HB 191-INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT  1:46:04 PM REBECCA HIMSCHOOT, Alaska State Representative, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 191. She described the purpose of the council and cited invasive species management councils in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. She provided context by comparing the threats posed to those states by invasive species to what Alaska faces. She discussed research conducted by Dr. Schwoerer regarding the environmental risks caused by the invasive species Elodea which threatens water bodies. She reviewed the cost of managing invasive species, pointing out that federal funding would pay for 72 percent, non-profit funding would pay 21 percent, leaving the state to fund 7 percent. She completed her introduction with a cautionary story about how requiring double hulls could have prevented the Exxon Valdez oil spill and that Alaska now faces a comparable situation regarding invasive species. She said that HB 191 would be an important first step in facing the slow-moving catastrophe presented by invasive species. 1:51:08 PM CO-CHAIR DIBERT moved to adopt Amendment G1 to HB 191. 1:51:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the sponsors welcomed Amendment G1 and that the purpose of the amendment was to clarify the number of board members needed to conduct business as well. It also clarified which would be voting members and which would be advisory. 1:52:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected. He expressed concern regarding some members being deprived of the opportunity to provide substantive input into recommendations. 1:52:52 PM [Representative Saddler maintained his objection] A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Hall, Mears, Dibert, and Burke voted in favor of Amendment G1 to HB 191. Representatives Coulombe, Saddler, Elam, and Rauscher voted against it. Therefore, Amendment G1 to HB 191 was adopted by the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-4. 1:53:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE moved to adopt Amendment G2 to HB 191. CO-CHAIR BURKE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE explained that the purpose of the amendment was to align the date of the fiscal note with sunset date of the council, so both are 2030. 1:54:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that the 10-year sunset date would give the council sufficient time to "prove up" the work of the council. She did not welcome the amendment. 1:55:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated his support for the amendment, explaining that five years should show whether the council is working. He also expressed his concern that with a longer term, the council would consume resources without check. He saw a sunset of five years as appropriate and generous. 1:55:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that there would be an annual report, so the legislature would have a duty every year to check on the work of the council. She pointed out that two of the people who do the work are available to answer questions. 1:57:23 PM CO-CHAIR BURKE maintained her amendment. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elam, Coulombe, Rauscher, and Saddler voted in favor of Amendment G.1 to HB 191. Representatives Fields, Hall, Mears, Dibert, and Burke voted against it. Therefore, Amendment G.2 failed to be adopted by the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 4-5. 1:58:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE moved to adopt Amendment G3 to HB 191. CO-CHAIR BURKE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE described her amendment as a "creative amendment," comparing her work on a childcare task force with the proposed invasive species council. She explained that the childcare task force worked with compressed time constraints, and they accomplished a lot that way. Changing a ten-year council into a two-year task force addresses her concerns regarding the fiscal note. The two-year task force would come up with a five-year strategic plan and help coordinate resources. She explained how the funding would work under with the amendment. 2:00:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT explained that a council would have ongoing and changing work, versus setting up policies through a task force. The distinction is that a task force would accomplish a mission, whereas a council would have evolving and ongoing work as well as having an advisory role with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). She described that initially there would be no request for funding but when funds are set up, they would act an emergency response fund for an invasive species threat. 2:01:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed appreciation for the amendment, explaining that a task force would be structured to get things done and would cost less money. 2:03:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that he liked the amendment and that it would remove potentially duplicative functions between the invasive species partnership and the departments. He posited that the work of a task force would be more focused and could suggest the best way to implement invasive species responses. 2:04:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE MEARS explained that she appreciated the goals of a task force but also appreciated that a council would have a different mission. She compared it to the work of an office of emergency management which would coordinate resources. She said the work of a task force could be valuable, but the council would be a better option. 2:05:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE reiterated her concern regarding the fiscal note and the budget crunch they were facing. pointing out the lower costs of a task force. She drew a parallel to how mental health was coordinated in the state by means of a five- year comprehensive plan with the mental health trust and the department of health. She suggested such an approach to dealing with invasive species. The task force could offer strategic plans, but ultimately, it would be up to the departments to get the work done. 2:07:13 PM JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, as legislative liaison for ADF&G described the department's position regarding HB 191. He explained that regardless of whether the legislature decided to use a task force or a longer-term advisory body, the department would still need additional staffing to support that work. However, the department was neutral on the amendment and would implement and support the work of a council or a task force regardless of how it is established. 2:08:16 PM TAMMY DAVIS, Invasive Species Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, explained that the question regarding whether a council or a task force would best serve was out of her area of expertise. 2:08:43 PM CODY JACOBSON, Invasive Species Coordinator, Department of Natural Resources, answered a question regarding whether a council or a task force would work better by referring the question to Rena Miller. 2:09:19 PM RENA MILLER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, responded to the question regarding whether a task force or a council would be the better model for dealing with invasive species. She said it would be a policy call for the legislature, and the department would work with the legislature whatever they decided. 2:09:58 PM CO-CHAIR BURKE maintained her objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elam, Coulombe, Rauscher, and Saddler voted in favor of Amendment G.3 to HB 191. Representatives Mears, Fields, Hall, Dibert, and Burke voted against it. Therefore, Amendment G.3 failed to be adopted by the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-4. 2:11:31 PM MS. DAVIS, in response to questions by Representative Saddler, described her role as invasive species coordinator at ADF&G, explaining that she facilitated, developed, and implemented all aspects of invasive species management statewide. She explained what entities on the state, tribal, and federal level they worked with and concerns regarding rodents, marine species, and other deleterious, exotic, and abusive wildlife. She pointed out that invasive species are a threat to the environment, economies, health, fish, and wildlife. She described steps that are taken including raising awareness; investigating potential pathways for species threat; partnering on detection and risk assessment; and providing information to the public. She discussed early detection monitoring networks and coordinating with the University of Alaska. She mentioned water body mapping and how water body vulnerabilities were ranked. She pointed out what actions would take place prior to an invasive species threat. She described early detection and rapid response plans for the European green crab and other aquatic threats. She discussed national and international organizations which address threats from invasive species. 2:20:18 PM MS. DAVIS responded to a question from Representative Saddler regarding the work being done to meet the threats of invasive species by pointing out the work done to eradicate northern pike. 2:23:08 PM MR. JACOBSON answered a series of questions from Representative Saddler regarding meeting the threat of invasive species. He described the statutory responsibilities for managing terrestrial and freshwater plant species for pests and disease. He discussed coordinating the work with other departments such as ADF&G, transportation, and conservation as well as tribal entities and federal partnerships such as Bureau of Land Management and the park service. Efforts have been coordinated through an invasive species hotline as well as soil and conservation districts, communities, working groups, and task forces. He described the work of Elodia task forces in Alaska and their rapid response to new infestations. He gave an example of the rapid response to Six-Mile Lake which took place in a one-year period from infestation to full-lake treatment. He discussed DNR's seed regulations which help the division of agriculture's plant material center regulate the import or spread of invasive species through seed. 2:28:03 PM JOE FELKL responded to a question from Representative Saddler regarding which department is best suited to deal with invasive species by describing ADF&G's responsibilities. However, he suggested that the question is actually a policy question for the legislature. 2:29:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that she was not sure it mattered where it was housed. The most important point would be that the work needs to be done and that not enough was being done. She posited that the proposed council was a cost- effective approach to the issue. 2:30:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS suggested that ADF&G would seem a good match for responding to the potential threat of invasive species. 2:30:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER reiterated his concern that the council would create another layer of coordination rather than using resources for the actual work. 2:31:35 PM MS. DAVIS addressed a question posed by Co-Chair Dibert regarding how goldfish became an invasive species. She explained that they are a carp species which grow quite large and are very invasive. 2:34:31 PM CO-CHAIR DIBERT moved to report HB 191, work order 34-LS0541\G as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE objected, noting that it was too expensive. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed with the objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hall, Mears, Fields, Dibert, and Burke voted in favor of HB 191. Representatives Elam, Coulombe, Raucher, and Saddler voted against it. Therefore, HB 191 was adopted by the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-4.