03/30/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB91 | |
| HJR40 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HJR 40 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2012
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to the regulatory and administrative standards
for managing forest resources."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40
Commending the governor and the administration for aggressively
working to enforce the rights of the state in R.S. 2477 rights-
of-way; urging the governor and the attorney general to develop
a working alliance with other western states to protect and
enforce appropriation request to fund an aggressive effort by
the state to resolve issues relating to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way,
including possible litigation, and to continue to work to
preserve the rights of the state in regard to R.S. 2477 rights-
of-way.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 91
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) P.WILSON
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) RES, FIN
03/30/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 40
SHORT TITLE: RS 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) RES, JUD
03/26/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/26/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/12 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ED WOOD, Co-Founder
Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 91.
SUZANNE WEST, Co-Founder
Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 91.
JULIANNE THOMPSON
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 91.
MICHELE PFUNDT, Member
Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of HB 91.
DAVID BEEBE
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 91.
CHRIS MAISCH, State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 91.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 40 as the prime sponsor of
the resolution.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed changes encompassed in Version M.
KENT SULLIVAN, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HJR 40.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:31 PM
CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives P.
Wilson, Dick, Gardner, Munoz, Feige, and Seaton were present at
the call to order. Representative Foster arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 91-MANAGEMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES
1:07:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 91, "An Act relating to the regulatory and
administrative standards for managing forest resources."
1:08:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, speaking as the sponsor, stated that
HB 91 defines forest management practices for logging on steep
unstable terrain within inhabited forested areas. She explained
she introduced HB 91 at the request of Mitkof Homeowners
Association. She stated that this issue arose as a result of
land sales by the state. In the Mitkof Island area near
Petersburg, the land was steep and the timber was considered not
harvestable. Years later the land was transferred to the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority (The Trust), which decided to log
the land as a means of managing its assets for income. When the
trust announced plans to log, the homeowners worried the land
was steep and unstable.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that in January 2006, some 90
homeowners organized the Mitkof Homeowners Association to deal
with the problems of potential logging on the steep land. The
group worked with the Division of Forestry Science & Technical
Committee, their legislators, and Dr. Douglas Swanston, a
certified public geologist. A great deal was learned about the
problem and possible solutions during nearly four years of
meetings and studies. The meetings were held with the state of
Alaska, Alaska Division of Forestry. The Mitkof Homeowners
Association hired Dr. Douglas Swanston to advise them. The
state's Division of Forestry is the controlling authority for
all timber harvesting in Alaska under the Alaska Forest
Resources and Practices Act (FRPA). The attorney general
indicates that the FRPA does not have the authority to address
public safety issues. The FRPA focuses on protection of public
resources, such as timber, fish habitat and water quality.
Currently, the public safety of humans living on the land is not
addressed as a resource and has not been considered when
planning timber management.
1:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said this bill would provide that
public safety will be considered when managing Alaska's forests.
The bill would add a provision in FRPA that will address public
safety as it applies - narrowed down as close as possible - to
timber harvest. Studies have shown that in areas of slopes
greater than 45 percent or a slope angle of 24 degrees the risk
is too great to chance any unnecessary land disturbance within a
half mile of a public road or inhabitants. She related that
instituting these parameters minimizes the impact to the timber
lands available for harvest. This impact would affect less than
.03 percent of the land in Southeast Alaska. Cutting timber is
a livelihood for many people and the bill attempts to minimize
the impact on them. With passage of HB 91, Alaska would join
Washington, Oregon, California, and British Columbia in adding
public safety to their forest management practices. She
highlighted that although the state sold the land, it still has
the responsibility to manage it. Further, HB 91 would add tools
to the Division of Forestry's toolbox to enable them to manage
forests, providing for the safety of Alaskans who live near
unstable, forested slopes. In response to Representative
Gardner, she restated that the state maintains the
responsibility to oversee logging even though it sold the land.
1:14:59 PM
ED WOOD, Co-Founder, Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association,
stated that the Division of Forestry's controlling authority for
all timber harvest in Alaska is the FRPA. He explained that
DNR, BLM was originally made available to the public for
settlement. In Petersburg, the original trust land properties
were granted to Alaska in 1961 and transferred to The Trust in
1996.
1:15:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that timber cutting is
restricted to 50 or 100 feet under the FRPA depending upon
whether it is on public or private land. He remarked that the
FRPA balances other resources with timber interests.
MR. WOOD offered his belief that state standards for buffers
when logging is 66 feet on each side of a stream while the U.S.
Forest Service requirement is 100 feet on each side.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added that along the highway where
homeowners live was designated as state land when they purchased
their homes. Homeowners never dreamed it would be logged and it
likely wouldn't have been logged if it had remained state land.
Once the land status changed and ownership was transferred to
The Trust, The Trust is required to manage the land to gain
revenue when possible. Thus the land has been designated for
logging.
1:17:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON questioned whether any liability is incurred
when permitted logging on steep slope has caused a land/snow
slide, which subsequently destroys private property. He asked
whether any liability exists.
MR. WOOD answered that the matter was discussed during the past
four and one half years of Board of Forestry meetings. He said
any action would be reactive in that homeowners could attempt to
sue the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office (Trust Land
Office), the state DNR, or the logging contractor. This bill
would be a preventative measure to try to avoid that matter.
1:18:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether any federal rules apply to
logging on state lands, particularly for Alaska Mental Health
Trust lands.
MR. WOOD replied no; FRPA pertains to state and private lands,
not federal lands.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that typically permits are required
of federal agencies. She wondered if any affected logging
practices.
MR. WOOD responded that the Division of Forestry must sign a
detailed plan of operation, not a permit, which acknowledges a
timber harvest at a certain place, time, and manner. He was
unaware of the requirement for anything else.
1:20:29 PM
MR. WOOD paraphrased from the following written remarks listed
under Tab B in the binder [original punctuation provided]:
Mr. Chair, House Resources Committee members: My
name is Ed Wood. I am representing the Mitkof Highway
Homeowners Association as one of its co-founders.
The Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Act is the
Division of Forestry's controlling authority for all timber
harvest in Alaska on state, municipal and private
properties.
FRPA's "Section 41.17.080 - Regulations address forest
practices such as disease and insect infestation,
reforestation, water quality, and fish habitat, road
construction and maintenance, fire and flood hazard
management and all aspects of timber harvesting. The
notable exception being public safety precautions relating
to potential landslides associated with timber harvest
within inhabited areas.
California, Oregon, and Washington each address public
safety in their forest practices pertaining to timber
harvest related landslides in one way or another. The
Minister of Forest and Range in British Columbia has the
power to intervene on any activity that is likely to have a
catastrophic impact on public safety. Alaska remains the
only coastal region north of the Mexican border that does
not address public safety in any way in its timber harvest
practices.
Because of the Division of Forestry's lack of
authority to address public safety, the Mitkof Highway
Homeowners Association approached the state forester on
October 10, 2007, with a proposal to amend the Forest
Resources & Practices Act. Our proposed amendment was a
verbatim quote from a 1983 Department of Natural Resources
document titled, "Geologic Hazards in Southeast Alaska - An
Overview," which states, in part, "Activities that increase
suspect ability to slope failures such as logging should be
prohibited or restricted if slope failures pose a danger to
life or property."
"Timber harvesting is a leading contributor to slope
failure. A correlation has been found between frequency of
mass movements and timber harvesting (Bishops and Stevens,
1964)."
1:22:47 PM
The March 17-18, 2010 Board of Forestry meeting
minutes include the attorney general's office advising that
public safety could be added to one section of the Forest
Resources Practice Act. For example, AS 41.17/060(b)(5)
without requiring that public safety be considered under
the act's other provisions.
That is what we've done with HB 91.
On a fiduciary note, some of Alaska's most valuable
assets, including roads and public buildings funded and
constructed at state expense, as well as private homes,
personal property, and human lives may be at increased risk
in unstable areas because of accelerated landslide activity
due to timber harvest.
1:23:31 PM
I doubt there is another legislator who is more
supportive of the timber industry than Representative Peggy
Wilson, however, she also sees the need to keep Alaska's
communities safe. Representative Wilson's letter to the
Board of Forestry and the State Forester three and one-half
years ago, on August 4, 2008 stated:
Other states have looked at this issue and taken
steps to ensure safety both to the environment
and to homeowners and their property. As a
legislator and also personally, I deem public
safety to be a top priority in Alaska. I am
optimistic that the Division of Forestry is
willing to move toward this goal and at the same
time provide good management practices throughout
the state. This can be a win-win situation for
the state and for Alaskans.
1:24:17 PM
Since 2007, the Division of Forestry's own
landslide science and technical committee found the
inhabited landslide hazard areas in its scoping study
to represent less than one quarter of one percent of
the available timber base. While small in area, they
are of huge importance to those of us who live and
transit in them. In the final analysis, people can
only build homes and raise families where land is made
available to them for settlement. Consider then that
the state with its constitutionally mandated policy in
Article VIII, Section 1, encouraged settlement in
landslide hazard areas affecting at least eight
populated municipalities and communities or within the
boundaries of twelve communities or boroughs between
Ketchikan and Cordova. While the state many not have
recognized these areas as being unstable at the time,
they have now been scientifically scoped and mapped as
landslide hazard areas. The state's responsibilities
to safeguard the public should not be outsourced to
industry, large private landowners, or through local
zoning ordinances. HB 91 gives the Division of
Forestry the authority to manage timber harvest
statewide within inhabited areas with public safety
being the highest priority or benefit.
1:25:30 PM
For the record I'd like to end with a short
paragraph from the Fourth Edition of Gordon Harrison's
Citizen's Guide to Alaska's Constitution, page 128.
"Article VIII of Alaska's Constitution clearly
establishes that the natural resources of Alaska
should be developed. Indeed, to the convention
delegates the very success of statehood hung in
the balance. But while this article creates a
strong presumption in favor of resource
development, it will not abide that which is
wasteful or to the rights of others in the larger
public interest."
Thank you Representative Wilson for sponsoring HB
91. Thank you Mr. Chair and committee members for
providing me this opportunity to speak in support of
HB 91.
[Refer to Tab B in binder]
1:26:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled the sponsor's statement referred to the
slope as 45 degrees or a 24 percent slope. He asked whether the
degree and slope is the same thing or if it is different
criteria.
MR. WOOD offered his belief that Representative P. Wilson
intended to say 45 percent grade or 24 degree slope. He
explained that the percent of grade is a little different. It
is like going up a set of stairs, with forward and vertical
motion, which a formula turns into a percent of grade. In
further response to Co-Chair Seaton, he agreed that 45 degrees
and 24 percent slope are two different ways of measuring the
same angle.
1:27:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she was unsure what that specific
slope would look like. She asked whether 80 percent of the land
would be steeper than that. She recalled him saying that
Oregon, Washington, and California have human protection in
their forest management acts. She pointed out that Oregon's law
refers to slopes steeper than 65, 70, or 80 percent depending on
the area, which is significantly different than the 45 percent
grade. She asked whether Oregon's standards are more or less
stringent than the ones being proposed in HB 91.
MR. WOOD answered that Oregon's standards are much steeper than
45 percent grade. He pointed out that 45 percent grade is used
in this context as a reference - like a yellow light - for the
Division of Forestry to examine the criteria for public safety.
He characterized the standard as a beginning. In further
response to Representative Gardner, he agreed it is a trigger.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether 45 percent grade reflects
the angle.
MR. WOOD answered that the angle is roughly 24 degrees. He
explained that 45 percent grade is roughly 24 degrees. In
response to Co-Chair Seaton, he confirmed it would be off the
horizontal axis and a little less than a 30-degree triangle.
1:29:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the letter in members' packets
dated August 4, 2008, from the Board of Forestry requesting an
amendment to their White Paper. She asked whether he could
describe the white paper and if the amendment had been adopted.
At the chair's request, she identified the tab as tab F.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to Tab M to the White Paper,
which is a paper the department has prepared on landslides,
public safety, and Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act
(FRPA). She said the White Paper was brought forth for
discussion at her request. She explained that a committee met
quarterly.
MR. WOOD responded that the Landslide Science and Technical
Committee (LS&TC), consisting of qualified experts from the U.S.
Forest Service, the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), and the state Division of Forestry, met for approximately
two years.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the outcome of the suggested
amendment.
MR. WOOD answered that on two occasions the aforementioned
committee unanimously voted to not adopt public safety language,
but recommended that local zoning ordinances would be
preferable.
1:32:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether Mitkof is located in a
municipality.
MR. WOOD answered that although Mitkof is located in a
municipality, several sites were assessed by LS&TC, which does
not have local zoning authority.
1:33:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the City of Petersburg
adopted anything in its land use plan to address public safety.
MR. WOOD replied no; the Trust Land Office put its timber
harvest plans in abeyance. The Trust Land Office has attempted
land exchanges and is currently engaged with the U.S. Forest
Service with an administrative exchange, which has not yet gone
to local ordinances yet. One fear is that The Trust may want to
sue the City of Petersburg as a taking. If they decide not to
risk that and with Petersburg not having effective zoning
ordinances, the Trust Land Office runs the risk of being sued by
Petersburg residents. He characterized the City of Petersburg's
position as being very difficult.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that The Trust has tried to
resolve this matter. She highlighted that there have been
landslides without any logging. The Trust Land Office would
like to exchange the land and has pursued this at the federal
level to no avail, and thus is now seeking help at the state
level.
1:35:29 PM
MR. WOOD acknowledged the Trust Land Office has been diligent in
seeking solutions. However, not all of the properties involved
in the scoping process belong to the Trust Land Office. Some of
the administrative exchanges with the U.S. Forest Service
probably would not fall into the criteria, but the parcels are
closest to communities, such as South Douglas Island. He turned
to the Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association's supplemental
information binder. Tab A introduces the Mitkof Highway
Homeowners Association to the committee. Tab B provides copies
of his testimony. Tab C provides a copy of the draft Version M
of HB 91. Tab D contains Representative P. Wilson's sponsor
statement. Tab E provides a sectional analysis of the bill.
Tab F is a copy of Representative P. Wilson's letter to the
Division of Forestry. Tab G provides a letter from Mr. Wood to
the State Forester, DNR Commissioner Sullivan, and Governor
Parnell. Tab H provides a copy of the July 9, 1983, DNR
document which first discovered that slide activity was a
notable event relative to timber harvest and page 9 provides a
copy of the division's proposed amendment.
1:37:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether he received a response to his
February 28, 2012, letter.
MR. WOOD related his understanding the state forester is working
on a response, but Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association has not
yet received a response.
1:38:03 PM
MR. WOOD referred to Tab H, page 9, of the Division of
Geological and Geophysical Surveys. He read, "Critical
facilities, homes, and other buildings for human occupancy
should not be located in areas susceptible to major slope
failures." He pointed out that the Division of Forestry
recognized that is beyond its mandate and withdrew that language
from the original amendment. He clarified that the FRPA
pertains to commercial timber harvest and not structure sitings.
Tab I contains the FRPA's Landslide Science & Technical
Committee brief findings showing communities with hazard in
boundaries or hazard zones in populated areas.
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to Tab I and asked whether the blue
means hazard in boundary, the white means no hazard, and a
question mark means unknown.
MR. WOOD answered yes; and referred to Tab S, page 31, and read,
"Freeman noted that areas with potential for slides near Hollis,
Whale Pass, Port St. Nicholas, and Klawock Lake are currently
outside incorporated communities." He offered his belief that
also may have had something to do with the coloring.
1:40:04 PM
MR. WOOD referred to the pie chart on Tab I, page 2, and to the
hazard zones adjacent to populated areas, which equals 0.03
percent. He said this area covers structures and is the Mitkof
Highway Homeowners Association primary area of concern. The
other sections of HB 91 are open to harvest within one-half mile
of a public road and in hazard zones or 0.2 percent. He said
these areas are easily accessible to automobiles, such as a
logging road. Tab J contains a scoping map prepared by the FRPA
LS&TC that the Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association altered to
show landslides. He recalled five slides have occurred since
2009. In response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Wood specified
that the slides were not due to logging activities, but use
slides with the slope in the natural state.
1:41:31 PM
MR. WOOD referred to Tab K, which contains DOT&PF's traffic map
showing the average daily traffic. Tab L contains a series of
maps prepared by the FRPA LS&TC. The LS&TC mapped from Cordova
to Ketchikan, with the red indicating structures and the yellow
indicating landslide hazard areas within one-half mile of the
road. He highlighted that the LS&TC used 50 percent or greater,
while HB 91 uses 45 percent. In response to Co-Chair Seaton,
Mr. Wood agreed the 45 percent would mean all of the areas
identified plus some others between 45-50 percent.
1:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the first map under Tab L, to
the light yellow. She asked for clarification on "protected
natural land cover."
MR. WOOD said he was unsure.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that it may mean it is off limits to
logging.
1:44:53 PM
MR. WOOD referred to Tab M, which contains the Division of
Forestry White Paper dated June 18, 2008, and discusses other
states and includes the proposed amendment. Tab N provides an
updated Division of Forestry White Paper of 2010. He referred
to page 3, as follows: "Statutory: FRPA does not include
public safety in the factors to consider for preventing or
minimizing adverse impacts of mass wasting." This would require
a statutory change. It describes the forest practice in Oregon,
Washington, California, and the province of British Columbia.
1:45:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the definition of mass wasting.
MR. WOOD explained mass wasting refers to the soil mass
movement, debris flows, commonly known as landslides.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated he previously taught the course. Mass
wasting would be landslides, such as when an earthquake causes a
large chunk of soil or rock to let go when the earth moves.
CO-CHAIR SEATON suggested it doesn't have to be instantaneous.
He informed the committee that everything in Homer is moving
down the slope towards Kachemak Bay.
1:47:26 PM
MR. WOOD referred to Tab O, which contains the April 1, 2009,
Landslide Science & Technical Committee minutes, which describes
a discussion of how the committee arrived at the percentage
grade of slope. The minutes also relate a recommendation from
Ms. Johnson to look at gradients of 45 percent and up that would
include a [greater or equal to] 95 percent of slides - or two
percent more slides than under 50. He said that Tab P contains
the November 23, 2010, Landslide Science & Technical Committee
minutes. He referred to page 5, which read, "She also noted
that Swanston said that 50 [percent] gradient suggested in the
indicators should be lowered to 45 [percent] if protection of
public safety is the goal." He turned to Tab Q, which contains
Mr. Douglas Swanston's resume. Mr. Swanston basically wrote the
book for soil mass movement and prepared a soil risk analysis on
the Trust Land Office slopes above the Mitkof Highway Homeowners
Association homes. He was also instrumental in providing
technical expertise when drafting HB 91. He said Tab R provides
the Board of Forestry meeting minutes of February 12-13, 2008.
There were three questions the board previously raised and the
board chose option 3, which he characterized as a reactive
rather than preventative measure. Tab S contains the Board of
Forestry meeting minutes March 17-18, 2010. He referred to page
30, and read "DOF consulted with the Attorney general's office,
who advised us that public safety could be added to one section
of the FRPA, e.g., AS 41.17.060(B)(5) without requiring that
public safety be considered under the Act's other provisions."
The Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association sent the proposed bill
and the legislative attorneys put it into legislative format,
which changed the formatting. He related that Tab T contains
approved Board of Forestry meeting minutes November 29-30, 2011,
although it reads "draft." He said two words were changed,
according to his wife, who listened in to the meeting.
1:51:43 PM
MR. WOOD referred to page 16, which is a discussion between the
state forester and the DNR commissioner. He read, "The DNR
Commissioner, who is also the former Attorney general, expressed
some concern that the Board hadn't addressed public safety,
although he was open to the Board process." It struck him odd
that the board didn't address public safety with regard to
forest operations. The final sentence changes one word. He
read, "The Board could pass the buck, but this Board was
appointed to provide good advice on issues like this." On page
20, the highlighted text read, "Curran commented that DOF
wouldn't want to manage the Mitkof land." He interpreted the
former regional forester's comment to mean the land is unstable,
hard to log, and is no place for local zoning ordinances to have
effect. Tab U - contains a copy of Alaska's Constitution - A
Citizen's Guide.
1:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated the Mitkof Highway Homeowners
Association is concerned that one of the association member's
homes will be covered in a landslide and the homeowner will have
to spend $127,000 of his/her own money and six years of his/her
time to address this issue.
1:55:06 PM
SUZANNE WEST, Co-Founder, Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association,
read from a prepared statement, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
I'd like to share a true story. Numerous residents as
well as Oregon Department of Transportation personnel
had expressed concern about logging the steep slopes
above homes along Hubbard Creek, near Roseburg, Oregon
in 1984, where a private landowner had decided to log
his land. Ten years later a major slide occurred
during a threshold weather event, which killed four
people in one house. However, in response, one Oregon
Division of Forestry area director said, [quote] "The
Oregon Division of Forestry is not in the business of
protecting houses." [close quote]
3. In another location, a woman was waiting for the
road to be cleared from a slide event, when yet a new
slide came down and pushed her car off the road and
into a river, where she drowned. There were
approximately 50 people hurt in slides that fall in
Oregon.
1:56:15 PM
4. As a result, the governor of Oregon asked the
Legislature to form a task force to include public
safety in Oregon's Forest Practices Act, which it did
with Senate Bill 1211 in 1997. Through legislation
enacted in 1999, the Oregon Board of Forestry was
required to adopt rules to consider the exposure of
the public to landslide safety risks.
5. In a proactive move, the State of Washington
elected to include public safety in its Forest
Practices Act in 2001.
6. The entire Oregon situation is eerily similar to
what Petersburg residents have experienced since
December 2005. A large private landowner, the Trust
Land Office, wanting to log steep and unstable slopes
comparable to those near Oregon's Hubbard Creek, in an
area of known permanent habitation, and with the
Division of Forestry personnel telling us that public
safety is not part of their Forest Resources and
Practices Act, and cannot be a consideration.
7. Though the argument could be made that threshold
events that trigger slides cannot be managed, both
Oregon and Washington concluded that the attempt to
mitigate the potential for increased slide activity by
logging had to be made.
8. House Bill 91 is intended as a statewide preventive
measure that gives the Division of Forestry the
authority to manage timber harvests in areas where the
public's safety may be at risk.
9. I would like to request that the House Resources
Committee pass HB 91 into the House of Representatives
for approval.
10. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee members, for
this opportunity to speak in support of HB 91. Thank
you Representative Wilson for understanding our
concerns and for sponsoring HB 91.
1:58:33 PM
JULIANNE THOMPSON stated that she has lived in Petersburg and
Wrangell for over 20 years. She related that the Alaska Forest
[Resources] Practices Act protects water quality and fish
habitat, but it does not provide the authority to protect public
safety during forest management activities adjacent to
communities. The correlation between timber harvest and
landslides on steep slopes was established by peer review
studies decades ago in the Pacific Northwest and specifically in
Alaska, as well. The Board of Forestry Science & Technical
Committee considered this information and map landslide hazard
zones adjacent to communities throughout Southeast Alaska. She
said that this bill will bring the best information to bear on
Alaska's forest practices derived from decades of study,
knowledge, and experience, combined with current regional
expertise. This bill would provide the state with the authority
to protect public safety in forest management adjacent to
communities. It would also give equal weight to water quality,
fisheries, and public safety. She concluded by thanking members
for considering HB 91.
2:00:04 PM
MICHELE PFUNDT, Member, Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association,
requested that members pass HB 91. Alaska's forests contain a
great resource, which is currently not protected under the
Alaska Forest Resources Practices Act (FRPA). She offered her
belief the greatest legislation that can be addressed by any
legislature is one proposed by the people, as is the case with
HB 91. This bill has been developed by a few people for the
protection of many people.
2:00:45 PM
MS. PFUNDT said this bill is a preventative measure designed to
give statutory authority to the Division of Forestry to
safeguard the public from timber harvest practices. In December
2005, a large state agency submitted a logging plan to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to log parcels of land
uphill from residents and transit routes in Petersburg. The
logging plan was signed without considering possible ill impacts
to homeowners below. Citizens formed the Mitkof Highway
Homeowners Association. She related that the association is
comprised of average citizens, many of whom - including herself
- have never previously opposed any logging activities.
However, they have enough knowledge of the terrain and effects
of logging to be concerned about logging a steep gradient behind
their homes.
2:01:37 PM
MS. PFUNDT explained the [association's] concern over the plan
to log Petersburg's steep slopes behind the homes of over 95
families and the daily transit weight of over 800 vehicles led
the association to seek assistance from Douglas Swanston, PhD.
She stated that Dr. Swanston is a retired U.S. Forest Service
geologist, and is the leading authority on logging steep
hillsides. He confirmed the logging plan presented to the
community of Petersburg was unsafe. It was then that the
citizens discovered that the FRPA protects fish, spawning
streams, or fresh water, but it does not provide the Division of
Forestry the authority to address public safety related timber
harvest activities. The citizens were told there was nothing
they could do except wait for damage resulting from possible
unsafe logging practices and sue the person responsible or enact
local zoning ordinances. She said that Petersburg's story
isn't unusual as in Southeast Alaska most livable locations are
at shore below tree or timber areas. When conflicts arise, the
public must be protected, as well as the fish and water
resources.
MS. PFUNDT said the Board of Forestry's Science and Technical
Committee found that only a quarter of one percent of loggable
timber lands under state control are of such a gradient and are
above homes or important transit roads. However, in just one
community, nearly 100 families are affected by this lack of a
public safety provision. She stated that many other families
throughout the state will be positively affected by this
legislation. She suggested that legislation is the proper way
to address conflicts between adjacent landowners. She said the
Division of Forestry has been given the mandate to administer
the state's forested lands. She highlighted that passing HB 91
can guide the agency in addressing public safety.
2:03:52 PM
MS. PFUNDT said the Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association has
tried to address the problem and asked the Division of Forestry
to assist; however, the attorney general has indicated public
safety is not addressed by the Act and would require a
legislative amendment. Since then, the Board of Forestry has
twice voted not to take an official stand on HB 91, and instead,
recommending that local communities should rely on their own
zoning ordinances. She highlighted this as a statewide issue as
local ordinances place an undue burden on local communities
since they don't have access to the Board of Forestry's Science
and Technical Committee. Further, communities are ill equipped
to defend the zoning ordinances. Finally, zoning ordinances do
not work for statewide problems since many communities are
unorganized and do not have any zoning authority.
2:05:35 PM
MS. PFUNDT said the Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association went
through the entire process without a solution. The association
then sought the assistance of their legislator for a legislative
solution and HB 91 was drafted. She emphasized that Alaska's
Constitution inherently guarantees that the state, by way of its
government and agencies must consider the safety of its public;
however, there are currently no public safety considerations
within the FRPA regarding timber harvesting. She did not
understand how an Act could be in conflict with Alaska's
Constitution. The states of California, Washington, and Oregon
and western provinces of Canada have all recognized that their
forest practices acts should contain public safety
considerations. In this situation, Alaska truly is the "Last
Frontier," but it is not a mark of honor but one of shame. She
concluded that Alaska should remain the "Last Frontier" in
mystique, but not for an inability to consider public safety
since its people are truly its greatest resource. She thanked
members for their consideration of HB 91.
2:07:06 PM
DAVID BEEBE stated he is testifying in support of HB 91. He
said that timber harvest on unstable slopes increases risk of
landslides by a factor of five on glaciated land. He pointed
out that HB 91 is about public safety and the obligation of the
state to provide safe domicile for its residents. He offered
his belief this is a reasonable expectation of safety. He
doesn't live below an unstable slope, but can recognize the
threat of unstable slopes affects everyone, whether they are
traveling or hunting below slopes. He highlighted that
landslides travel large distances and much of the slopes above
the Mitkof highway have the hallmark characteristics of
landslide areas, including steep slopes with runouts that end at
roads, houses, and public utility infrastructure. He has seen
images of the aftermath of landslides and has walked up the
slopes 24 hours after a debris avalanche has occurred. He
characterized the accumulation of avalanche degree as being
similar to a "cocked gun." He said that a threshold weather
event is all it takes to pull the trigger. He acknowledged that
local zoning ordinances are a possible fix, but beyond the
expertise of most planning and zoning committees and thus is a
matter of the state. He urged members to consider this as a
moral obligation.
2:10:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted he requested that the Division of Forestry
testify, but no division representative is present today. He
referred to Tab P, page 5, noting the highlighted area points to
the difference between 45 and 50 degrees as a 90-95 percent
confidence level. Members may want to consider how that relates
to several other tabs, including Tab O, page 2, which states, "a
50 degree and steeper initiation angle would include 93 percent
of the 115 landslides ...." He also referred to Tab P, page 5,
which states that Mr. Burkhart observed that 85 percent of
Southeast Alaska's slopes would fit that category. He noted
that Johnson suggested the angle should be lowered to 45 degrees
for public safety. Many sites don't indicate a public safety
hazard so the committee would need to narrow its focus. He
offered his belief that adding a public safety hazard at those
locations would not mean logging couldn't occur on 45, 50, or 60
degree slopes in Southeast, but would be restricted only in
areas that create public safety issues.
2:14:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered that slope is not the only
consideration, but criteria such as the thickness of ground
cover, bedrock, and porosity so discovering the slope initiates
a review to determine what other criteria might be present.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether access to logging operations
and hillsides that abut those logging roads will also be
included in the public safety determination.
2:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said it isn't just land immediately above
a home, but if adjacent land is logged, wind damage can result
in downed trees. She was unsure how to address that aspect as
it might not be enough to only protect the land immediately
above someone's home.
CO-CHAIR SEATON commented that he is interested in how broadly
or narrowly the bill concerns the slope versus the other
activities.
MR. WOOD referred to a pie chart on Tab I, page 3. He said the
area open to harvest within one-half mile of a public road and
in hazard zones adjacent to populated areas equals 0.03 percent.
He offered his belief that it covers class 3, 4, and 5, of the
U.S. Forest Service classifications for roads, which he thought
was accessible by passenger car. He pointed out that it's a bit
larger area than where homes are located, but the impact would
only be 0.23 percent. In response to Chair Seaton, he indicated
it would include logging roads.
2:19:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ thanked him for such a well done
presentation.
MR. WOOD stated that the constant that never goes away is the
slope angle. He related that it isn't possible to know when a
threshold event will happen, but the slope angle is the greatest
indicator of potential landslides.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out this is a statewide issue that
affects Prince William Sound, too.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether HB 91 would affect existing
logging roads and if they fall under the public safety aspect.
2:21:40 PM
CHRIS MAISCH, State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that the bill wouldn't apply
to activities that have already taken place. This bill would
only apply to future activities. In further response to
Representative Munoz, he agreed that the bill would apply to
more than just removal of trees, since it would apply to all
forest management activities, including road building and other
harvesting on steep slopes. He explained that often harvesting
on steep slopes is not done since it doesn't meet the best
management practices for that kind of situation. He pointed out
it might be harvesting via helicopter on steep slopes. He
reported that the Board of Forestry has developed some
regulations that were identified in this process. The
regulations would close some loopholes in the best management
practices for steep slope harvesting and helicopter operations.
The division wanted to have a series of additional best
management practices to help address some issues with that
particular type of harvest.
2:23:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to a letter dated February 28,
2012, requesting a position on HB 91 and asked if this was
finalized.
MR. MAISCH answered no; the letter is being finalized through
the commissioner and governor's office. In response to Co-Chair
Seaton, he offered to furnish a copy to the committee when it is
available. In response to Representative Gardner, he indicated
the response would be forthcoming shortly.
2:24:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to page 2, line 6, of HB 91, which
indicates this would apply to public roads. She asked whether
logging roads are considered public roads.
MR. MAISCH answered that it depends upon the type of land
ownership. He stated that if the logging road was on public
land it typically would be considered a public road. Companies
often close out roads once timber harvest operations are
completed, which is called "putting them to bed" since they will
not have to maintain drainage and culverts. He stated that if a
landowner will continue forest management activities the owner
may keep the roads open, but must follow maintenance standards.
If the roads are located on private lands they are treated as a
private road and are generally not open for public access.
2:25:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to page 2 of HB 91, to the specific
language "adjacent to an area of human habitation." He asked
for clarification.
MR. MAISCH responded that he can't answer as "adjacent" is not a
term that is defined as part of the division's regulations or in
statute. In response to Co-Chair Seaton, he agreed to define
"adjacent" or to provide a substitute term. He said he
understood the committee wants to avoid unintended consequences.
2:27:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if he would recommend deleting
"public road" and just have it apply to threats to public safety
one-half mile within the area of human habitation. This would
remove the issue of application to logging roads and other
developments.
MR. MAISCH responded that it is difficult to answer without
having the administration's formal position yet.
2:28:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated that the division might consider the
question and what 45 and 50 percent grade would cover.
MR. MAISCH acknowledged this and said he caught that earlier and
will be prepared to address it at the next hearing.
[HB 91 was held over.]
HJR 40-RS 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY
2:30:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40, Commending the governor and
the administration for aggressively working to enforce the
rights of the state in R.S. 2477 rights-of-way; urging the
governor and the attorney general to develop a working alliance
with other western states to protect and enforce the states'
interests in ensuring access using rights-of-way authorized by
R.S. 2477; urging the governor and the attorney general to
support the State of Utah and the southern counties of Utah in a
lawsuit against the federal government concerning R.S. 2477
rights-of-way, including filing an amicus brief in support of
Utah; urging the governor to dedicate state resources to
establish, protect, and enforce the state's interests in R.S.
2477 rights-of-way and to preserve state rights-of-way against
encroachment by the federal government; urging the governor to
reestablish a federalism section in the Department of Law and
sections in the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Fish and Game to support the preservation of the
state's rights and powers in compact cases; and urging the
governor to prepare an appropriation request to fund an
aggressive effort by the state to resolve issues relating to
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, including possible litigation, and to
continue to work to preserve the rights of the state in regard
to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
2:31:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the sponsor of HJR 40, stated that his staff, Jim Pound, would
explain the changes in the proposed committee substitute.
Additionally, Mr. Kent Sullivan, Department of Law (DOL) is also
available to answer questions.
2:32:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HJR 40, Version 27-LS1407\M, Bullock, 3/29/12, as the
working document.
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:32:35 PM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the sponsor worked with DOL on the
changes. Some of the original language referred to language
related to the state of Utah's lawsuit with the federal
government. The sponsor proposed the Alaska DOL would file an
amicus brief; however, DOL held conversations with the Utah
official, who preferred that Alaska not do so. Therefore, the
language relating to the amicus brief is dropped; however, the
reference to the Utah lawsuit remains. He highlighted that the
administration has been very active in the R.S. 2477 assertions
and the language is slightly changed with respect to commending
the governor. He noted that Malcolm Roberts has worked on the
R.S. 2477 issue dating back to Senator Jack Coghill's tenure.
He reiterated Version M deleted language regarding the lawsuit
and inserts that the state will continue asserting its efforts
to assert Alaska's R.S. 2477, which is supported by Utah.
MR. POUND referred to page 3, line 31, which adds the language
such that it would read as follows: "... that the Alaska State
Legislature urges the governor further to strengthen the
resources of the state for protecting the state's rights by
continuing to focus the efforts of the Department of Law, the
Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and
Game, and other departments on defending the state's rights and
powers with regard to access and federalism issues;..." This
would address the federalism section which wasn't necessary
since the possibility exists that it would add a layer of
bureaucracy over DOL that is not needed. At the same time, the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has sometimes
been involved in this type of litigation. Further, other
departments may be involved with asserting state's rights at
some point in time and this additional language would allow for
that to happen.
2:37:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to page 3, line 29, " ... to strengthen
the resources of the state ...." He asked whether that means
the state would appropriate funds.
MR. POUND agreed that would be the case at some point, but he
believes that currently sufficient funds exist in DOL. In
further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Mr. Pound responded that
should the governor need more funds, he/she would need to
approach the legislature and so indicate the need to improve the
state's stance of federalism-type issues.
2:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to page 2, lines 13-14, which
read "WHEREAS R.S. 2477 rights-of-way were established in the
state through use or development until virtually all federal
land in the state was withdrawn in 1969; and...." She asked
whether that refers to Alaska.
MR. POUND replied yes, adding that is when the federal
government started taking land from the state of Alaska. In
further response to Representative Gardner, he offered his
belief that the land was withdrawn from development for parks
and forest and withdrawn from being considered state land.
2:39:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested that resolutions normally send
copies to interested parties, such as the U.S. Delegation and
members of Utah.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he considered this and asked the
committee for guidance on whether to expand the distribution
list, which would be fine.
2:40:17 PM
MR. POUND explained the next changes are repetitive and
conforming changes through the title and resolution. He
referred to page 1, lines 10-13, which eliminate the language
"federalism section," that is also found on page 3, lines 23-27,
of the original version. These changes make the title and
resolution text same.
2:41:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to page 4, line 1, and asked whether
this addresses federalism issues or should be removed.
MR. POUND answered that it should remain since it refers to the
definition of federalism, but not a federalism section.
2:41:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for clarification of the term
"federalism" and the R.S. 2477 plans.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that the R.S. 2477 stands for
Revised Statute 2477 from 1866, which is one year prior to
Alaska's purchase from Russia. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act retained Alaska's rights to R.S. 2477 access
across federal land. He declared he is passionate about this
issue. Although R.S. 2477 is specifically recognized,
departments have taken the stand that they don't authorize them
unless there is litigation and adjudication. What has happened
is that the current and prior attorney general have supported
and encouraged the governor to maintain Alaska's rights and Utah
is connected since other Western states share similar concerns.
He pointed out that 66 percent of Utah's land is federal.
2:44:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarification on rights-of-way
and historically the reason they are so important.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER deferred to DOL.
2:44:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON understood aggressively pursuing the protection
of R.S. 2477s; however, he said he is troubled with specific
language urging the governor and the attorney general to support
litigation in Utah. He commented they can decide to do so, but
he was unsure how this resolves the R.S. 2477. He suggested
that the legislature would have a stronger resolution if it
worked with the governor and the Congressional Delegation to
resolve Alaska's issues. He recapped his concern over
addressing specific counties and another state.
2:46:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked the reason this resolution
references the State of Utah.
MR. POUND answered that Utah is involved because they're on
point, and are already in court and have won. They have already
established R.S. 2477 trails and the court has upheld their
assertion. Although, he noted it is on appeal in some counties.
The attorney general has been in contact with the attorneys in
Utah. He said, "Our money is better spent if we start asserting
our R.S. 2477 and try to get litigation."
2:48:22 PM
KENT SULLIVAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law, stated that R.S. 2477 is important -
the federal law of 1866 said that anytime the public created
trails over unreserved federal land that created a public right-
of-way in favor of the state. That statute continued to 1976
when it was repealed by the federal repealed in 1976 upon
enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA),
but already existing rights-of-way were grandfathered into the
law. This is important to states with high amounts of public
lands, which has been how roadways in many Western states were
created. In particular, in Alaska with its recent history, it
is important since Alaska needs to have rights over federal
land. Today, the federal land may have been transferred to
Native Corporations, or private landowners, but if the rights
were created earlier they still exist.
2:50:40 PM
MR. SULLIVAN referred to Representative Gardner's question about
the significance of 1969 and the withdrawal of federal lands.
In 1969 Public Land Order [PLO 4582] took all land in Alaska
under general federal ownership, withdrew the remaining land
under federal ownership, and transferred it to wildlife refuges
or for state or Native Corporation selection, as part of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) processes. The last
of general federal land came out of ownership in 1969. He
explained that when the state examines establishing R.S. 2477
rights-of-way, it has to look at roads created prior to 1969
because roads created after 1969 do not qualify for R.S. 2477
rights-of-way.
MR. SULLIVAN, regarding Co-Chair Seaton's question about
initiating litigation in Utah, noted that DOL has worked closely
with the sponsor on HJR 40 and Version M. The department is
supportive of Version M with a minor exception. The state of
Utah has related that the best way to help them is not to file
an amicus brief, but for Alaska to file similar litigation in
Alaska. Therefore, on page 3, line 20, following "Utah", he
suggested deleting "in a lawsuit to enforce Utah's interests in"
and replacing it with "concerning" and on line 22 following
"rights-of-way" inserting "in this state." He said that will
make clear what the state is doing is to seek to assist Utah in
its R.S. 2477 efforts by initiating litigation in this state
without tying it to Utah's litigation or leave it open to
whether Alaska would be asked to file an amicus brief in their
litigation. Save that one minor issue, DOL is very supportive
of all of the changes [embodied in Version M].
2:54:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that federal land has some
specific designation, but is not under general federal
ownership.
MR. SULLIVAN answered yes.
2:55:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that the Alaska
legislature, through statute, has identified these R.S. 2477
rights-of-way, but now the federal government is saying that
Alaska does not have a legitimate right unless the state
litigates.
MR. SULLIVAN responded yes. Basically, the federal land
managers have taken a policy - due to actions the Congress has
taken - that the federal government's "hands are tied" to
recognize R.S. 2477s unless a court of law adjudicates the
rights-of-way. He referred to language on page 4 of Version M,
which urges the Congressional Delegation and/or the Congress to
enact legislation requiring federal land managers to develop a
policy to recognize R.S. 2477s once a notice of intent to
litigate on R.S. 2477 has been filed and in instances where it
is a valid and existing R.S. 2477. Currently, the federal
government does not have any policy in place to do so.
2:56:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that Utah has successfully litigated
these rights-of-way.
MR. SULLIVAN answered yes; the state of Utah is at forefront.
He said he has read all of the R.S. 2477 cases since 1866.
There are approximately 50 of these cases, of which 90 percent
were from Utah. Currently, there are three cases filed in
Alaska, which have been settled, and Utah has several dozen
cases actively being litigated. Furthermore, Utah is ready to
embark on litigation on 18,000 roads before the end of May. He
commented that Alaska can learn from Utah's successes and
failures.
2:57:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to how the Roadless Rule in the
Tongass National Forest impacts the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in
Southeast Alaska.
MR. SULLIVAN related that he has worked with DOL's attorney who
is handling the Roadless Rule. He related his understanding
that there are exceptions within the Roadless Rule that
recognize valid and existing rights, for instance, R.S. 2477.
He did not think the U.S. Forest Service Roadless Rule policy
closes the door; however, the agency still maintains, as other
federal agencies have said, that they cannot recognize the R.S.
2477 rights unless litigation occurs.
2:59:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said it doesn't make sense to litigate
all cases state-by-state and road-by-road to retain R.S. 2477
rights-of-way. She asked whether it makes sense to lobby the
federal government to enact legislation to retain the pre-1969,
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
MR. SULLIVAN said that makes a lot of sense, but Alaskans all
know that things can seem easier to accomplish than they
actually are.
3:00:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that the courts don't render
decisions in many of the cases that are litigated so there isn't
any case law. Instead, the federal court just runs the case out
until it is settled.
MR. SULLIVAN stated his agreement, adding that 95 percent of the
cases are resolved through summary judgment or settlement, short
of actual trials. However, there is concern that one of the
motivations by the federal government to delay or not adopt
policies is that witnesses are people who were alive in 1969.
He related that Utah is concerned that the federal government is
waiting and there won't be any witnesses. The longer they wait,
the fewer the witnesses and the more difficult it is to
prosecute. Although it is possible to litigate without living
witnesses, it is much more difficult and challenging to do so.
3:02:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to page 3, lines 13-22, and asked
whether this language gives the attorney general full direction
in pursuing the state's interest.
MR. SULLIVAN referred to the language on page 3, lines 19-22,
and said with slight changes the language is helpful because
Utah requested this approach and both estimate it is the best
way of achieving it.
3:03:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to page 4, line 1, with respect to
introducing federalism issues. He asked whether this language
is fully understandable and doesn't give the attorney general
any problems.
MR. SULLIVAN answered that is not problematic from DOL's
perspective. The DOL's only concern was to establish a separate
federalism section. Although DOL is handling federalism and
access issues currently and has been effective, DOL wants to
preserve the status quo. He pointed out the DOL is still
working on federalism issues and this language accurately
reflects this.
3:04:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Version M.
[There being no further objection, Version M was treated as
adopted.]
3:05:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered to make an amendment.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he preferred to have Legislative Legal
Services prepare the amendment.
[HJR 40 was held over.]
3:05:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0091A.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Supplemental Informaiton 2.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Supplemental Information 1.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Supplemental Informaiton 3.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Supplemental Information 4.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Supplemental Information 5.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Supplemental Information 6.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HJR040A.PDF |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 Sponsor.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 1866 mine bill.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 BLM determination.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 DNR Background.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 GAO Report.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| RS2477 Resources.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 AG opin (No Print).pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| HJR 40 Department of Law Letter RS - 2477 Rights of Way.pdf |
HJUD 4/9/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| CS HJR 40.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 40 |
| Green Book - Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Regulations… June 2007 (eff. 712008)! (Use of â€Adjacentâ€).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Purple Book - Implementing Best Management Practices…January 2005! (Use of â€Adjacentâ€).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Yellow Book - AFRPA - Eff. July 1, 2006.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB91 Testimony-Charles E. Ed Wood (dated 2 April 2012).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| CS HB 91 27 LS0352 M.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Sponsor.docx |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB 91 Sectional Analysis.docx |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |
| HB91 Testimony - Pfundt.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 91 |