Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB361 | |
| HB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 361 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2014
8:42 a.m.
8:42:11 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:42 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Lindsey Holmes
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Dan Saddler, Sponsor; Sara Chambers,
Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development; Representative Paul Seaton,
Sponsor; Charles Swanton, Director, Division of Sport Fish,
Department of Fish and Game.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Richard Kiefer-O'Donnell, Associate Director, University of
Alaska Anchorage Center for Human Development, Anchorage;
Annette Blanas, Center for Human Development, Anchorage;
Rachel White, Doctor and Owner, Good Behavior Beginnings,
Anchorage; Lorri Unumb, Vice President, State Government
Affairs, Autism Speaks, South Carolina; Suzanne Letso, CEO,
Alaska Center for Autism and Connecticut Center for Child
Development, Connecticut; Gino Graziano, Cooperative
Extension Service and Alaska Committee for Noxious Invasive
Plant Management, Anchorage; Marcus Mueller, Land
Management Officer, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Kenai; Joni
Schargenberg, Fairbanks Soil and Water Conservation
District, Chena Slough, Fairbanks; Aditi Shenoy, Fairbanks
Soil and Water Conservation District, Fairbanks Cooperative
Weed Management Area, Fairbanks.
SUMMARY
HB 89 AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
HB 89 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 361 LICENSING OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS
HB 361 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
8:43:11 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 361
"An Act relating to licensing of behavior analysts."
8:43:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, SPONSOR, read from the HB 361
sponsor statement:
Autism is a significant and growing problem in Alaska.
Statistics show that one in 110 Alaska children -
about 1 percent - are born with this developmental
disability, characterized by a diminished ability to
communicate, social isolation, and other symptoms.
While not curable, autism is treatable. Scientific,
peer-reviewed studies have shown that early intensive
treatment in the form of Applied Behavioral Analysis
offers the best opportunity to help people with autism
improve their ability to function productively in
society.
Applied Behavior Analysis is recognized as the basis
for the most effective form of treatment for autism by
the U.S. Surgeon General, The National Institute of
Child Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
You can best understand ABA as behavior modification
therapy: It seeks to encourage appropriate behavior by
assessing and managing the relationship between the
environment and the desired behavior.
Forty years of research shows that nearly half of
people with autism who receive intensive early
intervention and treatment do not require lifelong
services and support -- and half can achieve normal
functioning after two to three years. This can mean
lifetime savings of $200,000 to $1.1 million for a
person through the age of 55.
One of the most important elements in successful
autism treatment is having it provided by well-trained
behavioral therapists - those who hold the nationally
recognized credential of Board-Certified Behavioral
Analyst, or BCBA.
To qualify as a BCBA, applicants must have a minimum
of a master's degree, plus extensive training and
experience requirements of up to 1,500 hours of
supervised practice in the field, 225 hours of
graduate-level classroom work, or a year's experience
teaching ABA at the university level. They must also
pass the challenging BCBA certification examination.
The Board-Certified Assistant Behavioral Analyst, or
BCaBA credential, requires slightly lower standards.
The state already supports the training of BCBAs
through a grant to the Center for Human Development,
at the University of Alaska Anchorage. There are about
20 to 30 BCBAs and BCaBAs in Alaska today, although
not all of them are currently working in the field.
Under current state law, Alaskans with BCBAs cannot
bill health insurance companies or Medicaid for their
services at a rate that reflects their high degree of
training and professional skill because they are not
formally licensed.
HB 361 addresses this situation by providing for those
holding the BCBA or BCaBA credentials in Alaska to be
licensed by the Division of Professional Licensing, in
the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development. Fourteen other states currently
provide licensing and regulate behavior analysts. This
approach has the strong support of Alaska BCBAs and of
national autism advocacy groups.
8:46:32 AM
Representative Saddler continued reading the sponsor
statement:
By ensuring licensing and higher standards of practice
for BCBAs and BCaBAs, HB 361 will:
· encourage more people to provide autism services in
Alaska
· offer higher reimbursement rates for professional
providers
· provide better outcomes for Alaska children with
autism
· save the state money by avoiding the need for costly
institutional care, and
· improve the quality of life for hundreds of Alaskans
and their families
8:47:03 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman thought the bill looked like good
legislation and was interested in hearing more about it.
Representative Guttenberg thanked the sponsor for bringing
the bill forward. He wondered whether behavioral analysts
would automatically slide into an existing board or
commission. Representative Saddler replied in the negative;
there was not currently a board of professional behavioral
analysts.
Representative Thompson asked for verification that there
were currently 39 Board-Certified Behavioral Analysts
(BCBA) in Alaska. Representative Saddler replied that there
were approximately 24 BCBAs in the state. Additionally,
there were a number of individuals currently going through
the program supported by a grant through the Center for
Economic Development. He did not know the number of Board-
Certified Assistant Behavioral Analysts (BCaBA) in Alaska.
Representative Thompson noted that it was expensive to run
a board. He asked about licensing fees. Representative
Saddler replied that a licensing board would not be
required. Licensing came through the department similar to
mortuary scientists and other small professional groups;
there were not currently fees associated with a
professional licensing board. There were some fees that
members would pay for licensing, but he did not have the
assessment of the cost.
Representative Thompson remarked that Representative
Saddler's response had satisfied his concern related to the
cost per licensee.
Representative Saddler added that BCBAs had been seeking
the licensure and were willing to accept the national costs
and records. He noted the existence of an Autism Insurance
Task Force; one of entity's likely recommendations would be
to seek licensure through the department at low cost and
impact.
8:49:46 AM
Representative Wilson wondered whether any investigations
would take place. She understood that the majority of board
costs were associated with investigations. She asked
whether the board would have an investigator.
Representative Saddler did not believe the licensees would
have an assigned investigator. He detailed that any
investigation work would be conducted by the Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing under
DCCED. He did not believe many professional boards had
their own investigator.
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that some [professional boards]
did have their own investigators.
Representative Wilson asked to hear from DCCED related to
investigative work and the difference between professional
boards. She wanted to ensure that licensees were not
saddled with costly investigation fees.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that the bill would receive the
same scrutiny as any new board due to uncertainty on costs
and revenues. He acknowledged the virtue of the idea
contained in the legislation.
8:52:11 AM
RICHARD KIEFER-O'DONNELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA ANCHORAGE CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation.
He detailed that the Center for Human Development was a
federally funded University Center of Excellence on
Developmental Disabilities; its role was to serve the
entire state. The entity supported services and the
development of workforce capacity. He focused primarily on
the backstory associated with the development of the bill.
He referred to work done by the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education that began in 2006; the
council developed several reports documenting the needs of
children with autism and their families. The council had
recommended that the state invest energy into the
development of autism specialists. He detailed that a
stakeholder meeting had been held in November of 2008 that
included state agencies, the private sector, and families.
The goal had been to develop recommendations about what the
autism specialists should look like. The group had
recommended that the Center of Human Development work to
establish a BCBA training program. He spoke to funding from
a trust and general funds. He discussed the decision to
partner with an existing program due to the high need for
BCBAs.
Mr. Kiefer-O'Donnell relayed that the program was in its
fifth cohort of students (a cohort worked for 2.5 to 3
years) working with children and adults with autism. He
spoke to the success of the program. He discussed program
requirements for certification. Existing BCBAs had been
involved with the private sector, school districts, and the
state. Additionally, they had been centrally involved with
the implementation of the Complex Behavior Collaborative.
He relayed that the program had been well-received and was
cost-effective. He noted the existing demand for the
advanced degree. Program participants were required to have
a minimum of a master's degree. He spoke to the well-
defined structure within the national credentialing board
related to the monitoring of licensees and any associated
grievances.
8:58:13 AM
ANNETTE BLANAS, CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in favor of the
legislation. She mentioned the importance of licensure
related to billing and the ability to retain professionals
in Alaska. She discussed the importance of licensure in
terms of quality control of professionals for families.
Currently families with autistic children were desperate
for services. She relayed that with so few options
available, families would take any services they could get.
She detailed that families had nowhere to direct concerns
if services were of poor quality. She believed licensure
would offer a level of quality control for professionals.
Rural communities with limited access to professionals were
at risk of receiving services by unqualified workers. She
detailed that rural communities tended to be isolated from
other professionals that would recognize the issues early
on. The licensure process would provide a venue for
addressing the issues. Lastly, families living in rural
communities were often even more desperate for any type of
services, which could lead families to accept low quality
services. The low quality services could create more
challenges than what may have existed before services were
provided. She stated that licensure provided a foundation
of minimum quality across the profession and in all
communities; it would also implement a way for families to
address ethical concerns.
9:01:18 AM
RACHEL WHITE, DOCTOR AND OWNER, GOOD BEHAVIOR BEGINNINGS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. She spoke to her BCBA credentials at the doctorate
level. Her company provided in-home services to children
with autism. She believed licensing providers would help
provide families with access to insurance-covered services.
She relayed that currently some insurance companies would
not cover behavioral analyst services because no state
licensing existed. She communicated that there was a
national board that oversaw behavioral analysts where
ethical concerns could be directed.
9:03:08 AM
LORRI UNUMB, VICE PRESIDENT, STATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
AUTISM SPEAKS, SOUTH CAROLINA (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. She spoke to her
professional background in the autism field. She worked as
a professor at George Washington University Law School; she
had a son with autism. She pointed to the national trend of
BCBA licensure, which was driven in part by insurance
legislation that had passed in 35 states including Alaska.
At present 15 states had created a licensure or state
certification for behavior analysts; Alabama had recently
passed legislation. She believed Maryland had also passed
legislation the previous day. She added that states were
moving in the direction of licensure to ensure consumer
protection. She had studied the bills nationwide and
believed the current legislation was sound and well
drafted. She detailed that some states had created new
boards and other states had put licensure under existing
boards. She opined that it could work fine either way. She
was in full support of the bill's reliance on the existing
national certification. She noted that the credential had
been examined and approved by insurance companies. She
agreed that the national Behavioral Analysts Certification
Board disciplinary mechanism was a real enforcement piece;
she had seen individuals lose their certification or
receive other reprimands. The bill also created appropriate
exemptions for those who should not require a license and
created temporary licenses for individuals transferring
from other states.
9:06:46 AM
SUZANNE LETSO, CEO, ALASKA CENTER FOR AUTISM AND
CONNECTICUT CENTER FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT, CONNECTICUT (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She spoke to
her professional background. She pointed to four documents
she had provided to the committee (copy on file). One
document showed a budget that had been done for Kentucky;
the net cost was roughly $7,000 and included the cost of
running a disciplinary board. She believed one option was
to run disciplinary processes through Alaska by temporarily
deferring to the Behavioral Analyst Certification Board
disciplinary process until an appropriation was made or
sufficient revenue from fees were accumulated. She relayed
that the cost of running a licensing program would be low
because of the BCBA's ability to absorb costs. She
communicated that the state stood to save substantial money
by bringing children back in-state who were currently only
able to be served out-of-state. She referred to a cost-
benefit analysis pertaining to Texas, which determined that
by providing intensive Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA)
approximately $208,000 had been saved per student
throughout their 18-year education. She referred to a
second cost-benefit analysis from a lifespan approach that
found savings of $200,000 to $600,000 per child (conducted
by Jacobson, Mulick, and Green). Lastly, she pointed to a
document she had created on finances in Connecticut. The
document looked at the cost of providing ABA placement
services in and out of districts; providing the minimum
adult day-service programs for people with disabilities for
60 years saved the state $200,000 per person. She relayed
that if a disabled person could remain at home for 25 years
prior to residential services it would save between $3
million and $4 million per person. She concluded that there
were many ways the legislation could have a very positive
impact.
9:11:30 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson requested to hear from the
department. She spoke about concerns related to a small
board's ability to absorb costs. She wondered if the
professionals could be included under an existing board
instead of creating a new one.
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS, AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, relayed that
there were many variables that went into licensing.
Centralized licensing statutes and regulations required
investigations to take place in response to public
complaints or other red flags (for all professions with or
without a board). She had determined that potential cost to
behavior analysts if licensed, would be fairly minimal. She
estimated a $2,000 per year cost for investigative related
costs. She noted that investigations could be triggered by
license applications when there were requirements for
potential licensees to disclose certain information. The
initial biennium program estimates included one-time
startup costs for a 25 to 42 person program of $700 to
$1,200 for licensure. The number would dramatically
decrease after the one-time startup had been paid with the
first biennium fee (AS 08.01.065 required that all
licensing costs were borne by licensees). She detailed that
licensing fees for the program could be anywhere from $400
to $600 in the out years. She advised that her estimates
erred on the more expensive end.
9:16:23 AM
Representative Wilson believed one of the drivers behind
the proposed implementation of the board was due to lack of
insurance coverage for services. She asked for verification
that insurance would pay if there was a board certification
in place.
Representative Saddler clarified that the program was not a
professional licensing board model. He expounded that the
program would fall under departmental licensure. He relayed
that licensed providers would be subject to reimbursement
from private insurance at a higher rate, which would
benefit the public, providers, and families.
Representative Wilson spoke to a bill from recent years
related to payment by private insurance. She wondered if
the lack of insurance coverage was a primary driver behind
the legislation. She surmised that the proposal [for
departmental licensure] had been used because it was less
expensive for licensees than a board would be.
Representative Saddler replied in the affirmative. He
elaborated that BCBAs had experienced challenges billing
for services in Alaska. Drawing on national experience, one
of the recommendations was that licensing BCBAs would place
them in a more easily identifiable category for private
health insurance purposes.
9:18:23 AM
Representative Thompson appreciated the clarification that
the bill would not establish a board. He spoke to the
expenses of board travel for meetings. He pointed to a
letter in committee members' packets from Premera Blue
Cross (copy on file) that suggested specifying that a
provider was practicing within the scope of licensure or
specialty standards. He asked if the bill sponsor had
reviewed the recommendation.
Representative Saddler answered that he had not thoroughly
addressed the suggestion. He was amenable to the change.
Representative Thompson wondered if Premera Blue Cross may
require the inclusion of the language before it would honor
an insurance claim. Representative Saddler believed the
company had provided its support of the bill in writing.
Representative Thompson agreed that the company supported
the bill, but pointed to its language suggestion.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked the bill sponsor to follow up on the
suggestion. Representative Saddler agreed.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the fact that the bill
would not create a board. He asked for verification that
investigative fees would be included in license costs. Ms.
Chambers replied in the affirmative. She elaborated that AS
08.01.065 required all costs attributable to a particular
licensing program to be paid by licensees (whether there
was a board or not). There were 20 boards and commissions
and 19 licensed programs without boards or commissions. She
detailed that a board or commission had the governance
power to dig into practice policies that protect the
public; whereas, administrative activities (e.g. issuance
of licenses, performance of investigations, and other) were
departmental requirements. However, a board had a
significant role in driving the level of investigation
within the scope of its sentencing guidelines. She
summarized that investigative activity was a licensing cost
that was legally required to be paid by licensees. She
noted that the topic would be discussed over the interim
with the legislature.
9:22:39 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that
investigation fees did not include criminal prosecutions.
Ms. Chambers replied in the affirmative. She detailed that
the department had civil authority, but not criminal
authority. She referred to an example she had given in a
separate bill hearing related to a potential prostitution
investigation; the investigation would fall under the
purview of the Department of Public Safety or municipal law
enforcement. However, a conviction may have a domino effect
on an individual's license. She referred to testimony from
the national board that there was a strong opportunity for
the national board to have a hand in effecting the level of
investigation on licensure particularly because the bill
leaned heavily on the certification. She elaborated that if
an individual's certification was revoked by the national
board there would be no cost to licensees, but the state
would then have the opportunity to discipline or revoke a
license as required by law.
Representative Thompson believed the issue was very
important. He believed the cost of going after a licensee
for misbehavior was a responsibility of the state. He did
not support saddling other licensees with the associated
costs. He believed the issue should be addressed in the
future.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the cost of the legislation. He
believed the fiscal notes had green lights. He pointed to a
question related to the overall cost, which was an
uncertainty associated with doing anything new in
government. He stated that it was good to hear "autism
speak." He believed it had been a silent and misunderstood
subject, which effected many people. He appreciated the
sponsor's efforts.
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked that the committee was in
support of the collaborative behavioral health program that
worked to help autism patients.
Co-Chair Stoltze hoped to hear the bill again soon.
HB 361 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:26:20 AM
AT EASE
9:27:25 AM
RECONVENED
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."
9:27:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill. He discussed the threat elodea was
posing to the state's aquatic environment. The plant was
responsible for overrunning salmon and arctic grayling
habitat and was impacting areas such as Sand Lake in
Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, and the Chena
Slough. He stated that once invasive species established
themselves they were almost impossible to eradicate. He
pointed to other invasive species the state was working to
control including pike and a tunicate called "Dvex" located
in the Sitka area. The invasive tunicate smothered existing
substrate and could impact commercial and sport fisheries,
hard shell clams and herring. Other potential threats were
traveling up the West Coast in green crab, quahog, and
zebra mussels. He believed damages associated with invasive
species cost the U.S. approximately $120 billion per year.
The state had spent $28 million since 2007 through
governmental and nongovernmental agencies in its efforts to
limit the expansion of some of the invasive species.
Representative Seaton explained that the purpose of the
bill was to implement a plan to quickly address newly
invasive species before they became established. The state
did not currently have plans in place; it had taken four
years to develop a program to work on eradicating Dvex. The
state had been lucky that the tunicate was a slowly
expanding invasive species. The bill would give state
agencies the authority to act, responsibility to
coordinate, and to prioritize actions. Additionally, the
legislation established a response fund; there was no money
to put into the fund. The fund could only be used for
responses to invasive species. The bill also provided that
private property holders would work with Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
in the construction of development plans. The legislation
gave the priority for addressing an incipient population in
localized areas. For example, there was a problem in the
Sitka area where an aquatic farm was located, which
prompted the question of how to deal with private property.
The bill would hold the state harmless when responding
under a plan for control of an invasive species.
9:32:08 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze shared that the Mat-Su Borough Fish and
Game Advisory Commission had endorsed the bill. He asked if
the sponsor viewed the group as credible. Representative
Seaton replied in the affirmative. The bill had also
received support from the Wasilla Soil and Water
Conservation District and others. He referred to letters of
support in members' packets (copy on file).
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that at least two members on the
Mat-Su Fish and Game Advisory Commission were career
biologists (Larry Engel and Howard Delo). He spoke to the
members' expertise in fisheries issues. Vice-Chair Neuman
noted that the two members were statewide biologists.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that there had been some
personalized attacks against the commission in the past. He
took the opportunity to help set the record straight. He
supported the legislation.
9:34:20 AM
Representative Costello asked for confirmation that the
bill did not direct a specific method of eradication. She
believed the bill allowed soil and water conservation
districts and communities to make decisions on how to
address eradication.
Representative Seaton replied that the bill did not direct
the eradication method. The legislation acted as a planning
document that enabled agencies and private parties such as
soil and water conservation districts to have a seat at the
table when deciding on eradication methods. The approach
would depend on the area and the species. The development
of a plan would allow rapid response; without rapid
response the state would be perpetually in control-mode,
which was costly.
Representative Wilson asked about the private property
provision. She understood that DFG would take care of the
invasive species. She asked for clarification about the
destruction of private property.
Representative Seaton answered that the item was intended
to address issues like the aquatic farm in Sitka. There had
been a one-year delay while DFG worked to determine if it
could be sued for destroying the species located on the
aquatic farm nets if any shellfish was lost. The bill would
require DNR to include a provision in future permits that
in the event an invasive species was present in an aquatic
farm (or other) that the state would not be responsible for
loss that may occur on the farm when working to control the
species. The language would be included in the permit so a
permit holder would know upfront. He provided an example of
an elodea outbreak; if the state drained a small lake it
would prevent individuals from claiming that the method of
eradication harmed them. The plans would all be developed
ahead of time; the public and soil and water conservation
districts would be at the table when plans were developed.
9:38:02 AM
Representative Wilson wondered if DFG could drain a lake on
private property if it may contain an invasive species. She
supported the legislation, but she wanted to ensure that
the state could not take action on private property without
permission from the landowner. She had no problem with
including provisions in permits related to specific items
in waters.
Representative Seaton had not been speaking about private
property. He provided an example of elodea on the Kenai
Peninsula where people may have docks. The consequence of
not addressing the problem could mean an expense of
millions of dollars and a significant impact on salmon
habitat. He deferred the question to the department for
further detail.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the state would
not be intruding on private property and potentially
causing destruction without any liability.
Vice-Chair Neuman discussed various ways invasive species
could be spread (e.g. water fowl, planes, and other). He
noted that the committee could hear from the department
after public testimony.
9:40:28 AM
GINO GRAZIANO, COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND ALASKA
COMMITTEE FOR NOXIOUS INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He spoke to his professional background and
thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He believed the
legislation helped ensure the state's long-term commitment
to invasive species issues. He supported that the bill
would establish a plan for aquatic invasive species
management and would push state agencies to work together
on the development of plans as issues arose. He appreciated
that the bill included language to utilize methods of least
harm and addressed resources on private property. He
believed establishing a fund would be a great step forward.
In the past, studies by the Institute of Social and
Economic Research showed that the state had not put forth
as many funds towards invasive species management as other
entities. He believed the state's contribution had been 5
percent per year from 2007 to 2011. He stressed that state
funds could help secure federal funding and to eradicate
the species before it became too expensive to deal with the
problems and before resources were lost.
9:43:05 AM
MARCUS MUELLER, LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICER, KENAI PENINSULA
BOROUGH, KENAI (via teleconference), testified in favor of
the bill. He believed the bill was timely and would be
increasingly important for the state. He relayed that
aquatic invasive species had the potential to significantly
disrupt systems that Alaskans relied on. Additionally, the
species presented broad threats economically and to the
state's natural resources. He communicated that the bill's
rapid response element protected the state's natural
resources; rapid response provided the best chance of
developing an effective way to deal with biological
invasive species. He detailed that acting quickly minimized
impacts and increased the overall odds for containment or
eradication. He noted that an ounce of prevention was worth
a pound of cure. He believed a cure could become very
costly. He stated that the bill appropriately called for
planning and coordination.
Mr. Mueller discussed that the Kenai Peninsula Borough was
an example of the impact aquatic invasive species could
have. He pointed to the value of rapid response when
dealing with invasive species such as northern pike,
elodea, and reed canary grass. He detailed that elodea was
currently being addressed through cooperative effort
between DFG, the borough, and the Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge. He shared that the species impacted multiple lakes
in the area. He relayed that residents were taking the
issue seriously and wanted to protect lakes, just as
mariculture growers would want to protect their businesses.
The bill would also prohibit the sale of elodea. He stated
that elodea provided a case-study that showed the aspects
of the bill could be implemented in a smart and strategic
way. He pointed to the pattern of invasive species
including detection, spread, degradation of a system, and
loss of native species and other resources. He stressed the
importance of early detection and rapid response. The bill
was important to protecting coastal and marine waters in
Alaska and provided a fiscally responsible response to
protecting the state's resources.
9:47:01 AM
JONI SCHARGENBERG, FAIRBANKS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, CHENA SLOUGH, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
spoke in favor of the legislation. She pointed to
substantial private landowner support particularly along
the Chena Slough where landowners had been negatively
impacted by the growth and spread of elodea. The water
conservation district believed it was important for the
state to establish and fund a rapid response and management
plan to address the invasive aquatic species. She
communicated that worldwide, elodea had impeded
navigability of waters and lakes, making fisheries
problematic; it could negatively impact salmon, grayling
and other spawning habitat. The elodea infestation had
dramatically increased since its discovery several years
earlier; the plant was currently several feet thick in some
areas, which made control and eradication much more
difficult. She stressed that a rapid response management
could have slowed the problem; a plan was needed to address
current and new infestations. She stated that if left
unchecked elodea could cause colonize additional sloughs
and could be spread by floatplanes to lakes across the
state. Additionally, over $100,000 in private and federal
funds had been spent in the study and eradication efforts
of elodea. She believed additional cost sharing would be
available if the state passed the legislation. She urged
the committee to pass the legislation.
Representative Wilson thanked Ms. Schargenberg for her
work. She spoke in support of the legislation.
9:50:11 AM
ADITI SHENOY, FAIRBANKS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in strong support
of the legislation. She spoke to the organization's efforts
to control elodea in the Chena slough. She shared that
elodea was an aquatic invasive species that was of great
concern in Interior Alaska. She detailed that the plant
grew rapidly forming dense mats, which impacted stream
flow, degraded fish spawning habitat, and created
impediments to the safe operation of boats and float
planes. She believed elodea could spread to major waterways
including the Tanana and Yukon Rivers if the state did not
act quickly. She spoke to the importance of rapid response
and early intervention to control invasive aquatics in
order to protect Alaska's fisheries and recreational
resources.
9:52:10 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Gara thanked Representative Seaton and his
staff for their preparedness.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the state would
not trump private property ownership.
CHARLES SWANTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, replied in the affirmative. He
relayed that the department would work with property owners
and would take risk and other items into consideration when
determining treatment methods. He confirmed that private
property owners would be heavily consulted.
Representative Wilson pointed to language in the sponsor
statement (copy on file) spoke to her concern that the
private property owner "shall be considered," but still
allowed responding agencies to be held harmless for damages
caused by invasive species treatment. She discussed
business owners conducting business in Alaskan waters
versus private property owners.
Mr. Swanton used the tunicates in Whiting Harbor as an
example. He detailed that the tunicates had been attached
to anchor line and ropes. He believed the sponsor's intent
was to address other similar situations where the means to
remove the threat had been to remove the docks, running
lines, and other from the harbor. He explained that it had
taken the state time to contact the owner and to receive
permission. He relayed that it was difficult to address
access. The state would not march forward without
consideration and consultation with a private property
owner depending on the situation.
9:56:45 AM
Representative Wilson spoke to her experience with
agencies. She believed that in some cases agencies
consulted with individuals, but at the end of the day they
felt they could move forward. She did not feel like
consulting private property owners was enough. She was
concerned about the language.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that there were also questions on
the fiscal note. He asked DFG to provide scenarios related
to how the bill would work for private properties. He asked
how the weeds were spread (e.g. float planes, birds, and
other). Mr. Swanton replied that it depended on the species
and the location. Items mentioned by Vice-Chair Neuman were
factors in the spread of elodea.
Vice-Chair Neuman wondered if the same could be said for
pike eggs. Mr. Swanton replied that it depended on the time
of year. The potential existed but he did not know about
the probability. He detailed that pike eggs were adhesive
and were laid in shallow water. He believed there were all
types of factors out there. He did not have the hard facts
about a duck carrying pike eggs to another lake.
10:00:39 AM
Representative Gara wanted to ensure the minimization of
damage to non-invasive species. He pointed to the bill
language that required the department to respond in a
manner to cause the least harm to non-invasive fish
populations (page 2, line 22). He imagined a scenario where
there were two approaches available that both caused some
level of harm to non-invasive species. He believed the bill
language required the department to respond even if the
response would harm the non-invasive species. He wanted the
bill to provide the option for no response in the event
that damage to the fish population was greater than the
damage caused by the invasive species.
Mr. Swanton read from the bill that "the department shall
respond in a manner determined to cause the least harm to
non-invasive fish populations." He believed that it would
be incumbent upon the departments to look for the least
harmful approach.
Vice-Chair Neuman made a remark about herbicides.
Representative Gara understood that the bill would require
the departments to use the least harmful method. However,
he wondered what the state would do if all of the options
were harmful. He wanted to provide the departments with the
ability to not act if the harm to fisheries was greater
than that caused by an invasive species.
Mr. Swanton believed the idea was reasonable.
Representative Gara would work with the sponsor on the
language.
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked that there were many ways to
eradicate invasive species (e.g. herbicides, mechanical
means, and other). He discussed that the bill would be
heard at a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:04:16 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m.