Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/02/2003 03:44 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 2, 2003
3:44 p.m.
G
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Ogan, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Ben Stevens
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 149
"An Act relating to timber and to the sale of timber by the
state."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 149 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 149
Mr. Jeff Jahnke
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
550 W 7th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501-3356
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 149
Ms. Nancy Fresco
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
830 College Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to diminished public input in CSSB
149(RES)
Mr. Eric Pyne
Boreal Forest Products &
International Woodcutters Association
PO Box 82694
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports forestry as prime use of state
forests
Mr. Robert Ott
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 First Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to diminished public input in CSSB
149(RES)
Ms. Emily Ferry
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
449 6th St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern about limiting public
input and changing the primary use designation
Mr. Mike Sallee
PO Box 7603
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about SB 149
Mr. Matt Davidson
Alaska Conservation Voters
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about SB 149
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-38, SIDE A
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:44 p.m. Senators Wagoner, Dyson, Elton,
Lincoln and Chair Ogan were present. The committee took up SB
149.
SB 149-TIMBER/ TIMBER SALES/ STATE FORESTS
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, sponsor of SB 149, told members he primary
introduced SB 149 to promote resource development, jobs and a
new revenue stream for the state. He worked with the
administration on the committee substitute (CS) before members
for consideration. He said Mr. Jeff Jahnke, the state forester,
and Jack Phelps, special assistant to the Governor, were
available to answer questions. He indicated his goal is to begin
the development and stewardship of Alaska's forests, which
should have begun 42 years ago. He hopes that with this
legislation and the encouragement of this administration, a
terribly underutilized resource and asset can be developed.
MR. JEFF JAHNKE, Director of the Forestry Division, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), stated support for the CS for SB
149. He said he would present a sectional analysis by topic,
rather than consecutively by section. He explained:
Committee substitute for SB 149 addresses the planning
requirements for forest management, including forest
management plans for legislatively designated state
forests, five-year schedules of timber sales (FYSTS),
and the forest land use plans, or what we call FLUPs,
for individual timber sales.
Currently there are two designated state forests. One
is the Haines State Forest and the other is the Tanana
Valley State Forest. Between the two of them, they
compromise about 2 million acres of forested state
land and there is an additional 20 million acres of
forested state land that is forested state land but
not currently in a state forest.
Let me go down through the committee substitute and
explain what we believe it does.
For forest land use plans, what we call FLUPs, Section
1 moves the guidance to when general planning
requirements under AS 38.04.065 apply to forest land
use plans. It does not change the requirements. This
is a clean up. It actually makes it read much better
and it puts all of the requirements together, both the
plans for the state forest planning areas and the non-
state forest planning areas. It actually really helps
us in terms of consistency in the way we apply things.
Section 2 deletes a reference to consideration of
information on collective effects of forest
activities. Consideration of the collective effects
cannot be done in our FLUPs on a sale-by-sale basis.
It's very difficult. It's actually better addressed
through regional planning under 38.05.065 and
41.17.230. So it's better to be done in our larger
forest plans or the regional plans.
Section 3 deletes the list of specific uses that must
be considered in forest land use plans. It replaces it
with a requirement that FLUPs on land outside the
state forest consider non-timber forest resources and
uses. This change will make preparational FLUPs more
efficient by deleting a requirement that each and
every FLUP consider uses and resources that may not be
pertinent to the individual area that the FLUP covers.
Those are the three changes that deal with, again,
what we call FLUPs, which are our forest land use
plans, which deal with individual timber sales.
The second group of changes [has] to do with the five-
year schedule of timber sales. Section 4 changes the
five-year schedule of timber sales from an annual to a
biennial requirement. This reduces the work required
in preparing and reviewing these schedules but it also
keeps them as a valuable tool for both industry and
the public who is interested in being informed. We
don't believe it will, in fact, change the level of
information that is being provided.
Section 5 changes the requirements that the sale be on
two schedules preceding the sale to a requirement that
sales have been on one of the two schedules preceding
the sale. In other words, instead of having to have
been in the last two five-year lists, it has to have
been on one of the last two biennial lists. So, again,
that is a change.
Section 16 deletes the authority to reoffer sales for
two years after their initial offering without listing
them on the five-year schedule. This provision is not
needed given the changes that we've made - that have
been made in Section 4 and Section 5.
That's the body of the changes that deal with the
five-year schedules.
The next ones I'm going to discuss, and probably the
biggest body of changes [are] changes to the state
forest purposes and state forest management plans.
Sections 8 and 9 address management plans for the
Haines State Forest. They replace the specific
planning requirements for the Haines State Forest
Management Area in AS 41.15.315(a) with the
requirements for state forest management plans in AS
41.17.230. What that really does is means that both of
our state forests fall under the same management
criteria and requirements as opposed to having two
separate ones.
Specific requirements for consultation between DNR,
ADF&G and between ADF&G and local fish and game
advisory committees are retained. The amendment
deletes the requirement for a public hearing in Haines
and Klukwan prior to plan adoption and revision
specifically. They delete the requirements for the
plan to be based on an inventory completed over the
last ten years and to revise the plan when a new
inventory is done. That's not to say they won't be
based on inventories. That's required in other areas.
Sections 11, 12, and 15 change a management emphasis
in legislatively designated state forests from a mix
of multiple use that provides for timber management to
timber management that allows other beneficial uses
that are compatible with timber. These sections change
the primary purpose of state forests from multiple use
that provides for production utilization and
replenishment of timber resources to timber management
while allowing for other beneficial uses and deletes
multiple use as a principle of managing the state
forest. These changes apply to the Tanana Valley State
Forest. The Haines State Forest purpose is established
in a different statute and is not changed by this
bill.
Section 14 makes the timing requirement for review of
forest management plans more flexible. Rather than
requiring a review every five years, a review will be
required as necessary. This will preclude time-
consuming reviews when they are not needed. This
section will apply to both the Tanana Valley and
Haines State Forest.
Section 13 requires that forest management plans
consider non-timber uses to the extent that such uses
are compatible with timber management. In conjunction
with Section 3, this moves the consideration of non-
timber uses in state forests from the individual
forest land use plans, which I mentioned earlier, to
the management plans for the state forest. So we've
broadened the venue for that consideration to the
forest instead of the individual projects. This
section will apply to both the Tanana Valley State
Forest and the Haines State Forest.
Section 16 deletes the requirement for proposals of
new state forests to include findings of
incompatibility for the timber and non-timber uses
previously listed in AS 35.05.112(c). Section 16 also
deletes the requirement for forest management plans to
be reviewed by the Board of Forestry and other state
agencies prior to adoption. It also deletes a
requirement for local public hearings prior to
adoption. Again, the planning process does require
some review but prior to adoption of the forest
itself. Section 16 deletes the requirement for forest
management plans to be provided to the legislature
after adoption.
The amendments of the state forest and state forest
management plans will not require revisions to the
existing management plans for the Tanana Valley State
Forest - and that one was just completed, so we're
quite happy that it won't require revisions.
The next topic is riparian management standards.
Section 10 revises the conditions for imposing
riparian protection standards on state lands that are
more stringent than those established in the Forest
Resources and Practices Act. This amendment deletes
the reference to FLUPs as a basis for requiring more
stringent standards on timber sales outside the state
forests. Within state forests, additional standards
could only be imposed if the DNR commissioner makes a
finding of compelling state interests.
The last topic is negotiated timber sales for local
manufactured wood products - [indisc.] called one,
two, three sales or 280 sales. There are actually two
changes. The first one is it broadens the area where
sales under this section may be offered. Currently
offerings are limited areas designated for forestry
uses by an area plan.
CHAIR OGAN interrupted to ask which section Mr. Jahnke was
referring to.
MR. JAHNKE said Section 6 and continued.
Section 6 broadens the area where sales under this
section may be offered. Currently offerings are
limited to areas designated for forestry uses by an
area plan to areas where forestry is an allowed use.
This would allow this sale type in areas that have
more general designations, such as resource management
on general use where forestry is an allowed use.
Review of proposed sales through the five-year state
timber sale and forest land use plan process would
continue to insure that proposed sales are compatible
with the management of a particular location.
Finally, this legislation makes the definition of high
value added wood products more flexible. The current
definition is a list of specific products that
qualify. As most of you are probably aware and
particularly in a state where we're trying to interest
additional products - the production of additional
products in the State of Alaska - we can only add
those additional products by regulation. New products
are developed every year and the regulatory process is
an inefficient means to determine whether these
products qualify as high value added. This amendment
makes the statute more responsive to market and
processing changes by allowing the DNR commissioner to
determine whether a product not on the existing list
has received sufficient processing to qualify as a
high value added wood product...To qualify as high
value added at a minimum, the product must be
processed beyond sawing and planing to qualify.
And then we did make some changes to the individual
products. We feel they do a good job of defining the
intent of what high value added is versus value added
so we tried to clean up what we thought were some
inconsistencies in that list currently in statute, not
so much because we wanted to prolong the idea that
that's the only product that could be classified in
those but more as an example of what those two
categories meant. And then, as I said, this change
would allow the commissioner to determine whether the
product meets one or the other of those criteria.
...We do intend, either today or first thing Monday,
to circulate the forest practices titles - 41.17
titles to the board so they have the opportunity to be
aware of them as we've done in the past with the
board.
SENATOR WAGONER moved to adopt the proposed CS, labeled Version
H, as the working document before the committee.
SENATOR ELTON objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why the requirement for public hearings in
Haines and Klukwan was deleted from the CS.
MR. JAHNKE said there will still be an opportunity for public
participation through the revision of the Haines plan under AS
41.17.230. He stated, "But because of the change in moving the
Haines State Forest Plan underneath 41.17.270, the specific
requirement to hold those public hearings has been eliminated."
SENATOR LINCOLN commented that she would like to discuss that
further since those areas will be affected by a revision to the
plan. She then said that a lot of control is being given to the
DNR commissioner in this whole process. She referred to new
language on page 4, lines 2 through 5, and asked for a
definition of "compelling state interest."
MR. JAHNKE said the idea is that the commissioner will be
involved in the evaluation process through the state forester's
office and the commissioner's staff. He stated:
I'm not sure that I can define 'compelling' but if
they believe that there is a reason to expand the
riparian buffer, that's how that can happen and it
would happen as a result of a recommendation from the
state forester's office and the commissioner's staff.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she would pursue that question at the next
hearing.
CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Jahnke to define "riparian standard."
MR. JAHNKE said riparian standards were established in the
Forest Practices Act and pertain to the buffer width and to
allowable activities within that buffer.
SENATOR SEEKINS added that SB 88 updates the Forest Practices
Act and is moving through the legislative process now. It
establishes certain riparian standards. For example, trees can
be logged up to a certain distance from particular types of
streams. He clarified that riparian standards refer to upland
standards rather than water standards.
CHAIR OGAN said he did not know whether "compelling state
interest" is defined in statute.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he understands that if the riparian
standard allows trees to be harvested within 100 feet of a
stream but DNR believes doing so would be detrimental to the
health of the stream, DNR might require a 200 foot buffer.
CHAIR OGAN said he believes a compelling state interest would
require balancing Alaska constitutional obligations to manage on
a sustained yield basis. He clarified that sustained yield
applies to all resources, such as fish and wildlife.
SENATOR LINCOLN said that is why she asked for a definition
because the term "compelling state interests" is nebulous.
CHAIR OGAN agreed that it is important to establish the
definition in the record.
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that the bill establishes that the
state is to harvest its timber products using a sustained yield
principle.
SENATOR WAGONER pointed out that he visited Australia a few
years ago and was most impressed by Australia's tree farms. He
hopes the state establishes a tree-farming program to accompany
its logging program so that future generations will never be
without forest resources. He thought Australia's forestry
management is fantastic.
CHAIR OGAN commented that this legislation changes the primary
use of forests from multiple use to forestry. He said when he
flies over Southeast Alaska, he can instantly tell the
difference between private timber sale land and public timber
sale land. The public timber sales are logged according to a
sustained yield principle. He noted that private timber sales
are not subject to the same regulations or riparian standards.
He asked whether the CS will affect the requirement that public
timber sales follow the sustained yield principle.
MR. JAHNKE said he does not see this legislation as changing the
Division of Forestry's approach to sustained yield management of
forestry. That principle is well established in the
Constitution.
CHAIR OGAN noted it does change the primary use from multiple
use to forestry.
MR. JAHNKE said it changes the focus, particularly on state
forests.
CHAIR OGAN asked if the Division of Forestry will still have to
balance its other constitutional mandates to manage the other
resources in its stewardship that might be impacted by forestry,
such as fish and game.
MR. JAHNKE said it would.
CHAIR OGAN took public testimony.
MS. NANCY FRESCO, Northern Alaska Environmental Center,
expressed the following concerns. This legislation takes away a
lot of the public's ability to have input, especially in areas
that are not terribly contentious. The public process for the
revision of the Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan was
very positive and, because it is not controversial now, she
believes it is a mistake to disallow future public input. She
also expressed concern about changes to the riparian standards.
SB 88 is a reintroduction of what was HB 131 in the last
session. That bill made it all of the way to a floor vote
without any controversy but was not enacted as the legislature
ran out of time. She would hate to see SB 149 undermine all of
the effort that went into designating good riparian standards
for the Interior. She said streamlining and reducing paperwork
can be positive but only if an adequate amount of public input
occurs. She said the Environmental Center's biggest concern is
the primary use change from multiple use to timber management.
The Center believes it is critical to retain the multiple use
standard for the Tanana Valley State Forest. That forest is used
for hunting, recreation, jobs, subsistence, and other uses
besides timber.
MR. ERIC PYNE, representing his company named Boreal Forest
Products, and the Interior Woodcutters' Association, told
members the Interior Woodcutter's Association was established in
the 1970s and pushed for the creation of the Tanana Valley State
Forest. The Association would like to see an emphasis on timber
management while allowing for other uses. He said he spends a
lot of time in the Tanana Valley State Forest and is amazed at
the number of activities that go on there. Providing access to
the Tanana Valley State forest has attracted more people, an
important aspect of Fairbanks. He said timber creates roads and
trails because many of the timber sales require that parallel
trails be put in. He said the timber industry does many things
to promote recreation and other uses within the state forest. He
does not feel that the timber industry limits people's use of
that forest.
MR. PYNE said the state forest comprises about 2 million acres
while state parks comprise about 20 million acres. Therefore,
the equivalent of only 10 percent of state parks is set aside as
an area that primarily emphasizes timber. He informed members
the Association sent, in written form, suggested amendments to
SB 149. Some of those additions were included in Version H.
MR. JIM MACKOVJAK, representing himself, asked what portion of
the timber produced from state forest lands will be sold to the
round log export sector. He said he views exporting round logs
as exporting jobs and he does not believe that is something
Alaska wants to do right now.
MR. JAHNKE said he did not have specific numbers but believes
the state has exported a very small amount of its timber as
round logs. He estimated that only three of the 56 currently
active timber sales export any logs and those are from sales on
the Kenai where pulp is the only product that can be made from
logs that have been damaged by spruce-bark beetles.
CHAIR OGAN said he thought Mr. Mackovjak was concerned about
Southeast Alaska because it is unlikely all of those logs will
be used for value-added products in local mills.
MR. JAHNKE replied:
Mr. Chairman, because of the nature of our ownership
in Southeast, our real niche is to provide logs to the
small and medium-sized operators in the Southeast
that, frankly, can't compete for larger Forest Service
timber sales because of the larger contiguous areas
that the Forest Service has. So, I would not expect
this bill to have any impact on the general proportion
of our timber sales that are processed locally, which
is by far and away the largest proportion.
MR. MACKOVJAK said he received a booklet from the Knowles-Ulmer
Administration a few weeks ago. A statement in that booklet says
that during their administration, 180 million board feet of
timber was sold off of state land and about half of that amount
was used to make value-added products. He said he was curious to
find out what the other 90 million board feet were used for.
MR. JAHNKE said the vast majority of the timber sold for export
from state land has been bark beetle timber from the Kenai area
and some from the Haines State Forest while it was still
marketable because of its condition. DNR has exported a small
amount of round, green spruce during the last few years but the
vast majority of the export has been salvaged timber.
CHAIR OGAN asked if anything in the bill addresses an allocation
of or export ban on high value timber.
MR. JAHNKE replied, "Mr. Chairman, No, there is nothing in
there."
MR. MACKOVJAK suggested putting a tax on exported round logs.
CHAIR OGAN noted Mr. Mackovjak's suggestion.
MR. ROBERT OTT, representing the Tanana Chiefs Conference
forestry program, acknowledged that he was unaware of the
changes made in the CS so he has not had time to consider them.
He asked to make two points. He does not believe it is a good
idea to eliminate public involvement from forest planning. The
Division of Forestry does a good job planning timber sales and
considering other uses, but it is not always privy to all
information. The public provides input about local issues. He
noted during the recent Unit 2 planning process in the Tanana
Valley State Forest, a special management area was set up above
the old village of Minto. That area is important to the Native
people so the state acknowledged a special management area to
accommodate their use of it. He said his second comment is that
he is not sure how changing the primary use of the forest from
multiple use to timber production will affect Native use of the
land. He said issues may arise from subsistence use of the land.
CHAIR OGAN maintained that the Alaska Constitution requires the
resources to be managed on a sustained yield basis subject to
preferences amongst beneficial uses. He felt this bill probably
reflects the highest preference of these lands as timber.
SENATOR DYSON said it is his understanding that during pre-
contact times the Native people on the Kenai practiced
controlled burning of the forested area to increase the moose
graze. He believes that timber harvesting [could result in more
moose graze areas]. He asked if that was a practice in the
Interior.
MR. OTT said he could not answer that but agreed that moose
habitat can be enhanced through forest management. He noted that
a lot of subsistence activities are compatible with forest
management, such as berry production. However, he cautioned the
lack of public input will be an issue if incompatibilities occur
around the villages situated near the state forest.
SENATOR DYSON said if forest burning had been an historic
practice, it might be a case in which the Tanana Chiefs
Conference could work together with the forestry managers.
MR. OTT said that would be possible as long as public
involvement is provided for.
CHAIR OGAN added that lightning was probably the cause of a fair
amount of fires in the Interior.
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that he does not read the bill to say
that public input will not be allowed. He said that so many
times, in the area of public input, you get, "layers upon layers
of public input." He asked where the bill prevents public input.
CHAIR OGAN noted the language on page 3, lines 17-19, removes
the requirement that a public hearing be held in Haines and
Klukwan.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the language on lines 21-29 says that
either department may not adopt regulations without prior review
at a public hearing in Haines and Klukwan. He said he sees no
meaningful diminishment of the public hearing process.
CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Jahnke to address that issue.
TAPE 03-38, SIDE B
MR. JAHNKE said this bill in no way eliminates public
participation in developing forest management plans for state
forests. It remains the department's responsibility to involve
the public and it does not limit public participation.
CHAIR OGAN asked if Section 8 eliminates public involvement
during the planning process but Section 9 provides for public
involvement during the regulation process.
MR. JAHNKE said that is correct.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she feels there is a great difference
between where that language was taken from and moved to. She
said that [Section 8] refers to developing the plan, which is
preliminary. [Section 9], which refers to the management plan
and regulations, is after the fact, therefore the residents of
Haines and Klukwan will not be part of the early planning
process. She pointed out that this will not only impact the
people of Haines and Klukwan, but the prior review by the Board
of Forestry has been removed so the board will not be part of
the early planning process. Therefore, the plan design is
strictly up to the commissioner and no public involvement will
occur until the proposed regulations are released.
CHAIR OGAN asked why the Board of Forestry is being taken out of
the loop.
SENATOR ELTON interjected to say he reads those sections to say
that all that is required of DNR when it is developing the
management plan is that DNR discuss the plan with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and each municipality before
adopting regulations that govern fish and wildlife management.
Then, a public hearing is required during the process of
adopting regulations.
MR. JAHNKE said he believes the Board of Forestry was deleted
primarily because the Board of Forestry is actively involved in
all of AS 41.17, which charges the Board to be involved in any
revisions to state forest plans. DNR did not feel it was
necessary to restate that mandate in SB 149.
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Jahnke to respond, at a later date, to
the fact that if the Board must be involved, why remove that
language. He said it is clear to him the regulations cannot be
adopted by either department without prior review or public
hearings but it is not clear that decisions made under a
management plan require public involvement.
MS. EMILY FERRY, representing the Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council (SEACC), described SEACC's membership and said she has
not had a chance to look at the changes made in the CS. However,
the effects on the public process need to be considered
carefully. She believes changing the focus from multiple-use to
timber management is unacceptable. She said that Ketchikan is
still reeling from the University of Alaska land sale. That sale
provided little notification and opportunity for public comment.
Now, the Mountain Point community is outraged as the [indisc.]
watershed is clear-cut and residents' property values drop. The
Division of Forestry's five-year timber sale schedule, regional
planning review, and forest land use plans were all designed to
insure that these types of nasty surprises do not occur.
MS. FERRY said in the case of the Haines State Forest, the
public worked hard to achieve a plan that offers balanced views
of the state's forest resources. It's unacceptable to reduce the
function of the public to that of a rubber stamp. All forested
state lands in Southeast Alaska are used for much more than just
logging. They are used for tourism and recreation, and
subsistence hunting, gathering and fishing.
MS. FERRY said she has not visited the tree farms of Australia,
but she has visited those in Georgia. She is appalled at the
idea of turning the incredible diversity and life of Southeast
Alaska into a sterile tree farm. Temperate rainforests create
more biomass than any other ecosystem in the entire world.
Regarding jobs, she said the state needs to focus on turning its
logged timber into a value added industry.
SENATOR SEEKINS noted of the millions of acres of forest in
Southeast Alaska, only 400,000 are available for timber harvest.
He questioned how Southeast Alaska will turn into a sterile tree
farm.
CHAIR OGAN pointed out there is a lot of spruce bark beetle
damage in the Haines area. He said if that hits the rest of
Southeast, it will decimate the forest like it has across the
bay from Homer.
SENATOR WAGONER said he represents the part of Alaska that is
most affected by the spruce bark beetle. He has listened for
almost 30 years to various people suggest how to address the
problem. In the meantime, the spruce bark beetles killed about
90 percent of the timber worth harvesting. If the infected
timber is not harvested quickly, it becomes a total waste. He
said he hopes someone prevents that from happening in Southeast.
One way to do that is with a good forestry management program
that will remove the aged timber that is susceptible to spruce
bark beetles.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the land owned by the University of Alaska
is not subject to the provisions of AS 38 so the process used to
sell that land is not the same as the state's process. He said
comparing the two processes is like comparing apples and
oranges.
MS. JAN DAWE, Alaska Boreal Forest Council, said her
understanding is that the opportunity for public input will not
be reduced but there would be a lessening of the requirement to
hold public hearings. The Council believes the opportunity for
public dialog in the management process is what consensus is
built upon. It is not enough to have public input; people need
the opportunity to hash out ideas. The result of holding
hearings on contentious projects is that support is built to
move forward with certain projects. She noted that the Council's
major concern is changing the top priority of the state forests.
She questioned whether multiple use and sustained yield are
twin-governing principles in the Alaska Constitution.
MS. DAWE said in the Interior, the Council has been involved in
a collaborative effort to look at timber and the integrated non-
commercial uses of the resource base with the Division of
Forestry, the University of Alaska, and a number of other
institutes. She cautioned making timber management the first
priority use of the state forests before knowing the value of
extracted non-timber forest products. She pointed out DNR has,
just this month, put into regulation the offering of permits to
users of non-timber forest products. DNR will be able to collect
a lot of information from these applications. She offered to
provide members with more information.
MR. MIKE SALLEE, a Ketchikan sawmill operator, said at the
outset, SB 149 looks like the "timbercentric brainchild" of a
person who harvests timber. He said regarding a previous comment
about the tree farms in Australia, he visited New Zealand, which
used to have a lot of Cowry (ph) trees. Those primary old-growth
trees are now just about gone. They were disease resistant and
very valuable trees. The trees being grown now must be treated
to keep from rotting. He said as a Ketchikan resident, he spent
a lot of time working on the Southern Southeast Area Plan. He is
concerned with SB 149's effect on the public input into that
plan and he wants to see it contain as much public input as
possible. He is concerned about removing the multiple use
aspect.
MR. SALLEE said he was raised on Gravina Island. He is not sure
how this legislation will affect the state lands on that island.
He is concerned about the cumulative impact of timber harvest
and how that affects adjoining lands. He said ever since timber
harvests were geared up in Southeast in the 1950s, whoever owned
the land to be logged treated it as though it was isolated. He
pointed out that a lot of the trees on borough land, adjacent to
the University of Alaska land that was logged, have blown down.
The borough is now in the position of having to clear-cut its
land because the remaining trees will blow down anyway.
MR. SALLEE said, regarding comments about the state land acreage
relative to the entire Tongass, Southeast Alaska is not
homogeneously covered with timber. As a resource extractor,
almost every resource he has been involved in, whether it be
diving, commercial fishing, or logging, is habitat specific;
each resource is not found everywhere. To speak of all acres in
the Tongass as homogeneous is a poor description.
CHAIR OGAN said this bill will not affect any logging in the
Tongass.
MR. MATT DAVIDSON, Alaska Conservation Voters, told members he
just received a copy of the CS this afternoon and finds, given
the short time frame, it is difficult to understand the impacts
of the CS as it is very complex and different from the original
bill. He said the discussions about the changes from multiple
use to timber-first management on state forested lands is a
major issue. He believes more emphasis on planning for timber
sales has been put on the area plans. He said, under the area
plans, communities submit comments on what should be done on
those lands. In Southeast, the majority of state-selected lands
were not selected for timber purposes but for community
purposes. Therefore, it would behoove the state to change the
emphasis on those lands without talking to the communities. Many
of those areas are watersheds or could be used for settlement.
He said the northern section of Prince of Wales Island is
heavily impacted by timber activities, primarily by Native
corporations and the U.S. Forest Service. The remaining state
lands that are unlogged on Prince of Wales Island are very
important to the residents of the communities.
MR. DAVIDSON said he is concerned about the changes to the
planning process. He does not believe the sectional analysis
does justice to the changes in the CS. He sees Section 1 as
taking away the ability to look to the Forest Land Use Plans to
determine the impacts of individual timber sales on the
resources of that area. The area plan is a general plan that
does not contain any details of local areas. The Division of
Forestry does the local plans and needs to look at that area's
features to determine potential impacts to it. Any limits to the
time the Division of Forestry takes to look at the impacts to
individual sales should be considered carefully. He said one
thing that did not get addressed [in the sectional analysis],
regarding the value-added changes, is considering pulp
production as high value and giving it special dispensation. SB
180, the source of this value-added consideration, was developed
by a coalition of people who wanted to make sure that timber
from state lands is used in state.
MR. DAVIDSON said he agrees with previous speakers' concerns
about limits to public involvement and involvement by the Board
of Forestry. He also believes the Legislature should be
concerned that it will not be consulted about changes to the
plan. He commented:
The planning document - especially we're talking about
giving it a lot more power. On one hand we're saying
we're limiting the review under the Forest Land Use
Plan, the small plans - the area specific plans, and
we're relying on these bigger plans. The next time
we're saying we're going to limit the public review of
these bigger plans. So, which is it going to be? Are
we going to review - are we going to have expedited
review on one side and have good review on another
side or are we going to have expedited review on both
sides and then the public really doesn't know what's
going on? And then you run into problems like you had
in Ketchikan where there wasn't a requirement for
public review. There was public notice in the paper
and it wasn't caught by the people who live there and
suddenly an outfit from the Lower 48 is cutting down
timber that no one really knew about.
MR. DAVIDSON said he is additionally concerned with the
expansion of negotiated sales for value-added local manufacture
to general use lands. DNR is using the general use lands
designation extensively in its land use plans. He said as he
reads it, timber would become the primary purpose of general use
lands. He requested that members of the public be given the
opportunity to testify at further hearings in the Senate
Resources Committee because it is a complicated piece of
legislation with broad impacts.
5:02 p.m.
SENATOR WAGONER said he is from an area in Idaho and is familiar
with the pulp industry. He asked Mr. Davidson to explain his
statement that paper pulp is not a high value added product.
MR. DAVIDSON said he believes the forest lands of Southeast
deserve to be made into more things than toilet paper. He is in
the process of building a deck on his house with local timber.
Under the pulp mill contracts in Ketchikan and Sitka, many of
the same timber he is using is turned into pulp. He said he does
not consider pulp to be the highest value of those trees. He
said the list in SB 180 did not include pulp. He did not hear
any discussion about why pulp needs to be included as a high
value use. There are other sources of pulp, but there are no
other sources for old growth timber, which is rot resistant and
has high value. He questioned why broaden the SB 180 list to
something that is not going to benefit small, local mills.
CHAIR OGAN stated that DNR is not turning high value timber into
pulp.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he has many relatives in the Midwest who
have been in the pulp business for years. He said he would have
a hard time telling them that is not a high value business
because they have been feeding their families from it for a long
time. He said he would not mind having a few of those jobs for
some of the logs that no one would want to make other high-value
products from.
SENATOR ELTON said one of the important points made in testimony
today is that it is important to be able to have these
discussions in the communities that will be affected.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that she would have to leave soon and
asked that Chair Ogan schedule the bill later in the week in
order to give everyone time to decipher the changes in the CS.
She added that the Senate Resources Committee is the only
committee of referral, other than the Senate Finance Committee,
so she asked that members be given ample time to consider it.
CHAIR OGAN said he would consider Senator Lincoln's request and
that it is not his policy to move legislation out of committee
after one hearing. He pointed out the 24-hour rule has gone into
effect and legislators do not have the luxury of time at this
point in the session. He asked Mr. Davidson to finish his
testimony.
MR. DAVIDSON indicated the sponsor said the purpose of SB 149 is
to get more timber into production. He maintained the committee
would benefit from having a discussion with DNR about the
purpose of this legislation and whether there is a shortage of
state timber available. He said there are good reasons to move
forward with streamlining projects, but the changes in the
public process and the change from multiple use to other uses
that are compatible with timber production are compelling
reasons to find out from the Division of Forestry whether there
is an unmet demand for timber. He said he would like to buy
local timber but that is not available right now. He does not
know whether this bill will change that. It might help people
from other states come in and export state timber with minimal
processing without employing Alaskans or making timber available
to local residents.
SENATOR ELTON removed his objection to adopting the CS, Version
H, therefore the motion carried.
SENATOR SEEKINS stated that according to the back-up material
provided by staff, the Board of Forestry has a duty by law to
provide a forum for representatives of affected interests to
discuss and attempt to resolve relevant issues. That duty to
provide a public process cannot be overridden by the CS under
consideration.
CHAIR OGAN said he would like to see what the committee might do
to make sure that the term "value added" has significance.
SENATOR WAGONER commented that he has spent a lot of time
talking to people from Southeast communities this year. Those
communities are dying economically and the residents are
screaming for an opportunity to do what SB 149 does. This bill
will reinvigorate some of those communities. He said, in regard
to a comment about tree farms being sterile, he can think of
nothing more beautiful in the Kenai Peninsula than a tree farm.
It might take 50 years to produce trees that can generate a good
income, so such a project would have to begin soon.
There being no further testimony, CHAIR OGAN adjourned the
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|