Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/11/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB105 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 105 | ||
HB 105-SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST
1:19:26 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to the Southeast State
Forest; and providing for an effective date."
1:19:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 1, labeled 27-GH1694\A.1, Bullock, 3/8/11, which read:
Page 2, lines 11 - 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 7, line 23:
Delete ";"
Insert "."
Page 7, line 24, through page 8, line 7:
Delete all material.
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected.
1:20:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related that although Rowan Bay and
Hook Arm aren't in her district, she has been told that there
are prehistoric heritage sites in these areas, as documented by
the Alaska Heritage Research Survey. The two areas also have
pink salmon streams, karst, and cave resources. Therefore, she
expressed the need to carve out both the parcels.
1:21:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to how those parcels were
originally selected for inclusion in the state forest and
whether DNR would object to their removal.
1:21:49 PM
RICK ROGERS, Forest Resource Program Manager, Central Office,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, explained
that the parcels were selected for their timber resource values
and because both the Central Southeast Area Plan and the Prince
of Wales Area Plan for Rowan Bay and Hook Arm, respectively,
designate those lands in the general use category. The general
use designation means the parcels are part of the state's
managed timber base. He noted that both the aforementioned
plans acknowledge the anadromous fish habitat fish resources on
the parcels as well as the heritage resources. Furthermore, the
Forest Resources & Practices Act acknowledges those and provide
very generous riparian set asides per statute. Specifically,
a 100-foot buffer is required on each side of the anadromous
streams. With regard to the heritage resources, Mr. Rogers
informed the committee that prior to a timber sale, a forest
land use plan is prepared, which supports the best interest
findings to proceed with the timber sale. During the
aforementioned process, the State's Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), Division of Parks, is contacted. Mr. Rogers opined that
DNR can accommodate the heritage resources and would adapt the
plans accordingly. Mr. Rogers informed the committee that
typically the area plans in Southeast Alaska require a 500-foot
coastal buffer as well. The department's past experience has
been that most heritage sites are within that buffer, as that's
primarily where people settled. However, it was noted that if
[the heritage site isn't located in the coastal buffer],
additional conditions would be placed on the timber sale. He
highlighted that the statute for establishing state forest also
requires a state forest management plan, which would need to be
prepared within three years of the passage of HB 105. The
aforementioned would allow review of any multiple use resource
issues that might be involved for the two parcels in question or
any of the parcels in the package. In further response to
Representative Kawasaki, Mr. Rogers stated that the department
would object to the removal of these parcels. This has been
vetted internally with the Office of the Governor, multiple
agencies within DNR, as well as the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G). He concluded that DNR wants to forward HB 105, as
written.
1:25:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that DNR took these things
into consideration and there is another chance for concerns with
regard to the areas in questions to be discussed by those
concerned in the areas.
MR. ROGERS replied yes, adding that there is more than one
chance. He explained that the first opportunity to address the
parcels would be in the state forest management planning process
and the second opportunity would be during any of the timber
sales through the Forest Land Use Plan, which performs a public
review and comment period prior to a best interest finding is
approved for a sale. In further response to Representative P.
Wilson, Mr. Rogers related his understanding that there's a 45-
day review for each. He noted that there are also processes for
reconsiderations and appeals. He characterized it as the normal
regulatory process that DNR uses for public involvement in its
best interest decisions for disposal.
1:27:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that these lands could
be [available], right now, for timber sales. If a timber sale
was conducted now and if the land was in the state forest, the
management plan would have to be present and have the same
process and restrictions. However, the difference with land in
the state forest is that DNR could anticipate long-term
stability that would allow for pre-harvest thinning to improve
the productivity of the [second growth] forest. He asked if the
aforementioned is the only difference. "If these [lands] are
out, there could still be a timber sale on the land with the
same kind of requirements; is that correct," he asked.
MR. ROGERS answered that is correct.
1:29:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew Amendment 1.
1:29:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER informed the committee that she had
intended to offer this amendment, but did not have one prepared
after learning that Representative P. Wilson was offering the
same amendment. She then announced that she wanted to offer the
same amendment [ultimately labeled Amendment 2] in her name.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE reminded Representative Gardner that the
committee's policy is that amendments must be provided to the
committee 24 hours prior to being offered.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that Amendment 1 met the committee's
policy regarding the submission of amendments. She then
maintained that she has a right under the Uniform Rules to offer
an amendment.
1:29:55 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:30:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER acknowledged that the original sponsor of
Amendment 2 has some ambivalence about it, but stated that she
does not as there are important elements that need to be
protected. In particular, the Alaska heritage sites are
irreplaceable. Representative Gardner pointed out that HB 105
doubles the amount of the state forest land and she supports it,
and eliminating the two heritage sites totals only 3.4 percent
of the overall state forest lands.
1:31:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked that she is torn because the
state is trying to keep the timber industry together in
Southeast Alaska. She related that she had legislation that
will impact less than 1 percent of all of the timber in
Southeast Alaska, which doesn't seem to be very much. However,
the forest industry related to her that they have only been able
to cut less than 2 percent of the timber in Southeast Alaska.
Given that the same rules will apply to these parcels whether
they are included in the state forest or not, she decided to
withdraw Amendment 1. Furthermore, if the entire parcel is
taken out [of the state forest, the amount of possible timber is
reduced. If these parcels with heritage sites remain in the
state forest, she opined that portions of the parcels could be
set aside through the process rather than the entire parcel. In
conclusion, Representative P. Wilson said she will oppose
Amendment 2.
1:34:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that excluding these parcels from
the state forest doesn't provide a higher level of protection
for them. In fact, he opined that excluding these parcels from
the state forest would result in a lower level of protection
because the timber harvest plan won't be required to be
developed in the same way in which it is for the state forest.
Furthermore, all the sites will be protected adequately under
the state forest designation unlike if the sites have a general
use status, which could allow the lands to go through land
disposals or other processes. Therefore, he opined that placing
the parcels in the state forest will provide greater long-term
protection status, and thus he announced his opposition to
Amendment 2.
1:35:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if that's the perspective of DNR
as well.
MR. ROGERS stated that Co-Chair Seaton's description is accurate
in that the parcels will have long-term protection under the
state forest designation versus the general use designation. He
noted that the area planning process, which is a lengthy public
process with the opportunity for public input and appeals, has
already taken place. He then pointed out that the area plan
language addressing both the Hook Arm and Rowan Bay parcels
addresses heritage resources in the plan. Furthermore, DNR is
clearly given direction to protect those areas. Although the
planning document won't have the level of detail necessary to
make the site specific decisions, typically much of the
information is housed at SHPO. In fact, much of the information
is kept confidential in order to prevent looting and other
problems with heritage sites. Mr. Rogers reiterated that
whether the parcels are in the state forest or not, DNR will
consult with SHPO to provide adequate protection for the
heritage sites.
1:38:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that if these two parcels remain
in the state forest, they would be managed primarily for timber
production. Therefore, she further surmised that it would then
be more difficult to define the parcels for a different
management designation.
MR. ROGERS opined that it wouldn't be any more difficult to
protect the heritage resources on these parcels if they were
included in the state forest. Although he confirmed that
Representative Gardner is correct that the guiding language for
the state forest places some emphasis on forestry resources,
it's still multiple use management. Furthermore, to be
consistent with state and federal statute and regulation
heritage resources must be protected. The mechanisms and office
in DNR are present to help meet that objective. Mr. Rogers then
highlighted that the state forest designation helps because it
keeps the land in state ownership, whereas under the general use
land designation the parcels may or may not stay in state
ownership.
1:40:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the designation that would
provide these historic sites the greatest protection from
destruction or damage.
1:40:28 PM
MARTY PARSONS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources, answered that the
designations that maintain those lands in state ownership will
provide the greatest protection of those historic sites. No
particular designation would save a historic resource, but
placing it into a state forest would keep such land from being
conveyed to out-of-state ownership. He reminded the committee
that these historic sites are usually one to two acre sites
within a 1,500-1,600 acre parcel, and thus it's a very small
percentage of the parcel. The Division of Forestry will be held
to a fairly high standard for those areas, which they will also
have to protect as part of the planning process. In further
response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Parsons reiterated that
placing the parcels in the state forest would result in the
lands remaining in state ownership and provide the historic
sites the most protection.
1:42:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the most protection is what HB
105, as written, accomplishes.
MR. PARSONS replied yes.
1:42:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew Amendment 2.
1:43:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled testimony that objected to large
scale logging in an area because of the belief that there was
enough small business in the area and performing value-added
activities would be best for the community.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that leaving parcels out of the
state forest doesn't mean there would be no timber sale [on the
parcels]. Placing parcels in the state forest results in
parcels being on a longer term rotation status for management
purposes.
1:45:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report HB 105 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
1:46:21 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:46 p.m. to 1:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|