Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
02/12/2013 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR5 | |
| HB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 89-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
10:28:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 89, "An Act relating to the rapid response to,
and control of, aquatic invasive species and establishing the
aquatic invasive species response fund."
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
10:29:26 AM
GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist, Cordova District Fishermen United,
stated support for HB 89 and said that debris has been evident,
including Japanese debris lodging in fishing nets. He said the
bill provides a vehicle to monitor beaches and to respond to
invasive species.
10:31:12 AM
RODGER PAINTER, President, Alaskan Shellfish Growers
Association, stating support for the intent of HB 89, pointed
out the written response in the committee packet, and said many
methods of invasive species introduction exist, including:
ballast water discharge, tsunami debris, and other opportunities
that come with the freedom of vessels moving in the ocean and
the successive use of fishing gear in multiple areas. Aquatic
farmers are concerned about the possibility of infestations.
However, there is also concern for some language contained in
the bill, specifically page 2, subsections (f) lines 17-20, and
(h) lines 25-28. Interpreting these subsections, he said, it
appears that ADF&G and DNR would be held harmless for any
impacts on private property, but, as shellfish farmers, the
majority of private property assets are located in the water in
the form of gear and crops. Although language stipulates that
the department shall consider the potential effects of its
response measures on private property, Mr. Painter opined that
the wording is "soft." Referring to the most common aquatic
threat, tunicates, similar to what was found in Whiting Harbor,
he said, although these are difficult to deal with, they cannot
survive once removed from the water. Aquatic farmers can pull
gear, without damage, and employ methods to save aquatic crops
such as thermal treatment or brining, which would not affect
shellfish. The easiest means of killing a tunicate is exposure
to air. He said the proposed language, as stated, is not
reassuring and sets up a situation of distrust. There have been
times when the private sector was "at war" with the state
agencies, he recalled, and said it is important to cultivate
good relations between the government and free enterprise. He
said the need for this legislation is clear, and suggested more
reassuring language be considered.
10:38:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the association has reviewed the
MOU.
MR. PAINTER responded no
10:39:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the bill page 1, lines 6-9,
paraphrasing the language, which reads [original punctuation
provided]:
(a) The department shall, in cooperation with the
Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Department of Natural Resources, and other state,
federal, public, and private entities, establish a
rapid response and management plan for addressing
incipient populations of aquatic invasive species.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that this language directs the
department to incorporate the input of private entities for the
development of a plan and asked whether inclusion in this sub
paragraph is enough to protect private sector interests.
Further, once a plan is devised and implementation is imminent,
as noted in the subsequent, previously referenced subparagraphs
the agency is required to show consideration for the private
property interests.
MR. PAINTER agreed that it is helpful to have the departments
directed to include the aqua farmers from the onset rather than
association members having to insert themselves into the
process.
10:41:06 AM
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), said that UFA has not discussed HB 89 but invasive
species is a concern and the need exists. She said the upcoming
meeting would have this bill as a topic and, in anticipation of
the outcome, she stated unofficial support for HB 89.
10:41:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether a definition for rapid
response would be part of the anticipated discussion.
MS. CURRY responded yes, it is important to be able to provide a
rapid response.
10:42:47 AM
MARLENE CAMPBELL, Director, Government Relations, City of Sitka,
stated support for HB 89 and said the legislation has strong
support. Sitka is the first Alaska site infested with Didemnum
vexillumis, the invasive species that has caused immense damage
in many areas of the world. The tunicate is fully entrenched in
Whiting Harbor, after appearing two years ago. She said since
its appearance, the area has not been cordoned off nor have
boaters been encouraged to refrain from entering the area;
rather, boats routinely enter Whiting Harbor to fish, risking
further infestation. The bill should include a priority
requirement for marking or blocking off an infested area to
inhibit spread. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
received a $500,000 budget item in the FY 13 budget,
specifically to work on eradication, but an RFP has yet to be
issued. Despite discussion and planning the department has not
taken obvious steps, other than removal of an aquatic farm; in-
water eradication steps have not occurred. She expressed
concern for lack of action on the infestation and said efforts
have been hampered by lack of staff and initial funding. The
department employs only one person to oversee invasive species
for the entire state. The City of Sitka is ready and willing to
work with agency staff to assist in any way possible, but thus
far has had no direction or information to help with the Whiting
Harbor episode. The bill may help create a united effort for
handling invasive species, and she emphasized the need for a
rapid versus eventual response.
10:49:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for comments from DNR and ADF&G regarding the
development of the MOU.
10:49:30 AM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) responded that the MOU delineates that DNR will take the
lead on coordinating efforts to address invasive freshwater
plants; ADF&G will have purview over anything that swims and
inhabits saltwater. Under the MOU a rapid response system will
be developed, which may employ chemical and mechanical methods.
Streamlining the permitting process is also important as that
can slow or delay an otherwise rapid response.
10:51:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to the Fiscal Note Analysis
provided by DNR, Division of Agriculture, page 2, and
paraphrased the sixth paragraph, which reads [original
punctuation provided]:
Currently, there are some eradication efforts in
planning stages for freshwater invasive aquatic plants
in Alaska-specifically for Elodea. The removal of
Elodea would be carried out in the following methods:
manual removal by divers, suction dredging, or
chemical application.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the removal methods mentioned are
in the governor's proposed budget.
MR. FOGELS responded that the current budget for the invasive
species program covers one staffing position, the invasive
species coordinator, and nothing additional. The employee
identifies response methods and means, as well as issues public
announcements, and coordinates agency response. He said the
removal itself is significantly more expensive that what is
indicated, and other entities have been acquiring funds to help
with the effort. The funding that DNR has budgeted will provide
the "backbone" for response.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked why it will take at least a year to
develop a rapid response plan.
MR. FOGELS explained that, for combating Elodea, mechanical
methods have been tried but are not 100 percent successful.
Chemical agents can be effective and are reasonably benign, but
how benign along with how the chemicals may react in northern
waters are unknowns. Additionally, residents have concern
regarding the use of chemicals, particularly those with private
wells near the Elodea infested waters. Thus, he said, it all
takes time to arrive at a safe effective approach.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recalled committee discussions regarding
the ADF&G statewide management plan for invasive species. He
referred to the fiscal note submitted by ADF&G, Division of
Sport Fish, page 2, and noted that it is anticipated to take 18
months for completion. In the previous hearings, reports were
that planning began two years ago, and he asked why it will take
another 18 months.
10:57:03 AM
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), said the plan referenced is a
document prepared in 2002 and is used as a guiding document;
it's 10 years old. The fiscal note funds the first phase of the
current effort and provides 18 months of funding to update the
2002 document and address the five species identified as current
threats, which are: tunicates, Northern pike, European green
crab, cordgrass, and crayfish. In the course of the 18 months,
a rapid response plan will be developed to handle vectors of
each of the identified species and include assistance from
outside agencies, and private sector groups. He emphasized that
it is important to have a current document to guide a
comprehensive approach.
10:59:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the MOU is an internal discussion
between three agencies, and HB 89 requires inclusion of outside
entities. He asked if the departments see any problems with
developing a collaborative approach, as indicated in the bill.
11:00:25 AM
MR. FOGELS responded that DNR considers the directive to
included stakeholders to be a positive approach and said it is
an important aspect for meeting an infestation effectively, as
well as to provide immediate mobilization. The soil and water
conservation districts, as indicated in the MOU, are expected to
play a crucial role, he said. Permitting for eradication via
chemical application will take significant public discussion.
MR. SWANTON agreed and said it is important to bring everyone to
the table and can only prove beneficial to the state efforts.
11:01:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that budgeted funds are
available for a rapid state response, yet monetary burden is
being placed on soil and conservation districts to provide
necessary support. He expressed concern for relying on non-
profit organizations, with limited funds, to shoulder funding
responsibilities. If capital grants are to be considered as a
source, and the legislature is not in session, a delayed
response would be inevitable. The bill is intended to establish
a fund to draw on immediately to carry out a previously devised
plan, but not to create the plan.
MR. FOGELS clarified that cost responsibility and response would
not rest with the conservation districts, and agreed that the
funding mechanism needs to be worked out.
CHAIR SEATON restated that the bill establishes a fund for the
agency, in charge of response, to draw down for implementation
of a previously established plan; derived through the stipulated
public process. The legislature would handle the appropriation
process, but would not need to be convened in order for a
response to take place. Having funds readily available is meant
to ensure that a rapid response can be executed.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS commented that it is an oxymoron when a
rapid response takes years to progress, and noted that, thus
far, one employee is in charge of invasive species but a
workable plan is not in place.
MR. FOGELS said DNR has a strategic plan for invasive species
and he offered to provide it to the committee.
11:06:43 AM
TIM STALLARD, Chair, Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive
Plant Management, stated support for HB 89 and said that it is
timely for Alaska to act on invasive species. An exponential
growth curve exists for an invasive, but when they are insipient
it is possible to eradicate them prior to a population
explosion. Thus, a rapid response is imperative, bearing in
mind that every species has a particular growth curve; pike
versus DVex or Elodea. He referred to the ISER study, available
in the committee packet, regarding the costs associated with
invasive species management. The study indicates funding source
percentages as: federal government 84, state 5, and private
non-profit agencies 9. He noted that the non-profits are
contributing over twice as much as the state currently provides,
and said HB 89 is important to ensure Alaskans as responsible
stewards of the state's natural resources. The bill focuses on
ADF&G, and he expressed concern that both agencies are provided
the response ability and authority beyond stipulations of the
MOU. Regarding the fiscal notes, he said it is reasonable that
ADF&G update the comprehensive plan, but the DNR request seems
inadequate, he opined. Leadership is important, and the
inclusion of funding to enlist the assistance of an experienced
consultant could prove helpful; especially regarding invasive
plants.
MR. STALLARD continued, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
I understand its standard practice to have a "Hold
Harmless" clause in state lease agreements. I'm
looking at a State Airport lease agreement - there is
a hold harmless clause in there if the state needs to
come in and clean up a fuel spill in the area of a
leased hanger.
The state has a public trust responsibility to protect
its resources. Of course we want to support and
facilitate industries such as mariculture, but the
state shouldn't assume the risk of safeguarding
commercial property operating in state waters and
benefiting from use of the public resource.
I would think the details of this would normally be
sorted out in Department Regulations, which are
theoretically a more flexible process than statutes.
Part of such regulations could be the opportunity for
the leasee to remove their property within a certain
period and not put it back into the water before
satisfying the agency Director that it has been
decontaminated.
Remember this is potentially an emergency situation
and swift action will likely be necessary to contain
and prevent further spread of a harmful new species.
Under item (c) 2nd page line four - emergency
exemptions. "Quarantine" - we want to make sure this
will give ADF&G or DNR authority to close water bodies
temporarily if needed. Right now Sand Lake in
Anchorage is infested with Elodea and folks can still
fly in and out of there, take a boat from there
anywhere in Alaska - potentially spreading this
invasive threat to salmon all over the state. Note
there are not any State signs even posted about the
problem.
11:15:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
11:15:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS moved Amendment 1. [Subsequently withdrawn
and re-offered.]
CHAIR SEATON explained that ADF&G suggested this amendment to
ensure that a full response could be made; removing restrictions
for the department to delegate and authorize duties to
responders.
11:17:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON established that the amendment holds the
department, or workers contracted by the state, harmless, and he
expressed concern for regarding what might occur if a contractor
proved unscrupulous. A legal opinion would be helpful, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON concurred.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the committee packet and the
departmental request, including intent, for Legislative Legal
Services to review and draft the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that specific stipulations
could be imposed when the contract is signed rather than
drafting statutory language. However, he maintained that
control of state agents could prove difficult and questionable.
CHAIR SEATON suggested clarification directly from Legislative
Legal Services.
11:21:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS withdrew Amendment 1.
11:22:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated support for HB 89 and said it is
good to see legislation regarding invasive species. Alaska is
ahead of the nation partially due to locale. In some states,
property owners can be denied bank loans based on the presence
of an invasive species inhabiting a parcel of land. He
commented that the soil conservation districts are more able to
mobilize large numbers of volunteers, than provide funds, to
help eradicate invasive species.
11:24:38 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said the intent is to hold
harmless the department or agent of the state, when responding,
notwithstanding gross negligence; it does not provide a blank
slate.
11:26:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered a theoretical situation involving a
nonprofit volunteer working on a project to remove Elodea and
asked if the terminology "agent of the state," would apply to
this worker.
MR. BULLARD responded that subsection (b) only applies to the
department. If there is a mechanism that allows the department
to deputize the volunteer as an agent, then it would apply.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested it would eliminate suit being
brought against someone carrying out a state plan for rapid
response.
11:28:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS re-offered Amendment 1, labeled 28-
LS0339\U.1, Kurtz\Bullard, 2/11/13, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "department"
Insert "state and the officers, employees, and
agents of the state"
11:28:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, hearing no objection, announced Amendment
1 as adopted.
11:29:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed support for the bill.
11:30:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON the hold harmless may seem aggressive but one thing
that held up the response in Whiting Harbor was the problem of
ADF&G not knowing how to handle the private mariculture
facility. A rapid response cannot be conducted if fear of a law
suit is prevalent. Responding to an invasive, durable species,
such as mussels, requires that a comprehensive plan be in place
for immediate implementation.
11:32:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that the best response agents
are often the public and, in formulating an effective plan, this
should be a focus for consideration; people need to know what is
happening and how they as individuals can help to provide a
rapid response.
11:34:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report HB 89, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 89(FSH) was
reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 5 Letter 6 Sea Beef.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Letter 7 Intl Seafoods of AK.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Letter 8 PVOA.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Memo.docx |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Parnell Letter.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR005A.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Article 1.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Impact Memo.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HB0089A.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB 89 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB 89 Aquatic Invasive Species Background Information.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| PVOA_HJR 5_Support Comments(2).pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| UFA support HJR5 Genetically Modified Salmon Hse Fisheries 02.01.13.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| ATA Comments HJR 5 GE Salmon, 020113.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| ATA GMO Salmon Labeling Comment 1110.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| ge salmon letter 2013.doc |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Letter 1 Hamburg FDA GE Salmon FINAL.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Letter 2 Hamburg GE Salmon comment extension.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| ASGA HB 89 letter.docx |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HJR 5 Letter 3 Delegation Chenault HJR8.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Letter 4 Alaska Glacier Seafoods.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 Letter 5 Picked Willys.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 CDFU.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 5 SEAFA.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| 13.004 MOU Invasive Freshwater Aquatic Plants_State Agencies.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HJR 5 support letter Kim Elliott.docx |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |
| CDFU HB 89 Aquatic Invasive Sp.pdf |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HJR 5 House Fisheries presentation.pptx |
HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 5 |