HOUSE BILL NO. 365 "An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control of, aquatic invasive species." Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute for HB 365(RES), Work Draft 27-LS1439\M as a working document. Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON testified that the House Resources version of the bill changed the term "aquatic invasive species" to "marine aquatic invasive species". The change had been made to make the drawing of response plans easier for the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G). Co-Chair Stoltze recalled that during past discussions concerning invasive plants an effort had been made to be inclusive of the fishing industry. He questioned the reason for the inclusivity. Representative Guttenberg relayed that the issue of invasive species ran statewide, and that one body of water [salt versus fresh] was not more important than another. Representative Seaton replied that no priority had been intended either way. He said that the intention of the legislation was to provide a way for departments to respond quickly to an emergency situation triggered by a new invasion. Representative Guttenberg felt that the ability to respond rapidly was a necessity for both lakes and salt water. He suggested that some invasive species could make their way into the water by way of pet shops. He added that some invaders could be brought to marine waters by way of fresh water. Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION it was so ordered. 1:59:23 PM Representative Costello expressed concern for the particular area of Sand Lake, which was a fresh water lake. Representative Seaton shared that the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) had indicated that the word "aquatic" was too broad a term. The understanding was that the bill would not make it through the legislative process using such a general term. He stated that the decision was made to concentrate on marine waters. He relayed that he supported the eradication of invasive species throughout the state and maintained no objection to broadening the language to include aquatics, provided it did not require DF&G to draw up an emergency plan for every stream and lake in Alaska. He reiterated that the intent was to examine emergency situations in limited geographic areas where response could be swift and successful. He furthered that an emergency situation, involving the contamination of an entire river system, would require an extended amount of response time. He asserted that the legislation was intended to provide rapid response to emergency situations in a limited area. Representative Costello commented that her district had been dealing with safety issues related to Sand Lake. She understood that there were many ways to go about solving the Sand Lake problem; her approach was to submit a capital budget request. 2:04:36 PM Representative Neuman testified that his region of the Susitna River Valley was experiencing a problem with Northern Pike. The invasive species had devastated tributaries at Alexander Creek, which negatively affected the salmon population. He highlighted that the loss of salmon supply for commercial and sport fishing would have a negative effect on the economy. He wondered if language could be written into the bill that would speak to responding to the problem of Northern Pike. Representative Seaton explained that the purpose of the legislation was to provide DF&G with the tools to perform an emergency eradication in a limited geographic area. He said that the eradication of Northern Pike in the entire Susitna drainage could harm other species of fish in the water. He relayed that the tools already being used under the invasive species plan were meant for long-range planning. He reiterated that the purpose of the bill was to deal with a new invasive species in a small area. He assured the committee that the debate was not about saltwater species being more important than fresh water species, but stressed there were different ways that endemic infestations were handled versus an emergency reaction to a new invasion in a limited geographic area. He furthered that the bill would give DF&G the ability to allow for the sacrifice of management of one species in a limited geographic area in order to eradicate any new invasive species. 2:10:16 PM Representative Neuman noted that the bill would create a plan for salt water. He said that in the case of Alexander Creek, the Northern Pike could be specifically targeted in early spring because there were no salmon species yet in the tributaries large enough to be caught in nets. He argued that this was exactly what the department was already doing in the marine aquatic areas; developing a long-term plan that would eradicate the invasive species in order to save fisheries important to the economy. He believed that the long-term plan should be written into the legislation. Representative Seaton agreed with Representative Neuman. He added that there was a long-term plan to target longer periods of time. He restated that the intention of the bill was to give the emergency authority to eliminate everything in a limited geographic area in order to eradicate a new invasive species before it spread to rest of the state. Representative Neuman hoped to discuss the issue further with the department. Co-Chair Thomas cited sub-section (f): "In this section, "marine aquatic invasive species" means an organism introduced to a marine ecosystem to which it is not native and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Representative Neuman felt that further clarification was necessary. Representative Seaton clarified that the term "marine" was generally applied to salt water. He said that both fresh and salt water could be addressed in the legislation. 2:15:09 PM Representative Wilson questioned if any projections had been made of how handling small areas at a time could benefit the state financially. Representative Seaton replied there was currently an invasive species council that focused on long-range plans, but that the legislation was intended to provide the tools to make the immediate eradication of new invasive species possible. He stressed his desire to ensure emergency response capability for the department. Representative Wilson understood that the bill contained a plan for solely salt water, which had resulted in a smaller fiscal note. Representative Seaton replied that that was correct. He said that according to the department the lake systems were so different that the plans to develop each one would have taken over ten years. Co-Chair Thomas understood that the department was seeking the ability to actively respond to an infestation rather than spending $20 million on a written plan. 2:18:43 PM Representative Gara shared Representative Neuman concern for fresh water. He expressed concern that the bill was not tailored to deal with fresh water issues. He pointed out to the committee that the implementation of an emergency kill of Northern Pike could risk the health of many other species of fish. He stated that he did not believe that the legislation was worded in a way that would effectively protect fresh water. Co-Chair Thomas said that the other body put in a request in the FY13 Operating Budget to increase money in for the problem of Northern Pike. Vice-chair Fairclough shared that the House Finance Committee had changed more than sub-section (f) of the original legislation. She suggested that committee members familiarize themselves with the changes between the original document and the one that was currently before the committee. MARLENE CAMPBELL, CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA (via teleconference) voiced support for the bill. She testified that an invasive species identified in 2010, had rapidly had spread. She said that DF&G had done a dive survey and had mapped the infestation, which had been confined to Whitening Harbor until the movement of aqua farm pieces into Sitka Sound. She feared that the spread of the species could potentially eradicate all other species, which would have a negative impact on Sitka fisheries. She relayed that there was wide support in the community to hire an expert environmental firm to contain and eradicate the invader. She stressed that Sitka had 5 harbors that generated approximately $140 million in commercial fisheries monies per year. Additionally, 10 percent of Sitka's population was directly involved in the sea industry, and indirect impact was nearly 50 percent. She concluded that the issue was of grave importance to the future if the fishing industry and urged the timely passage of the legislation. 2:26:49 PM KIM ELLIOTT, SITKA (via teleconference), voiced support for the bill. She voiced concern that the issue of invasive species in Alaska be addressed immediately, beyond talking at the table. She feared that the invasive species in Sitka Sound would spread to affect the herring and scallop populations. 2:28:54 PM Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony. HB 365 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 2:29:34 PM AT EASE 2:37:45 PM RECONVENED