HOUSE BILL NO. 89 "An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control of, aquatic invasive species and establishing the aquatic invasive species response fund." 9:27:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He discussed the threat elodea was posing to the state's aquatic environment. The plant was responsible for overrunning salmon and arctic grayling habitat and was impacting areas such as Sand Lake in Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, and the Chena Slough. He stated that once invasive species established themselves they were almost impossible to eradicate. He pointed to other invasive species the state was working to control including pike and a tunicate called "Dvex" located in the Sitka area. The invasive tunicate smothered existing substrate and could impact commercial and sport fisheries, hard shell clams and herring. Other potential threats were traveling up the West Coast in green crab, quahog, and zebra mussels. He believed damages associated with invasive species cost the U.S. approximately $120 billion per year. The state had spent $28 million since 2007 through governmental and nongovernmental agencies in its efforts to limit the expansion of some of the invasive species. Representative Seaton explained that the purpose of the bill was to implement a plan to quickly address newly invasive species before they became established. The state did not currently have plans in place; it had taken four years to develop a program to work on eradicating Dvex. The state had been lucky that the tunicate was a slowly expanding invasive species. The bill would give state agencies the authority to act, responsibility to coordinate, and to prioritize actions. Additionally, the legislation established a response fund; there was no money to put into the fund. The fund could only be used for responses to invasive species. The bill also provided that private property holders would work with Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in the construction of development plans. The legislation gave the priority for addressing an incipient population in localized areas. For example, there was a problem in the Sitka area where an aquatic farm was located, which prompted the question of how to deal with private property. The bill would hold the state harmless when responding under a plan for control of an invasive species. 9:32:08 AM Co-Chair Stoltze shared that the Mat-Su Borough Fish and Game Advisory Commission had endorsed the bill. He asked if the sponsor viewed the group as credible. Representative Seaton replied in the affirmative. The bill had also received support from the Wasilla Soil and Water Conservation District and others. He referred to letters of support in members' packets (copy on file). Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that at least two members on the Mat-Su Fish and Game Advisory Commission were career biologists (Larry Engel and Howard Delo). He spoke to the members' expertise in fisheries issues. Vice-Chair Neuman noted that the two members were statewide biologists. Co-Chair Stoltze commented that there had been some personalized attacks against the commission in the past. He took the opportunity to help set the record straight. He supported the legislation. 9:34:20 AM Representative Costello asked for confirmation that the bill did not direct a specific method of eradication. She believed the bill allowed soil and water conservation districts and communities to make decisions on how to address eradication. Representative Seaton replied that the bill did not direct the eradication method. The legislation acted as a planning document that enabled agencies and private parties such as soil and water conservation districts to have a seat at the table when deciding on eradication methods. The approach would depend on the area and the species. The development of a plan would allow rapid response; without rapid response the state would be perpetually in control-mode, which was costly. Representative Wilson asked about the private property provision. She understood that DFG would take care of the invasive species. She asked for clarification about the destruction of private property. Representative Seaton answered that the item was intended to address issues like the aquatic farm in Sitka. There had been a one-year delay while DFG worked to determine if it could be sued for destroying the species located on the aquatic farm nets if any shellfish was lost. The bill would require DNR to include a provision in future permits that in the event an invasive species was present in an aquatic farm (or other) that the state would not be responsible for loss that may occur on the farm when working to control the species. The language would be included in the permit so a permit holder would know upfront. He provided an example of an elodea outbreak; if the state drained a small lake it would prevent individuals from claiming that the method of eradication harmed them. The plans would all be developed ahead of time; the public and soil and water conservation districts would be at the table when plans were developed. 9:38:02 AM Representative Wilson wondered if DFG could drain a lake on private property if it may contain an invasive species. She supported the legislation, but she wanted to ensure that the state could not take action on private property without permission from the landowner. She had no problem with including provisions in permits related to specific items in waters. Representative Seaton had not been speaking about private property. He provided an example of elodea on the Kenai Peninsula where people may have docks. The consequence of not addressing the problem could mean an expense of millions of dollars and a significant impact on salmon habitat. He deferred the question to the department for further detail. Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the state would not be intruding on private property and potentially causing destruction without any liability. Vice-Chair Neuman discussed various ways invasive species could be spread (e.g. water fowl, planes, and other). He noted that the committee could hear from the department after public testimony. 9:40:28 AM GINO GRAZIANO, COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AND ALASKA COMMITTEE FOR NOXIOUS INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation. He spoke to his professional background and thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He believed the legislation helped ensure the state's long-term commitment to invasive species issues. He supported that the bill would establish a plan for aquatic invasive species management and would push state agencies to work together on the development of plans as issues arose. He appreciated that the bill included language to utilize methods of least harm and addressed resources on private property. He believed establishing a fund would be a great step forward. In the past, studies by the Institute of Social and Economic Research showed that the state had not put forth as many funds towards invasive species management as other entities. He believed the state's contribution had been 5 percent per year from 2007 to 2011. He stressed that state funds could help secure federal funding and to eradicate the species before it became too expensive to deal with the problems and before resources were lost. 9:43:05 AM MARCUS MUELLER, LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICER, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH, KENAI (via teleconference), testified in favor of the bill. He believed the bill was timely and would be increasingly important for the state. He relayed that aquatic invasive species had the potential to significantly disrupt systems that Alaskans relied on. Additionally, the species presented broad threats economically and to the state's natural resources. He communicated that the bill's rapid response element protected the state's natural resources; rapid response provided the best chance of developing an effective way to deal with biological invasive species. He detailed that acting quickly minimized impacts and increased the overall odds for containment or eradication. He noted that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure. He believed a cure could become very costly. He stated that the bill appropriately called for planning and coordination. Mr. Mueller discussed that the Kenai Peninsula Borough was an example of the impact aquatic invasive species could have. He pointed to the value of rapid response when dealing with invasive species such as northern pike, elodea, and reed canary grass. He detailed that elodea was currently being addressed through cooperative effort between DFG, the borough, and the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. He shared that the species impacted multiple lakes in the area. He relayed that residents were taking the issue seriously and wanted to protect lakes, just as mariculture growers would want to protect their businesses. The bill would also prohibit the sale of elodea. He stated that elodea provided a case-study that showed the aspects of the bill could be implemented in a smart and strategic way. He pointed to the pattern of invasive species including detection, spread, degradation of a system, and loss of native species and other resources. He stressed the importance of early detection and rapid response. The bill was important to protecting coastal and marine waters in Alaska and provided a fiscally responsible response to protecting the state's resources. 9:47:01 AM JONI SCHARGENBERG, FAIRBANKS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CHENA SLOUGH, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. She pointed to substantial private landowner support particularly along the Chena Slough where landowners had been negatively impacted by the growth and spread of elodea. The water conservation district believed it was important for the state to establish and fund a rapid response and management plan to address the invasive aquatic species. She communicated that worldwide, elodea had impeded navigability of waters and lakes, making fisheries problematic; it could negatively impact salmon, grayling and other spawning habitat. The elodea infestation had dramatically increased since its discovery several years earlier; the plant was currently several feet thick in some areas, which made control and eradication much more difficult. She stressed that a rapid response management could have slowed the problem; a plan was needed to address current and new infestations. She stated that if left unchecked elodea could cause colonize additional sloughs and could be spread by floatplanes to lakes across the state. Additionally, over $100,000 in private and federal funds had been spent in the study and eradication efforts of elodea. She believed additional cost sharing would be available if the state passed the legislation. She urged the committee to pass the legislation. Representative Wilson thanked Ms. Schargenberg for her work. She spoke in support of the legislation. 9:50:11 AM ADITI SHENOY, FAIRBANKS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in strong support of the legislation. She spoke to the organization's efforts to control elodea in the Chena slough. She shared that elodea was an aquatic invasive species that was of great concern in Interior Alaska. She detailed that the plant grew rapidly forming dense mats, which impacted stream flow, degraded fish spawning habitat, and created impediments to the safe operation of boats and float planes. She believed elodea could spread to major waterways including the Tanana and Yukon Rivers if the state did not act quickly. She spoke to the importance of rapid response and early intervention to control invasive aquatics in order to protect Alaska's fisheries and recreational resources. 9:52:10 AM Vice-Chair Neuman CLOSED public testimony. Representative Gara thanked Representative Seaton and his staff for their preparedness. Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the state would not trump private property ownership. CHARLES SWANTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, replied in the affirmative. He relayed that the department would work with property owners and would take risk and other items into consideration when determining treatment methods. He confirmed that private property owners would be heavily consulted. Representative Wilson pointed to language in the sponsor statement (copy on file) spoke to her concern that the private property owner "shall be considered," but still allowed responding agencies to be held harmless for damages caused by invasive species treatment. She discussed business owners conducting business in Alaskan waters versus private property owners. Mr. Swanton used the tunicates in Whiting Harbor as an example. He detailed that the tunicates had been attached to anchor line and ropes. He believed the sponsor's intent was to address other similar situations where the means to remove the threat had been to remove the docks, running lines, and other from the harbor. He explained that it had taken the state time to contact the owner and to receive permission. He relayed that it was difficult to address access. The state would not march forward without consideration and consultation with a private property owner depending on the situation. 9:56:45 AM Representative Wilson spoke to her experience with agencies. She believed that in some cases agencies consulted with individuals, but at the end of the day they felt they could move forward. She did not feel like consulting private property owners was enough. She was concerned about the language. Vice-Chair Neuman noted that there were also questions on the fiscal note. He asked DFG to provide scenarios related to how the bill would work for private properties. He asked how the weeds were spread (e.g. float planes, birds, and other). Mr. Swanton replied that it depended on the species and the location. Items mentioned by Vice-Chair Neuman were factors in the spread of elodea. Vice-Chair Neuman wondered if the same could be said for pike eggs. Mr. Swanton replied that it depended on the time of year. The potential existed but he did not know about the probability. He detailed that pike eggs were adhesive and were laid in shallow water. He believed there were all types of factors out there. He did not have the hard facts about a duck carrying pike eggs to another lake. 10:00:39 AM Representative Gara wanted to ensure the minimization of damage to non-invasive species. He pointed to the bill language that required the department to respond in a manner to cause the least harm to non-invasive fish populations (page 2, line 22). He imagined a scenario where there were two approaches available that both caused some level of harm to non-invasive species. He believed the bill language required the department to respond even if the response would harm the non-invasive species. He wanted the bill to provide the option for no response in the event that damage to the fish population was greater than the damage caused by the invasive species. Mr. Swanton read from the bill that "the department shall respond in a manner determined to cause the least harm to non-invasive fish populations." He believed that it would be incumbent upon the departments to look for the least harmful approach. Vice-Chair Neuman made a remark about herbicides. Representative Gara understood that the bill would require the departments to use the least harmful method. However, he wondered what the state would do if all of the options were harmful. He wanted to provide the departments with the ability to not act if the harm to fisheries was greater than that caused by an invasive species. Mr. Swanton believed the idea was reasonable. Representative Gara would work with the sponsor on the language. Vice-Chair Neuman remarked that there were many ways to eradicate invasive species (e.g. herbicides, mechanical means, and other). He discussed that the bill would be heard at a future meeting.