Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 4/27/26, 9am

I'll send the Finance Committee to order. Today is April 27th, 9:05 in the State Capitol, Senate Finance Room. Present: Senator Keele, Senator Merrick, Senator Kaufman, Senator Cronk, and myself, Senator Hoffman. We have a quorum to conduct business. We have two items on today's calendar: Senate Bill 208 and Senate Bill 174.

Senate Bill 208, this is the first hearing on this bill. I invite Senator Bjorgman and his staff to the table to introduce the bill to the committee.

Senator Bjorgman, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair Hoffman, and esteemed members of the Senate Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman, and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. Introduced Senate Bill 208 to support Alaska's agricultural industry. The bill makes it easier for farmers to lease state land and easier for the Department of Natural Resources to ensure state land sold for agricultural purposes remains in agricultural production. Senate Bill 208 does 3 things, Mr. Chairman.

First, it creates a new leasing program that allows farmers to direct— farmers to select a parcel of state land and apply to rent it at below-market rates. Costly, time-consuming appraisals and surveys would only be required if the commissioner deems those items necessary, and a lease would only be approved if it is in the best interest of the state based on a scoring rubric established in regulation. Second, the bill allows the Department of Natural Resources the option to add a merit-based component to the sale of agricultural parcels rather than solely awarding these parcels to the highest bidder. This new option would also rely on a regulation-based scoring system. Finally, the bill would make it easier for the department to encourage compliance with the regulations of agricultural covenants without having to use the nuclear option of repossessing the land by giving DNR the ability to assess civil penalties.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have invited 3 people to testify on the need for farmable land for Alaska's agricultural industry and the need for this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Do members of the Finance Committee have questions of the sponsor? If not, we will go to invited testimony.

Amy Seitz, Alaska Farm Bureau, online. Please identify yourself and give us your testimony.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Senate Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Amy Seitz. I'm the policy director for the Alaska Farm Bureau. And I really appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 208. It's legislation that addresses the most fundamental barrier to a more self-reliant food system, which is getting suitable, affordable land into the hands of those ready to put it into production. So when we discuss agriculture, we often focus solely on the harvest. However, there's a real economic opportunity for Alaska through the secondary industry— middle processing, transportation, the local support businesses that a robust farming sector requires. And we see this model working in other states and countries, including Hualapai Nation.

And these businesses could not exist without the farm foundation. And we— when we talk about farming needs, especially in Alaska, there's a common misconception that because Alaska is so vast, finding a place to farm should be easy. But in reality, it's not all suitable for agriculture. And much of the land is not easily accessible. It's uncleared and it lacks infrastructure.

And we only have about 1% of the land that's owned by private individuals. Much of that's already been developed or outsized for agricultural use. And of that, producing what was once farmland to development. So while the number of farms in Alaska is increasing, we have less land in farms than we had even in the early 2000s. So the state can be a great partner here.

Leasing state land is a common-sense pathway to bridging this gap that we're seeing. Senate Bill 208 modernizes the state's approach to land for agricultural use through 3 critical fiscal and administrative shifts: lowering the financial barriers, moving away from the appraisal based on full development value and instead using a fee schedule appropriate for agriculture production, and then having the merit-based selection. Rather than simply choosing the highest bidder, the state would use merit-based system, which ensures land is awarded to those with the experience and viable business plan to succeed. And then the accountability— establishing a management system to ensure landscape in production. Whether the land is leased or sold, there must be accountability to ensure it's being farmed and contributing to our food security and economy.

By making state land accessible and affordable, we're not just helping the farmers who are building a more resilient, diversified local economy in Alaska, Senate Bill 208 ensures that Alaskans with the vision to grow have a fair path to the land required to do so. And with that, I thank you for your time. I know it's a busy time of year, so I'll keep it brief. Thank you, Amy. We'll go to Margaret Adsett, Alaska Farm Trust.

Please identify yourself and proceed with your invited testimony.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Margaret Atset, and I'm the Lands Coordinator for the Alaska Farm and Trust. I apologize for my voice. I've been home with the flu for a week.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Senate Bill 208. As Amy mentioned, at its core, SB 208 is about getting land in the hands of people who are ready to farm it and making sure that land stays in agriculture for the long term. At Alaska Farmland Trust, we work with landowners and farmers across the state on helping protect land, as well as helping them access new land through our Farm Loop program. We've been on the ground floor for the past 20 years working with these folks. What we've learned is that we've got a lot of people out there right now who are trained, motivated, and ready to farm.

But the biggest issue is they don't have access to land. At the same time, as Amy mentioned, we have a lot of state-managed land that isn't that are actually being used for agriculture, but includes state— soils of local importance or other high-quality agricultural soils. And it helps us bridge the gap with SB 208 to get those folks access to that land. One of the most important shifts in this bill is that it creates a merit-based system for leasing and selling agricultural land. That means high-quality applicants are evaluated based on their qualifications their plans, and their ability to actually produce food, horticultural products, or slaughter and fiber.

And use this toward prioritizing agricultural outcomes, not just access to land. We've seen how powerful that approach can be through our FarmLink program. We connect landowners with people looking to farm, and when the right people get access to land, agriculture actually happens. Farms get started, local food systems grow, and communities benefit. Right now, through our Farm Work Program, we have 90 individuals actively looking for land through that program, and we would love more pathways to help them succeed, such as presented in SB 2A.

The challenge is that we don't have a broader system set up to allow these folks to succeed. One of the biggest needs in agriculture is a better leasing system. SB 2A moves us towards a more streamlined and transparent process that actually prioritizes farmers. Right now, many people are navigating the land market where properties are held for speculation or priced completely out of reach for agriculture. This bill creates a more realistic entry point, especially for new and expanding farmers.

And, um, that matters because for many people, leasing is the only way into agriculture and/or the only way to expand their operation. Um, we're at the same time, we're seeing an increasing pressure on the land itself. Here in the Mesquite Borough where I live, We've lost more than 3,000 acres of farmland over the past decade, while development has increased by over 23,000 acres. That's an 11% loss of farmland alongside a 14% increase in development. As farmland becomes scarcer, access becomes even harder, and we've seen this reflected in land prices.

Currently in the Massou property prices can range from $45,000 to $75,000 per acre in the core area for agricultural land, undeveloped agricultural land. For most new farmers, that simply isn't feasible. Leasing gives them a chance to get started, build infrastructure, and prove their viability over time. SB 208 recognizes that by offering structured leases, renewal opportunities, and even a pathway to purchase after successful use. This is especially important in areas like the Mat-Su and Kenai and Fairbanks regions, where some of Alaska's best soils are closest to our population centers.

Another important piece of this bill, um, is how it approaches.

Land value. SB 208 allows these rates to be based on agricultural value rather than speculative market value. That distinction really matters. When land is priced based on development pressure instead of its use for farming, it pushes farmers out. So at the end, I just want to thank everybody for considering this bill.

It does improve access to land, prioritizes qualified producers, aligns land valuation with agricultural reality, and helps ensure to long-term agricultural use. Thanks for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for that testimony. We'll move on to Emily Garrity. Garrity from Twitter Creek Gardens.

Please identify yourself and proceed with your invited testimony.

Thank you, Chair Hoffman and members of the Senate Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Emily Garrity. I am the owner-operator of Twitter Creek Gardens, and we are a mixed vegetable farm outside of Homer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I was born and raised in Alaska and have been farming here for over 2 decades.

Currently, we have 2 acres in cultivation, and last year we produced 40,000 pounds of vegetables on these 2 acres. I am asking for the opportunity to expand our food production on a parcel of state-owned land that is less than half a mile from our existing operation. This parcel has historically been used for agriculture, including grazing, hay production, and was a UAF Beach experimental site. It is 27 acres and is classified as recreational use property. Our local ski club maintains groomed trails for winter recreation, and inside the loop of the ski trails, it's 4.5 acres of field that hasn't been utilized for over 20 years.

The lease application I submitted in April of 2023 requested access to this field And with the application, I included the unanimous resolution of support provided by the ski club. The field is already cleared, has road access, and contains a deep, well-drained soil that is ideal medium for vegetable production. It's the same soil profile as the ground we've been yielding literal tons of vegetables from for years. The existing soil, along with the proximity to our established infrastructure and the markets we supply, make this parcel an ideal location. With this lease, we have the potential to triple our current food production.

When I began the process, it was estimated that an annual fee would be $1,000 per year and that an appraisal would not be required based on the lease term that I requested, which was 10 years with an option to renew. However, deep into the process, it was determined that the parcel would need to be appraised, and this significantly changed the price tag attached. The land was appraised at $117,000, which set the annual leasing fee at a record high value for agriculture land use of $9,000 per year.

$1,360 Per year for 4.5 acres, which is over $2,000 per acre. I'd like to note that the appraisal reflects unrestricted use and does not take into consideration the limitations of the property set by the state. The other 4 active crop production leases in the state are set at an annual rate of between less than $1 to $90 per acre. This is shown in the handout I provided for your packet. In comparison, grazing leases start at 3 cents per acre, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough leases agricultural land for $15 per acre.

The price that is set for my lease is cost prohibitive. This would be to almost any farmer. The constraint is at the statute level, and DNR has made that very clear. Senate Bill 208 addresses this constraint and offers a revamp of the leasing structure which could help dissolve the access barrier. I understand that determining the best use for state lands takes time and due diligence.

I appreciate that local experts like the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Fish and Game are asked to evaluate resources concerns, and that the general public is invited to weigh in. Our state land is precious, no doubt. I stand firm that all Alaskans deserve access to the produce we can grow here, and they need to have access at a price point they can afford. I am a farmer because I believe in the power of feeding Alaskans with the wholesome and nutritious food grown from the soils of Alaska. Making state lands available to farmers is a clear path to help in this endeavor, but the cost must allow for the price of carrots at the checkout stand to be within reach of our Alaskan families.

Charging over $2,000 per acre per year for the land they are growing on is not going to get us there. I urge you to consider Senate Bill 208 to allow for the leasing of state lands to be accessible for agricultural production to be prioritized and to be set at a price point that your trusted Alaskan farmers can afford. Thank you so much for your time and again for the opportunity to speak with you today. Thank you for that testimony. We'll open public hearing at this time.

Is there anyone online? Um, I don't see nobody online here. Brief it is.

Call the meeting back to order. We will go to Homer where we will hear from Robert Gibson. Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, gentlemen, members of the Senate committee here. My name is Robert Gibson. I'm a farmer and rancher here in the Homer area. I support this bill to the fullest. There's an issue I want to bring up for the state.

We have a lot of land around here that are designated as farmland. A lot of farmers here, especially the older ones, and I think I belong to that group, I'm no spring chicken, I have 75 years of experience, actually around the globe, of farming. And the situation is this: we have land parcels here that is privately owned that needs or wants to be divided. But as the state conveys land to private ownership or other organizations, there is stipulations that it can only be subdivided if the parcels to be, uh, are the size of 40 acres. Take an example.

That we have here on our place and ranch here in Homer. This particular parcel is 61 acres, so if you subtract 40 acres from 61, you end up with 21 acres. That is not according to the current regulations and law, uh, lawful to subdivide So leaves the whole thing in limbo. So I wanted to address that problem for the senator and taking that into consideration. And that would— a change in that law would really help people to get into agriculture more.

Thank you for that testimony. Is there anyone else online? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify on this piece of legislation at this time? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Senator Keel, fiscal proposal.

Senator Steadman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question for the department. Okay. We have online—.

Rachel Longacre. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm just kind of curious. I'm looking and we don't have farm— much farmland in Southeast, so I'm not as familiar with this as some of my colleagues.

But is there reopeners on these leases where the farmer and the department can adjust these prices over a period of decades? Or—. I'm just kind of curious because, you know, we're talking about some of these leases being in 19— from 1960.

Do we have somebody online to answer Senator Steadman's question?

Yes. Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Rachel Longacre, Chief of Operations with the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water. Senator Steadman, this bill would allow the department to set regional market rates that conform to agricultural values.

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if there would be reopeners to existing leases. Currently, the department has 3 active agricultural leases. Applications that we are expecting would have to be at the new market rate. Any of the active leases at the point of renewal could certainly adopt their current lease for the new program. Senator Steadman.

That's about as clear as mud. So the 3 old leases I see in front of me, one in Talkeetna, one in Wasilla, one in Fairbanks, I don't know how old they are. The title says established 1960s. Is there any reopeners on those leases? Because I know we've got a similar question.

In our oil basin with royalty issues. And then, as I understand the answer, for new leases, is there a 10-year review or a 20-year review? What would trigger a review and discussion of the leases to adjust them either up or down? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I'll try and keep this as simple as possible. Current leases are active under their current terms.

At the point of renewal, we could address— if they chose— address them under the new program, which has a market rate assessed by Regent.

Senator Steadman. So maybe, Mr. Chairman, they can get back to us. I'd like to know when the original 3 leases are due to be renewed, or if they've been renewed, or they can be passed on to their children and never reopened? I'd like a more specific answer. And then on the— my understanding then in this, the new leases, clarify what would trigger a reopen or a discussion, because some of us have some of them even longer, but there are reopeners from time to time.

So if you can clarify that.

Senator Steadman, again, these leases that are active have specific lease terms. They do have renewal dates, and I'd be happy to follow up with the committee on specifics of each of those 3 leases. Thank you. Senator Steadman.

Yes, that would— I don't think it's too complicated of a question, but I think most leases do have some form of reopen or Although I am aware that we have some old ones that predated statehood and some even after statehood, and there are no reopeners. And they can be passed down through the generations. And even passed down on sale. Senator Steadman, our leases are assignable. So they don't necessarily need to be passed down, but they can be assigned to other farmers or they can be assigned to children of the farmers.

That is possible with our active leases. And just to be clear, you're using the term reopeners. We use the language renewals. So at the time that a lease is renewed, at the end of its current term, we would reassess those values. Thank you, Senator Steadman.

Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question probably for Ms. Longacre. The bill makes it easier for the division to, I think, to sell land once it has been in agricultural use under a lease for a minimum of 7 years. Does anything in the bill change the title restrictions or the lease restrictions on that land?

If land under a lease were sold under the bill as written, would it be subject to agricultural restrictions on the deed? Ms. Longacre. Yes, Senator Keel, that is correct. Any land that is sold as agricultural land would have covenants on the title, on the deed. Senator Keel.

Thank you. And then one more either for Ms. Longacre or the sponsor. Does anything in the bill change or propose to change how or when the state repurposes land and plans it for agriculture use, agricultural disposal, or is that subject to the existing rules and existing schedules? Ms. Longacre, Senator?

Senator Keele, if I understand your question correctly, what you're asking is, is there specific schedules in our land offerings? The way the bill is written now is very similar to our other land offering programs. Work, the state would make an announcement that with the intent of offering land, and then they would be open for bid or open for application. Further questions from Senate members? Mr. Chairman, if the sponsor could maybe speak to planning.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Senator Jesse Bjorkman. These are things that we have contemplated in the process, and Ms. Ashay will explain them. Through the— for the record, this is Laura Asche, staff to Senator Jesse Berkman, and through the chair to Senator Jesse Keehl. As I understand your question, you're asking if anything in the bill changes the department's current method for identifying and disposing of agricultural land at auction.

And the answer is no. In fact, Alfius Bullard, our legislative drafter, was very careful in each of the new programs that are created in this bill to not change the existing programs, but to just create these as new optional programs alongside existing programs. Present in statute. Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Keehl. Further questions? If not, we'll go to the fiscal note. Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senate Bill 208 has one fiscal note from the Department of Natural Resources and the Division of Mining, Land and Water. They estimate zero incremental cost from the bill, although they do flag that they will need to change some regulations. Thank you, Senator Keehl. Are there questions on the fiscal note? Seeing none, we'll set this bill aside for further consideration.

We'll take up the second item on today's agenda, which is Senate Bill 208, Agricultural—. That was this one. Senate Bill 174, Evasive Species Management. This is the first hearing on this bill. Invite Senator Dunbar to the table.

To introduce the legislation. Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Forrest Dunbar, Senator from District J.

For the— in the interest of your time, which I know is precious, I'll keep this very short. We do have two invited testifiers. SB 174 will create an 11-member council within the Department of Fish and Game to lead Alaska's efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species. Invasive species, I'm sure everyone here knows, present a a clear and present danger both to the environment and the economy of the state. Things like Elodia, green crab, northern pike, Prunus padus, that is European bird cherry, in Anchorage.

We have lacked, and I think the testifiers will speak to this, a very coordinated effort to deal with these invasive species. This 11-member council will include folks from science, from private organizations, 4 members of the governor's team. They are to create a strategic plan that will also be updated in addition to their normal sort of year-to-year, day-to-day activities. The bill also includes a repealer for— not a repealer, but it expires in July, on July 1st, 2035. With that, Mr.

Chair, my staff is also prepared to do a short sectional should you desire.

Questions? Seeing none, we will go to the first person to present invited testimony, Donna Sanchez. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your invited testimony.

Great. Good morning, honorable members of the Senate Finance Committee. My name is Donna Shantz. I'm calling in from Valdez. And I am the Executive Director for the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, or RCAC.

And I've worked for the RCAC going on 27 years. So for context, briefly, the RCAC is a federally mandated independent nonprofit corporation whose mission is to promote the environmentally safe operation of the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated tankers. Our 19 member organizations are communities in the region affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, and that spans from Valdez all the way down to Kodiak Island. That also includes commercial fishing, aquaculture, Alaska Native recreation, tourism, and environmental groups. And we don't receive any funding from the state of Alaska.

So with that, um, Back onto Senate Bill 174, recognizing that commercial shipping is a vector of marine invasive species, the RCAP has for decades supported research, monitoring, and policy to prevent introduction of invasive species. And Senate Bill 174, as mentioned, you know, just prior to me, it would establish a council to coordinate these efforts statewide. Invasive species pose a significant threat to the health of the environment, viability of subsistence harvest, and the overall way of life in Alaska. They also threaten the economic viability of commercial fisheries, sport fisheries, and tourism. Just like an oil spill, prevention is the key to avoiding these impacts, and that's why we support establishment of an Alaska Invasive Species Council, to develop the 5-year strategic plan for invasive species prevention and the establishment of a rapid response fund for mitigation.

Invasive species councils have proven to be.

Effective in at least 18 states in the United States. Yet none of those other states produces more wild-caught seafood by volume than Alaska. In fact, we produce more than all other 49 states combined, and the value of that resource warrants aggressive coordinated protection. An Alaska Invasive Species Council would serve an important advisory role to foster a consistent approach across our state agencies to protect our resources The council would not have authority to direct agencies but would build awareness at high levels through coordinated information sharing, and this would include an annual update to the legislature on invasive species issues and management in our state. For years, the governor has signed a proclamation recognizing the second full week of June as Alaska Invasive Species Awareness Week, and while this is a, a really good first step towards building awareness, High-level support is critical to leverage resources of the state and stakeholder engagement to help prevent invasions and facilitate rapid response to a threat.

So this bill was crafted in part in response to feedback on previous versions that the proposed council was so large it would be unworkable. And the proposed voting membership has been reduced, um, with optional advisory members to broaden participation should the council so choose. So the RCAC, you know, we really want to thank you for your time and the opportunity to provide this testimony in strong support of Senate Bill 174. Thank you. That ends my testimony.

Thank you. We'll go to Dr. Emily Reed. Please identify yourself and proceed with your invited testimony. [Speaker:EMILY_REED] Yes, to the chair and members of the Senate Finance Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. For the record, I am Emily Reed.

I am the regional invasive plant coordinator with the Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition, a nonprofit in the region, um, focused on working with tribal, local, state, and federal partners to restore our watersheds, um, and, uh, steward our lands responsibly. So I received my doctorate in invasion science in 2021 from North Carolina State University and then joined the Invasive Species Colloquium at Virginia Tech as a postdoctoral researcher where I studied invasive species policy and developed an invasive species policy database at the state level for 23 states on the East Coast. I also studied invasive species councils across the United States. In 2024, I moved to Juneau and joined the Watershed Coalition, and I now work on the ground with partners throughout Southeast to understand their concerns about invasive species and share, hopefully, my knowledge and make a little bit of a difference. So I have talked to a lot of folks about invasive species over the last 5 years.

And there's one story that comes up over and over again, and that is folks when they were children being paid by their parents or grandparents to pull invasive weeds in the backyard. And the amounts range from a penny a plant to $5 a pound. I was paid by my grandmother to cut English ivy off of her oak trees on her 20-acre property. And I didn't keep good financial records as an 8-year-old, unfortunately. That would be— have been a great number to share with you.

But I don't know to what degree those efforts were effective, and I don't know whether her money was well spent. Did she get any return on her investment? This is just a little example of cost and harm done by invasive plants. And, and one of the issues is understanding, is the money being spent well? Globally, invasive species are estimated to cost $423 billion a year.

From 1980 to 2019, invasive species cost the United States $467 billion in damages. That does not include management costs. And that's on the same scale as natural disasters. Um, the costs are quickly accumulating as well. There's been a 1,524% increase in damages from invasive species when comparing costs from 1980 to 1999 and 2000 to 2019.

Despite these costs and threats, policies addressing invasive species are fragmented, uncoordinated, and reactionary. The cheapest and most efficient management strategy is prevention and early detection and rapid response. State-level invasive species councils are one of the best mechanisms to facilitate coordination among agencies and among impacted or interested parties such as nonprofits and local governments. To efficiently and successfully respond to these threats. Uh, Alaska is unique among the 50 states in that we have been largely protected from these impacts.

We are now at a critical juncture, um, as invasive species introductions and impacts are escalating. Uh, based on my, again, academic and professional experience and Alaska Invasive Species Council with funding for support staff and rapid response will greatly increase our capacity to mitigate current and prevent future costs and harm incurred by invasive species. I therefore support Senate Bill 174, and I thank you to the committee for your time. Thank you, Dr. Reed. Are there questions?

Seeing none, we'll go to Public testimony. Is there anyone online?

We have David Martin. Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Martin. I live in the Kenai Peninsula, Clam Gulch, and Niltuk area. I've been a commercial fisherman for 54 years at Cook Inlet. I'm also on the Cook Inlet Agriculture Board Association in the inland here.

I would mention to the legislative history has been since 2009 to pass a rapid response invasive species bill, and I've been involved with that for most of that time. The spread and damage of invasive species, they don't wait. Invasive species is like a cancer. The longer you ignore it and don't act, the longer and stronger the foothold gets, and it's impossible to eradicate. The damage is immense and often totally changes the natural flora, fauna, and wildlife.

Example, several of them in the inlet is the Susitna drainage. Pike is, northern pike is spread throughout the system. It's reduced the salmon production, they estimated 30%. Many of the lakes, they used to have robust salmon trout and other salmon species or other fish species, now only have pike that they just eat their own and anything that falls in the water. Alexander Lake with the Elodia, it had an infestation years ago, the 5 acres for $15,000, it could have been eradicated.

There was no rapid response at the time. After 2 years, the lake and creek were infested and will take well over millions of dollars to eradicate if possible. And this also allows the spread to other lakes through transfer, birds or whatever. Look at that Aquaculture Association. From 2012 to 2025, they've been active in the eradication of, or management basically, of pike in Wisconsin, in the drainage.

They have removed over 24,000 northern pike, and this is funded by a 2% tax on the commercial fishing industry. And some grant funds. This would mean nearly 26.6 million juvenile salmon have been consumed by these pike and that would return basically 2.66 million salmon to the common property fisheries.

Senate Bill 1774, it's a good start to fight invasive species. Well, long past due. Hopefully it will lead to the rapid responses and not just another political council that kicks the can down the road.

There are proven worldwide examples where invasive species have taken over and totally changed the economies, the whole habitat and everything else. So please pass Senate Bill 174, and hopefully it's got some teeth in it. Some action to help Alaska. We're on the forefront, we're— well, to where we can.

Do something about these invasive species. The longer we wait, the harder it's going to get. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anyone else online?

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify at this time? Questions to Senate Finance members. Senator Steadman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for the department.

I'm— you know, we've got right now we're dealing with these invasive green crab in Southeast and they're heading north and genetically changing for colder water, from what I understand. And then several years ago, we had some kind of a— we called it snot, but it was some kind of a growth, and I forgot the fancy terminology, in Sitka and Sealing Cove. And when this was brought to the attention of the legislature and Department of Fish and Game, it took several years of political wrangling to get the funds in the budget to eradicate a sealing cove. And I'm just wondering, from a department's perspective, why they can't be more responsive and why they would need a, a commission put together to go after some of these invasive species. If they could help with that a little bit, and I'd like to find out what their thoughts are also on the green crab invasion.

Yes, Tammy Davis, do you have a response to Senator Steadman's question?

Yes, good morning, Senate Finance Committee members, through the chair, Senator Steadman.

The European green crab issue, we know that they are spreading from where they were first detected in that island reserve in 2022. Last fall, we received a confirmed report of a green crab at Southern Edolin Island. We have several communities in Southeast that are doing early detection monitoring by what we call community-based citizen scientists.

Right now, the green crab program is— for the department, consists of me, one person, which means that we are unable to survey areas, particularly areas of importance for commercial and personal use harvest.

The expectation is that green crab are more widespread than where we have received reports. In terms of responding to that species, while we don't expect eradication to be feasible because they spread through larval transport in ocean currents, We do believe that if there was concerted high-density trapping in areas protecting the species, the populations could be suppressed to the point that the negative impact would be lessened.

Senator Steadman. That doesn't tell me much. So, um, What good is this committee gonna be, or this commission gonna be, to eradicate our invasive species if the department can't intercede already? It sounds to me like what we have here is a need for appropriation requests and task force or some action by the Department of Fish and Game to deal with these. What good, so tell me what good it's gonna be to have a committee sit around and talk about this if there's going to be no action from the department.

Ms. Davis.

What I imagine the council would be able to do is work with scientists and local community industry to gather the best available science for responding to the early detection of and response all taxa, or all types of species, across the landscape. And so if we apply that to the European green crab situation, if the council determines that it was a priority to respond to green crab recovery, there could potentially be greater engagement across the landscape. Additionally, the— includes a position that could be, in addition to supporting the council, assisting with the EMIP program. Senator Steadman. Well, from my experience sitting here over the years and dealing with this with several different invasive species, you know, we've got the northern pike up north, And in Southeast, currently we got the green crab, but we've had some invasive snot stuff dealing with some of our harbors.

It takes appropriations through Fish and Game or DNR. Somebody's got to ask for the money, and we got to appropriate it. And if that doesn't take place, it's hard for me to imagine that We're going to have this council put together and where's the money going to come from? You know, to put boots on the ground to go deal with these. It doesn't do any good just to talk about it.

Ms. Davis, do you have a response to Senator Steadman's statement? Through the Chair, Senator Steadman, because your question is fiscally Important. I will— would like to pass the mic to my colleague, Joseph Felkel, here at the department.

Please identify yourself and proceed with your response.

For the record, Joe Felkel. I'm the Deputy Director for the Division of Administrative Services with the Department of Fish and Game. Formerly the legislative liaison for the department and still assisting the commissioner's office with some ongoing legislation. Through the chair, Senator Steadman, the bill does include a creation of a subaccount where the legislature could appropriate funds for invasive species work, which the department could utilize for its work without further appropriation. So I would say, you know, the department does currently coordinate invasive species action, you know, related to prevention, management, and eradication of invasive species across the state.

As Ms. Davis mentioned, you know, she is one program coordinator who works statewide, and so it is ultimately a policy call for the legislature if you would like to establish a council whose efforts are focused on invasive species work, or simply appropriate funds directly to the Department of Fish and Game or the other departments involved in invasive species work? Senator Steadman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't had the opportunity to chair the Fish and Game budget, but I think the chairman has for many years, many years, probably decades. So, Mr. Chairman, if we can get the department over the last decade to get back to us on their appropriation requests to the Finance Committee in the budget process to deal with invasive species so we can have a history of what the department has asked for, because as I recall, it's minimal, and we've in the legislature expressed concern numerous times with invasive species.

Issues. And to me, Mr. Chairman, it comes down to support from the department and the administration on appropriations to give the department the tools to implement a ratification. So if we can get some history, because my concern is the history is going to be pretty skimpy here, and the concern is we'll end up with a council and still no monies. Or exercise within the department to do what the council would like to do, which is get some eradication of these invasive species. So we'd make that as a formal request of the department, and we'll disseminate that to members of the Finance Committee.

Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to, I guess, pose a question to the sponsor. It's along a similar but maybe slightly different line to Senator Steadman's line of inquiries. There's a nonprofit partnership now.

Board makeup looks fairly similar to what's in the bill.

Why the bill? Why is it crucial that this be in the government and not the nonprofit partnership? Senator Dunbar. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kiel, through the chair.

This bill grew out of conversations that I had with exactly those nonprofit folks at a meeting at the BP Energy Center in Anchorage. And of course, as one of the testifiers mentioned, they've been trying to do this since at least 2009. So the fiscal note, as you'll see, has half a biologist at ADF&G to help run the council and work with the council. I think it goes to Senator Steadman's point, which is we know we need more money in our budget to do the actual eradication. But you don't want to put that money in your budget unless you have a strategic plan.

And as I'm sure Senator Kaufman would indicate, that strategic plan will come out of this partnership, this work within the government, within ADFNG. It also does create, as was indicated by the last testifier, a fund within the department, but it doesn't charge the fund. But the hope is with a strategic partnership, with a formal council, with the representation of several different government agencies, not just ADFNG, but also Department of Transportation, DNR on that council, it will be a stronger voice for the kind of funding for eradication that Senator Steadman has indicated we need. So, I appreciate the question. And I do think that this council will be an important step forward and a more formal step forward.

We can take the informal efforts that are happening right now, bring them within the department, staff them appropriately, allow us to think strategically, and hopefully advocate for the funds that, as the senator from Sitka indicated, we definitely need going forward. Thank you, Senator Dunbar. Senator Keogh. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Any additional questions by Senate Finance member Senator Kaufman? Thank you. To the bill sponsor, I'm just wondering, pure coincidence, we just heard a bill about increasing agriculture. And not necessarily today, but at some point in the future, I'd like to know more about the convergence of of agricultural species, animal, vegetable, etc., and then how that may somehow intersect with this legislation. If I could, Mr. Chair—.

Senator Dunbar. I apologize, Mr. Chair. If I could, I'd like to defer to Dr. Reed on that, but also I think she has something to add to the previous question. Dr. Reed.

Dr. Reed. Thank you. For the record, this is Emily Reed, Southeast Alaska Watershed Thank you. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Through the chair, just to clarify, the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership is not a nonprofit. It is an informal partnership among many different groups.

It includes nonprofits, but it itself is not. And I would be happy to speak more about why the partnership is not enough and why a council is needed. But to address the senator's question about agriculture, in the intersection there.

I think that— I mean, agriculture is one of the most damaged sectors when it comes to invasive species, primarily through weedy plants and very harmful invertebrates.

And one of the things that we've learned from other states is that the Department of Agriculture can only do so much on its own. That's true for many different agencies. You have to coordinate across because those species aren't necessarily just going to stay on the farm or in the managed land. And so to truly address the risk rather than treating the symptom, It's important to have multiple agencies talking together, and it's also important that agriculture is represented when talking about invasive species and response. And council is a great way for all agencies and sectors and interests to have a voice.

Thank you, Dr. Reed. Senator Kaufman. Thank you. Further questions of Senate members? If not, is there anyone else online that wants to testify?

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify on this bill? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and review the fiscal notes. Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 174 has one fiscal note from the Department of Fish and Game in the sport fish allocation.

It adds one permanent part-time position paid for with unrestricted general funds with a first-year cost of $84,600, so $84,600, and then an ongoing future cost of $58.1 million. The fiscal note reflects that the bill does create a new account. Thank you. Are there questions on the fiscal note? Yes, I do have one, Mr. Chairman.

Um, Kiel, can you answer your question? The question, I suppose, to Mr. Felkel, um, the— we've heard about the variety of difficulties with invasive species. Certainly I share the other senator from Southeast's concern about aquatic invasives here in Southeast. But we've also heard about terrestrial plants and insects through agriculture. There was the bee parasite just this last summer.

Why put it in sport fish? Isn't it broader than that? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] For the record, Joe Felkel, Deputy Director, Division of Administrative Services for the Department of Fish and Game. Through the chair, Senator Kaufman, the department's invasive species program is housed within the Division of Sport Fish, but the program works across all of our divisions with many of our staff and on a variety of species, including, say, pike in south-central Alaska, for example. It is a department-wide program, it's just housed within the Sport Fisheries appropriation unit.

Thank you. That was Senator Kiel. Further questions? Referees?

We'll come back to order. Any closing comments? Senator Dunbar? No, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the committee's time. Thank you. Senator Kaufman? Thank you. I just had one question.

A question for the bill sponsor. Is there a sunset provision? Yes, Senator Kaufman, through the chair, it sunsets July 1st, 2035. Okay, Senator Kaufman. No, thank you.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Further questions? Seeing none, we'll set this bill aside. We will have a meeting tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. With that, we are adjourned.