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." 8:34:36 AM Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for HB 89, Work Draft 28-LS0339\P (Bullard, 4/9/14). Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, explained the changes in the CS. He relayed that on Page 2, lines 26 and 27, the words "shall provide reasonable notice to affected property owners" had been added to the bill for the sake of clarity. He furthered that on Page 3, lines 5 and 6, "aquatic evasive species" had been specified to mean Northern Pike, didemnum tunicate, European green crab, spartina, crayfish, or another 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. 8:37:01 AM CHARLIE SWANTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, testified that the department was supportive of the changes. Representative Guttenberg wondered if there was any location in the state where Northern Pike was native. Mr. Swanton replied by and large was a general description on the north side of the Alaska Range. Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that the department would not be going after Northern Pike in its natural habitat. Mr. Swanton replied in the affirmative. Representative Costello asked if Elodea was considered an aquatic invasive species under the bill. Mr. Swanton answered in the affirmative. Co-Chair Austerman noted that in the past moving the Geoduck from Southeast Alaska to Kachemak Bay had been considered by the department as moving an invasive species and legislation had been required to overcome that label. He asked if "or another organism" could refer to a similar situation. Mr. Swanton answered that the species listed in the CS were believed by a broad array of people as posing the greatest risk. He said that the language was not all encompassing. 8:40:08 AM Co-Chair Austerman hesitated to include the language "or another organism" in the bill. Representative Gara took issue with the language pertaining to economic and environmental harm. Representative Gara asked whether the invasive species listed in the original bill had been included in the CS. Mr. Swanton replied in the affirmative. Representative Gara wondered if the method of removal of the species could include non-chemical means. BEN MULLIGAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, pointed to page 2, line 21: 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 fish populations that are used for recreational, personal use, commercial, or subsistence purposes Mr. Mulligan elaborated that the department would chose an option that would get rid of the invasive species and cause the least harm to resident populations. Vice-Chair Neuman wondered if the bill would look at the issue of species interfering with the migration patterns of salmon. Mr. Swanton replied that it did not speak directly to the issue. He assured the committee that the department would pay attention to the issue of range extensions, which were typical after long periods of geological time. Vice-Chair Neuman spoke of the pike eradication of Alexander Creek. He asked whether the bill would expand similar operations in the northern district where pike seemed to be expanding further into salmon tributaries. Mr. Swanton replied that he was unsure whether the legislation would expand the operation. He said that the department planned to move forward with a variety of projects to control of eradicate pike. 8:47:19 AM Representative Gara wondered whether the department would opt for non-action if the balance favored non-action. Mr. Swanton answered that non-action would be on the table in terms of evaluation before any aggressive action was taken. Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. 8:49:24 AM AT EASE 8:54:08 AM RECONVENED HB 89 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.