HB 89-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES  1:06:17 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 89(FSH).] 1:06:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, as the sponsor, introduced HB 89, stating it is a rapid response bill for aquatic invasive species throughout the state. He noted one aquatic invasive species, such as Elodea canadensis (Elodea), can be found in Southcentral Alaska as well as in Fairbanks. This species overruns salmon habitat. Other species, such as Northern Pike have established in the Susitna River drainage and on the Kenai Peninsula. Didemnum vexillum or "D vex" captured the legislature's attention last year when an infestation developed in Whiting Harbor near Sitka, and the rapid spread of D. vex posed a threat to the Sitka Sound Herring fishery. He expressed concern that commercial vessels such as seiners and tenders would not be able to operate if the species continues to grow. He pointed out the European Green crab and some mussel species across the U.S. have also clogged filters and waterways. 1:09:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reported the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimates approximately $120 billion per year in loss in the U.S. The University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) estimates approximately $29 million is spent on invasive species management in Alaska per year, divided between government and non-government groups. One thing that has hampered efforts to control invasive species is not having the ability to rapidly respond to an incipient population. He described an incipient population as a newly discovered population that has not yet become endemic throughout a watershed. Once an invasive species is established, it is very expensive to control. Currently, the state does not have the resources dedicated to respond. This bill would give state agencies the authority to act and prioritize actions that will be effective. It would set up a rapid response fund and dedicate funds for that purpose. This bill also considers private property in the development of plans and protects subsistence, recreational, and commercial opportunities before it is too late to act. 1:11:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related the bill would give ADF&G and other state agencies the authority and tools to deal with an outbreak of an invasive species in fresh or salt water. It would require ADF&G to coordinate with other state agencies and private organizations and private parties to develop plans for eradicating colonial tunicate, crab, or other invasive species. In response to a question, he clarified that a colonial tunicate is similar to a coral but it is soft, grows, and suffocates other marine life. He pointed out one reason felt soles on waders has been outlawed was to prevent people from picking up invasive species in their soles and transferring it to the next stream. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he hopes this bill will help prevention efforts, which is cheap and incipient population control, which is a less expensive method to address the problem than for an established invasive species. 1:12:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that HB 89 would give ADF&G the authority to use the appropriate means to address invasive species, whether chemical or physical. It would also establish an expedited review of plans, and prioritization for eradication of the species over other management issues. He recalled one concern that arose during invasive species control for D. vex was that some sea urchins were also destroyed in the process of addressing the invasive species, which is why the bill includes management provisions. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the bill will require that the development of a plan consider the impact on native fish species and also consideration of private property. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said HB 89 would also hold harmless state agencies. One of the conditions of receiving mariculture permits is that the leaseholder must recognize the state may need to intervene to address invasive species and the state would be held harmless; however, he stressed that this immunity would not extend to gross negligence or intentional misconduct. 1:15:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated the bill would establish a rapid response fund, although it contains restrictions against using the funds for planning. Instead, the rapid response fund will be used for rapid response. He expressed concern that the "D vex" problem in Sitka hasn't yet been addressed and the state is now coming up on four years since it was first discovered. The purpose of this bill is to provide an effort to "get ahead of the game" instead of being "behind the game." 1:16:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER recalled that last year a similar bill made it to the Senate Rules Committee and some minor but important changes were made to the bill during the process. He wished the sponsor well this year. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that last year's bill had been introduced as a House Resources Committee bill. This year he introduced HB 89 as a personal bill, but it is essentially the same bill. 1:17:07 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his understanding the legislative intent is to deal with incipient populations, which are ones that have not gained a foothold within the state. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON confirmed that is correct. He explained incipient does not need to be defined since it relates to a first outbreak or a new outbreak of a species even if it is found in Alaska. CO-CHAIR FEIGE concluded that based on that answer he agrees incipient does not need a definition. 1:18:24 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether HB 89 will address the impacts from agency contractors if DNR sublets its authority and whether the bill extends to private contractors action on private property. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered yes. He referred to page 2, line 17-19, which reads, "(f) The Department of Natural Resources and the department shall include in all relevant leases and permits a provision that the state and the officers, employees, and agents of the state shall be held harmless for an act under (b) of this section that affects private property of the lessee or permittee." This language originated from ADF&G and "agents of the state" would extend to contractors, he said. 1:19:20 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether the bill extends to terrestrial or land-based invasive plant species, as well. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that this bill is limited to addressing aquatic - freshwater and marine - species. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has authority on terrestrial invasive plant species. He stated that the Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plant Management handles land-based plants. The aforementioned committee supports the bill. 1:20:31 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired how the rapid response fund would be funded. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON was unsure of the appropriation amount, but he anticipated $1-2 million would be necessary. This bill does not appropriate money to the rapid response fund. The legislature would need to take a separate action to do so. In response to a question, he agreed the bill has a House Finance Standing Committee referral. 1:21:33 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER referred to page 2, lines 8-10 of HB 89, to the language, " (d) Rapid response to, and management of, an aquatic invasive species under (b) of this section shall be given priority over activities regulated by the department in the area where an incipient population of an invasive species is being targeted." He asked for clarification on the size of the area. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that discretion has been left to the department. He clarified if the area is too large it would be considered an endemic population. He clarified that the intent of this language is not to stop all management in an area, just within the localized area in which a "controlled plan" is being activated. This language would give the control plan priority over the normal management of fish species within the localized area. 1:23:00 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER posed a scenario of a ship sinking that spills oil. He asked how the response to an invasive species would be prioritized. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded he does not think the scenario would correspond at all. This bill pertains to ADF&G's authority over its activities. He related a number of different species, openings, and closings occur under ADF&G, but the bill does not pertain to the Department of Environmental Conservation's activities or fuel contamination. [CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 89.] 1:24:33 PM GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist, Cordova District Fishermen United, stated that last year in Prince William Sound fishermen noticed considerable debris washing in from Japan. At the time he contacted the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He said he would like to see the bill include coordination with NOAA because he anticipates significant Japanese debris to continue to appear over the next couple of years. He pointed out some incidents, such as a van that floated around, but disappeared, and a variety of bottles, buoys, and baskets that have been discovered. He offered to establish a hot line with NOAA, DNR, or ADF&G with respect to the debris. He assumed a long-term plan would include the state inspecting the debris for invasive species. He offered support for the bill. 1:26:58 PM CHRIS RAINWATER, Chair, Board of Directors, Homer Soil and Water Conservation District (HSWCD), stated that the HSWCD supports HB 89. The HSWCD has been working on invasive species in the uplands and agricultural community for about six years. He cautioned that it takes time to put procedures together which work well, but he hoped he will be able to assist. He pointed out that it is thought Elodea may be in a couple of the lakes around Homer as a result of float planes. Thus the conservation districts will investigate the float plane lakes within their boundaries this summer. In conclusion, he stated he appreciated the committee's efforts. 1:28:05 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted Mr. McCune indicated the need for coordination with federal officials. He wondered whether the bill addresses that or if it could be accommodated. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, line 6-7, to Section 1 of the bill, which read,"(a) The department shall, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Natural Resources, and other state, federal, public, and private entities, establish a rapid response and management plan for addressing incipient populations of aquatic invasive species." Thus, he believes it is covered in the bill. He clarified the coordination is limited to the development of the plan, which is important. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to have Mr. Fogels testify to have on the record the intent of the bill. He characterized it as a "war" and a "battle". He stated that a tactical battle is necessary to eradicate an incipient population. Once it reaches an endemic population, a war is necessary to rid the invasive species. 1:30:29 PM EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that the department has been reviewing the bill. As Representative Seaton said the war on invasive species is a battle; it's big. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed its own strategic plan, primarily focused on terrestrials, weeds, and agricultural pests, although Elodea is rapidly becoming part of the plan. The department has put together a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was signed in January 2013 by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the DNR, with DNR as the lead agency for coordinating the Elodea and freshwater aquatic invasive species battle. This bill would establish a rapid response fund which is only one part of the battle. The DNR's strategic plan covers quick response since the costs are substantially lower to eradicate invasive species during the quick response phase as compared to when the species has caught hold. 1:31:42 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER recalled the invasive species [Pueraria montana] kudzu taking over the ecosystem in Georgia. He asked whether any instance has occurred to eradicate an invasive species once it has become endemic. MR. FOGELS responded that he did not know the answer to that question. He offered to research it. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it depends on the location. It's better not to introduce a species, but battles have been fought around the world. For example, in Australia, they've battled against rabbits. MR. FOGELS recalled some success stories in eradicating rats on some islands in the Aleutian chain. CO-CHAIR SADDLER acknowledged it's easier to fight the battle [early on]. CO-CHAIR SADDLER, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 89. 1:33:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 2, lines 18-19 of HB 89. He expressed concern about the term "employees and agents" since he was unsure how broad that term is in the bill. He indicated he discussed this with the DNR and the department did not have any issue in removing "agents". He would be willing to offer a conceptual amendment to remove "and agents". CO-CHAIR SADDLER stated he would entertain it as Conceptual Amendment 1. He deferred to the sponsor of HB 89. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification that Conceptual Amendment 1 would be to remove "and agents" on page 2, line 19. He said he did not have any issue in doing so. 1:35:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, [on page 2, line 19, to remove the language "and agents". CO-CHAIR SADDLER restated the motion and said the language on page 2, lines 18-19 would now read, "... all relevant leases and permits a provision that the state and the officers, employees, of the state ... ". REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON added he would like to the bill drafters to have the latitude to make any grammatical corrections. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:36:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER observed that the fiscal note includes three temporary employees in the Division of Sport Fish [ADF&G] and one temporary employee in the DNR's Division of Agriculture, which he characterized as having a relatively benign fiscal impact. However, these fiscal notes still create a fiscal impact for the bill. He said his personal preference is that the two fiscal notes be zeroed out by the House Resources Standing Committee and have the departments provide a more thorough explanation in the House Finance Standing Committee and a justification for the fiscal note. 1:37:54 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m. 1:38:32 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether the bill sponsor has any objection to that procedure. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered he would like to make sure that zeroing out the fiscal note is not interpreted as attempting to avoid a finance committee referral. He did not think that was the committee's intent. CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood that the intent of the committee is for HB 89 to have a referral to the House Finance Standing Committee. The argument in defense of the fiscal note figures would be part of the discussion. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted it would take a floor action by the speaker to remove the committee referral. 1:39:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, that fiscal notes 4 and 5 be zeroed out, resulting in all the fiscal notes attached to HB 89 will be zero fiscal notes. This motion carries a clear intent that the bill will continue on to the finance committee. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. He clarified that the funding is being zeroed out, but the language on page two of the fiscal notes is not being zeroed out. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he was willing to take that as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER restated the motion. He moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to zero out fiscal notes 4 and 5, but to leave the fiscal note analysis attached. This would result in all the fiscal notes attached to HB 89 as zero fiscal notes. This motion carries a clear intent that the bill will continue on the finance committee. Further, if the ADF&G or the DNR wish to obtain funding the departments must argue for funding before the House Finance Standing Committee. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. 1:41:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 89, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zeroed fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 89(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.