Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB361 | |
| HB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 361 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 89
"An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control
of, aquatic invasive species and establishing the
aquatic invasive species response fund."
9:27:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill. He discussed the threat elodea was
posing to the state's aquatic environment. The plant was
responsible for overrunning salmon and arctic grayling
habitat and was impacting areas such as Sand Lake in
Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, and the Chena
Slough. He stated that once invasive species established
themselves they were almost impossible to eradicate. He
pointed to other invasive species the state was working to
control including pike and a tunicate called "Dvex" located
in the Sitka area. The invasive tunicate smothered existing
substrate and could impact commercial and sport fisheries,
hard shell clams and herring. Other potential threats were
traveling up the West Coast in green crab, quahog, and
zebra mussels. He believed damages associated with invasive
species cost the U.S. approximately $120 billion per year.
The state had spent $28 million since 2007 through
governmental and nongovernmental agencies in its efforts to
limit the expansion of some of the invasive species.
Representative Seaton explained that the purpose of the
bill was to implement a plan to quickly address newly
invasive species before they became established. The state
did not currently have plans in place; it had taken four
years to develop a program to work on eradicating Dvex. The
state had been lucky that the tunicate was a slowly
expanding invasive species. The bill would give state
agencies the authority to act, responsibility to
coordinate, and to prioritize actions. Additionally, the
legislation established a response fund; there was no money
to put into the fund. The fund could only be used for
responses to invasive species. The bill also provided that
private property holders would work with Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
in the construction of development plans. The legislation
gave the priority for addressing an incipient population in
localized areas. For example, there was a problem in the
Sitka area where an aquatic farm was located, which
prompted the question of how to deal with private property.
The bill would hold the state harmless when responding
under a plan for control of an invasive species.
9:32:08 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze shared that the Mat-Su Borough Fish and
Game Advisory Commission had endorsed the bill. He asked if
the sponsor viewed the group as credible. Representative
Seaton replied in the affirmative. The bill had also
received support from the Wasilla Soil and Water
Conservation District and others. He referred to letters of
support in members' packets (copy on file).
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that at least two members on the
Mat-Su Fish and Game Advisory Commission were career
biologists (Larry Engel and Howard Delo). He spoke to the
members' expertise in fisheries issues. Vice-Chair Neuman
noted that the two members were statewide biologists.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that there had been some
personalized attacks against the commission in the past. He
took the opportunity to help set the record straight. He
supported the legislation.
9:34:20 AM
Representative Costello asked for confirmation that the
bill did not direct a specific method of eradication. She
believed the bill allowed soil and water conservation
districts and communities to make decisions on how to
address eradication.
Representative Seaton replied that the bill did not direct
the eradication method. The legislation acted as a planning
document that enabled agencies and private parties such as
soil and water conservation districts to have a seat at the
table when deciding on eradication methods. The approach
would depend on the area and the species. The development
of a plan would allow rapid response; without rapid
response the state would be perpetually in control-mode,
which was costly.
Representative Wilson asked about the private property
provision. She understood that DFG would take care of the
invasive species. She asked for clarification about the
destruction of private property.
Representative Seaton answered that the item was intended
to address issues like the aquatic farm in Sitka. There had
been a one-year delay while DFG worked to determine if it
could be sued for destroying the species located on the
aquatic farm nets if any shellfish was lost. The bill would
require DNR to include a provision in future permits that
in the event an invasive species was present in an aquatic
farm (or other) that the state would not be responsible for
loss that may occur on the farm when working to control the
species. The language would be included in the permit so a
permit holder would know upfront. He provided an example of
an elodea outbreak; if the state drained a small lake it
would prevent individuals from claiming that the method of
eradication harmed them. The plans would all be developed
ahead of time; the public and soil and water conservation
districts would be at the table when plans were developed.
9:38:02 AM
Representative Wilson wondered if DFG could drain a lake on
private property if it may contain an invasive species. She
supported the legislation, but she wanted to ensure that
the state could not take action on private property without
permission from the landowner. She had no problem with
including provisions in permits related to specific items
in waters.
Representative Seaton had not been speaking about private
property. He provided an example of elodea on the Kenai
Peninsula where people may have docks. The consequence of
not addressing the problem could mean an expense of
millions of dollars and a significant impact on salmon
habitat. He deferred the question to the department for
further detail.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the state would
not be intruding on private property and potentially
causing destruction without any liability.
Vice-Chair Neuman discussed various ways invasive species
could be spread (e.g. water fowl, planes, and other). He
noted that the committee could hear from the department
after public testimony.
9:40:28 AM
GINO GRAZIANO, COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND ALASKA
COMMITTEE FOR NOXIOUS INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He spoke to his professional background and
thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He believed the
legislation helped ensure the state's long-term commitment
to invasive species issues. He supported that the bill
would establish a plan for aquatic invasive species
management and would push state agencies to work together
on the development of plans as issues arose. He appreciated
that the bill included language to utilize methods of least
harm and addressed resources on private property. He
believed establishing a fund would be a great step forward.
In the past, studies by the Institute of Social and
Economic Research showed that the state had not put forth
as many funds towards invasive species management as other
entities. He believed the state's contribution had been 5
percent per year from 2007 to 2011. He stressed that state
funds could help secure federal funding and to eradicate
the species before it became too expensive to deal with the
problems and before resources were lost.
9:43:05 AM
MARCUS MUELLER, LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICER, KENAI PENINSULA
BOROUGH, KENAI (via teleconference), testified in favor of
the bill. He believed the bill was timely and would be
increasingly important for the state. He relayed that
aquatic invasive species had the potential to significantly
disrupt systems that Alaskans relied on. Additionally, the
species presented broad threats economically and to the
state's natural resources. He communicated that the bill's
rapid response element protected the state's natural
resources; rapid response provided the best chance of
developing an effective way to deal with biological
invasive species. He detailed that acting quickly minimized
impacts and increased the overall odds for containment or
eradication. He noted that an ounce of prevention was worth
a pound of cure. He believed a cure could become very
costly. He stated that the bill appropriately called for
planning and coordination.
Mr. Mueller discussed that the Kenai Peninsula Borough was
an example of the impact aquatic invasive species could
have. He pointed to the value of rapid response when
dealing with invasive species such as northern pike,
elodea, and reed canary grass. He detailed that elodea was
currently being addressed through cooperative effort
between DFG, the borough, and the Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge. He shared that the species impacted multiple lakes
in the area. He relayed that residents were taking the
issue seriously and wanted to protect lakes, just as
mariculture growers would want to protect their businesses.
The bill would also prohibit the sale of elodea. He stated
that elodea provided a case-study that showed the aspects
of the bill could be implemented in a smart and strategic
way. He pointed to the pattern of invasive species
including detection, spread, degradation of a system, and
loss of native species and other resources. He stressed the
importance of early detection and rapid response. The bill
was important to protecting coastal and marine waters in
Alaska and provided a fiscally responsible response to
protecting the state's resources.
9:47:01 AM
JONI SCHARGENBERG, FAIRBANKS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, CHENA SLOUGH, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
spoke in favor of the legislation. She pointed to
substantial private landowner support particularly along
the Chena Slough where landowners had been negatively
impacted by the growth and spread of elodea. The water
conservation district believed it was important for the
state to establish and fund a rapid response and management
plan to address the invasive aquatic species. She
communicated that worldwide, elodea had impeded
navigability of waters and lakes, making fisheries
problematic; it could negatively impact salmon, grayling
and other spawning habitat. The elodea infestation had
dramatically increased since its discovery several years
earlier; the plant was currently several feet thick in some
areas, which made control and eradication much more
difficult. She stressed that a rapid response management
could have slowed the problem; a plan was needed to address
current and new infestations. She stated that if left
unchecked elodea could cause colonize additional sloughs
and could be spread by floatplanes to lakes across the
state. Additionally, over $100,000 in private and federal
funds had been spent in the study and eradication efforts
of elodea. She believed additional cost sharing would be
available if the state passed the legislation. She urged
the committee to pass the legislation.
Representative Wilson thanked Ms. Schargenberg for her
work. She spoke in support of the legislation.
9:50:11 AM
ADITI SHENOY, FAIRBANKS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in strong support
of the legislation. She spoke to the organization's efforts
to control elodea in the Chena slough. She shared that
elodea was an aquatic invasive species that was of great
concern in Interior Alaska. She detailed that the plant
grew rapidly forming dense mats, which impacted stream
flow, degraded fish spawning habitat, and created
impediments to the safe operation of boats and float
planes. She believed elodea could spread to major waterways
including the Tanana and Yukon Rivers if the state did not
act quickly. She spoke to the importance of rapid response
and early intervention to control invasive aquatics in
order to protect Alaska's fisheries and recreational
resources.
9:52:10 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Gara thanked Representative Seaton and his
staff for their preparedness.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the state would
not trump private property ownership.
CHARLES SWANTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, replied in the affirmative. He
relayed that the department would work with property owners
and would take risk and other items into consideration when
determining treatment methods. He confirmed that private
property owners would be heavily consulted.
Representative Wilson pointed to language in the sponsor
statement (copy on file) spoke to her concern that the
private property owner "shall be considered," but still
allowed responding agencies to be held harmless for damages
caused by invasive species treatment. She discussed
business owners conducting business in Alaskan waters
versus private property owners.
Mr. Swanton used the tunicates in Whiting Harbor as an
example. He detailed that the tunicates had been attached
to anchor line and ropes. He believed the sponsor's intent
was to address other similar situations where the means to
remove the threat had been to remove the docks, running
lines, and other from the harbor. He explained that it had
taken the state time to contact the owner and to receive
permission. He relayed that it was difficult to address
access. The state would not march forward without
consideration and consultation with a private property
owner depending on the situation.
9:56:45 AM
Representative Wilson spoke to her experience with
agencies. She believed that in some cases agencies
consulted with individuals, but at the end of the day they
felt they could move forward. She did not feel like
consulting private property owners was enough. She was
concerned about the language.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that there were also questions on
the fiscal note. He asked DFG to provide scenarios related
to how the bill would work for private properties. He asked
how the weeds were spread (e.g. float planes, birds, and
other). Mr. Swanton replied that it depended on the species
and the location. Items mentioned by Vice-Chair Neuman were
factors in the spread of elodea.
Vice-Chair Neuman wondered if the same could be said for
pike eggs. Mr. Swanton replied that it depended on the time
of year. The potential existed but he did not know about
the probability. He detailed that pike eggs were adhesive
and were laid in shallow water. He believed there were all
types of factors out there. He did not have the hard facts
about a duck carrying pike eggs to another lake.
10:00:39 AM
Representative Gara wanted to ensure the minimization of
damage to non-invasive species. He pointed to the bill
language that required the department to respond in a
manner to cause the least harm to non-invasive fish
populations (page 2, line 22). He imagined a scenario where
there were two approaches available that both caused some
level of harm to non-invasive species. He believed the bill
language required the department to respond even if the
response would harm the non-invasive species. He wanted the
bill to provide the option for no response in the event
that damage to the fish population was greater than the
damage caused by the invasive species.
Mr. Swanton read from the bill that "the department shall
respond in a manner determined to cause the least harm to
non-invasive fish populations." He believed that it would
be incumbent upon the departments to look for the least
harmful approach.
Vice-Chair Neuman made a remark about herbicides.
Representative Gara understood that the bill would require
the departments to use the least harmful method. However,
he wondered what the state would do if all of the options
were harmful. He wanted to provide the departments with the
ability to not act if the harm to fisheries was greater
than that caused by an invasive species.
Mr. Swanton believed the idea was reasonable.
Representative Gara would work with the sponsor on the
language.
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked that there were many ways to
eradicate invasive species (e.g. herbicides, mechanical
means, and other). He discussed that the bill would be
heard at a future meeting.