HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STREAM RESTORATION

& SPECIES RECOVERY

 

April 30, 2001                                                                                                         Hearing Room E

1:00 P.M.                                                                                                                 Tapes  110 - 112

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:        

                                                Rep. Bob Jenson, Chair

Rep. Jan Lee, Vice-Chair

Rep. Randy Leonard Vice-Chair

Rep. Tim Knopp

Rep. Jeff Kruse

Rep. Patti Smith

Rep. Al King

Rep. Carolyn Tomei

Rep. Kelley Wirth

 

MEMBER VISITING:                       Rep. Jackie Dingfelder

 

STAFF PRESENT:                 Sandy Thiele-Cirka, Committee Administrator

Linda K. Gatto, Committee Assistant

 

MEASURES HEARD:                      

                                                HB 2675 – Public Hearing

                                                SCR 9 – Public Hearing and Work Session

HB 2184 – Public Hearing

                                                HB 3564 – Public Hearing

                                                HB 3038 – Public Hearing

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

Tape 110, A

003

Chair Jenson

Calls the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. as a subcommittee and opens the public hearing on HB 2675.

HB 2675 – PUBLIC HEARING

008

Roy Hemmingway

Salmon and Energy Advisor, Governor’s Natural Resource Office. Discusses Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) habitat responsibilities. Concludes that abolishing the Habitat Division is not the remedy.

066

Chair Jenson

Closes public hearing on HB 2675 and opens public hearing on SCR 9.

SCR 9 – PUBLIC HEARING

067

Sen. Tony Corcoran

Senate District 22. Explains and testifies in support of SCR 9.

089

Chair Jenson

Closes the public hearing on SCR 9 and opens the work session on SCR 9.

SCR 9 – WORK SESSION

091

Rep. Leonard

MOTION:  Moves SCR 9 be sent to the floor with a BE ADOPTED recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  6-0

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  3 - King, Knopp, Kruse

102

Chair Jenson

The motion CARRIES.

REP. KING will lead discussion on the floor.

108

Chair Jenson

Closes the work session on SCR 9 and opens the public hearing on    HB 2184

HB 2184 – PUBLIC HEARING

124

Doug Riggs

Representing Central Oregon Cities Association. Submits and summarizes prepared testimony in support of HB 2184 (EXHIBIT A).

180

Rep. Lee

Questions why the scope of HB 2184 was limited to the Deschutes Basin.

184

Riggs

Responds that there was concern regarding developing mitigation credits available statewide.

198

Martha Pagel

Attorney representing City of Redmond. Submits and summarizes prepared testimony in support of HB 2184(EXHIBIT B).

284

Pagel

Concludes testimony.

310

Rep. Leonard

Requests an example of a mitigation project.

311

Pagel

Provides examples of mitigation projects.

325

Rep. Lee

Questions if the mitigation projects parallel the Department of State Land’s wetland mitigation banking process.

327

Pagel

Responds that they are similar. Notes that those who perform the mitigation work can place the projects aside for later accounting.

333

Rep. Wirth

Questions how HB 2184 will interact with federal laws.

340

Pagel

Responds that there is no intersection between state and federal laws on this issue. Notes the bill addresses state water rights law and state scenic waterway law.

346

Rep. Dingfelder

Questions if the program overlaps with the work of Oregon Water Trust.

349

Pagel

Explains which organizations could deal with the mitigation issue.

363

Rep. Dingfelder

Questions if there are non-profit organizations that could assume responsibilities without increasing the burden to the department.

366

Pagel

Responds that the Deschutes Resource Conservancy has undertaken some responsibilities and have received support.

380

Paul Cleary

Director, Water Resource Department (WRD). Submits and reads prepared testimony in support of HB 2184 (EXHIBIT C).

430

Doug Myers

Representing WaterWatch. Explains potential problems with the amendments.

Tape 111, A

011

Rep. Tomei

Questions if Mr. Myers has participated in the process.

012

Myers

Responds that Kimberly Priestly from WaterWatch has been the representative.

014

Rep. Dingfelder

Questions if the desire is to confine this to the Deschutes Basin.

015

Myers

Answers affirmatively.

032

Chair Jenson

Questions why the subject is addressed in ORS Chapter 537 and not Chapter 390.

036

Pagel

Clarifies and explains why it is more appropriate in Chapter 537.

056

Cleary

Concurs and offers further explanation.

074

Pagel

Comments that there is more information on the relationship between ground water and surface water.

093

Chair Jenson

Questions what the difference would be if it was limited to just scenic waterways.

101

Cleary

Responds that he does not have that information, but will obtain it.

107

Rep. Kruse

Questions if the relationship between groundwater and surface water in the Deschutes Basin has been defined.

110

Cleary

Responds affirmatively. Explains that the impact becomes evident in the Lower Deschutes River.

122

Rep. Kruse

Questions specifically about point of access.

126

Cleary

Responds that the points of impacts are known.

143

Rep. Lee

Expresses concern that the focus of HB 2184 is too narrow.

154

Chair Jenson

Closes public hearing on HB 2184 and opens a public hearing on      HB 3564.

HB 3564 – PUBLIC HEARING

Staff submits –1 and-2 amendments (EXHIBIT D).

185

Ray Craig

Assistant State Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). Submits and reads prepared testimony in support of HB 3564 (EXHIBIT E).

307

Craig

Continues review of prepared testimony.

342

Rep. Kruse

Expresses concern about moving from a stewardship agreement to a conservation easement. Notes that it may cause a landowner to relinquish control of his land.

348

Craig

Asks for clarification of Rep. Kruse’s objections.

352

Rep. Kruse

Clarifies objections.

359

Craig

Provides additional explanation of provisions in HB 3564.

373

Sara Vickerman

West Coast Director, Defenders of Wildlife. Notes that easements are voluntary. Explains how HB 3564 would be administered.

402

Rep. King

Requests examples of deed restrictions or conservation easements.

410

Vickerman

Responds that conservation easements are often entered into between a landowner and a private land trust often for tax purposes.

425

Rep. King

Asks if there are examples of what the agreements would be.

430

Vickerman

Responds that they are with private land trusts already authorized by state law or federal or state agencies.

435

Rep. King

Questions how loose or restrictive a property owner may be in an agreement.

443

Vickerman

Answers that it is up to the property owner.

Tape 110, B

007

Rep. Lee

Cites example of farmers who have wetland conservation easements in Polk County and notes their support with the program.

016

Rep. Kruse

Asks if it would be similar to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) program.

017

Vickerman

Responds affirmatively.

018

Rep. King

Questions the necessity to have Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) involved..

028

Vickerman

Responds that they want the perspective and representation of the different landowners.

037

Rep. King

Asks if a landowner were to receive a grant, would he have to get it approved by either ODFW or OWEB or both agencies..

041

Vickerman

Responds that it would be preferable if the agencies coordinated, but notes that it is not specified in HB 3564.

051

Rep. King

Asks if it would be possible for ODFW and OWEB to have different management objectives.

055

Craig

Explains how different agencies’ management goals could co-exist.

071

Rep. Dingfelder

Comments on her experience with residents of the Walla Walla watershed in both Oregon and Washington and how different policies made it easier for Washington residents to get CREP money, but it was more difficult for Oregon residents living in the same watershed.

093

Vickerman

Responds the target for the CREP program is 100,000 acres in Oregon.

112

Craig

Resumes reading prepared testimony.

178

Vickerman

Submits and summarizes endorsement list for HB 3564 (EXHIBIT F).

208

Rep. P. Smith

Questions the fiscal impact.

212

Vickerman

Explains the fiscal impact of HB 3564.

234

Chair Jenson

Clarifies that the fiscal impact is not a lowering, but rather a maintaining of the impact.

238

Vickerman

Notes that the program recognizes habitat conservation as a legitimate use of land within agriculture and forestry zones.

266

Craig

Concludes and summarizes prepared testimony.

302

Roy Elicker

Legislative Coordinator, ODFW. Submits and summarizes prepared testimony in support of HB 3564 (EXHIBIT G).

344

Chair Jenson

Asks if the program will not impose an unwieldy workload on ODFW.

350

Elicker

Responds that Director Lindsay Ball is concerned about any program expansion without an approved budget for 2001-2003.

382

Rep. Lee

Questions what it currently takes in staffing to deal with wildlife habitat conservation and management program.

387

Gail McEwen

Special Project Coordinator, Habitat Division, ODFW. Explains that ODFW has not receive additional full time employees with the wildlife habitat conservation and management program.

411

Chair Jenson

Closes the public hearing on HB 3564 and opens a public hearing on HB 3038.

HB 3038 – PUBLIC HEARING

422

Thiele-Cirka

Summarizes HB 3038 and explains –1 and –2 amendments.

Tape 111, B

470

Wayne Giesey

Philomath. Submits and reads prepared testimony regarding HB 3038 (EXHIBIT H).

042

Bill Moshofsky

Oregonians in Action, Save the Salmon. Testifies in support of          HB 3038. Refers to the -2 amendments.

104

Glen Stonebrink

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. Testifies in support of HB 3038. Concurs with Mr. Moshofsky that the confusion between wild and hatchery fish needs to be resolved.

116

Pete Test

Oregon Farm Bureau. Testifies in support of HB 3038. Comments on concerns with –2 amendments.

145

Moshofsky

Proposes potential solutions to concerns raised with the –2 amendments. (EXHIBIT I).

163

Rep. Lee

Questions if –1 amendments are acceptable, but worries that removing the definition of “native” could have major implications for the fish passage bill.

172

Test

Concurs with Rep. Lee. Notes that is why he supports –2 amendments.

181

Rep. King

Comments that the term native is suggesting native to Oregon, but it is not clarified in HB 3038.

213

Jim Myron

Representing Oregon Trout. Testifies in support of the –1 amendments and in opposition to the –2 amendments.

311

Kay Brown

Policy Coordinator, ODFW. Explains how HB 3038 would affect native wildlife and explains provisions of the amendments.

392

Jerod Broadfoot

Assistant to Director, Oregon Sportsman Defense Fund. Explains problems with amendments regarding native and non-native fish and wildlife.

425

Jim Welsh

Representing Oregon Family Farm Association. Submits and reads prepared testimony in support of HB 3038 (EXHIBIT J).

454

Mike Dewey

Representing Oregon Wheat Growers’ League. Testifies in support of HB 3038.

Tape 112, A

037

Roger Martin

Representing Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Submits and summarizes prepared testimony in support of HB 3038 (EXHIBIT K). Describes cultural significance of salmon to native people. Discusses the Lewis and Clark expedition and their reliance on salmon.

100

Rep. Tomei

Questions if the Umatilla Indian Reservation is impacted by the federal Endangered Species Act.

103

Martin

Answers no. Notes that they are working with other rivers in the Grand Ronde Basin which have remnant runs of salmon.

120

Rep. Tomei

Questions if enhancement means recovery.

121

Martin

Answers affirmatively. Explains that it means taking the eggs from selected native fish and raising them in a hatchery and returning them to the stream as quickly as possible.

127

Rep. Kruse

Questions are the endangered runs never had fish from a hatchery.

130

Martin

Responds no.

144

Stephen Kafoury

Representing American Fishery Society. Submits and summarizes prepared testimony in opposition to HB 3038 (EXHIBIT L). Discusses the work done by the Independent Interdisciplinary Science Team (IMST).

184

Terry Thompson

Former State Representative District 4. Explains how the term “economics” should be included in the language of HB 3038.

207

Ken Evans

Representing Fisheries Restoration Enhancement Coalition. Testifies in support of HB 3038.

238

Chair Jenson

Closes public hearing on HB 3038.

243

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Requests unanimous consent that the rules be SUSPENDED to allow REP. KING to BE RECORDED as voting AYE on the motion that SCR 9 to be sent to the floor with a BE ADOPTED recommendation.

251

Chair Jenson

Adjourns meeting at 3:10 p.m..

 

Submitted By,                                                                           Reviewed By,

 

 

 

Linda K. Gatto,                                                                        Sandy Thiele-Cirka,

Committee Assistant                                                                 Committee Administrator

 

Transcribed By,

 

 

 

Michael Reiley,

Committee Assistant

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2184, written testimony, Doug Riggs, 1 p.

B – HB 2184, written testimony, Martha Pagel, 4 pp.

C – HB 2184, written testimony, Paul Cleary, 2 pp.

D – HB 3564, -1 and –2 amendments, staff, 3 pp.

E – HB 3564, written testimony and information, Ray Craig, 12 pp.

F – HB 3564, Conservation Incentives Legislation Endorsement List, Sara Vickerman, 1 p.

G – HB 3564, written testimony, Roy Elicker, 12 pp.

H – HB 3038, written testimony, Wayne Giesy, 1 p.

I – HB 3038, written testimony, Bill Moshofsky, 1 p.

J – HB 3038, written testimony, Jim Welsh, 1 p.

K – HB 3038, Position Paper, Roger Martin, 1 p.

L – HB 3038, written information, Stephen Kafoury, 1 p.