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
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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|