Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB8 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB150 | |
| HB141 | |
| HB140 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to the Southeast State Forest; and
providing for an effective date."
2:48:47 PM
RICHARD ROGERS, NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF
FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), spoke in
support of HB 105. He detailed that the bill was part of
the state's effort to ensure that local timber processing
continued to be a part of the Southeast Alaska economy. The
majority of timber in southern Southeast Alaska was on
federal land, but federal timber sales had drastically
declined. Local sawmills heavily depended on state timber
for survival. He relayed that the Southeast timber demand
for energy had been increasing, which heightened the
importance of a secure timber base for the region. The wood
pellet boiler that had recently been installed in the
Sealaska Corporation's Juneau building illustrated an
increased movement towards the commercial usage of wood for
energy. A 25,291 acre Southeast State Forest had been
established in June 2010 as a result of the passage of SCS
HB 162(RES). An additional 23,181 acres of state lands
available for timber harvest would be added the Southeast
State Forest if HB 105 became law. Consequently, the
Division of Forestry would be able to manage the combined
48,472 acres for a long-term timber supply and would retain
the lands in state ownership for multiple uses. The lands
would be managed as an integrated unit according to a state
forest management plan that would be developed through a
public process during the following two years. The state
forest designation would ensure that the productive forest
lands would remain in state ownership and would contribute
to the long-term viability of the timber based economy in
Southeast.
Mr. Rogers discussed that in 2009 the prior forest
inventory for the lands had been updated by DNR to include
forest management intent language per the region's area
plans. The data provided the required supporting
information regarding timber volume, acreage, and allowable
harvest. The allowable harvest for the lands was
approximately 8.3 million board feet per year. The
department managed over 150,000 acres of uplands in
southern Southeast Alaska; the state actively managed one-
third of the land and supplied wood to local processors.
The remaining land was designated for other uses including
land sales, recreation, water resources, and fish and
wildlife habitat that included over 65,000 acres of
legislatively designated state marine parks and critical
habitat areas. He voiced that adding lands to the state
forest would ensure that the state's more suitable lands in
Southeast remained available for contribution to the
state's ongoing timber sale program. A significant portion
of the state-owned timberland in Southeast Alaska was
inherited from the U.S. Forest Service and was comprised of
young, second-growth stands. Compared to unmanaged second-
growth stands, actively managed second-growth stands
provided more timber volume per acre on shorter rotations
and could result in improved "deer browse." A thinning of
state lands would increase timber yield and timber supply.
He elaborated that thinning was a long-term investment and
was only justified if the land continued to be available
for forest management. Timber sales from the lands would be
a mix of domestic and round log export based on economic
conditions and locations. A 1984 U.S. Supreme Court Case of
South-Central Timber Development vs. the former DNR
commissioner Esther Wunnicke, established that the state
could not restrict round log export due to interpretation
of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
2:53:06 PM
Mr. Rogers furthered that the division had done a good job
encouraging local manufacturing of logs from state timber
sales in spite of the legal constraints. He stated that 87
percent of the timber sold from state lands in southern
Southeast over the past six years had been processed by
Alaska manufacturers. The proposed additions to the state
forest included 23 parcels that were outlined in a handout
(copy on file). Approximately 21 percent of the lands were
from 5 parcels that had been previously reserved pending a
prior legislative attempt to transfer the lands to the
University of Alaska. The legislation had not passed and
the lands were freed for the long-term forest management in
the state forest. The bill included general use lands on
the Islands of Prince of Wales, Tuxekan, Gravina,
Kosciusko, Revillagigedo, Wrangell, Suemez, Mitkof, Kuiu,
Dall, and Zarembo. Six of the parcels were adjacent or near
existing state forest parcels.
Mr. Rogers communicated that the Division of Forestry had
worked with the Division of Mining, Land, and Water to
identify and exclude lands that were priorities for the
state land disposal program. Additionally, a consultation
had been initiated with the University of Alaska Statewide
Office of Land Management and university officials. He
explained that an important difference between the state
forest designation and a transfer of lands related to the
long-term public ownership of the lands compared to other
development uses, as had been contemplated under prior
university legislation. Through a consultation with the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the division had ensured
that there was internal alignment on the list of parcels.
Several other parcels had been considered in the division's
due diligence; however, they had not been included because
of known concerns or the potential for high controversy.
Mr. Rogers continued to discuss reasons behind the
division's support of the legislation. He relayed that fish
habitat and water quality were key components of the Forest
Resources and Practices Act, which included a series of
regulations that would apply to the management of the
parcels. Stream buffers had a no-cut 100 foot minimum width
on anadromous and high-value resident fish streams; the
next 100 foot to 300 foot zone could allow timber harvest,
but consistent activity was necessary for the maintenance
of important fish and wildlife habitat. He discussed that
area plans provided for coastal buffers of 300 feet to 500
feet and had additional recommendations for specific
parcels. During the development of the management plan, a
significant consideration for the Neets Bay parcel would be
the maintenance of water quality and quantity for the fish
hatchery operation at the head of the bay. He relayed that
there had been an ongoing dialog about the bill with the
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association.
Mr. Rogers discussed that the Southeast State Forest would
be managed as a part of the state forest system under AS
41.17.200 through AS 41.17.230. He read from subsection (a)
of AS 41.17.200:
The primary purpose in the establishment of state
forests is timber management that provides for the
production, utilization, and replenishment of timber
resources while allowing other beneficial uses of
public land and resources.
Mr. Rogers detailed that in addition to timber management
that state forests were open to multiple uses including,
wildlife habitat and harvest, mineral exploration and
development, transportation, recreation, and tourism. State
forest lands would be managed consistent with the
management intent under the current Prince of Wales Island
and Central Southeast area plans. He expounded that changes
to management intent would require public and interagency
review through the adoption of a State Forest Management
Plan under AS 41.17.230.
Mr. Rogers highlighted that one of the other demands on
state land in southern Southeast was to fulfill land
entitlements for new municipalities. In order to avoid
conflict with the Wrangell borough entitlement, HB 105
specified that the new Wrangell borough may select state
forest land within the borough boundary. The boundary
encompassed three parcels in the existing state forest
(Crittenden Creek and Bradfield Canal East and West) and
four parcels in the bill's proposed additions (Eastern
Passage, Pat Creek, Pat Creek uplands, and Earl West Cove).
Lands that were vacant, unappropriated, or unreserved prior
to the establishment of the state forest would be included
in the calculation of the municipal entitlement acreage
(but may not be selected), if additional municipalities
were incorporated before June 30, 2019.
2:57:32 PM
Mr. Rogers noted that DNR had briefed many statewide groups
and entities across Southeast Alaska on the proposal,
including the Board of Forestry, SE Conference, local
governments, and the various groups that were participating
in the Tongass Futures Roundtable. Letters of support had
been received from the following entities: the City of
Coffman Cove, Resource Development Council, Alaska Forest
Association, Alaska Chapter of the Society of American
Foresters, Southeast Conference, Juneau Chamber of
Commerce, and George Woodbury (Wrangell resident and
forestry consultant).
Representative Gara asked whether any sport, commercial, or
other fishing organizations had taken a position on HB 105.
Mr. Rogers did not believe that any fishing organization
had taken a position on the bill.
Representative Gara wondered there would be stream buffers
in addition to the no-logging buffer zone of 300 feet to
500 feet that would exist along some coastal areas. He
asked whether only the forestry act rules would apply or if
there would be special rules on stream buffers.
Mr. Rogers responded that the Forest Resources and
Practices Act rules required a 100 foot no-cut buffer on
each side of both anadromous and high-value resident fish
streams. There was an additional 100 foot to 300 foot area
of special consideration where trees could be harvested if
it could be demonstrated that there would be no adverse
impact to the resources.
Representative Gara queried whether any of the areas were
in high value fishing streams.
Mr. Rogers answered that most state, federal, or other
lands in Southeast had high-value fish streams. The
division worked closely with DFG to catalog fish streams
and to identify salmon streams that may not have been
included in the official catalog; the information was used
to design timber sales and to protect fisheries resources.
He discussed that the Neets Bay parcel housed an
aquaculture hatchery. The division had met with the
hatchery staff; it would consider the resources through the
state's forest management planning process and the
individual timber sale process.
3:00:56 PM
Representative Gara wanted to be assured that streams with
important fish habitat had buffer zones that exceeded 100
feet. His biggest concern was that the minimum 100 foot
buffers could blow down in windfall and were sometimes up
to three trees deep.
Mr. Rogers replied that with or without the bill, the lands
inside and outside the state forest were available for
timber harvest and subject to the same forest practices
rule and planning guidelines. Consideration was given to
site specific circumstances and in some cases protections
may have exceeded the statutory requirements. A robust
"effectiveness monitoring" program existed under the forest
practices act and the division had done research on the
effectiveness of stream buffers in conjunction with the
Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental
Protection Agency, Sealaska Corporation, and other land
owners. The protection of fisheries and water quality was
taken very seriously and was factored into the program for
lands inside and outside of the state forest.
Representative Gara wondered why the bill was necessary if
the areas could already be logged and were currently under
the same buffer zones.
Mr. Rogers replied that the bill established that the state
was dedicated to a long-term commitment and tenure for the
(new growth to growth to harvesting) tree cycle. With a
dedicated land base that was not likely to be disposed of,
transferred to a municipal government, or used for another
purpose, foresters would have the ability to take the long-
view, make the necessary investments, maximize the growth
on the lands to maximize yield, and provide the most
economic benefit with the smallest footprint.
Representative Guttenberg wondered what differences existed
between state land and a state forest that operated under a
management plan. He understood that the state lands would
be designated for inclusion in the Southeast State Forest
and because the forest was relatively new there had not
been the opportunity to develop a management plan through a
public process. He thought the management plan process was
effective and would serve multiple segments of the state.
Mr. Rogers responded that a planning process called "area
plans" currently existed for all state land. The lands in
the Prince of Wales and the Central Southeast area plans
were in a "general use" classification that specified
allowable uses, including forestry. For a state forest, the
area plans would be in place until a state forest
management plan was written. The state forest plan would
have similar elements, but would be more focused because
the timeframe would be longer-term and the lands would
emphasize forestry use. He explained that an area plan
typically had a shelf-life of approximately 10 years; it
could be general use for a decade and could change to
something else under a new plan. The state forest
management plans could also be modified, but the primary
forestry emphasis and multiple-use would not be modified.
Co-Chair Thomas believed that Senator Lisa Murkowski had
started the Southeast State Forest to subsidize the loss of
federal timber for the small timber mills that remained. He
noted that the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act
was a result of solicitation to former Representative
Adelheid Herrmann by village and regional corporations.
Representative Herrmann had created a task-force that
passed the Act in a vote of 25 to 23. He added that the
regional and village corporations had requested the Act
because they had been criticized for logging too close to
streams.
3:08:20 PM
RON WOLFE, MANAGER, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER, SEALASKA,
supported HB 105. He discussed that the population in most
of the villages and communities in Southeast had declined
in the past decade. He relayed that populations would
continue to decrease and referred to statistics included in
his written testimony (copy on file). Population declines
adversely impacted property values, the ability of a
community to operate basic items such as schools, fuel and
grocery delivery, transportation, and other essential
services. He emphasized the need for all of the industries
in Southeast for survival and believed that the timber
industry was a "mere shadow of itself." The timber industry
had changed and currently the timber supply came from the
Sealaska Corporation, the Tongass National Forest, the
State of Alaska, and other private landowners. He discussed
that the groups depended on each other to create enough
"critical mass to hang on," and used the same logging
contractors, fuel suppliers, tug operators, and entire
infrastructure to support Southeast Alaska.
Mr. Wolfe relayed that timber sales from state lands
designated as state forest under the bill, would help to
support existing domestic manufacture and potential round
log export. Both markets were important; round log export
could potentially provide higher revenues that would make
timber sales economic and wood designated for the few
remaining domestic sawmills helped their survival. He
recapped that the industry had changed and that those
involved depended on each other. He disputed concerns that
round log exportation exported jobs and referred to a
related McDowell Group report that had been commissioned by
Sealaska Corporation (copy on file). The report had found
that round log export and domestic manufacturing created
the same number of jobs on a per million board foot basis.
Jobs related to round log export came from a different
source and tended to be in villages that did not have
sawmills, which made the employment very important to
communities such as Kake, Hydaburg, and other. In order to
work, individuals had to move to villages with sawmills,
such as Craig and Klawock. Domestic jobs tended to be on
stevedoring, sort-yard manufacture, and other. He
reiterated the corporation's support for HB 105. He
believed that the reasons provided by Mr. Rogers helped to
explain why the commitment of a state forest base allowed
future investment and provided certainty for long-term
planning related to forest management.
Representative Wilson wondered whether it had become easier
or more difficult to log federal grounds for use in
sawmills in Southeast.
Mr. Wolfe replied that the situation in the Tongass
National Forest was not good. He explained that
approximately 87 percent of Southeast Alaska's 23 million
acre land base did not allow development and was designated
as park, roadless, or wilderness lands. Development could
only occur on the remaining area provided that resource
protection was achieved, including the Alaska Forest
Resources and Practices Act, Tongass National Forest
management plan, the Clean Water Act, the Bald Eagle
Protection Act, and more. The remaining 13 percent of the
Southeast acreage supported the timber industry. He opined
that people in Southeast were becoming "conservation
refugees."
3:15:23 PM
Representative Gara asked whether the no-logging buffer
zone along stream banks was different for private lands
than for public lands under the Alaska Forest Resources and
Practices Act. Mr. Wolfe replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara wondered what the buffer zone was on
private lands. Mr. Wolfe responded that the private land
buffer zone started with a 66 foot no-harvest buffer, but
when necessary the act allowed a more stringent standard.
Representative Gara queried whether the more stringent
standard came as a result of negotiation or a requirement.
Mr. Wolfe answered that the stringent standard was
determined through negotiation.
Representative Gara wondered why the corporation would ever
agree if the state proposed a broader buffer zone. Mr.
Wolfe explained that the Act allowed the land manager on
the ground to make decisions with the agencies. He detailed
that a wider zone may have been a segment of a negotiated
process that would allow variation harvest within the 66
foot buffer zone.
Representative Gara asked whether Sealaska would ever agree
to a request from the state that would broaden a buffer
zone to protect a fish stream.
Mr. Wolfe replied that he could not answer the question in
a committee hearing. He described that in relation to
stream protection the Act allowed decisions to be made in
the field with professionals on the ground, which was more
desirable than a cookie cutter approach that prescribed a
minimum buffer zone. He opined that whoever had told
Representative Gara that 100 foot buffers tended to blow
down was incorrect. Sealaska had worked in conjunction with
federal and state agencies and had approximately 20 years
of data based on repeat observations of the same stream
that verified the effectiveness of the Act buffer standards
related to fish habitat protection.
Representative Gara remarked that there was established
peer reviewed literature that indicated the tendency for
small buffer-zones to blow down in high wind areas. He
believed that the shade provided by strong buffer-zones was
important for fry, smolt, and adult fish. Mr. Wolfe
responded that they would respectfully disagree on the
point.
Co-Chair Thomas had been involved as a village corporation
president and explained that compensation was not received
for the loss of timber on any private lands that were given
to the state. He did not think that many people would
devote 66 feet of their land along a lake, river, or
stream. Selective cutting of trees was allowed with a
forest manager or forester and large trees in danger of
blowing down could be worth $60,000.
3:21:13 PM
SHELLY WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE,
spoke in support of HB 105. She quoted a proclamation by
President Roosevelt:
And now, first and foremost you can never forget for a
moment what is the object of our forest policy. That
is not to preserve the forests because they are
beautiful, though that is good in itself, not because
they are refuges for the wild creatures of the
wilderness, though that too is good in of itself; but
the primary object of our forest policy, as the land
policy of the United States, is making of prosperous
homes. It is part of the traditional policy of home
making in our country. Every other consideration comes
as secondary. You yourselves have got to keep this
practical object before your minds; to remember that a
forest which contributes nothing to the wealth,
progress or safety of the country is of no interest to
the government and should be of little interest to the
forester. Your attention must be directed to the
preservation of the forests, not an end in itself, but
as a means of preserving and increasing the prosperity
of the nation.
Ms. Wright read from her personal testimony:
The communities in Southeast Alaska are struggling to
survive. Part of the struggle is a lack of jobs. There
used to be a timber industry in our region that
supported our communities...people had wage earning
jobs and financial support for our schools and
infrastructure. We depended on this for security and
for our future. Now our industry is almost gone...I
have been told the timber industry is a thing of the
past...but recently I read an article in the Juneau
Empire that gave me indications to the
contrary...Seems the State of Alaska's retirement fund
officials are looking at investing in a timber
industry in the lower 48...to make the Alaska State
retirement fund more secure they are investing in
Timber in the Southeastern states from Texas to the
Carolinas...while we sit on 17 million acres of the
Tongass National Forest. That tells me we are missing
the mark here in our region. This state forest will be
a small way to stabilize our investments in the future
of our communities. Allowing the State to have
designated lands to manage for timber harvest will
give our local mills a little more security and
therefore maybe be able to employ a few more folks. We
are down to one medium sized mill on Prince of Wales
Island and 9 or 10 mom and pop mills throughout the
region that rely on the bigger mills to stay in
business. We are encouraged by the progress the state
department of forestry has made with its industry
development and with the partnership they have with
the Federal Government. However these efforts are
almost unfortunately too little too late...our region
is in emergency mode now. We need this forest
designation in order to survive. The existence of a
timber industry in Southeast Alaska depends on
immediate action to provide a supply of economically
viable sales. There has been a concerted effort by the
State working with the Forest Service to improve the
quantity and quality of the Forest Service timber
sales. This effort continues but has not resulted in
the improvement needed. There are 17 million acres in
the Tongass National Forest…this bill will secure
48,472 acres for timber harvest management by the
Division of Forestry.
3:25:08 PM
Ms. Wright continued with her personal testimony:
It is a very small amount of land in the big picture
but it could go a long way in maintaining the
stability of our people in Southeast Alaska. As a
representative of the logging communities in Southeast
Alaska I urge you to support the expansion of the
Alaska State Forest and support the passage of HB 105.
This designation will enable the Department of Natural
Resources Division of Forestry to sustainably manage
the timber, fisheries, wildlife, waters, recreation,
and other multiple benefits that will strengthen the
local economy, provide jobs, and improve quality of
life of all Southeast Alaska communities. And I also
encourage you...as representatives for the State of
Alaska and individually...to continue to look for ways
to assist the Federal Government in implementing the
Tongass Land Management Plan and open the Tongass
National Forest to responsible resource development.
JOHN SANDOR, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in favor of HB 105. He had
been a regional forester for the forest service and had
served as the commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources. The bill would add 23,181 acres of State lands
to the 25,291 acre state forest that had been established
the prior year. He believed that the state forest was not
large but would significantly help the economy in Southeast
Alaska's communities. He recalled that the timber harvest
level had been 420,000 million board feet in 1984 and that
currently it was less than 50,000 million board feet. He
opined that the reinstatement of the 2001 Clinton
Administration's Roadless Rule had the potential to limit
resource development projects on all Tongass National
Forest areas. He expounded that two-thirds of the 27
renewable energy projects that were currently being
reviewed by the forest service would be adversely impacted
by the federal Roadless Rule. The specific requirements of
the Roadless Rule precluded the extension of power lines
over roadless areas and roads that led to renewable energy
projects. He emphasized that the adverse impact on the
communities of Southeast Alaska would be significant. He
relayed that the Alaska-Canada Energy Coalition had asked
the governor and the attorney general to bring legal action
against the Roadless Rule. He discussed that the Alaska
State Forest would meaningfully benefit the remaining
sawmills in Southeast Alaska and would provide communities
with new opportunities to improve their economy and quality
of life.
3:30:35 PM
Co-Chair Thomas thanked Mr. Sandor for his contribution to
the timber industry. He reflected on how the loss of timber
jobs in Southeast Alaska had resulted in a population
decline of 17,000 individuals in the past 10 years. He had
seen how the loss of industry had adversely impacted
population in villages.
Mr. Sandor commented that the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development projected that the population in
Southeast Alaska would decline 14 percent by 2034. He
believed that the bill would help to reduce the decline.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report HB 105 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION it was
so ordered.
HB 105 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN1 (DNR).
3:32:49 PM
AT EASE
3:43:20 PM
RECONVENED