Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
05/12/2025 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB174 | |
| SJR20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 174-INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT
3:31:37 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 174
"An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the
Department of Fish and Game; relating to management of invasive
species; and providing for an effective date."
3:32:26 PM
SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, speaking as sponsor of SB 174, said this
legislation establishes an Alaska Invasive Species Council in
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). He said SB 174 is
the result of work done with advocates over the interim. Those
advocates believe Alaska is at an increased risk for invasive
species and that a more effective coordination across state
departments is necessary to respond to that risk.
3:33:58 PM
TOBIAS SCHWOERER, Research Assistant Professor, Natural
Resources Economics, International Arctic Research Center,
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Fairbanks, Alaska,
introduced himself and provided a brief history of his work in
invasive species management.
3:34:54 PM
MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 2, containing an infographic
illustrating Alaska's increasing biodiversity risk. He stated
that Elodea research has illustrated the need for a statewide
coordinated response in order to address this risk. He explained
that Zebra mussels and Quagga mussels are highly invasive and
are not native to North America. These mussels have been
confirmed in various states and territories across North America
and are moving northward. Lines on the infographic illustrate
the movement of seasonal vessels from those regions and entering
Alaska. This also applies to vessels that are purchased by
Alaskans and brought by trailer to the state (from state's where
Zebra and Quagga mussels have been detected). He noted that the
infographic shows one port of entry.
3:36:31 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that the Pacific Northwest Economic Region
(PNWER) does work in this area. She said that vessels entering
the state undergo an inspection yet invasive mussels may still
be present. She asked whether there is surveillance at the
Alaska Highway border.
MR. SCHWOERER said slide 3 would address this question.
3:37:16 PM
MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 3, containing an infographic
with data related to the number of boats used both within and
outside of Alaskan waters and related invasive mussel activity
by region:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Is Alaska prepared?
Annually, more than 1,000 watercraft from outside
enter Alaska through multiple unprotected / not
monitored ports of entry
Overland
Boats enter Alaska on trailers via Canada/Alaska
border
Southcentral by Sea
Boats enter Alaska on barge/ferry via Southcentral
ports
Southeast by Sea
Boats enter Alaska on barge/ferry via Southeast ports
Total
1260 motorized boats brought to Alaska each year
Used
370 boats previously used in water outside Alaska
Mussels
129 boats previously used in states with invasive
mussels
Freshwater
74 boats used in mussel states and likely destined for
Alaska freshwater.
MR. SCHWOERER said the US Fish and Wildlife Service works with
border protection to inspect vessels crossing the Canada/Alaska
border. This seasonal (summer) inspection service provided the
data from slide 2. He pointed out that there is no port
inspection; therefore, boats arriving via ferry and/or barge to
Southcentral and Southeastern Alaska are not inspected. He
recalled that a high percentage (roughly one-third) of vessels
arriving in Alaska via the Alaska Highway (Alcan) are not
inspected. He emphasized that, despite having inspection
stations in other states and in Canada, many vessels entering
Alaska are not inspected prior to arriving at the Canada/Alaska
border. He noted 2023 estimates that close to 1,000 watercraft
are coming through ports in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska
each year.
3:39:25 PM
MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 4:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Example:
Elodea response
? Current cum. damages from Elodea: close to $1
billion
? Current cum. spending managing Elodea: $7 million
? around $1 million in inefficiencies
? Insufficient resources, personnel flat
? Fragmented decision
? Need for strategy, efficiency, and coordination
? Need for resource emergency response plan
MR. SCHWOERER explained that Elodea is an aquatic water weed. He
drew attention to the image on slide 4, which shows the Elodea
infestation in the Chena Slough, and noted that almost 100
percent of the slough is infested. He said the response began in
2013. He explained that the $7 million in spending has included
herbicide and management. He emphasized that Elodea has caused
over $1 billion in damage to Alaska's sockeye fishery. He
asserted that this damage is due to the lack of a statewide
response and statewide eradication of Elodea. He explained that,
when some areas with infestation are left unmanaged, there is a
chance for that infestation to spread to other areas (and back
into and through waterbodies that have just been cleared of the
infestation). He briefly discussed the impact of inefficiencies
in affected regions. He opined that a council could have
provided top-down strategies, increased efficiency and
coordination, thus leading to the use of best-management
practices statewide. He emphasized the need for coordination
between agencies and for a statewide strategy and added that not
having a council in place has increased costs.
3:42:00 PM
MR. SCHWOERER stated that increased biosecurity risks will lead
to more difficult financial decisions related to invasive
species management. He said this will require increasingly
complex decisions about what resources the State of Alaska will
protect - and which will be left to deteriorate. He briefly
discussed the importance having strategies in place that will
prevent fragmented decision-making. He said emergency response
plans are necessary to effectively respond and protect natural
resources. He urged consideration of what this could mean for
salmon fisheries. He explained that salmon will be highly
effected, as Quagga and Zebra mussels impact the salmon food
chain. He noted upcoming research on this topic and said
invasive mussels are a significant up and coming risk for
Alaska's fisheries.
3:44:03 PM
MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 5, containing an infographic to
illustrate the status of Elodea infestations across the state.
He said there are 49 infestations statewide, 20 of which have
been eradicated:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Elodea infestations - current status
Alaska Lakes
? Elodea still present (33)
? Elodea treatment, not detected (10)
? No Elodea detected (509)
3:44:25 PM
MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 6, containing an infographic
showing how floatplanes contribute to the increasingly complex
and remote infestations of Elodea across Alaska. He pointed out
that there is a large amount of floatplane traffic from
Southcentral Alaska into Bristol Bay. These floatplanes come
from waterbodies (in Southcentral Alaska) that have potentially
be infected with Alodea. He emphasized the risk this poses to
Sockeye salmon fisheries statewide. He stated that, once Elodea
infests Bristol Bay, it is too late. Elodea is increasingly seen
in remote areas (e.g. Alexander Lake), which results in highly
complex, lengthy, and increasingly costly infestations.
3:45:37 PM
MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 7, containing a graph to
illustrate infestation response times in Anchorage, Cordova,
Fairbanks, and the Kenai Peninsula from 2015-2024. He emphasized
that an initial, under-resourced response ultimately leads to a
longer, more costly response. He said the cost has doubled or
even tripled during the past 10 years. He expressed concern with
this increasing cost. He explained that the high cost is due to
a combination of an under-resourced response and an infestation
that, over time, impacts more costly locations. He reiterated
that managing Elodea infestations in remote locations is complex
and costly.
3:46:47 PM
SENATOR MYERS observed that the response times on slide 7 vary
based on location. He pointed out faster response times for
Anchorage and Southcentral and slower response times for
Fairbanks and Cordova. He asked if the response time is related
to geography as well as resources.
3:47:29 PM
MR. SCHWOERER agreed with that assessment. He said it also
depends on flow rate (i.e. whether a water body has flow or is
static). He explained that herbicide concentration is relatively
easy to manage in areas where flow is minimal. He contrasted
this with areas with higher flow-through and potentially high
precipitation, both of which impact herbicide concentration. He
emphasized that diluted herbicide is potentially ineffective. He
said this is an issue in Chena Slough. Remoteness is another
factor. He said that, while the distribution on the graph on
slide 7 appears to be regional, it does not tell the full story.
He emphasized that it depends on the complexity of the system
and added that each eradication is different.
3:48:51 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about the cost per water body to
eradicate Elodea. He also asked how much the State of Alaska
should spend on continued eradication per year.
3:49:09 PM
MR. SCHWOERER addressed the cost per year and indicated that he
could provide a rough estimate. He opined that doubling the
current amount of dedicated funding would be sufficient. He
indicated that he would address this in more detail on an
upcoming slide.
3:49:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI repeated his questions related to the cost
per water body and the cost per year.
3:49:37 PM
MR. SCHWOERER replied that the cost for the herbicide is roughly
$1,000/surface acre. He explained that the herbicide must remain
at a specific concentration. Water flow and precipitation can
impact herbicide concentration levels, which can result in
increased costs of over $2,000/surface acre (or more). He
explained that remote locations - which are more difficult to
access in order to apply and monitor herbicide levels - have
even higher costs.
3:50:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the herbicide kills fish.
MR. SCHWOERER replied no. He explained that fluridone is the
primary herbicide used to eradicate Elodea. This is a systemic
herbicide that interrupts the plant's ability to
photosynthesize. He added that fluridone is rated as safe to use
in water reservoirs.
3:51:32 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted the limited time remaining and said
upcoming invited testimony would address policy and structure
questions. He asked Mr. Schwoerer to advance to slide 10 and
discuss impacted fisheries.
3:52:04 PM
MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 10 and discussed the cost of not
eradicating Elodea. Slide 10 contains a graph illustrating the
hidden fisheries damages from 2017-2100. Slide 10 also
references a paper titled, "Elodea mediates juvenile salmon
growth by altering physical structure in freshwater habitats."
He explained that not eradicating Elodea carries a $1 billion
hidden cost. He said this estimate is in line with the latest
research regarding Elodea's impact on juvenile salmon growth. He
reiterated that (based on research in the Copper River Delta)
Elodea has a negative effect on the salmon food web.
3:53:49 PM
DANIELLE VERNA, Program Manager, Environmental Monitoring,
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (RCAC),
Valdez, Alaska, provided a brief work history and overview of
RCAC. She stated that that commercial shipping is a prevalent
vector of marine invasive species and RCAC supports monitoring
invasive species. In addition, RCAC has advocated for policies
to prevent introducing invasive species. She stated that
invasive species pose a significant threat to the health of the
environment, the economy, and ways of life in Alaska. She
compared invasive species to the damage caused by an oil spill
and emphasized that prevention is the key to mitigating the
impacts. She stated that RCAC supports SB 174.
3:55:00 PM
MS. VERNA said that it took a disaster like the Exxon-Valdez oil
spill to recognize the value of oil spill prevention and
overcome complacency. She stated that Alaska's Prince William
Sound now has one of the most robust spill prevention and
response systems in the world. She said RCAC would like to see
more emphasis on invasive species prevention and rapid response
in Alaska. She stated that an Invasive Species Council is a
proven and effective model that results in increased
coordination for the purposes of prevention and rapid response.
She pointed out that over 18 other states have invasive species
councils. She noted that the Invasive Species Council proposed
by SB 174 would serve in an advisory role, establishing
consistent approaches across state agencies. The council does
not have the authority to direct state agencies or funding. The
council would elevate the discussion of invasive species while
building awareness at higher levels of government. This would
include an annual update to the legislature on invasive species
issues and management in Alaska.
MS. VERNA acknowledged that, for the past few years, the
governor has signed a proclamation recognizing the second full
week of June as Alaska Invasive Species Awareness Week. She
briefly discussed invasive species work across the state, both
by state agencies and by the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership
(AKISP). She stated that RCAC recognizes the need for top-down,
strategic leveraging of resources and stakeholder engagement. An
Invasive Species Council would create the venue for this to
occur. She stated that SB 174 takes previous legislative
feedback regarding council size into consideration. She
explained that the proposed council is made up of five voting
members and includes legislative and state agency participation.
In addition, there is the option to broaden participation by
including advisory members.
3:58:08 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that SB 174 does not mandate the council to
consult with private industry. He briefly discussed the work
Alyeska does with respect to monitoring and wondered whether
input from private industry might be helpful.
3:58:49 PM
MS. VERNA replied that input from industry is vital to the
successful management of invasive species. She stated that
utility and pipeline rights-of-way are pathways for invasive
species (along with tankers and cruise ships). She explained
that previous legislation related to creating an Invasive
Species Council specified membership. In that legislation, the
size of the council grew to 27 members, which she described as
unwieldy. She explained that in SB 174 reduces the number of
seats on the council; advisory council seats would provide
additional input and could include industry representatives.
4:00:15 PM
SUMMER NAY, Chair, Alaska Invasive Species Partnership (AKISP),
Delta Junction, Alaska, said AKISP strongly supports SB 174. She
briefly described AKISP, which is a statewide coalition united
by the shared mission to prevent and manage invasive species
across Alaska's terrestrial, freshwater, and marine
environments. AKISP provides credible, science-based information
to support sound management decisions and develop effective
policy. She briefly described monthly virtual meetings, annual
workshops, and outreach efforts. She acknowledged that valuable
work is being done across many sectors; however, she stated that
establishing an Invasive Species Council would be foundational,
providing strategic information and statewide perspectives.
MS. NAY stated that a council would help to align efforts,
reduce redundancy, and ensure that resources are used
effectively. It would also improve Alaska's top-down
collaboration. She pointed out that invasive species councils
have proven effective in other states and offered examples. She
emphasized that invasive species threaten ecosystems, cultural
traditions, economies, and recreational resources. She pointed
out that possible vectors for the spread of invasive species
include float planes, recreation, agricultural activities,
highway construction equipment, and commercial shipping, among
others. She stated that a council would help insure rapid,
coordinated responses when prevention is not possible. She urged
support of SB 174, which would help protect Alaska's natural
resources, livelihoods, and ways of life.
4:03:54 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that travelers returning from Hawaii must
pass through a check before entering the state. He opined that
this method is relatively inclusive. He asked how vectors and
points of entry would be addressed.
4:04:36 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR deferred the question. He explained that SB 174
would create a more coordinated response and would elevate the
issue through the creation of the council. He stated that he is
unsure what recommendations the council would make. He surmised
that, due to Alaska's size, monitoring the various points of
entry could pose a challenge.
MS. NAY asked to hear the question again.
4:05:41 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how the Invasive Species Council would
respond to various vectors and points of entry once they are
identified. He wondered if the response could include inspectors
at every port.
4:06:13 PM
MS. NAY replied that currently there is a check station at the
Alaska-Canada border. She stated that the response would include
more checks and inspections of that kind. She briefly noted
related research in Valdez.
4:06:49 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 174 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 174 International Arctic Research Center Invited Testimony.pdf |
SRES 5/12/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 174 |
| SJR20 Support Document-Debris Cleanup on Remote Islands 09.21.23.pdf |
SRES 5/12/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR 20 Sponsor Statement ver. N.pdf |
SRES 5/12/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR20 Support Document-Statewide Cleanup Data 12.2024.pdf |
SRES 5/12/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR20 ver. N.pdf |
SRES 5/12/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR20 Support Document-OC Marine Debris in AK.pdf |
SRES 5/12/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |