HB 177-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES  6:37:29 PM CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be 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." CO-CHAIR TARR said public testimony was opened [during the hearing of HB 177 on 4/7/17] and remained open. 6:38:02 PM TIM STALLARD, Chairperson, Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Pest Management (CMPM), which is the professional association for the study and management of invasive species in Alaska, expressed CMPM's support of HB 177. Mr. Stallard informed the committee invasive species are defined as those that cause harm to natural resources, health, and economic value; in fact, across the U.S. invasive species cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars each year in crop losses, damage, and ecological harm. Alaska's low population and extreme climate have slowed the arrival and establishment of invasive species, but the state needs to be prepared to take rapid action when necessary, in a manner similar to the prevention of, and quick response to, wildfires. The intent of the bill is to allow the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and other state agencies to respond quickly to the presence of invasive species. Mr. Stallard pointed out additional invasive species vectors should be addressed in statute and regulation, such as watercraft arriving via land borders, marine ports, aircraft, and imported material and equipment with access to Alaska waterbodies. Additional issues are the release of pets, aquarium dumping, illegal stocking, and the instate movement of boats and equipment. Further, CMPM seeks to ensure state agencies hold authority to write effective regulations related to aquatic invasive species. He expressed concern that the Division of Agriculture, DNR, is over five years behind updating its regulations regarding "the noxious weeds list." Mr. Stallard closed, noting that Alaskans rely on the state's natural resources for food, work, and fun, and invasive species threaten the Alaska way of life. He urged for passage of HB 177 this session. 6:42:05 PM ARTHUR KEYES, director, Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, said the noxious weed regulations "are just one of many of the regulations that we have on our plate to update." He said the division is looking to have progress on updating regulations this year. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for an approximate number of trailers and vessels coming into the state annually. 6:44:24 PM MICHAEL NEUSSL, deputy commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF) directed attention to a written response [in the committee packet dated 4/10/17] that included information on traffic volumes entering the state from Bellingham, Washington and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. He said the traffic volumes include vehicles other than boats. The definition of boat or watercraft is nebulous and may include kayaks, canoes, and personal watercraft carried on vehicles that are not tracked individually. CO-CHAIR TARR reported from the aforementioned written response: From Prince Rupert, 77 port calls and 2,753 vehicles embarked; from Bellingham, 68 port calls and 5,689 vehicles embarked. MR. NEUSSL added AMHS does track nonmotorized vehicles embarking with walk-on passengers such as bicycles, kayaks, and canoes; the total number systemwide was 1,755 for nonmotorized forms of transportation. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH reasoned from the provided response that .3 percent of 8,000 vehicles embarked would be about 240 trailers entering the state from Prince Rupert and Bellingham during fiscal year 2015. MR. NEUSSL clarified the definition of trailers includes trailers not carrying boats. In further to Representative Parish, he expressed his belief that DOTPF does not have information on the number of boats entering the state on roads. 6:48:00 PM CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony. Before the committee was HB 177. 6:48:07 PM CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1 which read: Page 1, line 3: Delete "users of the Alaska marine highway  system" Insert: "certain persons registering or  transporting boats" Page 1, following line 4 Insert a new bill section to read: "*Section 1. AS 05.25.055 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (j) To the extent possible, the Department of Administration shall ensure that a person who registers a boat under this section is provided with any information relating to aquatic invasive species that has been published in pamphlet form by the Department of Natural Resources or the Department of Fish and Game." Page 1, line 5: Delete "Section 1 Insert "Sec. 2 6:48:17 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes. CO-CHAIR TARR restated the bill is creating infrastructure for a rapid response fund to prevent delays in the state's response to the presence of invasive species. Because prevention is less expensive than treatment, Amendment 1 expands the dissemination of prevention information to include not only persons transporting boats via AMHS, but through the Department of Administration, and thereby the Division of Motor Vehicles, to those registering a boat in the state. As an aside, she said floatplanes are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether AMHS is still required to educate and inform. CO-CHAIR TARR said yes; individuals traveling on AMHS would receive information, and individuals registering a boat would receive information from the Division of Motor Vehicles. 6:52:03 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON withdrew his objection. 6:52:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected. She asked where the bill directs AMHS to provide information to passengers with boats. CO-CHAIR TARR directed attention to the bill on page 3, lines 4- 10, which read: *Sec. 2. AS 19.65 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 19.65.033. Provision of information  relating to aquatic invasive species. To the extent possible, the commissioner of transportation and public facilities shall ensure that a person who purchases a ticket for vehicle deck space on a ferry for the purpose of transporting a vessel into the state is provided with any information relating to aquatic invasive species that has been published in pamphlet form by the Department of Natural Resources or the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 6:52:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to [the bill on page 1, line 14, and page 2, lines 1 and 2] which read [in part]: response to, and management of, an aquatic invasive species under (a) of this section shall be given priority over activities regulated by the department in the area where an incipient population of an aquatic invasive species is being targeted. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned whether "given priority over activities regulated by the department," for an invasive population that could not be eradicated in a reasonable period, would override other vital activities of the department. 6:54:12 PM TAMMY DAVIS, Invasive Species Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, in response to Representative Parish after he restated his question, said, "When I read that statement, I would believe that responding to that introduced population would be the number one priority." CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out the purpose of the bill is to enable rapid response and thus is supposed to create the infrastructure necessary [for ADFG] to immediately respond. Otherwise, an "expensive regulatory process" must be followed. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH gave the example of Sitka, which has a severe [Didemnum vexillum (Dvex)] problem, and stated his concern that the bill would direct ADFG to move resources away from other critical activities. He asked Ms. Davis whether the bill would change the way ADFG has been managing the incipient aquatic invasive population of Dvex in Sitka. MS. DAVIS said she is a biologist, "more so than a policy person." She explained the "Dvex efforts" in Sitka thus far have not taken from other management priorities of ADFG; however, the department requested that boaters avoid Whiting Harbor because of the invasive species, although it does not have enforcement authority. She said Representative Parish has asked a policy question, and she was not comfortable responding to how the proposed statute would be interpreted. 7:00:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH proposed [a conceptual amendment] deleting the language "over activities regulated by the department in the area," and thereby the intent would remain that priority is given where an incipient population of an aquatic invasive species is being targeted. CO-CHAIR TARR restated the intent of the bill is to enable ADFG to legally prioritize management of an aquatic invasive species outbreak, because the department has other statutorily-mandated obligations. She expressed her understanding ADFG seeks the ability to separate its responsibilities in order to prioritize managing an outbreak and take immediate action. Co-Chair Tarr opined ADFG would not want said language deleted. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH suggested changing "shall" [on page 2, line 1] to "may." CO-CHAIR TARR said she would not support the change because it would change the intent of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH related he has received reassurance from ADFG that the abovementioned language in the bill "is more of an intent statement, and not one that would prevent them from accomplishing other high priority activities," and said his fears are assuaged on that point. He then directed attention to page 2, lines 16-18 which read [in part]: ... 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. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH observed often the manner that causes the least harm is the most expensive. CO-CHAIR TARR noted that the fund created by the bill is not funded at this time, but should there be an aquatic invasive species outbreak, there would be "a place for the money to go." She expressed her preference for the use of mechanical - over chemical - means of managing an invasive species. In transportation corridors pesticides are less expensive than mechanical control methods, and the language in the bill gives the department flexibility. 7:05:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH gave an example of an elodea outbreak in which an herbicide is deemed the most effective means for eradication, but would be more harmful than a mechanical approach. He opined the bill would mandate the use of a mechanical method and thus provide only an "incomplete solution." CO-CHAIR TARR said the alternative selected would not provide an incomplete solution because the goal is eradication of an aquatic invasive species; however, there are concerns about using chemicals in freshwater lakes and streams to control northern pike, and she wants the bill to minimize the potential for harm. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH is also opposed to poison in lakes and suggested the bill should direct "minimal total ecological impact." 7:07:26 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 7:08:03 PM HB 177 was held over.