Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/20/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB216 | |
| HB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 20, 2018
1:34 p.m.
1:34:53 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Sponsor; Elwin Blackwell, School
Finance Manage, Department of Education and Early
Development; Sana Efird, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development; Representative Geran Tarr,
Sponsor; Diana Rhodes, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr;
Tammy Davis, Fishery Biologist IV and Invasive Species
Coordinator, Department of Fish and Game.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tim Stallard, Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive
Plant Management, Anchorage; John Morton, Supervisory
Biologist, Kenai Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
Soldotna; Tobias Schwoerer, Research Economist, Institute
of Social Economic Research, Anchorage; Jim Szczesniak,
Manager, Ted Stevens International Airport, Anchorage;
Robert Archibald, Friends of Kachemak Bay State Park and
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, Homer; Matt Morrison,
Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Economic Region,
Seattle; Rob Carter, Agronomist III, Agriculture Plant
Materials Center, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources; Andrew Sayers-Fay, Director, Division of
Water, Department of Environmental Conservation.
SUMMARY
HB 177 AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
CSHB 177(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
note from the Department of Natural Resources,
one new zero note from the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, and one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Fish
and Game.
CSSB 216(FIN)
SCHOOL FUNDING FOR CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS
CSSB 216(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "no recommendation" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN3
(EED); and one previously published zero note:
FN4 (EED).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 216(FIN)
"An Act relating to the calculation of state aid for
schools that consolidate; relating to the
determination of the number of schools in a district;
and providing for an effective date."
1:35:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster shared that the bill had been heard on
Wednesday, April 18. He asked the sponsor to address the
committee.
SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, SPONSOR, introduced herself and
was available for questions.
Representative Guttenberg had a question for the
department.
1:37:27 PM
Representative Guttenberg discussed that the Village of
Rampart school had been shut down when enrollment fell
below the minimum daily requirement. He detailed that a
dynamic new leader had brought people back to the community
and the school had been reopened. He noted that school
attendance was based on October attendance data. He
remarked that the Yukon Koyukuk School District was huge
geographically. He asked what support had been provided to
the school to help it reopen, hire teachers, and fill the
fuel tank, prior to October. He observed that the situation
was unique, and he hoped it did not happen again.
ELWIN BLACKWELL, SCHOOL FINANCE MANAGE, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (DEED), answered there were
schools that closed from time to time that were later
reopened. One of the larger issues with the Rampart school
was that it had been closed for approximately 15 years. The
department did not have any additional funding outside of
the foundation formula to put towards opening up the
school. When a district notified DEED of its plans to
reopen a school, the district assured the department the
school would have at least 10 ADM [average daily
membership] for the count period. Once the department went
through the count period if a school had 10 ADM, the school
went through the school size adjustment and it received
money through the foundation program. The district would
have the opportunity to ask for an advance on its
foundation funding in order to cover expenses while
waiting. The department trued up the information in the
last three months of the year based on the October counts.
He reiterated that a school could ask for money upfront
with the anticipation it would receive more money later in
the school year. He noted it had happened one time that he
could recall.
Representative Guttenberg stated the bill dealt with a
similar situation in Anchorage, the largest school district
in Alaska. He referenced the smallest school districts
without any resources. He was trying to understand it. He
relayed he had represented numerous schools along the Yukon
[River] down to the coast. He spoke to trying to figure out
what was available for districts without any resources that
had to start hiring in July and filled the fuel tank by
barge once in the summer.
1:40:52 PM
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the only
single-school school district the bill pertained to was
Hooper Bay.
SANA EFIRD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, replied in the affirmative
pertaining to Section 2.
Representative Wilson referenced how division was done for
[a community with an ADM of greater than] 425 students.
She wondered if the division would be grades K-8 and 9-12.
She asked how the division would be determined for Hooper
Bay.
Mr. Blackwell replied that under Section 2 the K-6 ADM and
7-12 ADM populations would each be run through the school
size adjustment to end up with two adjustments for a single
facility.
Representative Wilson assumed it pertained to the $386,300
in Fiscal Note 3 [OMB Component Number 2804]. She wondered
when a school was divided whether it was possible for one
to fall under a smaller school category. She did not know
how the 425 was divided. She explained there was a portion
for smaller schools, but one school under discussion was
not small. She remarked that the school was dinged because
there were over 400 students. She thought it was positive
that one school had been built instead of two, meaning the
district could make more money. She asked if the size of
the school went through the formula as if it was two.
Mr. Blackwell answered in the affirmative. He explained
that under the foundation formula, a community with a
single facility housing 101 to 425 ADM ended up with two
adjustments. He detailed the community received an
adjustment on K-6 and 7-12. In the case of Hooper Bay,
under the same statute if a community went above 425 ADM,
each facility received a single adjustment. Once the 425
mark was exceeded, the community received one adjustment
instead of two. The bill would help fix the problem.
Representative Wilson asked for verification it [Hooper
Bay] was the only school in the predicament.
Mr. Blackwell answered in the affirmative. Currently it
[Hooper Bay] was the only school with an ADM above 425,
with a single school in a community.
Co-Chair Seaton referenced testimony from the previous bill
hearing. He detailed there was a provision under subsection
(l) specifying that a district could not reopen and
reconsolidate a school that had been consolidated within
the past seven years. He asked for verification that it was
not the bill's intention to have closed schools reopen and
then close to count as reconsolidated numbers.
Senator von Imhof answered in the affirmative. She detailed
there was a provision specifying a school could not
consolidate and reopen within a seven-year period. Under
extenuating circumstances, a district may apply to DEED for
approval to reopen a school.
1:45:05 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not see any negative attributes of the
bill. He surmised that schools that could consolidate
currently - it was mostly an issue impacting Anchorage -
would receive a smaller penalty for consolidating and there
would be no cost to other school districts. He asked for
verification there would be no detriment to other school
districts.
Ms. Efird answered in the affirmative. She explained that
the option was voluntary, and the department had no problem
with the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the two fiscal notes from the
Department of Education and Early Development. The first
note from DEED showed no fiscal impact on the foundation
program [OMB Component Number 141]. The second fiscal note
(OMB Component Number 2804) from DEED included a fund
capitalization of grants and benefits of $386,300 to the
Public Education Fund.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSSB 216(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSSB 216(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "no recommendation" recommendation and
with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN3
(EED); and one previously published zero note: FN4 (EED).
1:47:29 PM
AT EASE
1:49:34 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to the response to, and control of,
aquatic invasive species; establishing the aquatic
invasive species response fund; and relating to the
provision of information about aquatic invasive
species to users of the Alaska marine highway system."
1:49:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the bill had last been heard one year
earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, reported that the bill
had been sponsored by the co-chair in the past and she had
worked with his office on the current bill. One of the
reasons she believed it was so important to continue the
conversation was related to the finances associated with
the eradication of invasive species. She provided
background information on state spending. In the past, the
state had appropriated $500,000 to deal with a species
called sea vomit [Didemnum vexillum or "D vex"] in Sitka
and $400,000 for elodea eradication on the Kenai Peninsula.
Additionally, Senator Coghill's office had worked to
appropriate $150,000 for the Chena and Totchaket Sloughs
through the Soil and Water Conservation District; an
additional $600,000 in federal grant funds had been
received as well.
Representative Tarr explained that eradication was costly
and if the problem became too significant, the cost would
become much more expensive. In the past, the funds had been
provided in the capital budget, but the bill provided an
opportunity to create a response fund and a chance to look
for ways to potentially put money into the fund. She
reported that her staff would provide further detail on the
bill. Additionally, the committee would hear invited
testimony about the evolution of the issue. She relayed the
problem was becoming more significant. She referenced a
problem in the Sand Lake area in Anchorage and other
problems developing in Mat-Su and Fairbanks. She hoped the
legislature could figure out a way to improve prevention
and early intervention and save costs.
DIANA RHODES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill. She reported they had
discussed the topic with numerous professionals and wanted
to have everyone in the same room to provide an update. The
state had participated with the Sea Grant Law Center to
prepare model legislation on the topic and had visits from
the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. There were numerous
eradication efforts across the state conducted with grants
provided by the state. She noted the importance of the
issue as global warming and climate change would mean an
increasing spread of invasive species. She listed
individuals available online. She provided an overview of
the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Section 1
Amends Alaska's watercraft statutes (AS 5.25.055) to
give the Department of Administration the authority to
provide prevention-related educational materials
regarding aquatic invasive species to people who
register their boats.
Section 2
Amends Alaska's Fish and Game statutes (AS 16.05.093)
to give the department authority over aquatic invasive
species to:
a) use chemical, biological, mechanical or physical
methods to control and eradicate it;
b) declare an emergency and suspend applicable
environmental laws and regulations to control and
eradicate it;
c) prioritize the area and give authority to open or
close a season or area to control and eradicate it;
d) require other departments to cooperate with Fish
and Game to control and eradicate it;
e) require the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Fish and Game to include in all relevant
leases and permits a provision that the state be held
harmless for actions taken on private property to
control and eradicate it;
f) use caution to cause the least harm to noninvasive
fish populations;
g) provide reasonable notice and consider potential
effects to affected property owners to control and
eradicate it;
h) create the aquatic invasive species fund to accept
appropriations to control and eradicate it.
Section 3
Amends Alaska's Marine Highway laws to give authority
to the Commissioner of Transportation and Public
Facilities to provide prevention-related educational
materials regarding aquatic invasive species to people
transporting vessels into the state.
1:56:08 PM
TIM STALLARD, ALASKA COMMITTEE FOR NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE
PLANT MANAGEMENT, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
strong support of the bill. The committee was grateful to
Representative Tarr and Co-Chair Seaton for their work on
the legislation in recent years. He encouraged the passage
of the bill to continue the forward momentum. He
highlighted the importance of the aquatic invasive species
response fund in the legislation. He detailed that invasive
species had been compared to a biological wildfire;
therefore, early detection and rapid response were critical
to addressing invasive species before they got out of
control. He stressed that readily available funding was
critical to enable rapid response. He suggested that
perhaps funds could come from a boat sticker as a part of
boat registrations, as was done in a number of other
western states.
Mr. Stallard communicated that the committee had some
suggestions to improve the legislation. He recommended
replacing the current list of specific species with the
comprehensive definition of aquatic invasive species. He
explained that the change would help going forward, given
that concerns may change, and new threats may arise. Alaska
was not the only state threatened by aquatic invasive
species - other states were currently heavily impacted by
invasive species as well. He suggested incorporating a
number of elements from the Sea Grant Law Center's model
legislation on aquatic invasive species before the bill's
final passage. Specifically, the model legislation required
watercraft owners to clean, drain, and dry their boats and
trailers to avoid spreading invasive species. He believed
the language should be adapted to also consider industrial
and aquaculture equipment, structures, docks, and
floatplanes moving between water bodies. If needed, state
agencies needed to be authorized to inspect, decontaminate,
and quarantine (which would require a dry period for
watercrafts, equipment, and structures). Additionally,
state agencies should be authorized to coordinate with
aquatic invasive species programs in other states and
provinces. While there were a number of additional
improvements that could be made to the bill, he encouraged
the House Finance Committee to adopt the invasive species
definition and move the bill out of committee during the
current meeting.
Representative Kawasaki believed Mr. Stallard was referring
to Amendment 1 sponsored by Co-Chair Seaton. He read from
the amendment [30-LS0598\J.2 (Bullard, 4/12/18)] (copy on
file):
In this section, "aquatic invasive species" means an
aquatic species, including the seeds, eggs, spores,
larvae, or other biological material capable of
propagation of the species...
Representative Kawasaki asked Mr. Stallard if the
definition sounded accurate.
Mr. Stallard replied in the affirmative.
2:00:54 PM
JOHN MORTON, SUPERVISORY BIOLOGIST, KENAI WILDLIFE REFUGE,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill and read from a prepared
statement (copy on file):
Elodea was first found on the Kenai Peninsula during
September 2012 in Stormy Lake near Nikiski. A quick
windshield survey of other lakes detected a single
strand of elodea in nearby Daniels Lake that October
just before ice-in. Recognizing the ecological and
economic damage that elodea has wreaked in other parts
of the world (UK, Scandinavia, Japan, New Zealand)
where it has been introduced, a local interagency
working group under the larger umbrella of the Kenai
Peninsula Cooperative Weed Management Area was quickly
established. Chaired by me, this group included
representatives from the Alaska Division of
Agriculture, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Alaska
State Parks, Homer Soil & Water Conservation District,
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association, Kenai Watershed Forum, UAF Cooperative
Extension Service, SePro (the company that makes
fluridone), Dr. Lars Andersen (an aquatic plants
management expert from UC-Davis), and several private
landowners.
Our group responded rapidly to this new invasive
threat. We conducted surveys for elodea by auguring
through the ice and had our first public meeting in
Nikiski by February 2013 to discuss the problem and
management solutions. In summer 2013, we surveyed ~100
waterbodies elsewhere on the Kenai Peninsula, finding
elodea in a third lake (Beck Lake) near Nikiski but
nowhere else. During that following winter (2013-
2014), we developed an Integrated Pest Management
Plan, completed an Environmental Assessment under
NEPA, and applied for and received permits from DEC,
DNR, ADF&G and KPB. Our plan called for four
applications of two kinds of herbicides (fluridone,
diquat) over three years to eradicate elodea from
these three lakes. The estimated cost at that time was
~$600,000 just for the herbicide, of which $440,000
came from the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the
remainder from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We
applied our first treatment in June 2014, our last
treatment in September 2015, and now consider these
three lakes free of elodea. We were the first to use
aquatic herbicides in Alaska and the first to
eradicate elodea in Alaska.
Our group was successful despite several obstacles
which included lack of dedicated funds, a lengthy
permit process through DEC that is a minimum of 100
days including a 40-day "wait" period even after the
permit is approved, initial uncertainty about which
state agency actually had statutory authority to treat
aquatic invasive plants, and the uncertainty of using
new technology. While some of these constraints have
since been ironed out, the lack of funds and the
cumbersome permitting process continue to plague
efforts elsewhere in the State.
One other reason I believe we achieved success in only
two years of herbicide treatment is biological in
nature. Elodea is a dioecious species, meaning that
male and female parts are on different plants. To the
best of my knowledge, elodea has not produced seeds
anywhere in the state, suggesting that while both
sexes may be in the state, they do not co-occur in the
same population. The significance of this, from a
management perspective, is that we have not yet had to
deal with a persistent seed bank in a waterbody that
would then require years of treatment for successful
eradication. This is a ticking time bomb once the
two sexes get together, management costs will
skyrocket and the feasibility of eradicating elodea
from the state will be greatly diminished.
Since our initial success, elodea infestations were
found in two new waterbodies on the Kenai Peninsula in
2017. The first was in Sports Lake in Soldotna, an
infestation that we are fairly certain was introduced
recently by one of five resident floatplanes. The
second was in an unnamed waterbody adjacent to Beck
Lake in Nikiski that I believe is a long-time
infestation but was missed during our early surveys in
2013. We were able to apply the first of several
herbicide treatments in 2017 by getting a permit
exemption from DEC, modifying an existing
Environmental Assessment, and using existing funds. I
believe we will be able to eradicate elodea from these
two lakes by the end of 2018.
The goal of the Kenai Peninsula Cooperative Weed
Management Area partnership is to keep the peninsula
free of elodea because we know it will have a
significant impact on all fisheries including salmon.
Dr. Toby Schwoerer, with the UAA Institute of Social &
Economic Research, estimates that elodea will likely
cost the commercial sockeye fisheries $100 million per
year in lost opportunity if elodea is allowed to
spread statewide. To date, $3.2 million has been spent
on its management since 2010, of which less than 11%
was by the State of Alaska. Although our partnership
has figured out a viable approach for eradicating
elodea, we expect it will be increasingly more
difficult in the near term to address new infestations
that may be introduced to the Kenai Peninsula from
elsewhere in the state.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience.
2:05:36 PM
TAMMY DAVIS, FISHERY BIOLOGIST IV AND INVASIVE SPECIES
COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (DFG), provided an
update on the state's invasive species program. She shared
that the department had reached out to watercraft
stakeholders with outreach materials. The department had
assisted local entities by providing signage for infested
waters. She noted that Representative Tarr had mentioned a
$500,000 capital improvement project for Didemnum vexillum
in Sitka. The department anticipated going into the field
in the coming summer for phase two to test biocides in
enclosures within Whiting Harbor to cause mortality of the
tunicate. The department also supported and coordinated a
small group of citizens monitoring for invasive tunicates
and European green crab, which were expanding their
distribution up the West Coast.
Ms. Davis reported that northern pike continued to be a
problem in Southcentral. She detailed that DFG's Region II
Anchorage office had a successful program targeting
invasive northern pike with a focus on containing the
species to known locations and to prevent their spread. The
department collaborated with the Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association, Tyonek Tribal Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey in containment,
suppression, eradication, and prevention efforts. She
relayed that pike suppression projects in Alexander Creek
started as a pilot program in 2009/2010 and had been
continued as a result of steep declines in chinook
fisheries numbers. In 2015, adult chinook returns began to
rebound, which DFG hoped was in response to the suppression
effort; data showed that juvenile salmon had reestablished
throughout the river corridor.
Ms. Davis highlighted that there had been 16 successful
eradications of northern pike in Southcentral. In 2017, the
Soldotna Creek treatment had been completed - the goal was
to protect the Kenai River. In 2018, the department would
be working on a Tote Road project. She detailed there were
eight lakes and ponds, seven of which were connected. The
project would hopefully be the last Rotenone [pesticide]
treatment on the Kenai Peninsula, meaning the northern pike
would be eradicated from the area. Cottonwood Creek was
next on the docket for pike eradication (partial funding
had been received) and the department was working through
the necessary steps to move forward.
Ms. Davis reported that DFG continued to work with the
Fairbanks Soil and Water Conservation District and other
state and federal entities on the Fairbanks elodea planning
and eradication. She and Kristine Dunker (DFG pike program
manager) worked with CNIPM [Committee for Noxious and
Invasive Pests Management], chaired by Tim Stallard. The
goal was to facilitate collaboration, coordination,
prevention, early detection, and rapid response associated
with invasive species. State entities had begun working
together to review the landscape of laws in Alaska,
specifically how statutes and regulations pertained to
aquatic invasive species.
2:10:32 PM
Ms. Davis continued with her testimony. She worked with a
number of regional entities including the Pacific Northwest
Economic Region. One of the entity's main invasive species
objectives was to create a perimeter of defense against
zebra and quagga mussels. The Western Regional Panel on
Aquatic Invasive Species had a building consensus in the
west subcommittee, which included all western states. The
organization's mission was to prevent zebra and quagga
mussels from being spread from populations in the lower
Colorado River basin, the Great Lakes, and elsewhere in the
West. The primary vector for transmission of the species
was trailered watercraft. Through updated legislation and
improved capacity for watercraft inspection and
decontamination, thus far, new populations had been
restricted to one in Montana. Float planes had been
identified as a secondary vector. The panel was looking at
developing standardized float plane protocols for
inspection and decontamination. The panel also had a
coastal committee that was looking at biofouling issues and
developing best management practices for marine invasive
species.
Representative Ortiz asked about the process used to
eliminate an invasive species such as pike.
Ms. Davis replied that depending on the species, DFG would
first identify the distribution of the species, which could
take a bit of effort depending on the size of the area of
infestation. She noted the process would depend on the
species. The department would then develop an operational
plan outlining how an eradication would be implemented.
Eradication work required numerous permits, which was
somewhat of a hurdle. The eradication of aquatic invasive
species required two permits from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) to introduce a pesticide.
The process may also require a permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers. She continued that the process would also
require funding for pesticides and resources. After the
application [of the pesticide] occurred, the department
conducted monitoring to ensure the process had been
successful. If the efforts had not been effective, the
department would potentially retreat the area.
Representative Ortiz asked if the material was injected
into the water.
Ms. Davis answered that it depended on the species. For
Rotenone treatments for northern pike, DFG used a liquid
and powder that were added to the water where it would have
a longer response. The project in Sitka would use a
granulized chlorine biocide. She explained that the
application depended on the pesticide.
2:14:40 PM
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that one of the primary problems
with addressing D vex in Sitka involved coordination
between agencies and permits. He asked if there were
memorandums of understanding in place that would allow the
process to move more quickly between agencies.
Alternatively, he asked if the legislation was necessary to
begin the process.
Ms. Davis answered it depended on the process. She
referenced his mention of the D vex problem in Sitka. She
explained that because there was no labeled pesticide to
address D vex or other colonial tunicates, DFG had to seek
an emergency exemption from the pesticide use permit, which
could be a lengthy endeavor. She added that the Rotenone
applications had been more straight forward because it was
a pesticide that was labeled for the species being treated.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that chlorine was a biocide used
in fish plants and other locations. He asked for
verification DFG had to get an exemption to use chlorine
used for the biocide.
Ms. Davis answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Seaton asked how long it took. Ms. Davis answered
that the process was still underway.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if DGF would be allowed to use the
permit in other outbreaks, once it was obtained.
Ms. Davis answered that DFG would be required to obtain a
new permit for a new area.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if permits were area-specific. He
hoped there were follow up studies to learn the effects on
the ecosystem in order to speed up the process in the
future. He surmised that processes were processes and
sometimes laws could not be changed quick enough.
2:17:31 PM
TOBIAS SCHWOERER, RESEARCH ECONOMIST, INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL
ECONOMIC RESEARCH, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He planned to discuss his
recent work on estimating the potential damages of elodea
to the Alaska economy. He clarified that he was not
speaking about cost management, but about the cost to
Alaskans. In other parts of the world invasive species had
already cost billions of dollars in economic damages.
Alaska, by contrast, had relatively few biological invaders
for most of the 20th century, but things had really
changed. Alaska now had many invasions in their initial
stages. Elodea was spreading throughout the state to remote
water bodies via float planes, boats, and other. He
stressed it was a critical point in history where
continuing to work on the problem was necessary in order to
eradicate elodea and prevent other potentially worse
invasive species such as quagga and zebra mussels from
coming to Alaska. He noted the species were already a large
economic problem in the Lower 48.
Mr. Schwoerer communicated that failing to remove all known
elodea infestations and to establish a system to
efficiently deal with new invasive species meant the state
would face long-term management costs and damages to its
economy, particularly in fisheries, tourism, and other
resources the economy depended on. He had recently
estimated the full range of potential ecological and
economic effects of elodea on the state's commercial
sockeye fisheries. He had also conducted a statewide survey
with floatplane pilots and calculated economic loss at
landing sites, as elodea endangered floatplanes operations,
takeoffs, and landings. He stressed that dense aquatic
vegetation, such as elodea, created a critical safety
issue. The species inhibited access for many floatplane
operators throughout the state and therefore, caused
significant damages to the state's tourism industry.
Mr. Schwoerer estimated that an additional 200 to 300
floatplane lakes would likely be infested in ten years if
elodea was not eradicated. He underscored that eradication
would be impossible if they did not act immediately to
clean up all known infestations. He estimated the annual
damage to sockeye salmon industry and pilots to be a
combined $100 million over the next 50 years. He relayed
the amount was a quarter of the value commercial fishermen
received for salmon in 2016. There was a 5 percent chance
that damages would exceed $400 million per year.
Mr. Schwoerer believed five things were necessary in order
to avoid the damages. First, clean up existing elodea
infestations, which he estimated would cost approximately
$10 million. Second, establish a formal rapid response fund
for all invasive species (extending beyond aquatic
species). Third, provide upfront funding for emergency
response to manage elodea infestations yet to be discovered
and deal with other invaders yet to arrive that were
potentially far more damaging than elodea (e.g. zebra and
quagga mussels). Fourth, provide upfront funding for
coordinating response, monitoring known infestations, and
detecting yet unknown infestations. Fifth, streamline
permitting to allow treatment to actually occur when
environmental conditions were ideal for success. In light
of the economic and cultural importance of salmon and many
other natural resources in Alaska and compared with the
estimated future damages, the investments would likely
yield a high return, even in a time of declining budgets.
2:23:02 PM
JIM SZCZESNIAK, MANAGER, TED STEVENS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), noted the airport also
included the Lake Hood seaplane base. He detailed that the
aquatic invasive species elodea had been discovered in Lake
Hood in 2015. A rapid response had been coordinated between
the airport, the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
and DEC to apply an herbicide treatment to the lake in
2015. The situation continued to be monitored in 2016 and
2017; in 2016 a small amount of herbicide had continued to
be added to the lake to ensure the elodea was kept out. The
work had been successful and there had been no further
elodea observed in Lake Hood.
Mr. Szczesniak continued that in May of the current year
there would be a field inspection to detect elodea; water
samples would be taken to detect any residual levels of
herbicide. In June, an herbicide would be applied to knock
down any vegetation in the lake. The lake would be surveyed
again in September - if any elodea was present, the lake
would be treated again. After the season was over, the
airport would work on its aquatic vegetation management for
the lake and if needed it would incorporate any best
practices learned in 2018 in the following year. He
reiterated that the airport was working closely with DNR
and DEC on the issue. The goal was to keep the vegetation
knocked back in order to prevent elodea from getting back
into the lake or spreading from the lake. He detailed that
because there were lakes to the north and south of the
airport with elodea, the airport was working to be
proactive.
Co-Chair Seaton understood there was an infestation in Sand
Lake as well. He asked about details.
Mr. Szczesniak answered that he did not have details about
Sand Lake. The airport was being as proactive as possible
to keep any elodea out of Lake Hood - elodea could come
from Sand Lake or any other lake. The airport wanted to
ensure it had the herbicides in place to keep elodea out of
Lake Hood.
2:26:34 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
ROBERT ARCHIBALD, FRIENDS OF KACHEMAK BAY STATE PARK and
KACHEMAK BAY CONSERVATION SOCIETY, HOMER (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He reported
he was on the board for the Prince William Sound Regional
Citizens' Advisory Council, which had advocated for the
passage of the bill since it had been introduced by Co-
Chair Seaton and reintroduced by Representative Tarr. He
stressed the importance of the issue and explained that
prevention was much cheaper than response. He highlighted
that the federal government had not passed its Incidental
Discharge Act, making a robust response for invasive
species in the state even more important. He remarked that
the efforts were not cheap, and he thought the fiscal note
should be more robust. He supported the idea of a fund the
legislature could easily allocate money to. He understood
it required money and time to preplan responses in certain
areas, but he believed it may speed up the permitting
process. He supported the passage of the bill.
2:28:37 PM
MATT MORRISON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
ECONOMIC REGION (PNWER), SEATTLE (via teleconference),
commended the committee for addressing the bill. From a
regional perspective, he was aware that states and
provinces were spending $25 million per year on quagga and
zebra mussels. The agency had conducted a study that
estimated the cost would be $500 million per year in
perpetuity if the species got into its waters. He stressed
the importance of prevention. He explained that without a
structure or mechanism, the problem was like a wildfire.
The agency was tracking a number of key invasives in the
region, many of which had been discussed during the
meeting. The agency wanted to support the bill and do
anything it could to help from the Lower 48 and Canada. He
thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. The
agency would continue to work with the committee, given its
active invasive species working group. The agency had been
able to get Congress to appropriate monies for the
prevention of aquatic invasives. He continued that because
of Alaska's marine system and the Alaska Marine Highway
System, it would be easy to inspect and interdict if
mussels were coming from California or the lower Colorado
River.
2:31:14 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Gara referenced a DFG fiscal note that included
an annual cost of $5,000 for printing informational
pamphlets. He surmised the department would only print the
materials and use the associated funding when needed.
Ms. Davis answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson directed a question to the bill
sponsor. She referenced a situation in her district where
putting chemicals in the water could impact the wells of
her constituents. The constituents had tried to be involved
in the process, but the hearing had been primarily run by
the chemical manufacturer. She did not see any protections
when there was a group of people who were adamantly opposed
to a project. The individuals had submitted public
testimony, and many had submitted petitions. She remarked
that people also got stuck between DNR and DEC because of
the permitting process. She believed most of the money for
the specific situation was federal, but it still required
state permitting. She asked how to go to her constituents
where she did not see any way for them to stop a project
when it would impact their wells. The constituents had been
told that the chemical treatment would impact wells, but
not substantially. She stated that it did not work for her.
Representative Tarr asked for verification that the
chemical application was related to invasive species.
Representative Wilson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Tarr responded it was her understanding that
any of the chemicals that would be used had been tested for
safety. She did not believe chemicals would be used that
would otherwise impair the water body or have an adverse
impact on human health. She did not want to speak to the
specific example because she did not know the particular
details. She thought the department may have additional
information. The bill was intended to create more of a
rapid response opportunity to an invasive species outbreak,
which was addressed in Section 2 of the bill. She read an
excerpt from Section 2, subsection (b):
...the department may apply for suspension of, or
emergency, quarantine, public health, crisis, or other
exemptions to, applicable environmental laws and
regulations.
Representative Tarr relayed it was her understanding there
would still be opportunity for public comment. She
explained that the bill should not eliminate the
participation by impacted residents in the area. She
deferred to the department on the subject of the course of
action available to individuals opposed to eradication
methods.
2:35:23 PM
Representative Wilson did not know if DFG could answer
because it had not been involved. She explained that DNR
and DEC had been the permitting agencies. She stated that
the issue was about what happened if the process failed.
She relayed that her constituents had been told that a
specific eradication project would impact residents' wells,
but not substantially. She shared there were very shallow
wells in North Pole and only several of those that may have
been impacted had been tested. She noted that the testing
did not matter to her because by the time the impact was
discovered it would be another problem. She asked if the
sponsor had thought of ways to deal with a situation when a
group of people had a legitimate reason for opposing a
project. She wondered whether the language could be written
to give people a say. She reported that her constituents
had turned out in volumes in opposition to a project, but
the project had gone forward anyway. She stated that people
would have to wait to see what kind of impact the project
would have on their wells.
Representative Tarr deferred the question to DNR.
ROB CARTER, AGRONOMIST III, AGRICULTURE PLANT MATERIALS
CENTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (via teleconference), asked Representative Wilson
to repeat her question.
Representative Wilson complied. She stated that DNR and DEC
had a permitting process that included public comment;
however, when public comment had come out strongly against
a project [it had not been followed]. She wondered what
kind of safety measures could be included into legislation
to ensure that public comment mattered.
Mr. Carter completely understood Representative Wilson's
concerns about the process. He relayed that DNR had been
part of the permitting process with the Fairbanks Soil and
Water Conservation District. He detailed that the ability
to treat the Chena Lake and Slough and the Totchaket Slough
(where elodea had been found), was determined in a
regulatory process through DEC. The public comment period
was accepted and evaluated by the department during the
process. He explained that DNR employees applying the
treatment did not have a considerable say in the regulatory
process. His division was responsible for providing the
science including the application methodology and
specifying the amounts of herbicides to be used, which was
denied or approved in the regulatory process.
Mr. Carter understood the concerns for constituents in any
area that may be affected by an aquatic or terrestrial
invasive species that management activities had to take
place around. He could not speak to where in the
legislation a process could be built in to better allow
public comments and concerns to be addressed. He believed
the legislation was about providing the option for further
funding for rapid response to all invasive species that had
been found or potentially could be discovered in Alaska.
The bill also included a section for outreach and education
to limit the spread or introduction [of an invasive
species]. He referenced Representative Wilson's concern
that her constituents should have the ability to speak
freely and have their opinions heard. He believed the
concern needed to be addressed in the application process
and following the regulatory path through DNR as the
applicant and DEC as the permitting agency.
2:40:24 PM
Representative Wilson commented on her experience that
where responsibilities lay was unclear. She remarked that
she heard, "it's not us it's them, it's not them it's us."
She clarified that she was not against the legislation, but
she stressed that the process used chemicals and North Pole
was sensitive to having chemicals put in its water system
that the community had not agreed to. She stressed that the
comments from her constituents had fallen on deaf ears. She
hoped there had not been a negative impact [resulting from
the chemical treatment]. She noted that the community had
experienced high water in the past year and she believed
more of the treated water ended up going into residents'
wells than was known. She was uncomfortable not tightening
up the issue in any way.
Representative Tarr relayed that DEC was also available
online. She noted that the concern highlighted the
challenge with the issue because there were several
agencies involved in response. Part of being able to
respond was creating the infrastructure to make everyone
work together.
ANDREW SAYERS-FAY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER, DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via teleconference), could
not speak to Representative Wilson's specific example
because he did not know the history. He stated that the
purpose of a public comment period was to receive public
input. Any time there were very strong opinions held by a
large group, it slowed down the process; and if the
department decided there was not sufficient information to
move forward with the permit, hopefully there would be an
additional conversation with the public with additional
public notice and hearings. He did not know any detail
about the specific case highlighted by Representative
Wilson. He thought it would be hard to legislate an exactly
how that process occurred. He believed all agencies liked
to be sensitive to a strong response to public notice and
to implement additional steps and to take it as a sign that
perhaps there was something additional the departments
needed to take into consideration.
2:42:55 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS0598\J.2
(Bullard, 4/12/18)(copy on file):
Page 3, lines 4 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(i) In this section, "aquatic invasive species" means
an aquatic species, including the seeds, eggs, spores,
larvae, or other biological material capable of
propagation of the species, that is not native to the
state and the presence of which may cause economic or
environmental harm."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment would change the
definition of aquatic invasive species to conform with the
Sea Grant Law Center model legislation. The amendment would
eliminate the specific naming of aquatic invasive species.
The definition included aquatic invasive seeds, eggs,
spores, larvae that may come into the state. The goal was
to ensure the state could address all forms of an invasion.
Representative Wilson asked how many more species the
amendment would add and who made the determination on what
was invasive.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that invasive species were not
native to the area and had to be determined to be
detrimental or have detrimental potential. He reasoned that
because the issue pertained to aquatic species, whether a
species was deemed invasive would be identified by DFG.
Hopefully identification and treatment would occur early
instead of resulting in large economic costs.
Representative Wilson asked how many additional species
would be included if the amendment passed.
2:45:05 PM
Ms. Davis answered that it was a good and difficult
question. The department did not have comprehensive enough
survey capacity to know what was present in Alaska. The
amendment did not add any invasive species that were known
to be present in Alaska, but it opened the door to add
additional species in the future.
Representative Wilson did not expect the department to know
all of the species. She wondered if there were species not
currently listed on page 3 [of the legislation] that would
be included because of the definition change in Amendment
1.
Co-Chair Seaton replied that Mr. Morrison of PNWER had
identified quagga mussels as a species causing tremendous
economic damage in the Lower 48. He noted the specific
species was not included in the bill. The European green
crab was on the list currently in the bill, which was
causing problems in California and was moving up the coast;
however, the species was not yet known to be present in
Alaska. There were some other species Alaska was looking
out for that could come from Japan after the tsunami [in
2011]. He referenced a barge and other debris [originating
from Japan] that had ended up on beaches in Oregon. There
were some invasive species on the items, but he did not
believe they had taken hold in the U.S. He used the
tunicate D vex as an example and explained that once an
invasive species was discovered in Alaska, it should be
taken care of immediately.
2:47:30 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that northern pike present
in northern landlocked lakes in Alaska were not considered
invasive. He noted that the definition identified invasive
species as those not native to the state. He noted that the
pike had been in Alaska for a long time and he did not know
how they had initially arrived. He explained that DFG did
not consider the species as invasive in the northern region
because they were not competing with salmon or salmon eggs.
He asked how they would fit under the definition.
Representative Tarr replied it was her understanding that
northern pike were not endemic to Alaska and any that were
present had been introduced at some time. She believed the
pike Representative Guttenberg was referring to had been
some of the earlier introductions by an individual. She
speculated that the particular pike were probably lower on
the priority list if they were not competing with salmon in
terms of habitat. She stated that the fish would be
considered as invasive based on the definition in the
amendment. With limited funds, the departments were
prioritizing in the most high-risk situations. She reasoned
that if it was not causing harm to another species, it may
be the reason the departments were not addressing it at
present.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether DFG had a paper or
report on the origins of northern pike. He identified an
area outside the Circle Hot Springs area where he had
fished for northern pike in the past.
Ms. Davis replied that the pike north of the Alaska Range
were native to Alaska; they were not invasive and had not
been introduced.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the specific reference
to northern pike would be deleted by the amendment. He
asked for verification that the fish would not be
considered to be invasive because they were in Alaska
naturally.
Ms. Davis answered that populations north of the Alaska
Range were native and populations in Southcentral had been
introduced and were considered invasive.
Representative Thompson noted that several years back there
had been reports of reduced salmon runs in the Yukon River.
One of the reports had indicated pike were eating smolt
that were trying to get out to the ocean. He did not know
whether the issue had been addressed, but he found it very
important. He spoke to a second area of concern. He
discussed that Harding Lake was about an hour drive outside
Fairbanks. He reported that over the past 55 years there
had been efforts to eradicate pike out of the large lake.
He detailed that the lake had been poisoned twice. The
population had been reduced and DFG had introduced
landlocked silver salmon to the lake. He shared that he had
a place at the lake and reported that the salmon population
was now decent in size. He spoke to successful winter and
summer salmon fishing in the lake. He elaborated that his
neighbor had been told by DFG to fish for as many salmon as
desired because the department was planning to remove
salmon and reintroduce pike to the lake. He expressed
confusion about the situation.
Ms. Davis answered that Harding Lake should have native
pike populations as far as she knew. She did not know
whether other species had been introduced but offered to
follow up.
Representative Thompson requested follow up to his
question. He remarked that silvers and trout had been
introduced to the lake to provide a sportfishing area close
to town. He was confused about the department's effort to
eradicate the salmon and trout and reintroduce pike to the
lake.
Ms. Davis would follow up with information.
Representative Kawasaki remarked that the amendment
specifically addressed aquatic invasive species not native
to the state. He pointed out that pike was native to the
state. He wondered if the amendment should read "not native
to a particular ecosystem or area" instead of the current
language. He reasoned that northern pike were [a native
species] north of the Alaska Range but were nonnative south
of the range. He explained that specifying that an invasive
species was not native to the state would exclude pike.
2:53:27 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked to hear from DFG. He was not certain
the pike in northern and southern Alaska were the same
species. He mentioned that the pike [south of the Alaska
Range] could be from Minnesota, which could be a different
subspecies. He asked about the genetics of the two
populations.
Ms. Davis answered that the pike population north of the
Alaska Range was considered native. Genetic studies had not
yet been published but were part of a master's thesis.
However, it appeared that the pike, especially in the
Anchorage and Mat-Su areas, had been introduced from north
of the range.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the language proposed by
Representative Kawasaki would be better.
Ms. Davis answered that adding "to the area of interest or
ecosystem of interest" would specify that a species native
in parts of the state (e.g. pike) would be considered
invasive when introduced outside its native range if there
were detrimental economic or environmental impacts.
2:55:38 PM
Representative Kawasaki MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 1 to replace the word "state" with
"ecosystem" on line 5.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED. He was concerned about making the
change on the fly. He reported that during his time on the
House Finance Committee there had been at least two debates
on how to regulate invasive pike in streams. He shared that
he fished frequently and had a strong concern about
invasive pike. He elaborated that bills had passed the
House that addressed the pike issue - he could not recall
whether legislation had passed the full legislature. He was
concerned the committee may be coming up with standards in
the amendment that may conflict with previous legislation
aimed at addressing the invasive pike issue. He was
uncomfortable making the change without knowledge of the
other statutes. He preferred to leave Amendment 1 as is.
2:57:29 PM
AT EASE
2:58:31 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1. He MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1. He proposed to add "or ecosystem of interest"
after the word "state" on line 5 of the amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED as amended.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the three fiscal notes including a
zero fiscal note from DOT (OMB Component Number 2789), a
zero fiscal note from DNR (OMB Component Number 2204), and
a fiscal impact note from DFG with an annual cost of $5,000
for printing informational material. He noted the committee
had been told the department would not utilize the whole
$5,000 in future years if it was not needed.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 177(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She stated her objection
was the same as it was every year the bill had been heard.
She did not believe time had been spent on the public
portion to really understand the DNR and DEC permitting
processes. She stated that public comment had no meaning if
no one listened. She elaborated that no one had listened
when there had been eradication projects in her district.
Additionally, it was difficult to know who to talk to
because the departments had pointed fingers at each other
and had denied responsibility. She believed the situation
was especially significant when it involved adding
chemicals to the water system (the process had been
mechanical in the past). She emphasized the importance of
getting the public process accurate to avoid negatively
impacting wells across the state.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Pruitt,
Thompson, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Tilton, Wilson
Representative Grenn was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8/2).
CSHB 177(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero note from the
Department of Natural Resources, one new zero note from the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and one
new fiscal impact note from the Department of Fish and
Game.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting. [The meeting was recessed to a call of the chair
but never reconvened.]
ADJOURNMENT
3:02:59 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 177 Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Morton testimony elodea_morton.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 elodea presentation_rotary_mar2018.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Sea Grant Law Center Model-Legislative-Provisions-Guidance.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Supporting Document PNWER Support Letter 4.20.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Version J Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Voices of Alaska_ Reducing the impact of invasive elodea on fisheries _ Peninsula Clarion.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 177 |