Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205

03/21/2014 03:30 PM RESOURCES


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ SB 28 SUSITNA STATE FOREST; SALE OF TIMBER TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 28(RES) Out of Committee
Uniform Rule 23 Waived
+ HB 161 AUCTIONS FOR BIG GAME HARVEST PERMITS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony <If Time Permits> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
= SB 160 DNR: HUNTING GUIDES, CONCESSION PROGRAM
Moved SB 160 Out of Committee
       SB  28-SUSITNA STATE FOREST; SALE OF TIMBER                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:42:25 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR GIESSEL announced SB 28 to be up for                                                                                      
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:43:12 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR GIESSEL moved Amendment 1.                                                                                                
                                         28-GS1741\A.1                                                                          
                                               Bullock                                                                          
                                               3/20/14                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
                       AMENDMENT 1                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE            BY SENATOR GIESSEL                                                                        
     TO: SB 28                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 11, following "chapter.":                                                                                     
         Insert "The transportation objective for                                                                               
      the Susitna State Forest is to provide access                                                                             
      for timber management and multiple use within                                                                             
     the Susitna State Forest."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 14, through page 8, line 2:                                                                                   
         Delete all  material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following  paragraphs  accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 11, lines 12 - 23:                                                                                                    
         Delete all  material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following  paragraphs  accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 14, lines 14 - 19:                                                                                                    
         Delete all  material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following  paragraphs  accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 17, lines 11 - 27:                                                                                                    
         Delete all  material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following  paragraphs  accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 21, lines 3 - 19:                                                                                                     
         Delete all  material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following  paragraphs  accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, line 22, through page 25, line 7:                                                                                 
         Delete all  material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following  paragraphs  accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 27, lines 11 - 22:                                                                                                    
         Delete all  material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following  paragraphs  accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 32, line 8:                                                                                                           
         Delete "2013"                                                                                                          
         Insert "2014"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR GIESSEL  explained  that this  amendment adds  intent                                                                     
language  on  page  2  of  the  bill  and removes   certain                                                                     
parcels  from   the  Susitna   State  Forest.  The   intent                                                                     
language   states  a  transportation   objective   for  the                                                                     
forest  to  provide  access for  multiple  use  and  timber                                                                     
management,  and then  some segments  are removed from  the                                                                     
State Forest.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHRIS  MAISCH, State  Forester  and Director,  Division  of                                                                     
Forestry,   Department    of  Natural   Resources    (DNR),                                                                     
Anchorage,    Alaska,   explained    that   the    proposed                                                                     
amendment  is based  on the  public process  they had  been                                                                     
going   through   for  this   bill,   comments   by   local                                                                     
government   and  others   about  concerns   with   needing                                                                     
additional  lands   close  to  communities  for  potential                                                                      
expansion  of them, particularly  near  the communities  of                                                                     
the  City  of Houston,  Wasilla,   and up  along  the  east                                                                     
corridor  of  the  Parks  Highway.  This  amendment   would                                                                     
delete parcels on the east side strip that run North-                                                                           
South,  a relatively  narrow  corridor; this  would  garner                                                                     
additional support for this legislation.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
The  other  item  concerned  access  to  the  State  Forest                                                                     
similar  to the intent  that already  exists in the  Tanana                                                                     
Valley  State  Forest that  says  all  parts of  the  State                                                                     
Forests  over  time will  by  accessed  with a  mixture  of                                                                     
all-season and winter roads.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH   asked  him   to  summarize  the   general                                                                     
geographic changes.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:45:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. MAISCH  said he  could tell  him the  block names,  but                                                                     
not exactly  which lines  they were on  the map. There  are                                                                     
four  blocks;  the  first  is  the  northern  parcels  (the                                                                     
Talkeetna  block on their  map); the  descriptions  address                                                                     
the Kashwitna  parcel,  the Willard  Cash  parcel, and  the                                                                     
Houston parcel.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  BISHOP asked if  parcels on  the east side  of the                                                                     
highway  were being  stricken  and the State  Forest  would                                                                     
be on the west side.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  answered  yes. The  stricken  lands  still  be                                                                     
managed  for  forestry,  because  they  are  classified  in                                                                     
the  Area  Plan as  forestry  land.  He  said it  would  be                                                                     
easier  to change the  potential uses  of those lands  when                                                                     
the Area Plans are updated.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH withdrew his objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  GIESSEL, finding  no  further  objection, announced                                                                      
that Amendment  1 was  adopted. She  invited Mr. Maisch  to                                                                     
go through the rest of the bill.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:47:42 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  MAISCH  continued   to explain   that  there  are  two                                                                     
parts  to  the bill;  one  is  the  State  Forest  portion,                                                                     
which he  would speak  to first, and  then the part  of the                                                                     
bill,  which   specifically  addresses   his  timber   sale                                                                     
authorities.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He  said  the  State   of  Alaska  owns  and  manages   9.5                                                                     
million  acres in the  Matanuska Valley  and that two  Area                                                                     
Plans   -  the   Matanuska/Susitna   Area   Plan  and   the                                                                     
Southeast  Susitna  Area Plan  - currently  are identified                                                                      
for  that  area  and  have  both  recently  been   updated.                                                                     
Both  are high-level  allocations  for different  types  of                                                                     
uses  for  state-owned  land;  State  Forest,  recreation,                                                                      
habitat,   and   disposal   are   some   of   the   general                                                                     
classifications.   This   proposal   originally  suggested                                                                      
663,000  acres  and  33 parcels,  but  with  the amendment                                                                      
the acreage drops down to 688,000 acres and 20 parcels.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
He  said  the primary  purpose  of  the  State  Forest,  by                                                                     
statute,  is  for  timber  management   that  allows  other                                                                     
multiple  uses of the  forest to continue.  One of  the key                                                                     
concerns  they   heard  in  various  public  meetings   and                                                                     
other  discussions  with local  governments  was that  they                                                                     
wanted  to be assured  that the  same type  and same  scale                                                                     
of  use would  continue  to  occur on  the  State  Forests,                                                                     
and that  is the  case. In fact,  they feel  over time,  as                                                                     
additional  access  is  developed  that  many uses  of  the                                                                     
State  Forest will  benefit,  particularly  from a  hunting                                                                     
and habitat  management  standpoint,  which  is where  many                                                                     
of those comments came from.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:49:51 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. MAISCH  recapped  that the  primary use  for the  State                                                                     
Forest  is  timber  management  consistent   with  multiple                                                                     
use  and sustained  yield  principles.  It is  governed  by                                                                     
the  Alaska  Forest  Resources  and  Practices  Act,  which                                                                     
also  affects  state, municipal,  and  private  lands,  and                                                                     
which is  primarily designed  to protect  fish habitat  and                                                                     
water   quality.   So,   mandatory   stream   buffers   are                                                                     
required  in harvest units  with a large  number of  rivers                                                                     
already  having   the  recreation   corridors  along   them                                                                     
(that  in the Valley  are a  quarter mile  on each side  of                                                                     
the river).                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
He said  the Forest Management  Plan  for the State  Forest                                                                     
must  be  completed  within  three   years  of  the  Forest                                                                     
being  established   and  that  is  has  a very  extensive                                                                      
public  process, including  establishment  of the  Citizens                                                                     
Advisory  Committee   to  give  advice  on   uses  and  any                                                                     
potential   conflicts  that  could   develop.  The   Tanana                                                                     
Forest  already  has an  advisory  committee,  but not  the                                                                     
Southeast  State   Forest  or  the  Haines  State   Forest,                                                                     
because  they are  much smaller  in size,  and in the  case                                                                     
of  the Southeast  State  Forest,  very  remote,  so  there                                                                     
aren't a lot of different users using those lands.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH said  it was  left up  to their  discretion  as                                                                     
to whether  to establish  that Citizen  Advisory Committee                                                                      
or not;  it would  have 12  members that  would mirror  the                                                                     
Board  of  Forestry  that  has  9  members,  but  it  would                                                                     
represent  a range of  constituents,  users - business  and                                                                     
local  government  in  the  Valley  -  and  they  would  be                                                                     
advisory and appointed by the Division of Forestry.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
He  said   the   Management   Plan  will   address   future                                                                     
transportation  planning,  timber  sales, and  kind of  all                                                                     
the  standard  things  one would  like  to  see in  a  plan                                                                     
about how they intend to manage that property.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:51:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   MAISCH  said   there   had  been   extensive   public                                                                     
outreach  consisting  of  community  meetings  as  part  of                                                                     
the  Area   Planning   process  where   the  State   Forest                                                                     
concept  was  discussed  starting  in  2009  and  six  open                                                                     
houses  across  the  Valley  in  that  timeframe,  in  2012                                                                     
there  were  12  public  meetings  in  communities  up  and                                                                     
down  the Valley,  and  10  meetings  in 2013  including  2                                                                     
webinars  which  tried to  reach the  remote  areas of  the                                                                     
borough  where  people  couldn't  easily  travel  into  the                                                                     
community  meetings. It  was so successful  that they  plan                                                                     
to  continue  those.  They  also  had  11  different   news                                                                     
articles,  radio stories,  or  other topics  in the  Valley                                                                     
in  publications  statewide  on  the  topic  of  the  State                                                                     
Forest.  So, it has been  well-vetted  and discussed  among                                                                     
the  different   interest   groups.   They  also   recently                                                                     
received  support  from the  Matanuska Susitna  Borough  at                                                                     
their Tuesday  Assembly  meeting with  a vote of 6-1  for a                                                                     
resolution   in  support  of  the  State  Forest   concept.                                                                     
Numerous  other letters  in the record  do the same  thing.                                                                     
He paused for questions.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:52:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked what  the  primary  species is  in                                                                     
that area.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH  replied spruce  and white  birch for hard  wood                                                                     
and   black  cotton   wood   and   cotton  wood,   and   an                                                                     
occasional tamarack and aspen.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked what  the  state practice  is  for                                                                     
reforestation after harvest.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  explained  that  three  different  regions  in                                                                     
the  state  are  under  the  Forest  Practices  Act,  which                                                                     
requires  reforestation  of  harvested  lands  within  five                                                                     
years;  that's  in  a  "free-to-grow"   state,  a  seedling                                                                     
that is  essentially  growing aggressively  and vigorously                                                                      
and not overtopped by vegetation and grass.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Finding  no further  questions  on  the forest  portion  of                                                                     
the plan,  she  invited him  to go  on to  the timber  sale                                                                     
provisions and authorities.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:53:43 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  MAISCH  said  some  background  on  the  department's                                                                      
authorities  would  help put  into  context  what they  are                                                                     
trying  to do with  this change.  Currently,  the  Division                                                                     
of  Forestry has  five  different  statutes  that allow  it                                                                     
to  sell timber  using  different  methodologies  in  Title                                                                     
38.05.115   and   .117.   The   sale   method   used   most                                                                     
frequently  statewide is  the competitive  sale process  in                                                                     
.120; those  are sealed  bid or oral  outcry sales  offered                                                                     
in  their different  area  offices.  They  are competitive                                                                      
with the sale going to the highest price.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A  couple  of  other  sales  methods  encourage  local  and                                                                     
domestic  manufacturing;   in  Southeast   Alaska  if  they                                                                     
offered  all the  timber  sales by  the .120  process,  all                                                                     
the  logs  would  go  to  the  round  log  export   market,                                                                     
because  it is a much  more valuable  market against  which                                                                     
the  domestic   market   cannot  compete.   So  they   have                                                                     
developed   other   alternatives    that   still   have   a                                                                     
competitive  piece on  the front end,  but then allow  them                                                                     
to  negotiate the  sale.  Mr. Maisch  explained  that  they                                                                     
tried  to do  just round-log  export  restrictions  in  the                                                                     
late 70s  and that case  found its way  all the way  to the                                                                     
U.S.  Supreme  Court  where  the  state  lost  it,  because                                                                     
they  were   trying  to  regulate   inter-state  commerce,                                                                      
which  a  state   cannot  do.  That  is  where   the  other                                                                     
authorities   have   sprung    from:   creative   ways   to                                                                     
encourage  domestic  processing,  create jobs  and more  of                                                                     
an economy in the local communities.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
The first  one is  ".115 authority,"  which  are sales  for                                                                     
less  than 500,000  board  feet. Those  typically  go to  a                                                                     
small  saw mill  or  firewood  operator.  The next  one  is                                                                     
the ".117  authority,"  which  is for salvage  sales  after                                                                     
a  fire, insect  and  disease,  and wind  throw.  It is  an                                                                     
expedited  process to  get that wood  to market as  quickly                                                                     
as  possible  to  salvage  some of  its  value.  The  ".118                                                                     
sales"  are the  large negotiated  sales  for 20-25  years,                                                                     
the  topic  of  this  legislation.  And  the  ".123  sale,"                                                                     
which  is  value-added  sales  for  up  to  10  years,  are                                                                     
meant  to provide  raw materials  to mills  and facilities                                                                      
that add  a high level  of value to  the product, like  the                                                                     
pellet  mill  in  Fairbanks.   A  list  of  materials  that                                                                     
qualify  for  high-value  production  can  be found  in  11                                                                     
AAC 71.055.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH said  that  their ".118  authority"  has  three                                                                     
criteria  that  have to  be in  place  to use:  the  census                                                                     
district  that  the  proposal  is in  has  to have  a  high                                                                     
level of local unemployment, it has to have an under-                                                                           
utilized  annual allowable  cut in the  timber supply,  and                                                                     
it has  to have  under-utilized  manufacturing  capability                                                                      
at the  facility  that would  use  it. All  three of  those                                                                     
are  hard  to  align   especially  the  high  unemployment                                                                      
piece.  This bill  proposes to  strike all  three of  those                                                                     
clauses,  and  that would  make  it easier  to  use and  be                                                                     
consistent across the state.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
One  other  thing   SB  28  does  is  that  currently   the                                                                     
language  in that  statute just  refers to  timber, and  to                                                                     
make  that more  inclusive and  clear they  added,  "timber                                                                     
and fiber" (meaning all types of wood products).                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:58:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  BISHOP  commented  that  Mr.  Maisch  did  a  good                                                                     
overview and really knows his timber.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  asked  if  this  is  like  former  Senator                                                                     
Linda Menard's proposed legislation.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH   answered  yes;   the  forestry  proposal   is                                                                     
essentially  the same,  but it  didn't have  the change  to                                                                     
the timber piece (.118).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:58:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:59:03 PM                                                                                                                    
WAYNE  NICHOLS, Professional   Forester and  member,  Board                                                                     
of   Forestry   and   Society   of   American   Foresters,                                                                      
representing  himself,  Juneau,  Alaska, supported  SB  28.                                                                     
He  said  compared  to  other  states,   the  Alaska  State                                                                     
Forest  has  a lot  of  benefits,  the  primary  one  being                                                                     
that it makes good management of it possible by well-                                                                           
qualified  professional  people  of  which  Mr.  Maisch  is                                                                     
"an  outstanding  example."   His  staff  also  have  other                                                                     
disciplines  that  relate  to it.  Designation  as a  State                                                                     
Forest enables investments like planting a tree, a 100-                                                                         
year  investment,  instead  of the  land being  subject  to                                                                     
being  changed for  some  other use.  It is  also  valuable                                                                     
in that  better roads  and bridges  can  be built.  Pruning                                                                     
and thinning are also long-term investments.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DYSON thanked him for his service.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:03:20 PM                                                                                                                    
NICK  STEEN,  Ruffed   Grouse  Society,  Wasilla,   Alaska,                                                                     
supported   SB   28.  He   said   the  president   of   the                                                                     
Southcentral  Chapter  of the  Ruffed Grouse  Society,  Dr.                                                                     
Michael  Fuller,  recently  contacted  several  members  of                                                                     
the  legislature   expressing   opposition  to  SB   28  as                                                                     
written.   He   explained   that   they   enthusiastically                                                                      
support  the  concept  of  a  State  Forest,   however  the                                                                     
accelerated   development  in  the  Alaska   Bowl  and  the                                                                     
Matanuska  Susitna  Valley is  transforming  the character                                                                      
of  the  area  into   an  urban  sprawl.  A  forest   would                                                                     
preserve   public  lands   and  resources   for  effective                                                                      
forest  management  that  promotes   economic  use  of  the                                                                     
forest  resources, enhancement  of wildlife  habitat  close                                                                     
to  major  population   areas,  and  maintenance   a  large                                                                     
block  of land  for  public recreation.  Their  concern  is                                                                     
the  fractured  nature  of  the proposed   boundaries,  and                                                                     
Dr.  Fuller asked  him  to express  his and  the Chapter's                                                                      
conditional support of SB 28.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Their  Chapter  has been  working  during  the development                                                                      
of the  Susitna  Matanuska Area  Plan (SMAP)  to establish                                                                      
a State  Forest  on all  unencumbered  state  land west  of                                                                     
the  Susitna  River  between   the  Beluga  River  and  the                                                                     
south  boundary  of the  Denali  State and  National  Parks                                                                     
draining  into  the Susitna  River.  They oppose  the  SMAP                                                                     
as developed since it has designated a series of non-                                                                           
contiguous   lands  for  forest   management  interspersed                                                                      
with  land  designated   as  mining  or  for  disposal   as                                                                     
recreation   and  agriculture.   This   hampers  effective                                                                      
forest  management   and  restricts  public  and   multiple                                                                     
use.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SB 28  perpetuates this  approach by  identifying only  the                                                                     
land designated  for  forest management  by  the SMAP  as a                                                                     
Susitna  Forest.   It  does  not  address  the   issues  of                                                                     
access   for   effective    forest   management,    uniform                                                                     
regulations    for   total   area   management,    boundary                                                                     
identification  for  recreational   use, and  the  loss  of                                                                     
public  access for recreational  purposes  by transferring                                                                      
land   to    private   ownership.    However,   there    is                                                                     
insufficient   time  in  their  mind  in  the  legislative                                                                      
session  to make  the major  changes  needed  to fix  these                                                                     
issues.  Therefore,  they  feel  that  getting  the  Forest                                                                     
established  is  critical  and would  like to  support  the                                                                     
current  bill,  but  ask  their  help  in  making  it  more                                                                     
effective    by   considering    modifications    to    the                                                                     
boundaries  in future  legislation  and directing  the  DNR                                                                     
to suspend  implementation  of any land  disposal  programs                                                                     
in  the  SMAP  west  of  the  Susitna  River   until  their                                                                     
concerns are addressed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH joined the committee.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:06:41 PM                                                                                                                    
ERIN  MCLARNEN, member,  Board  of Forestry,  representing                                                                      
"the  recreational   users  of  Alaska",  Willow,   Alaska,                                                                     
supported  SB  28.   She  also  personally  supported   the                                                                     
Susitna  State Forest.  Not only would  it create jobs  and                                                                     
stimulate  the economy  over time, but  it would guarantee                                                                      
all users a place to recreate.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MCLARNEN  said  she is  a  17-year long-distance   dog                                                                     
musher  and   frequently  uses   state  forest  lands   for                                                                     
training  her  dogs.  These  are  her  favorite   runs  for                                                                     
their  access and  the roads  created during  harvest,  and                                                                     
she wanted more users to have those same opportunities.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
She  said  the local  Willow  dog  mushers  have  formed  a                                                                     
strong  relationship  with  the Division  of  Forestry  and                                                                     
DNR,  as  well  as the  logging  operators.   In September                                                                      
they  all  come  together  to  talk  about  their   harvest                                                                     
plans  for  roads  and  then  the  mushers  overlap   their                                                                     
trails  onto that.  A lot of  the operators  will  actually                                                                     
reroute  their trails  during harvest  times so that  those                                                                     
training  grounds   won't  be  lost,  actually  suspending                                                                      
harvest  for two  days for  a 100-mile  kids'  dog race  on                                                                     
their trail system.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:09:04 PM                                                                                                                    
RICK  ROGERS,  Executive  Director,  Resource  Development                                                                      
Council  (RDC),  Anchorage,  Alaska,   said he  is  also  a                                                                     
certified  forester  that  had performed  forestry  on  and                                                                     
off  throughout  Alaska since  1981  and supported  SB  28.                                                                     
It  represents  the  state  committing   a long-term   land                                                                     
base   to    promote   long-term    sustainable    forestry                                                                     
practices.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
He  said  LNG  is  speed   dating  compared  to  forestry,                                                                      
because  forestry  is an  extremely long-term  commitment.                                                                      
Forest  rotations in Alaska  can span  from 60 to  100-plus                                                                     
years.  So, if  they  are going  to do  the  job right  and                                                                     
encourage  long-term  forest  productivity   and encourage                                                                      
the  private   sector  to  invest  in  what   it  takes  to                                                                     
harvest  and  process  that timber  to  generate  jobs  and                                                                     
create  wealth   in  our  communities,  then   we  need  to                                                                     
commit  the   land  base  so   they  know  that   state  is                                                                     
committed  and that  the  land is  going to  be available.                                                                      
The  lands  in  question  are  already  being  managed  for                                                                     
forestry, and this bill makes it official.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  ROGERS also  noted  there were  over 3  million  acres                                                                     
of other  legislatively-designated  lands  for things  like                                                                     
parks, refuges and public use areas throughout the Mat-                                                                         
Su area  and a designated  working State  Forest is  needed                                                                     
to  balance   that   out.  He   said  this   isn't  a   new                                                                     
experiment  in Alaska  that already has  the Tanana  Valley                                                                     
State   Forest,   the  Haines   State   Forest,   and   the                                                                     
Southeast  State  Forest,  and  they are  all  good  models                                                                     
from which to build one in the Susitna Valley.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
He noted  that Mr.  Steen encouraged  some  future look  at                                                                     
boundaries  and that  historically  the Tanana  Forest  has                                                                     
had at  least one, and  maybe several,  modifications  over                                                                     
its  history.  So nothing  keeps  them  from  improving  on                                                                     
the  boundaries   that  are  presented  today.   He  hadn't                                                                     
looked  at  the  amendments  in  detail,   but  would  give                                                                     
deference  to the committee  and DNR  for working with  the                                                                     
local  community.  If they  can  gain support  by  reducing                                                                     
some  of those  areas,  perhaps  they could  be considered                                                                      
in the  future for adding  to the State  Forest at  a later                                                                     
date.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. ROGERS summarized that this bill represents a long-                                                                         
term  commitment   to  good  forest   management   and  the                                                                     
private  sector is  likely to  respond favorably  to  that.                                                                     
It   is  consistent   with   the  state's   constitutional                                                                      
mandate  to manage  these  resources  sustainably  for  the                                                                     
long term benefit of Alaskans.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:13:34 PM                                                                                                                    
ANDY  ROGERS,  Alaska   Chamber  of  Commerce,  Anchorage,                                                                      
Alaska,  supported  SB  28.  He  liked  the  100-plus  year                                                                     
commitment  and  thought  it was  an  opportunity  for  the                                                                     
state  to  be  a good  steward  of  its  resources  and  to                                                                     
ensure  long-term  economic stability  with  the potential                                                                      
for growth.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:16:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  GIESSEL,   finding  no   further  comments,   closed                                                                     
public  testimony  and moved  conceptual  Amendment 2.  She                                                                     
explained  that  this  management  plan  would  not  be  as                                                                     
well  written  as the  one  for the  Tanana  State  Forest,                                                                     
but  adding  the  following  language  from  that  plan  to                                                                     
page 32, line 2, would resolved that:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     (e) The  wildlife  management  objective   of the                                                                          
     Susitna  State   Forest  is  the   production  of                                                                          
     wildlife  for a  high  level of  sustained  yield                                                                          
     for  human   use  through   habitat   improvement                                                                          
     techniques  to the  extent  consistent  with  the                                                                          
     primary  purpose  of  a  state  forest  under  AS                                                                          
     41.17.20.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   GIESSEL  explained   that  this   amendment   would                                                                     
maximize  the area  for wildlife  management  and not  just                                                                     
for timber management.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH   objected  for  discussion  purposes   and                                                                     
said he  preferred  to see the  amendment  in the bill  and                                                                     
to have enough time for consideration of it.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  GIESSEL  responded  that  it  goes  to  the  Finance                                                                     
Committee next.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH withdrew his objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:19:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  MAISCH said  he  supported  the conceptual  amendment                                                                      
and that  its language  is currently  in  AS 41.17.400  (e)                                                                     
for the Tanana Valley State Forest.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  BISHOP said  that  should go  a long  way to  make                                                                     
the Ruffed  Grouse  people, who  would hunt  grouse  there,                                                                     
a lot happier.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  said  he  hoped  so,  too;  they  are  serious                                                                     
about  habitat   and  forest  management  that   really  go                                                                     
hand-in-hand.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  summarized  that  this is  a  statement  about                                                                     
long-term  commitment   and a  sustainable   resource  that                                                                     
can be  managed to help  Alaska's communities.  It's  about                                                                     
the  "the triple  bottom  line"  of society,  environment,                                                                      
and  the  economy.   When  done  right  it  can   get  good                                                                     
results for the people of the state.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:21:18 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR DYSON moved to report SB 28, version 28-                                                                                
GS1741\A,   as  amended,   from  committee   to  the   next                                                                     
committee  of  referral  with  attached  fiscal  notes  and                                                                     
individual  recommendations.   There  were  no  objections                                                                      
and CSSB  28(RES)  passed from  the Senate Resources Standing                                                                   
Committee.                                                                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 161 Sponsor Statement.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 vs R.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Sectional vs R.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Explanation of Changes U to R.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Fiscal Note (RES).pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Permit Count.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Non-resident Hunter Graph.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 ADF&G Drawing Permits.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Auction Proceeds.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 P-R Match schematic.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter DTA 20140224.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter JerryHall 20130409.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter LOHCAC 20130403.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter SCI (President) 20140217.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter SCI 20140129.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter StephenStidham 20140220.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter RobertFuller 20140316.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter ABHA 20140224.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter WayneHeimer 20140221.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter KenRadach 20140301.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter KathleenKennedy 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter MikeCrawford 20140301.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter GaryGearhart 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter KenTaylor 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Letter MikeTinker 20140321.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Testimony KyleJones 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter MaryBishop 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letters WayneHeimer 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter AndrewAudap 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter and Dispatch Article DavidEliseTwyman 20140320.PDF SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter BrianLynch 20140321.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter EdCzech 20140324.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Opp Letter NoahZogas 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
HB 161 Supp Letter SandieGilliland 20140321.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 161
SB 160 Supp Letter SCI Alaska Chapter 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Opp Letter PhilByrd 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter GameManagementUnit23 20140227.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
Sb 160 Supp Letter JoeLetarte 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Letter LeifWilson 20140312.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Opp Letter VickiFaeo 20140309.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter HenryTiffany 20140311.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter RobertMumford 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter ThorStacey 20140303.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Opp Letter TimBooch 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Letter WayneKubat 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter NWAB 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter DonaldQuarberg 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter NateTurner 20140320.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Opp Letter WillieDvorak 20140321.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 160 Supp Letter PeterProbasco 20140207.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 160
SB 28 Amendment A.1.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 vs A.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Transmittal Letter.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Sectional Analysis.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Briefing Paper.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 DNR Fiscal Note.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Proposed Susitna Forest Map.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Supp Letter AFA 20140221.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Supp Letter Alaska Chamber Ltr 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Supp Letter RDC 20140319.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Supp Letter SAF 20130222.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Proposed Susitna State Forest Management Plan.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 MSB RS 14-030.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Amendment Explanation.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Letter NickSteen 20140321.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
SB 28 Opp Letter BarbaraMiller 20140321.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
SB 28
HB 77 Opposition Documents with Index 03-19-2014 Group #10.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Opposition Documents with Index 03-19-2014 Group #11.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Opposition Documents with Index 03-20-2014 Group #12.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-18-2014 Group #6.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-18-2014 Group #7.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-20-2014 Group #8.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-20-2014 Group #9.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-20-2014 Group #10.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-20-2014 Group #11.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-20-2014 Group #12.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77
HB 77 Support Documents with Index 03-20-2014 Group #13.pdf SRES 3/21/2014 3:30:00 PM
HB 77