Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
04/10/2015 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 | |
| HB38 | |
| HJR20 | |
| HJR24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 38-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
1:05:23 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 38, "An Act relating to the rapid response to,
and control of, aquatic invasive species and establishing the
aquatic invasive species response fund."
1:05:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 29-LS0226\H, Bullard, 4/2/15, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version H was
before committee.
1:06:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, sponsor, introduced HB 38, explaining
that the bill addresses aquatic invasive species and trying to
alleviate the problems being seen in Alaska. Aquatic invasive
species are non-native animals and plants whose introduction
causes economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
Invasive species can spread very rapidly, becoming impossible or
costly to control. Alaska spends about $6 million annually on
fighting invasives and nationwide $120 billion is spent
annually.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON began a PowerPoint presentation, defining
invasive organisms as non-native, aggressive, and likely to
cause harm (slide 1). An invasive currently in Alaska (slide 2)
is Didemnum vexillum (Dvex), also known as sea vomit. It is
near Sitka and is actually an animal, a colonial tunicate, but
looks like a plant that grows over everything. Elodea, often
seen in aquariums, is another invasive in Alaska. Another is
northern pike in Southcentral Alaska. Pike are causing massive
losses of salmon in the Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula
areas. Turning to slide 3, he said invasive species that could
come to Alaska in the future and cause problems include the
European green crab, which is currently 200 miles south of
Ketchikan, zebra mussels, mud snails, Atlantic salmon, and a
number of tunicates.
1:08:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON addressed the rapid growth of Dvex in
Whiting Harbor near Sitka (slide 4). He displayed photographs
taken 10 weeks apart to show how quickly the tunicate grew
during that length of time. He projected an aerial photograph
of Whiting Harbor (slide 5) then moved to a photograph of the
sac roe herring fishery (slide 6) to depict why Dvex in Whiting
Harbor is so detrimental. Boats pulling in the herring roe on
seaweed could pull in Dvex if it is there, he explained, which
would then be pumped into tenders and because the tenders do
their processing in many ports around Alaska the Dvex could be
widely spread (slide 7). This is why these invasives must be
stopped when they first start, he stressed. Moving to slide 8
he pointed out that other methods of spreading invasives include
fishing boats, ballast water, sport boats, and tsunami debris.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that northern pike (slide 9) are
actually native in most of Alaska, but not Southcentral Alaska.
When introduced the pike cause a big problem by eating salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reviewed how fast zebra mussels have
spread (slides 10-16) between the years 1986 and 2011. In 1986
zebra mussels were found in two small spots, but by 2011 they
had gone all the way down the Mississippi River and spread to
the West Coast. Zebra mussels cost billions of dollars because
they clog up water intakes for industrial plants. So far Alaska
is the only state not affected by zebra mussels.
1:11:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the graph on slide 17 depicting
a typical species invasion curve, explaining that what the
sponsors are trying to do with HB 38 is seen at the bottom left
of the curve. When an invasive species is first found it takes
very little money and effort, relatively, to control it, but
once the species begins its steep spread it is almost impossible
to get stopped. After it has spread it will cost lots of money
to control and will never be eradicated.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said HB 38 would prioritize the invasive
species action over other department-controlled activities. For
example, if the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has a
fishery such as sea urchins or sea cucumbers, it means that if
ADF&G is going to eradicate the species in this much localized
area, then that will have priority. The bill authorizes
utilization of a variety of tools, including biological chemical
means. It would coordinate among other state departments. For
mariculture leases the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
would be required to include [hold harmless] language for the
control of any invasives brought in by the mariculture
operation. The bill would also require notice to consumers and
to private property owners that this is an issue to be aware of.
The bill would also create a response fund, but that fund is not
created here.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON specified that the difference between
Version H and the bill as introduced is the original bill had a
requirement that the plans be put in place, which is a fiscal
note issue. Version H requires the departments to coordinate,
control, and make plans, but it doesn't require them to do that
on any certain timetable and there won't be anything separate to
fund.
1:14:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted he likes this bill which he has
cosponsored, but asked whether Representative Seaton is
comfortable with the guidelines on page 1, subsection (b), in
that the agency would know when to back off the suspension of
the laws.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied he believes so and said the
emergency orders only last for a short period of time. The
quarantine ability is currently with DNR and previous efforts
stimulated DNR to quarantine Elodea, disallowing the sale or
distribution of Elodea. The environmental law section will have
public contact and will ensure coordination of these pre-plans
with the public.
1:15:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON drew attention to page 2, subsection
(e), and asked whether this provision is overly broad and should
there be some remedy for private property owners who feel they
have been harmed in some way.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded this issue came up with the Dvex
in Sitka when a mariculture farm brought up the Dvex in some of
its facilities. The response was delayed two years while the
department tried to determine whether in doing anything with
this farm that it authorized through a permit and mariculture
lease, the department would be "liable for what they've done."
This provision is really appropriate, he said. For example,
"what happens in the Department of Agriculture is if you have an
invasive weed and you're a farmer, they do the plan and you as
the farmer are responsible for carrying out the plan, paying for
the getting rid of that invasive weed." He said he thinks it is
a much more contained situation here. The bill is just saying
that when someone asks for a state mariculture lease or tideland
lease, if an invasive species occurs there [the state] can come
in and control that without having to wait years going through
court. He said he is comfortable with this provision.
1:18:23 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER opened public testimony on HB 38. He noted
that any written testimony will be entered into the record.
1:19:43 PM
JONI SCHARFENBERG, District Coordinator, Fairbanks Soil & Water
Conservation District, supported HB 38, stating that a goal of
the Fairbanks Soil & Water Conservation District is to control
and eradicate invasive species. A local example for which the
bill would be helpful is Elodea. In 2010 this highly
aggressive, aquatic invasive plant was found in the North
Pole/Fairbanks area. Elodea destroys natural habitat for fish,
displaces native vegetation, and impacts recreational use. But,
not until this spring was there a draft state management plan in
place for Elodea. Meanwhile, despite efforts by the district
and its partners to stop the spread of Elodea, it has traveled
to the Chena River, has been found in Chena lakes, and all of
that leads on into important fish habitat in the Yukon and
Tanana drainages. Elodea is now found across the state. She
urged that HB 38 [be passed] for the immediate eradication or
stopping the spread of Elodea. Cordova's waterways are
overflowing with Elodea and have been for some years, but
nothing is happening. She posed a scenario of two dandelions in
a lawn, noting that the eradication program would be to pluck
them. However, a lawn filled with dandelions will require much
more time and expense for eradication. This is also the way it
works with invasives, she pointed out. Getting a handle on
Elodea requires the state's authority and backing.
1:21:48 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER closed public testimony after ascertaining
that no one else wished to testify.
1:22:11 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER opened committee discussion on HB 38. He
noted that the bill as introduced had three fiscal notes, two of
which were zero. He requested confirmation that the fiscal
notes will continue to be zero.
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), confirmed
Version H would still have a zero fiscal note from her division.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER stated the bill as introduced included one
fiscal note for the Division of Sport Fish that would have spent
money. He requested the division to comment on the Version H
fiscal note.
TOM BROOKOVER, Acting Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), replied he anticipates his
division's fiscal note is now zero for Version H and that it
would be covered under the division's normal budget.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER specified that if the bill passes out of the
House Resources Standing Committee it will have two attached
zero fiscal notes and one forthcoming zero fiscal note.
1:25:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said there is a fine balance with this
kind of bill. He noted his district has a float plane lake and
his concern is that planes will be able to continue using that
lake without having to do a secondary landing to clean off their
floats. Saying he doesn't want any impingement on the ability
of people flying around the state, he inquired whether anything
in HB 38 would prohibit or cause grief for those people flying
around the state and maybe unknowingly transporting an invasive
species.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he worries much more about that kind
of thing where there is a quarantined plant and someone with a
float plane spreading that around the state, which possibly
could be a liability to that person. The purpose of HB 38 is to
get rid of that invasive species as it occurs, when it is an
incipient population. Nothing in the bill would do what is
being mentioned by Representative Johnson on any kind of a
permanent basis. Right now there are controls for Elodea at
Stormy Lake and Daniels Lake on the Kenai Peninsula and his
understanding is that it has not interfered with any of the
property owners or plane operators; it is being done over the
winter. Without some kind of control, he said he could
anticipate that something would happen where a lake might not be
able to be used if it gets highly infected with Elodea. The
purpose of the bill is to have plans in place so that invasives
are tackled when they first occur because nothing can be done
after an invasive has become endemic.
1:28:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that in a Matanuska-Susitna lake
there was use of a fertilizer that enriched the water and
doubled the proliferation of [Elodea]. He asked whether
anything in HB 38 would prevent people from fertilizing their
yards.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered he is not aware of anything, but
allowed he hasn't had any discussion on somebody using
fertilizer. He explained that the bill addresses an incipient
population and establishing a plan to control it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted he has spent quite a bit of time on
invasive species and has heard most of the arguments for many
years. He said he wants to ensure, with each bill, that it is
clear what a bill does and doesn't do, and he wants to make
certain nothing is being done that he would find objectionable.
1:29:27 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER requested additional clarity from department
representatives regarding Representative Johnson's concerns.
FRANCI HAVEMEISTER, Director, Division of Agriculture,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), replied she is not
concerned that HB 38 will put any additional requirements on
landowners and users of lakes or will ban the use of fertilizer
in lakes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested Ms. Havemeister to address the
float plane issue.
MS. HAVEMEISTER responded that the Division of Agriculture did
put a quarantine in place last spring for Elodea, but in no
means does the quarantine impact a float plane owner's use and
ability to fly around a lake. It quarantines the sale and the
transfer of Elodea, the division intentionally did not include
float plane use. The division did extensive outreach to the
float plane community to let them know of Elodea in the area and
ways that they can potentially mitigate that risk from
transferring.
MR. BROOKOVER said his response is similar to Ms. Havemeister's.
He specified he doesn't foresee effects from the bill, for
example, on a landowner's use of fertilizer. He said he looks
at, primarily, provision (a) and directing the activity on
controlling the occurrence of, or eradication of, a particular
species directly and he therefore does not see that type of
unintended consequence. He said he defers to the Division of
Agriculture in regard to the float plane issue.
1:32:13 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER requested Ms. Floyd to respond to the concerns
of Representative Johnson.
MS. FLOYD answered that her division doesn't see any unintended
consequences either. She said her division would suggest that
the bill be amended to address terrestrial invasive species as
well as aquatic invasives. As currently written, she explained,
the statute requires a permit if an agency is going to apply
pesticide on two or more private properties. That ties the
hands of the soil and water conservation districts, other
community organizations, and local governments from addressing
terrestrial invasives in a timely manner in their area. The
division therefore suggests a statute change to also allow for
terrestrials.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER noted bills are often written to be limited in
scope. He requested a response to Ms. Floyd's suggestion that
the bill be expanded to include terrestrial invasives.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied it is a broader topic that he
hasn't considered and therefore is leery at this time to jump in
and apply it to land invasives. While HB 38 requires other
departments to cooperate with ADF&G, and ADF&G to cooperate with
DNR, adding terrestrial species would suddenly become a lot more
related to DNR than the bill was targeted at. So, he is
uncomfortable with expanding the bill right now.
VICE CHAIR HAWKER said he is personally comfortable with a bill
that is targeted to, and limited to, aquatic species.
1:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to page 2, subsection (g),
of the bill, saying it gives him comfort for what Representative
Johnson is talking about. Subsection (g) instructs that there
be public outreach to private property owners and that a method
be selected that will have the most minimal effect on private
property while accomplishing the goal of eradication or control.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he doesn't disagree that land-based
invasive species should be addressed, but he is not prepared to
sacrifice the perfect for the good in this case. It is a
totally different issue when getting into land based due to
there being federal lands as well as Canada. He said he is
comfortable moving the bill as it is.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR supported HB 38, noting she is a botanist.
In regard to adding terrestrial species, she pointed out that
the private property issues would be a lot more significant.
Due to the nature of invasive species, she said a much better
job must be done of responding more quickly and she is therefore
supportive of the bill and moving it from committee today.
1:37:34 PM
VICE CHAIR HAWKER requested the ADF&G legislative liaison to
address the 2/5/15 fiscal note attached to the original bill
that involved some spending by the Division of Sport Fish and
its change to a zero fiscal note under Version H.
BEN MULLIGAN, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), confirmed that in working with the sponsor,
ADF&G identified the provisions that would have required the
fiscal impact, which was the rapid response management plans.
Those were taken away, leaving the action and direction
portions, and resulting in a zero fiscal note.
1:38:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report the proposed CS, Version
29-LS0226\H, Bullard, 4/2/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There
being no objection, CSHB 38(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.