Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/16/2021 01:00 PM House 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.
Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 16, 2021 1:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair Representative Zack Fields Representative Calvin Schrage Representative Sara Hannan Representative George Rauscher Representative Mike Cronk Representative Ronald Gillham Representative Tom McKay MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 22 "An Act relating to shared animal ownership; and relating to the sharing and sale of raw milk and raw milk products." - HEARD & HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 54 "An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the Department of Fish and Game; relating to management of invasive species; relating to invasive species management decals; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD & HELD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION BILL: HB 22 SHORT TITLE: SHARED ANIMAL AND RAW MILK/PRODUCTS SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR 02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21 02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/18/21 (H) CRA, RES 03/30/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124 03/30/21 (H) Heard & Held 03/30/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 04/06/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124 04/06/21 (H) Moved HB 22 Out of Committee 04/06/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 04/07/21 (H) CRA RPT 6DP 1NR 04/07/21 (H) DP: MCCARTY, DRUMMOND, PRAX, MCCABE, HANNAN, SCHRAGE 04/07/21 (H) NR: PATKOTAK 04/16/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124 BILL: HB 54 SHORT TITLE: INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT SPONSOR(s): FISHERIES 02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21 02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/18/21 (H) RES, FSH 02/24/21 (H) RES REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER FSH 02/24/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED 03/11/21 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120 03/11/21 (H) Heard & Held 03/11/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 03/12/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED 03/18/21 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120 03/18/21 (H) Heard & Held 03/18/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 03/25/21 (H) FSH AT 10:30 AM GRUENBERG 120 03/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED -- 03/30/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120 03/30/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled> 04/01/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120 04/01/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled> 04/06/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120 04/06/21 (H) Moved CSHB 54(FSH) Out of Committee 04/06/21 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 04/07/21 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 7DP 04/07/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, ORTIZ, MCCABE, VANCE, STORY, STUTES, TARR 04/16/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented a PowerPoint on HB 22, and presented HB 54 as chair of the House Special Committee on Fisheries, sponsor. SUZY CROSBY, Owner Cottonwood Creek Farm Wasilla, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 22. AMY SEITZ, Executive Director Alaska Farm Bureau Soldotna, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered questions during the hearing on HB 22. AMY PETTIT, Executive Director Alaska Farmland Trust Palmer, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered questions during the hearing on HB 22. MARLENE WENGER Kenny Lake, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 22. DONNA CELIA Wasilla, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 22. TOBIAS SCHWOERER, PhD, Research Assistant Professor International Artic Research Center (IARC) University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered questions during the hearing on HB 54. LISA KA'AIHUE, Chair Alaska Invasive Species Partnership (AKISP) Fairbanks, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered questions during the hearing on HB 54. DANIELLE VERNA, Manager Environmental Monitoring Program Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) Cordova, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 54. TAMMY DAVIS, Coordinator Invasive Species Program Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered questions during the hearing on HB 54. ACTION NARRATIVE 1:02:48 PM CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Fields, Hopkins, Schrage, Hannan, Rauscher, Gillham, Cronk, McKay, and Patkotak were present at the call to order. HB 22-SHARED ANIMAL AND RAW MILK/PRODUCTS 1:03:52 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 22, "An Act relating to shared animal ownership; and relating to the sharing and sale of raw milk and raw milk products." 1:04:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, presented a PowerPoint on HB 22 [hard copy included in committee packet]. She began the presentation by paraphrasing slide 2, "Food Security in Alaska - Today," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Alaska is food insecure 95% of food is imported from outside Alaska can produce more 67% of farmers surveyed by Division of Agriculture would produce more if they had more market options $5 challenge Would generate $188 million for our economy REPRESENTATIVE TARR then paraphrased slide 3, "Food Security in Alaska - Historically," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: At statehood in 1959 525 farms Produced 49% of agricultural products Dairy farming goes back to at least 1867 Dairy farms across the state from McGrath to Nome to Kodiak to Mat-Su REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained slide 4, "Food Security in Alaska - Milk," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Only two certified dairy farms in Alaska Havemeister Dairy in Palmer In business since 1935 Baptist Mission Heritage Farm in Kodiak Certified as a grade A dairy in 2019 Alaska can produce more Operations in Kodiak and Delta Junction close to coming on line REPRESENTATIVE TARR paraphrased slides 5 and 6, both titled "Herd Shares," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Allowed by regulation 18 AAC 32.010 requires contractual relationship 18 AAC 32.010. Purpose and applicability of 18 AAC 32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060. (a) The purpose of 18 AAC 32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060 is to safeguard public health and safety by ensuring that milk and milk products from a cow, goat, or sheep, that are to be sold as part of commerce and intended for human consumption, are manufactured, sold, and delivered in a safe and wholesome condition. (b) The provisions of 18 AAC 32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060 apply to (1) each milk producer, each wholesale milk distributor, and each owner or operator of a milk processing plant, receiving station, or transfer station whose milk or milk products are to be sold as part of commerce and are intended for human consumption; (2) each milk hauler who (A) collects, for the milk producer, milk processing plant, or the department, samples of raw milk for pasteurization or for bacterial, chemical, temperature standards, or compliance testing; or (B) hauls milk from a milk producer or other milk distributor to a milk processing plant, receiving station, or transfer station; and (3) a processor of a milk product. (c) The provisions of 18 AAC 32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060 do not apply to a person who owns a cow, goat, or sheep and uses the milk from the animal for that person's personal use. (Eff. 5/23/98, Register 146) REPRESENTATIVE TARR finished her PowerPoint presentation with slide 7, "House Bill 22 - 2 things," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Puts herd share program in statute Strengthens program by putting in statute Allows producers to offer value added products to customers in herd share program Butter, ice cream, cheese Opportunity for farmer to produce additional products to support farm Opportunity for consumer to purchase more goods at one place REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the existence of herd shares would mean better business opportunities for farmers because farming is very capital-intensive. With herd sharing it's possible for a farmer to start small and grow as they build products and a customer base. She pointed out possible safety concerns addressed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and noted a relevant part of the Sectional Analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: "In addition, Section 17.20.015 prohibits the Department of Environmental Conservation from adding restrictions and additional requirements on the sharing or transfer of raw milk between owners of a milk-producing animal." She also noted that HB 22 contains language defining "raw milk." 1:10:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked why the raw milk provision in SB 22 is necessary. REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that a farmer may start herd sharing with an investment of a few thousand dollars, whereas starting a Grade A dairy operation would require millions of dollars. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said that it sounds as if the smaller owners don't have access to pasteurization. REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, "That is true." 1:13:46 PM SUZY CROSBY, Owner, Cottonwood Creek Farm, testified in support of HB 22 by presenting a PowerPoint [hard copy included in committee packet], titled "Managing A Goat Herd Share Operation in Alaska." She presented slide 2, titled "Why Goats?", which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Ease of handling ? Digestibility of goat milk ? Minimal infrastructure ? Simple cleanup ? "Missing link" MS. CROSBY paraphrased slide 3, "Why Herd Share?", which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Goats can help "pay their way" ? Connecting consumers with producers ? "Loca-vores" ? Freedom of choice ? Food security! MS. CROSBY presented slide 4, titled "Remember food insecurity (Mar. 2020)?", which showed a picture of empty dairy cases in a grocery store. She then showed slide 5, "What Herd Share is:", showing a picture of a refrigerator full of dairy products which she took for comparison immediately after seeing the empty dairy cases. Slide 5 read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Legal in Alaska ? http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/docs/vet/Dairy/RawMilkShare sAKFactsheet.pdf ? Currently restricted to fluid milk only ? Sustainable CSA ? Scheduled pickup ? Commitment ? Know your farmer! MS. CROSBY presented slide 6, "What Herd Share is not:", which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Not the grocery store! ? Not *selling* milk ? Not making cheese or other products? Yet! ? HB 22 would allow value-added products within the definition of the herd share relationship. MS. CROSBY then paraphrased slides 7, 8, and 9, all outlining safety and sanitation, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Safety & Sanitation: Part 1 Milking location Wash your hands! ? Pre-milking spray ? Hand or machine? ? Final strip ? Post-milking dip Safety & Sanitation: Part 2 ? Wash hands! ? A "sharp dividing line" ? Filtering milk ? Rapid chilling ? Cold storage Safety & Sanitation: Part 3 Record keeping-- which goat's milk? ? Educating the share owners ? Jar care MS. CROSBY then presented slides 10, 11, and 12, which showed pictures of milk products, and which read [original punctuation provided]: "HB 22 would allow value-added products -- like Queso Fresco? Or feta with sundried tomatoes? ?Or chevre?to be a legal component of a herd share agreement." She moved on to paraphrase slide 13, "Benefits of HB 22 to consumers:", which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Freedom to make food choices without restriction ? Having a variety of dairy options besides milk ? Access to digestible products for those intolerant to commercial dairy ? Many consumers prefer ready-made vs. DIY ? Growing preference for unique locally made/artisan food MS. CROSBY paraphrased slide 14, "Benefits of HB 22 to producers:", which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Allows for best usage of seasonal surplus milk ? Farmer can buy more hay per gallon of milk (goats eat even during their dry period!) ? Specialty products would still be available in winter even when fluid milk production drops MS. CROSBY presented slide 15, "HB 22 would offer benefits overall:", which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Help strengthen Alaska's fragile food system ? Help prevent food waste ? Expand Alaskan agriculture by offering a new business opportunity for farmers 1:27:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY noted Ms. Crosby's assertion that "man could not survive on Twinkies." MS. CROSBY said that the more nutritious a food is, the higher the likelihood of bacteria. REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY commented that he lived for four years in Norway where goat products were very popular. 1:29:58 PM AMY SEITZ, Executive Director, Alaska Farm Bureau, presented a PowerPoint [hard copy included in committee packet] titled "HB 22 Expanding Alaska's Dairy Industry." She said that HB 22 is important for increasing agriculture and local food access, as well as for the economic benefits. She said that, while agriculture in Alaska is growing, there is opportunity for more contribution, which would grow the economic benefits and increase food security. She said that 50 percent of food consumed in Alaska used to be grown locally; that number is now 5 percent. She explained that shipping delays, strikes, and worldwide pandemics affect the ability to import food into the state. "If every Alaskan spent $5 a week buying Alaska-grown," she said, "it would have a $188 million impact on our economy." She noted that there is not enough production in the state for all residents to spend $5 per week, so removing barriers to production is important. 1:34:22 PM MS. SEITZ presented slide 5, which contained quotes regarding COVID-19 impacts on the food supply chain and read as follows [original punctuation provided]: "it has been seen that COVID - 19 has an impact on the whole process [food supply chain] from the field to the consumer" - Oxford Academic, Impacts of Covid - 19 on the food supply chain " With the coronavirus pandemic, we're facing a crisis the likes of which none of us has experienced before. Times like these remind us all of the importance of ensuring our nation's food security, and we want to assure Americans that agriculture remains on call 24/7." -Zippy Duvall, President American Farm Bureau Federation "The food supply chain is breaking," -John Tyson, Tyson Foods Chairman MS. SEITZ said that with only two Grade A certified dairies in Alaska, most of the dairy operations in the state are part of a herd share program. She explained that Alaska would need 28 million pounds to constitute a 90-day supply of milk, but current production is at 3.5 million pounds. She said that HB 22 would increase economic opportunities for farms as well as choices for consumers. 1:38:42 PM AMY PETTIT, Executive Director, Alaska Farmland Trust, presented a PowerPoint on HB 22 [hard copy included in committee packet]. She explained that the Alaska Farmland Trust aims to protect agricultural areas, promote Alaska's agricultural industry, and educate the public on the industry. She said that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts a Census of Agriculture every five years, and the most recent census shows that farms have decreased by 3 percent in the contiguous U.S., but have increased by 30 percent in Alaska, with Alaska leading the nation in the number of new farmers. She said that the number of small farms in Alaska has increased by 73 percent, and that 47 percent of farmers in Alaska are women. She said that the value of food sold directly to consumers increased from $2.2 million in 2012 to $4.5 million in 2017. She characterized HB 22 as being about improving access, removing barriers, developing economies, and expanding production, and that the investment in the next generation of farmers that could be made possible by HB 22 would benefit the state. 1:46:33 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 22. 1:47:28 PM MARLENE WENGER testified in support of HB 22. She said that she and her husband started the Copper River Valley Chapter of the Alaska Farm Bureau 20 years ago, and that in their own store they carry as many Alaska-grown products as possible. She noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic the store had run out of imported items, but not those which had been locally-produced. 1:49:08 PM DONNA CELIA testified in support of HB 22. She said that she is a herd share member at Cottonwood Creek Farm, having learned farming as a child. She described watching the farming industry in Oregon die, then slowly be replaced by the organic movement. She expressed appreciation for farming culture and noted the popularity of farmers markets in Alaska. 1:51:20 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 22. He then announced that HB 22 was held over. HB 54-INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT 1:51:41 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 54, "An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the Department of Fish and Game; relating to management of invasive species; relating to invasive species management decals; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 54(FSH).] 1:52:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 54 on behalf of the House Special Committee on Fisheries, sponsor. She said that invasive species are those which have the ability to cause harm, and noted that Northern Pike have negatively affected the salmon runs in the Matanuska-Susitna area. She said that there needs to be a more immediate, effective response to invasive species outbreaks, and a challenge is access to private lands. She explained that through working with the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership (AKISP) it's become clear that Alaska has notably fewer problems with invasive species than does the Lower 48. Shen then described the Alaska Invasive Species Council (AISC) as a multi- stakeholder group intended to facilitate government, development, transportation, tourism, and other business types in working together to minimize invasive species. 2:00:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted the small fiscal note attached to HB 54 and explained that with so much interest in invasive species there will be grant funds or statutorily-designated receipts. She discussed the establishment of the invasive species management decals, which would be a way in which the general public can directly support efforts to fight invasive species without instituting a mandatory fee. She then noted the responsibilities of the AISC and the creation of the invasive species response fund. 2:06:44 PM TOBIAS SCHWOERER, PhD, Research Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks International Artic Research Center, presented a PowerPoint on HB 54 [hard copy included in committee packet], titled "Batten down the hatches." He said he chose that title because of the "storm" of more than 50,000 invasive species in the Lower 48, costing an estimated $150 billion per year. He said the first half of his presentation would focus on Elodea, a dense, fast-spreading aquatic vegetation that can clog waterways and affect fish habitats. He described how Elodea can pile up in waterways, clogging rudders and affecting float plane safety. One-third of flights in Alaska, he said, use an "Elodea lake" for take-off and, as pilots are increasingly unable to use those lakes, the economic impact is $185 per flight in recreation loss. He presented slide 6, "Elodea's effects on salmon," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Harmful dissolved oxygen levels ? Dense vegetation ? Predator habitat Potentially more prey DR. SCHWOERER said that he's developed an economic model estimating that Elodea's annual damages to sockeye fisheries averages $172 million per year. 2:17:00 PM DR. SCHWOERER presented information regarding Quagga and Zebra mussels, the damages of which are estimated at $1.5 billion per year throughout the U.S. He characterized the mussels as potentially having a "devastating impact" on the salmon fisheries and aquatic resources in Alaska. He described a two- year survey done by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and AKISP which estimated that 1,000 boats enter the state at Beaver Creek, Alaska, yearly, 35 percent of which are from states with mussel-infested lakes. He said the data also showed that, while there are hundreds of inspection stations in the Lower 48, 70 percent of the boats entering Alaska are not inspected. It only takes one boat, he explained, to bring invasive mussels to the state; of the 5,741 boats currently registered in Alaska, 35 percent were previously registered in states with Quagga and Zebra mussels. He stressed that preventing invasive species from entering the state is the most cost-effective way to keep Alaska's waterways clean. 2:24:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether there is a way to tell how long a mussel can appear dead but still multiply when reintroduced to fresh water. DR. SCHWOERER replied that the larva can survive long trips in water remaining in the boat. 2:26:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that several states don't seem to have the invasive mussels and asked Dr. Schwoerer why that is. DR. SCHWOERER responded that mussels could eventually make their way to those locations. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked how far north Elodea can survive. DR. SCHWOERER explained that the latest models estimate that Elodea can survive into the lower Brooks Range and the Yukon River Watershed. 2:27:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how long it would take Elodea to repopulate after eradication from a lake. DR. SCHWOERER responded that Elodea has, up to this point, been able to reproduce only to fragments instead of to female and male plants, so it cannot have a seed bank in a lake. He described maintaining a low concentration of herbicides in the lakes as being effective in eradication. 2:31:06 PM LISA KA'AIHUE, Chair, Alaska Invasive Species Partnership (AKISP), presented a PowerPoint on HB 54 [hard copy included in committee packet] and began with slide 1, "Alaska Invasive Species Partnership," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The AKISP is an informal affiliation of interested individuals representing agencies, organizations, and members of the public. Our goal is to heighten awareness of the problems associated with non-native invasive species and to bring about greater statewide coordination, cooperation and action to halt the introduction and spread of these invasive species. MS. KA'AIHUE explained that the AKISP depends on volunteers to push back against invasive species, which is why it supports this proposed legislation; the coordination of resources and efforts through the Alaska Invasive Species Council proposed under HB 54 would ensure efficient use of resources across governmental departments, with a high probability of success. She stressed that prevention is the best strategy, and having a rapid response fund as proposed under HB 54 increases the likelihood of successful eradication of invasive species. 2:38:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked about members of the board on the AKISP. MS. KA'AIHUE replied that members are from various governmental organizations, as well as the Tyonek Tribal Conservation District, Metlakatla Indian Community, Homer Soil and Water Conservation District, Kenai Watershed Forum, and the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council. 2:39:16 PM DANIELLE VERNA, Environmental Monitoring Program Manager, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (PWSRCAC), testified in support of HB 54. She noted that the PWSRCAC promotes the environmentally-safe operation of the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated tankers. Member organizations are the 18 communities in the area affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, as well as fishing, aquaculture, Alaska Native, tourism, and environmental groups. She expressed that the PWSRCAC sees HB 54 and its proposed creation of the Alaska Invasive Species Council as an important step towards collaboratively addressing invasive species prevention and management, and recognizes that the continually evolving threat of invasive species makes a rapid response fund necessary. 2:43:13 PM TAMMY DAVIS, Invasive Species Program Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), presented a PowerPoint on HB 54 [hard copy included in the committee packet], titled "Department of Fish and Game Invasive Species Program Report: 2021." She presented slide 2, "Invasive Species Costs," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Environmental damage through competition, predation, competition, new pathogen introductions and habitat alterations which result in ? Destruction of fisheries ? Degradation of habitats ? Reduction of biodiversity ? Alteration of food webs ? Economic impacts: ? Reduction or elimination of commercially important species ? Alteration of water quality, water regimes and availability ? Obstruction of transportation routes, ? Fouled infrastructure affecting harbors, docks, hydropower, industrial pipelines, Restriction or reduction of recreational and commercial opportunities ? Reduction of property values MS. DAVIS presented slide 3, "Invasive Species," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Invasive Species: a species that has been introduced to an environment where it is non-native, or alien, and whose introduction causes environmental or economic damage or harm to human health. ? Examples in Alaska: Northern pike in Southcentral, Elodea in many state waters ADF&G strives for ? Collaboration & Partnership with state, federal, tribal and local governmental entities, universities, local organizations, the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership, and western region and statewide invasive species consortiums. ? Active partnership with DNR on elodea prevention, outreach, detection, response and control. ? Management & Control: Northern pike suppression, eradication and research. ? Containment & Research: Colonial tunicate in-water control , northern pike movement and eDNA. Support of community-based early detection citizen science: European green crab, tunicates, fouling spp. ? Outreach and communication with stakeholders: anglers, boaters/boat owners, pilots, pet trade and pet owners, industry, public. ? Reporting: Online reporting tool, hotline and database. ? Strategic planning: Programmatic and multi-agency. ? Evaluation of existing statutory and regulatory authorities. MS. DAVIS described slide 4, "Timeline of Invasive Species Events," which illustrated that the number and diversity of invasive species have more than doubled in the past 11 years compared to the past 40 years. She explained that as global transportation expands, invasive species are expected to become even more of a problem, with prevention, detection, and rapid response intervention crucial in mitigating the damage. 2:48:45 PM MS. DAVIS presented slide 5, "NORTHERN PIKE," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ADF&G's Pike Control Program has cost over $5M to date Response: ? Invasive Pike Program ? Monitoring ? Research ? Suppression ? Eradication ? 23 waterbodies in SC Goals: Containment ? Prevent Spread ? Restore Fisheries MS. DAVIS explained that Northern Pike is the species of most concern to ADF&G; response actions differ based on what's possible in different waters, and the fish are more easily eradicated from bodies of water that are more easily accessible. She then presented slide 6, "Dvex," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Response: ? Removal of infested infrastructure ? Delineation surveys ? Outreach to stakeholders and community ? Research in situ control and containment Goals: ? Continue to survey ? Containment MS. DAVIS presented slide 7, "MUSKELLUNGE," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Response: ? Rotenone Treatment (October 2018) Goals: ? Eradicate the population to prevent spread Presence was not public knowledge until after eradicated. MS. DAVIS explained that Muskellunge were illegally released in 2012 and, like Northern Pike, are harmful to native salmon populations. She then continued on to slide 8, "LARGEMOUTH BASS," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Response: ? Media attention (2018) ? Contacted bass biologists ( 2018) ? Surveys (Nets, Traps, Hook and Line) (2018) ? How did they get here? ? eDNA (Fall 2019) Goals: ? Look for evidence of a reproducing population MS. DAVIS said that Largemouth Bass are "voracious predators" and one of the top 10 invasive fish in the world. She then presented slide 9, "FATHEAD MINNOWS," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Response: ? Pathology Analysis ? Detected a harmful parasite ? Minnow Trapping (2018-2019) ? Draining/Rotenone Treatment (July 2019) ? Continue monitoring Goals: ? Eradicate the population to prevent spread MS. DAVIS continued on to slide 10, "GOLDFISH," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Response: ? Electroshocking (2018) ? Netting/ Trapping (2019) ? Pathology Analysis (2019) ? Emergency Exemption Permit (2019) ? Flow diversion/ Rotenone Treatment (July 2019) Goals: ? Eradicate the population to prevent spread MS. DAVIS noted that manual methods for controlling the goldfish problem were ineffective, so pesticides were used and over 10,000 goldfish were removed. She then presented slide 11, "RAINBOW TROUT," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Response: ? Survey (2019) ? Netting (2020) ? Pathology analysis (2020) ? Law enforcement citation ? Under-ice gillnetting Goals: ? Eradicate the population to prevent spread In 2019, 144 rainbow trout were illegally imported from a hatchery in Oregon and then illegally released into a closed lake on the Kenai Peninsula. MS. DAVIS noted that there is a hotline for invasive species reporting, with information shared among organizations statewide. 2:55:34 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 54. After ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public testimony. 2:55:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked why the rainbow trout was brought into Alaska. MS. DAVIS responded that she doesn't know why the fish were imported and said, "Based on the fact that they were cited, one might assume that they were aware that it was not a legal practice." 2:57:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked, "What exactly does a rainbow trout do that's bad? I thought that rainbow trouts were highly sought-after game fish and I'm surprised to see them on the 'bad list'." MS. DAVIS explained that it's illegal to import live fish into Alaska, and any fish introduced to a non-native water body could carry pathogens and have a direct impact on the food chain. 2:58:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked if it's known whether the rainbow trout were imported from outside the state. MS. DAVIS replied that they were imported from a hatchery in Oregon. 2:59:53 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 54 was held over. 3:00:22 PM ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.