DO 6. Will the project result in dredging or disposal of fill in wetlands or placement of a structure I in waterways? (Note: your application for this activity to the Corps of Engineers will also DO serve as your application to DEC.) 7. Is sewage or greywater disposal involved or necessary? DO I

C8 I I

I

I 8. Will your project result in the development of a currently unpennitted facility for the disposal DO of domestic or industrial solid waste? 9. Will your project require offshore drilling or vessel transport of oil, or other petroleum DO I products as cargo, or include onshore facilities with an effective storage capacity of greater than l 0,000 barrels of such products? I 10. Will your project require the application of oil or pesticides to the surface of the land? DO 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 I continue to the next section. If you answered YES to any of these questions (see #6 Note), contact the DEC Regional I Office for information and application forms. Based on your discussion with DEC, please list (below) the approval type needed and date submitted. I Approval Type Date S11batitted (or intend to submit)

I If you are not applying for permits, indicate reason below:

__ a. (DEC contact) told me on ___--~.date) that no DEC I approvals or permits were required on this project .--b.Other.------I Certification Statement The infonnation contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that the I proposed activity complies with, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the Alaska Coastal ~anagementProgtanL

I Signature of Applicant or Agent Date

To complete your packet, please attac:b your state permit applications and copies of I your federal applications to this questionnaire. I I I I

I C9 I

I

c 10

I SOUTHEAST REGIONAL CONTACTS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Oil & Gas Activities DFG/Habitat Division I 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 CONTACT: Rick Reed or I CONTACT: Jim Powell Janet Hall Mining Activities Area Offices DNR/Mining* Department of Fish and Game I Box 107016 P.O. Box 667 Anchorage, AK 99510-7016 Petersburg, AK 99833 (907) 762-2163 (907) 772-3801 I CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher CONTACT: Don Cornelius Forestry Activities Department of Fish and Game DNR/Forestry 2030 Sealevel Drive, Room 205 I 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 I Agriculture Activities State Office Building P.O. Box 510 DNR/Agriculture Sitka, AK 99835 915 S. Bailey (907) 747-5828 I P.O. Box 949 CONTACT: Dave Hardy Palmer, AK 99645-0949 (907) 745-7200 Hatchery Permits CONTACT: Mark Weaver DFC/FRED Division I 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 I Juneau, AK 99801-1796 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or (907) 465-4563 Kevin Duffy CONTACT: Linda Kruger DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION I 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 I Juneau, AK 99801-1796 (907) 789-3151 (907) 465-3400 CONTACT: Dick Stokes CONTACT: Andy Pekovitch I OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Division of Governmental Coordination *Street Address: Pouch AW 431 N. Franklin Street 3601 "C" Street Juneau, AK 99811-0165 I Frontier Building (907) 465-3562 CONTACT: Diane Mayer I Lorraine Marshall I Cll I

I I SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL CONTACTS

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME I Oil & Gas Activities DFG/Habitat Divi&ion 333 Raspberry Road DNR/Oil and Gas* Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Box 107034 CONTACT: ( Southcentra 1 ) : I Anchorage, AK 99510-7034 Phil Brna (907) 762-2547 Gary Liepitz CONTACT: Bill Van Dyke (907) 267-2284 (Southwest and Western): I Denby Lloyd Kim Sundberg Mining Activities (907) 267-2346 DNR/Hining* Hatchery Permits I Box 107016 Anchorage, AK 99510-7016 DFG/FRED Division (907) 762·4222 1255 West Eighth Street CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher P.O. Box 3·2000 I Juneau, AK 99802·2000 Forestry Activities (907) 465-4160 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or DNR/Fore$try* Kevin Duffy I Box 107005 Anchorage, AK 99510-7005 (907) 762-2123 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION CONTACT: Dan Ketchum DEC/Southcentral Office I Agriculture Activities 437 E Street, Second Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 DNR/Agrlculture 274·2533 915 s. Baney CONTACT: Bob Flint I P.O. Box 949 Palmer, AK 99645 (907) 74S-7200 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDCET CONTACT: Dean Brown Division of Governmental Coordination I Activities on State Park Lands 2600 Denali Street, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99503-2798 DNR/Parks* (907) 274-1581 Box 107001 CONTACT: Patty Bielawski I Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Louisa Rand (907) 762-4565 CONTACT: Al Miners I All Other Activities Public Information* Southcentral District Office ONR/Land and Water Management I Box 107005 Anchorage, AK 99510-7005 (907) 762·2270 CONTACT; Janetta Pritchard I

*Street Address: I 3601 "C" Street Frontier Building I I Cl2 I

I I. NORTHERN REGIONAL CONTACTS

I DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Oil & Gas Activities DFG/Habitat Division 1300 College Road DNR/Oil and Gas* Fairbanks, AK 99709 I Box 107034 CONTACT: Al Ott Anchorage, AK 99510·7034 (907) 452·1531 (907) 762-2547 I 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 I Anchorage, AK 99510-7016 (907) 465-4160 (907) 762-4222 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher Kevin Duffy I 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 I (907) 762-4500 (907) 452-1714 CONTACT: Dan Ketchum CONTACT: Paul Bateman (Arctic) Joyce Beelman (Interior) Agriculture Activities I OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DNR/Agriculture 915 S. Bailey Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 949 675 Seventh Avenue, Station H I P~lmer, AK 99645 Fairbanks, AK 99701·4596 (907) 745-7200 (907) 451-2818 CONTACT: Mark Weaver CONTACT: Elizabeth Benson Patti Wightman I Activities on State Park Lands DNR/Parks 4418 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 I· (907) 479·4136 CONTACT: Al Meiners or Dave Snarski All Other Activities I North Central District Office DNR/Land and Water Management 4420 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 I (907) 479·2243 CONTACT: Gayle Berger

I *Street Address: 3601 "C" Street I Frontier Building I I C13 I

I I. AppendixD I Consolidated Shellfish Permit Application I I STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR CENT~AL OFFICE P.O. BOX AW OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165 PHONE. (907) 465-3562 I DIVISION fJF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

I SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN 2600 DENALI STREET 675 SEVENTH AVENUE P.O. BOX AW. SUITE 101 SUITE 700 STATION H JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811-0165 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701·4596 I PHONE: (907) 465-3562 PHONE.· (907) 274-!581 PHONE: (907) 456-3084

I Dear Shellfish Farm Applicant: The Shellfish Farm Application is designed to help you I· 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 I 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 I Review Approvals from DEC, Land Use Permits and Leases from DNR, and the Coastal Zone Consistency Certification from DGC. It also addresses your use and discharge of up to 500 I gallons per day of fresh water and solid waste disposal for single family use.

A Coastal Project Questionnaire, which is available from any I 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 I 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 I tions with the standard Shellfish Farm Application. I

I Dl I

I

Please read this application carefully. A fully completed I application will help the state agencies to process your request promptly. Incomplete or incorrect information may result in requests for additional information, processing I 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. I Your permits will also be processed on this schedule.

If you need technical assistance in completing this applica­ I 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 I 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. I

Stocking your Farm or Selling your Products. In addition to the permits and approvals which you are I 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, I and a Growing-Area Certification and a Harvester 1 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. 'I

A Fish Transport Permit is required by ADF&G in order to hold, transport, and raise live fish including shellfish. I 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 I as early as possible in order to apply for and obtain a Fish Transport Permit. I You should contact DEC regarding area certification requirements so that you c_an · be reasonably sure that your site will qualify. We recommend that you apply for growing I area certification and a harvester 1 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. I I I I D2 I

I State of Alaska I Consolidated Shellfish Farm Permit Application

I General Instructions ------~-

I 1. Fill in the blanks on the form provided.

2. If additional space is needed to fully answer a particular question, attach I additional pages marked with the corresponding number in the application. I 3. Applications must be typed or printed clearly in ink. I 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 I the region in which the farm is to be located.

I OMBIOOC OMBIOOC 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 I Juneau, Alaska 998ll-0165 Anchorage, Ak 99503-2798 Fairbanks, AK99701-4596 (907) 465-3562 (907) 274-1581 (907) 451-2818 I 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 r· application to the appropriate regional office.

I DNR DNR DNR Southeast Regional Office Southcentral Regional Office Northern Regional Office 400 Willoughby Avenue 3601 C Street, Anchorage 4420 Airpon Way Suite 400 Mailing Address: Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 I Juneau,Alaska 99801 P.O. Box 107005 I Anchorage, Alaska 99510 7. Please note: This application is for a specific mariculture project. You I will need to submit a new application if you change any of the following: A. The species to be propagated I B. The size or design of your operation C. The location of your operation I D. Request a long-term tidelands lease for a previously permitted site D3 I

I

PERMIT APPLICATION State of Alaska Consolidated Shellfish Farm I

APPLICANT INFORMATION I

l.u=~------Name I Mailing Address

City State Zip Code I Phone 2. 3. Authoriud Agent (if applicable) J Bus mess Name (tf applicable) Busmess Address Addn:ss I City State Ztp cooe city State Zip Code Phone Phone PROJECT INFORMATION I 1. Provide a brief description of the facility and your overall proposal. Include upland facilities as well as tide and submerged land facilities. I I 2. What experience, expertise, and other resources do you have available for this project? I .I

PROJECT LOCATION 1. Is the Project on: 9'lease mark with../ ) I State Land- Fecleral Land -- Private Land -- Municipal Land -

2. Township- Range - Meridian - Section -- 3. Number of acres applied for: I Uplands- Tidelands- 4. Provide the names and addresses of the landowners of adjacent uplands and tidelands. I Uplands Tidelands A------A ------­ I eB------______B------­ C------I 5. Attach topographic maps (U.S.G.S. Scale 1; 63360) and nautical chans to this application that show the site location and general area. Clearly indicate the site location on the charts and maps. I D4 I

I

I. C. If there is a caretaker's facility proposed for the site, please submit the following information for review of your sewage disposal system plan: (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.) I 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 I 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. I 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, I recreation, commercial fishing, sport fishing, or residential use, etc.). I

I FARM OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT 1. Species to be raised: Species Annual Production Goal I A------5------­ I c------~ 2. Please provide a timetable showing approximate dates for installation of spat collection gear, placement I of production facilities, date of fJISt sale, and a schedule for reaching expected maximum production. I

3. Donor Stock I Have you submitted a Fish Transport Permit application to the Department of Fish and Game? yes-no~ I If yes, date of application ---~~~= I Certification Statement The infonnation contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that I 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 I from the Department of Environmental Conservation in order to sell my product I Signature of Applicant or Agent Date

DS

I

E. Do anadromous fish (e.g. salmon) use any streams in the area for spawning? yes_ no_ I If yes, indicate which streams are used and label them as such on the site plan. I I F. Is the target species naturally present in the area? yes_ no __ If yes, describe abundance and condition. I I

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

WATER QUALITY I

NOTE TO APPLICANT: Sewage or industrial discharge(s) may aecumulate in, or hann the growth or consumptive use of your sheutish product Oysten, mussels and scallops are filter feeden and may accumulate fecal coliform bacteria from I sewage discharges. If a caretaker facility is located near the culnuing 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. I 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- I If you answered yes to the above, identify: • The type of previous use (i.e. mine, village, seafood processor) ------I • The last !mown date of lise------• The distance from site of previous use to your project site ------I 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) ------I • The location and distance from your site-----~------• The name of the discharger(s). if known------I I D6 I

I I SITE PLAN & PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

1. Provide a site plan drawn to scale (no less than 1" =50') which shows the layout and location I of the following: A. The rafts or orher production facilities employed (please include size and number). B. Anchoring systems and shoreties. I 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 pennitted sites for the disposal of solid wastes.) D. Any freshwater discharges. I E. Roads or air sttips. F. Other upland or tideland facilities at the site associated with the farming operation. G. Fuel and chemical storage. I 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 Low Water (Mll.W) I • Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) • Mean High Water (MHW) I 3. Diagram surface tidal current speed and direction at maximum tide flow on the site plan or nautical chan. 4. Water depth at the site of culture gear at MLLW would be: ---­ I SITE SUIT ABILITY 1. Physical and Biological Characteristics I A. Have you conducted an on-site investigation? yes- no_ B. Provide any information you may have regarding tidal flushing, water temperature, salinity, and I turbidity/sedimentation at the site. Include the dates these data were obtained. I

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

I sand_ mud_ rock_ gravel- eelgrass-- I other.------

I D. Describe winter conditions at the site (temperatures, icing, storms, etc.). I I I D7 I

I I AppendixE I STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT I LEASE I AGENCY CONTACT LIST

I De~. of Natural Resources I Oil and Gas Activities Forestry Activities DNR I Oil & Gas DNR I Forestry 400 Willoughby 400 Willoughby Juneau, AK 99801 Juneau, AK 99801 I (907) 465-2400 (907) 465-4500 I Mining Activities Agricultural Activities DNR /Mining DNR I Agriculture Box 7016 915 S. Bailey Anchorage, AK 99510 P.O. Box 949 I (907) 762-4222 Palmer, AK 99645 (907) 745-7200

I Activities in State Parks AU Other Activities

DNR /Parks Southeast District Office I 400 Willoughby Division of Land & Water Juneau, AK 99801 400 Willoughby (907) 465-4563 Juneau, AK 99645 I (907) 465-3400 I Dept. of Fish and Game ADF&G/ Habitat Division Fisheries Rehabilitation P.O. Box 20 Enhancement & Development I Douglas, AK 99824 Shellfish Farm Permits (907) 465-4290 1255 West Eighth St. Juneau, Alaska 99802 Area Offices (907) 465-4160 I ADF&G P.O. Box 667 ADF&G Petersburg, Alaska 99833 2030 Sealevel Drive Rm205 I (907) 772-3801 Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-2027 ADF&G I State Office Building P.O. Box 510 Sitka, Alaska 99835 (907) 747-5828 I El I

I

Office of Management & Budget I

Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box AW I 431 N. Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3562 I

Dept. of Environmental Conservation I

DEC I Southeast Office 9000 Old Glacier Highway I Juneau, Alaska 99803 (907) 789-3151 I I I I I I I I I I I

E2 I I

I

I AppendixF I REFERENCES I Aiken, K. 1987. Farming the Fundy scallop. Cropp, D.A. 1983. Economic feasibility of Canadian Aquaculture (3):1 scallop culture in Tasamania. Project No. 83/52 Fishing Industry Research Trust Ac­ I Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1978. count T.F.D.A. Tasmania. Alaska's wildlife and habitat. Vol. II. Juneau, AK. Dahlbaeck, B. and L.A.H. Gunnarsson. 1981. I Sedimentation and sulphate reduction under Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985. a mussel culture. Mar. Biol. 63(3): 269-75. Marine mammals species accounts. ADF&G Abstract. Tech. Bull. No.7. Juneau, AK. 96 pp. I Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Alaska Interagency Mariculture Working - Pacific Region. 1986a. Guidelines for Group. 1988. Predation issue paper in report development and operation of aquaculture I on activities over the legislative interim. and fish processing facilities. Draft report. Juneau, AK. 1 page mimeo. Dec. 9, 1986. 30 pp. mimeo 1986b. I Blackett, R. 1987. Trip report--New Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Zealand mariculture. AK. Dept. of Fish and -Pacific Region. 1986b. Aquaculture opera­ Game FRED Div. Juneau, AK. tional guidelines for protection of wildliJe and marine animals 1 page. mimeo. I British Columbia Ministry of Forestry and Lands. 1987. Coastal resource identification Druehl, L. 1987. Lamioaria aquaculture in study: aquaculture opportunities. Pamphlet British Columbia. Paper presented at the 4th I series, Vancouver, B.C. Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, AK.

Brown, P.S. 1979. The production of Duvall, W.S. and F.F. Slaney Co. 1980. A I planktonic herbivorous food chains in large­ review of the impacts of log handling on coas­ scale continuous cultures. Ph.D. Dissertation tal marine environments and resources. Prep. Univ. British Columbia, Canada. for Envir. Rev. Panel of the COFI/Govt. Es­ tuary, Foreshore, and Water Log Handling I Buchanan, D.V., P.S. Tate, and J.R. Moring. and Transportation Study. Vancouver, B.C. 1976. Acute toxicities of spruce and hemlock 224 pp. bark extracts to some estuarine organisms in I Southeastern Alaska. Jour. Fish. Res. Brd. Edwards, E. 1984. Mussels - The bountiful Canada. 33 (6): 1188-1192. marine resource. World Fishing. Nov. p. 45. I Calvin, N.J. and R.J. Ellis. 1976. Growth and Else, P.V., Paust, B., Burns,D. 1987. Alaska life history of Lamioeria groenlandica in Oyster Grower's Manual. Univ. AK. Sea Southeast Alaska. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. NW Grant Prog. Mar. Adv. Bull. 17.206 pp. Fisheries Ctr. Monthly rep. Seattle, W A 7 pp. I Erickson, G. and L. Nishitani. 1985. The pos­ Chew, K. 1987. Review of oyster culture in sible relationship of El Nino/ southern oscil­ the Pacific Northwest. Paper presented at the lation events to interannual variation in I 4th Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, Gonyaulax populations as shown by records of AK. shellfish toxicity. In WarrenS. Wooster and

I Fl I

I

David L., Fluharty (editors) El Nino north: Gunn, R., D. Valiela, and W. Green. 1983. Nino effects in the eastern subartic pacific Review of species available for mariculture in I ocean. Washington Sea Grant Program, British Columbia. Discovery Parks, Inc. University of Washington, Seattle. Hemming, J.E. and N. Hemming. 1984. Blue I Fei, T. 1983. Seaweed raft and farm design in mussel mariculture in Kachemak Bay, AK. China. In Laura B. Mckay, ed. : Seaweed raft Unpublished report 20 pp. and farm design in the United States and I China. New York Sea Grant Institute. Al­ Harriott, N. 1984. A guide to longline mus­ bany, N.Y. sel cultivation. Aquaculture Technical Bul­ letin No. 9. National Board for Science & Farris, T. 1987. Summary of environmental Technology. Dublin, Ireland 97 pp. I effects of cage culture on estuarine habitat. Paper presented at Alaska Aquaculture Con­ Imai, T. 1971. Aquaculture in Shallow Seas: ference, Sitka, AK. Progress in shallow sea culture. Trans., U.S. I Dept. of Commerce, NSF Report TT252021. Fortuine, R. 1975. Paralytic shellfish poison­ NTIS. Springfield, Va. ing in the north pacific: two historic accounts I and implications for today. Alaska Medicine Ito, S., H. Kanno, and K. Takahashi. 1975. 17(5): 712-76. Some problems on culture of the scallop in Mutsu Bay. Bull. Mar. Bioi. Sta. of Asamushi Freeman, K. 1985. Fish of the Month: nori. 15(2): 89-100. I Pacific Fishing. July. James, G.A. 1956. The physical effects oflog­ Freese, L. and C. O'Clair. 1984. Responses ging on salmon streams in Southeast Alaska. I of the littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) USDA For. Serv. Alaska Cent. Sta. Paper. 49 and the edible mussel (Mytilus .e.dlllis.) ex­ pp. posed to decomposing wood waste from a log I transfer facility. Paper presented at the AK. Jefferds, P. 1987. Operating and marketing a Chapter Am. Fisheries Soc. Annual meeting, mussel farm. Paper presented at the Fourth Juneau, AK. Abstract. Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, Ak. I Frye, T.C. 1915. IV. The kelp beds of Jenkins, R.J. 1985. Mussel cultivation in the Southeast Alaska. In Potash from kelps. U.S. Marlborough Sounds (New Zealand) 2nd edi­ Dept. of Agriculture 100. Washington, D.C. tion. New Zealand Fishery Industry Board. I Glude, J.B. 1979. Oyster culture - a world Johnson, C.B. 1985. Use of coastal habitat by review. Pp. 325-331 in T.V.R. Pillary adn W.A. mink on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. M.S. Dill, eds.: Advances in Aquaculture. FAO thesis, Univ. AK., Fairbanks, 179 pp. I Technical Conference on aquculture, Kyoto, Japan, 26 May to 2 June, 1976. Fishing News Kafuku, T. and H. Ikenoue. 1983. Modern Ltd. Norwich, England. methods of aquaculture in Japan. Elsevier Sci. I Pub. Co. Amsterdam-Oxford-New York. 216 Glude, J.B. and K.K. Chew. 1982. Shellfish pp. aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest. Pp. 291- I 304 in Proc. N. Pac. Aq. Symp. Aug. 1980. Kaill, M. In prep. Procedures manual for Anchorage,AK. scallop mariculture. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game. Juneau, AK. Golikov, AN. and O.A. Skarlato. 1979. Ef­ I fect of mussel culture in the white sea on the Koganezawa, A. 1979. The status of pacific benthos of the adjacent water area. Biologiia oyster culture in Japan. Pp. 332-337 in._T.V.R. moria 5(4): 68-73. Abstract. Pillay and W.A. Gill, eds.: Advances in I Aquaculture,Kyoto, Japan, 26 May- 2 June,

F2 I I

I

1976. Fishing news books ltd. Norwich, Mathieson, O.A. J.J. Goering, and P.K. Bien­ I England. 653 pp. fang. 1987. APPRISE: association of primary productive and recruitment in a subarctic Korringa, P. 1979. Economic aspects of mus­ ecosystem. Ann. Rept. Jan.1-Dec 31, 1988. I sel farming. Pp. 371-379 in Advances in Juneau,Ak. Aquaculture. FAO Technical Conference on Aquaculture, Kyoto, Japan 26 May- 2 June Mattson, J. and 0. Lindgren. 1984. Impact I 1976. Fishing News Ltd. Norwich, England. from cultures of Mytjlus .ed.ul.i£ on the benthic ecosystem in a narrow sound of the Swedish Larsen, D.N. 1983. Habitats, movements, west coast. Vatten-water 40(2): 151-163. and foods of river otters in coastal Abstract. I Southeastern Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univ.Alas­ ka, Fairbanks. 149 pp. Meixner, R. 1979. Culture of pacific oysters (Crassotrea g.igaa) in containers in German I Leighton, D. 1985. Rock scallop grow-out. coastal waters. Pp. 338-339 in T.V.R. Pillay Aquaculture Magazine. July. pp 6-7 and W.A. Dill, eds.: Advances in aquaculture. Fishing News Books Ltd. Norwich, England. I Leighton, D. and C.F. Phleger. 1981. The suitability of the purple hinge rock scallop to Motoda, S. 1977. Biology and artificial marine aquaculture. Aquaculture Rept. No propagation of Japanese scallop. Proc. 2nd T-SCSGP001. Center for Marine Studies Soviet-Japan Joint Symp. Aquaculture, Nov. I Contribution No. 50. San Diego State Univ., 1973. Moscow 112 pp. Ca. Mottet, M.G. 1981. Enhancement of the I Lindstom, S. 1987. The potential for nori marine environment for fisheries and aquaculture in Alaska. Paper presented at aquaculture in Japan. Wash. Dept. of Fish. the 4th Alaska Aquaculture Conference, Tech. Rept. No. 69. Olympia, WA. 176 pp. I Sitka, AK. Mumford T.F. and D.J. Melvin. 1983. Pilot­ Loa, L.O. and R. Rosenburg. 1983. Mytilus scale mariculture of seaweeds in Washington. edulis. Growth and production in western Laura B. Mckay, ed.: Seaweed Raft and Farm I Sweden. Aquaculture Vol. 35 (2). Design in the United States and China. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, N.Y. Mackenzie, C.L. 1979. Biological and I fisheries data on sea scallop,Placopecten Neish, F.C. 1979. Developments in the cul­ magellanicus (Gmelin). Sandy hook Lab. ture of algae seaweeds and the future of the Tech. Series Rept. No. 19 NE Fish. Ctr. industry. Pp. 395-402 in T.V.R. Pillary and I NMFS34pp. W.A. Dill eds.: Advances in Aquaculture. FAO Technical Conference on Aquaculture Magoon, C. and R. Vining. 1981 Introduc­ Kyoto, Japan 22 May - 2 June Fishing News tion to shellfish aquaculture in the Puget Books Ltd. Norwich, England. I Sound region. Wash. State Dept. of Nat. Res. Olympia. Nicholson, D. 1987. Oyster aquaculture in Alaska. Paper presented at the 4th Alaska I Marriot, N. 1984. A guide to longline mussel Aquaculture Conference, Sitka, AK. cultivation. Aquaculture Tech. Bull. No.9 Na­ tional Board for Science& Technology. Nishitani, L. and K. Chew 1984. Recent Dublin, Ireland. 97 pp. developments in paralytic shellfish poisoning I research. Aquaculture, 39 (1984): 317-329. Mason, J. 1983. Scallop and queen fisheries in the British Isles. Fishing News Books Ltd. North, W.J. 1973. Kelp restoration activities I Norwich, England. in San Diego county. Kelp hab. Imp. Proj.

I F3 I

I

Ann. Rept. Keck lab. of Envir. Health Eng., 1976.Fishing News Books Ltd. Norwich, I Cal. Inst. of Tech. England. ·

Olsen, S. 1983. Abalone and scallop culture Schimuz, Y. 1982. Shellfish aquaculture and in Puget Sound. J. Shellfish Res. 3(1): 113. paralytic shellfish poisoning. Aquaculture: I public health, regulatory and management Olson, 1987. Seaweed cultivation in Minami aspects. Proc. 6th U.S. Food drug ad­ Kayabe, Hokkaido Japan: Potential for ministration scientific symposium on aquacul­ I similar mariculture in Southeastern Alaska ture. Tamu-sg-82-119, pp 38-48. Marine Advisory Bulletin No.27. Alaska Sea Grant Program. University of Alaska. Schultz, R.D. and R.J. Berg. 1976. Some ef­ fects oflog dumping on estuaries. Natl. Mar. I Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Council. Fish. Serv. Juneau, AK. 24 pp. 1971. Log storage and rafting in public waters. Task force report. 56 pp. Science Applications Int. Corp. 1986. I Recommended interim guidelines for the Pease, B.C. 1974. Effects of log dumping and management of salmon net-pen culture in rafting on the marine environment of Puget Sound. 48 pp. Mimeo. I southeast Alaska. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-22. Pac. NW For. and Selkregg, L.L. 1975. Alaska Regional Range Expt. Sta. Portland, 0 R. 58 pp. Profiles: Southeast Region Arctic Environ­ mental Information and Data Center, Univ. I Quayle, D.B. 1969. Pacific oyster culture in AK., Anchorage, AK. 233 pp. British Columbia. Fish. Res. Brd. of Canada Bull. 169. Ottawa, Canada. 192 pp. Sharma, G.D. 1979. The Alaskan Shelf: I hydrographic, sedimentary, and geochemical Ren-zhi,L., C. Ren-Yi, and M. Zhao-Cai. environment. Springer-Verlag. New York. 1984. A preliminary study of raft culture of 498 pp. I GracHaria yerrucosa and Gracilaria sjoested­ tii. Hydrobiolgia 1161: 252-254. Sinderman, C.J. 1979. Oyster mortalities and their control. Pp. 349-360 in T.V.R. Pil­ Rosenburg, R. and L.Loo. 1983. Energy flow lay and W .A. Dill, eds. Advances in Aquacul­ I in a Mytj)us eduljs culture in western Sweden, ture. Fishing News Books ltd. Norwich, Aquaculture. 35: 151-161. England. 653 pp. I Rodhouse, P.G., Roden, C.M., Hensey, M.P. Steckoll, M.S. 1987. Alaska sea vegetables. and T.H. Ryan. 1985. Production of mussels, Ak. Mar. Resources Quarterly 2(2). Mytilus edulis, in suspended culture and es­ I timates of carbon and nitrogen flow: Killary Steckoll, M.S. 1988. Proposal for the Japan­ Harbor, Ireland. J. Mar. Bioi. Assoc. U.K. Alaska giant kelp agriculture feasibility study. 65(1): 55-68. Juneau, Ak. 13pp. mimeo. I Romero, p., E. Gonzalez-Gurriaran, and Sutherland, I.R. 1986. Monitoring the Penas. 1982. Influence of mussel rafts on spa­ development of intense oyster culture in tial and seasonal abundance of crabs in the Trevenan Bay. The B.C. Aquaculture I Ria de Arousa, northwestern Spain. Mar. Newsletter 6(4): 17-24. Bioi. 72: 201-210. Swedish Council for Planning and Coordina­ I Saito, Y. 1979. Seaweed aquaculture in the tion of Research. 1983. The environmental northwest Pacific.Pp. 402-410 in T.V.R. Pil­ impact of aquaculture. Rept. 83-5 to the lary and W.A.Dills eds.:Advances in Aquacul­ Swedish steering committee on Aquaculture. ture. FAO Technical Conference on Stockholm, Sweden. 74 pp. I Aquaculture, Kyoto, Japan 26 May- 2 June

F4 I I

I

Talley, K. 1985. Fish of the month: scallops. I Pacific Fishing January. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. 1984. Instructions for monitoring Nori Taguchi, K. 1977. A manual of scallop culture growth. Unpubl. mimeo. I methods and management. Pac. Bio. Sta. Fish. and Mar. Serv. Trans. Ser. No. 4198. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. Nanaimo, British Columbia. 146 pp. 1987. A programamtic Draft Environmental I Impact Statement on nori farming in Puget Tenore, K.R., L.F. Boyer, R.M. Cal, J. Corral, sound. Olympia, W A. C. Garcia-Fernandez, N. Gonzalez, E. Gon­ zales- Gurriaran, R.B. Hanson J. Iglesius, M. Weston, D.P. 1986. The environmental ef­ I Krom, E. Lopez-Jamar, J. McClain, M.M. fects of floating mariculture in Puget Sound. Pamatmat, A. Perez, D.C. Rhoads, G. de San­ Univ. Wa. School of Ocean. Rept. WB-10. tiago, J. Tietjen, J. Westrich, and H.L. Win­ Seattle, Wa. 148 pp. I dom. 1982 Coastal upwelling in the Rias Bajas, NW. Spain: contrasing the benthic Zeimann, D.A. 1986. Patterns of regimes of the Rias de Arosa and de Muros. oceanographic conditions and particulate J. Mar. Res. 40: 701-772. Abstract. sedimentation in Auke Bay, AK. during the I spring bloom 1985. APPRISE: Ann. Rept. Tianjing,L., S. Ruying, L. Xuyan, H. Dunqu­ Univ. AK., Juneau, Ak. pp. 143-246. ing, S. Zhiji, L. Guangyong, Z. Oifang, C. I Shuli, Z. Sui, C. Jiaxing, and W. Feijiu. 1984. Studies on the artificial cultivation and PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS propagation of giant kelp (Macrocystis I p.yrifera). Hydrobiologia John Church, former oyster grower in Blashke 116/117: 259-262. Islands, Wrangell, Alaska

Ventilla, R.F. 1982. The scallop industry in Dr. Louis Druehl, researcher at Nanaimo Re­ I Japan. In J.H.S. Blaxter, F. S. Russell and search Station, British Columbia. M. Yonge eds.: Advances in Marine Biology. Vol. 20. Academic Press, New York. Dr. Jim Hemming, mussel grower, Kachemak I Bay, Alaska. Wakeman, J.S. and L. Nishitani. 1982. Growth and decline of Gonyaulax catenella Eric Hurlburt, Shellfish/Aquaculture Coor­ I bloom associated with parasitism. Abstract. J. dinator, Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Shellfish Res. (listed in Press in Nishitani, L. Olympia, Washington and K. Chew. 1984) Dr. Michael Kaill, Mariculture Coordinator, I Wakui, T. 1983. Present status of scallop sea Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and farming in Japan. Paper presented at first Development Division, Alaska Dept. of Fish Japan-France aquaculture symp., Montpelier, and Game, Juneau, Alaska I France. Don Nicholson, oyster grower, Blashke Is­ Wallace, J.C. and T. G. Reinsnes. 1985. The lands I significance of various environmental parameters for growth of the Iceland scallop, Brian Paust, Marine Advisory Program Chlamys islandica (Pectinidae), in hanging Agent, Cooperative Extension Service, Univ. I culture. Aquaculture 44: 229-242. of AK. Petersburg, Alaska Wallen, D.D., and D.W. Hood. 1971. Descrip­ Tom Shirley, Professor, School of Fisheries, tive oceanography of Southeast Alaska and Univ. of AK. Southeast, Juneau, Alaska I marine interfaces. Inst. Mar. Science, Univ. College, AK. 198 pp.

I FS I

I

I AppendixG Senate Bill514

Offered: 5/9/88 S-2170X I For Today's Supplemental Calendar Original sponsor: Rules Committee I 1 IN THE SENATE BY THE RULES COMMITTEE 2 HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 514 (Rules) I 3 IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 4 FIFTEENTH LEGISLATURE - SECOND SESSION

5 A BILL

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

7 shellfish; prohibiting the farming of Atlantic sal-

I 8 men; extending the moratorium· on finfish farming

9 until July 1, 1990; establishing the Alaska Finfish

I 10 Farming Task Force; and providing for an effective

11 date." I 12 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 13 * Section l. FINDINGS AND POLICY. (a) The legislature finds that I 14 (1) aquatic farming in the state would 15 (A) provide a consistent source of quality food; I 16 (B) provide new jobs; 17 (C) increase state exports; I 18 (D) create new business opportunities; and 19 (E) increase the stability and diversity of the state's I 2.0 economy; and 21 (2) development of aquatic farming in the state would increase I 2.2 the availability of fresh seafood to Alaskans and would strengthen the 23 competitiveness of Alaska seafood in the world marketplace by broadening I 24 the diversity of products and providing year-round supplies of premium 25 quality seafood. I 26 (b) It is the policy of the state 27 (1) to encourage the establishment and responsible growth of an I 28 aquatic farming industry in the state; and 29 (2) that allocation of aquatic farming sites be made with full

I SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(1ls) Gl I

I I I 1 consideration of established and ongoing activities in an area. 2 *Sec. 2. AS 16.40 is amended by adding new sections to read: I 3 ARTICLE 2. AQUATIC FARMING. 4 Sec. 16.40.100. AQUATIC FARM AND HATCHERY PERMITS. (a) A I 5 person may not, without a permit from the commissioner, construct or 6 operate I 7 (1) an aquatic farm; or 8 (2) a hatchery for the purpose of supplying aquatic plants I 9 or shellfish to an aquatic farm. 10 (b) A permit issued under this section authori•e• the permittee, I 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 I 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 I 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 I 18 under this section that are necessary to protect natural fish and 19 wildlife resources. I 20 (d) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the commissioner 21 may not issue a permit under this section for the farming of, or I 22 hatchery operations involving, Atlantic salmon. 23 Sec. 16.40.105. CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. The commis- I 24 sioner shall issue permits under AS 16.40.100 on the basis of the 25 following criteria: I 26 (1) the physical and biological characteristics of the 27 proposed farm or hatchery location must be suitable for the farming of I 28 the shellfish or aquatic plant proposed; 29 (2) the proposed farm or hatchery may not require I

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C G2 I I

I I 1 significant alterations in traditional fisheries or other existing 2 uses of fish and wildlife resources; I 3 (3) the proposed farm or hatchery may not significantly 4 affect fisheries, wildlife, or their habitats in an adverse manner; I 5 and 6 (4) the proposed farm or hatchery plans and staffing plans I 7 must demonstrate technical and operational feasibility. 8 Sec. 16.40.110. PERMIT APPLICATION, RENEWAL, AND TRANSFER. (a) I 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 I 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 I 13 the commissioner before the permit is issued. 14 (b) An application for renewal or transfer of a permit must be I 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 I 17 evidence that satisfies the commissioner that the applicant has com­ 18 plied with the development plan required under (a) of this section. I 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 I 21 spection or contract with a disease diagnostician to conduct the 22 inspection. I 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 I 25 by the transferor, and subject to the same conditions and limitations. 26 Sec. 16.40.120. AQUATIC STOCK ACQUISITION PERMITS. (a) A I 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 I 29 hatchery required to have a permit under AS 16.40.100 unless the I SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I G3 I

I I

1 person holds an acquisition permit from the commissioner. 2 (b) An acquisition permit authorizes the permit holder to ac­ I 3 quire the species and quantities of wild stock in the state specified 4 in the permit for the purposes of supplying stock to I 5 (1) an aquatic farm or hatchery required to have a permit 6 under AS 16.40.100; I 7 (2) the department. 8 (c) The commissioner shall specify the expiration date of an I 9 acquisition permit arid may attach conditions to an acquisition permit, 10 including conditions relating to the time, place, and manner of har­ I 11 vest. Size, gear, place, time, licensing, and other limitations 12 applicable to sport, commercial, or subsistence harvest of aquatic I 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 I 15 deny a permit within 30 days after receiving an application. 16 (d) The commissioner shall deny or restrict a permit under this I 17 section upon finding that the proposed harvest will impair sustained 18 yield of the species or will unreasonably disrupt established uses of I 19 the resources by commercial, sport, personal use, or subsistence 20 users. The commissioner shall inform the Board of Fisheries of any I 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 I 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. I

26 (e) The Board of Fisheries may adopt regulations for the censer- 27 vation, maintenance, and management of species for which an acquisi­ I 28 tion permit is required. 29 (f) Except as provided in (d) of this section or in a regulation I

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C I

G4 I I

I I 1 adopted under (e) of this section, the commissioner shall issue a I 2 permit if 3 (1) wild stock is necessary to meet the initial needs of I 4 farm or hatchery stock; 5 (2) there are technological limitations on the propagation I 6 of cultured stock for the species sought; 7 (3) wild stock sought is not fully utilized by commercial, I 8 sport, personal use, or subsistence fisheries; or 9 (4) wild stock is needed to maintain the gene pool of a I 10 hatchery or aquatic farm. 11 (g) Aquatic plants and shellfish acquired under a permit issued I 12 under this section become the property of the permit holder and are no 13 longer a public or common resource. I 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 I 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. I 18 Sec. 16.40.140. LIMITATION ON SALE, TRANSFER OF STOCK, AND 19 PRODUCTS. (a) A private hatchery required to have a permit under I 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 16.- 22 40.100, except that shellfish stock may also be sold or offered for

I 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

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

28 fer. I 29 (c) A notice of transfer must be accompanied by a report of a I SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I G5 I

I I 1 health inspection of the stock. The department shall conduct the I 2 inspection or contract with a disease diagnostician to conduct the 3 inspection. The cost of inspection shall be borne ty the department. I 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 I 6 disease. 7 (e) A person may not sell, transfer, or offer to sell or trans­ I 8 fer, or knowingly pu~chase 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 I

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

12 offer. I

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

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

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 I 17 shall report to the department .an outbreak or incidence of disease 18 amons stock or aquatic farm products of the permit holder within 48 I 19 hours after discovering the outbreak or incidence. 20 (b) A holder of a permit issued under AS 16.40.100 shall allow I 21 the department to inspect the permit holder's farm or hatchery during 22 operating hours and upon reasonable notice. The cost of inspection I 23 shall be borne by the department. 24 (c) The department shall develop a disease management and con­ I 25 trol procram for aquatic farms and hatcheries. 26 (d) The department may enter into an agreement with a state or I 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.- I 29 40.110(b).

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C I

G6 I I

I I I 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

I 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.-

I 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

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

9 cultivates aquatic farm products in captivity or under positive con­ I 10 trol; 11 (2) "aquatic farm product" means an aquatic plant or shell­ I 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; I 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 I 16 issued by the commissioner; 17 (4) "commissioner" means the commissioner of fish and game; I 18 (5) "hatchery" means a facility for the artificial propa­ 19 gation of stock, including rearing of juvenile aquatic plants or I 20 shellfish; 21 (6) "positive control" means, for mobile species, enclosed I 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 I 24 tive control" also includes managed cultivation in unenclosed water; 25 (7) "shellfish" means a species of crustacean, mollusk, or I 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 I 28 under a permit issued by the commissioner; 29 (8) "stock" means live aquatic plants or shellfish

I SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I G7 I

I I

1 acquired, collected, possessed, or intended for use by a hatchery or I 2 aquatic farm for the purpose of further growth or propagation. 3 * Sec. 3. AS 03.05.0ll(a) is amended to read: I 4 (a) To carry out the requirements of this title, the commis­ 5 sioner of environmental conservation may issue orders, regulations, I 6 pe~mits, quarantines, and embargoes relating to 7 (1) examination and inspection of premises containing I 8 products, articles, and commodities carrying pests; 9 (2) establishment of quarantines for eradication of pests; I 10 (3) establishment of standards and labeling requirements 11 pertaining to the sale of meat, fish, and poultry; I 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 I 14 order or quarantine; 15 (5) cooperation with federal and other state agencies; I 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 I

19 stock; 20 (7) examination and inspection of meat, fish, and poultry I

21 advertised for sale or sold to the public; 22 (8) enforcement of quality assurance plans developed in I 23 cooperation with appropriate industry representativesi

24 (9) establishment of standards and conditions for the I

25 operation and siting of aquatic farms and related hatcheries, includ­ 26 ing I 27 (A) restrictions on the use of chemicals; and 28 (B) requirements to protect the public from contami­ I 29 nated aquatic farm products that pose a risk to health; I HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C

G8 I I

I I

I 1 (10) monitoring aquatic farms and aquatic farm products to 2 ensure compliance with this chapter and with the requirements of the I 3 national shellfish sanitation program manual of operations published 4 by the Food and Drug Administration. I 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 I 7 commissioner or an authorized inspector may, for the purpose of in­ 8 specting agricultural~ [OR] fisheries, or aguatic farm products or I 9 aquatic farm sites subject to regulation, enter a storehouse, ware­ 10 house, cold storage plant, packing house, slaughterhouse, retail store I 11 or other building or place where those products are kept, stored, 12 processed or sold. I 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 I 16 eries products; 17 (2) "aquatic farm" and "aquatic farm product" have the I 18 meanings given in AS 16.40.199; 19 ill "fish or fisheries products" means any aquatic animal, I 20 including amphibians, or aquatic plants or parts of those plants, 21 animals or amphibians that are usable as human food. I 2.2 * 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 I 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 I 2.6 citizens of the state; 27 *Sec. 7. AS 16.05.251 is amended by addina a new subsection to read: I 2.8 {f) Except as expressly provided in AS 16.40.120(d) and (e) and I 2.9 16.40.130, the Board of Fisheries may not adopt regulations or take SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I G9 I

I I

1 action regarding the issuance, denial, or conditioning of a permit I 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 I 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: I 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 I 8 person or vessel employed in an activity authorized by a permit issued 9 under AS 16.40.100 or 16.40.120. I 10 * Sec. 9. AS 16.05.940(14) is amended to read: 11 (14) "fish or game farming" means the business of propagat- I 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- I 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 I 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: I

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 I

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. I

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 I 25 permit issued under AS 16.40.100 or 16.40.120. 26 * Sec. 12. AS 16.51.180(5) is amended to read: I 27 (5) "seafood" means finfish, shellfish, and fish by-prod­ 28 ucts, including but not limited to salmon, halibut, herring, flounder, I 29 crab, clam, cod, shrimp, and pollock, but does not include aquatic I HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C

GlO I I

I I

I 1 farm products as defined in AS 16.40.199; 2 * Sec. 13. AS 38.05 is amended by adding a new section to read: I 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 I 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 I 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 I 9 the appraised fair market value of the lease. The value of the lease 10 shall be reappraised every five years. I 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. I 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 I 15 other security to cover the costs to the department of restoring the 16 leased site in the event the lessee abandons the site. I 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

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

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

I 22 permit under AS 16.40.100. 23 (b) The commissioner shall schedule at least one 60-day period

I 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 I 26 permit under AS 38.05.856.

27 (c) Based on applications received under (b) of this section, I 28 and after consultation with the commissioner of fish and game and the I 29 commissioner of environmental conservation, the commissioner shall SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I Gll I

I I

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

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

3 05.856. I 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 I 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 I 8 specifies conditions and limitations for the development of each site. 9 Sec. 38.05.856. TIDELAND AND LAND USE PERMITS FOR AQUATIC FARM­ I 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 I 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. I 14 (b) Before renewing a permit under this section, the commission­ 15 er shall allow interested persons to submit written or oral testimony I 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 I 18 testimony. 19 (c) Before issuing or renewing a permit under this section, the I 20 commissioner shall consider all relevant testimony submitted under 21 this section or AS 38.05.946(b). The commissioner may deny the appli­ I 22 cation for issuance or renewal for good cause, but shall provide the 23 applicant with written findings that explain the reason for the I 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 I

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. I 29 (e) The commissioner shall adopt regulations establishing I HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C

G12 I I

I I I 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 I 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

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

7 site is located.

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

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

I 10 by the department for the following actions:

11 (1) classification or reclassification of state land under I 12 AS 38.05.300 and the closing of land to mineral leasing or entry under 13 AS 38.05.185; I 14 (2) zoning of land under applicable law; 15 (3) a decision under AS 38.05.035(e) regarding the sale, I 16 lease, or disposal of an interest in state land or resources; [AND] 17 (4) a competitive disposal of an interest in state land or I 18 resources after final decision under AS 38.05.035(e)i 19 (5) a public hearing under AS 38.05.856(b); I 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. I 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) I 24 shall be given to appropriate 25 (1) regional fish and game councils established under I 26 AS 16.05.260; and 27 (2) coastal resource service areas organized under AS 46.- I 28 40.110- 46.40.210. 29 *Sec. 17. AS 38.05.946 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

I SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I Gl3 I

I I l (b) The commissioner shall hold a public hearing in each dis- I 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- I 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 I 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 I 9 person's existing operations under AS 38.05.083 or 38.05.856, enacted by 10 sees. 13 and 14 of this Act, but as a condition of obtaining the lease or I 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. I 13 * Sec. 19. LAND MANAGEMENT REPORT REQUIRED. The commissioner of natu- 14 ral resources shall submit to the legislature not later than January 30, I 15 1989, a report detailing the department's implementation of AS 38.05.083 16 and 38.05.856, enacted by sees. 13 and 14 of this Act. The report must I 17 include 18 (1) the number of applications received under AS 38.05.083 and I 19 38.05.856, and the number of leases and permits issued, according to type 20 of aquatic farm product; I 21 (2) the restrictions attached to permits and leases; 22 (3) a discussion of the system the department implements for I 23 issuing leases and tideland and land use permits; 24 (4) the level of public involvement in the issuance process; and I 25 (5) a discussion of how the program is working, and the depart- 26 ment's plans for modifications of the program. I 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- I 29 logical, and environmental issues requiring an in-depth examination.

HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C I

G14 I I

I I

I 1 (b) The Alaska Finfish Farming Task Force is established to study the 2 issue and make a report of findings for administrative and legisiative I 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 I 5 broad spectrum of expertise, including one representative of commercial 6 salmon fishermen, one aquatic farming advocate, one private economist, one I 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

I 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 I 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,

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

15 other issues the task force considers appropriate. The reports must exam- I 16 ine 17 (1) whether the farming of finfish can be conducted in a manner I 18 that protects the health of the state's fishery resources; 19 (2) criteria for the siting of finfish farms to minimize land I 20 use conflicts and to protect the environment; 21 (3) net economic costs and benefits of finfish farming in the I 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- I 24 lation and monitoring, and effects on markets for salmon caught by the 25 state's commercial fishing fleets; I 26 (4) the cost of providing adequate regulation of finfish farming 27 to protect wild stocks, the environment, public health, and existing bene- I 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;

I SB0514C HCS CSSB 514(Rls)

I CJ15 I

I I

1 (5) identification and analysis of appropriate sources of supply I 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 I 4 effect on existing state policy; and 5 (6) strategies for improving the marketability of Alaska salmon, I 6 particularly those high-value species competing with farmed salmon for 7 domestic and export sales. I 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]. I 10 *Sec. 22. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c). I I I I I I I I I I HCS CSSB 514(Rls) SB0514C

G16 I I

I

I AppendixH I DEFINITIONS Aquaculture - The regulation and cultivation shellfish spat that is attached to conditioned I of water plants and animals for human use or shell, cultch, or young seaweed plants. consumption. Mariculture- Saltwater aquaculture, sea cul­ I Aquatic Farming - Mariculture ture. The aquatic farming of organisms, by a variety of methods, to maturation. Benthic - Plants or animals "benthos" as­ I sociated with the bottom of a body of water Mitigation - Measures or actions that will especially the ocean. avoid adverse consequences or result in milder, less severe, or moderate consequen­ Bottom culture - A traditional method of ces. I oyster culture used in the U.S. and British Columbia and for scallop culture in other Near Bottom culture - Includes a number of areas. This method utilizes the intertidal or methods in which shellfish are elevated off the I subtidal zones, e.g. +3 - +5 tidal range for intertidal or subtidal substrates by structures oysters, which is the natural habitat of the embedded in the bottom, e.g. trays. oyster. A gravel or firm substrate is preferred I for this method for oysters, mud or other soft Out-planting - The method of growing cul­ bottoms are not conducive to oyster growth. tured organisms to maturity outside of aquatic farm facilities. Bouchot culture - A term referring to the I method of culture of oysters and mussels Raft culture- A type of culturing method that developed in France which involves the at­ accommodates culture lines or trays tachment of netting or strings directly onto suspended from a simple floating structure I wooden poles set in intertidal areas. Prime that is securely anchored. areas for bouchot culture are larger bays where very wide mud flats exist. State Resource Agencies - The three state I departments DNR, DEC, ADF&G, that Floating raft culture - Suspended log struc­ manage the states natural resources. tures or P.V.C. containers designed to hold grow-out structures for shellfish, or seaweeds, Stake Culture -Attachment of mothershell to I anchored in water sufficient enough to the top of a stake of wood or plastic pipe prevent grounding at any tidal stage. driven into the substrate. Shellfish develop in a cluster by this method. I Grow-out - Maturation of cultured organisms to marketable size. Suspended culture -A floating culture system typically a plastic mesh tray positioned near Hanging culture - A culturing method which the surface. This culturing method takes ad­ I relies on floatation to suspend cultured or­ vantage of the warmer surface water, and ganisms in the water column to maximize reduces the cultured species susceptibility to I growth and minimize limiting factors. predation. Longline- Vertically suspended lines originat­ Terminal Transfer Facility - An area where ing from floats, rafts, or lines stretched commodities such as timber or mineral ore I horizontally between floats or posts em­ are transferred from ground transportation bedded in the bottom. This method uses systems to waterborne systems.

I Hl I

I

I Appendix I I ACRONYMS

I The following are acronyms commonly used throughout this document:

AAC -Alaska Administrative Code I ACMA - Alaska Coastal Management Act ACMP -Alaska Coastal Management Program ADF&G - Alaska Department of Fish and Game I AMA - Alaska Mariculture Association AMSA - Area Meriting Special Attention, an area designation of the ACMA. AS- Alaska Statute I ASGA - Alaska Shellfish Growers Association B.C. - British Colombia COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPC - Coastal Policy Council I CPQ - Coastal Project Questionnaire CSFA - Consolidated Shellfish Farm Application DCED - Department of Commerce and Economic Development I DEC - Department of Environmental Conservation DGC - Division of Governmental Coordination of the Office of Management and Budget DEH - Division of Environmental Health of DEC I DEQ - Division of Environmental Quality of DEC DNR - Department of Natural Resources FRED -Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development Division of ADF&G I LUD- Land Use Designation, a land management classification of the USFS. MAP - Marine Advisory Program of the Extension Service of the University of Alaska NEPA- National Environmental Protection Agency I NMFS- National Marine Fisheries Service OFCS- Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation, a quasi-governmental Japanese faun dation that funds projects that will promote international good will. I pH - Product of Hydrogen, a measure of acidity. PSP - Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning TLMP - Tongass Land Management Plan I 1TF- Terminal Transfer Facility USFS - United States Forest Service I USF&W- United States Fish and Wildlife Service I I I I-1 I

I I AppendixJ

I Table A-1 Oyster Production-Monthly

I This figure represents oyster growth from 14mm spat planted in early May. Production starts as early as the 13th month after spat are planted, and can peak in the 16th month. Harvesting may continue from this crop for 3 years. If smaller spat are used the time to production may be in­ I creased from 1 to 11 months and significant mortality may occur.

I Oyster Production from 100,000 Spat

I 14,000 12,000 I 10,000 8,000 I 6,000 4,000 I 2,000 o ~~~--~uu~.-..~uw~~--~~~----~~~~~ I 1 3 57 91113151719212325272931333537394143 Production by Month If spat planted May '88, production occurs from I May '89 through Dec. '92 I I I I I

I Jl I

I I Table A-2 Southeast Alaska Raft Culture Oyster raft culture in Southeast Alaska is shown in Figure B. This method of production is labor I intensive with each oyster being handled 6-7 times from when it is planted as spat until it is sold by the farmer. The information for both of these tables was provided by Don Nicholson of Canoe Lagoon Oyster Farm. I

12,000 Oyster Production from 100,000 Spat 9,000 I 6,000 3,000 0 III I .llllllllllllllllll••u••••••·------I 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 Number of Months since Spat Planted I 62,000 combined into trays and harvested every 2 month at about 20% each time September I Harvest August Harvest 3200 10,200 July I Harvest June 12,800 Harvest I May 4000 April I March

Thinned to 3000 February per20LFT I

January

Thinned to 3000 I December per20 LFI"

November Thinned to Thinned to 4000 I 3000per per20LFT 20LFf October 3,200 Culled Thinned to to Beach September I ~ August I July 20,000 large enough for placement in 3/4" Second thinning surface tray at SOOO and sorting June per 20LFr lJlT • liDcal feet of trayo I First thinning 400pertray May ~------~~OOpers~ 100,000 14mm spat planted May 1st 600 spat per tray, 6 trays per stack J2 I I