HB 365-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES  2:59:34 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 365, "An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control of, aquatic invasive species." 2:59:59 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON, noting HB 365 is a House Resources Standing Committee bill, explained the impetus for the bill came from the committee's [1/23/12] hearing on invasive species. Pictures were shown at that hearing of Didemnum vexillum (D. vex), an invasive species growing in Sitka's Whiting Harbor. The purpose of HB 365 is for those times where an invasive species is found in a limited area; it would provide Alaska's state agencies with a tool for rapid response on an emergency basis instead of waiting one or two years while the invasive species spreads [as happened in Whiting Harbor]. The bill would not apply to an infestation that is in general or has spread along coastline, but rather to an invasive species in one limited geographic locality that could be resolved. 3:02:19 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that HB 365 reads "aquatic" invasive species, so would apply to inland waterways as well as marine waters. However, he continued, when constructing the bill the thought was marine aquatic and the question is whether these emergency powers should be provided for inland waterways. For example, [northern] pike are endemic and spreading in some areas and the idea is not for something that has become endemic or has spread and that would require treating a massive amount of the environment. Rather, the objective is to treat something that is contained in a limited area, thereby nipping it in the bud. 3:03:28 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON drew attention to the executive summary of the 2002 "Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan" by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) included in the committee packet. He noted that page v of the plan talks about developing an inter-division Alaska Invasive Species Prevention and Response Program within ADF&G. However, instead of emergency response capability, the plan talks about listing and educating people ahead of time, as seen on page VI. 3:05:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, addressing the eight actions listed on page v of the aforementioned plan, inquired whether the following two actions have been implemented [original punctuation provided with formatting changes]: Prevent the spread of invasive species already introduced into Alaska, through the identification and closing of transport pathways. Develop protocols for early detection, rapid response to, control and management of new invasive species. 3:05:43 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON understood the plan has been shelved and not implemented. He said the usual problem is that the departments come to the legislature saying an emergency response cannot be undertaken due to the lack of legislative authority to omit the procedure of following regulations and conducting studies before acting. He pointed out HB 365 would provide that authority for a geographically insulated infestation. For example, HB 365 would have made stopping the D. vex infestation in Whiting Harbor a priority and no studies would have had to be done for how that would affect other species in the harbor. For limited geographic areas, long-time studies allow the possibility of an invasive species spreading and becoming endemic, creating huge ecological and economic consequences. Mariculture in Southeast Alaska could be rendered defunct by the spread of D. vex; herring fisheries could be rendered defunct in bays infested with D. vex because the invasive species could then be spread throughout Alaska by infected herring nets. The bill would give ADF&G and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the tools to respond to an invasive outbreak in a limited geographic area, such as a bay, on an emergency basis. He added that HB 365 is not intended to require ADF&G to drop everything in a management area to concentrate on an infested area, so a clarifying amendment will be offered in this regard. 3:11:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that five fiscal notes accompany HB 365 and two of them alone add up to $938,000. She suggested the bill be limited to marine species to ensure its passage, saying it is important to get a quick response to an invasive species because it is unknown how far the D. vex from Whiting Harbor has already traveled as a result of the lack of a quick response. CO-CHAIR SEATON responded the aforementioned is one of two forthcoming amendments and a third amendment clarifies that the priority designation is only for the particular infested area and not an entire region. Most of the problems with HB 365 come from addressing both fresh and marine waters, he said. 3:13:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired how an ongoing emergency situation like Whiting Harbor would be handled during the time that the plan is being developed. CO-CHAIR SEATON replied things have to start someplace. He said the Whiting Harbor problem was not responded to in the timely fashion it should have been. He further thought DNR should be required to write into mariculture leases that a contaminated lease will not be compensated for the destruction that will need to occur to sterilize that mariculture area. CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony. 3:16:26 PM MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), noted UFA is a statewide trade association representing 37 member groups from fisheries throughout Alaska and its offshore waters. He said UFA supports HB 365 in concept, given its awareness of the tremendous threat of invasive marine and inland species and the potential devastating effect on fisheries. No other state has as much to lose from invasive species as Alaska - it is important to have rapid response abilities in advance of something happening, which is the basis of UFA's support for the bill. He said UFA has supported previous bills that would have set up an invasive species council. It can be difficult to determine whether an issue would be the responsibility of ADF&G or DNR, but HB 365 puts it strongly on ADF&G. Therefore, UFA is very interested in ADF&G's advice on how best to make this work. He thanked the committee for introducing HB 365 and reiterated UFA's general support for the bill's concept. 3:18:28 PM DARCY ETCHEVERRY, Invasive Weed Specialist, Fairbanks Soil & Water Conservation District, stated she works with the district to coordinate management of Elodea in the Fairbanks area. Elodea is an aquatic invasive plant with the potential to impact Alaska's freshwater resources and fish habitat, she explained. When introduced into freshwater systems, Elodea can restrict flow, increase sedimentation, and damage fish habitat. The current known distribution of Elodea in Alaska is limited to a handful of lakes and sloughs in Anchorage, the Cordova area, and Fairbanks, so the time to act is now. MS. ETCHEVERRY said a coordinated effort is needed from all state, federal, and private agencies, but so far the response effort has been led by nonprofit and federal agencies. Support is needed from the state agencies managing these waters to lead this response effort. The ADF&G 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan outlines how to accomplish effective management and adopts the following policies: develop an inter- division Alaska invasive species prevention program; provide leadership and coordination between state, federal, international agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations; and develop protocols for early detection and rapid response to control and manage new invasive species. The plan is an excellent framework to coordinate aquatic nuisance species management in Alaska, but it appears few of these tasks have been accomplished to date. If the plan and adopted ADF&G policies are insufficient to facilitate early detection and rapid response, she said she is then in favor of HB 365 to have rapid response to aquatic invasive species entered into Alaska's administrative code. She urged the committee to also consider the cost of implementing any invasive species response plan and to provide the agencies with needed resources and personnel. She discouraged the committee from eliminating freshwater habitats from HB 365 because freshwater invasive species can also be detrimental to fisheries and economies. 3:21:20 PM TRISH WURTZ, PhD, noted she is testifying as a private citizen, but that she is a member of the Fairbanks Cooperative Weed Management Area. She said ADF&G's 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan has excellent descriptions about what the department planned to do to prevent the introduction of invasive species and eradicate them as quickly as possible. However, she reported, very little of what was described in the plan has actually been undertaken. Of particular concern is the invasive aquatic plant Elodea that was discovered in 2010 growing in Chena Slough near Fairbanks. DR. WURTZ illustrated the seriousness of this discovery by reviewing what other states have gone through with invasive aquatic plants. Hydrilla, a close relative of Elodea, was introduced to Florida in the 1960s and within 20 years it spread throughout the state. Boating and swimming can no longer occur in the worst infested lakes, nor can fishing because a line cannot be drawn through the water. Additionally, fish cannot survive because Hydrilla fills the lake from top to bottom. The State of Florida now spends $20 million per year solely trying to control Hydrilla. Learning from Florida's failure to respond quickly, the State of Minnesota did act quickly when in fall 2007 Elodea was found growing in a single lake near Minneapolis. Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources mapped and treated the infestation with aquatic herbicides within two months of its discovery. In Idaho an infestation of Hydrilla was found in December 2007 in the Bruneau River. In three months the Idaho Department of Agriculture treated and successfully killed the infestation with aquatic herbicide and mechanical pulling. In upstate New York an infestation of Hydrilla was found in August 2011 in one of the Finger Lakes. By October 2011 a coalition of groups had worked together to treat the infestation with aquatic herbicide and had petitioned the state legislature for $1 million to kill the infestation completely. DR. WURTZ said the aforementioned states understand what the term rapid response means. In contrast, since the August 2010 discovery of Elodea in the Fairbanks area, all that ADF&G has done is to grudgingly attend a few meetings. The department needs to get to work and demonstrate real leadership and true rapid response in defense of Alaska's freshwater resources. She urged the committee not to give up the freshwater component of HB 365. She said she strongly supports the section of the bill that says rapid response shall be given priority over other activities of the department. 3:25:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reported that the owner of the aquatic farm in Whiting Harbor offered to take care of the D. vex infestation and estimated it would cost about $30,000. However, a state or federal agency - she did not know which - forbid the owner from doing so and now he has completely lost the farm. She asked whether there is a way to provide that the person involved can help with the eradication efforts. CO-CHAIR SEATON responded the rapid response is not dictated in HB 365, but it does dictate that chemical, biological, mechanical or physical methods, singly or in combination, can be used in that limited geographic area. He said there is nothing in the bill that would preclude a farm owner from doing something. The hope is that the plan developed by ADF&G will be inclusive enough to allow the most rapid response possible. He reiterated that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) needs to include in its mariculture permits the recognition that there will not be a long court battle and an infestation in a limited area will be taken care of right way regardless of any damage. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated a way must be found to ensure people will not be so afraid of an invasive species being discovered that they try to hide it; people must be willing to quickly come forward in those cases where they have an interest. 3:30:02 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27- LS1439\A.1, Bullard, 3/16/12, written as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 11: Delete "activities of the department and activities regulated by the department" Insert "activities regulated by the department in that limited or isolated geographic area" CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes. 3:30:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about instances in which something is discovered that is not confined to a limited area. CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that an invasive species which has become endemic or spread into many areas along the coast cannot be eradicated by an emergency response. He reported that the bill's original language has been misinterpreted to mean [ADF&G's] activities and activities regulated by [ADF&G] within an entire management area. Rather, the intent is that when an invasive species is identified in a bay the other activities in that bay will become secondary and emergency response can be done to ensure the invasive species does not spread [beyond that bay], which is what Amendment 1 attempts to accomplish. CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:32:25 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, written as follows [original punctuation provided]: Add "marine" before "aquatic invasive species" throughout the bill CO-CHAIR SEATON added that this would also apply to the language on page [2], line 19, such that "or freshwater" would be removed. CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes. 3:33:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ observed the fiscal analysis includes a freshwater species. She asked whether insertion of "marine" would change that focus of going after freshwater plants. CO-CHAIR SEATON replied Conceptual Amendment 2 would remove that freshwater plant, as well as pike and other freshwater species, from the bill. He said he agrees with the people who testified that it is necessary to address freshwater plants, but said it may add so much weight to the bill that it will be unable to move through the legislature because most of the fiscal note comes from the freshwater. 3:35:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Co-Chair Seaton is saying the odds of passing HB 365 will decrease if freshwater species are not removed from the bill. She said she opposes Conceptual Amendment 2 for the reason stated earlier by Co-Chair Seaton - that addressing invasive species must start somewhere and this statement would include the freshwater species. CO-CHAIR SEATON responded he would prefer to not propose the amendment for the same reason; however, the weight of trying to deal with the diversity of emergency regulations applying throughout all the freshwaters of the state, along with the fiscal note, would complicate the bill such that nothing would be done. He said he is hoping the state will not be in the position of having an invasive species and it being said it is the legislature's fault for not having something in place that could have rapidly dealt with the species. Therefore, he is reluctantly offering the amendment because he thinks it necessary for the bill to move. 3:37:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated that taking out the freshwater portion misses a big point of the discussion and is bad state policy, so he will vote against the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed with Representatives Gardner and Kawasaki, but pointed out that the freshwater portion would add seven positions. While it is a shame it must be looked at in this way, she said she will vote for the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said the focus needs to be on the immediate threats and the inland aquatic threats are very serious. She added that this is one of the key issues western states are talking about. The State of Montana has established a fund of $10 million for responding to emergencies. She said Alaska needs to move forward with all of the identified species and she will therefore not vote for the amendment. 3:39:50 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she will support the amendment, but she would like to consider the other part of the bill to be a template for getting started and that the lessons learned for how best to respond will be expanded to inland waters. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI maintained his objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Herron, Foster, Gardner, P. Wilson, Feige, and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Munoz and Kawasaki voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 6-2. 3:41:17 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE kept public testimony open and in response to Representative Munoz said he is holding over HB 365 because he would like to get an answer from ADF&G regarding the status of its 2002 Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. CO-CHAIR SEATON said he would like to ask DNR to address a way to enfold in its permits emergency response to invasive species in localized areas. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested that ADF&G provide the committee with an update of the Whiting Harbor situation. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he would like ADF&G to address how money could be saved in the fiscal note so that both marine and freshwater aquatic invasive species could be addressed. CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 365.