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.