Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/17/1996 08:17 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
House Resources Standing Committee
January 17, 1996
8:17 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeanette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to the management and sale of state timber and
relating to the administration of forest land and classification of
state land."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE: TIMBER MANAGEMENT; STATE LAND
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 530 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/95 844 (H) STA RPT 1DP 4NR 1AM
03/22/95 845 (H) DP: JAMES
03/22/95 845 (H) NR: OGAN, PORTER, IVAN, GREEN
03/22/95 845 (H) AM: WILLIS
03/22/95 845 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DEC, F&G)
03/22/95 845 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
03/22/95 845 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/26/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
09/19/95 (H) RES AT 09:00 AM
12/05/95 (H) RES AT 09:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
01/17/96 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JACK E. PHELPS, Legislative Assistant
Representative William K. Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3715
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in proposed committee
substitute for HB 212.
JIM McALLISTER, Regional Forester
Coastal Region Office
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue, 3rd Floor
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
Telephone: (907) 465-5401
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions from committee.
KARL OHLS, Lead Resources Development Specialist
Division of Trade and Development
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P. O. Box 110804
Juneau, AK 99801-0804
Telephone: (907) 465-5467
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Governor, the
Department of Natural Resources, the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department
of Commerce and Economic Development on
HB 212.
ALBERT PAGH, Chairman
Interior Forest Association
2849 Parks Highway
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6643
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 212.
CARL PORTMAN, Communications Director
Resource Development Council
121 West Fireweed Lane, Room 250
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 276-0700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 212.
CLIFF EAMES
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 West 8th Street, Room 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended changes to HB 212.
JOE YOUNG
Young's Timber, Incorporated
P. O. Box 42
Tok, AK 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-5060
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 212.
TABITHA GREGORY
P.O. Box 1540
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4817
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212.
ED DAVIS, Board Member
Alaska Wilderness, Recreation
and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 1540
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-6123
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212
ELIZABETH WEST, Director of Communications
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 212.
LARRY SMITH, Kachemak Resources Institute
1520 Lakeshore Drive
Homer, AK 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-3855
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns with HB 212.
STEVE GIBSON, Sawmiller, Logger
1622 Highland Drive
Homer, AK 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7578
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns with HB 212.
WILLIAM DUNNE
P. O. Box 15043
Fritz Creek, AK 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7578
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended changes to HB 212.
DAN RITZMAN
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Alaska Environmental Lobby, Volunteer
324 Yana Court
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 452-5021
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended changes to Sections 2, 4, and 11.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-1, SIDE A
Number 033
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS called the House Resources Committee
meeting to order at 9:17 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Williams, Green, Ogan, Austerman, Davies, Kott
and Long. Members absent were Representatives Barnes and Nicholia.
HB 212 - TIMBER MANAGEMENT; STATE LAND
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said HB 212 has been the subject of three
previous hearings and extensive discussions with the Administration
and affected groups. He said the proposed committee substitute
represents a great deal of work with adjustments made to
accommodate the various concerns raised by different forest users.
He said he believed that the committee was close to complete
agreement on the contents of the bill and for that reason it was
his intention to move the bill from committee.
Number 180
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he would entertain a motion to adopt CS
for HB 212, Version "M", dated January 4, 1996, as the working
document. CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN offered the motion. CO-CHAIRMAN
WILLIAMS asked if there was discussion. There being none, it was
so ordered. He asked committee staff to come to the table and
explain the changes in the draft from version "K" which the
committee had adopted in December.
Number 250
JACK PHELPS, Legislative Assistant to Representative Williams, said
the committee substitute draft represented a tremendous amount of
discussion and agreement with the Administration and the other
affected groups. He said the difference between version "M" and
version "K" was a change in Section 8 and Section 11 requested by
the Administration.
MR. PHELPS said the concern with Section 8 was with what was
previously paragraph one; the language read that the commissioner
would allow for the fullest practicable access to and use and
consumption of the natural resources. The concern raised by the
Administration, essentially, was that it was seen by some as being
a "carte blanche" road building grant. That section has been
rewritten to alleviate that concern. The section now in version
"M" says that in managing the state forest, the commissioner shall,
consistent with the primary purpose -- now that primary purpose is
set forth in the previous section, Section 7, which is multiple use
providing for timber production. Consistent with that purpose, the
commissioner shall restrict the public use of the land only when
necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, AS 41. It
basically says that the commissioner can not restrict use of the
land to any of the users unless he deems it necessary to do so to
carry out his statutory requirements and the purpose of the state
forest.
MR. PHELPS said the second change was Section 11 which sets forth
a wildlife management objective for the Tanana Valley State Forest:
(The Administration asked us to change the words human consumption
to human use.)
Number 497
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Phelps if the language change broadens
the term to include skins as well as food. MR. PHELPS said that
was his understanding.
Number 526
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked Mr. Phelps if he had discussed
with the sponsor, and other people, the suggestions that the Board
of Forestry had made to the bill. MR. PHELPS said he did, several
times throughout the summer.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Phelps if the Board of Forestry is
comfortable with the changes that were, and were not, made in the
development of the bill. MR. PHELPS said the majority of the
changes recommended by the Board of Forestry paralleled
recommendations made by the Administration. He said in some cases,
changes were adopted that were recommended by the board but the
language used came from the Administration. He recalled that the
sole exception was the 160 acre recommendation made by the board.
The board recommended that 160 acres be exempted from a second
listing in a Five Year Schedule, and instead are listed only once.
Whereas the bill basically stayed with the 1990 recommendations of
the Forest Practices Act working agreement which exempted 160 acre
parcels from all listing. That was done with a clear understanding
from the Department of Natural Resources that under normal and
usual circumstances they would continue to list all sales, even
those less than 160 acres in the Five Year Schedule. It still
continues to be a useful public, planning document. MR. PHELPS
said his understanding is the department would use the exemption
only when it was deemed necessary for the purposes of the bill
which is to make sure that small operators are able to continue
when timber gets short.
Number 688
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the Board of Forestry suggested the
bill limit the number of sales an operator could buy in any one
calendar year, and they also recommended that one sale per year is
adequate. He said the board's concern is that it would be possible
to get around the implied limitations by making several small sales
available to one operator.
Number 710
MR. PHELPS responded that he did not recall that issue being on the
one page sheet of specific recommendations submitted by the State
Forester. He said he did remember discussion about it, but also
remembered a lot of the discussion that did take place was in the
context of HB 344.
Number 800
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked the Department of Natural Resources
representative to address the issue of one operator or company
making several 160 acre purchases a year.
Number 828
JIM McALLISTER, Regional Forester, Coastal Region Office, Division
of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources said he could speak
only for his region, but did not feel there was any intent to make
additional small sales available to one operator. He also said an
operator could buy more than one sale within a year, but there are
not that many operators and he cannot imagine how that would come
into play. MR. McALLISTER responded to Chairman Williams that
there are no regulations prohibiting that.
Number 870
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT said he had a copy of the September 18th
Board of Forestry recommendations and the concern expressed by
Representative Davies is not one of their eight issues to be
addressed.
Number 948
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES said one purpose of the legislation
is to ensure that small operators are able to have timber available
for their activities and this is also a very small part in the
managing of our timber resources. She said well managed timber
harvesting not only helps create and support jobs and a healthy
economy, it also creates and supports healthy forests. The other
thing the bill spells out is that with managing our forests for
multiple use, multiple use means that there is timber for everybody
for their specific uses. The main goal is that there is timber for
every multiple use out there if it is needed so that all people are
treated equally and fairly.
Number 1078
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stated there have been many changes to
the bill and asked Representative James if she was satisfied that
the bill still had the same objective of providing timber to small
utilizers of the resource. Representative James said, yes, she
was. She stated there are many varied interests in the state on
this issue and the committee worked hard throughout the interim
with the efforts of Mr. Phelps. But, it will be very difficult to
make changes to the bill now without communicating with the groups
to see if we still have agreement. She said the bill is now a very
balanced proposal.
Number 1153
KARL OHLS, Lead Resource Development Specialist, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development submitted written comments from
the Administration on HB 212. He said his testimony reflects the
views of the Governor's Office, the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), and the Department of Fish and Game, as well as the
Department of Commerce.
"At your two previous hearings on HB 212, you heard from DNR Deputy
Commissioner Marty Rutherford and State Forester Tom Boutin. They
had a prior commitment to attend the Governor's meeting with the
forest industry this morning and asked me to convey their apologies
that they could not be here. They asked me to thank this committee
and the committee staff for all of your good faith efforts in
preparing the committee substitute for HB 212. The entire process
has been a positive experience and a model for communication
between the legislative and executive branches of government. We
look forward to seeing this process continue.
"We wish to thank you again for involving the Board of Forestry in
the process, for having the panel testimony at the September
hearing, and for inviting the Administration to each hearing.
MR. OHLS stated for the record one issue of concern, Section 2.
"In September, we asked that Section 2 be deleted. The committee
didn't do that but, instead, added back in, `forest activities on
the timber base and on other uses,' as we had suggested.
"We also said that if Section 2 stayed, the Administration would
continue to look at information on the immediate and long-term
effects of individual and collective forest activities. We would
still like the committee to keep `immediate and long-term' and
`individual and collective' in AS 38.05.112. This is now our sole
disagreement with CSHB 212. While Section 2 could help in the
defense against lawsuits, we believe that people who rely on
thorough public process and evidence of the most comprehensive and
far-reaching analysis in resource management need to be able to
require that the analysis be long-term and collective. Also, on
this section, we are amenable to the change on lines 12 and 13,
where the words, "base a forest land use plan on" are replaced with
"consider."
MR. OHLS said the Administration is very happy with the changes the
committee made on its behalf and that HB 212 is an excellent piece
of legislation.
Number 1130
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Ohls to explain the term
"silviculture" practices. MR. OHLS said good forest practices,
good management of the forest.
Number 1135
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to Section 2. He recommended on
line 15, after the word forest, delete the word "activities" and
insert the word "use." MR. OHLS said work on the bill had been a
collective effort in the Administration. It was the Department of
Fish and Game who had the main concern with Section 2, and any
change to the legislation would have to be discussed with all the
affected agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she felt the language in the bill is
sufficient as it is. She urged the committee not to change the
wording now unless the focus needed changing and said if the focus
needs changing then we need to go back to all the affected groups.
Number 1526
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he would take teleconference testimony at
this time.
ALBERT PAGH, Chairman, Interior Forest Association, testified his
group requested this bill to correct the 1990 recommendations of
the Forest Practices Act and put back in the primary purpose of the
state forest which was taken out at that time. He said his
research shows that 195 million acres was set aside for "other
uses" which the Forest Practices Act has as the primary use: parks,
wildlife refuges, et cetera. Yet, we can not have 1.8 million
acres. Originally, in 1983, the state forest was established to
give a timber base for small timber industry in the Interior. That
is the reason this bill was requested. MR. PAGH said he is not
completely happy with HB 212, but it is better than nothing.
Number 1695
CARL PORTMAN, Communications Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), testified that the council's 1996 legislative priorities
supports innovative forest management initiatives and a stable
timber supply and increased access to Alaska's vast forest. HB 212
accomplishes each of these objectives and streamlines the process
for making small timber sales available in a timely manner. This
is an important bill which will help meet the needs of our smaller
timber operators and allow the Department of Natural Resources to
respond to short term timber supply needs. It is imperative that
a timber base be established to provide for a certain and stable
supply. The committee substitute for HB 212 would help guarantee
a stable supply of timber, a necessary element in attracting the
investment capital needed to build a healthy forest products
industry and diversify the economy. A healthy forest products
industry will provide for an additional tax base for local
communities and new jobs and wealth for Alaskans. This bill is
good public policy because it simplifies the process for making
small timber sales available while retaining environmental
protection and public involvement. It is a necessary step in
reforming existing state law which hinders the state's ability to
meet the needs of the small operators and provide for sustained use
of our state forest. He concluded his testimony stating the
Resource Development Council strongly supports the committee
substitute for HB 212.
Number 1804
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, said the Center
appreciates the work the committee has put in on this bill and the
positive changes that were made, but expressed concern with the
present draft. In Section 2, the Department of Fish & Game and
many others believe that perhaps the most important problem with
the logging that is occurring on the Kenai Peninsula, for example,
is the cumulative affects of the logging on a variety of land
ownerships. DNR has resisted cumulative affects analysis and we do
not want to see anything that would encourage them to continue
resist this. We believe it is very important that Section 2 be
deleted. We support the compromise in Section 4 that was
recommended by the Board of Forestry. We do believe that listing
sales of 160 acres or less once on a Five Year Schedule instead of
twice, would be adequate for those sales but we do believe that
they need to be listed, at least, that one time if people are going
receive adequate notice of what appears to be the majority of the
sales in the Interior and a very significant minority of the sales
on the Kenai Peninsula.
Number 1900
JOE YOUNG, Young's Timber, Incorporated, thanked the committee for
doing an excellent job of developing a good consensus on the bill.
He said even though it is not 100 percent of what he would like, it
is a step in the right direction. He specifically thanked
committee staff, Jack Phelps, for his work on the bill.
Number 1950
TABITHA GREGORY explained she is opening a tourism operation at
mile 19 of the Richardson Highway. She related her business will
offer guests an experience that is quiet, remote and cater to
skiers in the Thompson Pass area. MS. GREGORY said she is
surrounded by healthy forests managed by the state division of
forestry and recently learned the division is conducting timber
volume surveys ten minutes from her back door. She said this is
the very area where the chalet will offer skiing in the winter and
sightseeing in the summertime. She recommended the deletion of
Section 4 and urged that any sale appear on the Five Year Schedule
at least one time. She is concerned with the deletion of the
language in Section 2 "long-term and cumulative effects."
Number 2066
ED DAVIS, board member, Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism
Association, stated the association was an industry trade group of
approximately 216 business members. The tourism industry is
comprised of many businesses which depend upon long-term and
sustained access to Alaska's public forest resources. The
organization advocates forest management policies that reflect
long-term needs of all forest dependent industries including both
the timber and tourist industries. He thanked the committee for
their work over the summer on HB 212 and said the current draft
reflects thoughtful consideration of many of the problems that we
and others identified in earlier drafts of this bill. He said
several problem areas remain in the bill, but wanted to recognize
committee efforts in correcting a number of provisions in the
earlier bill which could have hurt many in the tourism industry.
He said Section 2 weakens the need to address the long-term and
cumulative affects of timber harvest activities in forest land use
plan. He proposed the statute needs to provide a mechanism for
basing forest management policy on the cumulative effects of timber
harvests since cumulative effects of a timber harvest activity can
only be seen by looking at the big picture. The second problem is
in Section 4 which allows a number of timber sales to be exempted
from the Five Year Schedule provided each sale is less 160 acres.
This is a potential loophole which could lead to severe abuse of
the planning process. He proposed the committee insert language
limiting the number of sales between 10 and 160 acres which can be
exempted from the Five Year Schedule. He stated there should be
statutes that clearly state that larger sales exempted from the
Five Year Schedule are rare exceptions.
Number 2210
ELIZABETH WEST, Director of Communications, Alaska Forest
Association read her testimony into the record.
The Association represents thousands of Alaskans who work in the
state's timber industry, with a $45 million annual payroll and an
estimated $140 million economic impact to the state.
The Alaska Forest Association and its members support the passage
of HB 212. This bill will improve the way the state conducts
timber sales and will result in secure jobs, better quality of life
for our members and improved economies in our communities. The
bill also satisfies concerns about the intent of the state's Forest
Practices Act for those of us who depend upon a health and
sustainable forest industry in Alaska. It is a necessary first
step in much needed reform for sustained use of our state forests.
The members of our association have long believed in balanced use
of our forests and other natural resources. By basing land use
plans on sound science and current data from all available sources,
valid decision may be made for multiple and sustained use. And
over the course of time, as best management practices have changed
and improved, our industry has been flexible in its approach to
management techniques. The concept of responsible use of
commercial timber resources while protecting multiple, sustained
use management principles is the best way to benefit all areas of
public interest.
We applaud the philosophy that will allow the fullest practical
access to and use of our vast, renewable resources. We are pleased
to see a reversal of the out-dated presumption of harm that was
associated with any human access to public land. We support to the
fullest, and in complete confidence, the wording that state land
managers have the authority and power to modify access as the need
arises. Commercial timber harvest is not an incompatible use of
these resources and should be allowed unless specific, scientific
data justifies its restriction. With this provision, all concerns
about personal bias and political agendas are removed from
interfering with utilizing our forest resources to the maximum
extent consistent with the public interest. We are agreeable to
the possible exclusion of portions of the forest at the discretion
of the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources as a
reliable, impartial authority rather than the possible personal or
political bias of a non-commissioned officer.
We support Section 11. The establishment of clear wildlife
objectives for the Tanana State Forest make sense within the bill.
Clearly, timber management with habitat issues and related concerns
on the Tanana is a prime example of what this bill is about.
In conclusion, I would like to restate the Alaska Forest
Association's position in support of HB 212. We appreciate this
opportunity to comment and thank the committee for its time.
Number 2331
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the arrival of Representative Nicholai
at 9:00 a.m.
Number 2345
LARRY SMITH, Kachemak Resources Institute, testified his background
is a fire fighter and a sawmiller in the timber industry in Alaska.
He said he disagreed with testimony of Mr. Eames and Mr. Pagh. MR.
SMITH felt Mr. Eames is incorrect to think that the Department of
Natural Resources will want to do cumulative effects analysis, they
do not have the staff or the budget. He disagreed with Mr. Pagh
about the influence of the Interior on the Forest Practices
legislation saying that he had worked on these provisions from 1987
until 1993 when the regulations were put into place. MR. SMITH
further felt the bill will only further fuel the export frenzy,
from the time it goes into effect and until the resource has been
taken and raw logs and chips from Alaska ports are all that
remains. He said this is a direct removal of a decent part of the
Alaska economy.
TAPE 96-1, SIDE B
Number 000
STEVE GIBSON, sawmiller and logger, testified that the requirement
on sales of up to 160 acres appear at least once in the Five Year
Schedule is reasonable and protects the public process. He objected
to the language "incompatibility" in Section 10, it seems like
trying to preload the definition of multiple use. He said if
timber sales to small operators is the problem we are trying to
address here, and as a consumer, it seems that it is the sale
policies and procedures that need to be examined. We do not need
a redefinition of multiple use that puts a severe bias in the
definition of that term or processes that are abbreviated so that
public oversight of potential timber sales is minimized. He talked
about instances in Kenai Peninsula of logging from state and
private ground and stated that in several years they will have cut
through a significant portion of the timber. He said right now
there are questions of price, there are questions of sale policies
and procedures that might be involved if small timber operators are
not acquiring timber. A redefinition of the state forest will not
do it.
Number 110
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS informed Mr. Gibson that the committee was
moving Section 10 from Title 38 to Title 41.
Number 139
WILLIAM DUNNE said as a resident of the Kenai Peninsula, he uses
state land for subsistence hunting and fishing and built his home
with timber from locally harvested and locally milled spruce. He
said he had a serious concern about deleting the consideration of
long-term and cumulative affects on forest based activities. He
recommended the deletion of Section 2.
Number 189
DAN RITZMAN stated he works for the Northern Alaska Environmental
Center and is in Juneau as a volunteer for the Alaska Environmental
Lobby. His concerns are Section 2, page 1, lines 14-15 appears to
eliminate an important requirement that the state use the best
available data to evaluate the cumulative and long-term effects of
forestry activity on both the tree and non-timber resources. He
said cumulative impacts may be the most serious effects of logging
activities. His understanding is due to cumulative impacts on a
variety of activities, such as the brown bear season on the Kenai
Peninsula being closed, He suggested that as logging increases in
the Interior and other areas of the state, we may see other types
of closures due to cumulative impacts.
MR. RITZMAN recommended the committee retain the language requiring
the consideration of "immediate and long-term" effects of
"individual and collective" forest activities.
Section 4, page 3, lines 20-22 eliminates the Five Year Schedule
requirement for sales of 160 or less. This would mean that over 70
percent of the sales in the Interior and a fair number of sales on
the Kenai would not appear on the schedule.
MR. RITZMAN said the Five Year Schedule is an incredibly useful
tool. It includes, at the present time, in one document all state
sales in the region. It is nearly impossible to learn about these
sales from individual sale announcements buried in the legal
section of the newspaper, and even if one did see all of the
individual announcements one would still not have a good sense of
the overall picture for the region. He recommended the committee
adopt the compromise language suggested by the Board of Forestry
that sales of less than 160 acres appears in at least one Five Year
Schedule. He recommended that Section 11 be deleted and left to
the Boards of Fish and Game to resolve.
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said any resource development depends on the
market and markets are changing from day to day, we need to build
in an ability to respond to market demands. She feels that HB 212
will help move the market demands from "tied" to "untied." She
urged the committee to move the bill forward.
Number 428
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said if there are no other comments, he would
move HB 212 from committee with individual recommendations with the
attached fiscal note.
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected saying he had a number of suggested
changes he would like to offer.
Number 453
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN withdrew his motion.
Number 457
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered amendment one. Section 2. AS
38.05.112 (b) page 1, line 14, insert a comma after the word
agencies. He said the reason is that the language we have about
"effects" only modifies the information provided by other agencies
and does not modify best available data.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES disagreed with the change. She said that is
a statement --other agencies are going to provide the effects of
the forest activities on the timber base and on other resources and
uses.
Number 547
MR. PHELPS said the language that the proposed amendment would
modify is in current statute. MR. PHELPS feels the reason is --the
commissioner has to use best available data, and it assumes that
data is data collected and maintained and put forward by people in
his own agency; and then it goes on to say that data includes
information provided by other agencies with respect to the
immediate and long-term effects of individual and collective
activities on the forest.
Number 620
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said his amendment would make the language
more inclusive rather than exclusive. He said his point is these
effects on the timber base be addressed by the best available data
both wherever the commissioner can find it, and specifically,
including that which is provided by other agencies.
Number 696
MR. PHELPS said the existing language does the same thing.
Number 795
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was trying to focus the use of the
definition of what "the best available data means." He said
without the language change, the whole universal data can apply to
anything.
Number 830
MR. PHELPS said Representative Davies is grammatically correct and
the change would narrow the scope of the data that the commissioner
has to consider rather than broaden it.
Number 883
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were objections to the proposed
amendment of inserting on page 1, line 14, a comma after the word
agencies. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said hearing no objections, it was
so ordered.
Number 906
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered amendment Number 2. Section 2 AS
38.05.112(b) page 1, line 15, after the words "effects of," insert
"each allowed." After the word "forest" substitute the word "use"
for the word "activities."
Number 938
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected for the purposes of discussion.
Number 940
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was not trying to change the basic
purpose of the section, but offered the amendment in the spirit of
compromise language for those people who recommended its deletion.
Number 982
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Davies, but
expressed frustration with the introduction of new language. She
said the committee had inched along to be absolutely sure that it
created a forest where all multiple uses cover the entire forest.
She feels the existing language in the bill is sufficient rather
than trying to change language to be sure that every little spot in
the forest that has a multiple use is considered. She said there
are two schools of thought: one being the whole thing is there for
multiple use; and the other is that the whole thing is for
individual multiple uses.
Number 1071
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked Representative Davies to
explain the proposed language "each allowed."
Number 1092
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said without any modification the language in
the bill is broad, and unmodified, the word "effects" means all
kinds of effects. He feels the amendment will not change the
purpose of Section 2, it will add back in a modifier for the word
"effect." He said the word "individual" had been in the original
language and in place of the word individual, insert "each
allowed." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to the requirements in
Section 3. He said those are uses the commissioner has to
consider, and with each of those allowed uses, he needs to consider
the effects on the timber base.
Number 1300
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reminded Representative Davies that this was
the committee's third hearing on HB 212. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM
called for a vote on Representative Davies amendment. The amendment
failed by a vote of five to two.
Number 1338
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he had a strong concern with language in
Section 4, page 3, paragraph (c). He stated in the Tanana Valley
State Forest, 160 acres is not a small amount. Historically, the
largest sale was 235 acres and a typical sale is about 50 - 75
acres. He said one of the problems is productivity varies from
region to region and different forests have different productivity
in terms of board feet available per acre. For example, Tanana
Valley is relatively high compared to Susitna.
Number 1516
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to amend Section 4, page 3, line 20,
change "160" to "80" acres. There was an objection.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he would like to hear from staff
about Representative Davies concern about regionalization.
Number 1570
MR. PHELPS said the original bill did have a board foot limitation
rather than acreage, and stated the committee heard immediate feed
back from the public and the Department of Natural Resources that
acreage limitations are easier for people to conceptualize than
board foot limitations. He referenced the 1990 Forest Practices
Act consensus group who produced a book of final recommendations,
the "Green Book." On page 43, it says sales under 160 acres should
not be required to be listed on the Five Year Schedule. MR. PHELPS
said when that agreement was translated into a draft bill and moved
through the legislature, that piece was missing. The result of the
legislation was that all sales had to go in the schedule, with the
exception of this language here, from existing law that says the
department by regulation shall exempt small sales.
Number 1752
MR. PHELPS said the committee was assured by the Department of
Natural Resources that regardless of what the legislature does with
this law, they will continue to put all sales, no matter how small,
in the Five Year Schedule and use this exemption only when it is
necessary.
Number 1813
MR. PHELPS responded to a question from Representative Austerman
concerning forest densities that the Tanana Valley Forest has an
average density of about 10,000 board feet per acre and in the Mat-
Su it is about 3,000. He said those are the two extremes.
Number 1880
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said 80 acres for a small mill operator on an
annual basis is still a fair amount of timber. He said a process
that allows us to exempt 80 or 90 percent of the sales that occur
in the Interior is really looking at small sales. He asked the
point in having the Five Year Schedule, in terms of a policy
document, if the language that we have, at least in the Tanana
Valley State Forest, exempts almost all of the sales that have been
contemplated so far from that requirement.
Number 2050
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that the parameters were set for the
biggest timber sales, not the smallest. She said she did not
believe that the majority of timber operators in the Interior are
objecting to 160 acres. What we are hoping to do with this bill is
to create a legislation that allows the industry to move forward
and to meet market needs.
Number 2209
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stated he would vote against the
amendment. He said if 160 acres is not acceptable because of the
board foot, maybe we should go back to the board foot description
so it can be tailored to the specific area.
Number 2262
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said item eight on the Board of Forestry list
was the issue of sales of 160 acres or less with their suggestion
that it should be included on the Five Year Schedule at least one
year. Representative Davies referred to the 1990 amendments and
declared the reason the 160 acres did not make it into law is
because of the problems we are discussing now. Unless there is a
regional schedule, it is difficult to handle and that is why they
chose to allow the department to handle it through regulations
rather than statute.
Number 2360
MR. PHELPS responded to Representative Davies that the 160 acre
issue did not make it into any of the drafts and was probably not
addressed by the legislature itself. He referred to the discussion
about how squeezing down the limitation would affect other parts of
the state. The Kuskokwim is another area where there are small
operators and a desire on the part of the Department of Natural
Resources to make sure that those people are able to keep working.
It is also a less dense forest than the Tanana. He said he would
like to echo Representative James thoughts that in setting an upper
limit for this, Representative Davies has raised some definite and
valuable points with respect for his forest, but we also have to be
sure that it gives the Department of Natural Resources enough
flexibility to deal with the needs in the Mat-Su and the Kuskokwim.
Number 2452
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he would vote against the amendment
because the people in the valley would end up loosing out.
Number 2476
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES withdrew his amendment.
TAPE 96-2, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered another amendment to Section 4, page
3, line 20 to delete "sales of 160 acres or less" and insert "sales
under 500,000 board feet." He said it really does make a
difference regionally what the productivity of the land is.
Number 154
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said what the committee was trying to achieve
with the 160 acre language in Section 4, was to make it easier for
the Administration to use it as a management tool.
Number 239
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that the House Chamber bell was ringing.
He said he would like hold off the vote on this amendment until
another meeting of the House Resources Committee.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he had a problem with the language in
Section 7 regarding primary purpose. He referred to existing
statute language, "the primary purpose in the establishment of
state forests is the perpetuation of personal, commercial and other
beneficial uses of resources through multiple use management." He
proposes to amend the statute by adding the language "including the
production, utilization, and replenishment of timber resources."
He said he hopes to emphasize the timber resource use under the
word commercial in the existing purpose.
Number 386
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would like committee discussion on
the deletion of Section 11 which are already covered in Section 3.
Number 409
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG referred to Section 11, page 5, line 22 and
he said he would like the word "production" changed to
"protection."
Number 481
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked that any amendments be submitted in
writing prior to the next meeting on HB 212.
Number 553
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated, for the record, that the committee
will act on Representatives Davies' and Representative Long's
amendments at the next hearing on HB 212.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS
adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|