Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/11/1996 03:37 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 212 TIMBER MANAGEMENT & STATE LAND CLASSIF.
SENATOR LEMAN announced HB 212 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, sponsor, said she filed this bill at
the request of timber industry constituents in Fairbanks. These
are small lumber businesses in the local communities whose lives
have been impacted by the overly complicated procedures through
which they have to go to secure timber. It wasn't the lack of
timber; it was the inability of the DNR to allow the harvesting of
the resource.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what the comma on page 1, line 14 meant.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that the comma was added in the House
Resources Committee and the emphasis makes a difference in the way
the sentence reads. The comma refers to the best available data
and then describes the best available data as opposed to the
agencies describing it.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he would like to delete the comma and asked her
to comment on using "use" instead of "consumption." REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES explained that there was a concern with a number of people
that there is human use other than consumption.
JACK PHELPS, Alaska Forest Association, said they continue to
support this legislation and thought it would make some positive
changes for the forest industry particularly in the interior and
possibly southcentral.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the negotiation on the House side included
the administration. MR. PHELPS answered that was correct; he added
that public comment was also part of the negotiations. He asked if
he has assurances that this will be signed into law. MR. PHELPS
said they had been given some strong assurances that the bill would
be signed in its present form.
Number 351
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, commended the
House, the Administration, and the Board of Forestry for their
work; the bill is close to something they can support.
Their concern is with the 160 acre exemption from the five year
schedule requirement. He said in the interior and Kenai there are
a number of timber sales off of State lands that are 160 acres and
less and they are very important to people in their cumulative
affect. They supported the compromise proposed by the Board of
Forestry, recognizing that it is a well balanced Board. The
present requirement is that sales appear for two years on a five
year schedule. The present bill would exempt the sales of 160
acres or less entirely from the five year schedule; the compromise
proposed by the Board of Forestry would have those sales appear
just one year on the five year schedule. They believe that would
give adequate notice to the public of the full range of sales that
are proposed to be offered without burdening the State and without
having any undue affect on the actual selling of those sales. He
didn't think the Board of Forestry could make a strong argument
that having those sales appear just once on the schedule is going
to be any significant obstacle to their management of the sales.
He urged the committee to adopt the Board of Forestry's proposed
compromise.
ERIK HOLLAND, Fairbanks, said that a number of local loggers have
told him that exporting is killing and that the scale of the bill
is too large and the part of the bill they like best is the first
part where the 10 acres are exempted. The 160 acre exemption
doesn't seem to help very much. He suggested exempting two or
three parcels a year. All the loggers have told him that they need
the wood yesterday. He is in support of a truly sustainable local
industry.
DAN RITZMAN, Northern Alaska Environmental Lobby, recognized and
appreciated the efforts of the House members and Representative
James in particular. He said HB 212 makes substantial changes to
Title 38 and 41, statutes which cover the entire State, not just
small sales by Interior operators.
The development of the Forest Resources and Practices Act
represented a lot of work from a variety of interests including the
timber industry, the fishing industry, conservation organizations,
and many others. Changes are not needed in the law; changes are
needed in the funding, implementation, and regulations that the
agency uses to carry out the law.
This legislation will further stress the Department and put
Alaska's population of fish and wildlife at further risk. A fiscal
note should be required of this legislation which takes into
account the unfunded Forest Practices responsibilities to DNR, DEC,
and ADF&G.
Eliminating the five year schedule requirement for sales of 160
acres or less would mean that over 70 percent of the sales in the
Interior and a fair number of sales on the Kenai would not have to
appear on the schedule. It is nearly impossible to learn about
individual sales from their individual announcements which are
buried in the legal section of the newspaper. This does not give
a good sense of the overall picture for the region.
MR. RITZMAN reiterated that the Board of Forestry which has
representatives from logging companies, fishing communities,
conservation organizations, recreation, and fish and wildlife
sciences recommended that all sales be listed at least once on a
five year schedule.
Number 261
Finally, section 11, page 5, lines 20 - 24 is a wildlife issue that
shouldn't be a part of the Forest Resources and Practices Act.
While it is appropriate to put wildlife protections in the Act,
management of wildlife is not a DNR function.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to amend page 1, line 14 to delete the comma.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SCSCSHB 212(FIN) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
MR. WHEELER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said they still have a few
problems with the bill as drafted. They would like to see sales of
160 acres or less appear at least once in the five year schedule.
The Board of Forestry presents a good vehicle for hashing out
language that represents a lot of diverse interests and should be
listened to in this matter.
Section 11 should be deleted also. Wildlife management is not a
function of DNR and should not be a part of this bill.
The language in section 7 is not a great improvement over the prior
language and they would like to see the prior language kept as is.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|