Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/19/2001 05:08 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 131-FOREST RESOURCES & PRACTICES STANDARDS CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act relating to standards for forest resources and practices; and providing for an effective date." Chair Wilson clarified that HB 131 is the governor's bill. Number 1422 JEFF JAHNKE, State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources; Presiding Officer, Board of Forestry, came forth on behalf of the administration and the Board of Forestry in support of HB 131. He said this bill is the result of hard work by many people. The bill began from a Board of Forestry's request that the agency be responsible for Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Act (FRPA) review of the repair and management standards throughout the state. [Note: The FRPA is often called the Forest Practices Act as well.] MR. JAHNKE explained that the process began with a review of the coastal region, Region I, which culminated in SB 12, passed by the legislature in 1999. The review for the Interior region, Region III, has now been completed. "We" began with a science and technical committee that recommended changes needed to provide adequate protection for fish habitat and water quality. The next step was to work toward an implementation group. This group represented affected interests, to determine how to implement the recommendations in the manner that works on the ground. Following this, legislation [HB 131] was drafted. MR. JAHNKE said the three key points to this bill are based on the best available scientific information. Public discussion of the bill throughout the process involved a wide range of interests, including scientists from many fields and people from the timber industry, fishing industry, and environmental community. The "final package" became HB 131, which was passed by the Board of Forestry in January. The Board of Forestry consists of representatives from the forest industry, commercial fishing, environmental organizations, Native corporations, professional foresters, fish and wildlife biologists, mining organizations, and "recreationists." MR. JAHNKE remarked that changes in HB 131 help ensure that the goals of the FRPA are met, which are "to provide adequate protection to fish habitat and water quality and at the same time to support the continuation of healthy timber in fishing industries in Alaska." These changes also help ensure that the Act continues to satisfy the requirements for non-point forest pollution in the federal Clean Water Act as well as the Coastal Zone Management Act. [House Bill 131] provides "one-stop shopping" for all of those Acts including the FRPA for the timber industry. MR. JAHNKE requested that Martha Welbourn-Freeman go through specific characteristics of the bill, since she is the expert on HB 131 with regard to technical aspects. Number 1633 MARTHA WELBOURN-FREEMAN, Forest Resources Program Manager, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference. She informed listeners that she also served as co-chair of the Science and Technical Committee and as co- chair of the Implementation Group. She gave the following testimony: I'd like to talk briefly about the relationship of this bill to the existing Act and summarize the key provisions in the bill. First, I'd like to say that this is not a wholesale revision of the [FRPA]. For many issues, the Science and Technical Committee and Implementation Group did not recommend changes to the Act or to the regulations. The major changes proposed affect only the part of the Act that addresses stream classification and riparian management in Region III - that's Interior Alaska. ... In your briefing packets there's a map that shows the three regions for forest practices. It also makes a minor change to the boundary between Region I and Region II on the Kenai Peninsula - and that area shows up in red on your map. The Interior had been using interim standards for riparian management since the [FRPA] was revised in 1990. At that time, we had very little specific information for Interior Alaska. Under those standards, timber harvesting could occur up to the bank of the anadromous waters on both public and private land under certain conditions. This bill classifies anadromous and high-value resident fish waters in Interior Alaska into three kinds, and then it sets riparian standards for each kind. The first type we call Type III-A. These are non-glacial waters that are wider than 3 feet, and they include glacial backwater sloughs. These types are grouped together because they're productive waters for fisheries and because they are temperature- sensitive and because they "eat" large wooden debris. On these types on private land, the Act establishes a no-cut buffer that's 66 feet wide. The buffer on public land is 100 feet. But harvesting can occur on land where 33 feet of the public land is buffer if the Department of Fish & Game concurs that harvesting can be done without adversely affecting fish habitat or water quality. The second type, Type III-B, ... are all the glacial waters except for the glacial backwater sloughs. These types are not sensitive to temperature changes, but they do need large woody debris for the whole system. On these waters there's a 66-foot riparian area on private land and a 100-foot riparian area on public land. Half of the riparian area that's closest to the stream is a no-cut buffer. The landward half allows harvesting of up to half the large white spruce, those over 9 inches in diameter, without requiring the variations. Number 1799 MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN continued, stating: So, there can be some harvests of the high-value trees in the landward part of that buffer. The final type[s] are small non-glacial streams, streams that are left up to 3 feet wide. ... On these there's a special management area that's 100 feet wide in which harvesting may occur, but it must be consistent with the maintenance of the sports fish and wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish & Game and DNR [Department of Natural Resources] have pledged to do more research on this stream type. It's the stream type that we know the least about. ... We want to work on those this summer to determine the extent of their occurrence within commercial forests and to assess needed management measures specific to this (indisc.). The bill also makes some other changes. The first is that it changes the statewide nomenclature to water body classes to prevent confusion between the water body types in different regions. Currently, we call the types in coastal regions [in Region I, for example] ... types A, B, C, and D. We changed that ... to I-A, I-B, I-C, and I-D, and then the types for the Interior will be III-A, III-B, and III-C. It also moves the definitions of the boundaries between regions from the regulations to the Act. Currently, it's the regulations that design the lines between regions I, II, and III. We want to move those boundaries into the act. In doing so, the bill also proposes a minor change to the boundary between Region I and Region II on the Kenai Peninsula. The revised boundary better matches the change between the coastal forest type of Sitka spruce and Western hemlock and the (indisc.) forest type that's dominated by white spruce and the (indisc.) hybrid. Most forestland in the area affected by that change is in federal ownership, primarily in the Chugach National Forest. So there will be very little impact on the landowner. We have reviewed this proposed change with the other major landowners in the area including Native corporations [and the] mental health trust in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and none of those parties have concerns or doubts of the change. Number 1931 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to "break in the land" and asked whether this is a term of art in law. MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN replied that it is defined in regulations for the Act. The slope rate refers to the change in the angle of the slope. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked for the definition of "riparian." MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN stated that riparian areas are specific areas defined in the Act. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON wondered if the riparian area is the land from the creek to the edge of the regulated area under this bill. MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN confirmed this statement. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what minimum-sized creek this would apply to. MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN said it applies to "all but waters that ... have either anadromous or high-value resident fish." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that she has always had a problem with having a 66-foot buffer for private land and a 100- foot buffer for public land. She asked Ms. Welbourn-Freeman to explain the philosophy behind this. MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN explained that the 66-foot buffer is based on two factors: the width needed to maintain shading on stream types that are sensitive to temperature (primarily the type III-A streams in the Interior) and large woody debris. By looking at the angles of the sun and typical tree heights, [observers] noted that a width of 52 to 72 feet is needed to maintain natural shading conditions and prevent temperature increases. For streams that need large woody debris, 95 percent of the debris is retained if a buffer is maintained that is about two-thirds the width of the tree height. Consequently, 50- to 60- foot buffers are needed to maintain large woody debris. This is where the 66- foot buffer comes from. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why the private land buffer is not the same amount as the public land buffer [100-feet]. MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN replied that on private land [the Division of Forestry] is dealing with the issue of balance between protecting the fisheries resource source and allowing the private landowner to get full use of timber values. She added, "The difference between large woody debris - for example, between 66 feet and 100 feet - is only the difference between about 95 percent of the large woody debris being retained and about 99 percent being retained." MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN explained that the other difference is that under the FRPA, for public land [the Division of Forestry] has a duty to look at fish, habitat, and other factors including wildlife. However, on private land [the division] is only authorized to address fish and habitat issues and water quality. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Welbourn-Freeman whether she has ever been threatened with the "takings case," and if the 66- foot buffer should become a 100-foot buffer. MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN remarked that there has been repeated discussion about this throughout the development of the FRPA since the 1990 revision. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "The private taking could also be challenged." He referred to page 3, lines 11-13 [of HB 131], which read: (2) Along a Type III-B water body, harvest of timber may not be undertaken within 33 feet of the water body; between 33 feet and 66 feet from the water body, up to 50 percent of standing white spruce trees having at least a nine-inch diameter at breast height may be harvested without requiring a variation; REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how a 9-inch diameter was decided upon, and how much leeway there is. Number 2248 MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN explained that a 9-inch diameter on the Type III-B [glacial] water body was established because of wanting a balance between "allowing the landowner to get some of the value out of the stream buffers where there is a lot of valuable timber, but still provide enough large woody debris to the system as a whole." The 9-inch diameter represents a "rough cutoff" between the high-value white spruce [trees] for most purposes. So the landowner could take out half of the white spruce trees that are over 9 inches in diameter, without requiring a site- specific variation. She went on to say this is only in the half of the buffer away from the stream. Number 2312 JILL KLEIN, Project Manager, Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA), testified via teleconference: We are a nonprofit association that works with subsistence and commercial salmon fisheries on the Yukon River. We were formed in 1990 when fishermen and women set up three basic priorities for the association. These are to foster communication and cooperation between the sources (indisc.) fishermen, promote cooperative management between fishermen and the state, and to increase returns of salmon through habitat protection and restoration projects in the Yukon River Drainage. YRDFA has 16 board members including commercial and subsistence fishermen and women from the mouth of the river to the Canadian border. There are also 14 alternates, and we also have a membership of 200-plus people in the Yukon River drainage. As mentioned, an implementation group was created to include various interests when making recommendations to the Forest Resources and Practices Act. YRDFA was invited to participate in this implementation group in order to represent fishing interests in the Yukon River Drainage. Bill Fleres (ph), a YRDFA board member from the village of Tanana, and Chris Stark, a YRDFA fisheries biologist from Fairbanks, as well as myself participated in various meetings of this process. YRDFA would like to express support for the process and the outcome that took place to make recommendations to the classification of stream types and riparian buffers for public and private land in Region III under the Forest Resources and Practices Act. House Bill 131 is good for both fishing and timber because it does strengthen protection for Interior fish habitat and does it in a way that is practical for the timber industry to implement. Number 2417 NANCY FRESCO, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, testified via teleconference: I, too, was part of the implementation committee that's already been mentioned, that took part in putting together the legislation that you now see before you. And I'm also here to voice support for both the outcome and the process. While in our task of representing environmental concerns in the Interior, we certainly feel that there are many habitat issues at stake that may come up for discussion in the future. We believe that the process was sound in this case for several reasons. First, as Marty Welbourn-Freeman has already described, there was sound science behind it. ... It was examined in detail by a science and technical committee with full literature review as well as local information and some on-the-ground work. There was also a public process. ... The meetings of the science and technical [committee] were open to the public. And then there was good effort to include all stakeholders within the implementation group; ... all work within that group was done with a view toward consensus, and all decisions were made on a consensus basis. Also, as mentioned, there will be follow-through, both this summer when the smaller stream categories are revisited jointly by the Division of Forestry and by [the Department of] Fish & Game, and also continuing into the future as DNR continues to look at such issues as glacier water bodies, large woody debris, the changing dynamics of the Tanana River floodplain and other continuing studies. Number 2554 CHRIS STARK testified via teleconference: My background is ... juvenile fisheries research. I have [a] research-associate position at University of Alaska Fairbanks. I do piecework for YRDFA and for Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, and I also hold the environmental seat on the local fishermen's advisory committee. I'd just like to encourage you to go ahead and pass this as is. It is, again, based on very good science. Albeit we're a little shy on extensive science up here, but from the fisheries standpoint, I think this is as good as we're going to get it. From the environmental community, I believe that's the case again. And I believe this is a workable situation for the forestry folks as well. Number 2583 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this bill would help with access issues involving fish counts on streams, in particular weir counts on the Kuskokwim River. MR. STARK answered no, explaining that YRDFA and the Bering Sea Fishing Association do have numerous fish counts. This won't really make any difference at all in that situation. What this is doing is enhancing juvenile habitat - large woody debris. Some of the research recently done in Tanana [proves] it's really wood that provides energy. Number 2648 LARRY SMITH testified via teleconference: These are modest but very welcome standards. They've been a long time coming. In the 1990 Forest Practices Act statutory changes, these kind of provisions were ordered by the legislature to occur by 1991 - and not just for this Region III, but for all of Region II as well. But like the Region I improvements, in the 1990 legislation they're often an illusion because of the lack of appetite and ability of agencies to enforce the standards. One should never underestimate, as well, the power of the variation clause in the Forest Practices Act to undo the so-called no-cut buffers. The situation has not changed much, in my view, from what was reported to the Board of Forestry and to the legislature in 1995 by the [Alaska] Department of Fish & Game. That report is still to the point, and it says, and this is a quote, "ADFG staff are uniformly of the belief that the implementation of the Forest Practices Act remains seriously deficient. We simply do not provide the level of protection originally envisioned. This is particularly true for fish habitat in riparian areas." As the budget to fix these problems has not been provided to the three agencies with responsibility to enforce the Forest Practices Act, I hope the fishery committee members will be advocates for better monitoring budget and provide active oversight for implementation. Jeff Jahnke and Marty Freeman need your support for their forest practices budget. Fish & Game needs your support and so does DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] for its forest practices responsibilities or additional funding needs to be provided to the Department of Fish & Game to take on DEC's water quality duties. They have pretty much withdrawn from the woods except on federal lands. ... To conclude, let me ask you to please not forget the part of the state that still doesn't have these standards; ... that's around Cook Inlet, that's around Anchorage, that's the Mat-Su Valley, that's the Copper River Valley. All those other lands that are south of the Alaska Range, ... north of Region I, need this kind of attention, and real enforcement. CO-CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Smith if he was representing himself or an organization. MR. SMITH replied that he was representing himself. He stated that until 1990, he was active in revising statewide provisions for the Forest Practices Act. Number 2838 JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), came forth and stated: I watched the Board of Forestry ... for the last ten years as a commercial fisherman out of Cordova. And you have to understand, this is an agreement between all the [industries]. ... The forest industry is at the table, and commercial fishermen and the conservationists and everyone come to these agreements on the best available science for these regions. ... They've been going through the whole state, and this is just one part we passed two years ago. ... So, this is the same thing. The recommendations from the Board of Forestry, from industry and all other parties including the public, based on scientific information, is the best scientific information for forestry practices without going into the whole Forest Practices Act, which we do want to do. Number 2911 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to what Mr. McCune alluded to as the best possible science and asked Mr. McCune whether he thinks this allows for expansion of upcoming science, and whether it puts good parameters around it. MR. McCUNE responded that he imagines there could be other science as well as other practices that come to light such as helicopter logging, which saves on building roads. It most likely would go to the Board of Forestry and be "kicked" around. CO-CHAIR WILSON pointed out that in the committee packets there are letters from the Alaska Forest Association, the Alaska Society of American Foresters, and the Resource Development Council for Alaska in favor of the bill. TAPE 01-12, SIDE B Number 2965 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to move HB 131 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 131 was moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|