Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
01/23/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Update: Invasive Species in Alaska and Agency Action Plans to Address Invasive Species | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 23, 2012
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): UPDATE: INVASIVE SPECIES IN ALASKA AND AGENCY
ACTION PLANS TO ADDRESS INVASIVE SPECIES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
TAMMY DAVIS, Fishery Biologist
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled "Invasive
Species Status Report 2012" and answered questions.
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the "Invasive
Species Status Report 2012" presentation.
MARNIE CHAPMAN, Biologist
University of Alaska Southeast-Sitka Campus
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, "Didemnum vexillum
(Dvex) in Sitka, AK," and answered questions.
BRIANNE BLACKBURN, Natural Resources Specialist
Invasive Weeds and Agricultural Pests Coordinator
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, "State of Alaska
Invasive Species," and answered questions during the discussion.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:37 PM
CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Dick,
Gardner, P. Wilson, Foster, Feige, and Seaton were present at
the call to order. Representatives Kawasaki, Herron, and Munoz
arrived as the meeting was in progress. Representative Johnson
was also in attendance.
^OVERVIEW(S): Update: Invasive Species in Alaska and Agency
Action Plans to Address Invasive Species
OVERVIEW(S): Update: Invasive Species in Alaska and Agency
Action Plans to Address Invasive Species
1:03:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would
be an update from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
and the Department of Natural Resources' Division of Agriculture
on invasive species in Alaska and action plans to address
invasive species.
1:04:18 PM
TAMMY DAVIS, Fishery Biologist, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), confirmed that she was the
Invasive Species Program project leader.
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, established that the invasive species
program was part of the Division of Sport Fish.
MS. DAVIS introduced a PowerPoint presentation, entitled
"Invasive Species Status Report 2012" and directed attention to
slide 2, "Overview." She summarized that she would be defining
invasive species, the pathways into Alaska, species of concern
for risk of introduction, and the species of special concern for
their presence, with highlights on three specific species:
Northern Pike, Didemnum Vexillum, and Elodea. She affirmed that
she would discuss ADF&G's future goals in relation to these and
other species.
1:07:03 PM
MS. DAVIS, calling attention to slide 3, "Invasive Species,"
explained that "an organism introduced outside its native range
that can cause damage to environments, economic hardship to key
industries, or pose a risk to human health is considered an
invasive species." She clarified it must be non-native and pose
a risk. She specified that for survival, a non-native species
needed few predators, an agreeable habitat, an abundance of
food, and the ability to out-compete other organisms in that
environment.
MS. DAVIS presented slide 4, "Pathways for Introduction," and
related that an escalation in the movement of goods and people
increased the potential for the introduction of non-native
species. She stated that Southcentral Alaska had 165 lakes in
which Northern Pike had been illegally introduced.
1:09:04 PM
MS. DAVIS, moving on to slide 5, "Invasive Species," disclosed
that invasive species could out-compete native species for
habitat, food, and space, degrade or destroy the habitats, and
upset the ecosystem structure and function.
MS. DAVIS, reviewing slide 6, "Prevention," said that measures
by the state to prevent non-native species included regulations
prohibiting intentional transfer of live fish, wildlife and
aquatic plants.
1:10:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what penalties were involved.
MS. DAVIS responded that the penalty could range from a $100
fine to the cost of restoring the system.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked about the rate of prosecution.
MS. DAVIS replied that, as enforcement had its own challenges,
there was currently no prosecution.
1:11:15 PM
MS. DAVIS emphasized that there were regulations about aquatic
farming, and farm products, and that it was necessary to certify
seed or spat imported for use in aquatic farm production.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if the prohibition on felt soled wading
boots included the sale and importation.
MS. DAVIS replied that only the use in freshwater systems was
prohibited.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked about the rate of compliance.
MS. DAVIS indicated that this had only gone into effect on
January 1, 2012.
1:12:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if work was being conducted with the
nurseries to educate about the damage caused by specific plants.
MS. DAVIS replied that this was outside the jurisdiction of
ADF&G.
MS. DAVIS continued the discussion on prevention with slide 7,
which included information and identification.
1:13:27 PM
MS. DAVIS, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, stated that she was
not aware of any boat cleaning restrictions in Kenai, although
inspections of boats moving from one place to another was
happening in the western states.
1:14:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked if giardia had existed in Alaska prior
to the Vietnam War.
MS. DAVIS replied that she would research the question.
MR. SWANTON, in response to Representative Dick, opined that
giardia was endemic to North America, and that it was typically
around areas with beaver populations which acted as an
intermediate host.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered his belief that giardia affected
only urban visitors.
1:15:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for more information about the
invasives in Sitka.
MS. DAVIS replied that more details would be forthcoming, and
she clarified that it was not a plant, but an invertebrate.
1:16:27 PM
MS. DAVIS conveyed the "Prevention" information on slide 9,
which included the Outreach collaboration with partners, and the
prioritization of actions, based on species, pathways, capacity,
and funding.
MS. DAVIS, calling attention to slide 10, "Aquatic Species of
Concern: Risk of Introduction," reviewed the aquatic species of
concern to the department, which included Atlantic salmon,
European Green Crab, and tunicates.
MS. DAVIS, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, acknowledged that
tunicates would be discussed by Marnie Chapman later in the
meeting.
1:18:28 PM
MS. DAVIS, addressing slide 11, "Monitoring for Invasive
Species," reported that ADF&G monitored through various
programs, including Platewatch for the Pacific coast tunicate,
and European green crab monitoring in Ketchikan, Homer, Sitka
and other locations.
MS. DAVIS directed attention to the map on slide 12,
"Monitoring," which depicted the Platewatch locations for
tunicate monitoring. She observed that both Ketchikan and Sitka
were positive for both species of the botryllid tunicate. She
noted that the right side of slide 12 showed the native and non-
native tunicates, as well as an example of a collection plate
for tunicates.
1:21:11 PM
MS. DAVIS, specifying the green crab sampling locations on slide
13, "Monitoring," admitted that it was similar to a search for a
needle in a haystack.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, referencing slide 12, asked about the relative
size of the tunicate.
MS. DAVIS explained that, in this slide, the tunicate was
growing on an organism the size of a slug. She specified that
the tunicate was a bit more viscous than slime.
MS. DAVIS passed around a jar containing tunicate samples.
1:23:11 PM
MS. DAVIS stressed the importance for constant monitoring for
green crab as detection had been observed significantly closer
to Alaska each year.
MS. DAVIS replied that concern was for the effect on Dungeness
crab nursery sites, which were contiguous to green crab
nurseries. She pointed out that adult green crabs were
voracious predators.
1:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned whether there was any value to
green crab.
MS. DAVIS pointed out that green crabs were not eaten in the
British Isles, its native habitat.
1:25:18 PM
MS. DAVIS introduced slide 14, "Aquatic Species of Concern:
Present in Alaska," and mentioned botryllid tunicates and
didymosphenia geminata. She declared that although geminata
were native in some low nutrient, cold, clear streams in
Interior Alaska, there could be different effects if it was
introduced to the coastal area fresh water systems. She
mentioned that impact of the red-legged frog, introduced to
Sitka by a well-intentioned teacher, was not yet known.
1:26:51 PM
MS. DAVIS, in response to Co-Chair Feige, reported that there
had not been any prosecution of the Sitka teacher.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that the introduction of the red-
legged frog was not against the law at that time.
1:27:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Davis if her funding requests
included any monies for public service announcements (PSAs).
MS. DAVIS replied that the funding request included outreach,
and that PSAs were included in that category. She noted that
funding from Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service would support a broad media and education
outreach campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if funding was a reason for the
challenge to enforcement.
MS. DAVIS responded that she could not speak to that.
1:28:11 PM
MS. DAVIS clarified that Northern Pike were considered invasive
when outside its native range. She also listed colonial
tunicate and elodea, a freshwater weed, as species of concern.
MS. DAVIS directed attention to the map on slide 15, "Northern
Pike: Native Range," which depicted the native and introduced
ranges of Northern Pike.
MS. DAVIS moved on to slide 16, "Northern Pike," and stated that
Northern Pike lived in calm, shallow waters with abundant
aquatic vegetation, a habitat similar to that for salmon
spawning. She called attention to the devastating effect from
introduced northern pike to the native salmonids.
1:30:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK nominated that the pike, when uncontrolled,
had also wiped out muskrat populations.
MS. DAVIS confirmed that both muskrats and ducks had been found
in stomach contents of pike.
1:31:29 PM
MS. DAVIS compared slides 17 and 18, "Northern Pike:
Consequences," which identified the drop off in native fisheries
since the introduction of Northern Pike in Stormy Lake and
Alexander Creek.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked where Stormy Lake and Alexander
Creek were located.
MS. DAVIS, referring to slide 20, "Alexander Lake/Alexander
Creek," explained that these flowed into the Susitna River,
about eight river miles above the delta into Cook Inlet. Ms.
Davis stated that Stormy Lake was on the Kenai Peninsula.
MS. DAVIS, referring back to slide 18, said that the decline on
Alexander Creek was similar to that on Stormy Lake.
1:34:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referencing slide 18, asked if the harvest and
the effort graphs could also be interpreted to indicate a
decrease in effort resulted in a decrease in harvest.
MR. SWANTON replied that the graph was merely trying to depict
that the abundance of king salmon in Alexander Creek had
"precipitously decreased to the point now where there is no
fishing." He elaborated that Alexander Creek was now closed to
fishing, as there was a concern for the stock, and recovery work
was underway.
1:35:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if it was possible that, as people often
went where the fishing was good, this could be the reason for
the decline.
MR. SWANTON reflected that the increase of the northern pike
population had resulted in the decrease of the king salmon
population, which led to the decline of fishermen.
1:37:18 PM
MS. DAVIS, returning attention to slide 20, stated that pike
were first found in Alexander Lake in the mid-1980s, but that,
as pike moved down Alexander Creek in the early 1990s, a decline
in the king salmon population occurred. She continued, noting
that the Board of Fisheries closed the Alexander system to king
salmon fishing in 2008. She reported that the legislature had
allocated general funds to the Division of Sport Fish to study
the Northern Pike in the Alexander system, which included
aggressive control netting in the side channel sloughs, as well
as in Alexander Creek. She noted that there would also be a
study as to better understand the quantity of salmonids in the
pike diet. She opined that heavy pressure on the pike
population could lead to a restoration of the king salmon
fishery.
1:40:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how, if no salmon were now there
because they had been eaten by the pike and nothing was done to
help them return, the system could be restored.
MS. DAVIS replied that the study would attempt to find out how
many salmon were still reproducing in Sucker Creek, along
Alexander Creek. She reflected that it was necessary to better
understand the entire salmonid population.
1:41:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether there was any monitor equipment on
Alexander or Sucker Creeks.
MR. SWANTON pointed out that for most clear water systems the
adult escapements were assessed by helicopter surveys, which
were quite accurate for counting. He offered his opinion that
700 or 800 adults were still in the system. He explained the
pressure that the Northern Pike gauntlet created for salmon
smolt migration.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE commented that, as a pilot, he had dropped
fishermen at Alexander Lake, and often fishermen had caught half
a dozen pike before he was even able to take off. He concluded
that there was a healthy pike population in that lake.
1:44:45 PM
MS. DAVIS, in response to Representative Wilson, confirmed that
stocking salmon "would effectively be feeding the pike." She
noted that some lakes in Southcentral were no longer being
stocked because of this problem.
1:45:23 PM
MS. DAVIS returned attention to slide 21, "Northern Pike," and
noted that some objectives of the project included large-scale
gillnetting, documenting movement patterns, and monitoring
salmonid populations in the drainage.
MS. DAVIS, addressing slide 22, "Northern Pike: What's Next,"
affirmed that Stormy Lake was another priority project for the
study of pike. She said the first phase would be for permitting
and public scoping, and the second phase would be investigating
the feasibility of using rotenone, a chemical treatment. She
confirmed that five other lakes had used this treatment with
effective results; however, she noted that one of the lakes had
a return of a pike population.
MS. DAVIS, discussing slide 23, "Stormy Lake and Swanson River
Drainage," explained that the situation in Stormy Lake was
similar to that in Alexander Lake. She expressed the desire to
keep pike out of the Swanson River drainage.
1:48:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered his belief that pike spawn in
creeks.
MS. DAVIS replied that telemetry surveys had been done on this
system to learn more about pike movement.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if pike bounties had been offered.
MR. SWANTON opined that bounties had not been tried, but that
even relaxed limits had not taken care of the problem. He
shared that efforts were being concentrated on the pike spawning
ground.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked for a definition of controlled netting.
MS. DAVIS replied that different systems used different types of
nets, either gill nets or hoop nets, 24 hours a day for the
month of May.
1:50:42 PM
MS. DAVIS, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, stated that 4008 pike
were captured, and when the stomach contents were investigated,
273 salmonids were found.
MS. DAVIS, discussing slide 24, "Didemnum vexillum (D.vex),"
indicated the picture of the colonial tunicate and, in response
to Co-Chair Seaton, she pointed out the former aquaculture farm
in the middle of the picture of Whiting Harbor, near Sitka. She
said that Marnie Chapman was on-line to also answer questions.
1:52:50 PM
MS. DAVIS explained that ADF&G had hosted a marine invasive
species bio blitz in Sitka, slide 25, "D. vex." She pointed out
that the extensive growth of the tunicate did not allow the
oysters to even be seen through the netting. She said that D.
vex had potential effects on herring spawn, as it grew on
seaweed, manmade materials, and the seafloor, and it smothered
anything on which it grew.
1:55:13 PM
MS. DAVIS, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said that
the aquaculture economy had been affected by D. vex. She
explained that the D. vex fibers grow right into the net, and
are difficult to remove. She pointed out that farmers spray the
nets to remove it, but this often spreads the species because it
reproduces asexually. She declared that D. vex had been found
around the world.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that the spread of D. vex had
covered miles and miles of the Eastern U.S. coastline.
MS. DAVIS reported that, over a very short period of time, the
D. vex population expanded from a 20 mile radius in an area
around the prime fishing area of Georges Bank, to an area
greater than 100 square miles.
1:57:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked how to kill D. vex or prevent it from
attaching.
MS. DAVIS replied that there was still a lot to learn, as there
had not been any complete eradication success.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if it was possible to kill the D. vex
without killing the oysters in an oyster farm.
MS. DAVIS replied "no."
1:58:47 PM
MS. DAVIS reiterated that the species had been found in Whiting
Harbor in June 2010, with identification confirmed in August.
In late August, ADF&G, University of Alaska, and the Sitka
tribe, had conducted a quick investigation of the aquatic farm
and the sea floor below the sea farm, and realized that D. vex
was growing everywhere that they looked.
MS. DAVIS stated that funding assistance from USFWS allowed for
distribution assessments, investigation of control options, and
the compilation of a response plan. She said that an immediate
news release went to all the stakeholders. In January 2011,
ADF&G commercial fisheries divers did a comprehensive survey of
Whiting Harbor to determine the distribution of D. vex (slide
27, "D. vex: Distribution.").
2:01:54 PM
MS. DAVIS continued with slides 28 and 29, "D. vex," and
conveyed that work had continued throughout 2011 with a rapid
response team of invasive species experts comprised of state,
local, federal, and tribal partners. In the summer 2011, the
remaining lantern nets at the aquatic farm were bagged, pulled
out of the water, put into polypropylene bags, and disposed of
out of state. In October, when extreme weather broke apart the
aquatic farm, the ADF&G Sitka office managed to gather as much
of the debris as possible, put it into containers, and ship it
out of state.
2:04:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to what degree D. vex had contributed
to the destruction of the aquatic farm.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response, said that it was in
combination with the weather. She shared that in July the owner
of the farm had not been allowed to go back into the farm to
tighten things up because it could have caused further spreading
with the use of any boats. At the time of the storm, one side
had already sunk under water and the waves and water further
softened the ropes, allowing about 100 bags to drop to the
bottom. She suggested that the state needed to develop a rapid
response system, as none of the departments had any funds to
respond.
2:07:37 PM
MR. SWANTON pointed out that, although there were some legal
aspects to contend with, the owner of this facility was under
contract to secure his materials.
CO-CHAIR SEATON agreed there were always more pieces to the
puzzle, and it could be addressed at a later time how the state
should act to ensure that an invasive species did not get out of
control.
2:08:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for an update to the situation in
Sitka.
MS. DAVIS recounted that, although the aquatic farm was
completely out of the water, a privately owned weather port was
well infested and still on the water; there was still growth on
the native substrate and there was a search for funding to find
a means to eradicate it. Directing attention to slide 30 "D.
vex: What is Next?" she said that the Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center (SERC) was looking for funding to find feasible
means for eradication.
2:09:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked about the timeframe for Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and ADF&G to permit use of slow
dissolving powdered chlorine for control, noting that this had
been used in the fish plants as a disinfectant.
MS. DAVIS confirmed that the permitting would be a lengthy
procedure, primarily because of federal permits and public
scoping.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked about the use in state waters.
MS. DAVIS explained that there were serious complexities. In
further response to Co-Chair Seaton, agreed to prepare an
outline paper for the committee.
2:12:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if ADF&G had a priority list for
invasive levels.
MS. DAVIS observed that there was not a prioritized list.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if there should there be a list.
MS. DAVIS deferred to Dr. Swanton.
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that this could be included in the
outline paper.
2:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reflected that invasive species were
often referred to in general terms. She requested that more
information include the seriousness for potential spreading
within Alaska, as well as the consequences and ramifications
from this spread.
CO-CHAIR SEATON endorsed that Ms. Davis come back to the
committee with this information, the direction to move forward
and address the problems, and the best procedures to follow.
2:15:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked to clarify that the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center (SERC) study would occur prior to
a request to the legislature for funding for eradication.
MS. DAVIS replied that SERC had submitted a request for funding
to the North Pacific Research Board.
MR. SWANTON informed the committee that research had been
conducted on methods of control and eradication. He declared
that ADF&G had submitted a capital request for $500,000 for this
particular project, but that the means for eradication had not
yet been determined.
2:17:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if ADF&G had a comprehensive plan
to address invasive species.
MS. DAVIS responded that ADF&G had an aquatic nuisance species
management plan, written in 2002, and she opined that it needed
to be updated.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI pondered whether, if there were no other
comprehensive plan, the House Resources Standing Committee
should address this need.
2:19:28 PM
MARNIE CHAPMAN, Biologist, University of Alaska Southeast-Sitka
Campus, reported that she was at the Bioblitz when D. vex was
discovered in Sitka, and since then she had been working with
the rapid response team. She directed attention to her
PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Didemnum vexillum (Dvex) in
Sitka, AK".
MS. CHAPMAN, addressing slide 3, "Dvex in Sitka," said that
there was concern about the explosive growth and potential for
spread, and that she would address ways to reduce the
possibilities for Dvex reintroduction.
2:21:03 PM
MS. CHAPMAN offered slide 4, "Growth Over 10 Week Period," which
depicted various close up photos of netting. She reported that
Dvex was a tunicate, an invertebrate and a member of the phylum
Chordata, which included birds, amphibians, and fish. She said
that it spread sexually, but that it also grew asexually. She
shared that the asexual reproduction was astounding, as depicted
on slides 5 - 9, which depicted photos of the Dvex growth in the
netting from July 9 - September 1, 2011. She directed attention
to slide 10, which compared photos of the netting on June 24 and
September 11, 2011. She pointed to the tentacle growth which
she explained would drop off and spread new colonies, shown on
slide 11, "Dangles." She stated that these tentacles could grow
one meter in two weeks.
2:23:10 PM
MS. CHAPMAN moved to slide 12, "Dangles attenuate and break
free," and explained that the growth will get thin, break, and
float away to new places, and then, slide 13, "Within a few
days..." which depicted how the Dvex would start to do the same
thing again. She stated that Dvex was a very impressive, very
scary animal for its potential to spread.
MS. CHAPMAN shifted to slide 14, "Intertidal Dvex Sitka Alaska,"
and pointed out that it covered everything, including rocks and
seaweed. She observed that it was "...habitat altering. We
don't know exactly what it's going to do, but, it's clearly
causing changes out there."
2:24:59 PM
MS. CHAPMAN spoke about slide 15, "Dvex in Sitka" and slide 16,
"Whiting Harbor infestation." She said that there was concern
for the deterioration of the Whiting Harbor docks, as this could
spread the Dvex infestation. She offered her belief that the
difficulties of prioritizing among multiple agencies had
contributed to the escape of some of the dock structures, and
she expressed a desire that this mistake would not be repeated.
She emphasized the crucial need for identification and
containment of invasive species.
2:27:00 PM
MS. CHAPMAN supplied slide 17, "Whiting Farm Deterioration,"
which compared pictures of the Whiting Farm dock structures in
summer 2010 and September 26, 2011.
MS. CHAPMAN spoke about slide 18, "Eradication," and reiterated
that SERC was testing various eradication methods, which
included an application of salt.
MS. CHAPMAN directed attention to slide 19, "10% Acetic Acid,"
which displayed bits of netting containing Dvex. She explained
the difficulties of keeping the salt application in place in a
marine environment. She reminded the committee that even while
working on eradication, it was necessary to find a solution for
containment.
2:29:14 PM
MS. CHAPMAN moved to slide 21, "Reduce possibilities for
reintroduction" and noted that while ballast water, hull
fouling, and controlling spat were all important, controlling
the movement of docks and other floating infrastructure enabled
the control of habitat. She questioned whether any legislation
or public awareness was directed toward this as a control.
MS. CHAPMAN introduced slide 22, "Whiting docks pieced together
from local and distant sources," which depicted the gathering of
dock materials from far flung sources. She stressed the
importance of controlling the dispersal of dock materials, and
she pointed out that when a dock was decommissioned, its parts
were sent all over.
2:31:00 PM
MS. CHAPMAN commenting on, slide 23, "Dvex in Sitka," and slide
24, "Learn more about the biology," emphasized the need to learn
more about Dvex and its impacts.
MS. CHAPMAN shared slide 25, "Impacts for Sitka and Alaska are
Unknown," and spoke about the possible impact on herring eggs,
which were so important to the community of Sitka. She declared
there was almost no information about herring eggs and Dvex.
MS. CHAPMAN concluded with slide 26, "Where do we go from here?"
which was an aerial photo of Whiting Harbor. She emphasized the
importance of containing Dvex within Whiting Harbor.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated that "when those [Dvex]
little strands get thin and they break off separately they can
grow somewhere." She expressed her concern for the spread of
Dvex, and suggested that a solution was necessary.
2:34:24 PM
BRIANNE BLACKBURN, Natural Resources Specialist, Invasive Weeds
and Agricultural Pests Co-coordinator, Division of Agriculture,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), presented a PowerPoint,
"State of Alaska Invasive Species," and directed attention to
slide 2, "Invasive Species in Alaska," which included a general
definition of an invasive species. She stated that the key
point was for there to be an economic or environmental risk of
harm by these organisms. She shared that, in Alaska, there was
tracking of 332 non-native plants for potential invasiveness,
even though only a very small percentage of non-native organisms
would survive in Alaska, with even a smaller percentage
exhibiting invasive behavior. She stated it was not practical
to view all of these as invasive, hence the need to prioritize.
2:36:14 PM
MS. BLACKBURN confirmed that she most often worked with invasive
plants. She listed the areas in which Division of Agriculture
focused: inspect and grade agricultural products; regulate and
control the entry and transport; control and eradicate the
spread of pests; and, co-ordinate, plan, regulate, and review.
2:37:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if pests included animals.
MS. BLACKBURN replied that DNR dealt with agricultural pests.
MS. BLACKBURN said that the coordination of projects with the
partner groups was one of her major responsibilities.
MS. BLACKBURN moved on to slide 4, "Strategic Plan," and said
that the plan was written to help guide the prevention and
management of invasive species, and it included objectives and
action strategies, annual priorities and goals, and an annual
report.
MS. BLACKBURN continued on with slide 5, "Regulations." She
referred to the bullet points of the law, and noted that these
were the key focus components.
2:40:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, with regard to rapid response, asked
if the Division of Agriculture could move more quickly than
other departments.
MS. BLACKBURN replied that this was very relative, as rapid
response depended on a lot of factors, including funding and
clear authority. She relayed that her division focused on
priorities to address what might arise. She affirmed that the
challenges of permitting, land ownership, and multiple agencies
did create delays.
2:41:55 PM
MS. BLACKBURN returned to slide 5, and stated that current
regulations addressed seed laws, quarantine laws, and pest laws.
She reported that, currently, there was an internal process of
updating these regulations to make them more applicable to all
invasive weeds and agricultural pests, beyond the current seed
list. She added that another key element was to develop a
process which included the agency partners.
2:43:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if the legislature needed to set out a
list of prohibited species, or did DNR have regulatory authority
to add additional plants to the prohibited list.
MS. BLACKBURN explained that the amendments being proposed to
the regulations would address a process for DNR to update the
list regionally, by which the public and conservation districts
could be involved with the updates.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked that the legislature be notified if a
statutory change was necessary to authorize emergency or
temporary use.
MS. BLACKBURN conveyed that the proposal was in the final stages
of internal review.
2:44:53 PM
MS. BLACKBURN addressed slide 6, "Typical Species Invasion
Curve," explaining that it defined a snapshot of invasive
species behavior in a new environment. She noted that
introduction was established when the species was brought into
the state, and this began the lag phase, when early detection
rapid response was critical. The next period - exponential
growth - would differentiate an invasive species from a non-
native species, and this was when it became very difficult and
expensive to control and eradicate. She declared that during
the next phase, carrying capacity, the species would reach its
ecological amplitude, occupying all the available space with a
maximum impact. She observed, at that point management goals
shifted more toward control, and less toward eradication.
2:47:36 PM
MS. BLACKBURN directed attention to slide 7, "Projects,"
declaring that this was where the Division of Agriculture
focused its time. She pointed to the geographic and climatic
barriers that have helped protect Alaska. She touted outreach
and education as the two starting places for early detection
rapid response. She spoke about the weed free forage and gravel
certifications. She pointed out that inventory and monitoring
were important elements of control and management.
2:49:38 PM
MS. BLACKBURN moved on to slides 8 and 9, "Outreach &
Education," and announced that the key really was rapid
response. She said that information was forthcoming from states
with similar climates. She listed Purple Loosestrife, Spotted
Knapweed, and Giant Hogweed, and noted that all were found in
limited populations in Alaska. She described the Giant Hogweed
in Kake, the Purple Loosestrife in Anchorage, and the Spotted
Knapweed in limited amounts in Alaska. She acknowledged that
although dandelions were invasive, they were not a high
priority.
2:52:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what the most common vector was to get
these plants into Alaska's environment.
MS. BLACKBURN replied that this was not a simple question but
that nursery stock, vehicles, and float plane traffic were the
common vectors. She described the efforts to raise awareness
and limit the inflow. She mentioned Elodea, a common aquarium
plant that had the potential to infect Alaska streams. She
discussed the Spotted Knapweed program which had begun in 2009,
with 23 known locations of less than one half acre, and through
early detection and rapid response, had resulted in eradication
to all but 7 known locations.
2:55:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there were a variety of colors
of Spotted Knapweed.
MS. BLACKBURN explained that this Knap species was most commonly
pinkish-purple, but that there were other Knap species colors.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON mused on its similar look to chicory.
MS. BLACKBURN reflected on the Knapweed education campaign,
which included continual monitoring. She offered her belief
that it was a good candidate for eradication in Alaska,
especially given its economic impact in other states.
2:56:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked about Japanese knotweed.
MS. BLACKBURN replied that the department was very aware of
Japanese knotweed, as it was of particular impact in Southeast
Alaska. She pointed out that her presentation was only on
select species, and did not include the entire list of
invasives.
MS. BLACKBURN, addressing spotted knapweed specifically, shared
a message from a Division of Mining, Land and Water employee
which lead to a previously unidentified population of spotted
knapweed in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. She noted that
reported sightings often came from other departments.
2:58:14 PM
MS. BLACKBURN moved on to slide 10, "Horticultural Industry
Coordination," and shared the common goal of building an
industry consensus for regional issues, to better identify where
outreach information should be provided.
MS. BLACKBURN, identifying slides 11 and 12, "Canada Thistle
Containment, Anchorage," explained that this invasive was in the
expanding growth stage, and that containment was focused in
Anchorage, especially as Canada Thistle could damage the
agriculture in the Mat-Su Valley and Kenai Peninsula. She
explained some of the difficulties in manual removal of Canada
Thistle. She noted that Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities was helpful with the timing of maintenance mowing to
keep seed production under control. She reported that the
pursuit of permitting for herbicide application was underway
with Department of Environmental Conservation.
3:01:02 PM
MS. BLACKBURN addressed slides 13-14, "Purple Loosestrife
Eradication & Replacement," and stated that there was only one
known infestation in Alaska, and it had been eradicated. She
shared that Purple Loosestrife did persist in home gardens, and
a directed, non-regulatory approach was being pursued with
landowners for replacement with a non-invasive plant.
MS. BLACKBURN spoke about slide 15, "Elodea," and said that it
had been identified 25 years prior in Eyak Lake, yet nothing had
been done about it, and recently, Elodea had been identified in
Chena Slough near Fairbanks. She stated that it was aggressive,
degraded fish habitat, and reproduced by breaking apart and
rooting. She pointed out that it was easily transported on the
floats of planes, and would grow quickly. Elodea had a major
impact on salmon streams, as it would decrease water flow and
increase sedimentation. She noted that extensive growth had
recently been found in Delong Lake, Sand Lake, and Little
Campbell Lake in the Anchorage area.
3:04:55 PM
MS. BLACKBURN shared that Elodea management and research was
ongoing (slide 16) and included statewide coordination.
MS. BLACKBURN discussed slide 19, "Gravel Pit Surveys &
Certification," declaring that this was a new program that would
resemble the weed free forage program. She pointed to slide 20,
"Weed Free Forage & Hay," and said that it coordinated with
existing groups in the state that focused on the invasive issues
listed on slide 21, "Coordination."
MS. BLACKBURN directed attention to slide 22 "Coordination
AKEPIC (Natural Heritage Program)," which was a clearinghouse
for information on locations of invasive plants.
3:06:36 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON expressed his desire to work with Alaska
Department of Fish & Game and Department of Natural Resources to
develop a prioritization system.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the draft for the departmental
strategic plan for invasive plants had been adopted, and if this
was the priority list.
MS. BLACKBURN explained that this plan was the process through
which to prioritize.
3:07:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Invasive Weeds 01 17 12 Read-Only.pdf |
HRES 1/23/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| House Resources Committee Chapman.ppt |
HRES 1/23/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| ADFG Invasive Species Presentation.pdf |
HRES 1/23/2012 1:00:00 PM |