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, Work Draft 27-LS1439\B (Bullard, 4/5/12). Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion. JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, explained the changes included in the CS. The word "marine" was removed from "marine aquatic invasive species" throughout the legislation. Mr. Michel observed that the committee substitute removed the language in section (f) CSHB 365(RES): 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." Mr. Michel explained that the above language was replaced with the original section (f) as contained in HB 365: (f) In this section, "aquatic invasive species" means an organism introduced to a marine or freshwater 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. Mr. Michel noted that the committee substitute also added a new section G: In this section, "aquatic invasive species" means an organism introduced to a marine or freshwater 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. Mr. Michel clarified that the changes were made in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game. Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 27-LS1439\B was ADOPTED. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, spoke in support of the legislation and observed that HB 365 provided rapid response to prevent infestations of invasive species from spreading. The bill allowed the department to aggressively target new invasive species. 2:53:27 PM Co-Chair Stoltze expressed the committee's support for expansion of the legislation reflected in the CS. BEN MULLIGAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, explained that the inclusion of fresh water ecosystems would not diminish the department's ability to perform marine ecosystem mitigation. Representative Gara asked for a letter from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to address his concern. He cited Page 2, Subsection (f) of the CS: (f) In responding under (b) of this section to the occurrence of freshwater aquatic invasive species, the department shall respond in a manner determined to cause the least harm to noninvasive resident fish populations in that limited or isolated geographic area that are used for recreational, personal use, commercial, or subsistence purposes. Representative Gara worried that the language "compelled" the department's use of chemical eradication even if the harm outweighed the benefit. Mr. Mulligan observed that the section of the bill that related to the response plan [Page 1, Subsection (b)] used the word "may." He concluded that the department was not forced into using chemicals. He indicated that Subsection (f) directed the department to consider the appropriate response. He exemplified Alexander Creek; a location DFG was currently performing Pike eradication. In an effort to rebound the resident Chinook and Coho salmon population the department employed non- chemical methods to eradicate the Pike. Representative Gara understood the intent of the legislation but wanted assurances that the department would not feel "compelled" to employ chemical measures. Representative Joule thought that the language allowed the department to "scale back" use. Representative Seaton clarified that Subsection (f) related only to fresh water aquatic invasive species. He noted the language directed DFG to employ the method that caused "the least amount of harm." He cited Subsection (d): (d) Rapid response to, and management of, an aquatic invasive species in a limited or isolated geographic area under (b) of this section shall be given priority over activities regulated by the department in that limited or isolated geographic area. Representative Seaton further clarified that Subsection (d) granted rapid response of invasive species a priority in marine or freshwater ecosystems. He stated that establishing the priority was the intent of the CS. 2:57:57 PM Co-Chair Thomas asked whether the use of felt waders were prohibited. Mr. Mulligan affirmed and reported that the prohibition was in response to concerns of whirling disease migrating to Alaska. He added that the department engaged in outreach to notify the public. Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, sponsored by all members of the House Finance Committee. Amendment 1 Page 1 line 8 delete [in limited or isolated geographic areas.] Page 1 line 13 &14 delete [in limited or isolated area] Page 2 line 3 & 4 delete [in a limited or isolated geographic area] Page 2 line 9 & 10 delete [in a limited or isolated geographic area] Page 2 line 17 delete [in a limited or isolated geographic area] Page 2 line 20 delete [resident] Co-Chair Thomas OBJECTED for discussion. Mr. Mulligan spoke to the amendment. He explained that the amendment granted the department more leeway for future planning. After discussions with DFG staff it was determined that the language "in a limited or isolated geographic area" was limiting. Sometimes invasive species such as Pike, resided in drainages or other types of water bodies. In developing a mitigation plan elimination of the language allowed the department to broaden the scope to include areas such as drainages. Planning would still occur in geographically isolated areas, e.g., lakes. Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the deletion of the language kept the possibilities open for future private foundation funding, federal receipts, and money from other sources that the department might qualify for with the broader definition. Mr. Mulligan affirmed. In addition, he confirmed with the attorney general that DFG and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) were held harmless for rapid response occurrences in mariculture sites with regard to the elimination of the language. Mr. Mulligan related that the deletion of the word, "resident" in Subsection (f), in amendment 1, left the phrase "noninvasive fish population." The phrase included the anadromous fish population e.g., salmon and steelhead and broadened the provision. Co-Chair Thomas WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:02:39 PM Representative Seaton reiterated his support for the amendment and the CS version of the legislation. Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes. She observed that there were two indeterminate fiscal notes. Co-Chair Stoltze expressed support for supplemental funding if necessary. He wanted the department to have the ability to react to a crisis or avert a problem. Representative Guttenberg compared the funding to forest fire fighting and felt that indeterminate fiscal notes were appropriate. Mr. Mulligan noted that existing funds were used along with outreach to the federal government (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, $90,000) for mitigation of a previous outbreak of Dvex [tunicate Didemnum vexillum]. Additionally, the department requested $500,000 in the capital budget to complete the Dvex eradication. Vice-chair Fairclough noted that there were five fiscal notes: three previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (DEC), FN2 (DEC), FN3 (DHSS) and two new fiscal impact notes from the Department of Fish and Game in the amount of $489.2 thousand for FY 2013 and $341.6 thousand in FY 2014 and the Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $84.2 thousand for FY 2013 and indeterminate through 2018. 3:07:28 PM Mr. Mulligan observed that the new DFG fiscal note total of $830,800 saved the state money compared to the original fiscal note costing $1.2 million. Representative Doogan asked why the new DFG sport fisheries fiscal note was indeterminate in the out years beginning in FY 2015. Mr. Mulligan explained that the out years expenditures were indeterminate due to the fact that it was impossible to predict future occurrences and the costs to mitigate them. Representative Doogan surmised that the fiscal note funding set up the development of the plan [Invasive Species Action Plan] and did not fund a response to an outbreak. Mr. Mulligan affirmed the statement. Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 365(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 365(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes from the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Natural Resources and previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (DEC), FN2 (DEC), FN3 (DHSS). 3:10:13 PM AT EASE 3:11:36 PM RECONVENED