Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1995 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 1995
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 212: "An Act relating to the management and sale of state
timber and relating to the administration of forest
land and classification of state land."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HSTA - 03/21/95
HB 2: "An Act allowing courts to require certain offenders as
a special condition of probation to complete a boot
camp program provided by the Department of Corrections;
making prisoners who complete the boot camp program
eligible for discretionary parole; providing for
incarceration of certain nonviolent offenders in boot
camps operated by the Department of Corrections;
allowing the Department of Corrections to contract with
a person for an alternative boot camp program; creating
the Boot Camp Advisory Board in the Department of
Corrections; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HSTA - 03/21/95
HB 46: "An Act relating to the practice of architecture,
engineering, and land surveying.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE RYAN, Legislative Assistant
Representative Al Vezey
Capitol Building, Room 216
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3258
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 212
ROBERT VALDATTA
P. O. Box 1267
Seward, AK 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-5656
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 212
RICK SMERIGLIO
HJCR 64, Box 565
Seward, AK 99664
Telephone: (907) 288-3614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 212
ED DAVIS
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
Box 3332
Valdez, AK 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-6123
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on teleconference against HB 212
JILLIANNE DE LA HUNT, Staff Attorney
Trustees for Alaska
725 Christensen Drive
Anchorage, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 476-4244
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on teleconference against HB 212
CLIFF EAMES
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 W. 8th, No. 201
Anchorage, AK 99510
Telephone: (907) 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference against HB 212
BOB ZACHEL, Owner
Alaska Birch Works
P. O. Box 83244
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Telephone: (907) 455-6164
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting testimony on HB 212
DAN RITZMAN
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
P. O. Box 61241
Fairbanks, AK 99706
Telephone: (907) 455-7868
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference against HB 212
TERRY HERMACH
P. O. Box 2490
Valdez, AK 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5473
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference against HB 212
KEVIN HUFFORD, Owner
PWF Express
P. O. Box 904
Valdez, AK 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5807
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference against HB 212
WILLIAM DUNNE
P. O. Box 15043
Fritz Creek, AK 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7578
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference against HB 212
STEVE GIBSON
1622 Highland Drive
Homer, AK 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-6487
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference against HB 212
JACK POLSTER
1506 Ocean Drive
Homer, AK 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-2298
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference against HB 212
JESSE PAYNE
P. O. Box 698
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4822
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in favor of
HB 212
TYLER CONKEL
HC 60, Box 4190
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-5020
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference in favor of HB 212
NICHOLAS OLSON
P. O. Box 58739
Fairbanks, AK 99711
Telephone: (907) 488-7267
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference in favor of HB 212
JEFF BENTZ
Box 102019
Anchorage, AK 99510
Telephone: (907) 272-7537
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by teleconference in favor of HB 212
SARAH HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P. O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on teleconference to oppose HB 212
KATHY LENNINGER, Owner
Wilderness Lodge
General Delivery
Nenana, AK 99768
Telephone: (907) 832-5569
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on teleconference to oppose HB 212
GORDON NORTON
P. O. Box 71661
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Telephone: (907) 474-4716
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on teleconference on HB 212
TOM BOUTIN, State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue, 3rd Floor
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3379
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 212
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE: TIMBER MANAGEMENT
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 530 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 2
SHORT TITLE: BOOT CAMP FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIS,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 20 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 21 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: ARCHITECT, ENGINEER & SURVEYOR REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 32 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 32 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 33 (H) LABOR AND COMMERCE,STATE AFFAIRS
03/08/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/15/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/15/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/17/95 768 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 4NR 3AM
03/17/95 768 (H) NR: KUBINA,PORTER,SANDERS,MASEK
03/17/95 768 (H) AM: KOTT, ROKEBERG, ELTON
03/17/95 768 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED, DNR)
03/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-32, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Committee to
order at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Ivan, Porter, Robinson and Willis.
Representative Ogan arrived a few minutes after the call to order.
CHAIR JAMES announced that the first item on the agenda was HB 212,
and they would be on teleconference. A fiscal note for HB 212 was
distributed, along with several suggested amendments, which the
committee received at 7:00 that previous night. Consequently, the
committee did not have time to review them before the meeting.
Also, because of the number of people on the teleconference list,
Chair James said they would limit all testimony to two minutes per
testifier.
HSTA - 03/21/95
HB 212 - TIMBER MANAGEMENT
Number 046
JOE RYAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Al Vezey,
submitted the sponsor statement for HB 212, which he read into the
record.
"HB 212 was introduced by Representative James, at the request
of constituents from the timber industry in Fairbanks. These
people are operators of small lumber businesses in the local
community. Their livelihoods have been impacted by the overly
complicated procedures they must endure to secure timber from
the state. It was not the lack of the resource that has
impacted them, it is the inability of the Department of
Natural Resources to allow the harvesting of this resource.
Current statutes are such that the five-year planning and
three-year planning updates, as required by Title 38, are
totally impractical for the continuation of an ongoing
industry.
"For a number of years now, the Fairbanks Industrial
Development Corporation has worked with and recruited timber
companies to come to the Fairbanks area and set up shop. So
far, they have not been successful, because of the overly
restrictive policies mandated by Title 38. Without the
ability to be guaranteed a supply of timber over the long
term, no one will make the capital investment necessary to
develop the industry.
"This long-standing irritation has deprived the Fairbanks
community and other communities across the state from
developing the basic timber industries necessary for jobs and
a healthy economic environment.
"I feel that this bill addresses the minimum changes necessary
to ensure the survival of the timber industry in Alaska."
Number 094
CHAIR JAMES asked if Robert Valdatta was on line.
ROBERT VALDATTA, on teleconference from Seward, asked questions
about HB 212 and made comments to support timber mills in Alaska.
He did not say if he was for or against HB 212. Mr. Valdatta asked
how long it would be before they could start logging if this bill
passed, if it would be within 72 hours or 5 years. He also queried
the section about 50,000 cubic yards, which he remarked refers to
gravel. He wondered if a person was going in to log, move gravel
or build roads.
Number 120
RICK SMERIGLIO, on teleconference from Seward, spoke against HB
212. Section 4, he said, exempts sales under 500,000 board feet on
the listing in the 5 year sale. In his view, that was bad public
policy. The five year sale has been the only way the public had to
find out where logging would occur. Personal experience taught him
that it takes considerable time for the public to pin down where
logging will occur. The proposed 30-day period for the public
notification of a sale is too short, because weeks are often
required to pass things back and forth in the mail. He would ask
for at least 120 days. Another point on Section 4 was about dead
and downed timber, which he believes gets confused with old stand.
Old stand means the trees have some rot in them. Some people think
dead and downed timber means a few trees have beetles in the
entire stand, so the entire stand will get logged. Also, in
Section 7, there is contradictory language. Mr. Smeriglio stated
that it will emphasize logging, and that is not the purpose of
multiple use. Currently, in Alaska Statute 41, it just says the
beneficial uses of the forests. What this bill does is emphasize
logging in the underlying text, and that is not multiple use.
Lastly, in Section 9, it says commercial logging may not be found
incompatible, yet logging is clearly known to be highly
detrimental if not incompatible with fishery production and back
country recreation.
CHAIR JAMES advised Mr. Smeriglio that his two minutes were up and
to summarize his testimony. He summarized by saying this bill is
bad public policy. It says in the sponsor statement the bill was
requested by the logging industry and that industry has a special
financial interest. It is contrary to the broader public interest.
ED DAVIS, on teleconference in Anchorage, suggested the committee
rethink the bill. He pointed out assumptions on which HB 212 were
based: The Forest Practices Act is creating discord for the
timber industry, and the authorizing legislation from Title 41 is
also causing irritation to the timber industry concerning the state
forests. The reality, in his opinion, was that these Acts are
consensus documents. In 1990, a group gathered to represent
tourism, timber, fishing, hunting, and also, state bureaucrats, and
they hammered out a consensus. Each side made substantive
sacrifices to do this, and they had a vision for the timber
industry in which it would be welcome in the communities where it
was operating. The proposed bill is the unilateral rewriting of
that consensus so the timber industry will have its way. This will
create problems, and he is against it. Mr. Davis suggested a
consensus group be convened to take a look at it.
JILLIANNE DE LA HUNT, Staff Attorney with Trustees For Alaska in
Anchorage, called to opposed HB 212. She also submitted specific
comments in written testimony and would keep her oral comments
short. It was her opinion this bill politically compromised public
process, and she asserted that to call this, as the sponsor
statement says, a bill that will aid small timber operators, is
facetious in their opinion. The bill is actually designed to allow
large timber sales with very little public comment. Favoring
logging over all other uses compromises multiple use and sustained
yield principles. These things are presently constitutionally
protected, so this bill could very likely result in future
litigation.
CLIFF EAMES, with the Alaska Center for the Environment, with
offices in Anchorage and Wasilla, testified that they are opposed
to HB 212. Mr. Eames expressed concern about what appears to be a
pattern of anti-forest bills that would raid Alaskas forests. They
are aware of four such bills being introduced this year and he
wondered where the support was coming from. They believed it must
come, almost exclusively, from a relatively small portion of the
logging industry; also from people who would export logs in the
round, also chips and jobs, out of Alaska. This has been the
pattern of logging on state lands in recent years. On the national
average, Alaska has twice the amount of recreation, and Alaskans
take pride in showing our state to visiting family and friends.
The Alaska economy depends on the tourism industry, yet nobody will
want to recreate in clear-cuts, and nobody will be able to fish in
heavily sedimented rivers. Visitors do not come to Alaska to see
clear-cuts, and he argued further that the primary use of state
forests should not be commercial logging. He wondered how many
Alaskans would think that commercial logging should be a higher use
than fish and wildlife in our forests. He urged the committee to
vote no on HB 212.
Number 277
BOB ZACHEL, owner of Alaska Birch Works in Fairbanks, testified in
favor of HB 212. He claimed he had to turn down orders this last
year because he could not get logs. Everything is being exported
and the local demand is not being met. Mr. Zachel said he thinks
HB 212 will take care of some of the problems so small businesses
will have access to the state forests. Without a supply of logs,
businesses like his cannot compete. He supported HB 212, because
without it he could not see much hope for small, local industry.
Number 315
DAN RITZMAN, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, testified from
Fairbanks to oppose HB 212. He thought too much emphasis was put
on logging in some sections of the bill, which would make logging
the primary interest of multiple use and he was opposed to that.
Another concern was that the fish and wildlife have equal
consideration as far as planning, but logging interests would have
primary rights under management if HB 212 passes.
TERRY HERMACH testified from Valdez against HB 212. In his opinion
it would be a shortsighted bill. It would be harmful to tourism
and commercial fishing, which are our most renewable resources.
A forest will take 200 years to regenerate, and tourism and fishing
are renewable every year. Mr. Hermach asserted that the best way
to manage our timber resource is value added only. We should ban
any export of raw logs and materials from our forests. He urged
the committee to vote against this bill.
Number 355
KEVIN HUFFORD, owner of PWF Express in Valdez, called to say that
they make their living from unspoiled forests and the wildlife it
produces. HB 212 was a shocking bill that gives priority to the
logging industry. Future businesses, such as his, are immediately
and directly threatened by it. It is a wholesale give-away of our
state forests, so he strenuously objected to the bill.
Number 370
WILLIAM DUNNE testified by teleconference from Homer, disclosing
that he read the bill and thought it was very limiting. He
recommended the committee take time to review the written testimony
they receive. Part of his concern was in reference to small scale
operators. When speaking to someone about it, when he had referred
to small scale timber operators, the explanation he received was
that small meant an operation with fewer than 500 employees. To
him that would be a very large operation. For instance, in Homer
they have a number of timber operations with one, two and three
employees. Mr. Dunne said he would encourage that type of free
enterprise, but giving away our state forests to large scale
operators under the guise of them being small timber companies is
outrageous. Also, he saw nothing in the HB 212 to reduce the
export of round logs in ships. In Homer, they have a daily problem
of exporting jobs, and resources, besides their heritage and
habitat, overseas. Some sections of the bill were acceptable,
which he could support, but he would ask for a consensus from
commercial fishermen, sportsmen, conservation groups, and all user
groups of the state forest, before they start tearing down the
forests.
Number 409
STEVE GIBSON, small scale miller and logger in Homer, testified
against HB 212. His complaint was that this bill may do more to
put him out of a source of timber than to help. Exporting timber
posed a problem. He said the market conditions are such that every
stick is rushing out of the area on a boat. He worried that the
states available resources will be turned into stump farms just so
the exports can go at a faster pace. It wont enhance his business
at all in the long run; contrarily, it threatens his business.
Whether or not insects threaten, he will not have anything left to
turn into boards for local uses. Mr. Gibson reminded everyone that
the nature of the wood here in Alaska is very different than wood
from the Georgia Pine forests and the forests of Oregon. Second
growth does not come back in 20, 30, or 40 years. The rotation
time in his area is 100 to 170 years. So, he would urge the
committee to kill the bill.
Number 443
JACK POLSTER testified from Homer in opposition of HB 212. He
believed in the concept of value added and felt that the value
should be added by particular individuals as much as possible. In
his view there was no concept that allows that principle better
than personal use. HB 212 posed a threat to personal use, in his
opinion. On the Kenai Peninsula they have high unemployment, and
high beetle kill. They also have old stands, which creates a
situation where personal use should come to the attention of the
legislators and state forestry. It apparently has not. The
possibility of personal use would benefit their community and it
would help get people doing something productive. He wanted to
urge the state to make personal use more available. They have not
done that; instead, the state tells people that access is a
problem. Although he understood the phenomenon of short funds,
also the cost of building access, he said the state can allow
access to future personal use areas while setting up commercial
sales. Mr. Polster finalized his testimony by asking Chair James
to please consider passing the Fully Informed Jury Legislation,
that should be in her hands.
Number 465
JESSE PAYNE testified from Delta Junction, saying that the general
policies now put a serious handicap on Interior Alaskas timber
industry. Mr. Payne said he resents groups who call themselves
environmentalists, as if nobody else is interested in the state but
them. His insinuation was that they would have us believe they
advocate what is best for everyone in Alaska, and what is best for
Alaskas resources. Still, they are against the bill that
advocates what the state needs. Mr. Payne recommended HB 212 as
being the best way to re-establish the original intent of the law
and regulations that govern our forests. He said if we do not use
the forests, nature will destroy them by insects or fire, or other
natural causes. His opinion was that the state must address the
needs of the Alaskan people, and use this industry responsibly.
TYLER CONKEL testified from Delta Junction to offer his full
support of HB 212. He urged everyone to vote for the bill. Mr.
Conkel represented three separate concerns: He was testifying as
a private citizen of Delta, as a member of the timber industry, and
as a speaker for the Interior Alaska Forest Association. As a
citizen of Delta Junction, he appreciated the Governors comments
during his visit of March 16, 1995. To be specific, he appreciated
the statement Governor Knowles made about the possibility of
raising the allowable cut for Delta Junction. He said that without
the primary use statement contained in HB 212, however, that idea
would be unobtainable. HB 212 is consistent with the rest of the
statutes concerning land classification and land use, he said.
Currently, the state forest is the only land use without a primary
use statement in the statutes. Wildlife habitats, parks, and all
the others are protected, for instance, by primary use statements,
but not to the exclusion of the multiple use. They stay consistent
with the primary use statements of those classifications. So, state
forests need that protection, and HB 212 provides it.
Number 503
NICHOLAS OLSON, owner of a small, one man operation, testified via
teleconference from North Pole. He is the owner of a small
salvage scale, and he discovered a bad bug problem in his timber,
which he said was getting worse. This bill, he said, will help him
to harvest this timber before it rots and falls down. They need to
make more timber available to small operations. Many operations do
not have any wood. He had not gone over HB 212 thoroughly, but
from what he understood and what he had seen of it, he felt it was
a good step in the direction he wants to go. Something new must be
done to help small, one, two, or three man operations.
JEFF BENTZ testified from Anchorage in support of HB 212. He urged
everybody to support the bill. In his view this legislation would
remedy the bug kill problem they have, and also much of the timber
in Interior Alaska that has bug kill. If the timber is not
harvested, it will either rot and fall to the ground, or burn.
This bill provides the means to put people back to work. It is not
a clear cut large scale bill; it puts back 14 uses that were once
there, in 1983. Also, it reverses what happened in 1990, and it
will benefit people in the state of Alaska.
Number 533
SARAH HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, a
coalition of 20 groups across the state of Alaska, wanted to inform
the committee that these groups are not raging national
environmental groups aimed at shutting down resource development in
Alaska. They are Alaskans who work in a diversity of industries,
most of them in resource based industries, because that is what
Alaska has. They oppose this legislation for a variety of reasons.
She spoke of the five-year plan saying that for timber to be sold
in Alaska it must be listed in two consecutive years, on a five-
year planning process. In the course of 366 days the state can
sell a tree. The state must list it one year, then the following
year, and after that they may sell it. The process purposes to
give the people who use the resource an opportunity for feedback on
whether that sale, in detail, affects commercial hunting, trap-
lines, plus a variety of other uses. She informed the committee
that there are two state forests in the state of Alaska and that we
are making policy about state forests, but we have much forested
land. The two considerations must be separated, she said. Two
state forests were created because there were state forests that
had a diversity of users. Tanana Valley State Forest, for
instance, encompasses the community of Fairbanks and all the other
communities along the Tanana Valley Basin. Those communities have
said this is not just state land to give away to export companies.
She quoted the people in these communities as saying, This is our
back yard, where we fish, hunt and trap, and moose hunt, and we
have a lot of concerns about how these trees are cut and
distributed. Ms. Hannan claimed that the Alaska Environmental
Lobby supports Alaskan operations and value added timber
processing, but currently the Supreme Court forbids the state of
Alaska from banning export. They believe the thing to do is to
look at timber policy to encourage local users. She pointed out
that some who testified gave support to the bill; some did not.
The reason is the bill states that anything under 500,000 board
feet of timber does not have to be listed for sale. The reason is
that this represents a lot of trees in some areas but not in
others. In Southeast it is not a lot of trees. In the Mat-Su
Valley it represents about 160 acres of trees, and she said, That
is a lot of back yard. Ms. Hannan addressed Section 4, suggesting
they amend the bill by reducing the number to 100,000 foot sales.
She would also urge the state to be looking at small scale sales in
a diversity of locations, working with local mill operators who can
specify which areas are accessible. She said we need less industry
development and, instead, support Alaskan for resource users and
small scale operators who are not exporting in the round.
Number 583
KATHY LENNINGER, Wilderness Lodge Owner, testified from Nenana.
She had some concerns about HB 212, and about wildlife and bird
habitats. Ms. Lenninger said she has seen clear-cuts down to the
rivers edge; also, supposed reforested areas with dead seedlings
after two years. In her area it takes 180 years for a spruce tree
to grow to maturity. Ms. Lenninger also expressed concern about
the watershed. She lives on the river, as most of the villagers
do, and with big clear-cuts the watershed will be destroyed. Ms.
Lenninger said she did not oppose reasonable small scale logging.
Small scale operators should have opportunities to get wood. She
did not believe this bill is the right one to accomplish that.
Number 599
GORDON NORTON, small mill owner, testified from Fairbanks in favor
of HB 212. It may not be perfect, he said, but it would help
smaller businesses, which are the backbone of our economy in his
area. Mr. Norton added that by small business he meant a business
with fewer than ten employees. He has forest lands of his own and
has seen where bark beetles are destroying it, especially in old
stands. If these old stands are not harvested, there can be more
destruction and a greater fire hazard. He explained there can be
a greater loss of timber by not harvesting it. He expressed that
he wanted to see it easier for people with small businesses to
obtain tracts they can handle.
Number 626
MR. RYAN returned to the table to offer other supportive comments
on this legislation. He reported that, in the process of land use
planning, particularly under our constitutionally mandated multiple
use, nothing says you cannot take certain areas and delay the
highest and best use of that area. This makes the other uses
auxiliary to the highest and best use, which is appropriate. Last
year, Commissioner Glenn Olds, who served under the Hickel
Administration, had a rewrite of Title 38, which he said would have
done specifically that: Designate certain lands and give them
highest and best use. Once they obtained highest and best use, the
land would be available for all of the other uses. Nothing would
be restricted. Mr. Ryan recounted some testimony heard from people
of the environmental community and addressed a comment made by a
person on teleconference. The persons comment was that tourism is
a major support in the state of Alaska. Mr. Ryan said he would
differ, for oil is and has been the major support. He saw an
urgency to develop a secondary industry, because when the oil
goes, he said, we will be in a serious economic situation. Mr.
Ryan repeated what the Governor had said: Alaska is open for
business. He said this bill will implement the Governors plan.
Also, Mr. Ryan added that early photographs of Fairbanks and Dawson
City show the surrounding hills completely denuded. There were no
trees growing at all; they were cut down for fire wood and to make
cabins. Today, those same places are surrounded by large, mature
forests. So, the country does regenerate, he said. In addition,
Mr. Ryan noted that the Tanana and Yukon Rivers are glacial fed and
full of microscopic particles of silt. It is difficult to
contaminate glacial fed rivers and the turbidity levels more than
they already are.
MR. RYAN quoted from the Bible: By their works you shall know
them. With that, he referred to comments made by environmental
leaders and those who developed the philosophy of environmentalism.
Directing the committee to backup information in the committee
packets, he read an excerpt from Dixie Lee Rays book,
Environmental Overkill, Whatever happened to Common Sense? One
comment was by David Brower, founder of the Friends of the Earth,
and former executive director of the Sierra Club. Mr. Brower said,
While the death of young men in war is unfortunate, it is no more
serious than the touching of mountains and wilderness areas by
mankind. Mr. Brower was also quoted as saying to a travel group
in Whistler, British Columbia, September 23, 1992: Loggers losing
their jobs because of spotted owl legislation is, in my eyes, no
different than people being out of work after the furnaces of
Dachau shut down. Also, Mr. Ryan quoted Christopher Manes from a
book entitled Green Rage. Christopher Manes had outlined a
program for ecological reform, and its main features included: De-
industrialization of the West; Reduction of human population;
elimination of all use of fossil fuel, including automobiles, coal-
fired plants, and manufacturing processes using petrochemicals;
ending of all monocultural and cattle production; end of all
commercial logging; restoration of wilderness on developed land;
and reintroduction of large predators, such as grizzly bears and
wolves. Mr. Ryan concluded that by their own words it was clear
what their agenda is. He could see them objecting to any kind of
legislation that would provide an opportunity for people to make a
living. With that, he urged everyone to seriously consider passing
HB 212.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions. When there were
none, she informed the committee that Mr. Tom Boutin was there to
answer questions. Mr. Boutin was there representing the Division
of Forestry, which is under the Department of Natural Resources.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said she wanted to hear the
Departments opinion of this bill. She noticed a whole series of
amendments, and assumed they were recommending some changes.
CHAIR JAMES wished to reiterate that the committee received these
amendments late the previous evening, around 7:00 p.m., and since
nobody had a chance to review them she did not think they would be
able to deal with them at this meeting.
Number 675
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Representative James planned to
hold the bill over until they could go through the amendments.
CHAIR JAMES said it was up to the committee to decide, but they
could hold it or pass the bill out to the next referral, which was
Resources. They could hold it over in order to go through the
amendments. Meanwhile, Mr. Boutin was there to answer some
questions and Chair James asked if he was familiar with all the
amendments.
Number 685
TOM BOUTIN, Alaska State Forester, Division of Forestry, Department
of Natural Resources, approached the table saying he was familiar
with the amendments. He thought it would be a better bill with the
amendments; however, he said the Administration did not support the
bill with or without the amendments.
Number 690
CHAIR JAMES said she had a copy of AS 41.17.230, which is the
Forest Practices Act of 1983. It shows that, in 1990, the primary
use of the forest was deleted. She asked if Mr. Boutin was around
in 1990.
MR. BOUTIN said he was around, but he was not involved in the
process that lead to the 1990 updated Forest Practices Act.
CHAIR JAMES said what bothered her most was that the largest amount
of testimony at that meeting was from the environmentalist
community. It told her they have a Forest forced Practices Act
based on consensus. If this was based on consensus in 1983, that
commercial timber harvest and related activities should be number
one on the list, then came back in 1990 and turned around by
consensus, it was heavily weighted by the environmentalist
community.
TAPE 95-32, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. BOUTIN claimed that he has heard comments from many people in
the two years since he has had this job, and many Interior saw-
millers complained that they were not represented at all. Mr.
Boutin did not know the history of why they were not represented.
CHAIR JAMES spoke on the market as the driving force behind sales.
It has been her opinion that when you have something to sell, it is
only available to sell when you have a specific market, so the
market drives the sales. Formerly, if someone had a product that
people use, they could fix it and make it available for people to
buy. It seems we have moved into an era where if someone is not
buying specifically what we have, we eliminate the industry.
Consequently, the buy and sell arrangement is eliminated. She
asked if Mr. Boutin could relate what he thought about that, and if
he thought it applied to the timber industry.
MR. BOUTIN wasnt sure if he understood the question, but he said
that virtually all the states timber is sold by competitive
auction, either by oral bid or sealed bid.
CHAIR JAMES said he answered from the states position of selling
timber as being the market. Her understanding was that the timber
has no market unless there is someplace else for it to go. An
industry comes in and only buys because they can process and sell
to a market; then the market would determine what the timber
requirement would be.
Number 045
MR. BOUTIN said that was true, and if the market goes away nobody
will bid. Each year the state has some timber sales for which
nobody is willing to pay the minimum bid. Their appraisals are
based on past sales, so if they get a steep downturn in the market
their appraisals become too high. Also, some of the sales are not
economic. So, they do have sales that do not sell. He said most
of the sales have great competition interest, however, and are
sometimes bid to a multiple of the minimum price.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON requested from Mr. Boutin an overview of
why the department has problems with this bill.
Number 068
MR. BOUTIN explained that it is a long and complex bill. To
capsulate it, he said it destroys public process. The Division of
Forestry thinks it understands the public process; it also thinks
it knows how to use the process. The process is not cheap, but it
is the sale of public resources, so it has to be done through a
process. The department thinks it is becoming more cost effective
at doing the process and is becoming better at the process. They
had 12 court cases, which they won, he said, and each judge told
them to proceed with the sale. They were also informed that they
have done a good job crossing Ts and dotting Is. He felt this
was proof that the public process works.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER expressed that he had no doubt the
department has a good grasp of the process, but he questioned if
they have a good grasp of the other side of the equation. That is
what Chair Jamess question related to. He asked if it would not
be appropriate to consider that the length of time the process
takes now has an adverse effect on the ability to meet a market at
a time that it exists.
Number 100
MR. BOUTIN explained that the process takes all of two years. In
theory, perhaps, under AS 38.05.113, they could be there at a year
and a day, but, realistically, it takes two years. He listed the
steps taken: Each sale goes through the public comment period for
the five year harvest schedule at least twice; then each sale has
to have a forest land use plan; and afterward, a 30-day agency and
municipal comment period and a 30-day public comment period. Each
sale has a minimum of three public comment periods, plus a public
meeting. The public relies on this extended examination and people
do not want to see that extended process reduced. As for not
meeting the market, timber sales are driven by the resources they
have in their budget, and currently, the rate of timber sales is
twice what the five year average was leading up to 1993. He said
it is bound to be reduced in the future, because the Division of
Forestry is required by law to fight fires and to enforce the
Forest Practices Act. That is a private land enforcement action.
As those things in Forest Practices enforcement expand, the timber
sales program is cut back. This fiscal year there is no forestry
in Tok, so in FY 96, there will feasibly be a cutback of a timber
sale in another part of the state because that is all they have to
give.
Number 194
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN wondered, since the market is so
fluctuant, if they could review the state resources for a sale on
a much broader scale. That way they could have everything
prearranged and in place to meet the market demands when they come.
He said he was unsure about how long the review lasted, or if it
expired in so many years.
MR. BOUTIN remarked that he never saw the two year process as being
responsible for not meeting the market demands. There is
competitive interest throughout the state for anything a landowner
can put up for sale. The public process does not prevent the
Division of Forestry from having more timber to put up for sale.
If AS 38.05.113 were no longer in effect, the Division of Forestry
would not be able to put up more timber for sale more quickly. Mr.
Boutin did not consider the public process an impediment to putting
timber up for sale, and he would not recommend eliminating the
public process. He defended it, saying if they did not have the
public process they would be losing in court, and they would also
be putting up less timber for sale.
Number 194
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that was not quite his question. He
wanted to know, if they continued with the two year process, if
they could expand the review areas, or have groups of areas
prepared for the market demands. He pointed out that although Mr.
Boutin did not think the two year process was a problem, the
testimony indicated that it was a problem. Representative Green
wanted to find a way they could have the process working in advance
so they could have timber available when the market demanded it.
Number 205
MR. BOUTIN said that AS 38.05.113 requires the Division of Forestry
to do a five-year harvest schedule. Nothing is keeping the state
from doing just one five-year harvest schedule for the entire
state, yet there are reasons they do not do that. One problem is
people or groups of people such as the Trustees for Alaska who
file complaints in Superior Court. These groups have not stopped
the sales, but they have filed for emergency stays on each auction.
They failed to obtain the stay; but the five year harvest is the
subject of this complaint against the Division of Forestry. If
they are going to run into potential snags like that, they would
prefer not to have all the state sales at that risk.
MR. BOUTIN said there are ten forestry areas. These areas know
best which sales to put up and what access is likely to run into
problems in the public process. Those things would argue against
putting all sales into one combined five-year harvest schedule, yet
the law does not prevent them from doing that. He explained also
that one thing that prevents them from doing many timber sales in
preparation to have a full pipeline is laying out the timber ahead
of time, in order to do the Forest Land Use Plan under AS
38.05.112. That is necessary so they have a bullet proof best
interest finding when they go to court. He stated that laying out
timber in advance takes lots of resources, and they have limited
resources. They lack the people to lay out five years worth of
timber, to get it in the pipeline and hold it there for the
possibility of a market.
Number 251
CHAIR JAMES said the Department of Forestry has a greater interest
in the industry than anything else. It was also apparent that when
he spoke of timber sales and the market, he was speaking about
sales of timber to a market, which to her was the industry. He had
not considered what the five year schedule ought to be, but then
Chair James pointed out that they could not possibly consider what
a five year schedule ought to be unless they knew what the market
would be. In her view, their prime interest was obviously in the
industry. She asked if he were an industry if he would be willing
to come into this state and depend on the five year schedule to
give him enough product to put his industry into operation.
MR. BOUTIN answered, no. In the present environment, in public
land management, he said, anyone making an investment would surely
want more of an assurance of supply than our good intentions over
a five year period. He said an investment would require an assured
supply.
Number 269
CHAIR JAMES confronted Mr. Boutin with our dilemma, which is a $500
million deficit this year in our budget. There is an urgency to
reduce it, and it is urgent enough that the legislature must resort
to reducing funds to education and other important programs. The
problem is how they can get the budget down by $500 million, and
finding ways to develop the economy. Chair James wondered if Mr.
Boutin believed the only way to salvage the economy is by resource
development, other than what we are presently doing. She asked if
he would agree that timber would be a good way to do that.
Number 275
MR. BOUTIN said the states timber sale program is cost effective.
Despite new documentation and one public meeting, they estimate
doing for each of the one million board feet of timber, they still
expect a positive return to the general fund for every board foot
sold. We should promote value added processing, he said, and also
get a federal law passed to allow the state to limit log exports.
It should have been done long ago, and he thought it would be a
good time for value added processing to come from state lands.
Moreover, resource jobs can be part of the solution to the Prudhoe
curve problem, and timber should be making a contribution.
Number 299
CHAIR JAMES brought up the condition of the timber, particularly in
the Tanana Valley. People on the environmental side seem to
believe the timber is healthy, but to her it looked unhealthy.
Small spruce stands and birch stands look like hair on a dogs
back. Her idea was if they had a management process aimed at
growing healthier forests, it would surely increase the available
amount of timber for processing. She wondered if Mr. Boutin
agreed, and also if he thought it would shorten the recycling
period if they could improve the management process.
Number 310
MR. BOUTIN said they are bumping up against the allowable cut on
Haines State Forest, which is 6.9 million board feet a year. In
that area, thinning, which increases the record of growth does
incrementally increase the allowable cut. In the Interior the
allowable cut, as calculated using conventional science, would be
approximately ten times what the state is harvesting there in the
Interior. He would have a hard time arguing for general funds to
be used for the thinning of timber to increase the growth, and to
increase the cut, when the harvest is such a small percentage of
what the allowable cut would calculate out to be. The public needs
assurance, he said, that they know what they are doing before they
can do anything more.
Number 336
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said at a Resource Committee meeting a month
ago, in Southeast, they were subjected to some pretty horrible
situations, such as mills closing. The gist was that those mills
are currently in jeopardy because bureaucratic red tape does not
permit them to have the fiber for a value added process. He
wondered if bureaucrats could take a more appropriate, innovative
stand in doing something in a more expeditious manner; also, in a
more compatible manner with market demands. That would drive and
proliferate a value added type of investment for some sort of a
plant. Representative Green said Mr. Boutin made a good case
against going statewide, yet he maintained there must be a way to
take broader sections and multiplicities in a unit package, allow
what is necessary to keep the public happy with the process, and
still get advance approval for when the market demands come. This
would allow the state to compete on the open market. The present
method of waiting for five years is a laughingstock. Instead of
hiding behind bureaucracy he suggested a more proactive approach.
Number 380
MR. BOUTIN answered that some kind of instate processing has to be
part of the equation. For instance, in Southeast, the only place
where the state can help out with these downed mills is in the
Haines Forest. That allowable cut of 6.97 million board feet a
year is very small and is not a solution to a Wrangell Sawmill that
needs 60 to 80 million feet of saw logs. They have had sales, and
the general fund does fine, but the timber has been exported.
Number 409
CHAIR JAMES asked if we have enough pulp logs to reopen the pulp
mill that is closed.
MR. BOUTIN said that pulp is not just one commodity. The state has
60 million feet of allowable cut not being used, of low value
hardwood in the Interior. It is the same mix that a new mill in
Northern Alberta is using. There is not enough Sitka Spruce and
hemlock to come close to providing enough wood for the closed
mills. They are 600 tons per day mills and would use 450 thousand
cords, which is 225 million feet a year. The state doesnt have
that supply in Sitka Spruce and hemlock. There is white spruce
being logged off the Kenai, which is a high value product for
newsprint pulp mills. The chips from the Kenai are going to
newsprint mills overseas.
CHAIR JAMES brought up the economic picture, saying if the market
does not drive the process, we as a state should be in tune to what
the market is and respond accordingly. We have to turn the market,
she said, and shorten the time frame. We have to create jobs also.
We do that with everything else except timber.
MR. BOUTIN said there is a development stage. It is different with
oil and gas. The wood industry is accustomed to a longer time
horizon than with fish. The public process is not an impediment;
timber is a resource, but we cannot chase the market, he said.
Number 501
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Mr. Boutin about the 500 thousand
board feet sales, wondering how many acres that would be around the
Tanana Forest.
MR. BOUTIN said that 10,000 feet to the acre is a pretty good
average for that area. That would amount to 50 acres.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wanted to know how many acres are in the Tanana
Forest. Fifty acres would be a very small sale.
MR. BOUTIN said that the Tanana State Forest itself has 1.3 million
acres. The Tanana Basin has much more state forest lands.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if he would say that the people who go
consistently to the public hearings are pretty much the same crowd.
He wondered if they reflect the sentiments of the general public.
MR. BOUTIN said he was surely speaking of environmentalists, and
those who come to public meetings do want to see timber jobs. The
extent to which they represent the public at large, he did not
know.
CHAIR JAMES said she read the input on the Yakutat plan, and from
what she gathered it was that they liked value added, but what they
wanted to see was one man and one tree, and to make the tree into
something and sell it. Different people have different measures of
concern, and the people who testified on the teleconference said
they support the small logger. She said that HB 212 is a bill that
supports the small logger, but those people are opposed to it.
They have not proved to her by anything they have done that they
support small operators.
MR. BOUTIN said that certainly everyone agrees with jobs, but the
best that the bureaucrats at the Division of Forestry can do is
understand the public process, and to have a genuine and legitimate
process where they bring the public in early to let them know they
are considering their comments. They are also responding to their
comments, so if they end up in court each judge will tell them to
sell the timber.
HSTA - 03/21/95
Number 596
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON expressed that she did not know Mr. Boutin
was involved in HB 121, which related to the salvage sales, but she
heard people say it was that part of the forest they wanted to get
their hands on. She was curious about how the two bills meshed
together, and if HB 121 would assist them. She wondered also if it
would help smaller operations.
MR. BOUTIN said how they mesh together is in exempting salvage
sales from the five-year harvest schedule. HB 121 does that, and
it requires a written finding, which makes it superior to HB 212,
in his opinion. According to the testimony they heard, people on
the Kenai have businesses with one and two employees and they have
problems getting logs when there is more wood moving on the Kenai
than ever before. The Division of Forestry and the University
together sold 25 million board feet in 1995. That is enough wood
for the Seward mill for a year. Dollars talk, he said, so if
anybody has the money to pay, the wood is there. One thing the
public process does, because of the forest land use plan, is that
it forces larger sales than we might otherwise have. It makes
smaller sales less cost effective.
HSTA - 03/21/95
Number 638
CHAIR JAMES concluded that if we continue in the same process with
the logging industry, without making big changes, the people who
provide value added cannot stay in business. Changes are necessary
to have the product available to do some value added. What makes
business work is a market, a product, and then a profit. Present
laws are not working. Somehow we have to have a stop-gap measure.
Number 665
MR. BOUTIN said there are people working on a way to allow the
state to require value added processing of timber from state lands.
He is more optimistic than ever before that they will be able to
get that done. He reiterated that he does not see the public
process as an impediment to bringing timber up for sale.
CHAIR JAMES said, It is the time it takes.
Number 674
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concluded that if the bureaucratic morass
continues, we will never be where we need to be when the market
comes. Time is of the essence. He thought Mr. Boutin failed to
get the point which was if logs are not available in a timely
manner that people will not come into Alaska and commit to putting
up a value added type plant.
MR. BOUTIN focused on their pipeline of timber that is in process,
explaining that once the timber is sold it takes some type of
development, like building roads and so forth. Most of their sales
are in the winter, but they cannot get to them until the next fall.
However, the pipeline of timber is more full than it has ever been
before, so despite the public process they are doing more now than
in the past.
TAPE 95-33, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES requested that they move the bill out and let it be
heard in Resources, the next committee of referral. She felt they
had a good discussion.
Number 006
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS noted that this bill covers a lot of
variation that he is not an expert in. His concern was how the
fish habitat is protected when they prepare the packages for sale.
Fisheries, is one of the main resources of the state, and a
renewable resource. He questioned what they do to protect that
habitat.
Number 029
MR. BOUTIN said they do a number of things. The Forest Practices
Act for state land requires a riparian buffer, which they use as a
no-cut buffer. The law would allow variations, but they do not use
variations on state land. They have a 100 foot no-cut buffer, and
then from 100 to 300 feet they have a special wildlife management
zone where they defer to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as
to whether they can enter into it or not.
Number 077
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she wanted to go through the
recommendations from the department on the amendments before
passing the bill out. She wanted to understand everything and said
she wanted Mr. Boutin to go through the bill, point by point, to
show where he recognized problems. Another issue bothering her was
the two year process. She failed to understand why anyone had a
problem with it when it was so important to this state. Two years
in her view was not a long time. Another issue was the need for
federal changes before they can begin the promotion of the value
added.
MR. BOUTIN said he had heard in the Department of Law that it is
not possible to have enforceable state law requiring value added
without a change in federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said we should look at some kind of
resolution to our congressional delegation about whatever it is
that we need to do. She wanted to get on the record also that HB
16 was introduced by Representative Tom Brice that was nearly
identical to this bill. It was upsetting to her, she said, that
they introduced a bill through State Affairs and they did not hear
Representative Brices bill.
Number 140
CHAIR JAMES had an explanation for Representative Robinson, saying
that she received the same documentation that Representative Brice
received from timber operators in the Fairbanks area, but he filed
a bill that excluded important sections of the documentation. The
timber operators wanted it like it was and HB 212 is what the
timber operators wanted. HB 212 includes their original requests.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it would be appropriate that Resources
deal with these amendments, where there are the people who have
that specific interest and expertise. He felt State Affairs dealt
appropriately with the policy issues that the committee was
required to look at. He also recognized and believed there are
people who rely on and benefit from the current procedural
requirements of statute and regulation. Representative Porter said
he would only add that there are others who are adversely affected
and who object to the time required in the process. He stated that
the courts have upheld the divisions application of the law, and
they have crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is. In his view,
the policies should be made in the legislature, not in the courts.
He felt that meeting markets is a function of competition and it is
only fair to put the state on the same playing field as others who
are competing. He supported moving the bill out.
Number 193
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he followed the purpose and intent of the
bill and he approved of it. As he explained, he came from an
economically depressed area, where there is minimal resource
development. Timber supplies are small, and there is small timber
in the middle Kuskokwim he would like to see developed wherever
possible, and to make it available within their local area. He
thought this bill would provide opportunities for economic
development for small operations there. When they have timber
projects now they have to order it from Seattle, and it arrives the
following year. The people he represents are some of the best
conservationists as far as fishery resources are concerned. If the
bill passed, they would make sure the fisheries are protected.
Also, this would provide jobs and make the product available to the
people there, where they hardly have anything as far as timber is
concerned.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the bill out.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee pass HB 212 out of
State Affairs with fiscal notes attached and individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected, and wanted to reiterate why she
objected. She agrees with Representative Ivan, and she would like
to see smaller operators have a better access to our forests. She
also would like to see the smaller operators do better value added
products with the lumber. The reason she objected was that they
did not go through the bill, and she had not heard the true
objections from the department one by one, or go through the
recommended amendments brought to the committee. Her desire was to
move the bill out in the best shape possible, and she did not think
they accomplished that.
CHAIR JAMES responded to Representative Robinson saying that this
bill should have and could have gone directly to Resources. It was
heard in State Affairs at her request, so this committee would
understand the gist of what they were doing with this bill. She
regretted that they did not have the amendments soon enough so they
could look at them for a few days and come prepared to deal with
them. Nevertheless, she felt they had a good State Affairs
Committee meeting on the bill. They gave it a lot of attention and
did not slight anyone. They allowed testimony and got good
response from Mr. Boutin on all the questions and comments. They
met the State Affairs requirements, so she was comfortable about
moving it on to Resources where the amendments will be addressed in
a timely fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she just did not understand why the
rush. She said she would obviously lose on this, but she had at
least put her comments on the record.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he would be voting not to pass the bill
out for similar reasons as expressed by Representative Robinson.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote because there were
objections. Representatives Porter, Ogan, Green, Ivan and James
voted in favor of moving the bill out. Representatives Willis and
Robinson voted against passing the bill. HB 212 was passed out of
the State Affairs Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|