Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/03/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB441 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB218 | |
| HB420 | |
| HB484 | |
| HCR30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 441 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 420 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 218 | ||
| + | HB 484 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
10:31:46 AM CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 420(FSH) "An Act relating to riparian protection standards for forest resources and practices; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. MARTY FREEMAN, Forest Resources Program Manager, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from an offnet location reading a statement as follows. I was the co-chair of the Science and Technical Committee and the Implementation Group that developed this bill, and I serve as the Division's liaison to the Board of Forestry. … This is the third and last piece of an effort to review and update the Riparian Management Standards, the standards for forest management along streams throughout the state. We previously completed reviews, which cumulated in amendments to the Forestry Resources and Practices Act for Region I, which is Coastal Alaska, in 1999 and for Region III, Interior Alaska, in 2003. This bill is focused just at Region II, Southcentral Alaska. [Witness indicates location on a map, a copy of which is on file.] This bill is designed to meet the goals of the Forestry Resources and Practices Act to provide adequate protection of fish habitat and water quality and to support healthy timber and fishing industries. It also helps to ensure that the Forestry [Resources and] Practices Act continues to satisfy federal Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act requirements so that it provides one-stop shopping for the timber industry with respect to State and federal non-point source pollution and coastal management standards. To develop this bill, we first worked with a science and technical committee that recommended changes needed to provide adequate protection for fish habitat and water quality. Their recommendations were then reviewed by an implementation group, which represented affected interests. That group was charged with determining how to make the scientists' recommendations work on the ground in a practical way. That group's recommendations were incorporated into this bill and reviewed with the Board of Forestry. This bill classifies water bodies that have anadromous or high-value resident fish: those high value resident fish populations that people are actually using and catching. [Indiscernible] classifies those water bodies into four types and it sets riparian management standards for each type. These standards are tailored to the specific conditions in Region II. Compared to other areas, Region II has more large dynamic rivers where they have shifting channels, like the Susitna River and the Copper River - more of those dynamic rivers in areas that are forested and could be harvested. There are also lower timber volumes per acre compared to either of the other regions and there is a higher proportion of deciduous trees. These deciduous trees, when they fall into a river and provide large woody debris for fish habitat, don't last as long in the river. They decay faster. There is also a wider distribution of anadromous and high value resident fish in Region II and a disproportionately high-use of fish and value from that fishery, particularly for sport fishing. For example, Region II is only about 11 percent of the land area in the state but it makes up 30 to 50 percent of the recreational fishing in the state. The buffers that are recommended in this bill for the large dynamic rivers are wider than the [indiscernible] standards that we've been working under and narrower for the small streams. There are many of these small streams; they're often unnamed and unmapped, but there are many of them throughout the forested area in Region II. There is similar width for the other streams, which include stable rivers and lakes. This process was based on the best available scientific information. It was open to the public and it involved a wide range of interests: scientists, the timber and fishing industries, Native corporations, municipalities, State trust land managers, environmental interests, the Board of Forestry and experienced field staff and State agencies. We are pleased to report that this bill has broad support and there is a zero fiscal note attached to the bill. 10:35:51 AM Co-Chair Green asked the length of time taken in the process to develop these recommendations. Ms. Freeman replied that determination of the science findings, the implementation group activities, and consideration by the Board of Forestry took about two years to complete. The project began with scientific review of all available information relevant to the topic. This portion consisted of a significant portion of the total time spent. 10:36:17 AM Co-Chair Green asked if all parties generally reached agreement on the provisions contained in this legislation. Ms. Freeman answered in the affirmative. 10:37:25 AM Senator Hoffman asked how the no harvest buffer zone of 300 feet was determined. Ms. Freeman clarified the no harvest zone is not actually that distance. Large dynamic rivers would have a basis buffer zone of 150 feet with a provision for a wider zone in places with an actively eroding bank. Stable rivers, smaller dynamic rivers and lakes would have a no harvest buffer zone of 100 feet. Smaller streams would have a 50-foot buffer zone. 10:37:52 AM Senator Hoffman asked if the standards would be the same for timber harvesting activities on private as well as public lands. Ms. Freeman responded that in "this case" the standards would be the same. Additional provisions would apply to a "special management zone" on public lands. This would not apply to private lands. 10:38:06 AM Co-Chair Green asked where Senator Hoffman obtained information indicating a 300-foot buffer zone requirement. Senator Hoffman cited the sectional analysis provided by the Department of Natural Resources [copy on file]. The explanation of Section 3 of the bill reads as follows. Section 3: AS 41.17.118 - State land. Section sets riparian standards for state land along water bodies with anadromous or high-value resident fish in Region II. The no-harvest buffers would be the same as those set for private land. In addition, on state land only, harvesting from the landward boundary of the no-harvest buffer to 300 feet from the water body may occur by must be consistent wit the maintenance or enhancement of wildlife habitat. 10:38:33 AM Ms. Freeman explained the 300-foot zone referenced in the sectional analysis pertains to a special management zone provided for in the Forest Resources and Practices Act and unchanged in this legislation. Consideration must be given on State-owned land for important wildlife habitat concerns as well as fish habitat concerns. This legislation would clarify support for habitat enhancement activities in these zones. It would not classify the areas as a no-harvest zone. 10:39:12 AM Co-Chair Green asked if this is addressed in the proposed amendment to AS 41.17.118(a)(1)(B) contained in Section 3 of the bill. Ms. Freeman affirmed. 10:39:20 AM Senator Stedman commented on the differences of terrain and river patterns between the coastal regions of Southeast Alaska, the areas including Anchorage and Palmer of Region II, and Interior Alaska. Co-Chair Green agreed the differences are interesting, if laborious to decipher and understand. Qualifiers must vary for each region and changing interests must be considered periodically as well. 10:40:24 AM Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to report the bill from Committee with individual recommendation and accompanying fiscal note. Without objection CS HB 420 (FSH) was MOVED from Committee with a zero fiscal note #1 from the Department of Natural Resources.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|