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 |
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.