Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/16/2003 01:35 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 16, 2003
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 149(RES)
"An Act relating to timber, to the sale of timber by the state,
and to the management of state forests."
- MOVED CSSB 149(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to carbon sequestration; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 196(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 149
SHORT TITLE:TIMBER/ TIMBER SALES/ STATE FORESTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/17/03 0517 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/17/03 0517 (S) RES, FIN
03/28/03 0617 (S) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS B
05/02/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/02/03 (S) Heard & Held
05/02/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/05/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/06/03 1178 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1DNP 1AM NEW
TITLE
05/06/03 1179 (S) DP: OGAN, SEEKINS, STEVENS B,
WAGONER,
05/06/03 1179 (S) DYSON; DNP: ELTON; AM:
LINCOLN
05/06/03 1179 (S) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
05/07/03 1234 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
05/11/03 1320 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/11/2003
05/11/03 1320 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/11/03 1320 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/11/03 1320 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
5/12 CALENDAR
05/12/03 1340 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
149(RES)
05/12/03 1340 (S) PASSED Y12 N8
05/12/03 1340 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/13/03 1366 (S) RECONSIDERATION HELD TO
5/14/03
05/14/03 1406 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/14/03 1408 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/14/03 1408 (S) VERSION: CSSB 149(RES)
05/15/03 1676 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/15/03 1676 (H) RES, FIN
05/16/03 1734 (H) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
05/16/03 (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
05/12/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/12/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/14/03 1663 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA,
HAWKER
05/14/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/14/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/15/03 1714 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
05/16/03 1766 (H) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
05/16/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KELLY HUBER, Staff
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 149 on behalf of Senator
Taylor, sponsor.
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Regional Forester
Northern Region Office
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained SB 149 and answered questions;
answered questions relating to HB 196.
LESLIE GUSTAFSON, Owner
White Spruce Enterprises
Salcha, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged support for SB 149 as someone whose
business uses the Tanana Valley State Forest.
SCOTT BATES
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on SB 149, voiced concern
about the removal of "multiple use" language from the statutes
and cited a study showing the sheer volume of nontimber forest
uses in the Tanana Valley State Forest.
DEIRDRE HELFFERICH
Ester, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149, saying her main
concern is with replacing the primary importance of multiple use
management with timber management in the hierarchy; spoke in
favor of a broad spectrum of uses.
AL PACH
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149, suggesting multiple
uses can continue even if timber becomes the primary use.
MARJORIE K. COLE
Ester, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149 in opposition to
promoting timber management to the primary use; spoke about
quality of life for Interior Alaskans and other concerns.
GLENN JUDAY, Ph.D.
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149, saying it is fatally
flawed; suggested having Section 11 apply to commercial
resources, not timber specifically, and proposed language.
LAURA HENRY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149; suggested either
tabling the bill until the interim or keeping the multiple-use
priority, which better reflects the diversity of public opinion
in Interior Alaska.
JAN DAWE, Ph.D., Director
Alaska Boreal Forest Council
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149; urged the committee to
hold the bill over the interim to work on it or, if it must be
moved, to amend the portion dealing with the primary purpose of
a state forest to include multiple use; provided suggested
language.
EMILY FERRY
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about SB 149, saying it
needs serious changes or should be voted down altogether.
ANISSA BERRY, President
Lower Chatham Conservation Society
Port Alexander, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced indignation about SB 149, stating
concern that it will result in lost revenues and will jeopardize
fisheries, habitat, recreation, and subsistence; urged members
to either not pass it or change multiple use portions.
SETH LITTLE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the current
version of SB 149 and changing the mandate for multiple use to
timber production as the primary purpose; urged members to
listen to suggestions and possible amendments proposed by
previous testifiers and to rework the bill in committee.
BOBBIE JO SKIBO
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149, echoing concerns
voiced by previous testifiers and stating opposition not to
logging, but to a focus on a single-interest rather than
multiple use.
MATT DAVIDSON
Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 149, calling it poorly
crafted and expressing concerns about what it changes with
regard to planning, riparian standards, and other matters; asked
the committee to take time to really look at it.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-46, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Representatives Fate, Masek,
Gatto, Heinze, Morgan, Guttenberg, and Cissna were present at
the call to order. Representative Wolf arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
SB 149-TIMBER/ TIMBER SALES/ STATE FORESTS
Number 0130
CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 149(RES), "An Act relating to timber, to
the sale of timber by the state, and to the management of state
forests."
Number 0178
KELLY HUBER, Staff to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced SB 149 on behalf of Senator Taylor,
sponsor. Noting that this bill was done in conjunction with the
administration, Ms. Huber turned the presentation over to
Mr. Maisch.
Number 0244
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Regional Forester, Northern Region Office,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
paraphrased the sponsor statement/sectional analysis in
committee packets. He explained that SB 149 addresses planning
requirements for forest management, including forest management
plans for legislatively designated state forests, Five-Year
Schedules of Timber Sales (FYSTSs), and Forest Land Use Plans
(FLUPs) for individual timber sales. Currently, there are two
legislatively designated state forests: the Tanana Valley State
Forest and the Haines State Forest Resource Management Area.
MR. MAISCH discussed how the legislation affects Forest Land Use
Plans. Section 1 moves the guidance on when general planning
requirements under AS 38.04.065 apply to FLUPs, a technical
change based on other changes in the bill. Section 2 deletes
the reference to consideration of information on collective
effects of forest activities, because consideration of
collective effects cannot be done on a sale-by-sale basis and is
better addressed through regional planning such as FLUPs.
Section 3 deletes the list of specific uses that must be
considered in FLUPs and replaces it with a requirement that
FLUPs on land outside the state forests shall consider nontimber
forest resources and uses.
Number 0414
MR. MAISCH turned to how the legislation affects Five-Year
Schedules of Timber Sales. He said Section 4 changes the five-
year schedule from an annual to a [biennial] requirement, to
reduce the division's workload from preparing and reviewing the
schedules while keeping the industry and the public informed
about proposed sales. Section 5 changes the requirement that a
sale be on two schedules preceding the sale; now the sale would
have to be on one of the two schedules preceding the sale.
Individual sales will be reviewed through the FLUP process.
Section 16 is a technical change he said he wouldn't go into.
MR. MAISCH addressed state forest purposes and forest management
plans, probably one of the more important aspects of the bill.
He said Sections 8 and 9 address management plans for the Haines
State Forest [Resource Management Area]. They replace the
specific planning requirements for the Haines State Forest
Resource Management Area in [AS] 41.15.315(a) with the
[requirements for] state forest management plans in [AS]
41.17.230. Hence the two state forests would be subject to the
same guidance for management plans. Specific requirements for
consultation between DNR and the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G) and between ADF&G and local fish and game advisory
committees would be retained. Deleted are requirements for the
plan to be based on the inventory completed within the last 10
years and to revise the plan when a new inventory is done. He
told members this wouldn't require any changes at this time to
the current forest management plans for the state forests.
Number 0563
MR. MAISCH turned to Sections 11, 12, and 15. He pointed out
that they change the management emphasis in legislatively
designated state forests from a mix of multiple use that
provides for timber management; now it will be timber management
that allows other beneficial uses compatible with timber. These
sections change the primary purpose of the state forests from
multiple use that provides for production, utilization, and
replenishment of timber resources; now it will be timber
management while allowing other beneficial uses.
MR. MAISCH said these sections delete "multiple use" as a
principle for managing a state forest. These changes apply to
the Tanana Valley State Forest. The Haines State Forest
[Resource Management Area's] purpose is established under
AS 41.15.300 to AS 41.15.315, and isn't changed by this bill.
MR. MAISCH explained that Section 13 requires that forest
management plans consider nontimber uses to the extent such uses
are compatible with timber management. In conjunction with
Section 3, it moves consideration of nontimber uses in state
forests from the individual FLUP to the management plan for the
state forest. This section applies to both state forests.
Number 0668
MR. MAISCH said Section 14 makes the timing requirement for
review of forest management plans more flexible; rather than
every five years, it's as necessary. Section 16 deletes the
requirement for proposals of new state forests to include
findings of incompatibility for the timber and nontimber uses
previously listed in AS 38.05.112(c) and agency comments on such
findings; it also deletes the requirement that forest management
plans be provided to the legislature after adoption.
Number 0722
MR. MAISCH explained that Section 10 revises the conditions for
imposing riparian-protection standards on state land that are
more stringent than those established in the Forest Resources
and Practices Act. He noted that SB 88 establishes those
standards for the Interior.
MR. MAISCH turned to negotiated timber sales for local
manufacture of wood products. He said Section 6 broadens the
area where sales under this section may be offered. Section 7
makes the definition of "high value-added wood product" more
flexible by allowing the commissioner to determine what
additional products qualify. He offered to answer questions.
Number 0812
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his understanding that
management of the Tanana Valley State Forest has been with "user
groups and large groups of people getting together and sitting
at the table." He asked whether this [bill] came from a
consensus process with the affected constituent groups.
MR. MAISCH said it wasn't done through a process used for
revising the forest management plan itself, but different people
were consulted in the community by the parties who worked on
this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether it was part of, or
outside of, the consensus process.
MR. MAISCH said he wasn't fully involved in preparing this
legislation, was present currently to address the sectional
analysis, and couldn't answer that.
Number 0860
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to page 4, line 5, where it talks
about a commissioner's finding of compelling state interest;
page 5, line 4, where it talks about a finding of
incompatibility in the management plan; and page 5, lines 11-
12, where it says "when necessary". He said he could deal with
the first ones, though they leave it to interpretation of the
commissioner. Highlighting "when necessary", however, he said
it's a wide-open door, whereas [review] has been required every
five years. He asked Mr. Maisch how he feels about the change.
MR. MAISCH offered his experience that five years was too short.
He said the division had found itself in a never-ending loop in
terms of revising the forest management plan, and he believed
the last plan revision took close to seven years to do; thus the
whole plan would have to be revised in two and a half years. He
opined that "when necessary" is appropriate; if there are
changes in forest conditions or the level of management, the
plan can be revised.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired about having it say "no less than
one time in any 10-year period".
MR. MAISCH said it'd be nice to have more flexibility than that.
He elaborated:
Currently, the level of management that occurs on the
state forest, even over a 10-year period if we look
back over the last 20, there's been not a lot of
change in the level of harvesting that's ... taken
place. So I'd hate to commit the division to a review
process that's not needed, because those review
processes are very time consuming, and they cost the
state a lot ... of money and time to complete.
Number 1114
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA addressed removal of the principle of
multiple use in the bill; she cited page 4, line 14, Section 12,
as an example. [The sponsor statement/sectional analysis for
Sections 11, 12, and 15 said these sections "delete multiple use
as a principle for managing a State Forest."] She suggested this
might be logical in some areas where multiple use is minor, but
pointed out that in some areas of the state, multiple use is
extremely important to the community, for tourism and for a
number of local businesses; looking at just timber sales could
hurt the local economy. She asked why multiple use is being
replaced with timber in some of these places.
MR. MAISCH asserted that it doesn't remove the principle of
multiple use from management of the state forests, but places
timber management above those other multiple uses. He
explained:
Those other multiple uses will continue to occur, and,
in most cases, are very compatible with timber
management. In fact, a lot of the access that's
provided ... in the state forest for other multiple
uses is provided because of the timber management
program. So it does not remove multiple use
management from the state forests; however, it does
put timber at a higher consideration level, should
there be a conflict between timber management and
multiple uses.
Number 1258
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether that would be true even if
the multiple use was jeopardized by timber production. She also
asked whether timber production trumps any other local use.
MR. MAISCH answered, "Within the state forests, ... if there
were competing uses for the same piece of land, we'd consider
timber higher than the other uses. ... I don't know if I'd say
it would trump per se, but it would certainly put it higher up
on the list of considerations." In response to a question from
Chair Fate, he said:
The forest management plan still stays in effect on
this, and it goes into great detail in the plan about
other uses that are permitted and allowed on the state
forest. The way I understand this piece of
legislation, it just simply puts timber at a higher
consideration level, should there be a conflict
between multiple uses and timber management.
CHAIR FATE asked, "But those are in the plans as well as in this
piece of legislation?"
MR. MAISCH affirmed that and said, "They are listed out in quite
a bit of detail and how we intend to manage those other uses
within the state forest."
Number 1387
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether [the division] does
timber sales now.
MR. MAISCH answered in the affirmative. In further response, he
said, "We're under 10 percent of what the allowable harvest
levels would be on the state forest. Right now, roughly about a
thousand acres a year are harvested in the state forest or on
nearby classified lands."
Number 1419
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether all of those leases or
bids are used, whether there is competition for them, and
whether there is a need for more now. He said he was trying to
figure out why timber would be put above other purposes. For
example, is the timber harvest not meeting the needs of the
community?
MR. MAISCH said it depends on the area of the state forest being
discussed. The state forest is divided into four management
areas. In some, sale offerings are keeping pace with demand.
In the Fairbanks area, for example, sale offerings are ahead of
demand level, and there are some sales available via over-the-
counter offerings. He noted that the over-the-counter offerings
have started to pick up lately, with a number being sold in the
last few weeks.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked, "But you're still below the
level that you can be without interfering with multiple use?"
MR. MAISCH responded that only about 10 percent of what would be
permitted under the sustained yield concept is being harvested.
CHAIR FATE offered that it isn't a matter of having land
available for multiple use; rather, the use of the timber in
that plan [would have] a higher priority than multiple use.
MR. MAISCH agreed, saying multiple use is a concept that "all
these uses can occur across the landscape more or less
simultaneously." He added, "There are rare occasions where you
may have conflicts between some of those multiple uses and
timber management."
Number 1570
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE referred to the sponsor
statement/sectional analysis for Section 6, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Negotiated timber sales for local manufacture of wood
products
Section 6 (AS 38.05.123(d) broadens the area where
sales under this section may be offered. Currently
offerings are limited to areas "designated for
forestry uses" by an area plan, to areas where
forestry is an allowed use. This would allow this
sale type in areas that have more general designations
such as "Resource Management" or "General Use".
Review of proposed sales through the FYSTS and FLUP
processes would continue to ensure that proposed sales
are compatible with the management intent for the
particular location.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked how much land this affects.
MR. MAISCH said he didn't know off the top of his head.
Number 1623
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked whether there has been any effect from
the spruce-bark beetle.
MR. MAISCH said no. The spruce beetle that has affected the
Kenai Peninsula hasn't occurred [in the same way] in the
Interior. A different beetle, the "Ips" beetle, impacted the
area a few years ago; it doesn't cause widespread mortality, but
usually kills individual tops of trees. In further response, he
said there's always a potential [that the spruce beetle could
have an effect]. He explained:
The spruce beetle is here in the Interior, just like
other parts of the state. It's at ... what would be
referred to as an endemic level, which is it's always
present. It could at any time perhaps break out into
an epidemic; we had one on the Yukon River in the mid-
to-late '80s. It was one of the first times the
spruce beetle was recorded that had [an] outbreak as
large as ... it got. It did run its course in about a
five-year period of time, affected mostly Native
timber holdings, some state timber holdings, but in a
very remote area in the Interior. It could occur
here, but it's hard to predict when and if those
conditions would actually take place.
CHAIR FATE asked that Mr. Maisch stand by on teleconference for
later questions. He requested that testifiers limit testimony
to about two minutes.
Number 1717
LESLIE GUSTAFSON, Owner, White Spruce Enterprises, informed
members that she is involved in the timber-harvest industry in
the Tanana Valley State Forest and with value-added construction
from her company's log and lumber products. She urged support
for SB 149 in its current form, without further amendment. She
told members:
This bill supports the forest industry, one of our
state's renewable resources. In SB 88, we gave up
buffer zones to work with groups opposed to forest
use. But in this bill, we want to protect the timber
base and the purpose of the part of our forests. Our
forests do have multiple uses for different groups.
But much of that use is created by the timber-harvest
roads. After we put in a road, we see the ATVs [all-
terrain vehicles], the snow machines, the mushers, the
horseback riders that use these roads that are in and
would not be available if they weren't in there, as
far as even firewood cutters, lots of them, ... as
soon as we put in a road. The roads would not have
been created if there was not some timber harvest in
there. We see moose; we see bear [and] other game in
these open areas that are created.
There's approximately 20 million acres of state parks
currently, with their primary use ... for
recreationalists and ... off-limits to timber harvest.
There should be some equity to the use of the small
section of forest that is designed for timber harvest
as a primary purpose. I see this as "there is not a
lot of harvest." ... I like the wording that has some
primary use, with recreational use and other uses on
top of it.
Number 1822
SCOTT BATES voiced concern about the disappearance of "multiple
use" language from the statute. He said there are many multiple
consumptive uses in the forest in the Tanana River watershed,
including in the Tanana Valley State Forest; these uses include
commercial, subsistence, and general household uses by Alaskans.
He surmised that the same is true for the rest of the state.
MR. BATES referred to a document he'd provided entitled "The
Tanana Valley Forest Use Survey: How households used the forest
in the Tanana River Watershed from September 1999 to August
2000." He said he'd worked on this survey; his project was
aimed at placing values on these harvest activities. In the
survey, households reported harvesting moose, firewood, berries,
birch sap, diamond willow, artist conks, and many other things.
Table 4 shows probably 35 percent of Tanana Valley households
picked blueberries in 2000; the potential harvest was 112,000-
plus quarts in the Tanana Valley alone. If they'd had to
purchase the berries at grocery stores, they'd have spent over
$1.75 million. For other berries, it would take close to $3
million of effort to replace them for Tanana Valley households.
CHAIR FATE informed Mr. Bates that committee members didn't have
the packet he'd provided, but asked him to continue.
MR. BATES noted that Tables [2 and 3] summarize timber and
nontimber harvests. For example, firewood replacement value for
Tanana Valley households was more than $5 million. Nontimber
items that were collected included diamond willow, at more than
$200,000 in replacement value for people who buy walking sticks
instead of harvesting them; 30,000 pole logs, which would have
required a quarter million dollars to purchase equivalent 4x4s
at a lumber yard; and 17,000 pieces of birch bark to make into
baskets, for example, to sell in tourist shops.
MR. BATES closed by saying the survey shows Alaskans are
accustomed to many uses for the forests, including the Tanana
Valley State Forest; he surmised this is true for the other
state forest as well. He said an ADF&G survey showed that
Alaska's registered voters value wildlife viewing at $408 per
trip and value other trips during which wildlife viewing is
incidental at $82. He expressed hope that members would look at
the rest of the report he'd provided to see the sheer volume of
activities participating in by Alaskans.
Number 2078
CHAIR FATE said the committee would look closely at it.
Referring to Mr. Bates' concern about the disappearance of
multiple use, he opined that nothing in the legislation or
previous testimony even suggests the disappearance of multiple
use; rather, it sets some priorities.
Number 2139
DEIRDRE HELFFERICH testified on her own behalf, noting that she
is the managing editor for both Mushing magazine and the
publications office of the School of Natural Resources and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Alaska. She said her main
concern is with replacing the primary importance of multiple use
management with timber management in the hierarchy. Multiple
use implies the inclusion of timber, she pointed out.
MS. HELFFERICH referred to Section 13, beginning at [page 4,
line 28], noting that the new language says in part, "To the
extent they are found to be compatible with the primary purpose
of state forests"; thus the plan shall be geared toward timber.
She said it should be geared toward a broad spectrum of uses
instead. She offered her perspective that mushers use [the
forest] with the trees intact, and expressed concern that this
hierarchy [change] is unnecessary.
CHAIR FATE remarked that he was a musher for 16 years and was
always happy to see a trail that was made through the timber.
MS. HELFFERICH said she didn't disagree.
Number 2249
AL PACH informed members that he's been in the sawmill business
33 years. He said multiple uses have been happening the whole
time he's been here and he sees no reason they won't continue,
even if timber is the state forest's primary purpose, which he
said was intended when it was first formed. He suggested that
because of the large amount of acreage, timber harvest is like a
grain of sand on the beach, and said people don't need to do
activities where logging occurs. He mentioned 33 million acres
in the Tanana Valley and said this is only talking about 1.8
million, of which a small fraction is being logged each year.
Number 2327
MARJORIE K. COLE, noting that she has hiked and canoed in Alaska
since 1966, told members:
Unlike Alaskans across the political spectrum who
protested SB 310 in 1994, I am opposed to elevating
timber management to the primary use. People
testified then in favor of multiple practical uses of
the forest, and also of its spiritual uses. Over and
over again they testified. These two words are not
opposed. They are two words for the very same thing,
which is quality of life.
Our quality of life as Interior Alaskans is not
located in the investment portfolios of timber
managers. Do you hear this sound? [Rustling paper.]
That's a Fred Meyer shopping bag made from timber
pulp. This is not a value-added product as [SB] 149
describes it. It is a value-taken-away product.
Alaskans do not want to see our forests stripped for
this purpose.
[SB] 149 might apply a little salve to the state's
budget crisis, but it will not add to quality of life
for Interior Alaskans. Today's [Fairbanks News-Miner]
contains a slew of letters in support of an income
tax. Obviously, we are asking you guys for a little
more discussion and debate, a completely open process,
not a last-minute, crisis-driven rush through of a
bill like [SB] 149. Across the political spectrum, we
ask you for more debate. It is shabby of the
legislature to try to rush this bill through. It is
also alarmingly slick.
Number 2433
MS. COLE continued:
Will Rogers said that the pioneers were really just
people robbing from future generations. I'd ask you
again: Let's not be this way. We spoke up in 1994,
and if the price of a healthy, intact forest is
eternal vigilance, then here we are [to] speak up
again. I'm adding my voice to those who are telling
you to please leave it alone. Wait. Open up the
discussion.
It will not grow back the same. A ... renewable
resource, as you call it, is not a green light to take
the money and run. Forests did not return in Michigan
or Washington State, to places where I've also done a
lot of hiking and canoeing. They are changed forever
by harvest. The rate of tree growth has already
slowed down due to global warming and our slightly
damper climate. White spruce grows slower this year
than it did 20 years ago; ask any forester. An intact
forest is also essential for air exchange on this
planet. We need the planet just as it is, for our
strength and health, just as Samson needed his long
hair.
Number 2472
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Cole whether she was part of the
management group that worked on the Tanana Valley State Forest
[plan] in the past.
MS. COLE said no, although she'd read parts of it and the
testimony from 1994 through the present.
Number 2493
GLENN JUDAY, Ph.D., testified on his own behalf, noting that he
is a professor of forest ecology in the Forest Sciences
Department at the university, has been a national office holder
in the Society of American Foresters, received a plaque in 1983
for his efforts in establishing the Tanana Valley State Forest,
and worked with [then-Senator] Bettye Fahrenkamp in drafting the
original legislation establishing state forests. He told
members:
I'm here to just point out that I think the bill in
front of you is fatally flawed. ... There are two
issues that are floating around here, and I'm not
intending to address one of them. One of them is the
perennial argument about whether our public lands
should be used for preservation or for commercial
purposes; I'm not here addressing that. What I am
here [for], as a conservative speaking to
conservatives, is to ask you not to do something dumb,
which is to try to pick winners and losers in the
economy. And it's not a good idea.
I would suggest that you just replace the language ...
in the current bill draft in ... Section 11 with ...
the statement, "a forest management that provides for
the production, utilization, and replenishment of
commercial resources" - not timber resources - because
if you say timber resources, that means you are
elevating a priority; you're making a decision that
[an] on-the-ground-level forest manager should make as
to which commercial resource would be of the greatest
benefit to the state on the public lands. And you
will be tying his hands from making a logical,
rational ... decision that meets the local needs. And
I don't understand why you would want to do that.
So I'm just saying don't elevate timber resources if
your purpose here is to try to make clear that, ... as
a public policy, you want to see the state lands used
for commercial purposes for the benefit of the
citizenry. Leave the language "commercial resources"
and let people who can deal with changing situations
on the ground make that decision.
Number 2653
DR. JUDAY, in response to a question from Representative Wolf,
said he'd edited some papers for the Forest History Society.
CHAIR FATE announced that Dr. Juday's suggestion would be
considered. He stated his intention of moving the bill forward
but said there can always be amendments on the floor.
Number 2696
LAURA HENRY testified, noting that she is a graduate student at
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). She told members:
I lived here in Fairbanks for about two and a half,
three years between 1997 and 1999, and I left to
return home ... to the eastern area of the country, in
West Virginia and Pennsylvania, for a few years. And
I came back to Fairbanks partly because I had this
opportunity to participate as a graduate student and
because ... I love Interior Alaska; it's a place I
want to spend more time.
I want to start by saying that ... I support local
logging industries like those of some of the ...
testimony we've heard here from some of the people
who've testified here, Leslie and Al. But I primarily
support management of our Tanana Valley State Forest
with a multiple-use perspective. I think that
"multiple use" language leaves room for logging,
leaves room for the timber industry without making the
timber industry the management priority.
I believe ... a multiple-use priority better reflects
the diversity of public opinion in Interior Alaska, at
any rate. During my previous time in Fairbanks, I
participated briefly - about three months, I think it
was - on the Cache Creek advisory subcommittee ... to
the citizens' advisory committee [CAC]. During that
process, I ... gained a lot of faith in that
consensus-based process, to pass recommendations for
the management of the Tanana Valley State Forest on to
the CAC. And my concern with this bill is that it's
removing a lot of the hard work of that consensus-
based process that gave voice to so many diverse
public opinions. That's ... my primary concern, is
that this bill is ignoring that, that really intense,
... very good-natured process.
MS. HENRY closed by suggesting that the bill be tabled [until]
the interim in order to have more discussion and debate before
rewording the management priority of the state forests. In the
alternative, she recommended retaining the "multiple use"
perspective or priority language.
Number 2824
JAN DAWE, Ph.D., Director, Alaska Boreal Forest Council, pointed
out that members should have in their packets a memorandum dated
May 16, 2003. She explained that this document provides results
that were e-mailed in response to a question asked of natural
resource professionals and members of the public about the
preferred wording with regard to the state forests. She urged
the committee to hold the bill over the interim in order to work
on it. If it must be moved this session, though, she asked that
the portion be amended that deals with the primary purpose of a
state forest. She said:
Our testimony goes in line with much of what has come
before, with one exception: the Alaska Boreal Forest
Council is in the business of promoting sustainable
community and economies throughout Alaska. We would
be okay if the primary purpose of the state forest had
a management emphasis on timber, as long as the words
"multiple use" remain in the primary purpose.
For that reason, if any of the ... preferred language
that you see in our memo to you is okay to the council
- one that is supported by ... Carol Lewis, dean and
director of the School of Natural Resources and
Agricultural Sciences, and director of the
[Agricultural] and Forestry Experimental Station at
the university, and also by Edmond Packee, who is a
certified forester and soil scientist - the primary
purpose reads exactly as it's in the CS, with the
addition of one word: "multiple" after the word
"beneficial". That would be okay.
Number 2916
DR. DAWE continued:
Better than that is what Dr. Juday mentioned before,
which is ... Option 1, which reads: "The primary
purpose in the establishment of state forests is
forest management" - instead of timber management -
"that provides for the production, utilization, and
replenishment of commercially valuable resources while
allowing other multiple uses of public land and
resources." This is our preferred wording from the
Alaska Boreal Forest Council. It also was the
preferred wording of five people who responded to our
e-mail request who are professional resource managers.
So, either one of those statements. But without the
word "multiple" in the primary purpose, we have to,
with all respect, say that this change is profound -
not in the short term perhaps, with the current
management that we have, but certainly when the Tanana
Valley State Forest [management] plan is updated the
next time; the tenor of the debate and the discussions
will be changed if the primary purpose were no longer
"multiple use management," but solely for timber
resources. ...
And a final historical note, just to add to Glenn
Juday's: if we do have the packet, which the Division
of Forestry can provide to you with the wording going
between [then-Senator] Bettye Fahrenkamp and the
drafters of the original legislation, that supports
putting land into public ownership for multiple uses,
including extractive resources and nonextractive uses,
commercial, private, and public, and to keep that as
under multiple-use management. It has always been the
primary purpose to be under multiple-use management,
and we hope that the 23rd legislature finds it a
responsible thing to keep it under that - make your
primary resource emphasis on timber, but keep multiple
use in.
[Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's
log notes, was a member's request to Dr. Dawe for the language
from then-Senator Fahrenkamp.]
TAPE 03-46, SIDE B
Number 3014
DR. DAWE asked whether there was time to get the information to
the committee before the bill is moved out.
CHAIR FATE indicated he meant to move the bill out that day.
Number 2944
EMILY FERRY, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC),
explained that SEACC is a coalition of 18 member groups in 14
communities from Ketchikan to Yakutat; members include
commercial fishermen and small-scale value-added timber
operators. She told the committee that putting timber before
all other uses of the state forest lands would make second-class
concerns of fisheries, subsistence, recreation, tourism, and
other uses; this violates the state's public trust doctrine to
manage all of Alaska's resources for all citizens, not just the
special interests of a selected few.
MS. FERRY also expressed concern that the bill makes little
sense financially because, according to DNR, the fiscal
year 2002 (FY 02) state timber sales only brought in $500,000,
while state parks brought in nearly $2 million. In addition,
she said the Haines State Forest Resource Management Area now is
being managed almost exclusively for tourism-recreation, in part
because the world timber markets are so low; furthermore, the
Tongass National Forest has nearly 300 million board feet under
contract to be cut, but the timber isn't being cut because the
worldwide timber markets are so low. She told members:
So value-added products mean that we have jobs added
to our communities. Traditional pulp and timber
processing yields about 5 jobs per million board feet
of wood processed. Value-added operations typically
yield 14 to 18 jobs for the same amount of wood.
Clearly, pulping does not create the same number of
jobs as traditional high value-added activities. The
definition of "high value-added" should not be changed
to include pulp.
And finally, this bill represents another attempt to
cut the citizens and our representatives out of the
management of our public lands and, again, violates
the state's obligation to manage all resources for all
people. ... This bill needs serious changes or should
be voted down altogether.
CHAIR FATE offered his understanding that the forest management
plans and local plans do involve the stakeholders, and thus the
public has a review process and due-process consideration.
Number 2828
ANISSA BERRY, President, Lower Chatham Conservation Society,
told members she is indignant that this bill's primary
motivation is to turn the state forests into clear cuts, which
in the long run will result in lost state revenues and will
jeopardize fisheries, recreation, and subsistence from these
state forests. Noting that the bill says the state forests will
be managed primarily for timber, with other values and uses such
as recreation, watersheds, habitat, and subsistence being
secondary, she said under this bill the state can create
millions of acres of new forests without considering whether any
other use or resource preempts these lands from becoming state
forests solely created for a timber base. She told members:
In the bigger picture ... Governor Murkowski envisions
a future land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service to
create a huge state forest in the Tongass. Senate
Bill 149's purpose is to set the groundwork for a
management directive of logging before any exchange
takes place. Hundreds of thousands of acres of
Southeast Alaska's remaining intact watersheds would
potentially be threatened by timber harvest and
reduced habitat protections, under current state law
and Senate Bill 149.
Too many of Alaska's prized resources here in
Southeast Alaska, such as our world-class fisheries,
our million-dollar viewscapes, and healthy wild game,
are at stake. ... They are too Alaskan to risk losing
for the short-term gain of turning state forests to
stumps. On the next island over from here, many
locals from our community use the forest. ... They
flight see. They hunt and trap and fish. And those
are not compatible uses with timber harvest. Our use
will be overridden because of the quality of the high-
productive forestland that is over there that could be
turned into state forest in the future.
Sufficient buffers for salmon habitat have no
guarantees under this bill. Fish habitat will only be
protected if the commissioner makes a finding of,
quote, "significant state interest when necessary".
Number 2714
MS. BERRY concluded by saying she feels the risks to other users
will be great if these lands are harvested. Alluding to [the
administration's stated intention of] resolving fiscal problems
through resource development, she said clear cutting millions of
acres of state land leaves the landowner - the state - with
little gain compared with a multitude of losses in the long run.
She surmised that most of the timber will be exported to Asia in
the round, and said she sees little gain with the bill. She
urged members either to not pass it or to make huge changes to
the "multiple use" part.
Number 2687
SETH LITTLE began by saying he would echo previous testimony
that it is wrong to replace the current multiple-use mandate
with timber production as the primary purpose. He cited
benefits to local and state economies from multiple use such as
for food, materials, and value-added wood products, and cited
tourism and recreation as examples of indirect benefits. Saying
healthy forests provide habitat for wildlife and ample
opportunities for hunters, and that intact forests provide clean
water and habitat for Alaska's world-renowned fisheries, he
expressed concern that other, economically viable uses besides
timber will suffer in the long run.
MR. LITTLE urged members to look at testimony, suggestions, and
possible amendments proposed that day, rather than move the bill
to the House floor for amendments. He said committees are set
up to really look at bills and figure out what needs to be
changed to make them better before they go to the floor.
Stating opposition to the current bill version, he asked members
to listen to the concerns voiced by the public with regard to
these policies that will affect the state.
Number 2531
BOBBIE JO SKIBO told members she would echo and reiterate
concerns expressed this day, especially those from the forest
ecologist from the university; Emily Ferry's economic arguments;
and some arguments about aesthetics, recreation, and multiple
use. She said she was thrilled that the majority of folks
testifying that day were speaking in opposition. Specifying
that she isn't opposed to logging, she noted that she lives in a
wooden cabin and burns firewood, part of the multiple uses of
the state forests. She spoke in opposition to prioritizing a
single-interest focus on logging. She told members:
Our state was built on a foundation of resource
extraction. However, it has definitely progressed to
a ... multifaceted, multiuse economy, ... which does
include logging, tourism - all the lists - and timber
extraction. And it's not exclusive; we have a lot of
uses on our forests. And we've watched logging create
a deficiency in the overall well-being of the Tongass,
and ... we've watched the state and the federal
government spend a lot of money to let this go on and
continue. Our timber is exported, generating little
benefit to the local Alaskans.
MS. SKIBO agreed with earlier testimony that a paper bag isn't
value-added, and suggested the need to really understand its
definition. She said job security, recreation, and multiple use
should be the priorities on state lands. Highlighting
Ms. Ferry's point and the difference between the $10 million
spent by DNR on forest programs and the money brought in, Ms.
Skibo asked how [timber] can be the priority when it's losing
money. Saying she feels this is irresponsible management, she
told members, "As Alaskans, we can do better and be more
creative with our industries."
Number 2320
MATT DAVIDSON, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), called this a
poorly crafted bill. Noting that it's the first House hearing,
he suggested the bill needs to be looked at closely. Addressing
his first point, he told members:
When the state does timber planning, they have an area
plan, the regional plan, which I have one of. ... So
the state is saying that this document should be used
to do land planning. It should look at ... wildlife
habitat and recreational use and fish and game
habitat. It doesn't do that. ... It says although
this plan establishes areas for potential timber
harvest, it does not make timber-harvest-specific
decisions. Before timber-harvest decisions are made,
they need to do a Forest Land Use Plan.
Well, this bill takes away ... the consideration
elements, a part of forest land use planning. So
they're saying that this is the correct place to look
at those broad issues that will happen from logging,
and this bill ... tells you that they can't consider
those broad issues ... in the local area plan. These
plans don't do the planning that ... they're charging
them with doing. In fact, we're taking away ... the
requirement that these plans be amended, both the
state forest plans and the area plans. So we're
really taking away planning, to consider [AS]
38.05.112; those elements are really important in
terms of planning.
Number 2235
MR. DAVIDSON turned attention to a second concern: the Tanana
Valley State Forest plan will be changed to be timber-first
management, whereas the same isn't true for the Haines forest.
He said the administration hasn't given a good reason why. He
told members:
We also know that the Murkowski Administration is
trying to create a million-acre state forest in the
Tongass, with timber-first management. Right now,
those lands are managed for multiple use by the
federal government. There's a lot of good fisheries
in Southeast Alaska that may go away under the limited
review process under this. If the state's going to
create a new state forest, there's no requirement that
the Department of Fish & Game even describe the lands
and what the uses are, and who else is using them.
The legislature deserves to know before it designates
a new state forest what's happening on those lands.
... Why is that repealed from the bill?
Representative Heinze asked a question, adding general
use ... to the list of value-added timber sale areas.
It's a lot of acreage that will now be open to
dramatic logging. ... Under the DNR area plan for
this, ... for Prince of Wales Island, a lot of the
land is designated "general use." ... It's a very big
part of the area planning ... methodology. So that
allows for some logging maybe, ... some recreation.
They ... basically decided they want to use "general
use" when they didn't want to go and designate an area
all for forestry or all for something else. But by
allowing value-added, which includes pulping, under
general use lands, we're really making a big change.
And I know the folks on Prince of Wales Island, who
are surrounded by general use lands in a lot of these
communities, are going to be really concerned when
suddenly they're wide open for value-added logging.
So I encourage you to look at your local area plans
and see how much of those lands are general use - or
settlement, for that matter, is allowed for logging.
Number 2139
MR. DAVIDSON asked the committee to take time to look at the
riparian standards. For example, why is the rule being changed
that the individual forest planner can look and expand riparian
zones, the protective areas for streams, so that now the
commissioner will have to make a finding of compelling state
interest? He said, "Why not let the forest manager? Why not
let DNR individuals, the line-item officers, make those
decisions? If it's a problem, we'll go back." He expressed
concern that "compelling state interest" isn't defined in the
bill or in statute, and said it seems to be timber harvest over
all other uses. "We really owe it to the people of the state of
Alaska to take a hard look at this bill," he concluded.
Number 2089
CHAIR FATE asked whether there were questions and then closed
public testimony. He offered his views:
There are so many laws that govern all the issues ...
that have been presented to us today, including the
one recently in riparian zones, that my fear, that all
these have been curtailed somehow in this piece of
legislation, just is not founded. And it disturbs me
to hear the denigration of a piece of legislation
without the knowledge of the overall statutes that
govern those areas that they're denigrating.
And even though there's probably some parts of this
piece of legislation that everybody ... that looks at
it may not like, there's no place in here that
curtails multiple use, although it does make the
timber the primary -- it doesn't even make it the
primary use; it just gives it that priority. That's
all it simply does.
Number 1976
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he's familiar with the Tanana
Valley but not Haines. Referring to then-Senator Fahrenkamp's
role in developing the Tanana Valley State [Forest], he said
since that time, under her tutelage and many people's efforts,
the management and development of its plan have involved a lot
of stakeholders, compromises, and decades of work. However,
this bill changes the priority so although multiple uses are
possible, timber is the priority above all others. Whether the
change may be right or wrong, he said testifiers have raised
concerns and the standard is being changed just as the
legislative session closes, even though legislators have the
right to do so.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed appreciation for testimony
addressing the multiple ways the state's resources can be grown
and used. She said she didn't think the state had done all the
creative work possible, and suggested the longest-term solutions
can be found by local entrepreneurs. She said this bill appears
to counter the wisdom of allowing the consumers, rather than the
law and government, to develop the market. She told members
she'd rather hold the bill and see how it can be better crafted.
Number 1792
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed with Representatives Guttenberg and
Cissna, saying he got the bill late and there are significant
changes. He said he'd like the opportunity to bring the bill
back up after the coming interim, with some changes, and would
recommend "do not pass" because he'd rather hold it and doesn't
see the need to move it immediately.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
CHAIR FATE announced that he wanted to move the bill out.
Number 1716
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report CSSB 149(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Morgan, Wolf,
Gatto, Heinze, and Fate voted in favor of reporting the bill
from committee. Representatives Guttenberg and Cissna voted
against it. Therefore, CSSB 149(RES) was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
HB 196-CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Number 1664
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 196, "An Act relating to carbon sequestration;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone wished to testify. [Lisa
Weissler, staff to Representative Berkowitz, sponsor, offered to
answer questions.] Chair Fate informed members that he likes
the idea of the bill.
Number 1600
CHAIR FATE brought attention to Amendment 1, which was two
amendments stapled together. The first page read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 13-16:
delete all material.
Page 2, line 27:
delete ", the Bureau of Land Management,"
Renumber subsections accordingly.
The second page read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 13:
Delete "On or before January 31, 2004"
Insert "Within nine months after the effective
date of this section"
Page 4, line 15, following "prepare":
Insert "and submit"
Page 4, line 30:
Delete all material.
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec. 4. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
DIRECTION TO SEEK FUNDING SOURCES. (a) The
Department of Natural Resources shall immediately seek
and apply for funding of the activities that would be
authorized by secs. 2 and 3 of this Act by contacting
the federal Department of Energy, the Pew Charitable
Trust, and other appropriate federal and private
sources.
(b) The Department of Natural Resources shall
notify the revisor of statutes of the day on which the
department receives approval of an application or
applications under (a) of this section that would
result in receipt of $85,000 or more from federal or
private sources.
*Sec. 5. Sections 1 and 4 of this Act take effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
*Sec. 6. Sections 2 and 3 of this Act take effect on
the day on which the department receives approval of
an application or applications under sec. 4(a) of this
Act that would result in receipt of $85,000 or more
from federal or private sources for the activities
that would be authorized by secs. 2 and 3 of this
Act."
[NOTE: Representative Berkowitz's staff later informed the
committee off record that the foregoing was the wrong amendment.
Although Amendment 1 ultimately was adopted, it is Chair Fate's
concept, discussed during this hearing, that ended up in
CSHB 196(RES).]
CHAIR FATE explained that the board will be expensive, even
though there is a zero fiscal note. He reported that he'd
talked with Representative Berkowitz about this. Chair Fate
said he himself thinks it will be just as efficient and will
provide just as much information if the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) study this and give every legislator a report
prior to the convening of the second session of the 23rd
legislature. He indicated the amendment goes along somewhat
with Representative Berkowitz's proposal, which had a little bit
different time range.
CHAIR FATE said he believes this has merit. One of the big
things about the amendment is to give information to every
member of the legislature, not just this committee. Thus when
the report comes from DEC and DNR, and probably from the
Division of Forestry through DNR, it will be disseminated to
provide information to every [legislator]. He mentioned the
need for an effective date at the beginning of the second
session of the 23rd legislature, which he said he didn't believe
was in this amendment.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously, but see note following the amendment].
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF objected for discussion purposes.
Number 1368
CHAIR FATE said the wording would have to include "within nine
months after the effective date of this section" on the second
page, relating to page 4, line 13. He suggested putting in the
language "at the beginning of the second session of the 23rd
legislature".
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked which day it would be.
CHAIR FATE said that would be determined, but [the first day of
session] is already on the calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said the amendment would include "an $85,000
federal or private-source fund" that he surmised was for doing
the study. He expressed concern that there is "a devil tied to
this one," which is the Kyoto Protocol, a pollution-control
treaty that the United States hasn't adopted. He said the
principle looks great, but highlighted Alaska's vastness and
wildfires that could cause loss of carbon credits until the
trees are replanted. He specified that his concern with the
amendment is that moving forward will cause $85,000 to be spent
just to see whether it works.
CHAIR FATE pointed out that there isn't a fiscal note to reflect
the $85,000. He asked Mr. Maisch how these huge forest fires
and the resulting smoke will be handled with regard to carbon
sequestration.
Number 1106
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Regional Forester, Division of Forestry,
Northern Region Office, Department of Natural Resources, said
it's not an issue that would be affected by this carbon
sequestration bill. He explained:
Those are either natural or man-caused fires that
certainly release a lot of atmospheric CO2 when they
burn, but that would not affect a company's ability to
sell carbon credits. The state would not have to ...
try and put these fires out in a more rapid manner or
do something to prevent those ... occurrences of
emission.
Simply, this bill would allow people that can
sequester carbon through reforestation programs or
other programs - such as offsets of burning other
fossil fuel, such as substituting wood for fuel-oil
consumption, which would create an offset - you could
trade that carbon credit to a company that needs a
credit to reduce their emissions somewhere in the
world.
Number 1041
CHAIR FATE advised Mr. Maisch that the committee was discussing
an amendment that has to do with asking DEC and DNR to write a
report about future potential and what the program is about, "an
educational piece." He noted that there is lack of familiarity
with carbon sequestration throughout the legislature. Rather
than having a board of 14, he said this would ask just DEC and
DNR to provide the legislature a report at the start of the next
session. He asked, "Do you think that's a doable thing?"
MR. MAISCH said he couldn't comment, that it is a department-
level matter, and that the department hasn't taken a position on
whether to support this legislation or not.
CHAIR FATE said he wasn't asking for support, but about an
educational report and what the department would think about
that. He mentioned time limitations for departmental personnel
and so forth. "We would much rather do it this way because it
seems much simpler than to have ... a very large board that even
though we don't have a fiscal note on that board, could be very
expensive," he added.
Number 0912
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that an entity would first have to
own carbon credits in order to sell them. He asked where they
come from and who would declare that the entity owns them.
MR. MAISCH said it would be part of the certification and
verification process. A third-party company would have to
certify that the entity had sequestered carbon through some type
of project such as reforesting on the Kenai Peninsula where
spruce-bark beetles have destroyed the natural forest cover.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified his question: "Last year, I
didn't know I had them. This year, I have a whole bunch and I'm
allowed to sell them to somebody that I don't even know. Where
did I get them from?"
MR. MAISCH replied that they've always been here, but suddenly
they have an associated economic value because of the Kyoto
Protocol. In further response, he said:
Essentially, because of that treaty, even though the
United States has not ratified that treaty but other
countries have, multinational corporations that do
business in those other countries could sell and trade
carbon anywhere in the world. And so projects in the
U.S. could be purchased; those carbon credits could be
purchased by companies that do business in these other
jurisdictions, and they can get credit in those
jurisdictions for those credits.
Number 0794
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether it's necessary to belong to
the [Kyoto Protocol] in order to do this, since it may give an
unfair advantage otherwise.
MR. MAISCH answered that one doesn't need to belong to the
treaty under the current protocols to participate.
Number 0740
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG offered his assessment that the
amendment would narrow the fiscal note to zero, since it says to
go out and raise the money. He indicated all it does it request
a report to be provided on the first day of the next session.
If the legislature doesn't authorize it or keep something
moving, then nothing happens.
Number 0670
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Gatto,
Heinze, Morgan, Guttenberg, and Fate voted in favor of
Amendment 1. Representative Wolf voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 6-1. [See note following
the text of Amendment 1.]
Number 0606
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report HB 196, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Guttenberg, Cissna,
Gatto, Heinze, Morgan, and Fate voted in favor of reporting
HB 196, as amended, from committee. Representative Wolf voted
against it. Therefore, CSHB 196(RES) was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
Number 0543
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF, noting that the committee also had just
passed SB 149 concerning the state's timber, remarked, "This one
requires that we cut our old-growth forests."
CHAIR FATE offered that HB 196 just enables a report and doesn't
authorize any program. He indicated he'd like to learn more
about this. [CSHB 196(RES) was reported from committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|