Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB190 | |
| HB365 | |
| HB212 | |
| HB294 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 190 | 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(RES), Work Draft 27-LS1439\M as a
working document.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for purpose of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON testified that the House
Resources version of the bill changed the term "aquatic
invasive species" to "marine aquatic invasive species". The
change had been made to make the drawing of response plans
easier for the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G).
Co-Chair Stoltze recalled that during past discussions
concerning invasive plants an effort had been made to be
inclusive of the fishing industry. He questioned the reason
for the inclusivity.
Representative Guttenberg relayed that the issue of
invasive species ran statewide, and that one body of water
[salt versus fresh] was not more important than another.
Representative Seaton replied that no priority had been
intended either way. He said that the intention of the
legislation was to provide a way for departments to respond
quickly to an emergency situation triggered by a new
invasion.
Representative Guttenberg felt that the ability to respond
rapidly was a necessity for both lakes and salt water. He
suggested that some invasive species could make their way
into the water by way of pet shops. He added that some
invaders could be brought to marine waters by way of fresh
water.
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION it was so ordered.
1:59:23 PM
Representative Costello expressed concern for the
particular area of Sand Lake, which was a fresh water lake.
Representative Seaton shared that the Department of Fish
and Game (DF&G) had indicated that the word "aquatic" was
too broad a term. The understanding was that the bill would
not make it through the legislative process using such a
general term. He stated that the decision was made to
concentrate on marine waters. He relayed that he supported
the eradication of invasive species throughout the state
and maintained no objection to broadening the language to
include aquatics, provided it did not require DF&G to draw
up an emergency plan for every stream and lake in Alaska.
He reiterated that the intent was to examine emergency
situations in limited geographic areas where response could
be swift and successful. He furthered that an emergency
situation, involving the contamination of an entire river
system, would require an extended amount of response time.
He asserted that the legislation was intended to provide
rapid response to emergency situations in a limited area.
Representative Costello commented that her district had
been dealing with safety issues related to Sand Lake. She
understood that there were many ways to go about solving
the Sand Lake problem; her approach was to submit a capital
budget request.
2:04:36 PM
Representative Neuman testified that his region of the
Susitna River Valley was experiencing a problem with
Northern Pike. The invasive species had devastated
tributaries at Alexander Creek, which negatively affected
the salmon population. He highlighted that the loss of
salmon supply for commercial and sport fishing would have a
negative effect on the economy. He wondered if language
could be written into the bill that would speak to
responding to the problem of Northern Pike.
Representative Seaton explained that the purpose of the
legislation was to provide DF&G with the tools to perform
an emergency eradication in a limited geographic area. He
said that the eradication of Northern Pike in the entire
Susitna drainage could harm other species of fish in the
water. He relayed that the tools already being used under
the invasive species plan were meant for long-range
planning. He reiterated that the purpose of the bill was to
deal with a new invasive species in a small area. He
assured the committee that the debate was not about
saltwater species being more important than fresh water
species, but stressed there were different ways that
endemic infestations were handled versus an emergency
reaction to a new invasion in a limited geographic area. He
furthered that the bill would give DF&G the ability to
allow for the sacrifice of management of one species in a
limited geographic area in order to eradicate any new
invasive species.
2:10:16 PM
Representative Neuman noted that the bill would create a
plan for salt water. He said that in the case of Alexander
Creek, the Northern Pike could be specifically targeted in
early spring because there were no salmon species yet in
the tributaries large enough to be caught in nets. He
argued that this was exactly what the department was
already doing in the marine aquatic areas; developing a
long-term plan that would eradicate the invasive species in
order to save fisheries important to the economy. He
believed that the long-term plan should be written into the
legislation.
Representative Seaton agreed with Representative Neuman. He
added that there was a long-term plan to target longer
periods of time. He restated that the intention of the bill
was to give the emergency authority to eliminate everything
in a limited geographic area in order to eradicate a new
invasive species before it spread to rest of the state.
Representative Neuman hoped to discuss the issue further
with the department.
Co-Chair Thomas cited sub-section (f):
"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."
Representative Neuman felt that further clarification was
necessary.
Representative Seaton clarified that the term "marine" was
generally applied to salt water. He said that both fresh
and salt water could be addressed in the legislation.
2:15:09 PM
Representative Wilson questioned if any projections had
been made of how handling small areas at a time could
benefit the state financially.
Representative Seaton replied there was currently an
invasive species council that focused on long-range plans,
but that the legislation was intended to provide the tools
to make the immediate eradication of new invasive species
possible. He stressed his desire to ensure emergency
response capability for the department.
Representative Wilson understood that the bill contained a
plan for solely salt water, which had resulted in a smaller
fiscal note.
Representative Seaton replied that that was correct. He
said that according to the department the lake systems were
so different that the plans to develop each one would have
taken over ten years.
Co-Chair Thomas understood that the department was seeking
the ability to actively respond to an infestation rather
than spending $20 million on a written plan.
2:18:43 PM
Representative Gara shared Representative Neuman concern
for fresh water. He expressed concern that the bill was not
tailored to deal with fresh water issues. He pointed out to
the committee that the implementation of an emergency kill
of Northern Pike could risk the health of many other
species of fish. He stated that he did not believe that the
legislation was worded in a way that would effectively
protect fresh water.
Co-Chair Thomas said that the other body put in a request
in the FY13 Operating Budget to increase money in for the
problem of Northern Pike.
Vice-chair Fairclough shared that the House Finance
Committee had changed more than sub-section (f) of the
original legislation. She suggested that committee members
familiarize themselves with the changes between the
original document and the one that was currently before the
committee.
MARLENE CAMPBELL, CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA (via
teleconference) voiced support for the bill. She testified
that an invasive species identified in 2010, had rapidly
had spread. She said that DF&G had done a dive survey and
had mapped the infestation, which had been confined to
Whitening Harbor until the movement of aqua farm pieces
into Sitka Sound. She feared that the spread of the species
could potentially eradicate all other species, which would
have a negative impact on Sitka fisheries. She relayed that
there was wide support in the community to hire an expert
environmental firm to contain and eradicate the invader.
She stressed that Sitka had 5 harbors that generated
approximately $140 million in commercial fisheries monies
per year. Additionally, 10 percent of Sitka's population
was directly involved in the sea industry, and indirect
impact was nearly 50 percent. She concluded that the issue
was of grave importance to the future if the fishing
industry and urged the timely passage of the legislation.
2:26:49 PM
KIM ELLIOTT, SITKA (via teleconference), voiced support for
the bill. She voiced concern that the issue of invasive
species in Alaska be addressed immediately, beyond talking
at the table. She feared that the invasive species in Sitka
Sound would spread to affect the herring and scallop
populations.
2:28:54 PM
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
HB 365 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:29:34 PM
AT EASE
2:37:45 PM
RECONVENED