02/11/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2008
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act relating to management of noxious weeds and invasive
plants; establishing the Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Board;
and establishing the noxious weed and invasive plant management
fund."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 330
SHORT TITLE: NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANTS
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
01/17/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/08 (H) RES, FIN
02/11/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEANNE OSTNESS, Staff
to Representative Craig Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement for HB 330
on behalf of the House Resources Standing Committee.
JAMIE NIELSEN, Instructor
Invasive Plants Program
Cooperative Extension Service
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 330, presented
information regarding noxious weeds and invasive plants.
GINO GRAZIANO, Invasive Plants Program Coordinator
Plant Materials Center
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 330, presented
information regarding noxious weeds and invasive plants.
JANIS CHUMLEY
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Alaska Fairbanks
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
STEVE SPARROW, Agronomist
School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
STONEY WRIGHT, Manager
Plant Materials Center
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
BRYCE WRIGLEY
Alaska Farm Bureau
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
OTTO KILCHER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
JEFF HEYS
Alaska Regional Office
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
ERIC WADE, Executive Director
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
BLYTHE BROWN, Noxious and Invasive Plants Coordinator
Kodiak Soil and Water Conservation District
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
MATT CARLSON, Assistant Professor of Botany
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
LORI ZAUMSEIL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CRAIG JOHNSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32:26 PM. Representatives
Wilson, Seaton, Roses, Edgmon, Kawasaki, Gatto, and Johnson were
present at the call to order. Representative Fairclough arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 330-NOXIOUS WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANTS
1:32:37 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 330, "An Act relating to management of noxious
weeds and invasive plants; establishing the Noxious Weed and
Invasive Plant Board; and establishing the noxious weed and
invasive plant management fund."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that HB 330 is a House Resources Standing
Committee bill, but he is the one who brought it forward as the
result of a constituent complaint from this past summer. The
constituent purchased a strawberry plant at a box store and
subsequently found an invasive plant species [Canada thistle] in
the container. In researching the issue it was found that
nothing could be done and this is the reason for bringing
forward HB 330.
1:33:33 PM
JEANNE OSTNESS, Staff to Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska
State Legislature, presented the sponsor statement for HB 330 on
behalf of the House Resources Standing Committee. She said HB
330 would establish both a Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Board
and an invasive plant management fund. Alaska is currently in
the enviable position of having a prevention status and even a
control status on statewide weeds. While Alaska has early
detection and rapid response ability in some cases, there is no
statewide plan for noxious weeds, she said. This past summer
the Committee for Noxious & Invasive Plants Management (CNIPM)
brought forward [suggested] changes to state regulations which
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is now looking at.
The federal government will provide funds to the state if there
is a state plan, a coordinator, and regulations indicating
specific weeds, she related. Alaska is 60 percent federal land,
12 percent Native land, 28 percent state land, and 1 percent
private land - thus, there is a need for interagency response
throughout the state.
1:36:56 PM
JAMIE NIELSEN, Instructor, Invasive Plants Program, Cooperative
Extension Service, explained that the Committee for Noxious &
Invasive Plants Management (CNIPM) is a statewide organization
addressing invasive plant prevention and management. She chairs
this eight-year-old committee made up of about 400 people from
over 100 organizations statewide. She noted that many invasive
plant species have not made it to Alaska from the Lower 48, but
species from other countries have.
MS. NIELSEN began her PowerPoint presentation by pointing out
that invasive plants can impact agriculture, tourism, wildlife,
fisheries, subsistence resources, and land values [slide 2].
Under Executive Order 13112, the federal government defines an
invasive plant as an intentionally or unintentionally introduced
non-native plant that has the potential to cause or causes
economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
1:41:49 PM
MS. NIELSEN noted that there are ranches in the Lower 48 so
infested with spotted knapweed [slide 3] that it would cost more
to eradicate the knapweed than what the ranch would sell for.
Spotted knapweed has now spread to nearly six million acres in
Montana and costs that state $14 million per year in direct
economic impacts. Alaska has spotted knapweed in a couple of
locations in Southeast Alaska and in three locations on the
Turnagain Arm. Now is the opportunity for Alaska to do
something about it and save some money, she pointed out.
MS. NIELSEN explained that purple loosestrife is a plant that
clogs wetlands and blocks fish passage [slide 4]. Control
efforts for purple loosestrife in the Lower 48 cost the U.S.
economy $45 million per year. Because of its fishing industry,
Alaska has a lot more to loose from this plant than the rest of
the nation, she warned. Alaska's first known infestation of
purple loosestrife was found in Anchorage's Westchester Lagoon.
Given the cost of this weed to the rest of the U.S., now is a
great opportunity to control the purple loosestrife on this one-
quarter acre area, she advised.
1:43:47 PM
MS. NIELSEN said she is presenting only three examples of
invasive species in order to keep her presentation brief, but
there are many more species. She turned to her third example,
leafy spurge, a species that costs agricultural producers and
taxpayers in the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming $144 million per
year [slide 5]. It produces a caustic latex sap that if
introduced into the eye causes blindness and if eaten causes
blisters in the mouth and irritation in the digestive tract
which can result in mortality. She said the good news is that
leafy spurge is not yet in Alaska, but the bad news is that
there is now a thriving population on the road system in Canada
just outside of the Alaska border. Would it not be great to
have a state management plan to prevent and deal with the leafy
spurge before it gets to Alaska's interior, she asked. Better
yet, would it not be great to have access to federal funding to
prevent this type of thing? To get that federal funding, Alaska
would need to have a management plan in place.
1:45:40 PM
MS. NIELSEN explained that noxious and invasive species have
"Rambo-like" characteristics - the ability to adapt quickly and
produce their own herbicides. These are not your typical garden
weeds, she stressed. They thrive on multiple continents and
cause much economic loss and damage to natural resources. She
explained that after introduction in a harbor or other point of
entry, there is an ensuing period called lag phase where the
weed germinates and grows quietly for a couple of years or
sometimes decades. This is followed by an explosive growth
phase [slide 6]. Alaska has only a few plants, such as Canada
thistle, that are in the explosive growth phase, she said. For
the most part, Alaska has small incipient populations of species
like purple loosestrife and spotted knapweed that are still in
the lag phase. States like the Dakotas would give anything to
be in Alaska's shoes right now, she related, and those states
would tell Alaska to take the opportunity to get prevention and
management measures in place before these species reach the
landscape level.
1:47:32 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether the graph axis labeled "increasing
time" on slide 6 represents months, years, or decades.
MS. NIELSEN responded it varies based on species. Canada
thistle reached Alaska and immediately went into the explosive
phase. Purple loosestrife was a staple of the horticulture
industry that was planted by gardeners for at least two decades,
but it was only three years ago that purple loosestrife was
discovered infesting a wetland in Anchorage. Sometimes a
species needs to find the right complement of soil microbes or
be discovered by a pollinator, she said, and sometimes genetic
diversity needs to happen through a couple of generations before
the weed hits that explosive growth phase.
1:48:57 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that a couple of years ago there was
legislation dealing with purple loosestrife and orange hawkweed
on Kodiak Island. He inquired whether the loosestrife is from
Kodiak Island or elsewhere.
MS. NIELSEN answered that purple loosestrife is throughout the
state. She said she thinks orange hawkweed is what started the
Kodiak legislation and purple loosestrife was tacked onto that.
Each purple loosestrife plant produces millions of seeds the
size of ground pepper and the seeds move on waterfowl, in mud,
and flow on currents. Therefore, she warned, Anchorage's purple
loosestrife could easily be on the Kenai Peninsula this spring.
1:50:05 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether the intentional planting of a
noxious or invasive species violates anything at the moment.
MS. NIELSEN responded that the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) has added orange hawkweed and purple loosestrife to its
prohibited and restricted noxious weed lists, but there is no
enforcement at this time. Most of what applies to those lists
are agricultural seed regulations.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said in years past, individual legislation has
had to be introduced in order to put a weed on the list. This
problem would be solved by HB 330 because the Noxious Weed and
Invasive Plant Board would have this ability without having to
come back for legislation every year and would thus be able to
keep the list updated. A second problem is that there is
nowhere to go to find out whether planting a noxious or invasive
species is a violation of some kind and this problem would also
be solved by establishing the board.
1:51:53 PM
MS. NIELSEN noted that Alaska was unable to access funding from
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) a couple of years ago
because of not having an updated statewide weed list. States
like Oregon that have statewide management plans in place
receive $200,000 - $300,000 a year from the BLM. One aim of HB
330 is to make Alaska eligible for receiving this funding. For
the past seven years, she said, CNIPM has been laying the
groundwork - the "what", "where", and "why" - for the day Alaska
is empowered to take a role in invasive plant prevention and
management. A three-year-long, multi-agency, multi-stakeholder
project was undertaken to determine "what" the problem is [slide
8], she related. Funded by state and private forestry, the
project reviewed over 100 species and gave them an invasiveness
ranking. All of this information and research is now in one
place and accessible online as to which plants have the
potential to be a problem for Alaskan resources under the
growing conditions in this state. The Alaska Exotic Plants
Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) has mapped 63,000 data points
indicating "where" these identified species can be found in the
state [slide 9]. The map and information are a phenomenal tool
and are available online, Ms. Nielsen said. There is now a good
idea, at least along the state's road systems and in the
population centers, of where these plants are located and where
they are moving. Creating public awareness is important so
people know "why" noxious and invasive plants are a threat to
Alaska and why they should care [slide 10]. Many states did not
become proactive about noxious weeds until residents felt the
impacts in their pocketbooks. She pointed out that Alaska has
the unique opportunity to be proactive about the introduction
and spread of invasives. The Cooperative Extension Service,
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts, and other folks
have worked for seven years to increase public awareness and
understanding so that public support would be in place when the
state was ready to take a role.
1:55:06 PM
GINO GRAZIANO, Invasive Plants Program Coordinator, Plant
Materials Center, Alaska Association of Conservation Districts,
stated that he helps the association coordinate programs and set
up local groups to manage invasive plants within cooperative
weed management areas. He is also vice chair of the CNIPM
board. At Co-Chair Johnson's request, the CNIPM board came up
with recommendations for holistically managing invasive plants
in Alaska. He understood that these recommendations were also
used for the development of HB 330.
MR. GRAZIANO said CNIPM's first recommendation is that a Noxious
and Invasive Plant Management Program be developed within the
Department of Natural Resources [slide 11]. One function of
this program would be to establish and implement regulations
dealing with invasive plants. However, he noted, there is
currently no money and no staff available to even implement
existing regulations, such as conducting inspections for noxious
and invasive species contained in plant starts that are sold at
big box stores. Another function of the program would be to
develop a Statewide Weed Management Plan, which is a
prerequisite for receiving federal funds under the federal
Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act. Additionally under
this program, DNR could promote coordination between agencies.
Coordination is paramount for effective management, he said,
because one species of invasive weed can have the ability to
invade lands that are managed by any one of the state's
departments or divisions. The department could also work with
soil and water conservation districts to assist and provide
incentives to private landowners. Oftentimes invasive plants
start out on private property and other times private landowners
are in the middle where roadside weeds jump onto private
property and then into a wetland or other public lands. He said
the state needs to help private landowners and natural resource
producers to manage invasive plants on their private property in
a way that is not heavy handed. Putting the Noxious and
Invasive Plant Management Program within DNR seems to be a
natural fit because the department is in charge of multiple
divisions that manage state lands, including the Division of
Agriculture where the state's current weed laws reside.
1:59:24 PM
MS. NIELSEN, in response to Representative Wilson, identified
the plant shown on slide 11 as a bull thistle that was found
south of Anchorage and that had already gone to seed. In
further response, she noted that there are two types of thistle
found in Alaska and the plant shown on slide 12 is a Canada
thistle.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether there is any thistle that is not
noxious.
MS. NIELSEN replied yes, there are native species of thistle
that are important for pollinators and forage. However, bull
and Canada thistle have the capacity to out-compete all
surrounding vegetation, so they are much more aggressive in
Alaska's environment.
2:00:46 PM
MR. GRAZIANO continued his presentation. He reported that
CNIPM's second recommendation is to appoint a State Weed
Coordinator for the program within DNR and to provide the
coordinator with administrative support. The coordinator would
help with public outreach and education because invasive plants
cannot be managed without letting people know what they need to
look out for and what they should avoid buying in catalogs.
Additionally, letting the public know who to contact should an
invasive plant be found can save the state a lot of time and
money as well as preventing a problem from happening.
2:01:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed that the $5,000 identified in the
fiscal note for statewide outreach seems too light for covering
the entire state.
MR. GRAZIANO explained that outreach does not necessarily
involve travel because there are local groups throughout the
state that could receive support in ways other than travel. For
instance, one type of support would be the development of
materials. Also, he said, Ms. Nielsen travels to many remote
places.
MS. NIELSEN added that there is a big infestation of Canada
thistle in Cold Bay and she just taught a tele-class for the 13
tribal offices of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association.
She sent a PowerPoint presentation ahead of time and then, via
telephone, she talked about best management practices for
operating heavy equipment on projects like runway expansion and
tank farm construction, including writing those practices into
contracts. For instance, one practice is the requirement that
heavy equipment be cleaned before being taken to a remote site
in order to prevent the spreading of weeds.
2:03:54 PM
MR. GRAZIANO continued his discussion about a state coordinator.
This coordinator would also work with the soil and water
conservation districts in supporting the establishment of the
cooperative weed management areas in the state, he explained.
These weed management areas often work off of federal grants
that require matching funds from the state and the coordinator
could help facilitate that. The coordinator could also work
with other statewide groups such as the Committee for Noxious
and Invasive Plant Management and the Alaska Invasive Species
Working Group. Additionally, research is needed on how to
effectively kill noxious plants without damaging other
resources, as well as the conducting of surveys.
MR. GRAZIANO said CNIPM's third recommendation is to create a
State Weed Board with representation from a broad range of
stakeholders. This broad range of stakeholders is necessary
because there are so many different affected parties in addition
to government agencies - for example, the fishing, agricultural,
and horticultural industries. The State Weed Board would
provide recommendations to state agencies and having everyone at
the table would provide the ability to talk about and address
the problems, such as: mowing roadsides by the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, cleaning equipment in
between construction projects, and ensuring that revegetation
material does not contain noxious invasive plants. These sorts
of recommendations can be put into a statewide weed management
plan, he advised. The State Weed Board would seek outside
funding for state weed prevention and management efforts. The
Weed Board would also suggest any needed regulation changes.
For instance, the list of noxious and invasive species is
severely out of date and many species should be considered for
addition to the list.
MS. NIELSEN interjected that plants can be taken off the list,
as well.
MR. GRAZIANO noted that a clear plan is required for putting
plants on the list. The list must be organized according to
whether a listing is in regard to prevention, which plants are
not yet in the state, which plants need to be eradicated, and
which plants simply need to be controlled or contained.
2:09:36 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether it would work to have HB 330
designate the CNIPM board as the State Weed Board and appoint
the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources as the
director.
MR. GRAZIANO responded that the CNIPM board is elected by its
members at its annual conference. He said he is unsure whether
this would make a difference in the way the board would run
because there may be a need for the State Weed Board members to
be of state agencies and politically appointed.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON commented that he wants to solve the problem
without creating more bureaucracy and he will therefore be
looking at some alternatives. He said he also has concerns
about the fiscal note.
2:11:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether it would be beneficial to
pass a bill that requires all contractors to wash equipment
prior to moving to a new construction site.
MS. NIELSEN replied some states do have such laws, especially
islands like Hawaii that are really impacted by invasive
species. However, she said, some people believe such specifics
belong in regulations instead of state law.
MR. GRAZIANO advised that passing such legislation could take
longer than just having the different stakeholders meet to
discuss the issue and make internal policy changes that DOT&PF
then writes into its contracts. Such contract policies could
include requirements that equipment be cleaned in between uses
and before going to a new site, and that fill material and
revegetation mix be free of invasive weeds.
MS. NIELSEN added that another contract policy could be that
assurity is not released until the site is inspected 24 months
later. Being one of the later states to address this issue,
Alaska has a lot of templates that can be used. These are the
types of recommendations and regulations that a State Weed Board
would debate and suggest to the state agencies.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that such legislation is an extreme
measure that is currently taken in some of the Great Lakes
states for boats that move from one lake to another. He said
his opinion is that regulation is a better way to go.
2:14:31 PM
MR. GRAZIANO summarized the need for a State Weed Board [slide
14]. Coordination is imperative to properly manage invasive
plants because weeds do not respect property boundaries. The
groundwork has been laid for a board and a state program to hit
the ground running and make really big impacts in a very short
amount of time. An overarching system of support from the state
is needed to assist the grassroots groups that have already been
organized. That top down level is needed to add more "oomph" to
what is already being done. Alaska does not need to reinvent
the wheel because it can use the lessons, losses, and gains from
the other states as templates for success. If Alaska acts now
to safeguard its resources and economy it will not have to spend
$14 million on just one weed.
MR. GRAZIANO said citizens across the state are working in their
communities to manage invasive plants by conducting weed pulls,
surveys, and providing education programs. But these citizens
need help. He quoted Troy and Lori Zaumseil, a couple who found
an invasive species in a strawberry start that they purchased
from a big box store in Anchorage: "It takes a state to stop a
weed." He concluded his presentation with a photograph of
Japanese Knotweed growing on a beach in Southeast Alaska [slide
16] and explained that this invasive species takes over the
sites where salmonberries grow.
2:18:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised by the quote that this problem is
so pervasive that it requires being proactive and having the
state play a substantial role such as what is in HB 330.
MS. NIELSEN answered yes, Alaska has the opportunity to save a
huge amount of money. There is example after example across
Canada and the Lower 48 states. An invasive reed in one Santa
Ana, California, watershed has already cost that state over $20
million and the reed is not yet under control. The city of
Seattle, Washington, is not focused on prevention, it is focused
on restoration that costs millions of dollars. Alaska can focus
on prevention. Citizens across Alaska are doing what they can,
but if there is no overarching system of support from the state
it will be a losing battle.
2:20:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON drew attention to the fiscal note of
$232,000. He remarked that part of the policy question is how
much money the state wants to put into tackling this problem on
a statewide basis.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON responded he is sensitive to that, but he would
like to see the fiscal note go down and have the state take
advantage of the citizen groups and not create another level of
bureaucracy.
2:21:03 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired about the frequency of travel and the
per diem costs that would be incurred by the nine member Noxious
Weed and Invasive Plant Board.
MS. NIELSEN spoke from her experience on the CNIPM board. She
said this board meets via teleconference except for one annual
meeting that takes place in either Anchorage or Fairbanks. She
offered to ask the other western state weed coordinators what
their travel and per diem costs are when their boards convene.
2:22:06 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO recollected that several years ago per diem was
changed to $400 per day, plus the hotel and airfare. The fiscal
note would not actually pay for weed control, he said.
MS. NIELSEN related that the function of weed boards in other
states is not to travel around conducting treatment themselves,
but to advise state agencies, help keep the state weed list up-
to-date, create an updated state weed management plan that
includes prevention and best management practices, and solicit
federal funds for delegation to on-the-ground weed control
projects in the state.
MR. GRAZIANO added that the planning being done at the local
level ought to remain local. Local groups know better what
needs to happen in those areas and several of them are already
working on developing strategic management plans for noxious and
invasive weeds. For example, the Kenai Peninsula Cooperative
Weed Management Area has a completed plan that is online at
www.homerswcd.org.
2:26:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked what the potential amount of federal
dollars is and how much the state would be expected to
contribute.
MS. NIELSEN answered there are no specifics in the bill.
Different states have different agreements. Grant monies are
available from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, and one of the three branches of the
U.S. Forest Service. Without a statewide weed management plan,
Alaska cannot apply for any of those federal funds. That is the
idea behind getting a board in place, she said.
2:27:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired whether Ms. Nielsen had an
estimate of how much is potentially available through this grant
process. He expressed his concern about creating something to
seek federal dollars and then having the federal grants
disappear. Are there other federal funding sources in addition
to the grants, he asked.
MS. NIELSEN related that the state of Montana set up a program
using a seed money grant and is now funding the program through
interest received from either a tobacco tax or license plates.
The state of Oregon receives about $200,000-$300,000 from the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. She said that going into the
numbers for the amount of federal funds can be intimidating,
whereas having a State Weed Board in place to develop a
management plan does not have to be expensive. California
provides $1.5 million annually in state money to its cooperative
weed management areas and Idaho provides about $10 million
annually. However, she emphasized, this is not to say that the
state of Alaska has to provide millions of dollars because
Alaska's infestations have not reached the landscape level and
prevention is not that expensive.
2:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that the coordinator's position,
as outlined, would be a huge job.
MS. NIELSEN answered that the coordinator should be able to fall
back on the expertise of the members of the state board. Also,
there are templates that are available and can be used for the
statewide weed management plan, and for the priorities within
the plan, and for a system of accountability within the plan.
MS. NIELSEN, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, confirmed that
burning noxious and invasive weeds is one tool in the toolbox of
integrated vegetation management that can be very effective in
combination with other treatments. She noted that bird vetch,
an invasive species depicted in a 1/22/08 letter to
Representative Kawasaki, uses the strategy of smothering [other
plants]. Once seeds are in the soil they can germinate for a
number of years. In addition to covering and smothering fences,
bird vetch smothers crops. Bird vetch has spread on the road
system from Fairbanks all the way to the Kenai and is closing in
on Delta Junction.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether there is a need to add the
word fisheries to line 9, page 1, under the section on state
policy.
MS. NIELSEN responded absolutely, there are invasives blocking
fish passage in Anchorage and in Southeast Alaska. Fisheries
and subsistence are two big ones for Alaska, she said.
2:36:04 PM
JANIS CHUMLEY, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Cooperative
Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, urged that
something happen soon. She supported establishment of a State
Weed Board. There needs to be legislation or some kind of
authority to deal with this problem that is not going to go
away, she said. Funding is always an issue, but putting it off
will result in the continued growth and spread of these weeds.
Alaska has a lot riding on this - its wildlife, fishing, and
pristine beauty. To do nothing is to do our future disservice.
It will create a liability to the state's residents and result
in Alaska having to do what is being done in the Lower 48, such
as mechanical and chemical control. It is wise to address the
situation now while it is still a controllable situation, she
stressed.
2:38:07 PM
STEVE SPARROW, Agronomist, School of Natural Resources and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, related
that he recently participated in an assessment of potential
effects of climate warming on agriculture in Alaska. The
assessment concluded that climate warming would have a positive
impact on agriculture in high latitude areas such as Alaska.
However, there would be some negative effects and one of those
negative effects would be more weed species coming into the
state. Anything that can be done to prevent weeds from coming
into Alaska is a good thing and HB 330 is a step in the right
direction.
2:39:53 PM
STONEY WRIGHT, Manager, Plant Materials Center, Division of
Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, said the
Department of Natural Resources fully supports HB 330 and the
development of a strategic plan. He noted that the bill has two
fiscal notes - one for the Plant Materials Center and one for
the commissioner's office.
2:40:34 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, Alaska Farm Bureau, stated that as a farmer he is
concerned because some of the weed lists being used include
species like brome and timothy that are not native to Alaska,
but which are used as crops in the state. Including brome and
timothy on the weed list would create a problem because they
account for 80 percent of the sales of hay grown in the state.
Agriculture must have input to the State Weed Board and to this
process, he said. He proposed that the board seat for the
commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources be
specifically a representative from the Division of Agriculture.
Since the division is ultimately the final say in what species
make the list, it would be better for the division to be part of
the decision making process. He drew attention to page 2, line
11, and urged that the State Weed Board member who is an
employee from the University of Alaska be a cooperative
extension agent or someone involved in research. Additionally,
he suggested that one of the three seats for public members as
designated on page 2, line 13, be filled by a representative
from the Alaska Farm Bureau or some other farm organization so
there can be input from agricultural concerns.
MR. WRIGLEY said it is clear from the information presented
today that it is not a matter of can or should this be done, but
a matter that it has to be done. Outside states are spending
millions and millions of dollars to control single weeds. For
example, a few years ago California had to turn its back on 17
million acres of star thistle because it could not afford the
control measures and now nothing is being done. He said Alaska
can take advantage of the lessons that have been learned Outside
and it would be foolish to debate this and lose time. Some
weeds will respond to pulling and some will not, so chemicals
will have to be part of the treatment, he advised. It took 18
years to successfully eradicate Canada thistle in Delta
Junction. With concerted and continuous effort, Alaska can be
successful, he said.
2:45:15 PM
OTTO KILCHER said he is on the board of supervisors for the Soil
and Water Conservation District, but that he is speaking on
behalf of himself as someone who has been involved in weeds for
many years. Bull thistle grew in some feed that came into his
sister's place, he related. The head of a bull thistle can be
as big as a tennis ball and spikes on the plant can be up to an
inch long. It gets into tires and can cause injury to people.
He said he does not want to see any bureaucracy get overloaded;
however, when looking at the short- and long-term costs for
eradication, a little money and pesticide now is much better
than a lot of money and pesticide later. Some kind of a board
or small bureaucracy is needed to take charge and work with the
grassroots people. There is huge support for eradication, but
people do not know where to go, he said. If there was one place
where the buck stops and someone answers at the state level, all
of the bureaucracy could be short-circuited and proper
information could be easily disseminated. For example, when the
highway between Indian and Girdwood was redone, the contractor
planted white sweet clover. This is a species that is choking
out the Stikine River in Southeast Alaska. There is currently
no clearinghouse for informing greenhouses and other importers,
such as big box stores, as to which species should not be
imported. Mr. Kilcher noted that horses and dogs are vectors
that spread weeds in the wilderness because of weed seeds found
in their feed. His neighbors raise [certified] weed free hay
for feeding to horses used for backcountry packing and if other
farmers in Alaska did this it would be a boon to the economy
because then weed free hay would not have to be imported.
Federal agencies and wildlife professionals need the state's
help. Putting this together would form a framework that
additional species, such as agricultural and aquatic pests,
could fall under. He urged the state to take a proactive step.
2:51:17 PM
JEFF HEYS, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, stated that he has been in
Alaska for 10 years and has spent the past 5 years managing a
program to keep invasive plants out of Alaska's 16 national
parks. He works with Ms. Nielsen, Mr. Graziano, and the CNIPM
group to share information about this issue. Park personnel in
the other states envy his position, he said, because they are
fighting an uphill battle with few victories in trying to save
the scraps of uninvaded land and trying to keep the next invader
from overrunning the land. Alaska's national parks are
currently at the opposite end of the spectrum and there is the
ability to search for and destroy small populations of these
invasive plants in hopes that Alaska will not have to face a
larger problem. He said the U.S. National Park Service is
concerned about the potential impacts to fish and wildlife
habitat, the replacement of native plant communities, the change
of water flow and quality, and the change of wildfire frequency
and intensity. Problems outside of parks will likely include
reduced crop and forage productivity, increased landscaping and
lawn maintenance costs, and thorny and toxic plants that nobody
likes to have around. It cannot be overstated that Alaska has
the opportunity to avoid these problems on the scale that other
states have experienced, he stressed. This can only be through
strategic and coordinated management. It is clear from U.S.
National Park Service efforts in Alaska that every $1 dollar
spent on current management will save $1000 later. The U.S.
National Park Service looks forward to cooperating with the
state, other federal agencies, and nongovernment entities in
protecting Alaska from this threat into the future, he said. It
is a serious problem that is not going to go away and will never
be any cheaper to deal with than now.
2:53:30 PM
ERIC WADE, Executive Director, Alaska Association of
Conservation Districts, stated that the [Alaska] Association of
Conservation Districts voted on January 12, 2008, to strongly
support HB 330. The association wants to play a part and would
like the language to be amended to include the association in
the bill by name. The soil and water districts are entities of
the state, he explained, and in the past several years these
weed programs have become major components of programs the
districts offer. The legislation, as currently written, is
nested in AS 41.10 which is the same statute that authorizes
districts. He said he is testifying from Reno, Nevada, where he
is attending a national meeting of associations of conservation
districts and every speaker has talked about invasive plants,
usually in the context of climate change. The key theme has
been the wish that involvement had begun 30-50 years ago.
Alaska has the opportunity to "get that ball rolling now" with
the passage of HB 330.
2:55:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the current language on page
2, lines 8-9, is ample for the inclusion of Mr. Wade's
organization.
MR. WADE said his organization would request to be specifically
named on page 4, paragraph 7, line 3. The [Alaska] Association
of Conservation Districts strongly feels it is in an excellent
position to deliver programs around the state and has the
experience in this area. In further response to Representative
Seaton, Mr. Wade confirmed that his association is in favor of
having one member of the [Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Board]
selected by the soil and water conservation districts.
2:57:29 PM
BLYTHE BROWN, Noxious and Invasive Plants Coordinator, Kodiak
Soil and Water Conservation District, testified that she has
been working with invasive plants in Kodiak since 2002 when
orange hawkweed was discovered on Camp Island in the Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge. She now works with weed education and
control throughout the Kodiak Island Borough. She encouraged
committee members to reread the sponsor statement to HB 330
because it is well written and states the problem effectively.
Federal, state, and local private organizations are working
together in Kodiak, but more help and guidance is needed from
the state level, she said. The State of Alaska needs to
officially acknowledge that, yes, invasive plants are a major
threat to its natural resources, agricultural production, and
communities, and that something needs to be done now. Alaska
can prevent the major expenses other states now have to pay
because of their failure to act when the infestations were still
small. Invasive plants have the potential to be just as
devastating to Alaska's resources and habitats as an oil spill
or a tsunami, she warned. Just as people work together to
prevent oil spills and prepare for tsunamis, people can also
prevent invasive plant infestations and quickly react to control
them when they are first discovered. She clarified that Kodiak
does not have purple loosestrife right now and the hope is to
keep it that way. Together we can make a difference, she said.
2:59:35 PM
MATT CARLSON, Assistant Professor of Botany, University of
Alaska Anchorage, noted that he is a CNIPM board member and has
been involved in the invasiveness ranking and the state's weed
database. He supports HB 330, he said. It is a misconception
that Alaska's extreme climate makes it immune to the problem of
invasives. Alaska currently has close to 300 nonnative plants
and each year more and more of these plants are escaping from
the road systems, gardens, and agricultural settings and getting
into natural systems. These natural systems are what Alaska
prides itself on and much of the state's economy and tourism is
based on the purity of its ecosystem. Weeds are biological
pollution. The state needs to spend money and take charge of
the matter now, he advised, as weeds are worse than lots of
other forms of pollution because they self replicate and have
the ability to mutate and invade new places.
3:01:37 PM
LORI ZAUMSEIL stated that she and her husband were the people
who found the Canada thistle [in a store-bought plant start], so
they have been involved in this from the very beginning. She
said she is working hard to educate citizens that spending a
nickel now and saving a dollar later is the fiscally responsible
thing to do. Alaska needs to prepare and protect herself now
because it will only become more costly and eventually
impossible to do this later. She compared it to watching a
wildfire coming across the horizon and not yet filling a water
bucket. Alaska must exploit the advantage that it has right
now. She said she and her husband will be speaking at the end
of the month in Washington, DC, at the opening session for the
National Invasive Weeds Awareness Week and they want to take the
message that Alaska has been proactive in this fight. She urged
committee members to take to heart what they have heard today.
3:03:15 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony and held HB 330.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|