Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/06/1998 03:40 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
April 6, 1998
3:40 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 52
Relating to opposition to the designation of any rivers in Alaska
as American Heritage Rivers under the American Heritage Rivers
initiative.
- PASSED SCS HJR 52(RES) FROM COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 392(L&C) am
"An Act relating to access by the Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Department of Fish and Game to confidential
records for fisheries businesses and resources prepared or kept by
the Department of Revenue under AS 43.75.015; relating to certain
salmon products reports; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 373(RES)
"An Act making changes to the Forest Resources and Practices Act;
classifying anadromous streams and tributaries; relating to the
designation of riparian areas; establishing buffers and slope
stability standards on certain streams; and requiring retention of
low value timber along certain water bodies where prudent."
- PASSED SCS CSHB 373(RES) FROM COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HJR 52 - No previous action to consider.
HB 392 - No previous action to consider.
HB 373 - See Resources minutes dated 3/11/98 and 3/20/98.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 52.
Ms. Mel Krogseng
P.O. Box 3913
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 52.
Mr. Stan Leaphart, Executive Director
Citizen's Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
3700 Airport Way
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 22.
Ms. Amy Daugherty, Staff
Representative Alan Austerman
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 392 for sponsor.
Mr. Bob Bartholomew, Assistant Director
Division of Income Exise and Audit
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, AK 99811-0420
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 392.
Mr. Scott McAllister, Chairman
Southeast Regional Chapter, United Salmon Association
(907-463-5831
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 392.
Ms. Janice Adair, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordove St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 392.
Ms. Pat Springer, Staff
Speaker Gail Phillips
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 999811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Read sponsor statement for HB 373.
Mr. Jeff Jahnke, State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 373.
Ms. Marty Welbourn, Program Manager
Forestry Resources
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 373.
Mr. Rich Harris, Sr. Vice President
Sealaska Corp.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 373.
Mr. Jack Phelps, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman St, Suite 200
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 373.
Mr. Dick Coose
P.O. Box 9533
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 373.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-25, SIDE A
Number 001
HJR 52 - OPPOSE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:40 p.m. and announced HJR 52 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Sponsor of HJR 52, said the
American Heritage River initiative is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
It is something we don't need more of in Alaska, because we already
have enough federal designation over some of our lands and waters.
She said that President Clinton issued Executive Order 13061
directing agencies to establish and implement the initiative. It
was touted as a method to give us money to clean up our rivers, but
it also includes the entire watershed. John Schuller killed a
grizzly bear in his own backyard and was found to be at fault
because he was in the zone of imminent danger according to the
Endangered Species Act. We don't want to allow the federal
government to come in and put a blanket over our rivers and call
them American Heritage Rivers.
SENATOR TORGERSON proposed to change the last "Whereas" to "Be It
Resolved."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she supported that.
There were no objections to the adoption of the amendment and it
was so ordered.
MS. MEL KROGSENG said she was speaking on her own behalf as a Kenai
River property owner and that although the majority of property
owners objected to being included in the American Heritage Rivers,
the Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board chose to
make a motion to nominate the river as an American Heritage River.
The statute clearly states that their authorization is purely to
hold meetings on the Comprehensive Management Plan for the river
and to make recommendations to the Commissioner. There was a lot
of discussion on the matter and they came very close to being
nominated, but the Kenai Peninsula Assembly defeated that action.
She wanted them to know that the Kenai River Special Management
Area Advisory Board seems to be taking actions that she believes
are inappropriate with their mission.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if they should be added to the list this
resolution is sent to.
MS. KROGSENG answered that it wouldn't be inappropriate for them to
send a copy to all the other 49 states.
MR. STAN LEAPHART, Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas,
said in August last year they submitted comments on the initiative
to Katie McGinty, who is chairperson of the Council on
Environmental Quality, urging that the proposed initiative not be
adopted. But it was adopted over those objections. There are
currently 126 rivers that have been nominated for designation and
it's expected that the President will make his decision on the
first 10 within the next two weeks. Their analysis indicated that
at best its goals and objectives remain poorly defined and is a
duplication of existing programs designed to provide assistance to
local governments. At worst, it represents an entirely new federal
program with no statutory authority for its creation which is a
threat to state and local government authority, as well as the
rights of private property owners. Although there have been some
improvements to the initiative, there are still a lot of problems
with it.
One of the stated goals is to improve the delivery of services by
the 12 departments and agencies that constituted the American
Heritage Rivers' Interagency Committee. He asked why it takes the
creation of a new federal program to compel these 12 agencies to do
their job. The answer, of course, is that it does not. The
Department is not currently performing as it should under existing
statutory mandates and regulatory guidelines and they fail to see
how this initiative would change that. On the contrary, by
requiring agencies to focus on this new program, they will have
fewer resources available for more important and legitimate
programs. Better agency performance is not what this initiative is
all about. It truly represents an effort to create, by executive
fiat, a program that Congress refused to create in 1996 when it
rejected a number of bills which would have created a National
Heritage Area Partnership Program. His commission is also highly
skeptical of the claim that designation of a river would only occur
if there is "broad community support," particularly in light of the
extremely lose definition of the term community. He used the
example of the creation of the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument over the objection of local communities
by Utah's congressional delegation.
Designation of a river would require adherence to a wide array of
program guidelines and requirements in order to maintain the
designation and qualify for federal funds. This would come at some
cost to local control or loss of opportunity for the private
property owner. The carrot and stick approach by the federal
government means some special interest group gets the carrot and
private property owners and businesses get the stick, usually in
the form of more regulations and restrictive programs.
Number 229
SENATOR TAYLOR asked which six rivers were on the short list to be
designated.
MR. LEAPHART answered that there are actually 126 rivers which are
primarily in the eastern states, but the Columbia, the Rio Grande,
and portions of the Upper Mississippi are some.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Representative James if she considered
opposing the entire program, as well as being exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought about it, but decided they
might be stepping on some other people's toes.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't think they could do it under the
current title and he didn't think it was appropriate to go through
the process of a title change.
SENATOR LINCOLN said under the process for nominating a river it
says the communities in coordination with state, local, or tribal
governments can nominate the river stretch and individuals living
outside the area cannot nominate a river. This resolution says the
Alaska State Legislature opposes a nomination or designation of any
river in Alaska and asked if that does not preclude anyone in a
community who wants to nominate their river.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the intent of the President's initiative
was to have the people who live along the river make the nomination
which is part of the problem. Along with allowing your river to be
identified as an American Heritage River, you get money to clean it
up and that's an inviting thing. She thought the nomination should
also be agreed to by the State, because the rivers are under the
power of the state, not the local people. They do not want local
people to have that authority.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if someone chooses to nominate a river in
their community, would they need the state's blessing, the local
blessing, and the tribal blessing. If that is so, by this
resolution, that will never happen. She asked if that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that was the purpose.
SENATOR TORGERSON said he knows from experience that it does not
come to the legislature for approval or to a local government.
Their problem initially is that the advisory group to the
Commissioner nominated it in the first place and that could be two
people. To the Commissioner of Natural Resources it could be one.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she wanted to understand if it says all the
different bodies could nominate, but the State would not give their
blessing.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it goes beyond that, because the federal
government has no jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the
United States. There is not one single court case that indicates
that isn't right. He thought the President was trying to use the
initiative as leverage against the people who own property along
rivers and the states who have all the rights to those waters. The
Dinkum Sands case clearly indicates who has control over those
navigable waters.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES supported Senator Taylor's comments and then
added that the communities can nominate the rivers; and it says the
federal role will be solely to support community based efforts to
preserve and protect the resource.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SCSHJR 52 (RES) from Committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
Number 450
HB 392 - REPORTS: FISH TAX & SALMON PRODUCTS
MS. AMY DAUGHERTY, Staff to Representative Alan Austerman, sponsor
of HB 392, said it addresses two types of reporting, exvessel value
and wholesale price. The most important part are the changes they
make to the wholesale price reporting. The size of the cans are
antiquated, so they changed the denominations of the cans. Section
Four also adds another reporting period, so this information can be
obtained on a more timely basis by people who make marketing
decisions with it.
The first three sections enable the Department of Revenue to
provide processor information needed by ADF&G and DEC. Currently,
ADF&G is able to share information they receive with DOR, but this
is not provided for in law. DEC currently is unable to access this
information from DOR as well, although they have legitimate needs
for it. Additional duplicative reporting may be established unless
we can maximize and coordinate information the State already
obtains.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if DEC would use this legislation to increase
fees on processors.
MS. DAUGHERTY answered that the fees wouldn't necessarily increase,
but perhaps they would decrease.
SENATOR TAYLOR said since DEC lives of its fees, he hadn't seen a
decrease yet. Once they take away the floor they are having to
charge all processors as a set fee, he is concerned they will use
this as an opportunity.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if this information is currently available
to DEC. He said he didn't know why they don't take the word of a
little operator that they are a little operator.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that they are adding thermally processed to
the reporting requirements and fees and asked if they are totally
untaxed at this point.
MS. DAUGHERTY said this just deals with the wholesale price which
isn't where the taxation occurs at the dock. The thermal processing
is new language so everything is consistent with DEC and federal
regulations on this type of product.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said we are amending this law to be consistent
with regulations and thought it was supposed to happen the other
way. He asked if there was any change to any processor by changing
the word "canned" to "thermally processed."
MS. DAUGHERTY answered that the bill speaks past canned, applying
to pouched as well as any other device.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if that was previously taxed.
MS. DAUGHERTY answered that it has always been taxed, but this is
just for the reporting of the wholesale value. There are enough
loopholes that information on products was not reported. This
generalizes the information by the size of container in which the
salmon is sold.
Number 502
SENATOR LEMAN asked what is the purpose of this report if they
don't have reporting of frozen product. He asked if that showed up
somewhere else.
MS. DAUGHERTY answered that fishermen who approached them were
concerned mostly with pink salmon and how that goes through the
market and how the information gets compiled. She said that frozen
is not within this bill now.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he hoped someone from DEC could explain how
this system works. It looks like it's all full of holes and all
they are doing is changing the terminology.
SENATOR LEMAN asked where in the bill was the reporting on exvessel
value.
MS. DAUGHERTY said the only part that refers to exvessel value is
the part that seeks to let the agencies share information in
Sections One and Two.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what kind of information DEC would possibly
have access to. Would it be grouped information or down to raw
fish data and who catches it and where it's caught.
MS. DAUGHERTY said she thought the bill didn't have restrictions on
the information. She said Representative Austerman is far more
attached to the wholesale reporting than any raw fish data.
MR. BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Assistant Director, Income and Exise Audit,
Department of Revenue, said he understands that there are two
distinct objectives with the draft bill, one is bringing in a
provision from last year to streamline and become more efficient.
This is to save money to satisfy industry concerns that too many
agencies are asking for too many reports. They found that they
could not streamline the reporting parts, because there were
certain confidentialities. The information comes into their data
base and the information that's not confidential they pass on to
ADF&G and DEC. They also send them the applications because they
don't capture all of the data. There is a lot of information the
ADF&G and DOR use that is reported to both departments. As the
Department of Revenue, it is their intent that the only information
they would allow DEC access to is what they have already been
getting in current reports. They would, then, replace a Fish and
Game report with the unified report. It's the same with DEC. They
will not open up the tax information and let DEC come in and pick
what they want.
TAPE 98-25, SIDE B
But if they currently, in determining their fees, get volume and
value information, they would work with industry and DEC to
eliminate that report. Sections One and Two deal with three
agencies trying to find ways to combine reporting. They took the
lead on this and it seems to have worked. Three agencies use one
application; dealing with the reporting is phase two of it. There
are no changes in reporting requirements in terms of looking for
efficiencies.
The second part of the bill deals mainly with the objectives of
Representative Austerman. It has nothing to do with taxes or
values and is basically a reporting requirement the legislature has
placed on certain parts of the fishing industry and they needed
somebody to collect that data, compile a report, and release it.
That somebody was the Department of Revenue. They don't do a lot
with the information. It used to be strictly for canned salmon
twice a year. Certain fishermen requested information more often
in a different format and covering more than just canned salmon.
SENATOR HALFORD said the way he reads the reference section, there
is no confidentiality required because it says it's not a matter of
public record except as provided in AS 43.05.230 which says it has
to have the degree of confidentiality required by law which it
doesn't.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said the intent is to make certain confidential
information available to DEC and to ADF&G and try to give some
assurance that that information will be kept confidential by making
them subject to the same confidentiality requirements as the
Department of Revenue.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said there is some concern about the actual
language in everything that is passed under 230 (I) remains
confidential and he's not convinced that it works.
Number 521
MR. SCOTT MCALLISTER, Chairman, Southeast Regional Chapter of
United Salmon Association, said they are comprised of salmon permit
holders and high volume harvesters of pink salmon, chum salmon, and
red salmon. Their primary purpose is to recapture profitability
for the salmon harvest industry. One of their objectives in
achieving that goal is to become market oriented. It became
apparent to them a number of years ago that they had no standards
of measurement in the marketplace. In researching what their
options were, they came up with the WCPR reporting requirement in
this bill. It's their desire to see the language tightened up in
statute to close the loopholes that seem to be of concern to
harvesters. The old statutes had can sizes that are not used now
and the other purpose was to have reporting periods that were more
conducive to negotiation and settlement of a year-round contract.
This bill also adequately tightens up language with thermal
processed wording replacing the "canned" wording.
Number 46
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was somewhere in law where frozen
product is reported.
MR. MCALLISTER said it was in regulation, but not statute. They
don't get good information about frozen product, which is another
step.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked where egg sales are covered.
MR. MCALLISTER said the commercial operator's annual report that
ADF&G requires covers eggs.
SENATOR TAYLOR thought egg sales would be a higher revenue
generator than canned product is.
MR. MCALLISTER said that's true in some years on some species,
particularly with chum salmon. Processors say that the data base
isn't worth the paper it's reported on and it's not statutorily
required; there is nothing requiring them to be accurate and also
there is no auditing provision.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it looks like the title doesn't prohibit an
amendment that would deal with frozen product.
MR. MCALLISTER said a very good report that was generated for this
body in 1983 goes into the difficulties in condensing different
product forms down to reliable and accurate reporting requirements.
He would support that debate anywhere it would occur, but it would
not be in time for the upcoming fishing season which is almost upon
us.
Number 401
MS. JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, said
Mr. Bartholomew characterized the first three sections of this bill
very well. They have been involved in combining their permitting
applications and the reporting is the next step that the processors
have actually asked for.
The fisheries business tax, which is the information that would be
provided to DEC, is from people who engage in processing fisheries
resources for sale by freezing, cooking, salting, or other methods.
This bill does not give DEC access to any kind of catch records,
nor would they want that information. It is their intent to not
actually share paper with the Department of Revenue, but have
electronic sharing of processing amounts for purposes of main
categories. Right now, their processing permits are based on the
amounts of fish processed and are very large groupings. This is
because right now they do not have the authority to keep that
information confidential. They are subject to the public record
and have relied upon constitutional protection for trade secrets
when it comes to recipes and things like that that they have in
their files. So far they have been successful, but haven't wanted
to chance it with financial information. This bill would allow
them to have access to that information for purposes of determining
the appropriate permitting structure and placement in that
structure for different processors and that's all they want it for.
SENATOR LEMAN said that is all the information they should be
seeking, but to get to that number, is it possible that the
Department could claim that they need the underlying data which is
the actual raw data that the processor uses as a receipt to pay the
fishermen.
MS. ADAIR answered that she couldn't fathom that.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if they would be looking at other data relating
to that processor's sales, or deployments of vans, or something
else that demonstrates how much product is moving out of the
facility.
MS. ADAIR answered that they would be looking at how much they
processed.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they would base that on tons or numbers
of cans or what - to determine the size of the facility.
MS. ADAIR said they report this in pounds. That is the information
they would use and put it into categories like they have now for
permits.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they don't trust the operators now to
tell them how many pounds they process a year.
MS. ADAIR answered that they don't ask them now.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked why they don't instead of having the
legislature pass legislation that would open up confidential
records.
MS. ADAIR answered she didn't know why they would tell her.
SENATOR TORGERSON responded if their fee structure is based that
way, why wouldn't they.
MS. ADAIR answered that DEC couldn't keep it confidential.
SENATOR TORGERSON said their fee structure for restaurants is based
on how many people they sit and that's not confidential either.
MS. ADAIR responded that it's easy to see how many people a
restaurant can seat; it is a trade secret how much fish a processor
processes. All the seats in the restaurant are not full seven days
a week. You can't really glean how much money they are making
based on the number of seats, but you could figure out how much
money a processor is making by finding out how many pounds they
process and she didn't think it was appropriate for them to be
involved with that.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the processors are asking for this, but
they don't want each other to know what they are doing.
MS. ADAIR read an excerpt from a letter from the Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters Association saying they supported a fee assessment
based on poundage processed.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they have the authority to audit if they
suspect the poundage information was not correct.
MS. ADAIR said she didn't believe so.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why DEC would, other than for structuring a
fee, have to know poundage. Wouldn't they rather know the number of
lines they had for canning processing, the number of tables and
cookers, the number of sinks and bathrooms, etc.
MS. ADAIR said he was right. There is a correlation between how
much fish is processed and all those other things. They base their
fees on how much time it takes them within a given plant in certain
broad categories of plants. They want the categories to be smaller
and once you break them down, you're looking at amounts that are
being processed.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they are just looking for ways to come up
with a new fee schedule.
MS. ADAIR responded that they are responding to a request made by
the public which has asked them to base their fees on something
they don't have access to. She thought it would lead to a fee
reduction for the smaller processors.
SENATOR TAYLOR said they could just as easily base their fee on the
number of employees at a plant.
MS. ADAIR said she didn't know what correlation she could make
between their processing services and the number of employees at a
given facility.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was concerned that basing fees on the volume
of fish processed would be moving toward a straight tax.
MS. ADAIR said it is not their intent or the processor's intent,
but they are trying to get a better correlation between their
average amount of time spent in a plant and what that plant
actually looks like. Currently, their categories are broad,
because they are not able to keep the information confidential.
They are trying to get smaller categories that are more reflective
of those processors who are in that category. One of the ways to
do that is to look at how much fish is processed in a facility.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what would happen to the fee if they freeze
the fish.
MS. ADAIR responded that their fees are different for different
kinds of processing. Thermal processing and smoking are the
highest fees, because that is more complicated and requires more
time. Fresh frozen has lower fees.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how they knew processors were not lying
about how much they froze.
MS. ADAIR answered if they have facilities for smoking and canning,
they are inspected at a higher frequency.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD clarified his point was that they have a lot of
reporting for thermally processed fish and not for frozen fish.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought the majority of lobbying for this
bill is coming from the smaller processors who are getting hit with
the same fee that they are charging the big processors.
MS. ADAIR said that was not the case and that the smaller
processors don't pay as much as the large ones do.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if everyone wanted the fee based on the volume
of fish produced.
MS. ADAIR answered that wasn't true, but the lobbying was coming
from only one group.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why they didn't just charge $100, $200, and
$300 for the small, medium, and large processors and come back to
the legislature for general funds which is the way it used to be
done.
MS. ADAIR said that is not how they budget and set fees and she
would be happy to go over the process with him. No one pays the
full cost to the Department of the time involved in inspections and
permitting. The fees cover only about 30 percent of the seafood
processing program.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was assurance in this legislation
that that same 30 percent of cost would be reflected in the future.
He asked how he would know they weren't getting 100 percent of
their cost in the future.
MS. ADAIR responded that the Legislature had to approve, through
the budget process, any department's ability to receive and expend
fees.
SENATOR TAYLOR parried that was called program receipts and didn't
count as general funds, anymore, and no one gets denied their
program receipts.
MS. ADAIR responded that program receipts are only considered
designated program receipts if they cover the entire cost of a
program. DEC has a statutory prohibition on covering the travel
costs of the programs through fees. Their program receipts are
considered general funds and they have had increases denied.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would have staff work on this bill
further.
HB 373 - FOREST RESOURCES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HB 373 to be up for consideration.
MS. PAT SPRINGER, Staff to Speaker Phillips, sponsor, read Speaker
Phillips' sponsor statement. It said this bill would greatly
enhance protection of Alaska's salmon resources and water quality.
This legislation improves present Forest Practices Act safeguards
and represents a commitment from the industry, environmental
concerns and government to periodically reevaluate the Forest
Practices Act. The Board of Forestry has found that the Act is
working well in protecting salmon habitat and water quality, but
concluded that some areas needed further review. They established
a Science and Technical Committee that recommended opportunities to
strengthen habitat and wildlife protection. A Stakeholder
Committee then convened to incorporate the findings into
recommendations for the Board of Forestry which endorsed a series
of amendments to the Forest Practices Act. These amendments have
broad consensus support from all the participants.
MR. JEFF JAHNKE, State Forester, said he is also the presiding
officer for the Board of Forestry. Today he is testifying on
behalf of both in support of HB 373. He emphasized the process and
resulting recommendations were based on the best available
scientific recommendations and that the process was open
throughout. The results were supported by a wide range of
interests - the Board of Forestry with commercial fishing, forest
industries, native corporations, environmental corporations,
mining, fish and wildlife biologists and recreationists. He said
this legislation was achieved through consensus over a period of
two years and any substantive changes would make the consensus
difficult to sustain. This is a good bill providing additional
protection for key water bodies in coastal Alaska and is workable
for the timber industry. He said that Ms. Marty Welbourn was the
co-chairman of the Science and Technical Committee and has thorough
knowledge of the legislation.
MS. MARTY WELBOURN, Division of Forestry, explained that this is
not a wholesale revision of the Forest Practices Act, but affects
only the part of the Act that addresses stream classification and
riparian management on private lands in Region One - the coastal
forest in Southeast Alaska through Prince William Sound, the
eastern part of the Kenai Peninsula, and Kodiak. It includes
Mental Health Trust lands within that area, as well.
Under the existing Forest Practices Act, about 20 percent of the
streams in the area, including anadromous streams are unclassified
and have no designated riparian areas. Furthermore, there are
requirements to maintain some trees along stream banks of
unclassified streams. Tree cover along streams provides woody
debris for fish habitat and stabilizes stream banks to help control
erosion and provides nutrients to the stream. When the Science and
Technical Committee reviewed the Act, they found many issues where
they didn't recommend changes. Two significant recommendations
from the Committee require legislative change. They found all
anadromous streams and their tributaries should be classified and
have appropriate riparian protection. Secondly, they found that
Type B streams, anadromous streams that have rock banks and
relatively steep gradients, need more woody debris than they are
currently getting. Woody debris is needed for fish habitat within
Type B streams and other sorts of debris for Type A channels which
can wash down from Type B streams. Woody debris is also needed for
control of sedimentation. HB 373 contains consensus
recommendations from the Board of Forestry that respond to the
Science and Technical Committee's provision findings.
TAPE 98-26, SIDE A
The Act would also classify all tributaries to anadromous streams
as Type B or D based on the steepness of the stream and stability
standards would apply on those streams, as well.
She explained under the current Act, only Type A streams,
anadromous streams with a relatively low gradient, have a buffer.
One of the things the bill does is add requirements that applies
stability standards out to 100 feet from the stream or to the slope
break on Type A streams, but it does not change the existing
buffers on those Type A streams. On Type B streams, it would add
a buffer that would go out to 66 ft. or to the slope break which
ever is smaller. Many Type B streams are inside channels, so the
buffers in many cases would be narrower than 66 ft. On the
tributaries to anadromous streams, both stability standards would
apply. On Type C streams there would be 100 ft. and on Type B
streams about 50 ft. unless the break comes first. For larger
tributaries to anadromous streams the bill strengthens the timber
retention standards. It would require the operator to retain low
value timber within at least 25 ft. and that could be wider
depending on the characteristics of the stream. These changes help
insure that the goal for the Forest Practices Act are met - to
provide adequate protection of fish habitat and water quality and
insure that it continues to satisfy the requirements for nonpoint
source pollution under the federal Clean Water Act and the Coastal
Zone Management Act.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that he thought the Forest Practices Act
was a cookie cutter approach to forest management and that this
bill's four-part breakdown of streams based upon gradient and bank
structure is probably a more refined cookie cutter, but it's still
just a cookie cutter. He thought it might get permits approved
more quickly to be able to harvest with a greater level of
stability than what they have had in the past. He supported that
concept, although it was still just a cookie cutter approach.
Number 133
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that the distances were not consistent in
the original Forest Practices Act. He asked if there was any place
that private forest land can include fairly small parcels with
another primary purpose to exclude the right of a property owner on
their five or ten acre parcel to clear their stream front.
MR. JAHNKE said he thought that was covered.
MS. WELBOURN answered that first of all, land owners can convert
their land to another use. They just need to notify them of a land
use conversion. Small land owners, the size varying by region, are
exempted from notification under the Act.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how small is small.
MS. WELBOURN answered in Southeast it's 10 acres and in
Southcentral, it's 40 acres. Above those thresholds, you have to
notify DNR if you are clearing the land and converting it to
another use. Then the Forest Practices Act does not apply. If the
conversion is not under way in a five year period, you are expected
to reforest.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was concerned about making it impossible
for someone to develop another use because they have forest land.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the slope stability standards are in
existence now.
MR. JAHNKE answered yes, and they are established by the rule
making process, but the Board of Forestry is the body that reviews
them.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they had to worry about anything more
than 100 ft.
MR. JAHNKE said he thought that was correct for private lands.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked where the definition of break of slope was
defined.
MR. JAHNKE said it is defined in statute at the point where the
stream bank changes to a lower area. In most cases, they believe
the point of the break in the slope is easily identifiable.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked him if the statute specified the first break
in the slope.
MR. JAHNKE didn't have an answer.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he liked the fact that the other area of
interpretation was high value/low value and it's the land owner
that decides.
MR. JAHNKE said that is how they interpret that, also.
Number 240
SENATOR LEMAN said for the Type C and D water bodies there is a
reference to a width measurement if the channel is incised. He
asked if that was a term that is well recognized or does it need to
be further defined by the angle of the incision or anything having
to do with the structure of the stream bank.
MR. JAHNKE said the distinction between incised and gradient is one
that has existed for a while and he didn't think there had been a
problem with that in the past.
Number 256
MS. WELBOURN said it hasn't been a problem and has been worked out
in the field.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she didn't understand the fiscal note. DNR
said based on distribution, there's going to be an estimated 21
percent increase in the number of buffer stream miles which would
require additional staff time for office review of notification and
field review of requests and violations. Training will be needed
for land owners and operators and staff, etc. and it's all free.
She asked how that can be.
MR. RICK HARRIS, Sealaska, said HB 373 was put together in a
process of consensus building and was a continuation of a process
that began in 1988. They have been able to work with various
interest groups and, where good science comes along and indicates
there is a need to make a modification to the Forest Practices Act
or to the regulations, they have come together to do that. This
bill has identified some deficiencies in the Act and regulations.
Since 1982, they have been monitoring the Forest Practices Act.
Most of that money has been provided by the timber industry and the
people who are interested in seeing the Forest Practices Act work,
although they have received grants from EPA to do monitoring. As
a result of the monitoring, they can say that the Act is working to
protect fish habitat and water quality. The purpose of modifying
the Act and regulations is to provide that all the streams are
classified.
MR. HARRIS said this is not a cookie cutter approach. It
establishes the standard, but it allows people in the field -
competent trained biologists and resources trained people, - to go
out and make adjustments in the field that provide better
protections for the private timber owner or to modify the practices
in site specific areas, if it appears that water quality standards
are not being met. The bill provides more flexibility than Senator
Taylor gives it credit for.
The other part of the bill that's useful is providing protection in
the upstream reaches. Up until this time, there was no mandatory
retention of timber, but through research they have found that some
timber retention is important and for that reason they are
agreeable to retain some timber along those streams to provide
enhanced protection for the stream.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they should amend this to say the first
break in the slope.
MR. HARRIS said they had been using this standard since 1990 and
there hasn't been a problem with interpretation. It's been
described as the first break you encounter as you come up over the
slope.
Number 340
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the definition of incised had ever been a
problem.
MR. HARRIS answered there are some minor adjustments they are
suggesting, but incised and channels contained by geomorphology are
terms that are understood when you are out in the field.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that in Southeast, the thing that shows
the most and lasts the longest from timber cuts is a straight line.
If you can avoid straight lines, it will look fine.
MR. JAHNKE said straight lines generally occur on property
boundaries.
Number 376
MR. JACK PHELPS, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
supported HB 373 as written and said he had sent a letter to that
effect. Their involvement has been thorough in this process and
this is good legislation encouraging stability in terms of how the
industry is dealt with by regulatory agencies and it is very
science based. He also talked to Dick Coose with Concerned
Alaskans For Resources and Environment, who wanted him to say they
support this bill, also.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that the fiscal note enumerated all the
costs and then put zeros and he wanted that clarified. SENATOR
LINCOLN agreed.
MR. JAHNKE said they had struggled over the fiscal impacts of this
bill and much of it they can do in the course of their normal
inspections. It has been tough to identify what the additional 20
percent of Type B would mean. He thought the fiscal note said
that. He said they are out in the field, anyhow, on the
inspections. The training was the biggest issue and they are
already conducting training session that they were going to work it
into.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he has a problem with the zero fiscal note
for the additional three months for two existing seasonal Forester
II positions, because the Department will come back next year and
say they notified the legislature of the cost and they approved it.
MR. JAHNKE attempted to clarify that this is an adjustment to the
Forest Practices Act and the people are in the field anyway and
it's difficult to separate the impacts of this particular
legislation. It's not a wholesale change.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if he wrote the fiscal note.
MR. JAHNKE answered yes, he wrote some of it.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she thought ADF&G would be involved in this
process and she didn't see any fiscal note from them either.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't have a problem with moving the bill
out, but wanted a fiscal note that justified in numbers what it
says with the words.
Number 454
SENATOR LINCOLN said they had passed other legislation out of this
committee that had a zero fiscal note and if the Department thought
they could do it with a zero fiscal note, they could hold their
feet to the fire.
SENATOR LEMAN moved the technical amendment to replace "whichever
area is smaller" with "whichever distance is less" and where it
says "whichever area is greater" replace with "whichever distance
is greater." There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass SCS CSHB 373(RES) with individual
recommendations and an accurate fiscal note. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|