02/28/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2014
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to the sale of timber on state land;
establishing the Susitna State Forest; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 202
"An Act raising the application fee for a drawing permit for the
hunting of bison to $20; requiring the game management plan for
bison in the Delta Junction Bison Range Area to include
mitigation of bison damage to farm crops and farm and personal
property; and authorizing the commissioner of natural resources
to make grants to mitigate or prevent damage caused by bison."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 207
"An Act establishing the Board of Agriculture, Conservation, and
Development; transferring the powers and duties of the Natural
Resource Conservation and Development Board to the Board of
Agriculture, Conservation, and Development; transferring to the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development the
authority to approve loans from the agricultural revolving loan
fund; terminating the Natural Resource Conservation and
Development Board; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE: SUSITNA STATE FOREST; SALE OF TIMBER
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/13 (H) RES
02/24/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/24/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/14 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/28/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 202
SHORT TITLE: BISON DRAWING PERMIT FEES
SPONSOR(s): FEIGE
04/10/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/13 (H) RES, FIN
02/21/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/21/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/14 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/28/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 207
SHORT TITLE: AGRICULTURE; AGRICULTURAL LOANS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FEIGE
04/12/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/12/13 (H) RES, FIN
02/05/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/05/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/14 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/28/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/28/14 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/14/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/14/14 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/14 (H) MINUTE(RES)
WITNESS REGISTER
BRIAN KLEINHENZ
Alaska Society of American Foresters
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
WAYNE NICOLLS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 79.
DAVE POPPERT
Poppert Milling, Inc.
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding his concerns with some
of the provisions in HB 79.
MARK STAHL, Owner, Operator
Denali Log and Lumber
Talkeetna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
TERRENCE SHANIGAN
Alaska Moose Federation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
CHARLES SINK, Chair
Alaska Society of American Foresters
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
CHAD SCHUMACHER, General Manager
Superior Pellet Fuels, LLC
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
CHRIS GATES
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
GLEN HOLT
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
NICK STEEN
South Central Alaska Chapter, The Ruffed Grouse Society
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered conditional support for HB 79.
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association (AFA)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
LEWIS BRATCHER
The Great Alaska Bowl Company
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
CARL PORTMAN, Executive Director
Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Mr. Portman's testimony in support of HB 79
was read by Mr. John Sturgeon.
JOHN STURGEON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association (AMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Director & State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 79.
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff
Representative Eric Feige
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 202, explained on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Feige, the changes made by
the proposed committee substitute, Version P,.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered concern regarding HB 202.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 202,
Version P.
WAYNE BROST
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 202.
AL BARRETTE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 202.
JEFF LIPSCOMB
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 202.
DAVID DAVENPORT
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 202.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:08 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
Johnson, Olson, P. Wilson, and Feige were present at the call to
order. Representatives Tarr and Hawker arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 79-SUSITNA STATE FOREST; SALE OF TIMBER
1:07:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to the sale of timber on
state land; establishing the Susitna State Forest; and providing
for an effective date."
1:08:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HB 79.
1:08:33 PM
BRIAN KLEINHENZ, Alaska Society of American Foresters, testified
his organization supports creation of the Susitna State Forest,
as well as supports the good work done by the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and the Division of Forestry in managing
the state's forest resources. His organization supports the
legislative designation of state forests for the amount of
investment in opportunities created through that investment in
the long term. Designation allows a sustainable land base to be
put together and allows DNR to invest money into silviculture,
tree tending, and installation of roads and bridges. The public
access created in the long run, and the resources made available
through the creation of such state forests, help to promote
regional economy, timber operations, local manufacturing
opportunities, and provide access for recreational and
subsistence activities.
1:10:33 PM
WAYNE NICOLLS noted he is a member of the Alaska Society of
American Foresters as well as a member of Alaska's Board of
Forestry. He said he cannot add anything new to what Mr.
Kleinhenz said, but that he thinks having another state forest
is a good idea, and he supports at least doubling the amount of
state forests. The difference between just plain state land and
its designation as a state forest is that it enables the
investment of resources for long-term benefit and makes possible
more intensive management of the state forest.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether at public meetings or his
organization's meetings, the boundaries have been looked at and
determined that they will work for management of the forest.
MR. NICOLLS replied yes, the only factor that makes them less
than manageable is the lack of access. Having state forest
status justifies and enables investment in good access as well
as other features.
1:12:52 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
stated AOC is a statewide organization of outdoors folks who
like to hunt and fish on public lands. He said he personally
participated in the Susitna-Matanuska area planning process and
that he was on the "Susitna Forest Guidelines Advisory
Committee" prior to the adoption of the Susitna Matanuska Area
Plan. As executive director of AOC he spends a lot of time at
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) advisory committee
meetings and spends two weeks at the state fair talking to folks
who hunt and fish and who let him know what their access and
interest issues are. He stated AOC opposes HB 79, as written.
He clarified AOC does not oppose resource development in the
Susitna drainage, rather AOC sees timber harvest and mineral and
hydrocarbon exploration development as consistent with how its
members use state lands for wild food harvest and recreation.
The first of two problems with the bill is the way it classifies
land; it does not finish the job. Instead of resolving or
preventing more user conflicts, it creates conflicts by
spreading out the ownership of the state unencumbered lands from
the new forest lands because the pieces are not contiguous. The
Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan covers over 9 million acres of state
land, and of that, 3 million acres currently in the management
area are already legislatively designated areas, mainly for
habitat protection. However, HB 79 proposes to designate a
little over 7,633 acres into the Susitna State Forest, leaving
roughly 6 million acres for future designation, which could even
further intensify the conflict by having different management of
state lands. Environmentalists are showing a great interest in
the Susitna drainage.
1:15:31 PM
MR. ARNO said AOC is hoping the legislation would try to ensure
that state lands in the valley critical for wildlife habitat and
fisheries are protected and such protection would be provided by
state forest designation. The Alaska Outdoor Council would like
to see the lands that are classified only as habitat also
included in the state forest, not just those areas that are
specifically well suited for forestry. The reason for that is
the example of the Tanana Valley State Forest. It is a little
bit different situation because the non-contiguous pieces were
closer to roads so they had easier access than what is had on
the western side of the Susitna Basin. Included in the
legislation for the Tanana Valley State Forest was AS
41.17.40(e), which says the wildlife management objectives for
the forest are the production of wildlife for a high value of
sustained yield for human use through habitat improvement
techniques to the extent consistent with the primary purpose of
the state forest. So, while DNR can do habitat manipulation,
the legislature in creating the Tanana Valley State Forest went
further by putting into statute that habitat improvement
techniques would be used to increase the productivity of the
habitat. That is extremely important. Mr. Arno recalled that
when he first started guiding in the Susitna Basin there were
10,000 moose. Today there are 2,500 moose and that is after 7
years of intensive management by ADF&G. It is being heard from
ADF&G that the limiting factor is the habitat because this area
is interspersed with cabins and homes, which does not allow for
a wildfire to burn. If more lands are included in the [state]
forest than just the hardcore timber lands, habitat can be
manipulated to increase moose populations. At a recent Board of
Fisheries meeting, concern was expressed over and over again for
the integrity of habitat in the upper Cook Inlet. Seven of the
eleven salmon species of concern are in the Susitna drainage.
To protect the riparian areas around those streams, AOC would
like to see those streams encompassed in a larger forest than
what DNR is proposing with HB 79.
1:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested Mr. Arno to provide examples
of what would be prevented from happening if the [aforementioned
statute] is included.
MR. ARNO replied including it in the forest would prevent future
legislation from designating it something else, such as a park
which cannot be manipulated to increase habitat. As a
designated forest with the same statute as for the Tanana Valley
State Forest, an obligation would be put on the department to do
habitat enhancement if it is practical and does not interfere
with the intent of the forest. It is codified that habitat
enhancement can be done on state public domain in this area, but
it has not happened despite ADF&G knowing for three years that
habitat has been the limiting factor. This would push DNR to do
more habitat manipulation for moose in these areas.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, saying she understands Mr. Arno's
answer, asked whether there would be something the timber folks
could not do because of that.
MR. ARNO answered no. Responding further, he clarified DNR
would not be closing hunting. He said AOC wants DNR to improve
the habitat that has not burned since the late 1970s. Without
burns it is no longer prime habitat for moose and no longer the
local bread basket like it should be.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised it would cost additional money
to do habitat manipulation. She inquired what methods DNR would
employ to improve the habitat, explaining she is trying to
understand why DNR does not want to do this and why this statute
is not included in the bill.
MR. ARNO responded that as a member of the committees that
worked on the planning process, DNR was looking at strategically
targeting the timber that had the highest value. The areas
located in between where DNR did not choose are areas of low
value, so it is not worth it for the Division of Forestry to
timber those areas. However, the division could do habitat
manipulation. For example, a small stand of black spruce may
not be worth timbering, but knocking down the spruce and the
alders would provide better moose habitat.
1:23:48 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE understood Mr. Arno to be asking for additional
lands to be [designated as state forest], not necessarily under
forest management but for habitat preservation.
MR. ARNO replied the legislature can create the boundaries of a
state forest without all of the lands being specifically tied to
timber harvest. The Alaska Outdoor Council is looking for these
lands to be taken out of "just public domain" in between these
blocks of forest and have that be contiguous state forest for
DNR to manage and to try managing for habitat enhancement, which
is what including the provision of AS 41.17.40(e) would do.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether Mr. Arno is also suggesting that
if such additional lands were included they would then no longer
be available for future conveyance to the public, thereby taking
away the possibility of people owning their own piece of Alaska.
MR. ARNO answered it would not take "any of the ones that have
the land right now"; it would take unencumbered state lands and
put them into a legislatively designated area that AOC feels
would be more advantageous to the residents of the Cook Inlet
drainage by having the production of moose there. After 25
years of going to the Board of Game, he cannot point to another
place on the map in which those residents are happy to have
Anchorage and [Matanuska-Susitna] Valley residents come to hunt.
When looking at state land that is accessible to the majority of
Alaskans wishing to hunt for food, far less conflict would be
caused if they could hunt within the Anchorage Bowl rather than
impacting areas outside the bowl.
1:26:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how including "non-timber-value"
land in the bill and requiring the Division of Forestry to
improve the habit in those areas squares with the idea of
limiting forest designation to areas having enough value for
investing in roads to access and manage that land. He noted the
Division of Forestry is asking the legislature to designate the
land as state forest because undesignated lands do not have
long-term value as far as investing money for timber production.
This would be diluted if other land is included and the division
is required to manage all of the land even though there is not
timber value on these other lands.
MR. ARNO responded AOC thinks wildlife habitat is equally as
important to the residents of Alaska. It is not just any
habitat, it would be managed intensively for high production.
Both timber and moose are renewable resources. Members of AOC
would like to have a place in which to hunt that is close and
economically feasible to harvest wild food. Moose meat is just
as valuable to the residents of Anchorage as timber is to the
timber industry.
1:28:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether it would be better to
have some forest even if it is not exactly what AOC wants,
because harvested timberland will become prime moose habitat.
Understanding Mr. Arno to have said AOC is opposed to HB 79 as
written, he further inquired whether HB 79 as written is better
than doing nothing, given that time limitations may preclude
starting over with another bill or amending the current version.
MR. ARNO replied that politically right now, AOC would push for
a larger designated forest because the area has a number of
other legislatively designated areas, but they are in pieces and
not contiguous. He allowed that designated recreational rivers
do cover some of the major salmon spawning streams. He argued
that urban people are being evicted from hunting on federal
lands, so demand to harvest moose on state land will go up.
This is the least conflicted area because there are so few
people living on it and there is no "Tier 2-type issue." A lot
of other interests in the Susitna drainage, such as The Nature
Conservancy and the "Mat-Su Partnership," are working with
environmental organizations to preserve the lands. Putting in
as much as possible now would save everyone a lot of trouble in
coming together and again asking the legislature for another
piece. Because of the fisheries in the northern district and
how that affects the whole Cook Inlet, there would be quality in
protecting those streams right now by all being in one. Having
it all in little pieces will require having access to get out
there, but before access can start getting out there, there will
be more conflicts. He stressed AOC definitely feels more lands
could be gotten now.
1:32:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed his concern that amending the
bill to include these other blocks of land would take more time
than is available in the rest of the session. While being able
to make the amendments would be the perfect scenario, the
question - if there is not enough time - is whether it would be
better to adopt the bill, take what can be gotten now, and
including the Tanana forest statute so harvesting and management
is done keeping in mind that there must be good moose habitat
when done. To prevent the possibility of there being no bill,
he said he is looking for a compromise in the middle between
doing nothing and doing everything.
MR. ARNO answered the 2011 Susitna Matanuska Area Plan breaks
down each of the acreages into categories as to whether the
acreage is agriculture, forest lands that can be culled and
habitat, habitat, habitat water resources, minerals, minerals
habitat, public recreation, public facilities, and settlement.
The blocks of land labeled habitat in the management plan could
be picked out quickly for addition to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many acres this would be.
MR. ARNO responded the acreage would double the size of the
proposed forest. The Tanana Valley is 1.8 million acres, which
is not nearly the size of drainage as the Susitna and less than
800,000 is being asked for in the Susitna. Doubling that would
be adding 1.6 [million] acres, which is not an unreasonable size
given the demand that that area is going have from the residents
of Southcentral Alaska.
1:35:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented he wants to do what he can for
hunters in protecting these lands. However, he is perplexed as
to what to do and whether this would be the best use of the
land. He agreed that when people from his district go hunting
near Fairbanks they do get grief. If this is the solution to
providing a backyard bread basket, then he would like to work on
that, but he does not know where he stands on this right now and
he does not know where this can be done. He inquired as the co-
chair's intention for moving the bill.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied he is not necessarily looking to move the
bill today given quite a few more people have yet to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that is comforting.
1:37:11 PM
DAVE POPPERT, Poppert Milling, Inc., testified his company began
doing business in Alaska almost 50 years ago when his
grandfather started the company in 1963 in downtown Wasilla. He
said a sustainable saw timber supply has been a long time
coming; supply of saw logs is something his company battles with
yearly. His company supports establishing the Susitna State
Forest to the extent that it is going to be economical to get
the timber products that his company manufactures and markets.
Biggest in these economics is first the availability and second
the access. Availability will be taken care of by establishing
a state forest. As far as access, the wheels are beginning to
turn with some road extension to access "the Fish Creek Ag Area"
via an ice bridge across the Little Susitna River. More needs
to be done with roads in the future. It does no good to have
three-quarters of a million acres of timberland if getting to it
is uneconomic. Without this backdoor access, his company is
looking at a roundtrip of approximately 200 miles for one load
of logs to get from the proposed state forest to his company's
manufacturing point, which is economically unfeasible. His
company is happy to see the road access that is being put in off
the backside of Big Lake through Susitna Parkway.
1:39:16 PM
MR. POPPERT expressed Poppert Milling's concern with the bill's
proposed changes to Title 38. Of particular concern, he said,
is the proposed offering of negotiated 25-year sales to include
wood fiber users and biomass energy producers. Currently under
AS 38.05.123, long-term negotiated sales of about 10 years are
reserved for high-value-added products. This proposed change to
Title 38 would be quite detrimental to people who add lots of
value to the product and, as a result, AS 38.05.118 would pretty
much cease to exist. Poppert Milling sees this as providing an
avenue for large outside interests to gain a foothold in areas
of the state that should be held for the smaller local mill
owners. Issues have been had in the valley in the past with
wood fiber users -- hundreds of acres of saw logs went into
biomass and chips and some saw logs were exported without any
value being added to them. His grandfather started this company
and his son is now working with him and will eventually take
over, so he is hesitant to do anything in that regard with an
unknown future about a saw log supply. If the big wood fiber
users and biomass energy producers come in they will take away
the saw log material and all that will be left is biomass energy
product, which is a low income, low return, and low volume for
the buck type of deal.
1:42:44 PM
MARK STAHL, Owner, Operator, Denali Log and Lumber, strongly
supported HB 79 as currently written, saying there are many good
reasons for it. It can be seen on a map of the [Matanuska-
Susitna] Valley that a high percent of the valley is owned by
public entities and Native corporations with very little
traditional private land. He urged that the state come forward
and manage as much of that land as possible for industry because
the amount of private land is not enough to support and grow a
diverse forest product industry. Regarding the changes to Title
38, he said he supports a variety of company sizes operating in
the area because that provides a healthy and diverse ecosystem
in the industry. The different companies do not necessarily
compete with each other or even compete for the same resource.
Having medium or large-sized operators in the area would be good
for everyone as there are enough acres to go around.
1:45:09 PM
TERRENCE SHANIGAN, Alaska Moose Federation, supported HB 79,
saying that the Alaska Moose Federation is also looking at the
Alaska Strategic Highway Safety Plan produced by the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) for this area.
In that plan, DNR is listed as a partner in assisting with
habitat creation. While the plan may not be perfect, it does a
lot for creating off-highway moose habitat that does not
currently exist. This is important to the federation because
right now most of the habitat creation is done on the highway
corridors and in the last 24 months the federation has recovered
about 1,000 moose off the highways in the state's heaviest moose
corridors. While that is an accomplishment, it is a completely
reactionary program. One of the federation's counter programs
is an attempt to create off-highway habitat for moose. The
timber harvests and active management as proposed in [HB 79]
would significantly work in that direction. Nine human
fatalities with moose have occurred, with the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley reporting the highest number of collisions. For example,
on 2/2/12 the federation picked up 17 moose off the highways
between Eagle River and Talkeetna in a 24-hour period. On
12/30/13 the federation picked up 6 moose in 26 hours in the
Parks Highway and Big Lake area. The federation has tried to
get permits each winter to create off-highway habitat. So many
moose are being drawn into this area that something like HB 79
would greatly reduce the number of moose/vehicle collisions.
According to DOT&PF, each vehicle collision is worth about
$15,000 in damage; using DOT&PF's statistics, the damage in 2011
was $15 million. Moose have become addicted to Alaska's
highways and HB 79 will allow moving in a better direction to
create off-highway habitat. Mr. Shanigan said that while good
arguments were made in earlier testimony, HB 79 is much better
than doing nothing and has the added side-effects of reducing
public safety issues and enhancing DOT&PF's current plan.
1:48:59 PM
CHARLES SINK, Chair, Alaska Society of American Foresters,
supported HB 79. He read from a 3/15/12 resolution letter
passed by his organization in support of a Susitna State Forest
[original punctuation provided]:
Members of the Alaska Society of American Foresters
fully support the concepts and values of the Susitna
State Forest. By legislatively designating this land
as a State Forest, this will ensure that the land will
remain available for long term forest management. The
lands in the Forest will continue to be open for
multiple uses including wildlife habitat, harvest, and
recreational activities. This region, as well, will
continue to retain the large open spaces of public
lands.
The benefits of the State Forest are far reaching into
the future. Our children's children will benefit from
the Susitna State Forest.
MR. SINK emphasized that wildlife habitat and fisheries are a
concern of multiple uses of state forests. Allowing the land to
burn, he said, is a management issue that is complicated by
smoke emissions, land ownership within the area, and the time of
year when the burns could occur. Everybody is concerned about
protecting fisheries habitat. His organization is concerned
about all the uses of the forest, whether subsistence,
fisheries, recreation, or habitat and protecting the forest as
state forest is a good management tool to achieve those goals.
1:51:44 PM
CHAD SCHUMACHER, General Manager, Superior Pellet Fuels, LLC,
related that in 2006 he began working on developing a large-
scale wood pellet manufacturing facility in Alaska. The
viability of a biomass fuel project like Superior's wood pellet
plant depends on the need for lower cost heating options, raw
material availability, and a large enough population to justify
the financial investment of a large-scale system. Superior's
management team analyzed these three factors to determine the
ideal location for a pellet facility and ultimately a North Pole
location was determined the best option at that time. While a
facility located in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough had tremendous
potential, the insecurity of available raw materials ultimately
pushed Superior to the Fairbanks area. The creation of a state
forest in the Susitna Valley would greatly improve the stability
of the timber industry there. The added security of the
proposed state forest would make this area the most likely
option for future management of wood pellet and biomass fuel
manufacturing for local heat and energy needs. The additional
access which would be made available through the designation of
the Susitna State Forest would definitely encourage biomass
industry growth. He said his company strongly supports HB 79 to
create a state forest in the Susitna Valley and expand DNR
authority to offer negotiated timber sales statewide.
1:53:49 PM
CHRIS GATES charged that the forest is currently not being
managed at all and is losing value due to beetle kill and fire
impacts. He said Alaska needs to consider non-oil resources in
the future since the state is running out of oil. The state's
distinctive competence is to harvest, export, and add value to
its natural resources. The committee's decision should be easy.
The state must plan for the day when it does not have oil and
does not have a way to somewhat supplement the loss of oil
revenue 7-10 years from now. He said he hopes the committee has
a bias towards developing the resources. A state forest
actually produces wood for sale, which is not true with a
federal forest like the Tongass National Forest. For the last
15 years state forests have actually produced wood that an
industry can count upon. The Susitna State Forest would add to
the inventory and would also reduce settlement conflicts and
manage access and access itself adds recreation opportunities.
He urged that HB 79 be moved forward. He suggested passing the
bill contingent upon a Susitna State Forest Plan being approved
by the legislature within two years. That would handle many
concerns of the Matanuska-Susitna Delegation and others with
regard to the details of how the forest will be managed. He
further urged the size of the forest be made bigger because
state forests have been so well managed in the past.
1:56:55 PM
GLEN HOLT stated he is a resident of the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough owning three properties there, two of which are remote.
He said he is currently working and living in Fairbanks in large
part due to the economic opportunity of the Tanana State Forest.
However, he intends to maintain his homes and properties in the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley where he worked for 23 years for state
forestry and then retired from state service with the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, Division of Habitat. He supported HB
79 as written, but said it would be great to see the forest
expanded. When he was working for the Division of Forestry and
with ADF&G, the agencies often partnered together to work on
those habitat-designated lands as was economically and feasibly
possible. He said he would like to see the infrastructure
created that is had in the Tanana State Forest, adding that the
state forest system is vital to economic opportunities within
the timber industry without hampering the recreational industry
or the multiple use facets of the state forest or the lands
surrounding them. It would be nice to enhance the forest if
that is an opportunity from time to time. He understood the
concern about having too many people move into the proposed
state forest area and creating greater and greater impact on the
state forest's ability to produce wildlife resources.
Instituting a state forest would help to enhance the social,
political, and economic environment there in favor of a forest
products industry. The industry views that very favorably in
that it is a commitment by the State of Alaska to actually have
less squabbling and more of a management say in what the main
focus of the lands is. Regarding the proposal to amend Title
38, he said he does not see a problem with incorporating biomass
resources in the mix for long-term timber sales because it would
not be economically prudent or justified to sell high value
timber - saw logs, veneer logs, or cabin logs - as biomass. He
favored HB 79 saying it is high time to get good legislation and
that he hopes there will be opportunity to add to the Susitna
State Forest land base.
2:00:43 PM
NICK STEEN, South Central Alaska Chapter, The Ruffed Grouse
Society, offered the chapter's conditional support for HB 79.
As currently written, he said, the bill is comprised of 14 non-
contiguous parcels of land. The chapter urges the boundaries be
expanded to include all unencumbered state lands draining into
Cook Inlet between Beluga Lake and the south boundaries of
Denali national and state parks. A forest designation for this
area is supported by the chapter because this land in public
ownership is important for the recreational use by the ever-
expanding population centers of Southcentral. It would
guarantee continued space for wildlife and would retain the
character of the land most people came to Alaska to experience.
A state forest is the least restrictive land designation that
can be managed for everyone's benefit, with the exception of
those wishing to see land transferred to private ownership. As
the population in Southcentral increases, the recreational
demand can no longer be met by transfer of land to private
ownership. Historically there have been numerous land disposal
programs throughout this area. A review of land ownership will
show much of the waterfront land has already been ceded to
private ownership. These private inholdings will make access
for timber extraction extremely difficult. Interspersing
additional transfers of land to private ownership within the
land designation for forest management makes no sense. Under
the recently enacted Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan, some of the
areas the chapter requests to be designated as state forest are
slated for disposal. Transfer of land into private ownership as
envisioned by the drafters of Alaska's state constitution is
laudable; however, as stated by the late Governor Hammond, it is
the ultimate lockup. Private ownership denies public use of
that specific parcel, frequently controls access to adjacent
public lands, and with the not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) attitude
influences management of public lands within view of that
parcel. This NIMBY attitude impacts the state's ability to
manage timber resources, wildlife resources, and mining
activities. The chapter does not believe those who drafted the
state's constitution envisioned the growth in population that
Alaska has experienced. A forest designation for this entire
area, even though it is not all productive timberland, would
provide uniform management guidelines throughout the area.
Multiple land designations lead to conflicting land use
regulations, causing confusion for users, unintentional
violation of regulations, or outright contempt and disregard for
those regulations. In the chapter's opinion, a forestry
designation is the least controlling land use pattern possible
and will afford future generations the greatest opportunity to
experience Alaska as did those before them. If in the future it
is determined that additional WalMarts or McDonalds are a higher
priority the forest designation can be modified to accommodate
the change, whereas returning private land to public ownership
is difficult, time consuming, and cost prohibitive. To the
chapter's knowledge, this is the last remaining large parcel of
state land in Southcentral that can be set aside for public use
and enjoyment. Effective management of timber resources
enhances wildlife populations such as moose, ruffed grouse, and
a variety of song birds. It creates an industry utilizing a
renewable resource that improves the economic basis of
communities while supporting the demand for recreational areas
to hunt, fish, trap, snow machine, hike, and otherwise enjoy the
great outdoors. The chapter recommends HB 79 be passed, but
expanded as outlined.
2:05:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted she bought property in this area
through the over-the-counter land sales and she knows other
people who have adjacent parcels within the area. She asked how
the state should address the private land ownership issue.
MR. STEEN responded the recommendation in his testimony was to
encompass all unencumbered state lands, so there would be no
bearing on private landowners.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she thinks being surrounded by state
forest could create access issues for private landowners that
will need to be addressed.
MR. STEEN concurred, saying it should be addressed in the bill.
2:06:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether Mr. Steen participated in
the public meetings that looked at designing the boundaries.
MR. STEEN confirmed he and the Ruffed Grouse Society did
participate, but said the planning committee chose not to accept
any of the suggestions presented by the society.
2:07:24 PM
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association
(AFA), said AFA represents over 100 businesses involved in the
Alaska timber industry. The AFA supports establishment of the
Susitna State Forest because timber is a renewable resource if
it is managed responsibly. The AFA is the sponsor of the
sustainable forestry initiative program for Alaska because AFA
wants to ensure that Alaska's forests are managed sustainably
and in conformance with the rules and regulations regarding
forest management. For instance, the fish populations in
Southeast Alaska have more than doubled since the 1950s when
industrial logging in that region first began. Even the most
heavily logged watersheds have seen fish escapement numbers more
than double over the last 60 years. With proper management
practices, the growth of timber in all the forests can be
significantly increased. The great yield from managed forests
can allow increased business opportunities and greatly reduces
the cost of growing and managing the timber. Many sawmills in
Alaska have struggled to maintain a reliable timber supply and
the result has been a loss of skilled workers and a loss of
customers and a lot of ongoing problems that can only be solved
by having a reliable timber supply. Proper timber management
can prevent a reoccurrence of this by providing that stable
supply in the long term. Proper timber management will also
result in increased road access for many uses besides timber.
For these reasons, AFA supports the establishment of a state
forest in the Susitna region. While AFA supports habitat
improvement, he urged that the bill not be delayed another year
because that can be addressed in the future.
2:09:56 PM
LEWIS BRATCHER, The Great Alaska Bowl Company, said the wood
bowls his manufacturing facility produces are an extensive
value-added product. His company is interested in this state
forest project because the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has the
healthiest birch trees available. In the past 22 years his
company has worked with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the
Division of Forestry, Native corporations, and people doing
agriculture sales and subdivisions in order to get the best
trees possible. Some years this has worked very successfully,
some years it has not, the wood was not available. This is an
exciting project, he continued, because it gives his company the
ability to sustain for 5, 10, and 25 years down the road so it
can make the proper investments in equipment, facilities, and
marketing. The Great Alaska Bowl Company is a unique user in
that it uses very high quality birch product, very high quality
trees. The requirement of that product is not available in the
Interior, it is in the Susitna area. Therefore, his company
encourages passage of HB 79 because it will facilitate business
and the ability to grow.
2:12:31 PM
CARL PORTMAN, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Inc. (RDC), provided written testimony in support of
HB 79. Mr. Portman's testimony was read by Mr. John Sturgeon
who spoke as follows:
The Resource Development Council supports HB 79, which
ensures large-scale tracts of land in the Susitna
Valley remain available for long-term forest
management that maximizes a sustainable supply of
timber from the state timber base. The new Susitna
State Forest would enhance access and encourage a
broad range of uses on state forest land, including
motorized use, and provide economic and recreational
opportunities to communities, businesses, and
residents. The new state forest will allow the
Division of Forestry to move actively managed lands
and vegetation to promote a variety of forest ages,
which in turn would maximize a sustained supply of
timber from the state timber base and provide for more
diverse and healthy habitat for wildlife. In
addition, active management would also help the risk
of wildfire. The Division of Forestry would manage
the forest for a long-term supply of timber to help
meet growing regional demand for state timber and
personal-use firewood harvesting. The state forests
would also help meet increased demand for logs, chips,
and biomass, feedstock for commercial, public schools,
residential space heating and wood pellet
manufacturing. Local processors depend on a stable
long-term supply of state timber for their raw
material. In fact, a dependable long-term supply is
required to justify to major private investment in
processing and manufacturing facilities or expansion
of such facilities. An enhanced long-term timber
supply will not only help support the forest products
industry, it would create new jobs and provide
important economic opportunities to local communities,
businesses, and residents. There has been concern
expressed by local residents and user groups that the
proposed forest may block public access and
traditional use; RDC would not be in support of this
bill if that were indeed the case. RDC has a long
history of fighting for and preserving access to both
federal and state lands for responsible development of
natural resources, economic development, job creation,
recreation, and traditional uses, including motorized
use. RDC would be writing in opposition to the bill
if it were yet another impedance to access. Public
access on state forests is typically greater than on
other state lands because active timber management
requires expansion of the road systems. Access is a
major focus of the state planning process as plans
provide detailed guidance on road design,
construction, and maintenance. In fact, DNR has ... a
demonstrated track record of providing access in state
forests with design and management tailored to the
resource management needs of each forest. The Susitna
State Forest would be managed consistent with the
timber management and deed under the current Susitna-
Matanuska and Southeast Susitna area plans. Alaska's
Forest Resource Practices Act would apply to
management activities on the forest and is designed to
protect both fish habitat and water quality. RDC
supports HB 79 and believes the proposed state forest
will be of much benefit to the local community.
Creating and sustaining much-needed jobs in the forest
products industry while providing many other
opportunities, including public access that doesn't
exist today for other multiple uses. We urge the
committee to pass HB 79.
2:16:13 PM
JOHN STURGEON testified he has been in the forest products
industry in Alaska for 43 years and is currently running one of
the largest operations in Alaska on Afognak Island, where he
logged almost 50 million board feet last year. He said he
supports the Susitna State Forest for several reasons. As an
investor it is important to have a long, stable, reliable supply
of timber, which is what state forests do. The Division of
Forestry has a good track record of doing just this in Southeast
Alaska and the Tanana area. There were several years in which
the Division of Forestry sold more timber than the Tongass
National Forest, the second largest national forest in the US.
The Susitna State Forest will help the Division of Forestry
continue to provide timber for a sustained timber industry.
Side benefits include roads. For example, his logging operation
on Afognak Island has over 1,000 miles of road and while those
roads are on private land they are used for a variety things,
such as hunting and fishing access. The Susitna State Forest
roads will do the same thing. Timber management, especially in
Interior Alaska, can be used for habitat improvement for a
variety of species. Environmental impacts are minimized given
that Alaska has one of the best forest practices acts in the US.
2:19:38 PM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), noted that AMA is the umbrella association for Alaska's
mining industry and was established in 1939. Members include
small family-run placer operations to large-scale hard rock
mines, coal mines, exploration projects, and the vendors and
contractors that support the mining industry. She said the
state's actions to revitalize and promote the timber industry
are important. The Alaska Miners Association supports HB 79
because it believes in a stable timber supply, believes in
Alaska's forestry practices, and believes the industry has
responsibly harvested timber in Alaska for many years. Because
the timber industry has faced struggles in federally managed
forests for the past few decades, AMA applauds state efforts to
promote the timber industry and foster jobs. The timber
industry in a state forest would advance infrastructure and
activities in an area that has tremendous mineral potential.
Placer gold, hard rock mineral deposits, and coal reserves are
plentiful in the area. Increasing the economic diversity in
this area through resource development is a win-win scenario.
2:21:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
2:21:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested Mr. Chris Maisch of DNR to respond to
the suggestions made during the public testimony.
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Director & State Forester, Division of
Forestry, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), replied the
division definitely heard the remark about growing [the
boundaries] of the state forest prior to preparing the bill
because it attended the various public meetings as part of the
area planning process and as part of its advance work of public
outreach. The area planning process is the first step in going
through an allocation process to designate lands for their
highest and best uses. A number of designations in the area
plan do that, including designations for habitat, forestry,
disposal for real estate, and disposal for agricultural
purposes. For the current proposal under HB 79, the division
defined and came up with the boundaries using forest classified
lands from the two different area plans that cover this area.
That topic was aggressively discussed and vetted during the
planning process. The number of acres actually went down from
the older plan, the original plan was split into two different
geographic areas for the Matanuska-Susitna Valley because of the
amount of growth that occurred and to give more detail to the
parts of the valley that have really developed, especially along
the highway corridor. The division had done a timber inventory
on the forest classified lands, which is required before a state
forest is proposed. So, these are definitely lands that have
been identified as higher productivity from a forestry
standpoint. That does not mean other lands in the area plan do
not also meet that same standard; it was just determined through
that planning process those lands were more suited for disposal,
habitat, or some other use. It is a balance of all the
interests and needs for this landscape, and the differences of
opinion as to what is that balance were reflected in the
comments heard today.
2:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding testimony that habitat lands
should be rolled into the forest, inquired what the different
management regimes are and what does that mean for a habitat
designation that would now be changed to a forestry designation.
He further asked how that would influence forestry management.
MR. MAISCH qualified he will need to look into the details on
that, but said he thinks that habitat classification could still
be retained even if the parcel is put in a state forest. When
land is designated state forest by statute, the primary purpose
is for forest management, which is something he can answer. The
management intent for the habitat pieces would have to be
reflected in the management plan that is prepared for the state
forest, which, by statute, is required within three years of
establishment. This management plan by the Division of Forestry
must go through a public process. The Tanana Valley State
Forest has specific direction on habitat manipulation and
encourages active management of those lands for habitat
purposes. That is a side benefit and the primary benefit is for
forest management. So, there is an element of trust that if
habitat lands go into that state forest they will continue to be
managed for that purpose.
2:26:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how co-management with private lands
will occur and how will access to private lands be addressed.
For example, the parcel she owns does not currently have road
access, which is the same for the parcels adjacent to her land.
MR. MAISCH answered he will provide the committee with a more
detailed map, called Susitna Valley Development Lands, that
shows the private lands/inholdings within the state land. Lands
depicted in purple and red are designated for disposal in the
area plan. Most of the water bodies have rings of private
property already around them because those are very sought-after
pieces of property for a disposal program. The plan for the
Tanana Valley State Forest calls for a citizens' advisory
committee that is made up of different interests from
communities around the state forest. The division uses the
committee as a sounding board as it develops its access plans
and plans for the timber program. The division also produces a
five-year schedule of timber sales that give people a look at
what is planned and each individual sale has a forest land use
plan that has a public comment period in the design of the sale
to address some of the issues being referred to by
Representative Tarr. Some people would love to have a road
going to their private parcel and others value their private
parcel because it does not have a road to it. To accommodate
those different values, the division will try to design its
transportation system to avoid places where there might be a
cluster of properties that prefer a remote nature and to
accommodate those that do want access.
2:29:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted the bill as written does not include
language directing the department to establish a citizens'
advisory panel or to do a two-year plan. She inquired whether
adding such language would be appropriate.
MR. MAISCH responded that under current statute the department
must complete a forest management plan within three years. Two
years would be a shorter timeframe, but it would essentially be
the same document. The testifier suggested that such a plan
comes back to the legislature for approval, but that does not
need to be done under current statute; rather, it is done
through the agency forest management planning process. A
citizens' advisory committee is also embodied within the forest
management plan itself and mirrors the Board of Forestry in
terms of the types of membership, so there would be no problem
with including a citizens' advisory committee in the state
forest. It is a standard feature in the Tanana Valley and has
served the division very well; it provides an early idea for how
the public is feeling about proposals for the forest.
2:31:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled the earlier testimony that during
the public planning process for the forest there was public
support for expanding the boundaries of the forest. He asked
whether the division did not want to expand the boundaries or
there was public testimony opposing expansion. He further asked
whether the disposal lands were supported or opposed during the
public planning process or were they division supported.
MR. MAISCH clarified it was the Division of Mining, Land and
Water that ran the public process because it was a revision of
the area plans. The Division of Forestry participated in the
public meetings but did not actually run that process. There
are extensive minutes of those meetings. He said he was not at
those meetings himself so cannot speak to the specifics, but he
is sure the Division of Mining, Land and Water heard a full
spectrum of interests coming from the public. It was that
division's job to then distill all of that down into a final
area plan that was adopted by the commissioner. Its adoption
indicates the commissioner felt it was a sound and transparent
process to account for the differing opinions.
2:32:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reported that the Iditarod Trail crosses
near her property and therefore the trail likely crosses some of
the designated lands north of her property. She inquired
whether there will be some sort of protection of that trail.
MR. MAISCH replied he will have to check with the Division of
Mining, Land and Water, but that the trail may already have an
easement that would protect it. If it does not, that could be
addressed in the forest management planning process. A chapter
in each plan addresses transportation, including trails, roads,
and pre-existing things. Something of historic significance
would receive special treatment in the plan.
2:33:45 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 79.
HB 202-BISON DRAWING PERMIT FEES
2:34:03 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act raising the application fee for a
drawing permit for the hunting of bison to $20; requiring the
game management plan for bison in the Delta Junction Bison Range
Area to include mitigation of bison damage to farm crops and
farm and personal property; and authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to make grants to mitigate or prevent damage
caused by bison." Co-Chair Feige noted that public testimony on
HB 202 is still open.
2:34:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 28-LS0412\P, Bullard, 2/24/14, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version P was
before the committee.
2:34:45 PM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes to HB 202 made by Version P,
saying these changes were made in response to testimony heard at
the bill's previous hearing in this committee. He said the
title was changed to reflect the changes made within the bill.
Additionally, page 3, line 10, of the bill was changed to
restrict grants awarded by the state to only soil and water
districts. The amount of the grant that could be awarded in any
given year was limited to 50 percent of the fee collected for
bison permits and fencing was limited to "fencing used to
prevent bison damage."
2:36:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:36 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.
2:37:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE clarified that the working document before the
committee is Version P.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to Version P, page 3, lines
15-16, which state that the grants "may not exceed an amount
equal to 50 percent of the total revenue collected under AS
16.05.346(b) in the previous fiscal year". He understood AS
16.05.346(b) is the total amount, which would mean that the
difference of $10 between the current fee of $10 and the new fee
of $20 could be, but would not have to be, issued in grant.
MR. PASCHALL replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he asked the aforementioned question
to make the change clear to the people listening online.
2:38:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE continued public testimony on HB 202.
2:39:03 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
explained AOC's concern about HB 202 deals with "fish and game
funds," which are near and dear to everybody he grew up with
and to everybody who is a new outdoors person. He said the
"fish and game fund" is a dedicated fund related to the Pittman-
Robertson Act of 1937 under which hunters pay an excise tax on
things and that money goes back to the states to be used mainly
for restoration. While AOC members sympathize with the farmers
for the damage done, AOC is concerned with the bill. He said
[AS] "16.05.[130](a)" says "except as provided in section (c),
which only has to do with trapping, money that is procured by
the state from sport fishing license, trappings, tags, permit
fees, may not be diverted to a purpose other than protection,
propagation, investigation, or restoration of sport fish and
game resources." Where HB 202 is looking at trying to mitigate
damage, he continued, the outdoor community does not see that as
dealing specifically with the provisions of use for the "fish
and game fund."
2:41:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that the money still goes to
the "fish and game fund" as far as the Pittman-Robertson Act is
concerned, but the grant monies would be coming out of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
MR. ARNO responded that is AOC's concern -- "having 'fish and
game fund' money not being allocated out from fish game but
being transferred to DNR."
2:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained that the money would still
be used for game.
MR. ARNO agreed, but said it is being given to farmers for the
purpose of mitigating damage that is done by wildlife, not for
restoration. While [damage to farmers] is a legitimate concern,
AOC does not want any slippage of what those Pittman-Robertson
funds can be used for and that use is described in [Alaska]
statute, "16.05.130," about diverting that to something else.
It can only be used for protection, propagation, investigation,
and restoration of game resources.
2:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Version P, page 2, does not allow
mitigation money to go to individuals; rather, it can only be
used for preventing bison damage to farm crops, while the
previous bill version said it can be used for mitigation. He
asked whether this change gets closer "to where we want to be"
or does not get there at all.
MR. ARNO replied it is still the idea of taking money out of the
"fish and game fund" away from ADF&G for other things even
though it is collected just for this and then handed out through
DNR. In the past DNR has tried to get "fish and game funds" and
AOC resisted those in the past and will continue doing so.
2:43:52 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether Mr. Arno has any suggestions for
how to help mitigate the damage [caused by bison to farmland].
MR. ARNO answered the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether that would take away from future
hunter's opportunities, if what Mr. Arno is suggesting is that
the USDA shoot them all.
MR. ARNO responded no and explained the USDA spends money in the
Lower 48 to mitigate damage by wildlife. He said he did not
come prepared to show specific examples of that, but he knows
the USDA does that in the mid-western states.
2:44:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested an opinion be sought from
Legislative Legal and Research Services because he is unable to
ascertain whether DNR is making these grants or whether the
"ADF&G 'fish and game fund'" is making the grants and he would
like for this to be clarified.
MR. PASCHALL replied it is the difference between formatting a
formula or the tying of funds through the appropriation and the
allocation of funds. Under HB 202, the fund is being increased
to give [ADF&G] more money, which will go into the "game fund,"
but then [ADF&G] receives unrestricted general funds that are
not tied to the federal legislation that requires that money to
go only for wildlife restoration.
2:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether it is the commissioner of
ADF&G or DNR that will be designating the funds. He offered his
belief that the commissioner of one department cannot reach into
the funds of another department.
MR. PASCHALL answered the commissioner that is making the grants
to the soil and water districts is the commissioner of DNR. He
understood through conversation with DNR Deputy Commissioner
Fogels that DNR would work out an agreement to do an inter-
agency transfer of the funds to make the appropriation and to
provide for the grant.
2:46:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood, then, that the money from the
license fees would go to the "fish and game fund" and would not
come out of the "fish and game fund."
MR. PASCHALL responded yes, conceptually that is the idea of
what is trying to be done with this. A tie is not being made to
the money where the money would physically go into the fund and
then come out of the fund because there are questions as to
whether that would violate the federal legislation that allows
for the reimbursement. It is not wanted to risk that
reimbursement because these animals are there and available to
hunt and hunting these animals is a great activity for people in
the Interior and throughout the US. It is just how to come up
with a formula to go about it, so the formula is simply tied to
the amount and that is all.
2:47:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood, then, that the money would go
into the "fish and game fund," [ADF&G] would be legally
obligated to spend those monies from the "fish and game fund" in
the way that it is restricted to spend those monies. So, if
there is an inter-agency transfer from [ADF&G] it is not going
to diminish that $20; that $20 per bison permit is still going
to stay in the "fish and game fund" and [ADF&G] would have to
reach to some other portion of its revenue to transfer to DNR
for DNR to make these grants.
MR. PASCHALL replied correct.
2:48:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised it would supplant the funds that
would otherwise be unrestricted general funds that went to
[ADF&G] for similar purposes. So, [ADF&G] would have its needs
met by this additional $10 and the unrestricted general funds
that are not needed would be diverted to DNR for award of these
grants through the soil and water conservation districts.
MR. PASCHALL answered correct, that is the intention of what is
trying to be done in HB 202 so as to not risk the matching
federal dollars in the program because the money can be used
under the federal legislation for administering [ADF&G].
2:49:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concluded [ADF&G] would be getting more
into its "pot" than it had before.
MR. PASCHALL qualified he is not an expert on this particular
topic, but responded that since [ADF&G] would receive more funds
and thus receive more match, [ADF&G] would actually receive more
revenue than it would expend overall on this process.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained the "fish
and game fund" is statutorily protected and it is very difficult
for a legislature to dedicate money out of it for a specific
purpose that is not aligned with what the federal statutes call
for. In this case, since the money is being deposited into the
"fish and game fund" it would be up to [ADF&G] to do things that
would be in benefit of bison and future hunting opportunities
associated with bison management and restoration. He said he
has not seen Version P, but that the original version gave ADF&G
flexibility in how best to address those issues in working with
DNR. It allowed ADF&G to enter into a reimbursable services
agreement (RSA) with DNR to possibly build fences but not
necessarily direct ADF&G only to build fences; to take the best
approach to try to mitigate those damages so there were still
opportunities to restore bison and manage bison for hunters. As
long as that flexibility rests with ADF&G in that context,
[ADF&G] can move forward.
2:51:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the DNR commissioner may make
grants; there is nothing that requires ADF&G to have an RSA and
transfer funds to DNR. He understood there is no statutory
requirement for ADF&G to transfer money to DNR for this program
that DNR may or may not do; the DNR commissioner is not required
to do this. He requested a correction if his interpretation of
Version P is incorrect.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that Representative Seaton's
interpretation is correct.
MR. PASCHALL replied correct, the purpose of the bill is to
enable two events. One is to increase the amount of the fee
because it is a logical thing to do considering the number of
people that are applying and how low the fee is. Second is to
give authority to the commissioner of DNR to make these grants
because the commissioner does not statutorily have that
authority. While these two things are in one bill, they are not
tied together.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE continued with public testimony.
2:52:51 PM
WAYNE BROST stated he is a farmer at Point MacKenzie and he has
a couple of questions. First, why was moose wildlife mitigation
not included in this? At Point MacKenzie he had about $10,000
in predation on his hay during a heavy snow year and many other
farmers are also having problems with moose issues. Second,
does this potential mitigation and legislation muddy the waters
on the proposed "Woods Bison Project" that proposes to introduce
bison? He charged that the state has poured lots of money into
this project through a [nonprofit] organization near the turnoff
to Whittier and that the person running the organization is
basically making a profit off the state having bison there. He
related that other states around the US have similar programs
that mitigate wildlife [damage] to keep peace between producers
and fish and wildlife.
2:54:28 PM
AL BARRETTE requested the committee not support HB 202. He said
the bill states it is an act entitling management for bison on
the Delta Junction Bison Range. The bison range is clearly
codified in state statute, so everything in the bill pertaining
to mitigation of crop damage to farmers only applies in the
Delta Junction Bison Range. It is not a farm. It is a separate
different spot than where the traditional farming has been going
on. The bill will not "get you anywhere" because it only
applies to that small area that was enacted by the legislature
in 1979. Mr. Barrette further argued that when taking out the
language "but not limited to" it is being said that the
department must include these four things. It does not give the
department any tools to work with if it comes up with better
ideas or other ways of keeping bison off the traditional Delta
Agricultural Project. He added he does not think it fair that
only consumptive users are paying for this given there are other
users such as wildlife viewers. Further, this is a slippery
road to people who have damages by bison to their vehicles and
will also demand to be compensated and mitigated. He urged that
Legislative Legal and Research Services look at the bill to see
whether it will do what is intended.
2:57:05 PM
JEFF LIPSCOMB stated he is a 16-year resident of Delta Junction
and a member of the Delta advisory committee to [ADF&G]. He
allowed there are crop damage issues, but said he opposes HB 202
because it is only hunters who would be paying to support
private individuals. Other options are available, such as land
use fees charged by landowners to hunters accessing their land.
Additionally, he asked what share of the cost of these grants is
borne by other beneficiaries of bison and/or farming, such as
non-consumptive users like tourists. It is far beyond hunting
because the area's identity is centered on the bison herd.
Purchasers of the farm products that are being protected should
also share a cost in this. If average applications have been
around $18,000 a year, then that is about $180,000 of additional
funding that will be collected solely from hunters to build
fencing, as the bill is currently written. If $180,000 is the
number, and accounting for the matching funds, he would like to
know what is the real net increase of funding available to ADF&G
for non-fencing bison management. The bison were in this
location 30 years before commercial farming and no one pays him
when the moose eat the cabbage in his backyard.
2:59:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether Mr. Lipscomb would support
this measure if it was for a shorter-term basis rather than an
indefinite time period.
MR. LIPSCOMB answered it is not the duration that concerns him,
but rather the special interest discrimination. Funding would
be solely on hunters who are not the only users and
beneficiaries of the bison herd. He does not have a problem
with fee increases when they really are to allow ADF&G to use
its science-based biological management techniques and tools to
do what is best for the resources and the community. If the
legislature determines more funding is needed for fencing, crop
damage, payments, or other things, he is okay with that if that
is the right answer, but that should not be paid for by hunters.
Rather, it is a general funding issue for the legislature.
3:00:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested Mr. Lipscomb to be more specific as to
who the other beneficiaries of the bison are.
MR. LIPSCOMB responded tourism is one instance. He said he
cannot provide any tourism figures, but there is a reason the
city limit signs in Delta Junction have bison on them. Delta
Junction started out being called Bison Center until the highway
came through. Delta Junction's local identity centers on that
bison herd. Local businesses include "bison" in their names.
So, it is not just hunters that identify with and need the
bison. At the working group meetings, quite a few non-
consumptive people testified about their feelings for the bison
herd. His wife is not and never will be a hunter, but she loves
having a bison herd in the community.
3:01:56 PM
DAVID DAVENPORT noted he and his wife have lived in the Delta
Junction/Buffalo Center/Big Delta area for a combined 87 years
and have witnessed many things in Alaska in that time. He and
his wife attended the meeting about the proposed experimental
barley project where two straw polls were conducted by the
presenting committee. The first vote was overwhelmingly against
the project. Several mothers left the meeting to tend to their
children and a second vote was held that passed. Pappy Moss and
a few others in government had already decided it would be in
Delta and not Nenana. The following spring began the barley
project fires that lasted from 1979 to 1981, which was mass
chained-down black spruce forest. After the first few years of
crops failing due to early snows, not to mention the state
having no infrastructure to ship, receive, or deal with the
bushels of barley, the state bailed on the farmers, forcing many
of them to liquidate or turn to welfare or even suicide. Bison
are large animals that require food, shelter, and water and
since 1928 they have freely ranged from the Little Delta River
east to the Johnson River, north to Healy Lake to the south fork
of the Good Pastor River, and as far south as Black Rapids
Glacier, an area of nearly 10,000 miles in size. The area
selected for the transplant was rich in large grassy meadows and
wetlands, including the Bluff Cabin Slough area near Rika's
Roadhouse and the Clearwater River Bog, located in the middle of
the now-disputed farm area and the Healy Lake and Volkmar River
grasslands and natural occurring springs that offered water year
round. Native grasses were cut by the old-timers to feed their
horses and livestock and use as bedding for sled dogs. Free
ranging bison thrived in the area as well. [Paragraph 11 of
Section 3] of the bill would make grants to those whose property
or crops have been damaged by bison or the threat of bison; this
is a "load of ... bison droppings," he charged. Also, it does
not require a farmer to fence. So, is this a solution? If it
required fencing, then the bison issue would no longer exist,
but the damage would still occur from migratory waterfowl or the
weather. The weather being experienced over the last few years
will likely continue to raise issues with all farmers worldwide.
In time, this fee increase of $10 would be paying for damages
that are not bison related. When the last farm in the area is
fenced off, where do the free ranging bison get their food,
water, and shelter? Are wildlife corridors mentioned or
required in this bill? "At a cost of 60 million bison later
here we are." The bison were brought to the area by the Tanana
Valley Sportsmen's Association to offer different hunting
opportunity. The association requested mule deer and/or elk but
the federal government at the time was trying to establish a
free range bison herd in a remote area to protect and preserve
the last remnants of the American Bison. In 1928 there was only
Big Delta, no Delta Junction. Before Delta Junction there was
Buffalo Center. The bison are what put Delta on the map. They
bring countless dollars into Alaska, not just Delta. To let
this farm bill determine their fate is wrong. He urged HB 202
not be supported. Noting that the allocation of these grant
funds would be restricted to only soil and water districts, he
pointed out that the Clearwater federal watershed project built
many years ago in the Delta area was a failure, which leaves a
lot to be desired about giving these districts any money.
3:06:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony and held over HB 202.
3:07:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 202 Quarberg Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Explanation of Changes (Version P).pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Work Draft Version P.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Delta Farm Bureau Email.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Lipscomb Email.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 207 Kenai SWCD Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 207 |
| HB 79 AKSAF Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Stahl Letter.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 207 Pettit Email.xps |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 207 |
| HB 79 AK Chamber Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Nick Steen Testimiony.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Ruffed Grouse Society Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Proposed Forest Management Plan Framework.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Douse Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |