Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/05/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB290 | |
| HB365 | |
| HB312 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 365
"An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control
of, aquatic invasive species."
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 365, Work Draft 27-LS1439\B (Bullard,
4/5/12).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, explained
the changes included in the CS. The word "marine" was
removed from "marine aquatic invasive species" throughout
the legislation.
Mr. Michel observed that the committee substitute removed
the language in section (f) CSHB 365(RES):
In this section, "marine aquatic invasive species"
means an organism introduced to a marine ecosystem to
which it is not native and whose introduction causes,
or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm
or harm to human health."
Mr. Michel explained that the above language was replaced
with the original section (f) as contained in HB 365:
(f) In this section, "aquatic invasive species" means
an organism introduced to a marine or freshwater
ecosystem to which it is not native and whose
introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic
or environmental harm or harm to human health.
Mr. Michel noted that the committee substitute also added a
new section G:
In this section, "aquatic invasive species" means an
organism introduced to a marine or freshwater
ecosystem to which it is not native and whose
introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic
or environmental harm or harm to human health.
Mr. Michel clarified that the changes were made in
consultation with the Department of Fish and Game.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 27-LS1439\B was ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, spoke in support of
the legislation and observed that HB 365 provided rapid
response to prevent infestations of invasive species from
spreading. The bill allowed the department to aggressively
target new invasive species.
2:53:27 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed the committee's support for
expansion of the legislation reflected in the CS.
BEN MULLIGAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, explained that the inclusion of fresh water
ecosystems would not diminish the department's ability to
perform marine ecosystem mitigation.
Representative Gara asked for a letter from the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG) to address his concern. He cited
Page 2, Subsection (f) of the CS:
(f) In responding under (b) of this section to the
occurrence of freshwater aquatic invasive species, the
department shall respond in a manner determined to
cause the least harm to noninvasive resident fish
populations in that limited or isolated geographic
area that are used for recreational, personal use,
commercial, or subsistence purposes.
Representative Gara worried that the language "compelled"
the department's use of chemical eradication even if the
harm outweighed the benefit. Mr. Mulligan observed that the
section of the bill that related to the response plan [Page
1, Subsection (b)] used the word "may." He concluded that
the department was not forced into using chemicals. He
indicated that Subsection (f) directed the department to
consider the appropriate response. He exemplified Alexander
Creek; a location DFG was currently performing Pike
eradication. In an effort to rebound the resident Chinook
and Coho salmon population the department employed non-
chemical methods to eradicate the Pike.
Representative Gara understood the intent of the
legislation but wanted assurances that the department would
not feel "compelled" to employ chemical measures.
Representative Joule thought that the language allowed the
department to "scale back" use.
Representative Seaton clarified that Subsection (f) related
only to fresh water aquatic invasive species. He noted the
language directed DFG to employ the method that caused "the
least amount of harm." He cited Subsection (d):
(d) Rapid response to, and management of, an aquatic
invasive species in a limited or isolated geographic
area under (b) of this section shall be given priority
over activities regulated by the department in that
limited or isolated geographic area.
Representative Seaton further clarified that Subsection (d)
granted rapid response of invasive species a priority in
marine or freshwater ecosystems. He stated that
establishing the priority was the intent of the CS.
2:57:57 PM
Co-Chair Thomas asked whether the use of felt waders were
prohibited. Mr. Mulligan affirmed and reported that the
prohibition was in response to concerns of whirling disease
migrating to Alaska. He added that the department engaged
in outreach to notify the public.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, sponsored by
all members of the House Finance Committee.
Amendment 1
Page 1 line 8 delete [in limited or isolated
geographic areas.] Page 1 line 13 &14 delete [in
limited or isolated area] Page 2 line 3 & 4 delete [in
a limited or isolated geographic area] Page 2 line 9 &
10 delete [in a limited or isolated geographic area]
Page 2 line 17 delete [in a limited or isolated
geographic area] Page 2 line 20 delete [resident]
Co-Chair Thomas OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Mulligan spoke to the amendment. He explained that the
amendment granted the department more leeway for future
planning. After discussions with DFG staff it was
determined that the language "in a limited or isolated
geographic area" was limiting. Sometimes invasive species
such as Pike, resided in drainages or other types of water
bodies. In developing a mitigation plan elimination of the
language allowed the department to broaden the scope to
include areas such as drainages. Planning would still occur
in geographically isolated areas, e.g., lakes.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the deletion of the
language kept the possibilities open for future private
foundation funding, federal receipts, and money from other
sources that the department might qualify for with the
broader definition. Mr. Mulligan affirmed. In addition, he
confirmed with the attorney general that DFG and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) were held harmless
for rapid response occurrences in mariculture sites with
regard to the elimination of the language.
Mr. Mulligan related that the deletion of the word,
"resident" in Subsection (f), in amendment 1, left the
phrase "noninvasive fish population." The phrase included
the anadromous fish population e.g., salmon and steelhead
and broadened the provision.
Co-Chair Thomas WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:02:39 PM
Representative Seaton reiterated his support for the
amendment and the CS version of the legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes. She
observed that there were two indeterminate fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed support for supplemental funding
if necessary. He wanted the department to have the ability
to react to a crisis or avert a problem.
Representative Guttenberg compared the funding to forest
fire fighting and felt that indeterminate fiscal notes were
appropriate.
Mr. Mulligan noted that existing funds were used along with
outreach to the federal government (United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, $90,000) for mitigation of a previous
outbreak of Dvex [tunicate Didemnum vexillum]. Additionally,
the department requested $500,000 in the capital budget to
complete the Dvex eradication.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that there were five fiscal
notes: three previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1
(DEC), FN2 (DEC), FN3 (DHSS) and two new fiscal impact
notes from the Department of Fish and Game in the amount of
$489.2 thousand for FY 2013 and $341.6 thousand in FY 2014
and the Department of Natural Resources in the amount of
$84.2 thousand for FY 2013 and indeterminate through 2018.
3:07:28 PM
Mr. Mulligan observed that the new DFG fiscal note total of
$830,800 saved the state money compared to the original
fiscal note costing $1.2 million.
Representative Doogan asked why the new DFG sport fisheries
fiscal note was indeterminate in the out years beginning in
FY 2015. Mr. Mulligan explained that the out years
expenditures were indeterminate due to the fact that it was
impossible to predict future occurrences and the costs to
mitigate them.
Representative Doogan surmised that the fiscal note funding
set up the development of the plan [Invasive Species Action
Plan] and did not fund a response to an outbreak. Mr.
Mulligan affirmed the statement.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 365(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 365(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes
from the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of
Natural Resources and previously published zero fiscal
notes: FN1 (DEC), FN2 (DEC), FN3 (DHSS).
3:10:13 PM
AT EASE
3:11:36 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB286 Port MacKenzieHFINapr5b2012.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB_312_(FIN)_Sponsor_Statement.docx |
HFIN 4/5/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB312 CS WORKDRAFT 27-LS1301-E.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 312 |
| HB 290 Changes from Version E to Version R.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB290 CS WORKDRAFT 27-LS1094-R.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB365 CS WORKDRAFT 27-LS1439-B.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365 AMENDMENT 1 NEW.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 365 |