Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/12/2003 02:53 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 12, 2003
2:53 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to the powers of the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska in regard to intrastate pipeline transportation services
and pipeline facilities, to the rate of interest for funds to be
paid by pipeline shippers or carriers at the end of a suspension
of tariff filing, and to the prospective application of
increased standards on regulated pipeline utilities; allowing
the commission to accept rates set in conformity with a
settlement agreement between the state and one or more pipeline
carriers and to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement in
regard to intrastate rates; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 277(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to carbon sequestration; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to standards for forest resources and
practices; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS SB 88(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
"An Act relating to the limitation on upland acreage that a
person may take or hold under oil and gas leases; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 277
SHORT TITLE:PIPELINE UTILITIES REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DAHLSTROM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/17/03 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/17/03 1026 (H) O&G, L&C
04/22/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
04/22/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/23/03 1081 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/24/03 1108 (H) RES REFERRAL ADDED AFTER O&G
04/24/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/03 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
04/29/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
04/29/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/01/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
05/01/03 (H) Moved CSHB 277(O&G) Out of
Committee
05/01/03 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
05/02/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/02/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
<Meeting Postponed to 4:00
PM>
05/02/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
05/02/03 (H) <Pending Referral> -- Meeting
Canceled --
05/05/03 1316 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NT 1DP 6NR
05/05/03 1316 (H) DP: KOHRING; NR: HOLM,
ROKEBERG, FATE,
05/05/03 1316 (H) KERTTULA, CRAWFORD, MCGUIRE
05/05/03 1317 (H) FN(S): FORTHCOMING
05/06/03 1372 (H) FN1: ZERO(REV) RECEIVED
05/06/03 1372 (H) FN2: ZERO(DNR) RECEIVED
05/07/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/07/03 (H) Bill Postponed 1:30 PM --
05/07/03 (H) RES AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
05/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/09/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/09/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/09/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/12/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 196
SHORT TITLE:CARBON SEQUESTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)BERKOWITZ
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/14/03 0541 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/03 0541 (H) RES, FIN
04/23/03 1080 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GARA
05/07/03 1438 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GUTTENBERG
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/12/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 88
SHORT TITLE:FOREST RESOURCES & PRACTICES STANDARDS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/28/03 0298 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/28/03 0298 (S) RES
04/25/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
-- Bill Hearing Postponed --
04/28/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/28/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/29/03 1025 (S) RES RPT 6DP 1NR
04/29/03 1025 (S) DP: OGAN, DYSON, ELTON,
WAGONER,
04/29/03 1025 (S) STEVENS B, SEEKINS; NR:
LINCOLN
04/29/03 1025 (S) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
05/03/03 1129 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/3/2003
05/03/03 1129 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/03/03 1129 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 5/4
CALENDAR
05/03/03 1135 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN, TAYLOR,
DYSON,
05/03/03 1135 (S) WAGONER
05/04/03 1143 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 88
05/04/03 1143 (S) PASSED Y14 N- E5 A1
05/04/03 1144 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/04/03 1144 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON, COWDERY,
STEVENS B
05/04/03 1144 (S) THERRIAULT
05/04/03 1144 (S) ELTON NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/05/03 1162 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/05/03 1164 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/05/03 1164 (S) VERSION: SB 88
05/06/03 1343 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/06/03 1343 (H) RES
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/12/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LISA WEISSLER, Staff
to Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of
HB 196, Representative Berkowitz.
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Regional Forester
Division of Forestry
Northern Region Office
Department of Natural Resources
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 196, answered
questions.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of SB 88.
BRIAN HOVE, Staff
to Senator Ralph Seekins
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 88 on behalf of the sponsor.
DOUGLAS HANSON
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 88.
THOMAS (CHRISTOPHER) STARK, Fisheries Seat
Board of Forestry;
Fisheries Biologist, University of Alaska Fairbanks;
Bering Sea Fisherman's Association;
Yukon River Fisheries Development Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed his support for SB 88 because the
fish will be alright with this type of riparian buffer.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-44, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:53 p.m. Representatives Fate, Masek,
Gatto, Heinze, Lynn, and Wolf were present at the call to order.
Representative Guttenberg arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:54 p.m.
HB 277-PIPELINE UTILITIES REGULATION
CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 277, "An Act relating to the powers of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska in regard to intrastate pipeline
transportation services and pipeline facilities, to the rate of
interest for funds to be paid by pipeline shippers or carriers
at the end of a suspension of tariff filing, and to the
prospective application of increased standards on regulated
pipeline utilities; allowing the commission to accept rates set
in conformity with a settlement agreement between the state and
one or more pipeline carriers and to enforce the terms of a
settlement agreement in regard to intrastate rates; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0326
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved that the committee adopt CSHB 277,
Version CSHB 277(RES) bil.doc, 5/12/2003, as a work draft.
There being no objection, the proposed CS dated 5/12/2003 was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that the changes encompassed in
the proposed CS are in the packet.
CHAIR FATE, in response to Representative Heinze, specified that
the proposed CS is the result of questions, answers, and
clarifications during a meeting this morning among himself,
Representative Dahlstrom, and the Department of Law.
Number 0896
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report CSHB 277, Version CSHB
277(RES) bil.doc, 5/12/2003, out of committee [with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes].
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF objected for the purpose of discussion and
requested an at-ease.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:02 p.m. to 3:04 p.m.
[Not on tape, but taken from the committee secretary's log
notes, was Representative Wolf's withdrawal of his objection.]
Number 0668
CHAIR FATE remarked that this legislation, in the view of many,
began as objectionable and problematic. However, after three
committee substitutes the legislation has matured to the point
of addressing the issues of ongoing litigation under [RCA] Order
151 and retroactivity. He noted that there has been good
discussion and testimony with regard to capacity and access,
which is an element of the pipeline, although the Stranded Gas
Act will negotiate those issues. He related his belief that
this legislation is important to the state and has been worked
through thoroughly, and therefore he didn't fear its going
forward. Chair Fate emphasized that there has been tremendous
participation on this legislation in order to fashion
legislation that would be helpful in the state's economic
development.
Number 0996
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected to reporting the bill from
committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wolf, Masek,
Heinze, Lynn, and Fate voted in favor of reporting the bill from
committee. Representative Guttenberg voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 277(RES) was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1.
Number 1157
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG spoke to his objection. He
acknowledged that this legislation is very important, but
pointed out that there has been testimony from various people in
the oil industry who have serious [concerns] with it.
Representative Guttenberg highlighted that he hasn't had a
chance to go through this new CS. He said, "We've seen what
happens when we pass legislation on to other committees to do
their work." For example, when HB 191 was reported out of this
committee to the House Judiciary Standing Committee to hear the
legal issues, it was waived from that committee. Representative
Guttenberg related his belief that the House Resources Standing
Committee should do its work.
CHAIR FATE said this legislation was discussed and dissected [at
length] and the committee isn't avoiding its responsibility.
[CSHB 277(RES) was reported from committee.]
The committee was recessed at 3:14 p.m. to a call of the chair.
CHAIR FATE reconvened the committee at 6:39 p.m.
Representatives Lynn, Wolf, Masek, Gatto, Heinze, and Fate were
present at the call back to order.
HB 196-CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Number 1255
CHAIR FATE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 196, "An Act relating to carbon sequestration;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 1322
LISA WEISSLER, Staff to Representative Ethan Berkowitz, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 196 on behalf Representative
Berkowitz, sponsor. She explained that carbon sequestration is
the capture and long-term storage of carbon in forests, soils,
and oceans. In order to understand why carbon sequestration is
important, one must step into the international arena with
regard to climate changes and international interest in limiting
the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere. She informed the
committee that the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement
establishing an emissions limit for carbon and other greenhouse
gases, is being drafted. Although the U.S. isn't going to sign
the Kyoto Protocol, it could impact U.S. companies and the U.S.
in general. Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries and companies
that produce carbon will have an emissions limit; if they exceed
the emissions limit, there are ways to offset that
overproduction of carbon and greenhouse gases.
MS. WEISSLER explained that one way to offset that
overproduction is to trade with companies below the limit. The
other is carbon sequestration, an active method used to
sequester more carbon in the land, soil, forests, and ocean. In
the case of carbon sequestration, capitalism is taking over and
a carbon credit-trading market is being created. [This
legislation] looks to Alaska benefiting from this emerging
market because Alaska holds great potential for sequestration
activities. For example, on the Kenai there are a lot of dead
trees due to the spruce bark beetle infestation. Thus there is
the possibility of eliminating the dead trees and reforesting
the area. Such active management could potentially produce
credits that Alaska would be able to place in the carbon credit-
trading market for money. She acknowledged that some of the
money could go towards reforestation, while some of it could be
placed in the state's general fund.
MS. WEISSLER explained that the legislation isn't designed to
put Alaska in the market right away because there are many
questions to answer. It follows what Idaho and Nebraska have
already implemented, requesting that their state departments of
natural resources review the matter in order to determine how
the state might participate and what is going on with this
market, and establishing an advisory committee to help the
department with the process. Therefore, this legislation merely
places the state in a position to benefit from the [carbon
credit-trading market]. However, this market can be limited
because the number of credits could be limited due to the
emissions limit. Therefore, those states and countries not
ready to enter the market could be left behind. Ms. Weissler
noted that the Alaska Reforestation Council has looked into
this. She passed around a pamphlet entitled "Reforestation
Needs and Opportunities for Carbon Sequestration in Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA provided the committee with an article
entitled "Carbon Sequestration - Terrestrial Approaches."
Number 1628
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked how these carbon credits are traded.
MS. WEISSLER answered that she believes its just like any other
commodity. She recalled that when limits were established for
sulfur dioxide, a market was created for it. Ms. Weissler
specified that when quantifying how much is being sequestered,
the unit of tons is used.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if Ms. Weissler meant a ton of
carbon molecules
MS. WEISSLER replied yes; it's actually the gas emitted into the
atmosphere.
Number 1748
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how the value of a forest is
measured.
MS. WEISSLER said that's one of the questions yet to be
answered.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that the last page of the
document, entitled "Opportunities for Carbon Offset Programs in
Alaska," specifies: "A carbon credit is one metric ton of
carbon or CO2 equivalent that is captured from the atmosphere
and stored in plants and organic matter."
Number 1851
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Regional Forester, Northern Region Office,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
confirmed that carbon would be traded per ton. Although a
number of formulas could be used for wood, essentially it's the
wood volume and the amount of carbon that is created through the
photosynthetic process of the tree or plant. The carbon is
locked up as the wood or the biomass of the plant. He noted
that the actual certification process needs work.
CHAIR FATE asked if the fact that the U.S. isn't a signatory to
the Kyoto Protocol would influence what happens in the U.S.
relative to this.
MR. MAISCH replied yes. He explained that many of the companies
that are part of the Kyoto Protocol do business worldwide; those
counties that have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol have
programs in which carbon needs to be reduced in the country.
Therefore, a worldwide company such as BP could trade and sell
carbon credits anywhere in the world and obtain credits for that
in a country that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
Number 1938
CHAIR FATE pointed out that there are a lot of forest fires in
Alaska, fires that cause large areas of the Interior to be
covered with smoke to the extent that someone can't fly an
airplane. Of course, the smoke is carbon. Chair Fate asked how
this natural phenomenon would come into play with gaining
credits in this sequestration program.
MR. MAISCH explained that since a forest fire would be a natural
event, it wouldn't impact the actual program of sequestering of
carbon. However, it might impact the state if the state quickly
reforests and revegetates burned acreage. Currently, it's rare
that the state does the aforementioned. He said that [if the
state quickly reforests and revegetates burned acreage], the
state would be speeding up the rate at which reforestation would
naturally occur in a burned area; thus the state could
potentially produce a saleable carbon credit for the time the
state sped up the reforestation of the burned area. In further
response, Mr. Maisch specified that the landowner would bear the
cost of reforestation. However, the idea is that the price of
the carbon credit would offset the reforestation cost.
CHAIR FATE interjected that would be the case if the quota
wasn't already filled.
MR. MAISCH acknowledged that there is a quota, but pointed out
that as more companies become interested in those credits, those
credits will trade at a higher price. With the proposed quota,
there is some merit in being the first in, rather than the last.
CHAIR FATE asked if Mr. Maisch feels [carbon sequestration] is
worth review, as requested in HB 196.
MR. MAISCH replied yes, in order to evaluate whether it is a
tool for land managers to leverage more reforestation activities
or other activities to produce these saleable credits.
CHAIR FATE asked if this would be leverage to entice the U.S. to
sign the Kyoto Protocol.
MR. MAISCH replied no. He said that the U.S. wouldn't have to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol in order to participate in the carbon
[credit-trading] market.
Number 2118
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if the carbon molecules would be
traded, bartered, or sold.
MR. MAISCH answered that the carbon [credits] would be sold like
any other commodity on the commodities market, such as lumber,
corn, or oil. Currently, credits for sulfur dioxide, a
pollutant emitted by electric utilities, are traded; an exchange
sells credits to offset excess emissions of sulfur dioxides.
The aforementioned program has been in the U.S. for a number
years; the [sulfur dioxide credit] prices are set per ton, and
the market bids it up or down based on the availability of the
credits. Carbon credits would work in the same way.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if [carbon credits] are being traded
elsewhere in the world, and if so, at what price.
MR. MAISCH responded that the price varies based on a number of
factors. The largest variable is whether the carbon credit is
actually certified. There is a third-party certifier who
certifies how much carbon a project is going to produce so that
can be taken to the marketplace and a potential purchaser of
that credit is assured the specified amount of carbon is being
produced. Although there are projects worldwide, most of them
aren't traded through an exchange because the exchange isn't
running. Mr. Maisch informed the committee that several Native
organizations in the Lower 48, such as the Nez Perce, have done
carbon projects with utilities. He characterized most of the
projects that have occurred thus far to be from a public
relations standpoint, rather than an actual trade through the
exchange.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said she was trying to determine how the
sponsor could forecast [that this market could provide] $400
million in revenue if the exchange isn't running.
MR. MAISCH suggested that projection could be based on private
projects elsewhere. He said he'd have to perform some research
in order to verify that projection.
Number 2284
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if there are other ways in which
carbon sequestration could benefit Alaska.
MR. MAISCH pointed out that Alaska's being involved in carbon
sequestration could provide some public relations benefits. He
returned to the paper by the Alaska Reforestation Council,
written in 2000, and suggested that it might be worth reviewing
in detail. Mr. Maisch pointed out that in terms of the global
warming concept, many have embraced this carbon sequestration
program to help reduce global warming.
CHAIR FATE, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony. He announced that he had no objection
to forwarding HB 196 to the next committee of referral.
Number 2368
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK directed attention to page 3, lines 2-4,
which specifies that members of the advisory committee created
by this legislation are entitled to per diem and travel.
The committee took an at-ease from 7:00 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.
CHAIR FATE informed the committee that each member should now
have a copy of the fiscal note. He directed the committee's
attention to the analysis included in the fiscal note.
Number 2419
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how the size of the advisory committee
was determined.
MS. WEISSLER explained that the size came about because the
sponsor was looking for a list of folks able to assist in the
development of the report. Furthermore, the advisory committee
follows the models in Idaho and Nebraska.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that if any voting is required of
this advisory committee, then its membership should be an odd
number.
MS. WEISSLER related that she didn't believe there would be any
voting because the advisory committee is really to develop
recommendations and assist the department.
Number 2482
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked why an advisory committee has to be
created, when DNR can handle this with its existing staff. She
offered her belief that most of the legislation passed this
session has had no fiscal impact.
CHAIR FATE related his understanding from the sponsor that this
legislation was merely a request to look into this; however, it
seems to go further and seems to be partially responsible for
some sort of implementation.
MS. WEISSLER clarified that the intent is for the advisory
committee to advise the department. There is no intention to
put anything into motion. With regard to the fiscal note, she
said she suspects that the costs could be substantially reduced
through use of the teleconference network and existing staff,
which was the intention of the sponsor. She mentioned the
possibility of grant opportunities that could be more likely if
this legislation is in place.
Number 2606
CHAIR FATE announced that HB 196 would be held for further
consideration. He related his view that this is a good idea,
although more study seems to be required on the fiscal note as
well as the specific duties of the board. [HB 196 was held
over.]
SB 88-FOREST RESOURCES & PRACTICES STANDARDS
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to standards for forest
resources and practices; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2656
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
SB 88, began by informing the committee that this legislation
has been around for some time and heard in many committees over
the last few years; it is the work of many. He highlighted that
this is one of the few pieces of legislation that doesn't have
anyone saying he/she doesn't want to do it. He recalled that
last year this legislation moved through the House and went over
to the Senate, where at the end it just didn't make it to the
Senate floor.
Number 2799
BRIAN HOVE, Staff to Senator Ralph Seekins, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased the sponsor statement, which reads as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
This Bill revises the riparian management standards of
the Forest Resources Practices Act (FRPA) for Region
III by strengthening protection for fish habitat and
water quality in a manner that continues to support
both the timber and fishing industries.
The current standards for Region III were adopted as
an interim measure in the 1990 revision of the Act.
Under these standards, harvesting can occur up to the
back of the anadromous waters on both public and
private land under some conditions. With the proposed
Bill, all anadromous and high-value resident fish
waters are classified and riparian standards are
established for each classification.
The requirements are tailored to the characteristics
and fish habitat need of each stream type. A no-
harvest buffer will be required on most anadromous and
high-value resident fish waters. However, along
glacial rivers where some of the most valuable timber
occurs, the standards allow harvest of up to half the
large white spruce in the landward half of the buffer.
This allows landowners to capture some of the economic
value within the riparian areas while keeping enough
large trees to provide woody debris.
This bill is not a wholesale revision of the Act. It
has substantive changes for riparian management
standards applying to Region III only. Other
technical revisions include changes to the statewide
nomenclature for waterbody classes to prevent
confusion between waterbody types in different
regions. The bill also moves definitions of regional
boundaries from the regulations to the Act and makes a
minor change to the regional boundary on the Kenai
Peninsula to better match the difference between
forest types. Most forestland in the affected area is
in federal ownership, so there will be minimal impact
on other landowners.
SB 88 helps ensure that FRPA continues to be certified
for compliance with federal Clean Water Act and
coastal zone management requirements. This means that
the Act continues to provide "one-stop shopping" for
the timber industry with respect to state and federal
non-point source pollution and coastal management
standards.
This bill is founded on the best science available
including an extensive review of existing research and
recommendations of an interdisciplinary Science &
Technical Committee. The committee included
experienced field staff from the state resource
agencies and private sector as well as University of
Alaska and federal scientists.
An Implementation Group that included representatives
of the timber and fishing industries, Native
corporations and environmental groups drafted language
to implement the scientists' recommendations in a
practical manner that works in the field. This bill
is unanimously endorsed by the Board of Forestry and
has support from a broad array of interest groups.
TAPE 03-44, SIDE B
Number 2904
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that the committee packet should
include an amendment that is necessary to bring the legislation
into compliance with the recent transfer of the Division of
Habitat [per EO 107].
The committee took an at-ease from 7:14 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.
Number 2846
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt Amendment 1, which reads as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "commissioner"
Insert "state forester"
Page 3, line 17:
Delete "department"
Insert "state forester"
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "Department of Fish and Game"
Insert "deputy commissioner"
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "commissioner"
Insert "state forester"
Page 4, line 8:
Delete "department"
Insert "state forester"
Page 4, lines 8-9:
Delete "Department of Fish and Game"
Insert "deputy commissioner"
Page 4, line 16:
Delete "department"
Insert "state forester"
Page 4, line 17:
Delete "Department of Fish and Game"
Insert "deputy commissioner"
Page 4, line 24:
Delete "department"
Insert "state forester"
Page 4, line 25:
Delete "Department of Fish and Game"
Insert "deputy commissioner"
Page 5, line 8:
Delete "commissioner"
Insert "state forester [COMMISSIONER]"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 2809
DOUGLAS HANSON, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), provided the
following testimony:
Tanana Chiefs Conference supports this legislation.
Mainly, it'll provide set guidelines for protection of
important subsistence and commercial use fish habitat.
The bill is the result of a long process involving the
science and tech committee that utilizes the best
available science to develop riparian buffer standards
that apply to the Alaska Interior region situations.
The bill also is the product of the implementation
group that had support from industry as well as the
Native landowners. The standards that are proposed in
the bill will be simple to enforce, easy to initiate
and are understood by the general public, the rural
village areas as well as the professional forester.
Passage of the bill will avoid uncertainties in the
application of previous sometimes-vague riparian
standards.
Also, the bill pertains to the analysis of the Tanana
Valley State Forest Management Plan and the amendments
for the Unit 2 area. In that area, which is the Lower
Tanana region, the issues of riparian protection were
agreed on that would ... use these interim guidelines
in the buffer standards. So with that, they're
already part of the Tanana Valley State Board's plan
update, using some of these interim guidelines. So, I
think it's time to pass this legislation and move on
with good forest management standards.
Number 2725
THOMAS (CHRISTOPHER) STARK, Fisheries Seat, Board of Forestry;
Fisheries Biologist, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Bering Sea
Fisherman's Association; Yukon River Fisheries Development
Association; explained that he couldn't speak for the
university. However, for the other entities for which he works,
this legislation is a good thing that should get done. Mr.
Stark said that the fish will be all right with this type of
riparian buffer.
Number 2678
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Regional Forester, Division of Forestry,
Northern Region Office, Department of Natural Resources,
announced support for SB 88.
CHAIR FATE said he's learned from several people in the forest
products industry that erosion along a stream often takes place
where a heavy forest is undercut. When those trees fall, the
root structure is so large that it takes large pieces of bank
and the erosion process is increased. He asked if there has
been any research that allows for those large-trunk trees
connected to a stream to be cut within a certain distance of the
stream in order to keep those trees from falling over so that
the root structure becomes part of the materials inhibiting
erosion.
MR. MAISCH said he wasn't familiar with any specific research of
that on the Tanana River. However, this issue was discussed in
the finance and technical committee, half of whom felt the
Tanana River isn't controlled by vegetation from an erosion
standpoint, while the other half felt there was no clear
evidence to support the notion that cutting the tree would
prevent erosion any faster than leaving the tree in place on the
bank. However, Mr. Maisch indicated this legislation has an
accompanying regulation that allows continued customary and
traditional use for wood gathering and fish-related log floats.
In fact, up to 30,000 board of feet of logs can be taken without
invoking the Forest Resources and Practices Act ("Forest
Practices Act"). Therefore, folks can continue to cut logs on
the riverbanks in a fashion similar to what Chair Fate just
mentioned.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE indicated this is good legislation. She
recalled working as the assistant commissioner of DNR and
remarked that the work behind the FRPA, riparian standards, and
buffer zones took years. She informed the committee that this
legislation was originally HB 131 and SB 98, which moved through
the House Special Committee on Fisheries, the House and Senate
Resources Standing Committees, and the Senate Finance Committee
without opposition.
CHAIR FATE, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed the public testimony.
Number 2520
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if this legislation would cover
[Regions] I, II, and III.
SENATOR SEEKINS clarified that this legislation basically covers
[Region] III, with some minor boundary changes below Seward
toward the Homer area. He noted that [Region] III can basically
be described as north of the Alaska Range.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, upon reviewing the definitions, asked why
this wouldn't simply be a state issue; he surmised that there
must be some reason that prevents applying this legislation to
other areas.
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that there are riparian standards
for different areas. Region III is the last and probably the
most current and best [of the riparian standards]. The
standards attempt to meet the types of conditions existing in
the region. He related his belief that the definitions [for the
different riparian standards] would be fairly uniform. He said
he would prefer [including the definitions for each region] -
even if that meant redundancy - in order to have an accurate
definition.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO surmised that Southeast Alaska, with its
fast-moving streams, waterfalls, and large-trunk trees, would
require different regulations than would the Yukon Flats, with
its meandering river. Representative Gatto related that he'd
read the legislation to be all encompassing, although he now
understood it not to be.
SENATOR SEEKINS said it's customized, as much as possible, to
the terrain and type of growth in the region.
Number 2373
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report SB 88, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 88(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 7:25 p.m. to 7:26 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|