HOUSE BILL NO. 177 "An Act relating to the response to, and control of, aquatic invasive species; establishing the aquatic invasive species response fund; and relating to the provision of information about aquatic invasive species to users of the Alaska marine highway system." 4:05:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, introduced the bill. She shared the bill would create an infrastructure for rapid response to an aquatic invasive species outbreak, would create a fund for invasive species response, directed the Alaska Marine Highway to provide information to passengers bringing boats to Alaska, and directed the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide information to Alaskans when they registered their boats. She provided a document titled Appendix G that included various examples of invasive species (copy on file). The first example was didemnum vexillum (d-vex). The second example was elodea - a western waterweed. The third slide pictured Reed canarygrass, and Northern Pike and the Norway rat were the fourth and fifth examples. One of the reasons for the discussion was related to the cost associated with the outbreaks. She provided examples from the Capital Budgets passed in FY13 and FY14, which each contained appropriations used to address invasive species outbreaks in the state. She spoke to the two provisions of the bill that pertained to communication surrounding invasive species hitchhiking on boats and float planes. She pointed to the bottom left hand cornet of the document titled, "Help Stop the Spread of Aquatic Invasives!" (copy on file), which illustrated watercraft checkpoints. She spoke of a major project taking place in the Columbia River basin for a type of invasive mussel, which was estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to address the problem. 4:12:34 PM Representative Tarr continued to address the bill. She relayed that her goal with the legislation was to be preventative in nature and provide a bit of funding for the issue. She relayed that the potential for the problem to become expensive to the state was great. She suggested that one way to raise funds for the issue was a $1 surcharge on boat registration. She said that the fiscal note reflected $5,000 for production of materials for distribution, which could involve signage as well as brochures. She said that any excess revenue could be used for future outbreaks. She shared that the state of Montana had vehicle checkpoints where boats were checked and properly cleaned for a fee. She lamented that the international borders surrounding Alaska limited the state's jurisdiction. She related that state law required the registration of all motorized boats, which could provide the opportunity to check vessels for hitchhikers. She said that both the marine highway and the DMV had the potential to assess fees, and the legislature might think about allowing those entities to implement a surcharge. She stressed that prevention and immediate response was the low-cost alternative to a full-blown invasion, which could impact salmon fisheries and other recreational opportunities for Alaskans. 4:16:09 PM Co-Chair Foster noted there were several people available for questions. Representative Thompson thought the bill should include the northern region of the state as well. He relayed there were areas of the Chena River that were experiencing problems with Elodea. Representative Tarr recalled that mechanical controls had been attempted in the Chena River slough, but had been unsuccessful. She agreed that the norther regions of the state should be included in the conversation. Representative Wilson directed the committee's attention to Page 2, lines 1 through 4: (b) In responding under (a) of this section to the occurrence of an aquatic invasive species, the department may apply for suspension of, or emergency, quarantine, public health, crisis, or other exemptions to, applicable environmental laws and regulations. Representative Wilson asked where the public input could be found under the sub-section. Representative Tarr replied that the intent was that some of the standard procedures would not apply in the circumstances defined in the bill because of the need for an immediate response. She stressed that not having the infrastructure readily available could delay a response by a year, which would make the problem worse. She added that the language was intended to empower the departments to side-step the typical public process in emergency situations. Representative Wilson shared that chemicals were being used to fight invasive species in the North Pole area, which had spurred concern for the shallow wells in the vicinity. She requested information on what would qualify as an emergency, and she voiced concern at the truncating of the public process. Representative Tarr replied that she would follow up on the matter. She relayed that the bill highlighted the use of the least toxic means possible as the number one priority. She hopes that chemical controls could be used when mechanical controls did not work, but that the default would be to do the least harmful method first. 4:20:13 PM Representative Wilson rebutted that least toxic in her drinking water well was not sufficient. Vice-Chair Gara referred to Page 2, lines 20 through 23: (f) In responding under (a) 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 Vice-Chair Gara related that he supported the least harmful response possible. He said that chemicals could sometimes do more harm than good when it came to human health. He understood that the section could allow for a "no action" alternative. He requested clarification from the Department of Fish and Game. Representative Tarr replied in the affirmative. She elaborated if drinking water were involved, direct application of an herbicide would not be applied. HB 177 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.