Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/06/2002 01:10 PM House RES
| 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 RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 2002
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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
PREVIOUS ACTION
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
03/19/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/19/01 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/22/01 0685 (H) FSH RPT 6DP 1NR
03/22/01 0685 (H) DP: DYSON, SCALZI, KAPSNER,
KERTTULA,
03/22/01 0685 (H) WILSON, STEVENS; NR: COGHILL
03/22/01 0685 (H) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
02/06/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF JAHNKE, Director
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1450
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131 on behalf of the
Division of Forestry and the Board of Forestry.
MARTY FREEMAN, Forest Resources Program Manager
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1450
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3566
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131 behalf of the Division
of Forestry.
JAMES DURST, Habitat Biologist
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish And Game
1300 College Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131 on behalf of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
RICK SMERIGLIO, Environmental Representative
Alaska Board of Forestry
31749 Solar Mountain Road
Seward, Alaska 99664
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
LARRY HARTIG, Recreation Representative
Alaska Board of Forestry
180 Botanical Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131, saying the Forest
Resources and Practices Act has been very successful.
CHRIS STARK
Bering Sea Fisherman's Association
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association
PO Box 80543
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 131 is a good bill.
NANCY FRESCO
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
830 College Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
JANELL WELLBORN (on behalf of JAN DAWE)
Alaska Boreal Forest Council
PO Box 84536
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking on behalf of Jan Dawe, Executive
Director, Alaska Boreal Forest Council, urged passage of HB 131.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Chenault, McGuire, Stevens, Kerttula,
Fate, Masek, and Scalzi. Representative Kapsner joined the
meeting in progress.
HB 131-FOREST RESOURCES & PRACTICES STANDARDS
Number 0116
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the only 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."
[There was an unnecessary motion to place the bill before the
committee.]
Number 0158
JEFF JAHNKE, Director, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), presented HB 131 [which was introduced
by the House Rules Committee by request of the governor]. The
result of hard work by many people, he said, HB 131 responds to
the board's request several years past to review the Alaska
Forest Resources and Practices Act ("Forest Practices Act") and
make sure it is up to date. The process began in 1997 in the
coastal region, including Southeast Alaska, culminating in SB
12, which passed the legislature in 1999. This bill is in
regard to the second of three regions to review in the Interior.
MR. JAHNKE explained that the process started with a Science &
Technical Committee that looked at the Interior and made
recommendations to protect water quality and fisheries habitat.
Those recommendations were taken up by an "implementation
committee" of affected parties and stakeholders, and then given
to the Board of Forestry, which reviewed them and put forward
its own recommendation. Mr. Jahnke said many interests were
represented on the board, including the forest industry, Native
corporations, commercial fishing interests, environmental
organizations, fish and wildlife biologists, recreational
organizations, and mining organizations.
Number 0334
MR. JAHNKE said the bill was based on the best available
scientific information, was open to the public throughout the
process, and involved a wide variety of interests. He said the
bill helps ensure that the Act continues to protect water
quality and fisheries habitat, as well as allowing for healthy
timber and fishing industries. It also makes it easier for the
timber industry to meet the requirements of the federal Clean
Water Act and the Alaska Coastal Management Act.
Number 0449
MARTY FREEMAN, Forest Resources Program Manager, Division of
Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, testified before the
committee. She told the committee she was the co-chair of the
Science & Technical Committee and implementation group that
helped in developing the bill. She advised members, "This is
not a wholesale revision of the Forest Practices Act." She said
there were many issues for which the Science & Technical
Committee and implementation group did not recommend any changes
to the existing Act or regulations.
MS. FREEMAN said the major proposed changes affect only the part
of the Act that addresses stream classification and riparian
management in Region III, which is Interior Alaska north of the
Alaska Range. There is also a minor change to the boundary
between Region I - the Coastal Region - and Region II - the
Southcentral Region on the Kenai Peninsula.
Number 0526
MS. FREEMAN said the Interior had been using interim standards
for the riparian management under the Forest Practices Act since
its revision in 1990. Under current standards, timber
harvesting can occur up to the bank of anadromous waters on both
public and private land, under some conditions.
MS. FREEMAN explained that under HB 131, water bodies are
classified into three different types in terms of anadromous or
high-value resident-fish water bodies. The first are large,
nonglacial waters including glacial backwater sloughs. She
characterized these as Type III-A waters - clear waters or
tannic waters as well as slow waters off to the side of glacial
waters.
MS. FREEMAN noted that on private land, there is a 66-foot
buffer where cutting is not allowed. The buffer extends to 100
feet on public land. Furthermore, on public land in the buffer
area between 66 and 100 feet, harvest can occur with the
concurrence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
She said the main fish habitat concerns for this type of water
are summer water temperatures and large woody debris. She told
the committee that the 66-foot distance was developed by looking
at the sun angles in the Interior, and what distance was needed
to provide adequate shade and large woody debris along
riverbanks.
MS. FREEMAN said the second type, Type III-B, is other glacial
waters. She gave the example of "main rivers" such as the
Tanana River. She said a 66-foot riparian area is established
on private land, and a 100-foot riparian area on public land.
The half of the riparian area closest to the river is a no-cut
buffer. The 50 feet of riparian area away from the river can
have up to half its large white spruce trees harvested. This
allows landowners to take out some of the large, valuable trees,
but still provides for shade and for large woody debris. She
said the main concern for this water body type is providing
enough large woody debris into the river system as a whole.
MS. FREEMAN addressed the third type of water body, Type III-C.
Small, nonglacial streams less than three feet wide, these water
body types are bordered by 100-foot special management areas
where harvesting can occur, but must be consistent with
maintenance of important fish habitat and water quality. She
said this is the status quo for that type under the existing
Act. She told members ADF&G and DNR must do more research on
this particular type in order to look at the degree of overlap
between the small streams and commercial forest areas; they must
then determine whether there are different or additional
management measures needed for Type III-C.
Number 0751
MS. FREEMAN explained that in Region III, the Forest Practices
Act applies to commercial forestry operations on land ownerships
where either the operation borders surface waters or a riparian
area, or the operation is more than 40 acres in all. It does
not apply to land if the landowner owns 160 acres or less.
Number 0793
MS. FREEMAN told members HB 131 changes the statewide
nomenclature for water body classes. The definition of the
boundaries between the regions is in the regulations, and the
Division of Forestry wants to move them into the Act.
MS. FREEMAN noted that the bill makes a minor change to the
boundary between Region I - the Coastal Region - and Region II -
the Southcentral Region - on the Kenai Peninsula. She said
currently the eastern part of the Kenai Peninsula is in Region
I; the bill shifts that boundary westward to better match the
change between the coastal Sitka spruce type and the Interior
white spruce type. She said most of the land in this area is
federal land; thus it has a modicum of an effect on landowners.
Number 0893
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked why land was moved from Region II to
Region I.
MS. FREEMAN said the existing boundary was very hard to follow
on a map. The boundary did not match the change between the
Sitka-spruce type and the white-spruce type.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Jim Durst how the 66-foot buffer
zones were working out, as opposed to the 100-foot buffers.
Number 1014
JAMES DURST, Habitat Biologist, Division of Habitat and
Restoration, Alaska Department of Fish And Game, testified via
teleconference. He asked if Representative Kerttula was
referring to the difference between public and private land. He
then said the department was one of the parties to the consensus
process. He noted that he was involved in the science and
technical process that resulted in some of the modifications of
the Forest Practices Act in Region I.
MR. DURST said the concept of sharing the value of the forest is
a little different on private land than on public land; the
difference in buffer zones was based on average tree height and
"other biological considerations." He said the department is
comfortable with this.
Number 1098
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how long the department has been
monitoring for the Forest Practices Act, and what types of
reports and information have been turned up.
Number 1120
MS. FREEMAN said there are two types of monitoring:
implementation monitoring, to make sure the Act is being used
properly, and effectiveness monitoring. The agencies have taken
the lead on implementation monitoring, especially in Region I;
the initial round of monitoring was done in 1999 and the second,
in 2001. The initial monitoring showed greater than 90 percent
implementation and very good compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the department is doing any
kind of studies on the buffer zone itself.
MS. FREEMAN said that is "effectiveness monitoring." She said
several [studies] are looking at that; one has been ongoing for
the past seven or eight years, led by the industry but in
cooperation with the agencies. She said this study looked at
instream characteristics; at the last update, it did not show
any adverse impacts. Ms. Freeman said those studies must be
long-term because of natural variation.
Number 1238
MS. FREEMAN gave another example of a study done by the
department and the University of Alaska, to look at a particular
technique called "bio-assessment" that studies macro
invertebrates to see whether sedimentation is causing an impact.
She said that report is due out in the spring. Ms. Freeman
noted that effectiveness monitoring is usually very expensive,
but this study is a less expensive method.
Number 1270
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there were a number of forest managers
per region.
MR. JAHNKE said that in the eight areas throughout the state,
staffing runs from two permanent positions to six or seven, per
area. There is a tremendous growth - up to 300 people per area
- in staffing during the fire season.
Number 1319
MS. FREEMAN said for "forest practices," specifically, there are
7.9 full-time equivalents, spread statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if there will be any efforts made for
federal regulations on this issues, because it is a public
resource near navigable waters.
MR. JAHNKE said the Forest Practices Act serves and meets the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. He said this limits the
amount of federal process involved in the harvesting of timber,
and he does not expect that to change, barring a change in the
Clean Water Act or the department's effectiveness.
Number 1420
RICK SMERIGLIO, Environmental Representative, Alaska Board of
Forestry, testified that he supports HB 131. He informed the
committee that about four years ago, in response to a Alaska
Board of Forestry resolution, this process began. He explained
that he thinks it is an outstanding process because it's had the
ongoing involvement of all of the interested parties, and
particularly the affected parties - the wood products industry
in the Interior.
MR. SMERIGLIO offered his belief that the Alaska Forest
Association had submitted its letter of endorsement of this
legislation. He said he believes the best testimony to the good
process that agencies and others have used regarding the bill
thus far is that last year in the [House Special Committee on
Fisheries], there was no significant opposition. He commented
that a number of people have spoken in favor of this legislation
and that he doesn't recall any opposition to it.
Number 1483
MR. SMERIGLIO addressed the scientific foundation under this
legislation. He said the Science & Technical Committee that did
the [research] published an annotated bibliography of all the
research and literature with any bearing on this particularly
complex ecosystem and hydrology in the Interior.
MR. SMERIGLIO offered that the key point was coming up with a
classification system, which is in the bill, to make some sense
out of the warm water upwellings, the glacial backwater sloughs,
and all of the water that has a bearing on the forest in the
Interior; without that, he doesn't think the legislation would
have come this far, because people did look to the factual and
scientific basis of coming up with this law.
MR. SMERIGLIO commented that of all of the people involved in
this [research], there were five University of Alaska professors
- not advocates or agency personnel, but disinterested experts
who had some particular knowledge of trees and water in the
Interior. He noted that their input was invaluable. He
reiterated that he believes that is one reason that the
legislation has come this far.
Number 1583
MR. SMERIGLIO explained that a couple of years ago, the
legislature "tweaked" the Forest Practices Act so that all fish
streams in the Coastal Region have buffers. If [HB 131] goes
forward, it will result in buffers for all Interior fish
streams, which will send a good, clear message regarding how
forestry is done in Alaska. Currently, statutory language
allows for logging up to a creek in the Interior if adequate
protection remains; he indicated there are arguments about what
is adequate protection. He said this bill narrows it down to a
certain footage that [defines] "adequate"; there really
shouldn't be much argument after that, he concluded.
Number 1611
MR. SMERIGLIO explained that as the Environmental Representative
on the Alaska Board of Forestry, he believes this legislation
represents good forestry; nationwide, this is what it is coming
to: fish streams are buffered, which is good forestry. He
noted that he was previously a forester and is still a member of
the Society of American Foresters. He stated that as an
environmentalist and a former forester, he supports good
forestry, which is why he supports HB 131. He urged the
committee to support it as well.
Number 1680
LARRY HARTIG, Recreation Representative, Alaska Board of
Forestry, began by saying that the issue of whether the riparian
standards were protective of fish - in accord with the purposes
of the Forest Practices Act - became a real issue in Region I,
the coastal area that includes Juneau and Southeast Alaska,
about five or six years ago. At the time, there wasn't much of
a consensus. Therefore, the Board of Forestry tried to develop
a process that would lead toward a consensus.
MR. HARTIG explained that what makes the Forest Practices Act
work is building a consensus among the stakeholders and the
three resources agencies that administer the Act. He commented
that in his opinion - and that of others who've worked with the
Act - it has been a very successful Act. He suggested that the
reason is because of this consensus-building process. He
explained that the Board of Forestry consists of representatives
from various interest groups. He pointed out that Rick
Smeriglio is a representative from the environmental
organizations; Bill Jeffress is a representative from the mining
group.
MR. HARTIG advised the committee that Mr. Smeriglio,
Environmental Representative, Alaska Board of Forestry, wanted
to inform the committee that the mining group of the board
supports HB 131.
MR. HARTIG, returning to the process by which something passes
from the board, explained that in order for something to pass
from the board, it must pass with either unanimous consent or
unanimous consent less one. Therefore, consensus building among
the group is forced. Furthermore, it causes the stakeholders
and interested parties to bring issues to the board in order to
resolve issues. He said he feels that over the years the board
has been able to forge consensus and hopefully save the
legislature time in dealing with forestry issues.
MR. HARTIG reported that the board has three meetings a year.
In the Fairbanks meetings, he has noticed a growing concern
regarding the forest industry in Interior Alaska. There seems
to be a desire for the same sort of protection of riparian areas
as in Region I. Therefore, the [board] felt it was timely to
address the arboreal forest in Interior Alaska. As mentioned
earlier, the process utilized in Region I was used in Interior
Alaska, and was used on the technical and implementation level,
which resulted in the package before the committee [HB 131].
Mr. Hartig concluded by urging the passage of HB 131. He also
commended the agencies and Ms. Freeman, who did a lot of hard
work on this.
Number 1919
CHRIS STARK, Bering Sea Fisherman's Association; Yukon River
Fisheries Drainage Association, informed the committee that he
is a research associate with the University of Alaska, is the
environmental representative on the Tanana Valley State Forest
Community Advisory Committee, and is a fisheries biologist for
the Board of Fisheries. Mr. Stark said HB 131 is a good bill
that is well based in science. Additionally, this legislation
grew from a large consensus base; the industry, the
environmental organizations, and the agencies are in [support]
of this. Mr. Stark pointed out that this is probably one of the
last areas in North America that isn't buffered, and thus [the
legislation] is a positive step. Furthermore, this bill will
assist in the next area, Region II - the Kenai Peninsula area -
which has similar issues.
Number 2064
NANCY FRESCO, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, testified
via teleconference, voicing support for HB 131 on behalf of the
Northern Alaska Environmental Center. She echoed earlier
testimony that this is a terrific example of legislation that
has been reviewed by all the stakeholders, which she said makes
all the difference. She stated, "We all got a compromise that
we could live with. And we all got a compromise that was
solidly based on the scientific recommendations that had been
handed to us." She expressed hope that the legislature will
support HB 131.
Number 2190
JANELL WELLBORN announced that she would be speaking on behalf
of JAN DAWE, Executive Director, Alaska Boreal Forest Council.
She provided the following testimony:
The council is a 501(c)(3) community-based forest
education and research organization. [The council's]
mission is to sustain the boreal forest ecosystem of
Alaska by helping integrate community values,
ecosystem health, and economic development, and by
promoting informed public participation in decision
making.
Through inclusive forums, programs, and service, the
council works to present and discuss all sides of an
issue so that individuals have the information they
need to make their own decision. This background is
provided to underscore the fact that it is highly
unusual for the council to take a stand on an
individual piece of legislation. In fact, this is the
first time we've done so since our incorporation in
1997.
The council applauds the efforts that stand behind HB
131. We urge its passage, which we see as fundamental
to creating sound forest policy for Interior Alaska.
The bill represents a broad-based consensus of the
best management practices for forestry activities in
riparian areas, and will help ensure that Region III
standards protect fish habitat and water quality to
support healthy timber and fishing industries, and
incorporate the best available science into management
procedures. The Board of Forestry and the Department
of Natural Resources, as well as everyone who
participated on the science and technical and
implementation subcommittees of the board, are to be
congratulated for this work. Thank you.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether anyone else wished to testify;
there being no response, he closed public testimony.
Number 2307
REPRESENTATIVE FATE echoed the earlier comments that HB 131 is
one of the few bills that has experienced such consensus. He
noted his hope that the committee would move the bill.
CO-CHAIR MASEK turned to the Analysis section of the fiscal
note. She pointed out that it says:
If the amount of harvesting on non-state land
increases substantially, or if [Forest Resources and
Practices Act] (FRPA) funding, including federal
Section 319 funding, declines significantly,
additional funds would be needed for field inspections
of riparian buffers. On state land, the revised
riparian standards can be incorporated into the
existing sale design process.
MR. JAHNKE explained that at the current levels of harvest and
funding, DNR feels comfortable that it will be able to
successfully implement the Forest Practices Act. He noted that
the current level of funding includes general fund (GF) money
and some Section 319 funds, both of which are crucial to
reaching an effective level of implementation.
MR. JAHNKE mentioned that this was discussed at the recent Board
of Forestry meeting. However, he identified the following as
possible concerns in regard to the future ability to implement
the Forest Practices Act. First, the Section 319 funding is
federal funding and thus is always in question. Second, an
increase in activity would be of concern because the current
level of activity in the Forest Practices Act is down somewhat.
Therefore, it has allowed more monitoring and review of the
Forest Practices Act. If activity increased, there would
probably be a reduced level of monitoring, and some
consideration would have to be given regarding whether to use
some of the Resource Management Program funding to help support
the Forest Practices Act.
Number 2514
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether the number of people using the
buffer zones has increased or decreased.
MR. JAHNKE noted that it would be based on the market for forest
products, which [the department] has a limited opportunity to
control. That market "drives" the number of people harvesting,
which drives the department's activity associated with the
Forest Practices Act.
MR. JAHNKE pointed out that the market for forest products is a
volatile market with many fluctuations. When the market is
down, the focus is on rounding out the program by diverting some
funds to monitoring and developing updated statutes, policies,
and regulations.
MS. FREEMAN interjected that the amount of activity varies from
area to area, as well as year to year. For example, this year
in southern Southeast Alaska, the number of new notifications
was down, while it was up in northern Southeast Alaska.
Number 2603
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE requested that Mr. Jahnke provide her
with information regarding the GF dollars in order to be aware
of that when the budget [is debated].
MR. JAHNKE agreed to provide that information.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE commended everyone on the process.
MR. JAHNKE remarked that accomplishing something [like HB 131]
is helpful to all interests.
Number 2690
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB 131 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 131 was moved out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
approximately 1:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|