Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/16/2021 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| HB22 | |
| HB54 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 16, 2021
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 22
"An Act relating to shared animal ownership; and relating to the
sharing and sale of raw milk and raw milk products."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the
Department of Fish and Game; relating to management of invasive
species; relating to invasive species management decals; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 22
SHORT TITLE: SHARED ANIMAL AND RAW MILK/PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) CRA, RES
03/30/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/30/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/06/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/06/21 (H) Moved HB 22 Out of Committee
04/06/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/07/21 (H) CRA RPT 6DP 1NR
04/07/21 (H) DP: MCCARTY, DRUMMOND, PRAX, MCCABE,
HANNAN, SCHRAGE
04/07/21 (H) NR: PATKOTAK
04/16/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 54
SHORT TITLE: INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT
SPONSOR(s): FISHERIES
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) RES, FSH
02/24/21 (H) RES REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER FSH
02/24/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
03/11/21 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/12/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
03/18/21 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/18/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/25/21 (H) FSH AT 10:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/30/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/30/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/01/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/01/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/06/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/06/21 (H) Moved CSHB 54(FSH) Out of Committee
04/06/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/07/21 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 7DP
04/07/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, ORTIZ, MCCABE,
VANCE, STORY, STUTES, TARR
04/16/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented a PowerPoint on
HB 22, and presented HB 54 as chair of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries, sponsor.
SUZY CROSBY, Owner
Cottonwood Creek Farm
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 22.
AMY SEITZ, Executive Director
Alaska Farm Bureau
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 22.
AMY PETTIT, Executive Director
Alaska Farmland Trust
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 22.
MARLENE WENGER
Kenny Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 22.
DONNA CELIA
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 22.
TOBIAS SCHWOERER, PhD, Research Assistant Professor
International Artic Research Center (IARC)
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 54.
LISA KA'AIHUE, Chair
Alaska Invasive Species Partnership (AKISP)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 54.
DANIELLE VERNA, Manager
Environmental Monitoring Program
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council
(PWSRCAC)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 54.
TAMMY DAVIS, Coordinator
Invasive Species Program
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 54.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:48 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Fields,
Hopkins, Schrage, Hannan, Rauscher, Gillham, Cronk, McKay, and
Patkotak were present at the call to order.
HB 22-SHARED ANIMAL AND RAW MILK/PRODUCTS
1:03:52 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 22, "An Act relating to shared animal
ownership; and relating to the sharing and sale of raw milk and
raw milk products."
1:04:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented a PowerPoint on HB 22 [hard copy included in
committee packet]. She began the presentation by paraphrasing
slide 2, "Food Security in Alaska - Today," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska is food insecure
95% of food is imported from outside
Alaska can produce more
67% of farmers surveyed by Division of
Agriculture would produce more if they had more market
options
$5 challenge
Would generate $188 million for our economy
REPRESENTATIVE TARR then paraphrased slide 3, "Food Security in
Alaska - Historically," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
At statehood in 1959
525 farms
Produced 49% of agricultural products
Dairy farming goes back to at least 1867
Dairy farms across the state from McGrath to Nome
to Kodiak to Mat-Su
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained slide 4, "Food Security in Alaska
- Milk," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Only two certified dairy farms in Alaska
Havemeister Dairy in Palmer
In business since 1935
Baptist Mission Heritage Farm in Kodiak
Certified as a grade A dairy in 2019
Alaska can produce more
Operations in Kodiak and Delta Junction close to
coming on line
REPRESENTATIVE TARR paraphrased slides 5 and 6, both titled
"Herd Shares," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Allowed by regulation
18 AAC 32.010
requires contractual relationship
18 AAC 32.010. Purpose and applicability of 18 AAC
32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060. (a) The purpose of 18 AAC
32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060 is to safeguard public health
and safety by ensuring that milk and milk products
from a cow, goat, or sheep, that are to be sold as
part of commerce and intended for human consumption,
are manufactured, sold, and delivered in a safe and
wholesome condition.
(b) The provisions of 18 AAC 32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060
apply to
(1) each milk producer, each wholesale milk
distributor, and each owner or operator of a milk
processing plant, receiving station, or transfer
station whose milk or milk products are to be sold as
part of commerce and are intended for human
consumption;
(2) each milk hauler who
(A) collects, for the milk producer, milk
processing plant, or the department, samples of raw
milk for pasteurization or for bacterial, chemical,
temperature standards, or compliance testing; or
(B) hauls milk from a milk producer or other
milk distributor to a milk processing plant, receiving
station, or transfer station; and
(3) a processor of a milk product.
(c) The provisions of 18 AAC 32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060 do
not apply to a person who owns a cow, goat, or sheep
and uses the milk from the animal for that person's
personal use. (Eff. 5/23/98, Register 146)
REPRESENTATIVE TARR finished her PowerPoint
presentation with slide 7, "House Bill 22 - 2 things,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Puts herd share program in statute
Strengthens program by putting in statute
Allows producers to offer value added products to
customers in herd share program
Butter, ice cream, cheese
Opportunity for farmer to produce additional
products to support farm
Opportunity for consumer to purchase more
goods at one place
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the existence of herd shares
would mean better business opportunities for farmers because
farming is very capital-intensive. With herd sharing it's
possible for a farmer to start small and grow as they build
products and a customer base. She pointed out possible safety
concerns addressed by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and noted a relevant part of the Sectional
Analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
"In addition, Section 17.20.015 prohibits the Department of
Environmental Conservation from adding restrictions and
additional requirements on the sharing or transfer of raw milk
between owners of a milk-producing animal." She also noted that
HB 22 contains language defining "raw milk."
1:10:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked why the raw milk provision in SB 22
is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that a farmer may start herd
sharing with an investment of a few thousand dollars, whereas
starting a Grade A dairy operation would require millions of
dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said that it sounds as if the smaller
owners don't have access to pasteurization.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, "That is true."
1:13:46 PM
SUZY CROSBY, Owner, Cottonwood Creek Farm, testified in support
of HB 22 by presenting a PowerPoint [hard copy included in
committee packet], titled "Managing A Goat Herd Share Operation
in Alaska." She presented slide 2, titled "Why Goats?", which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Ease of handling
? Digestibility of goat milk
? Minimal infrastructure
? Simple cleanup
? "Missing link"
MS. CROSBY paraphrased slide 3, "Why Herd Share?", which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Goats can help "pay their way"
? Connecting consumers with producers
? "Loca-vores"
? Freedom of choice
? Food security!
MS. CROSBY presented slide 4, titled "Remember food insecurity
(Mar. 2020)?", which showed a picture of empty dairy cases in a
grocery store. She then showed slide 5, "What Herd Share is:",
showing a picture of a refrigerator full of dairy products which
she took for comparison immediately after seeing the empty dairy
cases. Slide 5 read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Legal in Alaska
? http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/docs/vet/Dairy/RawMilkShare
sAKFactsheet.pdf
? Currently restricted to fluid milk only
? Sustainable CSA
? Scheduled pickup
? Commitment
? Know your farmer!
MS. CROSBY presented slide 6, "What Herd Share is not:", which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Not the grocery store!
? Not *selling* milk
? Not making cheese or other products? Yet!
? HB 22 would allow value-added products within the
definition of the herd share relationship.
MS. CROSBY then paraphrased slides 7, 8, and 9, all outlining
safety and sanitation, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Safety & Sanitation: Part 1
Milking location
Wash your hands!
? Pre-milking spray
? Hand or machine?
? Final strip
? Post-milking dip
Safety & Sanitation: Part 2
? Wash hands!
? A "sharp dividing line"
? Filtering milk
? Rapid chilling
? Cold storage
Safety & Sanitation: Part 3
Record keeping-- which goat's milk?
? Educating the share owners
? Jar care
MS. CROSBY then presented slides 10, 11, and 12, which showed
pictures of milk products, and which read [original punctuation
provided]: "HB 22 would allow value-added products -- like
Queso Fresco? Or feta with sundried tomatoes? ?Or chevre?to be a
legal component of a herd share agreement." She moved on to
paraphrase slide 13, "Benefits of HB 22 to consumers:", which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Freedom to make food choices without restriction
? Having a variety of dairy options besides milk
? Access to digestible products for those intolerant
to commercial dairy
? Many consumers prefer ready-made vs. DIY
? Growing preference for unique locally made/artisan
food
MS. CROSBY paraphrased slide 14, "Benefits of HB 22 to
producers:", which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Allows for best usage of seasonal surplus milk
? Farmer can buy more hay per gallon of milk (goats
eat even during their dry period!)
? Specialty products would still be available in
winter even when fluid milk production drops
MS. CROSBY presented slide 15, "HB 22 would offer benefits
overall:", which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Help strengthen Alaska's fragile food system
? Help prevent food waste
? Expand Alaskan agriculture by offering a new
business opportunity for farmers
1:27:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY noted Ms. Crosby's assertion that "man
could not survive on Twinkies."
MS. CROSBY said that the more nutritious a food is, the higher
the likelihood of bacteria.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY commented that he lived for four years in
Norway where goat products were very popular.
1:29:58 PM
AMY SEITZ, Executive Director, Alaska Farm Bureau, presented a
PowerPoint [hard copy included in committee packet] titled "HB
22 Expanding Alaska's Dairy Industry." She said that HB 22 is
important for increasing agriculture and local food access, as
well as for the economic benefits. She said that, while
agriculture in Alaska is growing, there is opportunity for more
contribution, which would grow the economic benefits and
increase food security. She said that 50 percent of food
consumed in Alaska used to be grown locally; that number is now
5 percent. She explained that shipping delays, strikes, and
worldwide pandemics affect the ability to import food into the
state. "If every Alaskan spent $5 a week buying Alaska-grown,"
she said, "it would have a $188 million impact on our economy."
She noted that there is not enough production in the state for
all residents to spend $5 per week, so removing barriers to
production is important.
1:34:22 PM
MS. SEITZ presented slide 5, which contained quotes regarding
COVID-19 impacts on the food supply chain and read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
"it has been seen that COVID - 19 has an impact on the
whole process [food supply chain] from the field to
the consumer" - Oxford Academic, Impacts of Covid - 19
on the food supply chain
" With the coronavirus pandemic, we're facing a crisis
the likes of which none of us has experienced before.
Times like these remind us all of the importance of
ensuring our nation's food security, and we want to
assure Americans that agriculture remains on call
24/7." -Zippy Duvall, President American Farm Bureau
Federation
"The food supply chain is breaking," -John Tyson,
Tyson Foods Chairman
MS. SEITZ said that with only two Grade A certified dairies in
Alaska, most of the dairy operations in the state are part of a
herd share program. She explained that Alaska would need 28
million pounds to constitute a 90-day supply of milk, but
current production is at 3.5 million pounds. She said that HB
22 would increase economic opportunities for farms as well as
choices for consumers.
1:38:42 PM
AMY PETTIT, Executive Director, Alaska Farmland Trust, presented
a PowerPoint on HB 22 [hard copy included in committee packet].
She explained that the Alaska Farmland Trust aims to protect
agricultural areas, promote Alaska's agricultural industry, and
educate the public on the industry. She said that the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts a Census of
Agriculture every five years, and the most recent census shows
that farms have decreased by 3 percent in the contiguous U.S.,
but have increased by 30 percent in Alaska, with Alaska leading
the nation in the number of new farmers. She said that the
number of small farms in Alaska has increased by 73 percent, and
that 47 percent of farmers in Alaska are women. She said that
the value of food sold directly to consumers increased from $2.2
million in 2012 to $4.5 million in 2017. She characterized HB
22 as being about improving access, removing barriers,
developing economies, and expanding production, and that the
investment in the next generation of farmers that could be made
possible by HB 22 would benefit the state.
1:46:33 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 22.
1:47:28 PM
MARLENE WENGER testified in support of HB 22. She said that she
and her husband started the Copper River Valley Chapter of the
Alaska Farm Bureau 20 years ago, and that in their own store
they carry as many Alaska-grown products as possible. She noted
that during the COVID-19 pandemic the store had run out of
imported items, but not those which had been locally-produced.
1:49:08 PM
DONNA CELIA testified in support of HB 22. She said that she is
a herd share member at Cottonwood Creek Farm, having learned
farming as a child. She described watching the farming industry
in Oregon die, then slowly be replaced by the organic movement.
She expressed appreciation for farming culture and noted the
popularity of farmers markets in Alaska.
1:51:20 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 22. He then announced
that HB 22 was held over.
HB 54-INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT
1:51:41 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 54, "An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive
Species Council in the Department of Fish and Game; relating to
management of invasive species; relating to invasive species
management decals; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 54(FSH).]
1:52:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 54 on behalf of the House Special Committee on Fisheries,
sponsor. She said that invasive species are those which have
the ability to cause harm, and noted that Northern Pike have
negatively affected the salmon runs in the Matanuska-Susitna
area. She said that there needs to be a more immediate,
effective response to invasive species outbreaks, and a
challenge is access to private lands. She explained that
through working with the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership
(AKISP) it's become clear that Alaska has notably fewer problems
with invasive species than does the Lower 48. Shen then
described the Alaska Invasive Species Council (AISC) as a multi-
stakeholder group intended to facilitate government,
development, transportation, tourism, and other business types
in working together to minimize invasive species.
2:00:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted the small fiscal note attached to HB
54 and explained that with so much interest in invasive species
there will be grant funds or statutorily-designated receipts.
She discussed the establishment of the invasive species
management decals, which would be a way in which the general
public can directly support efforts to fight invasive species
without instituting a mandatory fee. She then noted the
responsibilities of the AISC and the creation of the invasive
species response fund.
2:06:44 PM
TOBIAS SCHWOERER, PhD, Research Assistant Professor, University
of Alaska Fairbanks International Artic Research Center,
presented a PowerPoint on HB 54 [hard copy included in committee
packet], titled "Batten down the hatches." He said he chose
that title because of the "storm" of more than 50,000 invasive
species in the Lower 48, costing an estimated $150 billion per
year. He said the first half of his presentation would focus on
Elodea, a dense, fast-spreading aquatic vegetation that can clog
waterways and affect fish habitats. He described how Elodea can
pile up in waterways, clogging rudders and affecting float plane
safety. One-third of flights in Alaska, he said, use an "Elodea
lake" for take-off and, as pilots are increasingly unable to use
those lakes, the economic impact is $185 per flight in
recreation loss. He presented slide 6, "Elodea's effects on
salmon," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Harmful dissolved oxygen levels
? Dense vegetation
? Predator habitat
Potentially more prey
DR. SCHWOERER said that he's developed an economic model
estimating that Elodea's annual damages to sockeye fisheries
averages $172 million per year.
2:17:00 PM
DR. SCHWOERER presented information regarding Quagga and Zebra
mussels, the damages of which are estimated at $1.5 billion per
year throughout the U.S. He characterized the mussels as
potentially having a "devastating impact" on the salmon
fisheries and aquatic resources in Alaska. He described a two-
year survey done by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and AKISP which estimated that 1,000 boats enter the
state at Beaver Creek, Alaska, yearly, 35 percent of which are
from states with mussel-infested lakes. He said the data also
showed that, while there are hundreds of inspection stations in
the Lower 48, 70 percent of the boats entering Alaska are not
inspected. It only takes one boat, he explained, to bring
invasive mussels to the state; of the 5,741 boats currently
registered in Alaska, 35 percent were previously registered in
states with Quagga and Zebra mussels. He stressed that
preventing invasive species from entering the state is the most
cost-effective way to keep Alaska's waterways clean.
2:24:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether there is a way to tell how
long a mussel can appear dead but still multiply when
reintroduced to fresh water.
DR. SCHWOERER replied that the larva can survive long trips in
water remaining in the boat.
2:26:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that several states don't seem to
have the invasive mussels and asked Dr. Schwoerer why that is.
DR. SCHWOERER responded that mussels could eventually make their
way to those locations.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked how far north Elodea can survive.
DR. SCHWOERER explained that the latest models estimate that
Elodea can survive into the lower Brooks Range and the Yukon
River Watershed.
2:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how long it would take Elodea to
repopulate after eradication from a lake.
DR. SCHWOERER responded that Elodea has, up to this point, been
able to reproduce only to fragments instead of to female and
male plants, so it cannot have a seed bank in a lake. He
described maintaining a low concentration of herbicides in the
lakes as being effective in eradication.
2:31:06 PM
LISA KA'AIHUE, Chair, Alaska Invasive Species Partnership
(AKISP), presented a PowerPoint on HB 54 [hard copy included in
committee packet] and began with slide 1, "Alaska Invasive
Species Partnership," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The AKISP is an informal affiliation of interested
individuals representing agencies, organizations, and
members of the public.
Our goal is to heighten awareness of the problems
associated with non-native invasive species and to
bring about greater statewide coordination,
cooperation and action to halt the introduction and
spread of these invasive species.
MS. KA'AIHUE explained that the AKISP depends on volunteers to
push back against invasive species, which is why it supports
this proposed legislation; the coordination of resources and
efforts through the Alaska Invasive Species Council proposed
under HB 54 would ensure efficient use of resources across
governmental departments, with a high probability of success.
She stressed that prevention is the best strategy, and having a
rapid response fund as proposed under HB 54 increases the
likelihood of successful eradication of invasive species.
2:38:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked about members of the board on the
AKISP.
MS. KA'AIHUE replied that members are from various governmental
organizations, as well as the Tyonek Tribal Conservation
District, Metlakatla Indian Community, Homer Soil and Water
Conservation District, Kenai Watershed Forum, and the Prince
William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council.
2:39:16 PM
DANIELLE VERNA, Environmental Monitoring Program Manager, Prince
William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (PWSRCAC),
testified in support of HB 54. She noted that the PWSRCAC
promotes the environmentally-safe operation of the Valdez Marine
Terminal and associated tankers. Member organizations are the
18 communities in the area affected by the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, as well as fishing, aquaculture, Alaska Native, tourism,
and environmental groups. She expressed that the PWSRCAC sees
HB 54 and its proposed creation of the Alaska Invasive Species
Council as an important step towards collaboratively addressing
invasive species prevention and management, and recognizes that
the continually evolving threat of invasive species makes a
rapid response fund necessary.
2:43:13 PM
TAMMY DAVIS, Invasive Species Program Coordinator, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), presented a PowerPoint on HB
54 [hard copy included in the committee packet], titled
"Department of Fish and Game Invasive Species Program Report:
2021." She presented slide 2, "Invasive Species Costs," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Environmental damage through competition, predation,
competition, new pathogen introductions and habitat
alterations which result in
? Destruction of fisheries
? Degradation of habitats
? Reduction of biodiversity
? Alteration of food webs
? Economic impacts:
? Reduction or elimination of commercially important
species
? Alteration of water quality, water regimes and
availability
? Obstruction of transportation routes,
? Fouled infrastructure affecting harbors, docks,
hydropower, industrial pipelines,
Restriction or reduction of recreational and
commercial opportunities
? Reduction of property values
MS. DAVIS presented slide 3, "Invasive Species," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Invasive Species: a species that has been introduced
to an environment where it is non-native, or alien,
and whose introduction causes environmental or
economic damage or harm to human health.
? Examples in Alaska: Northern pike in Southcentral,
Elodea in many state waters
ADF&G strives for
? Collaboration & Partnership with state, federal,
tribal and local governmental entities, universities,
local organizations, the Alaska Invasive Species
Partnership, and western region and statewide invasive
species consortiums.
? Active partnership with DNR on elodea prevention,
outreach, detection, response and control.
? Management & Control: Northern pike suppression,
eradication and research.
? Containment & Research: Colonial tunicate in-water
control , northern pike movement and eDNA.
Support of community-based early detection citizen
science: European green crab, tunicates, fouling spp.
? Outreach and communication with stakeholders:
anglers, boaters/boat owners, pilots, pet trade and
pet owners, industry, public.
? Reporting: Online reporting tool, hotline and
database.
? Strategic planning: Programmatic and multi-agency.
? Evaluation of existing statutory and regulatory
authorities.
MS. DAVIS described slide 4, "Timeline of Invasive Species
Events," which illustrated that the number and diversity of
invasive species have more than doubled in the past 11 years
compared to the past 40 years. She explained that as global
transportation expands, invasive species are expected to become
even more of a problem, with prevention, detection, and rapid
response intervention crucial in mitigating the damage.
2:48:45 PM
MS. DAVIS presented slide 5, "NORTHERN PIKE," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
ADF&G's Pike Control Program has cost over $5M to date
Response:
? Invasive Pike Program
? Monitoring
? Research
? Suppression
? Eradication
? 23 waterbodies in SC
Goals:
Containment
? Prevent Spread
? Restore Fisheries
MS. DAVIS explained that Northern Pike is the species of most
concern to ADF&G; response actions differ based on what's
possible in different waters, and the fish are more easily
eradicated from bodies of water that are more easily accessible.
She then presented slide 6, "Dvex," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Response:
? Removal of infested infrastructure
? Delineation surveys
? Outreach to stakeholders and community
? Research in situ control and containment
Goals:
? Continue to survey
? Containment
MS. DAVIS presented slide 7, "MUSKELLUNGE," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Response:
? Rotenone Treatment (October 2018)
Goals:
? Eradicate the population to prevent spread
Presence was not public knowledge until after
eradicated.
MS. DAVIS explained that Muskellunge were illegally released in
2012 and, like Northern Pike, are harmful to native salmon
populations. She then continued on to slide 8, "LARGEMOUTH
BASS," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Response:
? Media attention (2018)
? Contacted bass biologists ( 2018)
? Surveys (Nets, Traps, Hook and Line) (2018)
? How did they get here?
? eDNA (Fall 2019)
Goals:
? Look for evidence of a reproducing population
MS. DAVIS said that Largemouth Bass are "voracious predators"
and one of the top 10 invasive fish in the world. She then
presented slide 9, "FATHEAD MINNOWS," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Response:
? Pathology Analysis
? Detected a harmful parasite
? Minnow Trapping (2018-2019)
? Draining/Rotenone Treatment (July 2019)
? Continue monitoring
Goals:
? Eradicate the population to prevent spread
MS. DAVIS continued on to slide 10, "GOLDFISH," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Response:
? Electroshocking (2018)
? Netting/ Trapping (2019)
? Pathology Analysis (2019)
? Emergency Exemption Permit (2019)
? Flow diversion/ Rotenone Treatment (July 2019)
Goals:
? Eradicate the population to prevent spread
MS. DAVIS noted that manual methods for controlling the goldfish
problem were ineffective, so pesticides were used and over
10,000 goldfish were removed. She then presented slide 11,
"RAINBOW TROUT," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Response:
? Survey (2019)
? Netting (2020)
? Pathology analysis (2020)
? Law enforcement citation
? Under-ice gillnetting
Goals:
? Eradicate the population to prevent spread
In 2019, 144 rainbow trout were illegally imported
from a hatchery in Oregon and then illegally released
into a closed lake on the Kenai Peninsula.
MS. DAVIS noted that there is a hotline for invasive species
reporting, with information shared among organizations
statewide.
2:55:34 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 54. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
2:55:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked why the rainbow trout was brought
into Alaska.
MS. DAVIS responded that she doesn't know why the fish were
imported and said, "Based on the fact that they were cited, one
might assume that they were aware that it was not a legal
practice."
2:57:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked, "What exactly does a rainbow trout
do that's bad? I thought that rainbow trouts were highly
sought-after game fish and I'm surprised to see them on the 'bad
list'."
MS. DAVIS explained that it's illegal to import live fish into
Alaska, and any fish introduced to a non-native water body could
carry pathogens and have a direct impact on the food chain.
2:58:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked if it's known whether the rainbow
trout were imported from outside the state.
MS. DAVIS replied that they were imported from a hatchery in
Oregon.
2:59:53 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 54 was held over.
3:00:22 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.