Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/19/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB360 | |
| HB365 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 365-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
2:59:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 365, "An Act relating to the rapid response
to, and control of, aquatic invasive species."
2:59:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, noting HB 365 is a House Resources Standing
Committee bill, explained the impetus for the bill came from the
committee's [1/23/12] hearing on invasive species. Pictures
were shown at that hearing of Didemnum vexillum (D. vex), an
invasive species growing in Sitka's Whiting Harbor. The purpose
of HB 365 is for those times where an invasive species is found
in a limited area; it would provide Alaska's state agencies with
a tool for rapid response on an emergency basis instead of
waiting one or two years while the invasive species spreads [as
happened in Whiting Harbor]. The bill would not apply to an
infestation that is in general or has spread along coastline,
but rather to an invasive species in one limited geographic
locality that could be resolved.
3:02:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that HB 365 reads "aquatic" invasive
species, so would apply to inland waterways as well as marine
waters. However, he continued, when constructing the bill the
thought was marine aquatic and the question is whether these
emergency powers should be provided for inland waterways. For
example, [northern] pike are endemic and spreading in some areas
and the idea is not for something that has become endemic or has
spread and that would require treating a massive amount of the
environment. Rather, the objective is to treat something that
is contained in a limited area, thereby nipping it in the bud.
3:03:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON drew attention to the executive summary of the
2002 "Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan" by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) included in the
committee packet. He noted that page v of the plan talks about
developing an inter-division Alaska Invasive Species Prevention
and Response Program within ADF&G. However, instead of
emergency response capability, the plan talks about listing and
educating people ahead of time, as seen on page VI.
3:05:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, addressing the eight actions listed on
page v of the aforementioned plan, inquired whether the
following two actions have been implemented [original
punctuation provided with formatting changes]:
Prevent the spread of invasive species already
introduced into Alaska, through the identification and
closing of transport pathways.
Develop protocols for early detection, rapid response
to, control and management of new invasive species.
3:05:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON understood the plan has been shelved and not
implemented. He said the usual problem is that the departments
come to the legislature saying an emergency response cannot be
undertaken due to the lack of legislative authority to omit the
procedure of following regulations and conducting studies before
acting. He pointed out HB 365 would provide that authority for
a geographically insulated infestation. For example, HB 365
would have made stopping the D. vex infestation in Whiting
Harbor a priority and no studies would have had to be done for
how that would affect other species in the harbor. For limited
geographic areas, long-time studies allow the possibility of an
invasive species spreading and becoming endemic, creating huge
ecological and economic consequences. Mariculture in Southeast
Alaska could be rendered defunct by the spread of D. vex;
herring fisheries could be rendered defunct in bays infested
with D. vex because the invasive species could then be spread
throughout Alaska by infected herring nets. The bill would give
ADF&G and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the tools to
respond to an invasive outbreak in a limited geographic area,
such as a bay, on an emergency basis. He added that HB 365 is
not intended to require ADF&G to drop everything in a management
area to concentrate on an infested area, so a clarifying
amendment will be offered in this regard.
3:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that five fiscal notes
accompany HB 365 and two of them alone add up to $938,000. She
suggested the bill be limited to marine species to ensure its
passage, saying it is important to get a quick response to an
invasive species because it is unknown how far the D. vex from
Whiting Harbor has already traveled as a result of the lack of a
quick response.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded the aforementioned is one of two
forthcoming amendments and a third amendment clarifies that the
priority designation is only for the particular infested area
and not an entire region. Most of the problems with HB 365 come
from addressing both fresh and marine waters, he said.
3:13:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired how an ongoing emergency situation
like Whiting Harbor would be handled during the time that the
plan is being developed.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied things have to start someplace. He said
the Whiting Harbor problem was not responded to in the timely
fashion it should have been. He further thought DNR should be
required to write into mariculture leases that a contaminated
lease will not be compensated for the destruction that will need
to occur to sterilize that mariculture area.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony.
3:16:26 PM
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), noted UFA is a statewide trade association representing
37 member groups from fisheries throughout Alaska and its
offshore waters. He said UFA supports HB 365 in concept, given
its awareness of the tremendous threat of invasive marine and
inland species and the potential devastating effect on
fisheries. No other state has as much to lose from invasive
species as Alaska - it is important to have rapid response
abilities in advance of something happening, which is the basis
of UFA's support for the bill. He said UFA has supported
previous bills that would have set up an invasive species
council. It can be difficult to determine whether an issue
would be the responsibility of ADF&G or DNR, but HB 365 puts it
strongly on ADF&G. Therefore, UFA is very interested in ADF&G's
advice on how best to make this work. He thanked the committee
for introducing HB 365 and reiterated UFA's general support for
the bill's concept.
3:18:28 PM
DARCY ETCHEVERRY, Invasive Weed Specialist, Fairbanks Soil &
Water Conservation District, stated she works with the district
to coordinate management of Elodea in the Fairbanks area.
Elodea is an aquatic invasive plant with the potential to impact
Alaska's freshwater resources and fish habitat, she explained.
When introduced into freshwater systems, Elodea can restrict
flow, increase sedimentation, and damage fish habitat. The
current known distribution of Elodea in Alaska is limited to a
handful of lakes and sloughs in Anchorage, the Cordova area, and
Fairbanks, so the time to act is now.
MS. ETCHEVERRY said a coordinated effort is needed from all
state, federal, and private agencies, but so far the response
effort has been led by nonprofit and federal agencies. Support
is needed from the state agencies managing these waters to lead
this response effort. The ADF&G 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance
Species Management Plan outlines how to accomplish effective
management and adopts the following policies: develop an inter-
division Alaska invasive species prevention program; provide
leadership and coordination between state, federal,
international agencies, tribes, and non-governmental
organizations; and develop protocols for early detection and
rapid response to control and manage new invasive species. The
plan is an excellent framework to coordinate aquatic nuisance
species management in Alaska, but it appears few of these tasks
have been accomplished to date. If the plan and adopted ADF&G
policies are insufficient to facilitate early detection and
rapid response, she said she is then in favor of HB 365 to have
rapid response to aquatic invasive species entered into Alaska's
administrative code. She urged the committee to also consider
the cost of implementing any invasive species response plan and
to provide the agencies with needed resources and personnel.
She discouraged the committee from eliminating freshwater
habitats from HB 365 because freshwater invasive species can
also be detrimental to fisheries and economies.
3:21:20 PM
TRISH WURTZ, PhD, noted she is testifying as a private citizen,
but that she is a member of the Fairbanks Cooperative Weed
Management Area. She said ADF&G's 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance
Species Management Plan has excellent descriptions about what
the department planned to do to prevent the introduction of
invasive species and eradicate them as quickly as possible.
However, she reported, very little of what was described in the
plan has actually been undertaken. Of particular concern is the
invasive aquatic plant Elodea that was discovered in 2010
growing in Chena Slough near Fairbanks.
DR. WURTZ illustrated the seriousness of this discovery by
reviewing what other states have gone through with invasive
aquatic plants. Hydrilla, a close relative of Elodea, was
introduced to Florida in the 1960s and within 20 years it spread
throughout the state. Boating and swimming can no longer occur
in the worst infested lakes, nor can fishing because a line
cannot be drawn through the water. Additionally, fish cannot
survive because Hydrilla fills the lake from top to bottom. The
State of Florida now spends $20 million per year solely trying
to control Hydrilla. Learning from Florida's failure to respond
quickly, the State of Minnesota did act quickly when in fall
2007 Elodea was found growing in a single lake near Minneapolis.
Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources mapped and treated
the infestation with aquatic herbicides within two months of its
discovery. In Idaho an infestation of Hydrilla was found in
December 2007 in the Bruneau River. In three months the Idaho
Department of Agriculture treated and successfully killed the
infestation with aquatic herbicide and mechanical pulling. In
upstate New York an infestation of Hydrilla was found in August
2011 in one of the Finger Lakes. By October 2011 a coalition of
groups had worked together to treat the infestation with aquatic
herbicide and had petitioned the state legislature for $1
million to kill the infestation completely.
DR. WURTZ said the aforementioned states understand what the
term rapid response means. In contrast, since the August 2010
discovery of Elodea in the Fairbanks area, all that ADF&G has
done is to grudgingly attend a few meetings. The department
needs to get to work and demonstrate real leadership and true
rapid response in defense of Alaska's freshwater resources. She
urged the committee not to give up the freshwater component of
HB 365. She said she strongly supports the section of the bill
that says rapid response shall be given priority over other
activities of the department.
3:25:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reported that the owner of the aquatic
farm in Whiting Harbor offered to take care of the D. vex
infestation and estimated it would cost about $30,000. However,
a state or federal agency - she did not know which - forbid the
owner from doing so and now he has completely lost the farm.
She asked whether there is a way to provide that the person
involved can help with the eradication efforts.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded the rapid response is not dictated in
HB 365, but it does dictate that chemical, biological,
mechanical or physical methods, singly or in combination, can be
used in that limited geographic area. He said there is nothing
in the bill that would preclude a farm owner from doing
something. The hope is that the plan developed by ADF&G will be
inclusive enough to allow the most rapid response possible. He
reiterated that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) needs
to include in its mariculture permits the recognition that there
will not be a long court battle and an infestation in a limited
area will be taken care of right way regardless of any damage.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated a way must be found to ensure
people will not be so afraid of an invasive species being
discovered that they try to hide it; people must be willing to
quickly come forward in those cases where they have an interest.
3:30:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-
LS1439\A.1, Bullard, 3/16/12, written as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "activities of the department and
activities regulated by the department"
Insert "activities regulated by the department in
that limited or isolated geographic area"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
3:30:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about instances in which
something is discovered that is not confined to a limited area.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that an invasive species which has
become endemic or spread into many areas along the coast cannot
be eradicated by an emergency response. He reported that the
bill's original language has been misinterpreted to mean
[ADF&G's] activities and activities regulated by [ADF&G] within
an entire management area. Rather, the intent is that when an
invasive species is identified in a bay the other activities in
that bay will become secondary and emergency response can be
done to ensure the invasive species does not spread [beyond that
bay], which is what Amendment 1 attempts to accomplish.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:32:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, written
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Add "marine" before "aquatic invasive species"
throughout the bill
CO-CHAIR SEATON added that this would also apply to the language
on page [2], line 19, such that "or freshwater" would be
removed.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
3:33:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ observed the fiscal analysis includes a
freshwater species. She asked whether insertion of "marine"
would change that focus of going after freshwater plants.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied Conceptual Amendment 2 would remove that
freshwater plant, as well as pike and other freshwater species,
from the bill. He said he agrees with the people who testified
that it is necessary to address freshwater plants, but said it
may add so much weight to the bill that it will be unable to
move through the legislature because most of the fiscal note
comes from the freshwater.
3:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Co-Chair Seaton is saying
the odds of passing HB 365 will decrease if freshwater species
are not removed from the bill. She said she opposes Conceptual
Amendment 2 for the reason stated earlier by Co-Chair Seaton -
that addressing invasive species must start somewhere and this
statement would include the freshwater species.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded he would prefer to not propose the
amendment for the same reason; however, the weight of trying to
deal with the diversity of emergency regulations applying
throughout all the freshwaters of the state, along with the
fiscal note, would complicate the bill such that nothing would
be done. He said he is hoping the state will not be in the
position of having an invasive species and it being said it is
the legislature's fault for not having something in place that
could have rapidly dealt with the species. Therefore, he is
reluctantly offering the amendment because he thinks it
necessary for the bill to move.
3:37:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated that taking out the freshwater
portion misses a big point of the discussion and is bad state
policy, so he will vote against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed with Representatives Gardner and
Kawasaki, but pointed out that the freshwater portion would add
seven positions. While it is a shame it must be looked at in
this way, she said she will vote for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said the focus needs to be on the immediate
threats and the inland aquatic threats are very serious. She
added that this is one of the key issues western states are
talking about. The State of Montana has established a fund of
$10 million for responding to emergencies. She said Alaska
needs to move forward with all of the identified species and she
will therefore not vote for the amendment.
3:39:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she will support the amendment, but
she would like to consider the other part of the bill to be a
template for getting started and that the lessons learned for
how best to respond will be expanded to inland waters.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Herron, Foster,
Gardner, P. Wilson, Feige, and Seaton voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Munoz and Kawasaki
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted
by a vote of 6-2.
3:41:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE kept public testimony open and in response to
Representative Munoz said he is holding over HB 365 because he
would like to get an answer from ADF&G regarding the status of
its 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he would like to ask DNR to address a way
to enfold in its permits emergency response to invasive species
in localized areas.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested that ADF&G provide the committee
with an update of the Whiting Harbor situation.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he would like ADF&G to address how
money could be saved in the fiscal note so that both marine and
freshwater aquatic invasive species could be addressed.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 365.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0360A.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB 360 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB 360 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB360-DNR-MLW-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| IMCC Background Information.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg. Research Interstate Compacts In AK Statute.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB0365A.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Amendment A.1.PDF |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| Dvex Presentation by UAS 1.23.12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSG Capitol Ideas feature article on Aquatic Invasive Species I.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSG Capitol Ideas feature article on Aquatic Invasive Species II.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB365 UFA Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DEC-SWM-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DEC-WQ-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DFG-SFD-03-16-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DHSS-EPI-3-16-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DNR-AG-03-17-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365 Comment - Wurtz.PDF |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB360 IMCC Testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB365 Support - Anch Park Foundation.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Conceptual Amend - Seaton.docx |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |