Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
02/22/2023 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR6 | |
| Presentation: Alaska's Mineral Potential on State Forested Lands | |
| Discussion About Carbon Offset Projects | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 2023
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Forrest Dunbar (via TEAMS)
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6(RES) am Supporting oil and
gas leasing and development within the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska; and urging President Biden and the United
States Department of the Interior to approve the Willow Master
Development Plan.
- MOVED CSHJR 6(RES) am OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S MINERAL POTENTIAL ON STATE FORESTED LANDS
- HEARD
DISCUSSION ABOUT CARBON OFFSET PROJECTS AND THEIR POTENTIAL ON
STATE LAND
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE: NAT'L PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PATKOTAK
02/10/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/23 (H) RES
02/17/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/17/23 (H) Moved CSHJR 6(RES) Out of Committee
02/17/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/23 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 6DP
02/20/23 (H) DP: RAUSCHER, MCCABE, MEARS, WRIGHT,
PATKOTAK, MCKAY
02/20/23 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/20/23 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 6(RES) AM
02/22/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
GRACE ERVINE, Staff
Representative Josiah Patkotak
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the changes made to HJR 6 in House
Resources and on the House floor.
MELANIE WERDON, PhD., Chief
Minerals Resources Section
Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a presentation on Alaska's mineral
potential on state forested lands.
JOHN CROWTHER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation on Alaska's
mineral potential on state forested lands.
SEAN CARNEY, President
Finite Carbon
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed carbon offset projects and their
potential on state lands.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:18 PM
CO-CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wielechowski, Kaufman, Kawasaki, Claman,
Dunbar (TEAMS) Co-Chair Bishop, and Co-Chair Giessel.
HJR 6-NAT'L PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA
3:31:38 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6(RES) am Supporting oil and gas leasing
and development within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska;
and urging President Biden and the United States Department of
the Interior to approve the Willow Master Development Plan.
She noted that this was the first hearing, although the
committee heard the Senate companion resolution last week. She
asked Grace Ervine to go over the differences between the two
resolutions.
3:32:09 PM
GRACE ERVINE, Staff, Representative Josiah Patkotak, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reviewed the changes that
were made to HJR 6 in House Resources and on the House floor.
She spoke to the prepared document.
Summary of Changes
CS for House Joint Resolution 6
Version S.A
The following changes were made from Version B to
Version S.A:
Page 2, Line 25 following "sound": "WHEREAS the
Inupiat people are the long-standing stewards of the
lands on which the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska sits, and take seriously the need for careful
and balanced stewardship; and"
Page 3, Line 27 following "populations": "WHEREAS
Alaska's leadership in the nation's energy future
includes robust support for the development and
implementation of renewable energy systems and sources
to ensure that cost-effective energy and power exist
for communities and individuals; and "WHEREAS we
recognize that responsible resource development today
equips our communities to make investments in
technology and infrastructure to support the use of
renewable sources of energy and power; "WHEREAS the
Willow project is an important part of a diverse
energy future for Alaska and the United States;"
Page 4, Line 19 following "residents": "and the
nation"
SENATOR CLAMAN asked which version of the resolution was before
the committee.
MS. ERVINE clarified that it was version S.A.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL found no further questions and solicited a
motion.
3:34:05 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP moved to report CSHJR 6, work order 33-
LS0415\S.A, from committee with individual recommendations and
zero fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL found no objection and CSHJR 6(RES)am was
reported from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
3:34:39 PM
At ease
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S MINERAL POTENTIAL ON STATE FORESTED
LANDS
PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S MINERAL POTENTIAL ON STATE FORESTED LANDS
3:36:36 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced a presentation about Alaska's mineral
potential on state forested lands.
3:37:37 PM
MELANIE WERDON, PhD., Chief, Minerals Resources Section,
Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Fairbanks, Alaska, began the
presentation on slide 2 that has a map that identifies the
mineral belts throughout the state. She read the following
commentary:
• Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical
Surveys (DGGS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
use available geologic data to identify areas
where various mineral deposit types can be found
in Alaska
• Multiple mineral deposit types overlap, and they
cover a large part of the state
3:38:47 PM
DR. WERDON advanced to slide 3, Critical Minerals & Conventional
Mineral Belts, and described the map by reading the following:
• Alaska has numerous Conventional Mineral Belts
(i.e., gold belts, a copper belt, and base metal
belts [including zinc, lead, silver, copper,
gold])
• Additionally, Critical Minerals (CM) are most
numerous in red areas, and are largely coincident
with the broader "Conventional Mineral Belts"
• The potential for finding mineralization is
everywhere within these mineral belts
3:39:27 PM
DR. WERDON advanced to slide 4, Alaska's Mineral Belts & Forest
Lands. She stated that land in the major mineral belts that
overlap state forest land may be considered for carbon offset
projects.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked if the green areas on the map reflect
state forests.
DR. WERDON said yes.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL observed that the copper belt across the inlet
from Anchorage showed just a little forest land.
DR. WERDON explained that the Division of Forestry was in the
process of updating the forest inventory in Alaska when she
prepared the presentation, so the map might not have the updated
information. She deferred further explanation to Deputy
Commissioner Crowther.
3:40:44 PM
JOHN CROWTHER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, added that this dataset about
forestation came from the wildfire team and is not meant to be
an accurate depiction of forestation or ownership. He committed
to provide a more comprehensive map on Friday of the different
land statuses and types. He noted that the maps in this
presentation give very granular detail about mineral
occurrences, both under state forests and other forest lands.
3:41:52 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for help understanding how minerals
and carbon sequestration is linked and whether there was a
concern that mineral development could be affected if carbon
sequestration is allowed.
MR. CROWTHER said he believes the next presentation will talk
about that interplay and DNR will present details on Friday. He
also offered to follow up if there were lingering questions
after that.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL advised that the impetus for this presentation
was to better understand what restrictions there might be on the
mineral resources under the surface if a forest carbon offset
project were to be located above ground.
3:43:37 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN wondered whether selling a carbon offset that's
on top of a high value mineral deposit would preclude developing
those minerals. He asked whether a later presentation would
provide detail about areas where that conflict might exist.
3:45:04 PM
MR. CROWTHER replied that in future presentations DNR intends to
present in more detail how carbon offset projects interrelate
with other uses, including a subsurface development that
requires the removal of trees. He assured the committee that
doing an offset project does not preclude mineral development.
To the second question, he said Dr. Werdon has very detailed
information about some of the highly prospective areas that
overlap forest lands.
3:46:25 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP pointed out that some mines that have been in
existence for 70 years started reclamation projects before the
federal government required reclamation. Those mines crated
additionality when they planted forests 50 years ago.
3:47:11 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked Dr. Werdon if the areas outside of the
mineral belts really don't have any minerals or if it's that the
state doesn't know whether those areas have mineralization.
DR. WERDON answered that there's a possibility of less
concentrated mineral occurrences outside the belts.
3:48:57 PM
DR. WERDON directed attention to the map on slide 5 that
identifies five mining regions throughout the state: Interior,
Ambler, Southcentral, Southwest, and Haines.
3:49:24 PM
DR. WERDON advanced to the map on slide 6, Interior: Mines,
Mineral Occurrences & Forests. She stated that almost all land
in the Interior is covered by one or more of the mineral belts;
the potential for new discoveries is everywhere. She said the
red dots reflect the known mineral occurrences, the yellow dots
reflect placer gold deposits, and the green areas reflect
forested lands. Many of Alaska's active mines are in the
Interior and numerous exploration projects are underway.
DR. WERDON advanced to the map on slide 7, Interior: Pogo Mine &
Nearby Exploration. She directed attention to the exploration
projects in the Pogo Mine region and noted that exploring close
to existing mines was an effective way to find new ore deposits.
To that point, mineral resources have been defined at the Naosi
deposit under the Sam gold project. She said the hundreds of red
squares represent mining claims that are located within state
forest boundaries and tree covered lands.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL commented that Pogo is an underground mine and
the surface forests are still intact.
DR. WERDON said that's correct with the exception of the area
covered by roads, infrastructure, housing, and a tailings pile.
3:51:35 PM
DR. WERDON turned to the picture on slide 8 of the 13.6 million
ounce Livengood gold deposit north of Fairbanks. It illustrates
that access roads and the loss of trees for drill pads is
unavoidable at the advanced exploration stage.
DR. WERDON displayed the map on slide 9, Ambler: Mineral
Resources & Access Road, and made the following points:
similar In the southern Brooks Range, the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Ambler Metals
propose constructing an industrial road to access
significant base mineral resources in the Ambler Mining
District.
similar This area is part of a significant base metal belt that
extends from the Red Dog Mine through the Ambler District
to the east.
similar The proposed route passes through forested lands,
potentially more than the map shows.
3:52:47 PM
DR. WERDON advanced to the map on slide 10, South-Central:
Mineral Resources & Forests and made the following points:
similar Across Cook Inlet from Anchorage, state and private forest
lands lie within the statewide copper mineral belt.
similar Significant mineral resources have been defined at the
Estelle gold project, the Whistler Island Mountain and
Raintree projects.
similar The Old Man project is just starting.
similar The potential for copper deposits exists under the forested
lands.
3:53:33 PM
DR. WERDON advanced to the map on slide 11, Southwest Alaska:
Mineral Resources & Forests, and made the following points:
similar The statewide gold belt that runs through this area has the
34 million ounce Donlin gold deposit.
similar The statewide copper belt that runs through this area has
the Pebble deposit and the copper and gold deposits
mentioned in the previous slide.
similar The tree-covered areas are shown in bright green.
DR. WERDON turned to the map on slide 12, Haines Area: Mineral
Resources & Forested Land, and made the following points:
similar The state forest boundary and tree-covered lands partially
overlap the Haines mineral belt in the Palmer Mineral
District. This area is outlined in red.
similar This region has many mineral sites of various types and
metal associations under exploration by industry, the most
advanced of which is the Palmer project.
DR. WERDON advanced to slide 13, Palmer Project - Constantine
(APM)/DOWA, and made the following points:
similar Palmer is a Preliminary Economic Assessment-stage project
that hosts numerous mineral deposits of the same type as
the Greens Creek Mine near Juneau.
similar Palmer deposits have calculated resources of copper, zinc,
gold, silver, and barite.
3:55:17 PM
DR. WERDON advanced to the map on slide 14, Haines Area: DGGS
Geologic Mapping - Summer 2023. She said DGGS was asked to
conduct a landslide hazards assessment and bedrock geologic
mapping in the area that's outlined in purple. This will be done
this coming summer
DR. WERDON thanked the committee for the opportunity.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL thanked her for the presentation.
^DISCUSSION ABOUT CARBON OFFSET PROJECTS
DISCUSSION ABOUT CARBON OFFSET PROJECTS
3:56:36 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the next presenter would be Sean
Carney, the president of Finite Carbon. He was invited to
discuss the carbon projects his company helped Alaska Native
corporations establish, and what the state's next step might be
as it looks at carbon offset on public lands.
3:57:21 PM
SEAN CARNEY, President, Finite Carbon, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, stated that his company was founded in 2009 and
today it has 68 carbon projects in the US and has registered
about 80 million carbon offset credits that have been transacted
for more than $800 million. Finite Carbon has 3.1 million acres
in the US and over 700,000 are in Alaska.
He suggested the committee think about a carbon offset project
as akin to building a house. The carbon offset developer is
similar to the builder and the third-party registry is similar
to the municipality or city that manages the zoning. The rules
are in place from the registry and the developer acts on those
rules to register the credits.
The first step is to define the project and measure the carbon
in that area. A typical project will require from 300 to 500
measurements, which can take from six weeks to three months. The
second step is to do computer modeling. The project scenario
includes potential restrictions, financial considerations, and
the harvestability of the timber. The theoretical model shows
what would happen in the absence of doing the carbon project and
the actual comes from measuring the trees. The trees are
measured every 5-6 years and provide a true-up for the interim
when the model predicts the growth of the trees.
4:00:20 PM
MR. CARNEY explained that in the next step an auditor does a
site visit and remeasures a sampling of the trees to ensure the
measurements fall within a certain error range. The modeling and
project documentation are also reviewed. The auditor will either
sign off or request corrective action. The next stop is the
registry for another round of approvals. After the final
approval, the credits are issued into an account. Between 15-20
percent is taken off the top to cover unintentional reversals
such as fire or windfall. The credits are serialized, which
ensures that the credits are tracked and can be traced to the
original source. The credits are then transacted and a buyer can
do one of two things: 1) hold the credits and potentially sell
them in the future, or 2) retire the credits and carry them on
their ledger. Those are the mechanics from the landowner's
perspective. It's a long-term commitment to not harvest more
than is grown. The proof that this is happening comes from the
five-year audit.
4:03:12 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked why the state would be in the voluntary
market.
4:03:35 PM
MR. CARNEY said it's not required, but he suggested the
voluntary market because the compliance market has much stricter
rules for public lands. In the voluntary market, the state is
treated akin to a private owner.
4:04:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he had ever been involved in
litigation related to the sale of carbon credits.
MR. CARNEY answered no; he had seen boundary disputes but those
disputes had not led to legal action.
4:05:35 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced the previous presentation on
minerals in Alaska. He asked whether the state would be sued for
specific performance if it developed a forest carbon offset
project then reversed course 10 years later so it could develop
a gold mine under that forest land.
MR. CARNEY said yes; the state would have contracts with the
developer, with the registry, and with the buyer. The contract
with the registry offers the least flexibility and the penalty
for breaking that contract requires repayment of the credits
received to date. If the original contract were for 100,000
acres and 100 acres was converted, the loss probably wouldn't
show up because the growth of the forest would likely be more
than the conversion. He said conversion for minerals occurs
frequently in Appalachia, but he had yet to see an instance
where the conversion exceeded the annual growth of the forest.
The developer contracts are custom but they're usually from 5-10
years. The risks are the same with the buyer's contract.
4:08:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about the potential for getting
carbon credits by cutting a forest and turning it into long
lumber to build houses or other structures.
MR. CARNEY said there is an incremental benefit to using wood
for long-term storage of carbon in building products. However,
it's important to understand that in the overall project the
amount of carbon on the property always has to be greater than
what is harvested. If all the wood on a property is cut, the
landowner would have to repay all the credits that were
reversed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pressed the hypothetical possibility of a
landowner benefiting from using the wood for building projects
because the carbon would be in long-term storage.
MR. CARNEY suggested he think about the golden rule which is
that the amount of carbon that is put into a project must be
retained. If a landowner were to convert the forest to wood
products, about 60 percent of the volume would be lost with the
conversion from trees to lumber. That lumber would only have 40
percent of the carbon that was in the forest at the start of the
project.
4:11:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested planting more trees to offset the
carbon loss.
MR. CARNEY answered that there's a requirement to replenish or
catch up the shortfall within 10 years and the reality is that
it would take 50 years to catch up if all the trees were
harvested. He added that the assumption is correct but the
policy is based on science.
4:12:06 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN mused that if the landowner were to clear cut 100
acres for long lumber for building projects, the additionality
would be lost but the carbon that's stored in those structures
would be more than if the timber had been made into pulp. To get
the maximum carbon credits from that 100 acres would mean
leaving the trees standing.
MR. CARNEY said he believes in managing forest land. Carbon was
designed by foresters with the idea of subsidizing management to
the ideal rotation age so the landowner will have more wood
products and store more carbon on the same ground, but over a
longer period of time. An unfortunate byproduct is the notion
that a landowner can create the most carbon by not managing at
all. While allowed, that is not in the spirit of forest carbon
projects.
4:15:27 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL recalled that Finite Carbon helped the Native
corporations Sealaska, Doyon, and Ahtna develop carbon projects.
She asked what he could tell the committee about their approach
to a forest carbon offset project.
MR. CARNEY clarified that the Native corporations that Finite
Carbon helped were Sealaska, Ahtna, Tyonek, and Hoonah Totem.
Those were compliance project so their rules were different than
he'd been discussing.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL offered her understanding that compliance
projects would use a registry in California or the state of
Washington.
MR. CARNEY clarified that the established compliance registry
was in California.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked what approach those projects were taking
and whether their private forest land was different than the
state's forest land that potentially will be used for a carbon
offset project.
MR. CARNEY explained that the primary difference is that state
land tends to be more evenly managed for sustained yield,
whereas private land is more event-driven. For example, the
timber prices the last several years have led to landowners
cutting far more than growth.
4:18:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the state could have an issue
with a forest carbon offset project since the constitution
requires state land to be managed for sustained yield.
MR. CARNEY said the term "sustained yield" has wide breadth. He
used a bank account as a hypothetical analogy. In the timber
context, there would be a long term flow of wood products, which
is the opposite of cutting all the timber every 20 years. The
compliance market is more rigid and any change has to be clear
and specific to get credit, whereas the voluntary market has
more leeway in the interpretation of the credit.
4:20:27 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if he agreed that the voluntary market is
less secure for payment than the compliance market. He drew an
analogy between the compliance market and investing in a US
Treasury bill.
MR. CARNEY said the short answer is yes. In the compliance
market, companies are required to buy the credits; the number of
credits that will be purchased and the sale price is generally
known. It's a more liquid product that's traded more frequently.
The voluntary market is not a commodity market; it is more of a
boutique market and the characteristics of the project are more
important than the fact that it's a carbon project, which can
affect price. Prices in the voluntary carbon market can vary
widely, whereas the price is generally even in the compliance
market
4:22:16 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked if it was up to the state to choose which
market.
4:22:35 PM
MR. CARNEY said yes, and even if the choice was the voluntary
market, there would be a wide range of scenarios from which to
choose. One option would be to reduce or eliminate timber
harvesting. He said the idea is to use carbon to invest in the
forest to make it more productive. The win-win is that the
landowner can have more carbon sequestered on a property and
create more wood products. He acknowledged that doing that may
not create the maximum amount of carbon, but it could offer more
value to society.
He cited examples in Oregon, Washington, and California where
the focus is on creating more climate resilient forests. That
means having fewer trees that are larger and more valuable. That
forest is also less susceptible to fire. To get to that point,
the smaller trees have to be thinned and carbon pays for that.
MR. CARNEY opined that the most important question is not
whether to participate but how to participate to maximize the
benefits of the resource. His belief is that it has to be both
carbon and timber. He suggested drawing on DNR's expertise to
decide how to responsibly implement a project in the best way
possible.
4:25:03 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if state forests tend to be managed less
aggressively than private forests because: different values are
placed on state-owned forest lands, investments are required for
more intensive management, private lands are better conditioned
to have managed forests, or something else.
MR. CARNEY replied it can be all of those things, and there
might not be one right answer.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL noted that the Anew report identified three
potential areas in the state for forest carbon offset projects.
She asked, if that's the first step, how much more has to be
done and how long might that take.
4:27:38 PM
MR. CARNEY replied that the mechanics are heavily dependent on
the weather and daylight and the extent that helicopters are
necessary, but in theory it could be done in one season. That
timeline is very tight and a more realistic scenario would be to
take the measurements the first season and do the verification
the next season. After that it depends on how fast the modeling
and verification can be done and the audit report submitted. He
said the realistic timeline from contracting to issuance is 18
months.
4:29:07 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it was reasonable to assume that
some logging could be done on lands open to carbon sequestration
contracts, which would bring more revenue to the state.
MR. CARNEY answered that the carbon revenue should be invested
in responsibly managed forests. He said he didn't know whether
that would result in more harvesting than an unmanaged forest,
but a case could be made that a managed forest could have both
more harvesting and more sequestered carbon. The opposite could
be argued, but it really depends on the forest. He said the
longer he's in the industry, the more he agrees with a friend
who once told him that forestry isn't rocket science; it's more
complicated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was a private market for
carbon credits. He posed the idea of letting residents use their
permanent fund dividend to buy carbon credits.
MR. CARNEY replied that there are myriad ways for consumers to
buy offsets. For example, everybody who buys gas in California
is contributing to the purchase of carbon offsets; there's the
option to voluntarily pay more for that gas that will go to
purchase carbon offsets; and Etsy buys carbon offsets every time
it ships something to a customer.
4:31:51 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he'd seen the governor's
legislation and had an opinion about whether it takes the right
approach.
MR. CARNEY said he would like to see effort and thought put into
how to get it all. For example, what is the best way for the
state to deal with the nearly two million acres of forest that
is affected by spruce budworm. Salvage harvesting costs money
but it can yield saw timber that will be around for perhaps 100
years. Once those trees are gone, it will be easier and faster
for new trees to come up. He emphasized that the state has a lot
of land and a lot of special cases, so there was no lack of
opportunity to do something special.
4:35:10 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP commented that this conversation was sure to get
DNR's attention.
4:35:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how to best maximize the extensive
acreage that is affected by the spruce budworm.
MR. CARNEY said the US Forest Service has done extensive
research on this and there is no ultimate answer; solutions seem
to be specific to a region and site. For example, salvage
harvest in British Columbia was not very effective. He noted
that modeling had been used for a long time in forestry and
there were people who could model different management
practices, the costs, and the carbon impacts specific to the
spruce budworm both pre- and post-kill. The side benefits would
be promoting a forest products industry, creating jobs, and
being good for the environment.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL commented on the quality of life issues that
could be associated with such a project.
4:38:41 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked why the salvage harvest in British
Columbia wasn't economic.
MR. CARNEY offered his understanding that one issue was that
without fire, the seed dispersal was inhibited because of the
moss on the trees. That contributed to poor regeneration. He
repeated that there were experts to help find site-specific
solutions.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL commented that it sounds as though this would
be a question for the state's foresters.
MR. CARNEY restated his preference to look for solutions that
involve both timber and carbon.
4:41:14 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN said his general understanding of salvage logging
is that there's a two year window to harvest fire or spruce
budworm damaged trees and still have some market value. Harvests
after that time would only be valuable because new trees would
regenerate faster.
MR. CARNEY said the trees killed by spruce budworm lose market
value after two years because the wood is discolored, not that
it's rotten. One solution is to get ahead of the curve and
harvest living trees in the path of the spruce budworm and the
dead trees before they discolor.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL thanked him for the good information.
MR. CARNEY said it had been a very positive experience.
4:45:04 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 02 22 DGGS Alaska's Mineral Potential Forested Lands.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HJR006C.PDF |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| CS HJR 6 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| CS HJR 6 Summary of Changes 2.20.2023.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| Opposing comments to Willow project, and HJR6.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| CS HJR 6 Letter AFN 2.23.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| CS HJR 6 Letter AK Congressional Delegation 9.16.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| CS HJR 6 Letter Alaska AFL-CIO 3.8.2021.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| CS HJR 6 Letter of Support Mayor Brower North Slope Borough 2.16.2023.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |
| CS HJR 6 Letter of Support North Slope Trilateral 2.16.2023.pdf |
SRES 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 6 |