SB 174-INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT  3:31:37 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 174 "An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the Department of Fish and Game; relating to management of invasive species; and providing for an effective date." 3:32:26 PM SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, speaking as sponsor of SB 174, said this legislation establishes an Alaska Invasive Species Council in Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). He said SB 174 is the result of work done with advocates over the interim. Those advocates believe Alaska is at an increased risk for invasive species and that a more effective coordination across state departments is necessary to respond to that risk. 3:33:58 PM TOBIAS SCHWOERER, Research Assistant Professor, Natural Resources Economics, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Fairbanks, Alaska, introduced himself and provided a brief history of his work in invasive species management. 3:34:54 PM MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 2, containing an infographic illustrating Alaska's increasing biodiversity risk. He stated that Elodea research has illustrated the need for a statewide coordinated response in order to address this risk. He explained that Zebra mussels and Quagga mussels are highly invasive and are not native to North America. These mussels have been confirmed in various states and territories across North America and are moving northward. Lines on the infographic illustrate the movement of seasonal vessels from those regions and entering Alaska. This also applies to vessels that are purchased by Alaskans and brought by trailer to the state (from state's where Zebra and Quagga mussels have been detected). He noted that the infographic shows one port of entry. 3:36:31 PM CHAIR GIESSEL noted that the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) does work in this area. She said that vessels entering the state undergo an inspection yet invasive mussels may still be present. She asked whether there is surveillance at the Alaska Highway border. MR. SCHWOERER said slide 3 would address this question. 3:37:16 PM MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 3, containing an infographic with data related to the number of boats used both within and outside of Alaskan waters and related invasive mussel activity by region: [Original punctuation provided.] Is Alaska prepared?  Annually, more than 1,000 watercraft from outside enter Alaska through multiple unprotected / not monitored ports of entry Overland  Boats enter Alaska on trailers via Canada/Alaska border Southcentral by Sea  Boats enter Alaska on barge/ferry via Southcentral ports Southeast by Sea  Boats enter Alaska on barge/ferry via Southeast ports Total  1260 motorized boats brought to Alaska each year Used  370 boats previously used in water outside Alaska Mussels  129 boats previously used in states with invasive mussels Freshwater  74 boats used in mussel states and likely destined for Alaska freshwater. MR. SCHWOERER said the US Fish and Wildlife Service works with border protection to inspect vessels crossing the Canada/Alaska border. This seasonal (summer) inspection service provided the data from slide 2. He pointed out that there is no port inspection; therefore, boats arriving via ferry and/or barge to Southcentral and Southeastern Alaska are not inspected. He recalled that a high percentage (roughly one-third) of vessels arriving in Alaska via the Alaska Highway (Alcan) are not inspected. He emphasized that, despite having inspection stations in other states and in Canada, many vessels entering Alaska are not inspected prior to arriving at the Canada/Alaska border. He noted 2023 estimates that close to 1,000 watercraft are coming through ports in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska each year. 3:39:25 PM MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 4: [Original punctuation provided.] Example:  Elodea response  ? Current cum. damages from Elodea: close to $1 billion ? Current cum. spending managing Elodea: $7 million ? around $1 million in inefficiencies ? Insufficient resources, personnel flat ? Fragmented decision ? Need for strategy, efficiency, and coordination ? Need for resource emergency response plan MR. SCHWOERER explained that Elodea is an aquatic water weed. He drew attention to the image on slide 4, which shows the Elodea infestation in the Chena Slough, and noted that almost 100 percent of the slough is infested. He said the response began in 2013. He explained that the $7 million in spending has included herbicide and management. He emphasized that Elodea has caused over $1 billion in damage to Alaska's sockeye fishery. He asserted that this damage is due to the lack of a statewide response and statewide eradication of Elodea. He explained that, when some areas with infestation are left unmanaged, there is a chance for that infestation to spread to other areas (and back into and through waterbodies that have just been cleared of the infestation). He briefly discussed the impact of inefficiencies in affected regions. He opined that a council could have provided top-down strategies, increased efficiency and coordination, thus leading to the use of best-management practices statewide. He emphasized the need for coordination between agencies and for a statewide strategy and added that not having a council in place has increased costs. 3:42:00 PM MR. SCHWOERER stated that increased biosecurity risks will lead to more difficult financial decisions related to invasive species management. He said this will require increasingly complex decisions about what resources the State of Alaska will protect - and which will be left to deteriorate. He briefly discussed the importance having strategies in place that will prevent fragmented decision-making. He said emergency response plans are necessary to effectively respond and protect natural resources. He urged consideration of what this could mean for salmon fisheries. He explained that salmon will be highly effected, as Quagga and Zebra mussels impact the salmon food chain. He noted upcoming research on this topic and said invasive mussels are a significant up and coming risk for Alaska's fisheries. 3:44:03 PM MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 5, containing an infographic to illustrate the status of Elodea infestations across the state. He said there are 49 infestations statewide, 20 of which have been eradicated: [Original punctuation provided.] Elodea infestations - current status  Alaska Lakes  ? Elodea still present (33) ? Elodea treatment, not detected (10) ? No Elodea detected (509) 3:44:25 PM MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 6, containing an infographic showing how floatplanes contribute to the increasingly complex and remote infestations of Elodea across Alaska. He pointed out that there is a large amount of floatplane traffic from Southcentral Alaska into Bristol Bay. These floatplanes come from waterbodies (in Southcentral Alaska) that have potentially be infected with Alodea. He emphasized the risk this poses to Sockeye salmon fisheries statewide. He stated that, once Elodea infests Bristol Bay, it is too late. Elodea is increasingly seen in remote areas (e.g. Alexander Lake), which results in highly complex, lengthy, and increasingly costly infestations. 3:45:37 PM MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 7, containing a graph to illustrate infestation response times in Anchorage, Cordova, Fairbanks, and the Kenai Peninsula from 2015-2024. He emphasized that an initial, under-resourced response ultimately leads to a longer, more costly response. He said the cost has doubled or even tripled during the past 10 years. He expressed concern with this increasing cost. He explained that the high cost is due to a combination of an under-resourced response and an infestation that, over time, impacts more costly locations. He reiterated that managing Elodea infestations in remote locations is complex and costly. 3:46:47 PM SENATOR MYERS observed that the response times on slide 7 vary based on location. He pointed out faster response times for Anchorage and Southcentral and slower response times for Fairbanks and Cordova. He asked if the response time is related to geography as well as resources. 3:47:29 PM MR. SCHWOERER agreed with that assessment. He said it also depends on flow rate (i.e. whether a water body has flow or is static). He explained that herbicide concentration is relatively easy to manage in areas where flow is minimal. He contrasted this with areas with higher flow-through and potentially high precipitation, both of which impact herbicide concentration. He emphasized that diluted herbicide is potentially ineffective. He said this is an issue in Chena Slough. Remoteness is another factor. He said that, while the distribution on the graph on slide 7 appears to be regional, it does not tell the full story. He emphasized that it depends on the complexity of the system and added that each eradication is different. 3:48:51 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about the cost per water body to eradicate Elodea. He also asked how much the State of Alaska should spend on continued eradication per year. 3:49:09 PM MR. SCHWOERER addressed the cost per year and indicated that he could provide a rough estimate. He opined that doubling the current amount of dedicated funding would be sufficient. He indicated that he would address this in more detail on an upcoming slide. 3:49:27 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI repeated his questions related to the cost per water body and the cost per year. 3:49:37 PM MR. SCHWOERER replied that the cost for the herbicide is roughly $1,000/surface acre. He explained that the herbicide must remain at a specific concentration. Water flow and precipitation can impact herbicide concentration levels, which can result in increased costs of over $2,000/surface acre (or more). He explained that remote locations - which are more difficult to access in order to apply and monitor herbicide levels - have even higher costs. 3:50:40 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the herbicide kills fish. MR. SCHWOERER replied no. He explained that fluridone is the primary herbicide used to eradicate Elodea. This is a systemic herbicide that interrupts the plant's ability to photosynthesize. He added that fluridone is rated as safe to use in water reservoirs. 3:51:32 PM SENATOR DUNBAR noted the limited time remaining and said upcoming invited testimony would address policy and structure questions. He asked Mr. Schwoerer to advance to slide 10 and discuss impacted fisheries. 3:52:04 PM MR. SCHWOERER advanced to slide 10 and discussed the cost of not eradicating Elodea. Slide 10 contains a graph illustrating the hidden fisheries damages from 2017-2100. Slide 10 also references a paper titled, "Elodea mediates juvenile salmon growth by altering physical structure in freshwater habitats." He explained that not eradicating Elodea carries a $1 billion hidden cost. He said this estimate is in line with the latest research regarding Elodea's impact on juvenile salmon growth. He reiterated that (based on research in the Copper River Delta) Elodea has a negative effect on the salmon food web. 3:53:49 PM DANIELLE VERNA, Program Manager, Environmental Monitoring, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (RCAC), Valdez, Alaska, provided a brief work history and overview of RCAC. She stated that that commercial shipping is a prevalent vector of marine invasive species and RCAC supports monitoring invasive species. In addition, RCAC has advocated for policies to prevent introducing invasive species. She stated that invasive species pose a significant threat to the health of the environment, the economy, and ways of life in Alaska. She compared invasive species to the damage caused by an oil spill and emphasized that prevention is the key to mitigating the impacts. She stated that RCAC supports SB 174. 3:55:00 PM MS. VERNA said that it took a disaster like the Exxon-Valdez oil spill to recognize the value of oil spill prevention and overcome complacency. She stated that Alaska's Prince William Sound now has one of the most robust spill prevention and response systems in the world. She said RCAC would like to see more emphasis on invasive species prevention and rapid response in Alaska. She stated that an Invasive Species Council is a proven and effective model that results in increased coordination for the purposes of prevention and rapid response. She pointed out that over 18 other states have invasive species councils. She noted that the Invasive Species Council proposed by SB 174 would serve in an advisory role, establishing consistent approaches across state agencies. The council does not have the authority to direct state agencies or funding. The council would elevate the discussion of invasive species while building awareness at higher levels of government. This would include an annual update to the legislature on invasive species issues and management in Alaska. MS. VERNA acknowledged that, for the past few years, the governor has signed a proclamation recognizing the second full week of June as Alaska Invasive Species Awareness Week. She briefly discussed invasive species work across the state, both by state agencies and by the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership (AKISP). She stated that RCAC recognizes the need for top-down, strategic leveraging of resources and stakeholder engagement. An Invasive Species Council would create the venue for this to occur. She stated that SB 174 takes previous legislative feedback regarding council size into consideration. She explained that the proposed council is made up of five voting members and includes legislative and state agency participation. In addition, there is the option to broaden participation by including advisory members. 3:58:08 PM SENATOR MYERS noted that SB 174 does not mandate the council to consult with private industry. He briefly discussed the work Alyeska does with respect to monitoring and wondered whether input from private industry might be helpful. 3:58:49 PM MS. VERNA replied that input from industry is vital to the successful management of invasive species. She stated that utility and pipeline rights-of-way are pathways for invasive species (along with tankers and cruise ships). She explained that previous legislation related to creating an Invasive Species Council specified membership. In that legislation, the size of the council grew to 27 members, which she described as unwieldy. She explained that in SB 174 reduces the number of seats on the council; advisory council seats would provide additional input and could include industry representatives. 4:00:15 PM SUMMER NAY, Chair, Alaska Invasive Species Partnership (AKISP), Delta Junction, Alaska, said AKISP strongly supports SB 174. She briefly described AKISP, which is a statewide coalition united by the shared mission to prevent and manage invasive species across Alaska's terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments. AKISP provides credible, science-based information to support sound management decisions and develop effective policy. She briefly described monthly virtual meetings, annual workshops, and outreach efforts. She acknowledged that valuable work is being done across many sectors; however, she stated that establishing an Invasive Species Council would be foundational, providing strategic information and statewide perspectives. MS. NAY stated that a council would help to align efforts, reduce redundancy, and ensure that resources are used effectively. It would also improve Alaska's top-down collaboration. She pointed out that invasive species councils have proven effective in other states and offered examples. She emphasized that invasive species threaten ecosystems, cultural traditions, economies, and recreational resources. She pointed out that possible vectors for the spread of invasive species include float planes, recreation, agricultural activities, highway construction equipment, and commercial shipping, among others. She stated that a council would help insure rapid, coordinated responses when prevention is not possible. She urged support of SB 174, which would help protect Alaska's natural resources, livelihoods, and ways of life. 4:03:54 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that travelers returning from Hawaii must pass through a check before entering the state. He opined that this method is relatively inclusive. He asked how vectors and points of entry would be addressed. 4:04:36 PM SENATOR DUNBAR deferred the question. He explained that SB 174 would create a more coordinated response and would elevate the issue through the creation of the council. He stated that he is unsure what recommendations the council would make. He surmised that, due to Alaska's size, monitoring the various points of entry could pose a challenge. MS. NAY asked to hear the question again. 4:05:41 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how the Invasive Species Council would respond to various vectors and points of entry once they are identified. He wondered if the response could include inspectors at every port. 4:06:13 PM MS. NAY replied that currently there is a check station at the Alaska-Canada border. She stated that the response would include more checks and inspections of that kind. She briefly noted related research in Valdez. 4:06:49 PM CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 174 in committee.