Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/19/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB360 | |
| HB365 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2012
2:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 360
"An Act enacting the Interstate Mining Compact and relating to
the compact; relating to the Interstate Mining Commission; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 365
"An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control of,
aquatic invasive species."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 360
SHORT TITLE: INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT & COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
02/24/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/12 (H) RES, FIN
03/19/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 365
SHORT TITLE: AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/14/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/12 (H) RES
03/19/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 360 on behalf of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 360.
GREGORY CONRAD, Executive Director
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC)
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 360.
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director
Council of Alaska Producers
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 360.
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the concept of HB
365.
DARCY ETCHEVERRY, Invasive Weed Specialist
Fairbanks Soil & Water Conservation District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 365.
TRISH WURTZ, PhD
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 365.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:14:44 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:14 p.m. Representatives Munoz,
Dick, Gardner, Kawasaki, Seaton, and Feige were present at the
call to order. Representatives Herron, Foster, and P. Wilson
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 360-INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT & COMMISSION
2:15:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 360, "An Act enacting the Interstate Mining
Compact and relating to the compact; relating to the Interstate
Mining Commission; and providing for an effective date."
2:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB
360 on behalf of the House State Affairs Standing Committee,
sponsor. He said the mining industry has been historically the
cornerstone of Alaska's economy and is getting even more
significant. Currently, Alaska has seven operating mines and
employs more than 200 people in good, high paying jobs. The
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is a multi-state
governmental organization representing the natural resource and
environmental protection interests of its various member states.
The compact's purpose is to advance the protection and
restoration of land, water, and other resources affected by
mining. The IMCC is the collective voice of the mining states
in Washington, DC. He said HB 360 would authorize Alaska to
participate in IMCC as a full voting member. Currently, Alaska
is only an associate member and cannot vote.
2:17:46 PM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said he will provide his
perspective on HB 360 and the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission. He pointed out that Alaska's mining activity has
been significantly increasing over the last 10 years with seven
mines now operating and significantly contributing to the
economies of the state and local areas. All are working well
from an environmental perspective, in large part due to a strong
state permitting and regulatory process. Along with the
increased mining activity has been increased public discussion
about mining and its impacts, and some have questioned the
strength of Alaska's permitting process. While [DNR] believes
it is a strong process, it also believes the process can be
improved and strengthened. Per the governor's initiative, [DNR]
is scrubbing its permitting processes from top to bottom.
2:19:09 PM
MR. FOGELS said one key thing DNR is working on in trying to
improve its permitting process for mining and other resource
sectors is improving its relationship with the federal agencies
and the federal government. This is because the federal
processes are typically the timeline drivers for each of these
resource development projects, and that is why the Interstate
Mining Compact Commission is so important to the State of
Alaska. He said the Interstate Mining Compact Commission brings
together the mining and environmental regulatory programs from
25 member states and the IMCC is a very robust mechanism for
information exchange. Additionally, the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission brings with it the full force of 25 states
when it talks with congressmen and testifies at hearings in
Washington, DC. In addition to being a very powerful voice in
Congress, the IMCC has discussions with federal permitting
agencies at the headquarters level in Washington, DC.
2:21:35 PM
MR. FOGELS provided an example of how the IMCC has helped the
interests of the states and Alaska in particular. Recently the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started an initiative
where it is looking at possibly taking over bonding for hard
rock mining in the nation. All the mining states are
tremendously worried about this initiative because the bonding
piece is the very end of a long permitting process and if EPA
takes over that bonding piece it threatens to take over the
entire permitting process by the other states. He said the IMCC
has done a spectacular job of bringing all states together to
dialog with EPA, to debate, to provide information, and to
educate the EPA on what is actually involved in developing a
bond for a significant hard rock mine.
MR. FOGELS noted he is currently the governor's designee to the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission and in this role he has
seen the benefits Alaska has gained from this organization as an
associate member. He said HB 360 is a good piece of legislation
and Alaska would be very well served by becoming a full member
of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission.
2:22:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked why Alaska has not joined the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission before.
MR. FOGELS replied Alaska has been an associate member for about
six years and he thinks the reason Alaska has not joined the
IMCC to date is that it is not an easy process because the state
must pass legislation. There is also a fiscal consideration to
becoming a full member because the dues go up. He understood
the fiscal note is $60,000 with $40,000 of that for dues. He
explained that a complicated dues formula is spread out amongst
all the states - half is spread out evenly between the states
and half is pro-rated depending on the value of mineral
production in each state. He added that in recent years the
level of engagement with the federal agencies has really gone up
as Alaska tries to get resource development projects permitted
within the state. Alaska must work smarter with the federal
agencies, which has elevated the importance of the IMCC to
Alaska.
2:24:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, noting that five other states are
associate members, inquired what the benefits are and what the
difference is between being an associate member and a full
member.
MR. FOGELS responded the single biggest benefit is that Alaska
would be a voting member. Right now Alaska participates in all
the meetings, a tremendous value with the information exchange,
but it does not participate as a voting member sitting on some
of the committees. He added he thinks it important for Alaska
to pay its dues to this organization because the more full
members the more powerful IMCC's voice in Washington, DC.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what things a member of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission would actually vote on.
MR. FOGELS answered he could provide details in this regard but
deferred to IMCC executive director Gregory Conrad to provide
the information.
2:25:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI drew attention to the IMCC's Interstate
Mining Compact background paper which states on page 1 that by
adopting the compact the member states obligate themselves to
undertake and maintain certain types of programs. He inquired
what those programs would be.
MR. FOGELS replied predominantly those are regulatory programs
for the mining industry. When the compact was first enacted in
the 1960s and 1970s the state of environmental regulation for
mining was nowhere near what it is today. The original intent
of the compact was to get the states together to develop strong
mine regulatory and permitting programs. At this point, Alaska
has already built its environmental regulatory program for the
mining industry, so has already met that part of the obligation.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether Alaska would be obligated
to adopt more stringent regulations if the IMCC were to adopt
regulations more stringent than the state's.
MR. FOGELS responded the state would not be obligated to that at
all. He said he thinks there is a provision specifically in the
compact language that nothing in the compact can supersede a
state's laws or regulations.
2:27:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired whether the IMCC is just commenting or
is it negotiating with the federal government in regard to the
EPA bonding issue. If the IMCC is negotiating, he asked whether
Alaska be more bound by that agreement with the federal
government as a voting member than as a non-voting member.
MR. FOGELS answered he does not believe Alaska would. The role
IMCC has played in the bonding initiative has been to bring the
states together and call the EPA to meetings with all the states
by teleconference and in person, and the commission submits
comments on behalf of all the states to the federal agencies.
So, the negotiation that goes on is with the states and the
federal agency. It is sort of an advisory role so nothing is
binding. The idea is to talk sense into a federal agency that
is working some initiative that may be adverse to the states'
interests. Whatever that federal agency ends up doing is what
will be binding on all the state in the end.
2:29:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised the Interstate Mining Compact is
different than other compacts where restrictions in the compact
apply to all member states, so Alaska would not be bound by the
Interstate Mining Compact.
MR. FOGELS concurred, saying the IMCC is an advisory,
facilitating, and lobbying body for the states' regulatory
programs. It does not pass any rules or requirements beyond
what is in the current compact language. He understood the only
real requirement is that Alaska has a regulatory program in
place.
2:30:14 PM
MR. FOGELS, in response to Representative Herron, offered his
belief that Alaska would be the first western state to join the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, although North Dakota or
South Dakota might be full members. The other western states
are associate members at this time. In further response, he
said his perspective on the reason for this slow participation
is that when the IMCC originated in the 1960s and 1970s it was
primarily East Coast coal-related states, so the IMCC had a very
strong coal focus over the years. Recently he has seen a shift
to some of the non-coal issues, which has been very valuable.
More of the western states are now starting to pay attention and
realize that the IMCC is going to be a valuable tool and
organization to join. At least two or three other western
states are actively pursuing full membership at this time.
MR. FOGELS, in response to Representative Munoz, explained that
the commission's advocacy is for issues and regulatory programs
of the states and not for specific projects.
2:32:59 PM
GREGORY CONRAD, Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact
Commission (IMCC), offered testimony in support of HB 360. He
noted Alaska has been an associate member of the IMCC since
2006, during which time the state has learned about the benefits
and services provided by IMCC. On the basis of this experience
the state has chosen to move forward with HB 360 to become a
full IMCC member. He explained that upon becoming a full member
through the enactment of HB 360, Alaska would have a formal vote
in guiding the direction of the compact. Alaska would also be
in a position to chair the compact's various standing committees
and help lead the compact in directions favorable to both Alaska
and the other member states. Alaska would continue to enjoy the
other benefits to which it has been exposed over the past six
years, including access to all IMCC communications, meetings,
programs, and initiatives.
MR. CONRAD said Alaska's participation as a full member would
also be understood by those who work with the compact on a
regular basis, including Congress and federal agencies. The
presence of IMCC in Washington, DC, allows it to monitor federal
agency and congressional initiatives that might impact states'
rights as well as development constraints on mineral issues.
Alaska's participation in the IMCC would open avenues for the
state to be heard in unique and valuable ways not otherwise
available to it and to be supported with the clout that comes
from 24 states speaking together as one voice. Since the IMCC
focuses solely on mining and related environmental protection
issues with the federal government, it is able to delve deeper
into the mining-related concerns that matter most to Alaska.
2:36:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI again drew attention to the IMCC's
Interstate Mining Compact background paper which states [on page
1] that by adopting the compact the member states obligate
themselves to undertake and maintain certain types of programs.
He asked whether Mr. Conrad has reviewed Alaska's laws to see
whether the state currently has those programs in place.
MR. CONRAD replied the key aspect of this is that the IMCC is
not a regulatory body, so the organization does not as a matter
of course require regulation by the states. The IMCC advocates
and encourages states to develop regulatory and other programs
in the area of mineral resource development and protection that
would demonstrate leadership by the states in these areas. He
said his understanding is that Alaska's laws and regulations are
in very good stead.
2:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that of the 19 current member
states and 5 associate members, 3 of the top 10 mining states
are absent - the western states of Arizona, California, and
Montana. Additionally, Colorado and New Mexico are only
associate members. He inquired why other states have not yet
joined given how long the IMCC has been around.
MR. CONRAD concurred with Mr. Fogels' statement that when the
IMCC began in the 1960s and 1970s it was primarily focused on
coal-related issues. National legislation, the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act [of 1977], was critical for the
states because it had a state lead concept. The coal states
were the initial states that joined and formed the compact and
advocated for many of the key legislative proposals in
Washington, DC. Over time the IMCC has expanded its scope and
focus beyond coal issues. The current focus in Washington, DC,
is as much on non-coal and hard rock issues as on coal issues.
Over the last 10-15 years the western states have seen the value
of being part of an organization that is focused solely on
mining issues for the states. Therefore, more western states
are becoming involved in IMCC, beginning with New Mexico and
recent associate member, Colorado. He said he has been in
negotiations and discussions with Arizona, Colorado, and
Montana. He met with Nevada's mineral resources committee two
weeks ago and Nevada is seriously considering coming in as a
member state. It is a process for becoming involved. The newer
associate member states have gained an understanding of the work
of the compact and are now moving toward full membership. The
IMCC is working on development of legislation in New Mexico,
Colorado, and Utah and it is a matter of finding the appropriate
opportunity to introduce bills that are currently in draft form.
2:40:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether IMCC is just now starting
to get new members since the original group of coal states.
MR. CONRAD responded the newest members joining are almost all
western members with hard rock influence, which has been the
impetus for their interest. The newest member states are the
ones similarly situated to Alaska regarding issues, concerns,
and regulatory focus.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified she is asking whether any new
states have already entered IMCC or are new states just starting
to enter the organization. She inquired whether the 19 [full
member] states are the original coal states and whether the
associate members are thinking about joining because the IMCC
has expanded [its focus].
MR. CONRAD answered it has been a process by which states have
become exposed to and become involved in the IMCC. The
originating legislation required four states for the compact to
be in place and effective. Kentucky was the first state to join
in 1966, followed by Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
West Virginia, and South Carolina. North and South Carolina do
not have coal development, so a number of states have been
involved that do not have coal. This newest impetus for
becoming involved began in 2000 with New Mexico and on through
2007 with Colorado. Now, Nevada and Montana are looking at the
IMCC.
2:43:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted Alaska is considering several coal
deposits for strip mining and is considering several open pit
prospects as well as several underground prospects for hard rock
mining. He asked whether Mr. Conrad is referring to open pit or
underground mining when referring to hard rock mining. He
further asked whether Alaska's interests would align with those
of the other 19 voting states.
MR. CONRAD believed they do align. He said the IMCC has a very
broad range of interests from the states in all types of mining.
So, when he says "hard rock", perhaps "non-coal" may be more
embracing, as well as the different methods of mining -
underground, surface, open pit. The work of the compact is
generally driven by the national issues that are before the
federal agencies or Congress; for example, the bonding issue
mentioned by Mr. Fogels, which pervades all types of mining and
minerals. Another area IMCC is working on is mine safety and
health legislation, which embraces both coal and non-coal and
different types of mines and mining. The IMCC has been involved
with the issue of coal waste and coal combustion waste and other
kinds of mine waste. Depending upon where the issue is being
driven from, the IMCC covers a plethora of different types of
mining. As a result, there is interest from all of the member
states in development of these particular issues, whether before
Congress or agencies. The states find themselves generally very
well aligned when it comes to developing IMCC's position on any
particular legislative or regulatory issue and the IMCC operates
generally by consensus.
2:47:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related that Montana has enacted a prohibition
on the use of cyanide. He inquired whether that issue has come
up and how it was handled or not handled at the compact level.
MR. CONRAD replied that is a good example given there has been
concern about the use of cyanide at mining operations over the
years and in the recent past. In the context of the compact, a
state will bring an issue to the table to share information in
terms of how it is impacting that state from the regulatory
perspective; or, if there is a particular rule of a national
scope, it will give all the states an opportunity to weigh in on
that issue. States are usually not positioning themselves with
respect to what is happening in the respective states other than
being aware of that and offering advice and counsel to a
particular state that may be dealing with a particular challenge
associated with that issue. Unless it is at a national level in
terms of a federal rule making, the compact would generally not
be taking a position on what is going on in a particular state,
it is left to the state itself.
2:50:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, noting Article VIII of the compact, Entry
into Force and Withdrawal, asked whether any state has had the
need to withdraw.
MR. CONRAD responded the only state to withdraw was New Mexico
in 1983, but it rejoined in 2000.
2:50:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recollected that a mine in the Juneau area
experienced many years of difficulty and delays with the US.
Army Corps of Engineers' 404 permit. She asked how the IMCC
would help to communicate to the federal agencies that there
could be problems with the permitting in a particular situation.
MR. CONRAD answered that the issue of requirements for 404
permits has been brought before the IMCC by several states
struggling with it, including Alaska. The benefit is sharing
the type of challenges being faced so the state can benefit from
the advice of the other states in how those states have been
dealing with the corps. To the extent that the corps has
recently moved forward with a rule making on nationwide permits
for coal mines, the IMCC would be able to develop a position on
that rule making and communicate that through formal written
comments, testimony at public hearings, and potentially raising
it as part of congressional oversight hearings.
2:52:57 PM
MR. FOGELS, in response to Representative Herron, said the
administration supports HB 360.
2:53:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HB 360.
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers,
stated that his nonprofit trade association, which represents
the major mines and developmental projects in the state of
Alaska, supports HB 360. He said his organization believes
Alaska has one of the most rigorous permitting processes in the
world for mining because Alaska's process is rigorous, science
based, transparent, and predictable. However, what might be
rigorous one day might not be the next and the only way to stay
on top of the game is by finding ways to continuously improve.
One of the ways to do that is by sharing information with peers
and in this case those peers are other mining producing states.
As a full member of the IMCC, Alaska would be able to exchange
information regarding best regulatory and reclamation practices
with states that have lots of experience from mining coal for
many years, which is important to Alaska as it looks to develop
new coal deposits in the state.
MR. SATRE maintained that in regard to metal mining this is the
chance for Alaska to take the lead amongst western states to
show the West how mining is done responsibly in Alaska and how
everybody in the West should be doing it. This would lay the
foundation for a properly regulated mining economy throughout
the West. Rather than asking why other states are not part of
the IMCC the question should be, "How can Alaska take a
leadership role in this?" The state can be a policy leader by
being a full member of the IMCC.
2:55:32 PM
MR. SATRE said a main reason his organization supports full
membership in the IMCC is echoed on the IMCC web site.
Paraphrasing from the site he related that the IMCC was founded
on the premise that the mining industry is one of the most basic
and important to the nation. At the same time it is essential
that an appropriate balance be struck between the need for
minerals and the protection of the environment, but the IMCC
recognizes that individual states have the power to establish
and maintain programs of land and other resource development
restoration regulations appropriate to cope with the effects of
mining. The IMCC would not shift the responsibility of these
programs. On the other hand, the member states believe a united
position in dealing with the federal government affords a
decided advantage. The commission feels strongly that the
collective voice of many is important in its efforts to preserve
and advocate states' rights. Mr. Satre added that if the State
of Alaska is going to continue to seek primacy on permitting and
regulatory issues, the IMCC is the most appropriate forum to do
it from the mining industry's standpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he supports HB 360 and asked whether
Mr. Satre has heard of anybody opposing Alaska joining the IMCC.
MR. SATRE answered that he personally has not.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
2:57:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he is favorably disposed to HB 360, but
noted he has not heard comment from anyone in his district or
from individual mines about HB 360. He requested the bill be
held until he can hear from them.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 360 and said he plans to move the
bill out of committee on 3/21/12.
HB 365-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
2:59:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 365, "An Act relating to the rapid response
to, and control of, aquatic invasive species."
2:59:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, noting HB 365 is a House Resources Standing
Committee bill, explained the impetus for the bill came from the
committee's [1/23/12] hearing on invasive species. Pictures
were shown at that hearing of Didemnum vexillum (D. vex), an
invasive species growing in Sitka's Whiting Harbor. The purpose
of HB 365 is for those times where an invasive species is found
in a limited area; it would provide Alaska's state agencies with
a tool for rapid response on an emergency basis instead of
waiting one or two years while the invasive species spreads [as
happened in Whiting Harbor]. The bill would not apply to an
infestation that is in general or has spread along coastline,
but rather to an invasive species in one limited geographic
locality that could be resolved.
3:02:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that HB 365 reads "aquatic" invasive
species, so would apply to inland waterways as well as marine
waters. However, he continued, when constructing the bill the
thought was marine aquatic and the question is whether these
emergency powers should be provided for inland waterways. For
example, [northern] pike are endemic and spreading in some areas
and the idea is not for something that has become endemic or has
spread and that would require treating a massive amount of the
environment. Rather, the objective is to treat something that
is contained in a limited area, thereby nipping it in the bud.
3:03:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON drew attention to the executive summary of the
2002 "Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan" by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) included in the
committee packet. He noted that page v of the plan talks about
developing an inter-division Alaska Invasive Species Prevention
and Response Program within ADF&G. However, instead of
emergency response capability, the plan talks about listing and
educating people ahead of time, as seen on page VI.
3:05:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, addressing the eight actions listed on
page v of the aforementioned plan, inquired whether the
following two actions have been implemented [original
punctuation provided with formatting changes]:
Prevent the spread of invasive species already
introduced into Alaska, through the identification and
closing of transport pathways.
Develop protocols for early detection, rapid response
to, control and management of new invasive species.
3:05:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON understood the plan has been shelved and not
implemented. He said the usual problem is that the departments
come to the legislature saying an emergency response cannot be
undertaken due to the lack of legislative authority to omit the
procedure of following regulations and conducting studies before
acting. He pointed out HB 365 would provide that authority for
a geographically insulated infestation. For example, HB 365
would have made stopping the D. vex infestation in Whiting
Harbor a priority and no studies would have had to be done for
how that would affect other species in the harbor. For limited
geographic areas, long-time studies allow the possibility of an
invasive species spreading and becoming endemic, creating huge
ecological and economic consequences. Mariculture in Southeast
Alaska could be rendered defunct by the spread of D. vex;
herring fisheries could be rendered defunct in bays infested
with D. vex because the invasive species could then be spread
throughout Alaska by infected herring nets. The bill would give
ADF&G and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the tools to
respond to an invasive outbreak in a limited geographic area,
such as a bay, on an emergency basis. He added that HB 365 is
not intended to require ADF&G to drop everything in a management
area to concentrate on an infested area, so a clarifying
amendment will be offered in this regard.
3:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that five fiscal notes
accompany HB 365 and two of them alone add up to $938,000. She
suggested the bill be limited to marine species to ensure its
passage, saying it is important to get a quick response to an
invasive species because it is unknown how far the D. vex from
Whiting Harbor has already traveled as a result of the lack of a
quick response.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded the aforementioned is one of two
forthcoming amendments and a third amendment clarifies that the
priority designation is only for the particular infested area
and not an entire region. Most of the problems with HB 365 come
from addressing both fresh and marine waters, he said.
3:13:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired how an ongoing emergency situation
like Whiting Harbor would be handled during the time that the
plan is being developed.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied things have to start someplace. He said
the Whiting Harbor problem was not responded to in the timely
fashion it should have been. He further thought DNR should be
required to write into mariculture leases that a contaminated
lease will not be compensated for the destruction that will need
to occur to sterilize that mariculture area.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony.
3:16:26 PM
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), noted UFA is a statewide trade association representing
37 member groups from fisheries throughout Alaska and its
offshore waters. He said UFA supports HB 365 in concept, given
its awareness of the tremendous threat of invasive marine and
inland species and the potential devastating effect on
fisheries. No other state has as much to lose from invasive
species as Alaska - it is important to have rapid response
abilities in advance of something happening, which is the basis
of UFA's support for the bill. He said UFA has supported
previous bills that would have set up an invasive species
council. It can be difficult to determine whether an issue
would be the responsibility of ADF&G or DNR, but HB 365 puts it
strongly on ADF&G. Therefore, UFA is very interested in ADF&G's
advice on how best to make this work. He thanked the committee
for introducing HB 365 and reiterated UFA's general support for
the bill's concept.
3:18:28 PM
DARCY ETCHEVERRY, Invasive Weed Specialist, Fairbanks Soil &
Water Conservation District, stated she works with the district
to coordinate management of Elodea in the Fairbanks area.
Elodea is an aquatic invasive plant with the potential to impact
Alaska's freshwater resources and fish habitat, she explained.
When introduced into freshwater systems, Elodea can restrict
flow, increase sedimentation, and damage fish habitat. The
current known distribution of Elodea in Alaska is limited to a
handful of lakes and sloughs in Anchorage, the Cordova area, and
Fairbanks, so the time to act is now.
MS. ETCHEVERRY said a coordinated effort is needed from all
state, federal, and private agencies, but so far the response
effort has been led by nonprofit and federal agencies. Support
is needed from the state agencies managing these waters to lead
this response effort. The ADF&G 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance
Species Management Plan outlines how to accomplish effective
management and adopts the following policies: develop an inter-
division Alaska invasive species prevention program; provide
leadership and coordination between state, federal,
international agencies, tribes, and non-governmental
organizations; and develop protocols for early detection and
rapid response to control and manage new invasive species. The
plan is an excellent framework to coordinate aquatic nuisance
species management in Alaska, but it appears few of these tasks
have been accomplished to date. If the plan and adopted ADF&G
policies are insufficient to facilitate early detection and
rapid response, she said she is then in favor of HB 365 to have
rapid response to aquatic invasive species entered into Alaska's
administrative code. She urged the committee to also consider
the cost of implementing any invasive species response plan and
to provide the agencies with needed resources and personnel.
She discouraged the committee from eliminating freshwater
habitats from HB 365 because freshwater invasive species can
also be detrimental to fisheries and economies.
3:21:20 PM
TRISH WURTZ, PhD, noted she is testifying as a private citizen,
but that she is a member of the Fairbanks Cooperative Weed
Management Area. She said ADF&G's 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance
Species Management Plan has excellent descriptions about what
the department planned to do to prevent the introduction of
invasive species and eradicate them as quickly as possible.
However, she reported, very little of what was described in the
plan has actually been undertaken. Of particular concern is the
invasive aquatic plant Elodea that was discovered in 2010
growing in Chena Slough near Fairbanks.
DR. WURTZ illustrated the seriousness of this discovery by
reviewing what other states have gone through with invasive
aquatic plants. Hydrilla, a close relative of Elodea, was
introduced to Florida in the 1960s and within 20 years it spread
throughout the state. Boating and swimming can no longer occur
in the worst infested lakes, nor can fishing because a line
cannot be drawn through the water. Additionally, fish cannot
survive because Hydrilla fills the lake from top to bottom. The
State of Florida now spends $20 million per year solely trying
to control Hydrilla. Learning from Florida's failure to respond
quickly, the State of Minnesota did act quickly when in fall
2007 Elodea was found growing in a single lake near Minneapolis.
Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources mapped and treated
the infestation with aquatic herbicides within two months of its
discovery. In Idaho an infestation of Hydrilla was found in
December 2007 in the Bruneau River. In three months the Idaho
Department of Agriculture treated and successfully killed the
infestation with aquatic herbicide and mechanical pulling. In
upstate New York an infestation of Hydrilla was found in August
2011 in one of the Finger Lakes. By October 2011 a coalition of
groups had worked together to treat the infestation with aquatic
herbicide and had petitioned the state legislature for $1
million to kill the infestation completely.
DR. WURTZ said the aforementioned states understand what the
term rapid response means. In contrast, since the August 2010
discovery of Elodea in the Fairbanks area, all that ADF&G has
done is to grudgingly attend a few meetings. The department
needs to get to work and demonstrate real leadership and true
rapid response in defense of Alaska's freshwater resources. She
urged the committee not to give up the freshwater component of
HB 365. She said she strongly supports the section of the bill
that says rapid response shall be given priority over other
activities of the department.
3:25:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reported that the owner of the aquatic
farm in Whiting Harbor offered to take care of the D. vex
infestation and estimated it would cost about $30,000. However,
a state or federal agency - she did not know which - forbid the
owner from doing so and now he has completely lost the farm.
She asked whether there is a way to provide that the person
involved can help with the eradication efforts.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded the rapid response is not dictated in
HB 365, but it does dictate that chemical, biological,
mechanical or physical methods, singly or in combination, can be
used in that limited geographic area. He said there is nothing
in the bill that would preclude a farm owner from doing
something. The hope is that the plan developed by ADF&G will be
inclusive enough to allow the most rapid response possible. He
reiterated that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) needs
to include in its mariculture permits the recognition that there
will not be a long court battle and an infestation in a limited
area will be taken care of right way regardless of any damage.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated a way must be found to ensure
people will not be so afraid of an invasive species being
discovered that they try to hide it; people must be willing to
quickly come forward in those cases where they have an interest.
3:30:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-
LS1439\A.1, Bullard, 3/16/12, written as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "activities of the department and
activities regulated by the department"
Insert "activities regulated by the department in
that limited or isolated geographic area"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
3:30:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about instances in which
something is discovered that is not confined to a limited area.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that an invasive species which has
become endemic or spread into many areas along the coast cannot
be eradicated by an emergency response. He reported that the
bill's original language has been misinterpreted to mean
[ADF&G's] activities and activities regulated by [ADF&G] within
an entire management area. Rather, the intent is that when an
invasive species is identified in a bay the other activities in
that bay will become secondary and emergency response can be
done to ensure the invasive species does not spread [beyond that
bay], which is what Amendment 1 attempts to accomplish.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:32:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, written
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Add "marine" before "aquatic invasive species"
throughout the bill
CO-CHAIR SEATON added that this would also apply to the language
on page [2], line 19, such that "or freshwater" would be
removed.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
3:33:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ observed the fiscal analysis includes a
freshwater species. She asked whether insertion of "marine"
would change that focus of going after freshwater plants.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied Conceptual Amendment 2 would remove that
freshwater plant, as well as pike and other freshwater species,
from the bill. He said he agrees with the people who testified
that it is necessary to address freshwater plants, but said it
may add so much weight to the bill that it will be unable to
move through the legislature because most of the fiscal note
comes from the freshwater.
3:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Co-Chair Seaton is saying
the odds of passing HB 365 will decrease if freshwater species
are not removed from the bill. She said she opposes Conceptual
Amendment 2 for the reason stated earlier by Co-Chair Seaton -
that addressing invasive species must start somewhere and this
statement would include the freshwater species.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded he would prefer to not propose the
amendment for the same reason; however, the weight of trying to
deal with the diversity of emergency regulations applying
throughout all the freshwaters of the state, along with the
fiscal note, would complicate the bill such that nothing would
be done. He said he is hoping the state will not be in the
position of having an invasive species and it being said it is
the legislature's fault for not having something in place that
could have rapidly dealt with the species. Therefore, he is
reluctantly offering the amendment because he thinks it
necessary for the bill to move.
3:37:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated that taking out the freshwater
portion misses a big point of the discussion and is bad state
policy, so he will vote against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed with Representatives Gardner and
Kawasaki, but pointed out that the freshwater portion would add
seven positions. While it is a shame it must be looked at in
this way, she said she will vote for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said the focus needs to be on the immediate
threats and the inland aquatic threats are very serious. She
added that this is one of the key issues western states are
talking about. The State of Montana has established a fund of
$10 million for responding to emergencies. She said Alaska
needs to move forward with all of the identified species and she
will therefore not vote for the amendment.
3:39:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she will support the amendment, but
she would like to consider the other part of the bill to be a
template for getting started and that the lessons learned for
how best to respond will be expanded to inland waters.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Herron, Foster,
Gardner, P. Wilson, Feige, and Seaton voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Munoz and Kawasaki
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted
by a vote of 6-2.
3:41:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE kept public testimony open and in response to
Representative Munoz said he is holding over HB 365 because he
would like to get an answer from ADF&G regarding the status of
its 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he would like to ask DNR to address a way
to enfold in its permits emergency response to invasive species
in localized areas.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested that ADF&G provide the committee
with an update of the Whiting Harbor situation.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he would like ADF&G to address how
money could be saved in the fiscal note so that both marine and
freshwater aquatic invasive species could be addressed.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 365.
3:43:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0360A.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB 360 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB 360 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB360-DNR-MLW-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| IMCC Background Information.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg. Research Interstate Compacts In AK Statute.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB0365A.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Amendment A.1.PDF |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| Dvex Presentation by UAS 1.23.12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSG Capitol Ideas feature article on Aquatic Invasive Species I.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSG Capitol Ideas feature article on Aquatic Invasive Species II.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB365 UFA Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DEC-SWM-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DEC-WQ-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DFG-SFD-03-16-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DHSS-EPI-3-16-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DNR-AG-03-17-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365 Comment - Wurtz.PDF |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB360 IMCC Testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB365 Support - Anch Park Foundation.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Conceptual Amend - Seaton.docx |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |