HOUSE BILL NO. 54 "An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the Department of Fish and Game; relating to management of invasive species; relating to invasive species management decals; and providing for an effective date." 9:07:13 AM Co-Chair Foster indicated that the committee last heard HB 54 on May 18, 2021. 9:07:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, CHAIR, HOUSE FISHERIES COMMITTEE, briefly summarized the bill. She explained that the bill created an Alaska Invasive Species Council housed in the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The bill represented a culmination of 5 years of work that initially centered on a rapid response to the problem. Overtime in working with professionals across the state she had found the state was well prepared to stay ahead of the problem. She shared that the impacts of invasive species were costly and included impacts to wastewater systems, tourism, and salmon habitat. She detailed that the council envisioned a partnership through multi-stakeholder engagement among private sector professionals, government agencies, and tribal agencies to develop efficient and effective responses to the problem. The councils work would limit the state's spending on invasive species due to the more coordinated approach that would enhance prevention and response efforts. She appreciated the time to reintroduce the bill. Co-Chair Foster relayed that there was a new updated zero Statement of Fiscal Impact from the Department of Environmental Conservation. 9:10:25 AM Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file): Page 5, following line 31: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 4. AS 16.20.800, 16.20.810, 16.20.820, 16.20.850, and AS 37.05.146(c)(80) are repealed July 1, 2027." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Representative Josephson OBJECTED. Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendment. The amendment created a 7-year [Stated in error, the amendment was for 5 years.] sunset clause for the council. Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 to make the sunset a 7-year sunset in 2029, rather than a 5-year sunset. He believed that it would give the council a longer eradication process and was supported by the sponsor. Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. Representative Carpenter clarified that he misspoke, and the original amendment was a 5-year sunset clause. He would not support a 7-year sunset. Co-Chair Foster indicated that the committee would discuss Conceptual Amendment 1. Representative Josephson favored Conceptual Amendment 1. Representative Thompson asked for a discussion of why either 5 or 7 years was appropriate. 9:14:38 AM Co-Chair Foster requested that the sponsor respond to the conceptual amendment and Amendment 1. Representative Tarr appreciated the notion of a sunset date. She believed that a sunset offered a benchmark for completing work and gave the legislature the opportunity to assess whether the council should terminate or extend. She referred to pages 5 and 6, of the bill that outlined the timing for the appointment of the councils members. She indicated that it would take one to two years for the governor to complete the appointments. She determined that the council would need 5 years after the appointments to complete its work and favored a 7-year sunset. Representative Carpenter thought a 7-year sunset was too long and that it would not take up to 2 years to appoint members. He supported a 5-year sunset. Co-Chair Foster indicated that Representative Ortiz joined the meeting. Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. (Conceptual amendment 1 to Amendment 1) IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Thompson, Wool, Foster, Merrick OPPOSED: Carpenter The MOTION PASSED (8/1). Conceptual 1 to Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. Representative Josephson supported the bill and preferred that the council would not sunset. He understood that there would not be a final end to the invasive species problem. He asked Representative Tarr why she was comfortable with the amendment. Representative Tarr responded that she agreed the problem would never end considering the many ways invasive species entered the state, especially via shipping. She elaborated that a sunset included an audit and she felt that an audit would evaluate the work of the council and recommend any necessary changes. She reiterated that at times members were not chosen in a timely manner and it limited the effectiveness of the council. She believed the audit provided a refresh moment. Representative Josephson inquired whether Representative Tarr was confident someone would advocate for the council in 2029. Representative Tarr responded in the affirmative. She noted that there was an array of impressive professionals working on the effort. She believed that they were a very dedicated group of people, and the state would benefit from their participation on the council. Representative Josephson indicated that one of the repealers was AS 16.20.820, which identified that the decal fund would be part of the General Fund (GF), which meant that it was subject to a reverse sweep. He wondered whether it was a concern. Representative Tarr responded that the council would recommend how the funds should be spent. She deduced that if the council was disbanded, she guessed that the response would revert to relying on special capital budget appropriations, which was the current funding source for invasive species response. Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 as amended was ADOPTED. Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to report CSHB 54(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 54(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass" recommendations and three "no recommendation" recommendations and with a new zero fiscal note by Gov/Combined and a new fiscal impact note by the Department of Fish and Game. 9:23:29 AM AT EASE 9:24:40 AM RECONVENED