Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
01/29/2013 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Department of Fish and Game Invasive Species Program: 2013 Status Report | |
| Overview: Pacific Northwest Economic Region Invasive Species Working Group | |
| Overview: Tsunami Marine Debris in Alaska | |
| Overview: Japan Tsunami Marine Debris: Information and Actions | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
January 29, 2013
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM:
2013 STATUS REPORT
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: PACIFIC NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION INVASIVE SPECIES
WORKING GROUP
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: TSUNAMI MARINE DEBRIS IN ALASKA
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: JAPAN TSUNAMI MARINE DEBRIS: INFORMATION AND ACTIONS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director
Division of Sports Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the invasive
species program being conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G).
TAMMY DAVIS, Invasive Species Coordinator
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions, during the
departmental overview on invasive species.
MATT MORRISON, Executive Director
Pacific NorthWest Economic Region
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Pacific
NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER) invasive species working
group.
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Acting Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the overview of the tsunami marine
debris in Alaska on behalf of DEC.
PETER MURPHY, Alaska Coordinator
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)
Marine Debris Program
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Japan tsunami
marine debris on behalf of NOAA.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:03:12 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Representatives
Herron, Feige, Kreiss-Tomkins, Gattis, and Seaton were present
at the call to order. Representatives Olson and Johnson arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^Overview: Department of Fish and Game Invasive Species Program:
2013 Status Report
Overview: Department of Fish and Game Invasive Species Program:
2013 Status Report
10:06:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of the invasive species program from the Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
10:07:09 AM
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director, Division of Sports Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), introduced the topics to be
covered in the overview, which are: what constitutes an
invasive species; the effects invasive species impose on state
resources both economically and biologically; the species of
concern including the history of infestation, response actions,
and status of two, high priority species - Didemnum vexilluym
(D.vex) and Northern pike; statewide monitoring efforts; and
prevention and outreach conducted by ADF&G. Referring to slide
3, titled "Invasive Species," he defined the topic, paraphrasing
the information, which read [original punctuation provided]:
[An invasive species is] an organism introduced
outside its native range that can damage environments,
cause economic hardship, or pose risk to human health.
Not all nonnative species can sustain populations in
their new environment. They require an agreeable host
environment; few to no natural predators, parasites or
diseases; an abundance of food that lacks defenses
against the newcomer; and the ability to out-compete
native species in similar trophic levels.
MR. SWANTON said that, for the most part, invasive species
thrive due to the absence of natural predators. The effect of
invasive species on native species, as outlined on slide 4, is
that they out-compete native species for habitat, food, and
space; degrade or destroy habitats required by native organisms;
upset ecosystem functions, such as food webs, and predator/prey
interactions; limit commercial, recreational, and subsistence
activities such as fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and
boating. The pathways for introduction, commonly referred to as
vectors, illustrated on slide 5, include: human-mediated via
shipping, [movement of] recreational vessels and gear,
floatplanes, floating infrastructure, release of unwanted
animals and plants, illegal stocking, aquaculture transfers and
escapees. He cited the Atlantic salmon appearing in recent
years in the waters of southeast due to net pen farming
practices on the Pacific coast to the south of Alaska. He said
that, as movement of goods and services increase, the potential
for non-native species to be introduced increases as well.
Elaborating on methods for invasive species to be distributed,
he added that there are natural pathways; however, the dumping
of unwanted pets through aquaria, not cleaning boats and gear
between visits to infested recreational areas, or, in the case
of Northern pike, intentional transport, often via bucket, from
an area of natural population to non-native waters, are common
means of introduction. The presence of Northern pike in 120
lakes of Southcentral, Alaska, is a product of illegal stocking
by so called bucket biologists who desire certain fishing
opportunities and who take matters into their own hands; a long
seated problem. Another species of concern is the European
green crab larvae, which could transport into Alaskan waters via
ocean currents, as populations have appeared in the waters of
British Columbia, Canada. He reported that the boards of fish
and game have placed a prohibition on felt soled fishing boots,
which is a primary vector for certain aquatic species in the
contiguous United States. Pointing out slide 6, Director
Swanton described Didemnum vecillum, D.vex, and said this
invasive, colonial tunicate has been discovered in Whiting
Harbor, Sitka, Alaska. It is an aggressive marine invader that
grows rapidly on natural and man-made substrata, and has few
known predators. D.vex has been introduced globally and can be
found coating pilings, docks, piers, and aquatic
infrastructures. Further, he said, it has the ability to encase
mollusks and other shellfish, cover the sea floor, smother eel
grass, and create a virtual monoculture in intertidal, subtidal,
and deep sea habitats. The most notable host area in the United
States is George's Bank, Maine, where it covers an area greater
than 100 square miles. Reviewing the history of D.vex in
Alaska, slide 7, he said that, since 2010 when it was first
identified in Whiting Harbor, ADF&G has followed a course of
action toward its eradication. Initially a press release was
held. From 2010 to present, the department has catalogued
responses and conducted outreach presentations for, and
distributed information to, aquatic farmers, agencies,
stakeholder groups and the general public. Beginning in 2010
and continuing through 2012, ADF&G completed three surveys to
map the distribution of D.vex, as well as coordinated response
teams, and decommissioned an infested aquatic farm. The herring
sac roe fishery was closed in the Whiting Harbor area for 2011
and 2012. Also in 2012, the subsistence roe on kelp harvest was
prohibited along with other product harvesting in the infested
area. The public has been advised to avoid the area entirely
since 2010. The legislature provided funding in 2012
specifically to combat the tunicate. He reported that of the
$500,000 capital improvement project (CIP) funding received, the
department has expended about $32,000 for the 2012 extensive
dive survey and mapping. Additional plans include the creation
of a description for the eradiation work, which will then be
released to the public for bid to engage a private contractor.
Follow-up work by the department is also planned to ensure that
the eradication process is successful.
10:16:44 AM
DIRECTOR SWANTON moved on to slide 8, describing how the
systematic dive surveys of 2011 were conducted and to explain
the distribution mapping of D.vex in the infested waters outside
of Whiting Harbor. The tunicate has established itself on
cobble, rock and boulder substrata, the rip rap that comprises
the cause way, and on some kelp. In response to a committee
member he clarified that the color shaded maps indicate the
percentage of coverage by the D.vex, not counts of individual
creatures.
DIRECTOR SWANTON described the major cleanup activity to bag and
remove lantern nets, during the months of August and September
in 2011. A major clean-up effort, to remove an aquatic farm
infrastructure from the water in November, 2011, saw
participants from a wide array of organizations, which included:
City of Sitka, Department of Natural Resources, University of
Alaska Southeast (UAS), Sitka Tribe, State Emergency Response
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), Sitka Sound Science Center (SSSC), Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and local
volunteers. He directed attention to slides 9 and 10 to
illustrate a sample of the debris that was removed. In August
2012, another, more comprehensive, dive survey of Whiting Harbor
was undertaken and similarly mapped, slide 11, and he pointed
out the concentration of the D.vex around the aquatic farm
infrastructure. The detailed map is necessary in order for a
contractor to bid on the project. He outlined the best means
for success in combating the infestation, which includes:
communication with experienced international experts; keeping
abreast of new research and technologies to use for eradication;
working to get the permits from the appropriate agencies; state
and federal agency collaboration; and communicating with the
public. The scope of the work is near completion and the RFP is
expected to be posted in early spring with the eradication to
begin in the summer. There will be three years of post-
treatment monitoring by the department to ensure success.
Responding to Chair Seaton, he clarified that the eradication
work is to begin the summer of 2013.
10:22:04 AM
DIRECTOR SWANTON described the invasive northern pike that have
been introduced into the Southcentral area. He reviewed the
distribution of this fish stating that northern pike are not
native to areas south and east of the Alaska Range; that they
were first illegally-introduced to Southcentral in the 1950s;
pike continue to spread and are still illegally transplanted;
now inhabiting more than 150 water bodies in Southcentral.
Northern pike are known to be highly predatory on juvenile
salmonids as well as nearly anything that moves, swims, or
floats on the water and can reduce or eliminate wild and stocked
fish populations. The department has devised a management plan
for invasive northern pike, slide 14, which was completed in
2007; updates to the plan will be completed in 2013. A
strategic planning committee was formed in 2010 and meets
biennially to prioritize projects. Six of the top eight
priorities are currently underway. The first phase of the
Soldotna Creek project is set to begin in 2013. Director
Swanton said Alexander Creek is of particular interest as it has
been a very viable salmon sport fishery; however, it is now the
largest pike eradication project in the state. Controlled gill
netting was started in 2007, and, due to incremental funding
from the legislature, suppressive work has been on-going for the
last two years. He reported that in 2011 approximately 4,100
large pike were removed and in 2012 about 2,900 were captured.
These statistics indicate that the effort is beginning to make a
dent in the northern pike population of the Alexander Creek
drainage area; eradication will require more time and continued
effort. The department has conducted research on the pike,
establishing their diet and movement patterns. Using radio
telemetry tracking devices, the department can plan suppression
efforts appropriately. Another method of detection utilizes the
DNA of a watershed to determine if a species is present, and
allows the department to measure success levels. Eradication
means complete removal of an entire population from an
individual freshwater system using Rotenone, a chemical which
works on the cellular level to disrupt the intake of oxygen and
thereby kills fish. Since 2008, ADF&G has successfully
eradicated pike from five lakes in the Kenai Peninsula and
Anchorage areas utilizing Rotenone. Stormy Lake, the largest
treated, underwent eradication in 2012, and plans are to begin
the first phase of the Soldotna Creek eradication, which is a
series of interconnected lakes and presents more of a challenge.
10:27:31 AM
DIRECTOR SWANTON directed attention to slide 18, titled
"Monitoring for Invasive Species," and said ADF&G staff, as well
as citizens, serve as monitors in certain locations. The
department developed and facilitates a hands-on science and
public education training program. Through monitoring and
investigation crayfish have been identified in Buskin Lake.
These small freshwater crustaceans are indigenous to the eastern
and southern United States. The department began trapping them
in 2012 and this effort will continue through 2013. Staff will
routinely scout for invasive species while engaging in other
field work, which is a cost effective approach. Monitoring is
primarily for quagga and zebra mussels. The locations being
targeted are Glennallen, Kenai Peninsula, Richardson Highway,
Fairbanks, and Anchorage. A platewatch for pacific coast
tunicate is a method of monitoring whereby a plate is placed in
a specific location and whatever grows on it can be identified.
Platewatch locations are Gustavus, Homer, Kodiak, Seward, Sitka,
and Ketchikan. European green crab has been identified in
British Columbia, and the department is monitoring for the
arrival of that species, as well. Addressing slide 20,
"Prevention & Outreach," he said that:
Before they were considered a serious concern, Alaska
had good regulations in the books to prevent organisms
from being introduced into new habitats. We've spent
a fair amount of time educating the public [through]
various modes of communication and we continue to do
that. ... In 2013 ADF&G and the USFWS will work with
custom and border protection officers who are the
first line of defense against quagga mussels as folks
bring boats into the country.
10:30:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what is included when considering
working with the border patrol.
TAMMY DAVIS, Invasive Species Coordinator, Division of Sport
Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), responded that,
up to this time, the department has worked with border
protection to complete boat inspections and decontaminations.
The patrol does not inspect 100 per cent of the boats crossing
the border and the department is urging that they do so, which
would allow decontamination to be at the point of entry, rather
than a designated location within the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether border stations have
areas to perform the decontamination.
MS. DAVIS replied no, and said that the department is working
with USFWS to jointly purchase a decontamination unit to
position at the border, however, the border patrol cited
inadequate storage space and staff time as concerns for
receiving the unit and undertaking the task of full
decontamination. To a follow-up question, she said that if a
boat is checked and determined to be harboring an invasive, it
is not allowed to enter the state; thus far, one boat has been
turned back.
10:32:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that several states have quarantine
procedures for vessels entering, requiring as much as 30 days of
dry storage, and he asked if ADF&G has reviewed the
effectiveness of such a standard.
DIRECTOR SWANTON answered no. A comprehensive look has not been
completed; however, collaboration is occurring with the various
government associations, along with the appropriate exchange of
information. In regards to establishing a tailored method to
allow boats to enter the state, he said a plan is still being
formulated.
10:34:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired about the state's information
campaign and whether the department has partnered with outside
organizations to fight these invasive species.
DIRECTOR SWANTON indicated that a wide variety of
media/materials have been generated and information is also made
available on the department's web page. Radio interviews, news
releases, and magazine articles have been, or are, steps that
ADF&G has taken and considers helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether there has been any
success in apprehending violators regarding the illegal
transport of northern pike.
DIRECTOR SWANTON responded that, to his knowledge, no one has
been brought up on charges; however, it is a class A misdemeanor
and thus punishable by up to a $10,000 fine.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON suggested that the legislature could
consider funding a bounty on northern pike.
DIRECTOR SWANTON said the bounty suggestion has been raised but
poses a number of problems, and he opined that it may not prove
to be effective. A variety of regulatory measures have been
tried, such as the lowering or removal of bag limits to
encourage anglers, and still the pike persist. He noted that
past bounty measures, regarding other species, have not
necessarily been helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if there are any invasive species
impacting Chinook salmon populations.
DIRECTOR SWANTON offered that indications of pike effects on
Chinook salmon are present in the Alexander Creek system,
although to what extent has yet to be determined. Pike are
endemic to most of the Interior where cohabitation successfully
exists due to evolutionary conditioning. As an example, he
said, pike are sight feeders, thus the smolt they prey on have
adapted to migrate at night as a natural avoidance technique; a
behavior that has evolved over time to allow these species to
successfully co-exist.
10:40:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there are
documented, successful tunicate eradication processes and, if
so, what does it entail and will ADF&G be implementing a similar
model in Whiting Harbor. Regarding northern pike, he inquired
if the population will remain suppressed for a period of time or
does the department expect efforts to continue in perpetuity.
DIRECTOR SWANTON, in regard to pike, responded that the program
with Alexander Creek began in 2006 and the department has slowly
implemented changes because the biologists are learning the best
methods to use. Tagging the fish has been important and
provided information on movement that allows ADF&G to more
effectively address the problem. Knowing how to proceed in the
future is still a difficult question, but he said the hope is to
eliminate enough pike so that other species can rebound. The
inquiry about suppression is difficult to clearly answer, as
it's almost an ongoing, adaptive process. In some cases,
however, if suppression efforts stopped, pike would rebound to
whatever level the environment could support.
MS. DAVIS said there is a report of one, completely successful
colonial tunicate eradication in a small, manmade, recreational
diver's reef, off the coast of Washington state. The tunicates
were hand pulled from the structure, as the populations were
relatively small; not a feasible option in Whiting Harbor.
Unfortunately most eradication efforts have been on piers,
docks, and boats rather than the sea floor. New Zealand
attempted an expensive, cumbersome approach to vacuum the
seafloor that ultimately didn't work. The department has been
criticized for moving slowly, but it is a new and complex
challenge and ADF&G is taking a methodical approach to avoid
ineffective, rash decisions/actions.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired if the scope of work has
been established for eradication in the coming summer.
DIRECTOR SWANTON stated that the department is in the midst of
that process.
10:46:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for clarity on how the RFP is expected to
work: is the agency defining the method and means being bid on,
or are contractors proposing the method and means to the
department.
DIRECTOR SWANTON answered that the intent is to be fairly
restrictive with regard to the eradication methods, and the
intent is to ensure the greatest degree of success. Funds spent
thus far have been to lay the ground work for what needs to be
completed.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that the previous legislature passed two
years of funding, totaling approximately $900,000, for planning
a rapid response. He said if rapid response is identifying an
area, preparing an RFP, and soliciting ideas from contractors,
it may come under question, and suggested a detailed discussion
regarding this topic for a future committee hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS interjected that the fishermen of the
Southcentral area, which she represents, are hurting. She said
she is looking for more science and informative data.
Considering the pike issue, she summarized what she has learned
in this hearing: that there is an attempt towards control and
it is working somewhat. An overall conclusion for eradication
appears to be missing from this report, she said.
10:50:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON, considering systems with heavy pike predation such
as Alexander Creek and Shell Lake, he asked whether salmon
escapement goals are adjusted for this factor.
DIRECTOR SWANTON said, to his knowledge escapement goals have
not been adjusted, based on the presence of pike.
CHAIR SEATON noted that 20 percent of the salmon habitat has
been lost in these areas, and asked to have the topic brought
for a future discussion and include input from the area
biologists.
10:52:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON returned to the report of crayfish in Buskin Lake,
and asked what the major concern is and how extensive is the
impact: are the crayfish competing with anything else in the
lake, is the response due to economic and ecological conflict,
or is there concern because they are not native to the area.
DIRECTOR SWANTON said that the department was taken aback when
they were initially reported. There is concern for the fact
that they are not endemic to the system, and may be competing on
the trophic level. However, for the most part concern is due to
the fact that this is not an endemic species and requires
eradication on that basis.
10:54:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON echoed the concern of previous committee
members, to wit: the previous legislature funded a bill for
rapid-response to aquatic invasive species. Given the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that exists with the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) heading it up, the efforts
for a rapid response may be on a slow track, he opined.
10:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the D.vex surveys for 2011
and 2012 and asked if the infestation has grown significantly or
has the method and ability to count the creatures improved.
DIRECTOR SWANTON responded that the species has not grown but
the surveys report different information. The 2011 survey was
to determine if the species was present or absent. The 2012
survey was more thorough and provided more in-depth information,
including: the area infested, how extensive is the coverage,
and where the concentrations existed; information important to
plan the removal process.
10:55:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is any commercial value to
European green crab.
DIRECTOR SWANTON offered that there is not, despite their
resemblance to a small Dungeness crab.
10:56:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON opined that Alaska has been extremely lucky in
regards to D.vex, resulting in a minimal closure as opposed to
the impact that a larger distribution would have on the herring
industry.
^Overview: Pacific NorthWest Economic Region Invasive Species
Working Group
Overview: Pacific NorthWest Economic Region Invasive Species
Working Group
10:57:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
an overview from the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER)
invasive species working group.
10:58:24 AM
MATT MORRISON, Executive Director, Pacific NorthWest Economic
Region, explained that the invasive species working group was
established in 2003, and credited Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska
State Legislature, with bringing it about. Every state has been
encouraged to create a similar counsel and to work in
collaboration in order to form best practices eradication
strategies. He reported that in Idaho, for example, the Boy
Scouts administer an effective monitoring program. Although
there are a number of invasive species to consider, he said that
today's report primarily addresses the Quagga and Zebra mussel
situation and the perimeter approach that is being employed.
The Quagga and Zebra Mussels are tiny, fresh water mollusks that
are native to Eastern Europe and Russia, but which have been
spreading through North America since the 1980's. Once
introduced, it has never been possible to entirely rid a
watershed of their presence. The individual mussels can produce
up to one million eggs per year, which then distribute
throughout a watershed. The Great Lakes is an area that has
been especially inundated, and continues to struggle with the
consequences of the invasion effecting the fish habitat, piping
systems, and fresh water drinking systems. In Southern
California, the Metropolitan Water District is expected to spend
$8-$10 million per year to remove the mussels and repair the
damaged infrastructure; this figure does not include the costs
for control efforts. He directed attention to a slide with a
map indicating that PNWER is the last uninfected region in North
America. He reported that the highest infestation area is Lake
Mead, Nevada. A following slide indicated results from an Idaho
inspection station, identifying where the recreational boaters
originate around the contiguous United States. Four of the five
PNWER states conducting inspections report a total of
approximately 83,000 water craft and found 108 that were
infested with the shell fish. The issue is that the invasion
will not abate and it is an expensive problem once it becomes
established in an area. Mr. Morrison said that PNWER suggests a
perimeter approach, and Alaska has some protection through the
programs that are set up in British Columbia, Canada, as well as
Washington, Oregon and Idaho. He reported that PNWER has been
working with the local fish and game departments to setup a
regional pilot program. It has been estimated that, should the
invasion enter the Columbia River Basin watershed, the annual
control measures required for the federal hydropower facilities
would cost $23 million; not including drinking water, fish
hatcheries, and other systems that would also require attention.
Cold water or freezing conditions pose no problem to the
proliferation of these mollusks. He suggested that preventative
measures be taken and include a passport flyer, which would be a
handout at the Customs Border Patrol (CBP) stations with a goal
that all boats crossing the border would receive one, and
particular attention could be given to boats arriving from
infested regions. The Great Lakes states are currently spending
$40.5 million per annum, for zebra mussel control. Prevention
is far cheaper but requires a coordinated, regional effort.
Continuing, he recommended several policy actions that would
help provide a defense against mollusk invasion, beginning with
expansion of the 2011 multi-state agency staff memorandum of
understanding (MOU). The MOU could include a high risk
perimeter pilot program, based on the Idaho passport program.
Additionally, establishment of a real-time data tracking system
would allow data sharing throughout the region for tracking of
vessels coming into the area, which would include inspection
results for each vessel. Also, legislation is necessary to
provide funding to maintain inspection and cleaning stations,
which are currently minimal. State funding is also needed to
create a regional organization that would be responsible for
facilitating the sharing of inspected vessel information. He
stressed that it is imperative to have a means for tracking
vessels and information sharing, and provided an example of two
heavily infested barges bound for Lake Washington, Washington,
being appropriately stopped at the Idaho border due to
interstate agency communication. He underscored that the
current effort is not able to do a good enough job to guard the
perimeter. Further infrastructure of inspection and
decontamination facilities is necessary along with specialized
training. Finally, he invited members to the 2013 PNWER Annual
Summit, held this year in Anchorage, July 14-18, and said he is
looking forward to working with the committee on the issues and
ensuring a coordinated effort for protection of the perimeter.
11:07:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that a jackup oil rig from Singapore arrived
with non-native mussel shells, but it had fortunately been in
dry dock and was transported to Alaskan waters via barge.
However, another jackup rig came from lower British Columbia, to
Cook Inlet, via wet tow and an inspection/decontamination
procedure has not been established for this type of structure.
^Overview: Tsunami Marine Debris in Alaska
Overview: Tsunami Marine Debris in Alaska
11:10:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
an overview of the tsunami marine debris in Alaska, provided by
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
11:11:01 AM
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Acting Director, Division of Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), directed
attention to the first slide entitled "Tsunami-Generated Marine
Debris Background," and paraphrased the bullet points, which
outlined that in March of 2011 a devastating earthquake and
tsunami hit Japan. The Japanese government estimates that 5
million tons of debris was swept into the Pacific Ocean. While
an estimated 70 percent sank almost immediately, the remaining
1.5 million tons floated off the coast of Japan and was caught
by wind and ocean currents. The composition of the materials is
anything typically found in urban areas, homes, and fishing
communities, such as: Styrofoam, buoys, bottles, jugs,
household items including appliances, rigid urethane insulation,
wood from destroyed buildings and homes, entire fishing and
boating docks, floats, bumpers, and nets. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) models indicate that
debris will reach U.S. and Canadian shores for the next several
years. The high-windage, or lighter debris, is carried by the
wind and has been arriving much sooner than expected, while the
low-windage, or heavier debris, is carried by the ocean currents
and slower to come to land. She said that in June of 2012, DEC
contracted with Airborne Technologies, Inc. (ATI) to obtain a
detailed, baseline aerial survey. The survey covered 2,500
miles of coastline resulting in over 8,200 high resolution
images beginning in Southeast, north along the Gulf of Alaska,
through Prince William Sound (PWS), around the Alaska Peninsula,
and across Bristol Bay. Every image was individually ranked for
density and debris type, and underwent data analysis, as well as
Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. About 15 types of
debris were identified and imbedded as part of the data
analysis. The information can be accessed via the NOAA or DEC
websites. She presented a slide of an Alaska map to relate the
flight route that was taken to complete the survey.
11:16:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked which area has seen the highest
impact.
ACTING DIRECTOR FLOYD responded that tsunami debris was
prevalent throughout but perhaps most prolific in the areas
around Kodiak Island, Cook Inlet, and PWS.
11:17:14 AM
ACTING DIRECTOR FLOYD continued to the slide titled
"Observations Relating to Amount, Location and Composition of
Tsunami Marine Debris in Alaska," and confirmed that a
significant increase in volume was evident with a large volume
of high-windage items. She said that the composition of the
debris was used to identify it as being tsunami generated, which
included: oyster buoys, rigid urethane insulation, common
Japanese household items, and white Styrofoam. Attention was
drawn to photographs of debris that the contractor, the
nonprofit group Gulf of Alaska Keeper, collected during 2012,
primarily depicting the large amounts of white Styrofoam. She
presented a slide with charts of red and blue indicators to
illustrate the combined changes in amount of high-windage debris
comparing a five year average of pre- and post-tsunami data
collected in 2012. The report is by specific types of debris,
including: buckets, plastic drums, hard plastic buoys, and
beverage and non-beverage bottles. The comparison illustrates
that the amount of debris found post tsunami "exploded," she
said. The control used was the low-windage current driven
debris indicator for combined rope and line fragments that are
current driven. The pre- and post-tsunami data are nearly equal
as the low-windage items have yet to come to rest. As the
subsequent slide illustrated, bears play with and shred the
Styrofoam and buoys, compounding the clean-up effort.
Continuing to the next two charts, she pointed out that the
Styrofoam debris soared in 2012, far beyond the five year
average prior to the tsunami. She underscored that every one of
the coastal pictures, portrayed tsunami debris. As previously
mentioned, the Gulf of Alaska Keeper organization was
commissioned to provide clean-up in 2012, but the effort began
late in the season following the procurement process, and was
concentrated on the PWS area. Other debris observations
indicate: storm surges move debris farther up a beach, wind
carries it inland, and the heavier debris is just now arriving.
11:22:47 AM
ACTING DIRECTOR FLOYD said that there are a number of issues
that will persist, and provided a slide titled, "Concerns
Related to Marine Debris." The concerns include: the unknown
total quantity to expect and the composition of what is
arriving, although a 30 percent increase has been estimated;
potential toxicity of components, and disbursement; potential
impact of small Styrofoam pieces on marine and terrestrial life;
possibility of smothering sensitive habitats; invasive species,
which have been reported from other states; safety risks
involved in the removal due to the treacherous coast line,
weather, remoteness, sea conditions, and wildlife; and potential
navigation risks due to large debris. Thus far, she said
radiation has not been present in any of the debris, which may
be attributable to the fact that the radioactive water leak from
Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor developed after the debris was
in the ocean and miles away. She assured the committee that
inspections of Alaskan beach debris by the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) radiological health physicists have
turned up no levels of radiation above the norm. Regarding what
to expect in consideration of cleanup costs, she said the first
time a beach is cleaned includes removal of items that may have
been accumulating for decades and represents a costly effort as
opposed to follow-up cleaning to do a sweep of the newly
arriving tsunami generated debris, albeit just as time
intensive. Employing landing craft, crew costs, hiring of
helicopters and planes, and disposal fees are all costs to be
factored in. An initial $50,000 grant, received from NOAA, paid
for the partial sweep, about 25 miles of coast in PWS, fall of
2012, and focused on Styrofoam, oyster buoys, plastics, and
other pieces that could be more easily removed. The state
funded the $200,000 aerial survey and data analysis. A $5
million goodwill gesture from Japan is in the hands of NOAA, and
each of the five effected states and two territories will
initially receive an equal, incremental share. The remainder
will be allocated on an as needed basis. Alaska can demonstrate
that it has extensive coast line that is more expensive to
access than the other four states, and the expectation is for
NOAA to allocate appropriately. For clarification she named the
areas sharing the $5 million: Washington, Oregon, Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Guam and one other American territory.
11:30:23 AM
ACTING DIRECTOR FLOYD said that a prioritization and planning
meeting was held January 17, 2013, with state and federal
partners, as well as Native corporation leaders, in preparation
for the 2013 field season of debris removal. The considerations
for establishing priorities, and other outcomes, will be
reported at the Alaska Forum on the Environment, February 4-8,
2013, held in Anchorage.
^Overview: Japan Tsunami Marine Debris: Information and
actions
Japan Tsunami Marine Debris: Information and actions
11:32:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
an overview of the Japan tsunami marine debris, from the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).
11:32:55 AM
PETER MURPHY, Alaska Coordinator, National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Marine Debris Program, indicated
that some of his information may overlap with that of the
previous speaker, and stated that he would focus more on the
worldwide aspect of the tsunami debris. He then provided a
background for the NOAA Marine Debris Program, which included:
establishment in 2005, within the Office of Response and
Restoration, which also handles oil spill response, and other
HAZMAT (hazardous materials) related duties; mandated by the
federal Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of
December 2006, which describes the mission to focus on marine
debris and remain dedicated to leading and promoting research,
prevention, and reduction of debris through activities
nationwide; and he noted that throughout the nation, including
Alaska, work is accomplished due to a team effort with the
involvement of many different groups. He provided a slide,
titled, "Marine Debris in Alaska" to illustrate the historic
paths of the winds and currents and how they carry a significant
amount of oceanic debris to Alaska's shoreline on an annual
basis. As the global currents converge, debris from one distant
region, or hemisphere, is transferred to another. It is usually
the winter storms that contribute the bulk of the debris on
Alaska's coastline, however remote. He directed attention to an
example project, a collection completed in 2007 with the help of
the nonprofit group Gulf of Alaska Keeper, which concentrated on
a two mile stretch of beach and removed over 20 tons of debris.
This represents a significant amount of litter collecting on a
yearly basis, he opined, and will now have the addition of the
arriving tsunami debris. With Slide 4, "Tsunami Marine Debris -
What is it?" he provided two photographs of the wide range of
items that were washed out to sea, including a wide array of
household items, entire houses and boats. Items move at
different rates, due to size and weight, and some even degrade
or breakup at sea. Lumber can be colonized and consumed by
marine life, whereas plastics cannot. Moving to slide 5,
"Marine Debris - Early Sightings," he explained that the
photograph was taken of debris at sea, two days after the
tsunami. These early images indicate the debris concentrated in
long bands, stretching for miles, and abundant enough to be
visible via satellite imagery. By mid-April the debris was
dispersing and no longer visible by satellite. He explained
that slide 6, "Modeling Where will the debris go, and when?"
illustrates how, through the combination of ocean currents and
winds, the debris that is not consumed by the ocean eventually
finds land. Items that ride low in the water move with the
currents and lighter, higher floating objects are carried faster
by the wind. The succeeding slide, titled "Modeling," shows a
chart, dated Monday, 1/7/13, of the on-going, monthly updated
model. The 8,000 computer simulated particles are used to track
movement and project eventual landings of the debris. He
offered the caveat that debris consumed by the ocean is not
accounted for in the model. Reporting on the four known docks
that were washed to sea, he said one arrived in June, 2012, on
the Oregon coast, one was sighted near the main Hawaiian islands
in September, 2012, and a third one has arrived on the coast of
Washington state, December 2012. Thus, even debris of similar
size, composition, and shape, departing from close proximity,
can travel at varying rates to different locales.
11:43:03 AM
MR. MURPHY continued to slide 8, "Sightings," to provide a map
of actual reported sightings. The map was compiled from
information provided to NOAA via an e-mail account created
specifically to gather sighting reports. Confirmed versus
possible tsunami debris is color coded. He said that, to date
over 1,500 reports have been submitted, resulting in 20
confirmed objects, which require additional steps to assure
origin. As depicted on slide 9, "Tsunami Marine Debris -
Actions," he said detection occurs via high resolution
satellite, as well as opportunistic aerial, and marine vessel
sightings. Due to the scale of the objects in conjunction with
the scope of the northern Pacific Ocean, it is important to
refine where to focus attention. Efforts are to target areas
close to shore on a consistent basis while continuing the
previously described modeling technique. Where possible, beach
monitoring is being conducted in a standardized method in order
to identify changes, such as increased amounts of Styrofoam or
light floating debris. Some parts of Alaska have baseline data
dating from 2008. He reported that action planning and
preparedness is being handled at the regional level, as well as
on-going communication decisions in order to disseminate
appropriate information. Slide 10, "Marine Debris Detection,"
is a color coded map that illustrates the highest concentrations
of marine debris detected on the shoreline from an aerial view.
Continuing to slide 11, "Planning Preparedness," he said that
each state must work with their own resources and needs and NOAA
works with states individually to translate prioritization data
into useable outputs. In summary, slide 12, "Tsunami Marine
Debris - What we know," he said that the tsunami debris added to
an existing problem; it is likely that much of the debris sank
near shore off the coast of Japan; the debris is dispersed, and
not in large concentrations or fields; 20 sightings have been
confirmed as of 1/24/13, with many more unconfirmed. He said to
keep in mind that the presence of confirmed debris indicates
that unconfirmed debris may be of the same origin and the noted
increase in Styrofoam, buoys and high-floating debris during the
2012 field season can be attributed as Japanese debris.
11:52:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON thanked the committee participants.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:53
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ADFG_ISP_2013 Status_HFisheries.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2013 10:00:00 AM |
Aquatic Invasive Species |
| DEC Tsunami Debris Overview.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2013 10:00:00 AM |
Japan Tsunami Debris |
| PNWER Invasive Species Powerpoint.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2013 10:00:00 AM |
Aquatic Invasive Species |
| Tsunami Debris Docks provide Unique Opportunity for Scientists - APRN story January 24, 2013.docx |
HFSH 1/29/2013 10:00:00 AM |
Japan Tsunami Debris |
| kbrr-serc_tunicate_field_guide.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2013 10:00:00 AM |
Aquatic Invasive Species |
| JTMD_AK_Legislature_20130128.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2013 10:00:00 AM |
Japan Tsunami Debris |