Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/19/2001 05:08 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 19, 2001
5:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Stevens, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 154
"An Act relating to security for the payment of fishery business
taxes and to payment of estimated fisheries resource landing
taxes and penalties."
- MOVED CSHB 154(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to standards for forest resources and
practices; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 131 OUT OF COMMITTEE
TERM EXPIRATION DATE FOR BRUCE TWOMLEY, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION
- CHANGED FROM 7/01/04 TO 3/01/05
LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RE: POACHING
- ADOPTED NEW LANGUAGE
HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act establishing a moratorium on the foreclosure of certain
loans; making the moratorium retroactive; requiring the reversal
of certain foreclosures and the return of certain property
interests; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 154
SHORT TITLE:COLLECTION OF FISHERY BUSINESS TAXES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SCALZI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/28/01 0462 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/28/01 0462 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/12/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/12/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(FSH)
03/19/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL
BILL: HB 131
SHORT TITLE:FOREST RESOURCES & PRACTICES STANDARDS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/16/01 0346 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/16/01 0346 (H) FSH, RES
02/16/01 0346 (H) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
02/16/01 0346 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/19/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 154 and answered questions.
KEVIN HOGAN, President
Auction Block
PO Box 2228
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 154.
JEFF JAHNKE, State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources;
Presiding Officer
Board of Forestry
400 Willoughby
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131.
MARTHA "MARTY" WELBOURN-FREEMAN
Forest Resources Program Manager
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
550 West 7th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131.
JILL KLEIN, Project Manager
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association
1120 G Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
NANCY FRESCO
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
281 Driveway Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
CHRIS STARK
PO Box 80543
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
LARRY SMITH
1520 Lakeshore Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HB 131.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131 and in the discussion
of the letter to the Department of Public Safety.
EDWARD C. FURMAN
PO Box 2367
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the fishermen of
Cordova on HB 131.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Coghill, Scalzi, Kerttula,
Stevens, and Wilson. Representatives Dyson and Kapsner arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 154-COLLECTION OF FISHERY BUSINESS TAXES
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 154, "An Act relating to security for the payment
of fishery business taxes and to payment of estimated fisheries
resource landing taxes and penalties." [Before the committee,
adopted as a work draft on 3/12/01, was a proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 22-LS0638\F, Utermohle, 3/9/01.]
Number 0133
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI, sponsor of the bill, referred to his
testimony from the week before and said this bill is not on a
"fast track," but that he wanted the House Special Committee on
Fisheries to discuss it. He said he also wanted to hear input
from constituents on any negative aspects of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI went on to say that since the last
meeting, he has spoken with the Department of Revenue, which
suggested an amendment [later adopted as Amendment 1] that read:
*Sec.2. AS 43.77.020 is amended to read as follows:
(a) A person subject to the tax under this chapter
shall file a return stating the value of fishery
resources landed in the state that are subject to the
tax, the point of landing of the fishery resource, and
other information the department requires by
regulation.
(b) The return shall be made on the basis of the
calendar year [TO THE DEPARTMENT AT JUNEAU] and is due
before April 1 after the close of the calendar year,
and [THE} any unpaid tax shall be paid with the
return.
(c) The department may, under regulations it adopts,
grant a reasonable extension of time for the filing.
A grant of an extension of time for filing does not
extend the time for payment of the tax.
(d) A person subject to tax under this chapter shall
make quarterly payments of the tax estimated to be due
for the year, as required under regulations adopted by
the department. A taxpayer will be subject to an
estimated tax penalty, determined by applying the
interest rate specified in AS 43.05.225 to the
underpayment for each quarter, unless the taxpayer
makes estimated tax payments in equal installments
that total either
(1) at least 90 percent of the taxpayer's tax
liability under this chapter for the tax year, or
(2) at least 100 percent of the taxpayer's tax
liability under this chapter for the prior tax year.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI informed the committee that Chuck
Harlamert from the Department of Revenue would explain the
purpose of this amendment. It doesn't affect the original
intent of the bill "that fresh-fish sales can operate under a
different taxing structure than a processor for purposes of
collection of taxation." Rather, it deals with statutory
changes that are currently in regulation.
Number 0296
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief, Tax Division, Department
of Revenue, explained that Amendment 1 provides cleaner, more
common language to reach the intent in the original bill, which
is to require estimated tax payments for landing tax. This
amendment also provides a "safe harbor" for how much estimated
tax taxpayers must pay in order to avoid penalties. There are
two safe harbors: pay the amount of tax paid in the prior year,
or pay 90 percent of the current year's tax. In short, the
amendment clearly labels the payments as an estimated tax and
more clearly lays out the amount of tax one should be paying or
estimating.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI requested clarification on whether this
currently applies to processors, and not fresh fish, in
regulations.
MR. HARLAMERT confirmed this statement. He clarified that this
provision applies only to taxpayers under AS.43.77.020, which is
the landing tax. These taxpayers are typically catcher-
processors who catch and process fish outside of Alaska's
territorial limits. However, they land their fish inside of
Alaska and therefore pay a fishery resource landing tax, which
is a complementary tax to the fishery business tax. The
amendment simply improves the language of Section 2 of the
original bill without changing the bill's intent. It clarifies
for the taxpayer what the required payment is.
CO-CHAIR WILSON wondered if this amendment had anything to do
with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that the amendment is a "rider"
to the bill. Everyone knows the intent of the original bill,
but since "we" were going into this section in statute, the
department wanted to add clarifying language. He said he had no
objection to the amendment since it is beneficial to the
taxpayers for understanding their liability, and it is put into
statute.
MR. HARLAMERT said that regulations require estimated tax
payments, and most taxpayers make them. However, the Department
of Revenue would like these particular regulations to be put
into statute as well.
Number 0667
CO-CHAIR STEVENS remarked that he understood (d)(1) of Amendment
1. He referred to (d)(2), which read:
(2) at least 100 percent of the taxpayer's tax
liability under this chapter for the prior tax year.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked whether this could vary for catcher-
processors. For example, if [fishermen] "made only part of the
season or didn't have a good season," would they be required to
pay the same amount they paid the prior year? He also asked when
they would pay the remainder owed to the state.
MR. HARLAMERT replied that the remainder is paid with the return,
which by statute is before April 1; however, this sometimes gets
delayed.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked how this works regarding a time sequence.
At what point would last year's tax liability be paid, and would
the balance be paid on April 1?
MR. HARLAMERT said he believed evenly spaced quarterly payments
would be due March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS asked, if someone was paying 100 percent of what
was paid the prior year, whether he or she would pay by quarterly
payments.
MR. HARLAMERT said the person could make a choice: estimate the
liability for the current year and pay up to 90 percent of that,
or "play it safe and secure" by paying 100 percent of last year's
taxes. The lesser of those amounts can be paid without incurring
a penalty. He offered an example. He then said it is similar to
an individual income tax, but corporate.
Number 0850
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text
provided previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 0963
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move CSHB 154, version
22-LS0638\F, Utermohle, 3/9/01, as amended, from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 154(FSH) was moved from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
CO-CHAIR WILSON apologized, saying someone wanted to speak.
KEVIN HOGAN, President, Auction Block Company, testified via
teleconference:
I'll give you a little history of what our company is
about and how we tie into the fish business. The
company was formed in 1997, and at that time we got a
fisheries business license because we didn't have a
prior track record. We had a very low estimated fish
tax, which was very easy to bond, and that's how we
obtained our fisheries business license.
In 1998, we became the largest buyer of halibut in the
state, and correspondingly we had a much larger fish
tax debt. ... We've always paid our fish tax and
intend to continue to do so. ...
Our business is an Internet fish auction. The vessels
come in and list their loads with us and we auction it
off over the Internet. So it's been beneficial for
the state by raising the ex-vessel prices, and thus
the corresponding raw fish taxes is based on that ex-
vessel price.
Having become successful doing this, we encouraged a
rather large raw fish tax, as we were taking
possession of the fish under our own fish ticket and
then sending it out to the winning bidders, wherever
they might be.
So last year we had an arrangement where we put up a
bond and paid as we went on our fish tax. We
estimated what we thought our liability was going to
be and we, of course, overshot that by quite a bit.
So the current year, in order to obtain our business
license, the requirement was that we come up with over
$350,000 prepaid fish tax.
Our operation has absolutely very little, and we have
no real property, which is the only thing accepted for
collateral. ... We operate on a smaller margin than
what the raw fish tax amounts to (indisc.) and
whatever profits we might have.
So for the last two years, virtually 100 percent of
the profits of business that generated had been
pledged to the state as collateral for obtaining the
fisheries business license. Eventually, we would like
to be able to continue to pay our tax and not have to
commit 100 percent of what we make. It would be nice
to be able to eat, too.
So, I support this legislation. I think it's
important that the state keep current with new
developments in the industry and not get stuck in the
rut of having our industry exist in the past. As new
developments and technology and markets develop, we
have to have the flexibility and mechanisms to be able
to adjust and accommodate the changes in the market
and industry. So, I think this helps.
I think I'd like to see that it also be (indisc.) to
the shoreside processors too. And I know that smaller
businesses have a large difficulty in capitalizing
their operations and being able to pay 100 percent of
their tax liability upfront. If they're allowed to
pay as they go, it just expands the world for our
markets.
So I appreciate your considering this bill, and I
would hope that you support it and get it passed.
Thank you.
[CSHB 154(FSH) was moved out of the House Special Committee
on Fisheries.]
HB 131-FOREST RESOURCES & PRACTICES STANDARDS
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act relating to standards for forest
resources and practices; and providing for an effective date."
Chair Wilson clarified that HB 131 is the governor's bill.
Number 1422
JEFF JAHNKE, State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources; Presiding Officer, Board of Forestry, came
forth on behalf of the administration and the Board of Forestry
in support of HB 131. He said this bill is the result of hard
work by many people. The bill began from a Board of Forestry's
request that the agency be responsible for Alaska Forest
Resources & Practices Act (FRPA) review of the repair and
management standards throughout the state. [Note: The FRPA is
often called the Forest Practices Act as well.]
MR. JAHNKE explained that the process began with a review of the
coastal region, Region I, which culminated in SB 12, passed by
the legislature in 1999. The review for the Interior region,
Region III, has now been completed. "We" began with a science
and technical committee that recommended changes needed to
provide adequate protection for fish habitat and water quality.
The next step was to work toward an implementation group. This
group represented affected interests, to determine how to
implement the recommendations in the manner that works on the
ground. Following this, legislation [HB 131] was drafted.
MR. JAHNKE said the three key points to this bill are based on
the best available scientific information. Public discussion of
the bill throughout the process involved a wide range of
interests, including scientists from many fields and people from
the timber industry, fishing industry, and environmental
community. The "final package" became HB 131, which was passed
by the Board of Forestry in January. The Board of Forestry
consists of representatives from the forest industry, commercial
fishing, environmental organizations, Native corporations,
professional foresters, fish and wildlife biologists, mining
organizations, and "recreationists."
MR. JAHNKE remarked that changes in HB 131 help ensure that the
goals of the FRPA are met, which are "to provide adequate
protection to fish habitat and water quality and at the same time
to support the continuation of healthy timber in fishing
industries in Alaska." These changes also help ensure that the
Act continues to satisfy the requirements for non-point forest
pollution in the federal Clean Water Act as well as the Coastal
Zone Management Act. [House Bill 131] provides "one-stop
shopping" for all of those Acts including the FRPA for the timber
industry.
MR. JAHNKE requested that Martha Welbourn-Freeman go through
specific characteristics of the bill, since she is the expert on
HB 131 with regard to technical aspects.
Number 1633
MARTHA WELBOURN-FREEMAN, Forest Resources Program Manager,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, testified
via teleconference. She informed listeners that she also served
as co-chair of the Science and Technical Committee and as co-
chair of the Implementation Group. She gave the following
testimony:
I'd like to talk briefly about the relationship of
this bill to the existing Act and summarize the key
provisions in the bill. First, I'd like to say that
this is not a wholesale revision of the [FRPA]. For
many issues, the Science and Technical Committee and
Implementation Group did not recommend changes to the
Act or to the regulations. The major changes proposed
affect only the part of the Act that addresses stream
classification and riparian management in Region III -
that's Interior Alaska. ...
In your briefing packets there's a map that shows the
three regions for forest practices. It also makes a
minor change to the boundary between Region I and
Region II on the Kenai Peninsula - and that area shows
up in red on your map. The Interior had been using
interim standards for riparian management since the
[FRPA] was revised in 1990. At that time, we had very
little specific information for Interior Alaska.
Under those standards, timber harvesting could occur
up to the bank of the anadromous waters on both
public and private land under certain conditions.
This bill classifies anadromous and high-value
resident fish waters in Interior Alaska into three
kinds, and then it sets riparian standards for each
kind. The first type we call Type III-A. These are
non-glacial waters that are wider than 3 feet, and
they include glacial backwater sloughs. These types
are grouped together because they're productive waters
for fisheries and because they are temperature-
sensitive and because they "eat" large wooden debris.
On these types on private land, the Act establishes a
no-cut buffer that's 66 feet wide. The buffer on
public land is 100 feet. But harvesting can occur on
land where 33 feet of the public land is buffer if the
Department of Fish & Game concurs that harvesting can
be done without adversely affecting fish habitat or
water quality.
The second type, Type III-B, ... are all the glacial
waters except for the glacial backwater sloughs.
These types are not sensitive to temperature changes,
but they do need large woody debris for the whole
system. On these waters there's a 66-foot riparian
area on private land and a 100-foot riparian area on
public land. Half of the riparian area that's closest
to the stream is a no-cut buffer. The landward half
allows harvesting of up to half the large white
spruce, those over 9 inches in diameter, without
requiring the variations.
Number 1799
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN continued, stating:
So, there can be some harvests of the high-value trees
in the landward part of that buffer. The final
type[s] are small non-glacial streams, streams that
are left up to 3 feet wide. ... On these there's a
special management area that's 100 feet wide in which
harvesting may occur, but it must be consistent with
the maintenance of the sports fish and wildlife
habitat.
The Department of Fish & Game and DNR [Department of
Natural Resources] have pledged to do more research on
this stream type. It's the stream type that we know
the least about. ... We want to work on those this
summer to determine the extent of their occurrence
within commercial forests and to assess needed
management measures specific to this (indisc.).
The bill also makes some other changes. The first is
that it changes the statewide nomenclature to water
body classes to prevent confusion between the water
body types in different regions. Currently, we call
the types in coastal regions [in Region I, for
example] ... types A, B, C, and D. We changed that
... to I-A, I-B, I-C, and I-D, and then the types for
the Interior will be III-A, III-B, and III-C. It also
moves the definitions of the boundaries between
regions from the regulations to the Act.
Currently, it's the regulations that design the lines
between regions I, II, and III. We want to move those
boundaries into the act. In doing so, the bill also
proposes a minor change to the boundary between Region
I and Region II on the Kenai Peninsula. The revised
boundary better matches the change between the coastal
forest type of Sitka spruce and Western hemlock and
the (indisc.) forest type that's dominated by white
spruce and the (indisc.) hybrid.
Most forestland in the area affected by that change is
in federal ownership, primarily in the Chugach
National Forest. So there will be very little impact
on the landowner. We have reviewed this proposed
change with the other major landowners in the area
including Native corporations [and the] mental health
trust in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and none of
those parties have concerns or doubts of the change.
Number 1931
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to "break in the land" and asked
whether this is a term of art in law.
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN replied that it is defined in regulations
for the Act. The slope rate refers to the change in the angle of
the slope.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked for the definition of "riparian."
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN stated that riparian areas are specific
areas defined in the Act.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON wondered if the riparian area is the land
from the creek to the edge of the regulated area under this bill.
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN confirmed this statement.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what minimum-sized creek this would
apply to.
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN said it applies to "all but waters that ...
have either anadromous or high-value resident fish."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that she has always had a
problem with having a 66-foot buffer for private land and a 100-
foot buffer for public land. She asked Ms. Welbourn-Freeman to
explain the philosophy behind this.
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN explained that the 66-foot buffer is based
on two factors: the width needed to maintain shading on stream
types that are sensitive to temperature (primarily the type III-A
streams in the Interior) and large woody debris. By looking at
the angles of the sun and typical tree heights, [observers] noted
that a width of 52 to 72 feet is needed to maintain natural
shading conditions and prevent temperature increases. For
streams that need large woody debris, 95 percent of the debris is
retained if a buffer is maintained that is about two-thirds the
width of the tree height. Consequently, 50- to 60- foot buffers
are needed to maintain large woody debris. This is where the 66-
foot buffer comes from.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why the private land buffer is not
the same amount as the public land buffer [100-feet].
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN replied that on private land [the Division
of Forestry] is dealing with the issue of balance between
protecting the fisheries resource source and allowing the private
landowner to get full use of timber values. She added, "The
difference between large woody debris - for example, between 66
feet and 100 feet - is only the difference between about 95
percent of the large woody debris being retained and about 99
percent being retained."
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN explained that the other difference is that
under the FRPA, for public land [the Division of Forestry] has a
duty to look at fish, habitat, and other factors including
wildlife. However, on private land [the division] is only
authorized to address fish and habitat issues and water quality.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Welbourn-Freeman whether she
has ever been threatened with the "takings case," and if the 66-
foot buffer should become a 100-foot buffer.
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN remarked that there has been repeated
discussion about this throughout the development of the FRPA
since the 1990 revision.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "The private taking could also be
challenged." He referred to page 3, lines 11-13 [of HB 131],
which read:
(2) Along a Type III-B water body, harvest of timber
may not be undertaken within 33 feet of the water
body; between 33 feet and 66 feet from the water body,
up to 50 percent of standing white spruce trees having
at least a nine-inch diameter at breast height may be
harvested without requiring a variation;
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how a 9-inch diameter was decided
upon, and how much leeway there is.
Number 2248
MS. WELBOURN-FREEMAN explained that a 9-inch diameter on the Type
III-B [glacial] water body was established because of wanting a
balance between "allowing the landowner to get some of the value
out of the stream buffers where there is a lot of valuable
timber, but still provide enough large woody debris to the system
as a whole." The 9-inch diameter represents a "rough cutoff"
between the high-value white spruce [trees] for most purposes.
So the landowner could take out half of the white spruce trees
that are over 9 inches in diameter, without requiring a site-
specific variation. She went on to say this is only in the half
of the buffer away from the stream.
Number 2312
JILL KLEIN, Project Manager, Yukon River Drainage Fisheries
Association (YRDFA), testified via teleconference:
We are a nonprofit association that works with
subsistence and commercial salmon fisheries on the
Yukon River. We were formed in 1990 when fishermen
and women set up three basic priorities for the
association. These are to foster communication and
cooperation between the sources (indisc.) fishermen,
promote cooperative management between fishermen and
the state, and to increase returns of salmon through
habitat protection and restoration projects in the
Yukon River Drainage.
YRDFA has 16 board members including commercial and
subsistence fishermen and women from the mouth of the
river to the Canadian border. There are also 14
alternates, and we also have a membership of 200-plus
people in the Yukon River drainage. As mentioned, an
implementation group was created to include various
interests when making recommendations to the Forest
Resources and Practices Act. YRDFA was invited to
participate in this implementation group in order to
represent fishing interests in the Yukon River
Drainage.
Bill Fleres (ph), a YRDFA board member from the
village of Tanana, and Chris Stark, a YRDFA fisheries
biologist from Fairbanks, as well as myself
participated in various meetings of this process.
YRDFA would like to express support for the process
and the outcome that took place to make
recommendations to the classification of stream types
and riparian buffers for public and private land in
Region III under the Forest Resources and Practices
Act.
House Bill 131 is good for both fishing and timber
because it does strengthen protection for Interior
fish habitat and does it in a way that is practical
for the timber industry to implement.
Number 2417
NANCY FRESCO, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, testified via
teleconference:
I, too, was part of the implementation committee
that's already been mentioned, that took part in
putting together the legislation that you now see
before you. And I'm also here to voice support for
both the outcome and the process. While in our task
of representing environmental concerns in the
Interior, we certainly feel that there are many
habitat issues at stake that may come up for
discussion in the future. We believe that the process
was sound in this case for several reasons.
First, as Marty Welbourn-Freeman has already
described, there was sound science behind it. ... It
was examined in detail by a science and technical
committee with full literature review as well as local
information and some on-the-ground work. There was
also a public process. ... The meetings of the science
and technical [committee] were open to the public.
And then there was good effort to include all
stakeholders within the implementation group; ... all
work within that group was done with a view toward
consensus, and all decisions were made on a consensus
basis.
Also, as mentioned, there will be follow-through, both
this summer when the smaller stream categories are
revisited jointly by the Division of Forestry and by
[the Department of] Fish & Game, and also continuing
into the future as DNR continues to look at such
issues as glacier water bodies, large woody debris,
the changing dynamics of the Tanana River floodplain
and other continuing studies.
Number 2554
CHRIS STARK testified via teleconference:
My background is ... juvenile fisheries research. I
have [a] research-associate position at University of
Alaska Fairbanks. I do piecework for YRDFA and for
Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, and I also hold
the environmental seat on the local fishermen's
advisory committee.
I'd just like to encourage you to go ahead and pass
this as is. It is, again, based on very good science.
Albeit we're a little shy on extensive science up
here, but from the fisheries standpoint, I think this
is as good as we're going to get it. From the
environmental community, I believe that's the case
again. And I believe this is a workable situation for
the forestry folks as well.
Number 2583
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this bill would help with access
issues involving fish counts on streams, in particular weir
counts on the Kuskokwim River.
MR. STARK answered no, explaining that YRDFA and the Bering Sea
Fishing Association do have numerous fish counts. This won't
really make any difference at all in that situation. What this
is doing is enhancing juvenile habitat - large woody debris.
Some of the research recently done in Tanana [proves] it's
really wood that provides energy.
Number 2648
LARRY SMITH testified via teleconference:
These are modest but very welcome standards. They've
been a long time coming. In the 1990 Forest Practices
Act statutory changes, these kind of provisions were
ordered by the legislature to occur by 1991 - and not
just for this Region III, but for all of Region II as
well. But like the Region I improvements, in the 1990
legislation they're often an illusion because of the
lack of appetite and ability of agencies to enforce
the standards.
One should never underestimate, as well, the power of
the variation clause in the Forest Practices Act to
undo the so-called no-cut buffers. The situation has
not changed much, in my view, from what was reported
to the Board of Forestry and to the legislature in
1995 by the [Alaska] Department of Fish & Game. That
report is still to the point, and it says, and this is
a quote, "ADFG staff are uniformly of the belief that
the implementation of the Forest Practices Act remains
seriously deficient. We simply do not provide the
level of protection originally envisioned. This is
particularly true for fish habitat in riparian areas."
As the budget to fix these problems has not been
provided to the three agencies with responsibility to
enforce the Forest Practices Act, I hope the fishery
committee members will be advocates for better
monitoring budget and provide active oversight for
implementation.
Jeff Jahnke and Marty Freeman need your support for
their forest practices budget. Fish & Game needs your
support and so does DEC [Department of Environmental
Conservation] for its forest practices
responsibilities or additional funding needs to be
provided to the Department of Fish & Game to take on
DEC's water quality duties. They have pretty much
withdrawn from the woods except on federal lands. ...
To conclude, let me ask you to please not forget the
part of the state that still doesn't have these
standards; ... that's around Cook Inlet, that's around
Anchorage, that's the Mat-Su Valley, that's the Copper
River Valley. All those other lands that are south of
the Alaska Range, ... north of Region I, need this
kind of attention, and real enforcement.
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Smith if he was representing himself
or an organization.
MR. SMITH replied that he was representing himself. He stated
that until 1990, he was active in revising statewide provisions
for the Forest Practices Act.
Number 2838
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), came forth and
stated:
I watched the Board of Forestry ... for the last ten
years as a commercial fisherman out of Cordova. And
you have to understand, this is an agreement between
all the [industries]. ... The forest industry is at
the table, and commercial fishermen and the
conservationists and everyone come to these agreements
on the best available science for these regions. ...
They've been going through the whole state, and this
is just one part we passed two years ago. ... So, this
is the same thing.
The recommendations from the Board of Forestry, from
industry and all other parties including the public,
based on scientific information, is the best
scientific information for forestry practices without
going into the whole Forest Practices Act, which we do
want to do.
Number 2911
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to what Mr. McCune alluded to as
the best possible science and asked Mr. McCune whether he thinks
this allows for expansion of upcoming science, and whether it
puts good parameters around it.
MR. McCUNE responded that he imagines there could be other
science as well as other practices that come to light such as
helicopter logging, which saves on building roads. It most
likely would go to the Board of Forestry and be "kicked" around.
CO-CHAIR WILSON pointed out that in the committee packets there
are letters from the Alaska Forest Association, the Alaska
Society of American Foresters, and the Resource Development
Council for Alaska in favor of the bill.
TAPE 01-12, SIDE B
Number 2965
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI made a motion to move HB 131 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 131 was moved from
the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
TERM EXPIRATION DATE FOR BRUCE TWOMLEY, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION
Number 2916
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that the committee needed to change the
expiration date for the appointment of Commissioner Bruce Twomley
to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, from 7/01/04 to
3/01/05.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS made a motion to change the term expiration date
to 3/01/05. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RE: POACHING
Number 2863
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that the committee would discuss the
letter to the Department of Public Safety about enforcement
concerns relating to fisheries in Southeast Alaska [and
elsewhere]. She read the first paragraph of the two-page letter
[original punctuation provided]:
It has been brought to our attention as co-chairs of
the House Resources Committee and co-chairs of the
House Fisheries Committee that the illegal poaching
during the 2000 Southeast commercial salmon seine
season was at an all-time high in closed areas.
Transgressions included stealing at night, setting
early, and fishing over markers. These transgressions
were observed by a number of fishermen who wish to
increase the enforcement before the year-2001 season.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested deleting, from paragraph 3 of
the letter, "Although fisherman have told us that they are
willing to pay a small assessment to fund increased
enforcement,". The paragraph would then begin, "The presence of
the enforcement at times throughout the season should not create
a fiscal impact. It will, however, be an important deterrent to
illegal fishing activities." Then she suggested deleting the
period, adding a comma, and "as would an increase in fine." She
said it is her understanding that most fishermen would be
willing to see an increase in fines in order to see a true
deterrent.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the last paragraph, second
sentence, which read in part, "Albert Hofstad (772-3880), a
long-time Petersburg fisherman who is representing area
fishermen". She said she doesn't know how broad that really is,
and therefore suggested it should read, "Albert Hofstad [(772-
3880)], a long-time Petersburg fisherman."
Number 2699
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), stated that his
only objection would be the increase in fines. He said [UFA]
went over this four years ago, and has finally "hammered out" an
enforcement bill, which took two years. In that bill is a
provision for a point system whereby a person could lose his or
her license for a year after receiving 12 points. To
Representative Kerttula's second suggestion, he said he doesn't
have any problem with it, as long as [Albert Hofstad] doesn't.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that she would remove her
suggestion about Albert Hofstad.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS referred to Representative Kerttula's
suggestion that removes the first sentence [of paragraph 3 of
the letter], which talks about a small assessment to fund
increased assessment. He asked Mr. McCune whether, with his
opposition to the fines, he is suggesting a small assessment
would be appropriate.
MR. McCUNE responded that there is already a point system, as
well as a fine system, in place. Most fines are up to the
judge.
CO-CHAIR STEVENS remarked that in the end, he thinks if "we" do
the job well, there shouldn't be any fines. Therefore, there
wouldn't be any funds coming in to pay for this additional
enforcement. He referred to language in the letter, "Although
fisherman have told us that they are willing to pay a small
assessment to fund increased enforcement"; he said it refers to
fines or a separate type of funding arrangement. He observed
that Mr. McCune had said he doesn't like the change, but the
change takes out that small assessment.
MR. McCUNE responded that this is talking about 10,000 people.
Most fishermen don't want to pay an assessment for enforcement,
but the state should.
Number 2462
CO-CHAIR WILSON asked whether the will of the committee is to
take the first part of that sentence out or to leave it in.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI stated that he would move to strike the
first sentence up to the comma. He added that he doesn't recall
that being in the intent of the letter, because he doesn't
recall fishermen saying they were willing to pay a small
assessment.
Number 2398
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA withdrew her first amendment and
suggested deleting the first sentence [of paragraph 3] up to the
second line after "enforcement". Therefore, the paragraph would
read:
The presence of the enforcement at times throughout
the season should not create a fiscal impact. It
will, however, be an important deterrent to illegal
fishing activities.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to a question regarding
whether the second sentence would then make sense, suggested
asking the department.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he doesn't think taking the
first part out matters that much. He explained:
This is just a letter. It is fairytale to think that
increased enforcement doesn't cost something. ... In
fact, there isn't enough money for the enforcement
that we need in most of Alaska's competitive
fisheries. And it's an issue we need to address at
some point. ... Taking the fine thing was wise because
we can't and shouldn't even imply that ... collection
of fines is going to offset the cost of enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed with Representative Dyson. To
get rid of the "fairytale," she suggested as Amendment 1 that
paragraph 3 should read:
The presence of the enforcement at times throughout
the season will be an important deterrent to illegal
fishing activities.
CO-CHAIR WILSON announced that there being no objection, it was
so ordered.
Number 2153
EDWARD C. FURMAN came forth on behalf of the fishermen from
Cordova. He stated:
I saw many fishermen come into the courtroom in
Cordova and be treated unfair, because they [weren't]
tried by jurors. Why is it that these men aren't
allowed to have a jury trial? Why is the legislature
asleep when the constitution says that if you're fined
over $200, you shall have a jury trial? The U.S.
Constitution [says that] over $20 it is up to ...
legislators to vote that in. These men, who a lot of
them are poor, they can't afford to pay these fines.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he thought if [a fisherman]
demands a [jury trial], he or she could have one.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that she doesn't know if there is
a special statute for fishing violations.
MR. McCUNE explained that there has to be a burden of proof in
fishing violations. It has been said that it might be
challenged; however, it hasn't yet. It gets very complicated,
he said. For example, if [a fisherman] said he or she fell
asleep and went over the line, it is different from
intentionally going over the line. Another glitch is this: if
a [fisherman] leases his or her permit and the person to whom it
is leased gets a violation, it goes on the owner's permit.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested it might be worthwhile to have
the Department of Law testify on this. She added that it does
depend on whether it is a civil or criminal penalty. She
thanked Mr. Furman for testifying and said it is an honor to
have a fisherman from Cordova present.
Number 1859
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON [made a motion to adopt the letter, as
amended]. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 6:20
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|