HB 89-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES  11:09:10 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be 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." 11:09:38 AM LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 89 stating that the intent is to address a rapid response to invasive species which may already or are likely to appear in Alaskan waters. In recent committee meetings, invasive species, such as the Sitka infestation of D.vex, commonly called Sea Vomit, have been presented and shown to be a growing problem. It is important to have the ability to address these types of outbreaks. Additionally, he said, immediate attention may be required to address situations such as unknown species arriving on the Japanese tsunami debris and what the growing commerce connected to marine traffic may bring to regions in Alaska. On the books, a long range plan is in place, but HB 89 is specific for developing a rapid response capability within, as well as through the coordination of, state agencies. 11:12:20 AM DOUGLAS DUNCAN Intern, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: HB 89 provides the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) with the statutory authority, and a fund, to swiftly address outbreaks of aquatic invasive species such as D.vex. HB 89 requires ADF&G, in coordination with the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Natural Resources, and other applicable agencies, to establish and carry out a rapid response plan to an incipient aquatic invasive species. HB 89 gives ADF&G the authority to use chemical, biological, mechanical, or physical methods to deal with the outbreak. It allows for expedited review of plans for dealing with invasive species, and directs ADF&G staff to prioritize eradication of the invasive species over other management issues for a specific area. HB 89 specifies that affected private property owners shall be considered, but still allows responding agencies to be held harmless for damages caused by their invasive species treatment. Impacts to native species shall be minimized if possible. Sea Vomit and other aquatic invasive species have the potential to seriously impact our lucrative commercial fishing, mariculture, and recreational fishing industries. HB 89 gives Alaska the tools to rapidly combat this threat. MR. DUNCAN stressed that the sooner response can take place the better the possibility of success in protecting the aquatic resources of Alaska; established invasive species are more difficult to control or eradicate. 11:15:13 AM MR. FLORA reported that, because of the previous legislation considered on this subject, the topic has been discussed by, and opinions contributed from, various interest groups to assist in the crafting of the bill language. For example, inclusion of "incipient populations of aquatic invasive species" is helpful to isolate and trigger a rapid response for targeted action on an incipient versus an endemic invasive population. Paraphrasing from the bill, he said private property owners would be held harmless, as indicated by the language on page 2, subsection (h), which reads [original punctuation provided]: (h) In responding under (b) of this section to the occurrence of an incipient population of an aquatic invasive species, the department shall consider the potential effects of its response measures on private property while selecting the most effective methods to eradicate or control the aquatic invasive species. MR. FLORA referred to existing regulatory language that governs agricultural pests and can require property owners to pay for mitigation efforts, to underscore the need to include subsection (h). Also, HB 89 creates a rapid response fund, avoiding the need to call a special legislative session in order to appropriate money in the event of an emergency situation due to an outbreak. 11:18:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked when the current memorandum of understanding (MOU), between DNR, ADF&G and DEC, was signed and whether it is specific to D.vex. MR. FLORA said he would provide the information to the committee, regarding the signature date of the MOU, and clarified that it is specific to aquatic species. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired why the governors proposed budget does not include funding for a study/plan for rapid response. MR. FLORA deferred to a state agency for response. 11:20:30 AM CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the intent of the bill requires the creation of a plan, including applicable agency MOUs, and to establish a fund to support and make capable a rapid response. The purpose of the fund is not for planning purposes. Citing the Whiting Harbor D.vex infestation, he said it has taken three years for the department to formulate a request for proposal (RFP) in order to handle the outbreak; putting economic fisheries in jeopardy. He pointed out that the purpose of the fund is described within the bill, at the bottom of page 2 [subsection (i)]. Finally, he offered that ADF&G is not only working with DEC and DNR but is collaborating with other state, federal and private entities as well, to develop an effective plan. 11:24:14 AM CHARLIE SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), referred to Representative Herron's question regarding the MOU to state that it was signed in mid-January. He declined to offer a definitive reason for the lack of a rapid response to the Sitka D.vex infestation, and said some confusion existed over statutory responsibility, which required review by the Department of Law (DOL). He then reviewed the fiscal note, prepared by ADF&G, for HB 89, and said it includes the cost for a staff of three to attend to the administrative procedures required in the bill, over the next 18 months. The first phase would be to update the Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan, an eleven year old document, as well as establish a comprehensive outline and finally, create a detailed rapid response plan for the five identified species, which are: Northern pike, D.vex, European green crab, Spartina cordgrass and crayfish. 11:27:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON acknowledged that the MOU was signed on January 15, [2013], and said it appears to only cover the freshwater invasive plant Elodea. Referring to the MOU, he noted that the directional language states, "Responses must be thorough and shared by all three agencies." He opined that critics could interpret this to mean a slow response; something to bear in mind. Further, he conjectured whether the sponsor should take heart that the 18 month fiscal note will be adequate. Referring to the previously mentioned 2002 ADF&G statewide management plan for aquatic species considered to be the highest threat, he asked whether the plan is being implemented in relation to today's subject matter. 11:28:41 AM MR. SWANTON responded, yes, and cited the ADF&G legislative report [presented to this committee on 1/29/13]. Although not considered a rapid response to the D.vex infestation, the report also included discussion of the Northern pike issue, which has been an on-going ADF&G concern. The department has met these challenges utilizing the resources that have been available. 11:29:38 AM CHAIR SEATON agreed that the agencies were attempting to respond to the D.vex appropriately, and said the legislature may have had other expectations; revealing the need to revisit the statutory authority. He stated his understanding for the major delay, regarding the response to D.vex in Sitka, were the liability issues that arose around the private mariculture facility in Whiting Harbor. He asked if HB 89 would alleviate repetition of a similar legal situation, with the inclusion of the hold harmless language. 11:31:14 AM MR. SWANTON noted that the bill offers comfort regarding liability concerns; however, statute may apply differently on a situational basis. CHAIR SEATON requested that the bill be reviewed by ADF&G legal counsel to ensure appropriate language and announced that the bill would be held for further study and response.