Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/13/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB89 | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 89-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
1:06:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first 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."
[Before the committee was CSHB 89(FSH).]
1:06:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, as the sponsor, introduced HB 89, stating
it is a rapid response bill for aquatic invasive species
throughout the state. He noted one aquatic invasive species,
such as Elodea canadensis (Elodea), can be found in Southcentral
Alaska as well as in Fairbanks. This species overruns salmon
habitat. Other species, such as Northern Pike have established
in the Susitna River drainage and on the Kenai Peninsula.
Didemnum vexillum or "D vex" captured the legislature's
attention last year when an infestation developed in Whiting
Harbor near Sitka, and the rapid spread of D. vex posed a threat
to the Sitka Sound Herring fishery. He expressed concern that
commercial vessels such as seiners and tenders would not be able
to operate if the species continues to grow. He pointed out the
European Green crab and some mussel species across the U.S. have
also clogged filters and waterways.
1:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reported the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) estimates approximately $120 billion per year in
loss in the U.S. The University of Alaska's Institute of Social
and Economic Research (ISER) estimates approximately $29 million
is spent on invasive species management in Alaska per year,
divided between government and non-government groups. One thing
that has hampered efforts to control invasive species is not
having the ability to rapidly respond to an incipient
population. He described an incipient population as a newly
discovered population that has not yet become endemic throughout
a watershed. Once an invasive species is established, it is
very expensive to control. Currently, the state does not have
the resources dedicated to respond. This bill would give state
agencies the authority to act and prioritize actions that will
be effective. It would set up a rapid response fund and
dedicate funds for that purpose. This bill also considers
private property in the development of plans and protects
subsistence, recreational, and commercial opportunities before
it is too late to act.
1:11:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related the bill would give ADF&G and
other state agencies the authority and tools to deal with an
outbreak of an invasive species in fresh or salt water. It
would require ADF&G to coordinate with other state agencies and
private organizations and private parties to develop plans for
eradicating colonial tunicate, crab, or other invasive species.
In response to a question, he clarified that a colonial tunicate
is similar to a coral but it is soft, grows, and suffocates
other marine life. He pointed out one reason felt soles on
waders has been outlawed was to prevent people from picking up
invasive species in their soles and transferring it to the next
stream.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he hopes this bill will help
prevention efforts, which is cheap and incipient population
control, which is a less expensive method to address the problem
than for an established invasive species.
1:12:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that HB 89 would give ADF&G the
authority to use the appropriate means to address invasive
species, whether chemical or physical. It would also establish
an expedited review of plans, and prioritization for eradication
of the species over other management issues. He recalled one
concern that arose during invasive species control for D. vex
was that some sea urchins were also destroyed in the process of
addressing the invasive species, which is why the bill includes
management provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the bill will require that the
development of a plan consider the impact on native fish species
and also consideration of private property.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said HB 89 would also hold harmless state
agencies. One of the conditions of receiving mariculture
permits is that the leaseholder must recognize the state may
need to intervene to address invasive species and the state
would be held harmless; however, he stressed that this immunity
would not extend to gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
1:15:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated the bill would establish a
rapid response fund, although it contains restrictions against
using the funds for planning. Instead, the rapid response fund
will be used for rapid response. He expressed concern that the
"D vex" problem in Sitka hasn't yet been addressed and the state
is now coming up on four years since it was first discovered.
The purpose of this bill is to provide an effort to "get ahead
of the game" instead of being "behind the game."
1:16:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER recalled that last year a similar bill
made it to the Senate Rules Committee and some minor but
important changes were made to the bill during the process. He
wished the sponsor well this year.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that last year's bill had been
introduced as a House Resources Committee bill. This year he
introduced HB 89 as a personal bill, but it is essentially the
same bill.
1:17:07 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his understanding the legislative intent
is to deal with incipient populations, which are ones that have
not gained a foothold within the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON confirmed that is correct. He explained
incipient does not need to be defined since it relates to a
first outbreak or a new outbreak of a species even if it is
found in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE concluded that based on that answer he agrees
incipient does not need a definition.
1:18:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether HB 89 will address the impacts
from agency contractors if DNR sublets its authority and whether
the bill extends to private contractors action on private
property.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered yes. He referred to page 2, line
17-19, which reads, "(f) The Department of Natural Resources and
the department shall include in all relevant leases and permits
a provision that the state and the officers, employees, and
agents of the state shall be held harmless for an act under (b)
of this section that affects private property of the lessee or
permittee." This language originated from ADF&G and "agents of
the state" would extend to contractors, he said.
1:19:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether the bill extends to terrestrial
or land-based invasive plant species, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that this bill is limited to
addressing aquatic - freshwater and marine - species. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture has authority on terrestrial invasive
plant species. He stated that the Alaska Committee for Noxious
and Invasive Plant Management handles land-based plants. The
aforementioned committee supports the bill.
1:20:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired how the rapid response fund would be
funded.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON was unsure of the appropriation amount,
but he anticipated $1-2 million would be necessary. This bill
does not appropriate money to the rapid response fund. The
legislature would need to take a separate action to do so. In
response to a question, he agreed the bill has a House Finance
Standing Committee referral.
1:21:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER referred to page 2, lines 8-10 of HB 89, to the
language, " (d) Rapid response to, and management of, an aquatic
invasive species under (b) of this section shall be given
priority over activities regulated by the department in the area
where an incipient population of an invasive species is being
targeted." He asked for clarification on the size of the area.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that discretion has been left to the
department. He clarified if the area is too large it would be
considered an endemic population. He clarified that the intent
of this language is not to stop all management in an area, just
within the localized area in which a "controlled plan" is being
activated. This language would give the control plan priority
over the normal management of fish species within the localized
area.
1:23:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER posed a scenario of a ship sinking that spills
oil. He asked how the response to an invasive species would be
prioritized.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded he does not think the scenario
would correspond at all. This bill pertains to ADF&G's
authority over its activities. He related a number of different
species, openings, and closings occur under ADF&G, but the bill
does not pertain to the Department of Environmental
Conservation's activities or fuel contamination.
[CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 89.]
1:24:33 PM
GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist, Cordova District Fishermen United,
stated that last year in Prince William Sound fishermen noticed
considerable debris washing in from Japan. At the time he
contacted the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). He said he would like to see the bill include
coordination with NOAA because he anticipates significant
Japanese debris to continue to appear over the next couple of
years. He pointed out some incidents, such as a van that
floated around, but disappeared, and a variety of bottles,
buoys, and baskets that have been discovered. He offered to
establish a hot line with NOAA, DNR, or ADF&G with respect to
the debris. He assumed a long-term plan would include the state
inspecting the debris for invasive species. He offered support
for the bill.
1:26:58 PM
CHRIS RAINWATER, Chair, Board of Directors, Homer Soil and Water
Conservation District (HSWCD), stated that the HSWCD supports HB
89. The HSWCD has been working on invasive species in the
uplands and agricultural community for about six years. He
cautioned that it takes time to put procedures together which
work well, but he hoped he will be able to assist. He pointed
out that it is thought Elodea may be in a couple of the lakes
around Homer as a result of float planes. Thus the conservation
districts will investigate the float plane lakes within their
boundaries this summer. In conclusion, he stated he appreciated
the committee's efforts.
1:28:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted Mr. McCune indicated the need for
coordination with federal officials. He wondered whether the
bill addresses that or if it could be accommodated.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, line 6-7, to Section 1
of the bill, which read,"(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." Thus, he believes it is covered in the bill.
He clarified the coordination is limited to the development of
the plan, which is important.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have Mr. Fogels testify to have
on the record the intent of the bill. He characterized it as a
"war" and a "battle". He stated that a tactical battle is
necessary to eradicate an incipient population. Once it reaches
an endemic population, a war is necessary to rid the invasive
species.
1:30:29 PM
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that the
department has been reviewing the bill. As Representative
Seaton said the war on invasive species is a battle; it's big.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed its own
strategic plan, primarily focused on terrestrials, weeds, and
agricultural pests, although Elodea is rapidly becoming part of
the plan. The department has put together a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that was signed in January 2013 by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the DNR, with DNR as the
lead agency for coordinating the Elodea and freshwater aquatic
invasive species battle. This bill would establish a rapid
response fund which is only one part of the battle. The DNR's
strategic plan covers quick response since the costs are
substantially lower to eradicate invasive species during the
quick response phase as compared to when the species has caught
hold.
1:31:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER recalled the invasive species [Pueraria
montana] kudzu taking over the ecosystem in Georgia. He asked
whether any instance has occurred to eradicate an invasive
species once it has become endemic.
MR. FOGELS responded that he did not know the answer to that
question. He offered to research it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it depends on the location. It's
better not to introduce a species, but battles have been fought
around the world. For example, in Australia, they've battled
against rabbits.
MR. FOGELS recalled some success stories in eradicating rats on
some islands in the Aleutian chain.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER acknowledged it's easier to fight the battle
[early on].
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 89.
1:33:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 2, lines 18-19 of HB 89.
He expressed concern about the term "employees and agents" since
he was unsure how broad that term is in the bill. He indicated
he discussed this with the DNR and the department did not have
any issue in removing "agents". He would be willing to offer a
conceptual amendment to remove "and agents".
CO-CHAIR SADDLER stated he would entertain it as Conceptual
Amendment 1. He deferred to the sponsor of HB 89.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would be to remove "and agents" on page 2, line 19.
He said he did not have any issue in doing so.
1:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
[on page 2, line 19, to remove the language "and agents".
CO-CHAIR SADDLER restated the motion and said the language on
page 2, lines 18-19 would now read, "... all relevant leases and
permits a provision that the state and the officers, employees,
of the state ... ".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON added he would like to the bill drafters
to have the latitude to make any grammatical corrections.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:36:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER observed that the fiscal note includes
three temporary employees in the Division of Sport Fish [ADF&G]
and one temporary employee in the DNR's Division of Agriculture,
which he characterized as having a relatively benign fiscal
impact. However, these fiscal notes still create a fiscal
impact for the bill. He said his personal preference is that
the two fiscal notes be zeroed out by the House Resources
Standing Committee and have the departments provide a more
thorough explanation in the House Finance Standing Committee and
a justification for the fiscal note.
1:37:54 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.
1:38:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether the bill sponsor has any
objection to that procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered he would like to make sure that
zeroing out the fiscal note is not interpreted as attempting to
avoid a finance committee referral. He did not think that was
the committee's intent.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood that the intent of the committee is
for HB 89 to have a referral to the House Finance Standing
Committee. The argument in defense of the fiscal note figures
would be part of the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted it would take a floor action by the
speaker to remove the committee referral.
1:39:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
that fiscal notes 4 and 5 be zeroed out, resulting in all the
fiscal notes attached to HB 89 will be zero fiscal notes. This
motion carries a clear intent that the bill will continue on to
the finance committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
He clarified that the funding is being zeroed out, but the
language on page two of the fiscal notes is not being zeroed
out.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he was willing to take that as a
friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER restated the motion. He moved to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 2, to zero out fiscal notes 4 and 5, but to
leave the fiscal note analysis attached. This would result in
all the fiscal notes attached to HB 89 as zero fiscal notes.
This motion carries a clear intent that the bill will continue
on the finance committee. Further, if the ADF&G or the DNR wish
to obtain funding the departments must argue for funding before
the House Finance Standing Committee.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
1:41:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 89, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zeroed fiscal notes. There being no objection, the
CSHB 89(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB89 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 89 |
| HB89 CDFU Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 89 |
| HB89 Backup Information.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 89 |
| HB89 CNIPM Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 89 |
| HB89 ASGA Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 89 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 5.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 6.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |