Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
04/04/2016 01:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB266 | |
| SB32 | |
| HB112 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 32-TIMBER SALES
1:27:43 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the next order of business is
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 32(RES), "An Act relating to the sale of
timber on state land; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for CSSB 32, Version 29-GS1022\N, Bullard,
3/29/16, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion purposes.
JULIE MORRIS, Staff, Representative David Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the proposed House CS to the committee.
She explained that the only change made by Version N is the
addition of the following language to Section 1: "Subject to
appropriation, the commissioner shall provide 25 percent of the
revenue from a sale of timber under this section to forestry
programs operated by the department in the municipality,
reserve, or community in which the timber was harvested or, if
the timber was not harvested in a municipality, reserve, or
community, the municipality, reserve, or community closest to
the area where the timber was harvested."
1:29:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether this is supposed to be a style
of payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) for state forestry that is
modeled after the federal program.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO replied that his idea behind this change is to
ensure that in those areas where there is active forestry
programs there is a reinvestment in the community. He requested
Mr. Chris Maisch to elaborate further.
1:30:19 PM
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Director & State Forester, Division of
Forestry (DOF), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), provided
a refresher on the bill given it was a year ago that the
committee last heard the bill. He explained that the Division
of Forestry currently has five different authorities under which
it can sell timber. The primary and preferred authority
statewide of selling timber is through a competitive process
under AS 38.05.120 (".120"). Another authority is under AS
38.05.117 (".117") where the division can offer salvage sales
after fires, windstorms, disease, or other kinds of natural
disasters where the timber will lose value quickly. This is an
abbreviated process to allow the division to bring those sales
to market quickly. This authority is not used very often, but
an example is the windstorm in the Tok area where a lot of
timber was lost. There are two negotiated sale authorities -
small negotiated sales under AS 38.05.115 (".115") for timber
under 500,000 board feet, and large negotiated sales under AS
38.05.118 (".118"), to which this bill makes changes. These
authorities still require best interest findings, the exception
being the .115 authority which represents about 40 acres in
Interior Alaska. The division must still go through the other
standard parts of the planning process, but for .115 sales the
division does not have to do a best interest finding. Those
sales are currently only good for one year in length.
MR. MAISCH said the original bill also clarifies that the
commissioner determine through the best interest finding process
the best and most appropriate authority to use and the
department must outline the conditions of why it chose a certain
way to sell the timber. The bill also ensures the ability to
use 25 years of sale length for the .118 authority, which is the
current sale length. Because of the three conditions that the
department is proposing to modify, the .118 authority cannot be
used statewide. Those three conditions are: 1) must have
under-utilized allowed cut in the area in which the timber will
be sold; 2) a manufacturing facility must exist or will exist
within two years that can use the timber that is going to be
sold; and 3) a high level of unemployment, which is a condition
the division has difficulty with. The statute reads a high
level of unemployment and the regulation reads that it has to be
135 percent of the statewide average. The division cannot
currently use the .118 authority in the Ketchikan Borough, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough,
so it prevents the division from doing these longer term sales
under that authority. So, this would essentially even the
playing field for all the operators in the state to remove those
three criteria. More importantly it is very important for
Southeast Alaska where the timber industry is in dire straits.
Right now the division has three sales pending that it would
negotiate in Southeast Alaska to Viking Sawmill in Klawock and
represents 150 jobs on Prince of Wales Island. The federal
government will not offer enough timber in the next two years to
keep that mill running and without the proposed change in this
statute the division will be unable to negotiate those sales;
they would have to go competitive and in Southeast Alaska a
competitive sale is pretty much guaranteed to go export because
the export market can afford to pay more. So the division has
long had a policy in Southeast Alaska where it tries to meet the
needs of both segments of the industry and it has been the state
policy to emphasize jobs and manufacturing and in today's
environment manufacturing jobs in this state is a good thing to
encourage and that is exactly what this will do. The only other
change the bill would do is clarify that these sales can be done
for wood fiber and biomass use and that is just updating some of
the older language in the statute to use more modern terms in
terms of the forestry application for those types of sales.
1:34:45 PM
MR. MAISCH addressed Version P, saying it would put into statute
what the division has long done by both policy and practice,
because a large part of the division's timber sale staff are
funded under timber sale receipts. A percentage of all state
timber sales go into a timber sale receipts account and then
that account pays for the actual foresters that do this work in
the various parts of Alaska. For example, the Ketchikan office
is the division's number one revenue producing office, getting
about 39 percent of its revenue back in the salaries that
actually support positions that are doing that work. The
Fairbanks office is about 100 percent, so 100 percent of the
staff are supported by that. Tok gets 529 percent back because
the value of those timber sales are not that high as they are
mostly fiber sales which are of fairly low value.
1:35:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the revenue from timber
sales in the various areas of the state offsets the cost so that
there is not a loss to the state, particularly if 25 percent of
the gross revenue is given to the local municipality.
MR. MAISCH responded that the funding would not actually go to
the municipality, it is programs operated by the division. That
means wages in most part, but it could be road or infrastructure
improvements in that community. For example, there may not be
as much money in road maintenance accounts as is wanted, so that
25 percent receipt might be used to do extra grading in that
community, especially during hunting season. The division would
still have discretion on how it uses those funds.
1:36:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, recalling that her earlier question was
related to the PILT, asked how the division arrived at the
figure of 25 percent and surmised it is based off an average of
what the division has been doing in practice.
MR. MAISCH answered yes, the division has done this in practice,
but it is not necessarily modeled after the PILT. This is Co-
Chair Talerico's suggested language and essentially what he has
described does put in statute what the division has done in
practice. As the division has taken budget cuts over the last
four years, more and more of the division's general fund money
for wages and salaries of its forest management staff have been
shifted over to the timber sale receipts account. The division
has lost about 42 percent of its general fund money for wages
for the forest management part of the division, which has
resulted in quite a few layoffs. The only way to continue to
operate a forest management program is by using the timber sale
receipts program to actually support those positions. Should
revenues go down he will be confronted with how to pay for those
positions or lay off additional people. On average the division
collects roughly $600,000 annually over a 10-year period and
wages are about $675,000 annually; but, he has some discretion
based on other funding sources on how he manages that.
1:38:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether the proposed new
language is designed to act as sort of a designated general fund
component to help the division when the legislature has reduced
the division's undesignated general fund (UGF).
MR. MAISCH replied he does not think necessarily that that was
its primary intent because the division was already in practice
doing that with the timber sale receipt account. That has been
in place for many years, the division has used it, but has not
depended on it as much as the division is now depending on it.
The legislature has aggressively shifted the division out of
general funds over to the timber sale receipt account to pay for
the division's staff. This [proposed language] just ensures
that the places that are generating the timber sales actually
will see some benefit from those timber sales so that he does
not take all the money and put it in a place that is not really
having a timber sale program. It is not that he would do that,
but this would just ensure that everybody gets a fair share of
the timber revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he has reviewed the minutes from
the other body and surmises that the key component/heart of the
bill is the reforming of .118 sales so that the threshold of the
135 percent of unemployment does not need to be met.
MR. MAISCH agreed that is the heart of the bill, along with the
other two pieces which are not as difficult to meet. There are
three parts to that regulation: 1) the excess allowable cut so
he cannot over-commit and fail to use sustained yield management
to do a large negotiated sale, so he has to be within the
allowable cut; 2) there has to be a facility there that has
excess capacity and can process that cut; and 3) the 135 percent
[unemployment]. All three of those would go away and it would
make it a cleaner statute and much easier to administer.
1:40:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether, with the sustainable cut
language going away, the division has other regulations or
statute that require sustainable harvest.
MR. MAISCH responded that the state constitution requires the
division to do [sustained yield cutting], as do other provisions
of statute and the division's forest management plan. The bill
would not do away with the need to manage sustainably, it would
just delete the wording that there must be excess allowable cut
for [the .118] sale methodology]. It would not somehow "back
door" that he can exceed sustained yield principles.
1:41:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether the reason for why the
.123 authority for negotiated sales is unsatisfactory is because
of the required value-added feature.
MR. MAISCH answered that that is not necessarily the main
reason. The main reason is that those sales are limited to 10
years in length, and sometimes for these industries, especially
the biomass side, it will take longer than 10 years to
capitalize the investment that was made in the plant and
facility. The division is also limited to two value-added sales
per forest practices region in any given time.
1:42:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on the bill.
REBECCA KNIGHT testified in opposition to the bill. She spoke
as follows:
I previously provided testimony in opposition to the
proposed SB 32 and its companion HB 87 and continue to
oppose the legislation based on those concerns with
expanded testimony today.
One can only conclude that based on review of impacts
resulting from drastic budget cuts, the state is
unable to adequately fund administration of its
current timber sale program. Consequently, whether
adequate funding for administration of new long-term
timber contracts can be secured is highly questionable
given that the state's budgetary crisis remains in
near freefall, this despite optimistic assurances from
DOF personnel and the bill's zero fiscal note. For
instance, as noted during the recent Board of Forestry
meeting, "In 2015 due to budget reductions and travel
restrictions, DEC participated in only one trip with
three compliance inspections." According to the state
forester, most of the 2015 decline in the number of
inspections is due to reduced staffing and is an
impact of the budget cuts. I would note that one
annual statewide inspection does not equate to
satisfactory oversight.
It is also questionable whether SB 32 can actually
generate significant positive revenue to the state.
According to DOF's 2013 annual report, the statewide
timber program costs $5.9 million, but generated a
mere $293,000 in receipts for the 2013 fiscal year.
The report anticipated $851,000 in 2014 receipts from
a projected 2014 budget of $6.9 million. Overall,
statewide average revenues for the five-year period
from 2009-2013 were only $600,000 per year with the
majority of the volume offered coming from outside
Southeast Alaska. The report does not provide enough
information to assess the contributions of state
forests in Southeast Alaska, but it appears that the
amount of revenue generated relative to the
administrative cost is very small per million board
feet, meaning that the program likely operates at a
net public loss. In fact, according to the latest
[Board of Forestry (DOF)] meeting minutes, shortfalls
to DOF's budgets are so severe that tourism head tax
was suggested as well as a raid on the proceeds of
fishing industry licensing fees to "help protect
fisheries habitat." This obtuse logic is especially
troubling when these industries contribute
significantly without harm to regional economies,
especially in Southeast Alaska.
Overall, SB 32 and HB 87 represent a considerable
expansion of the timber sale program in a period of
declining budgets and an irresponsible abdication of
oversight to the industry. Quite simply, there are
inadequate funds to do otherwise. I respectfully
request that you disallow this bill from advancing
further.
1:46:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON requested Ms. Knight to clarify her
statement in regard to using tourism or fisheries money to
regulate the forestry industry.
MS. KNIGHT answered that was in the March 2016 Board of Forestry
draft meeting minutes; she believed it was on page 12. She said
she will provide written testimony to the committee that has
footnotes that cite those sources.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested Ms. Knight to submit her comments
in writing and noted that she is particularly interested in Ms.
Knight's testimony about overall cost versus the amount brought
in in receipts and what is being included in the overall cost.
MS. KNIGHT replied she is uncertain exactly what all that
includes, but it is from the [Division] of Forestry's 2013
annual report.
1:47:32 PM
DAVID BEEBE, City of Kupreanof, testified in opposition to the
bill. He spoke as follows:
[CSSB 32(RES) authorizes] the commissioner to bestow
ownership of a 25-year supply of state forest to
create regional state-sanctioned timber plantations
for the purposes of timber export and large-scale
conversion of forests to biomass energy. Gordon
Harrison reminds us in his book, [Alaska's]
Constitution: A Citizen's Guide, that delegate Bob
Bartlett and others urged constitutional defenses
against freewheeling disposals of public resources and
colonial-style exploitation that would contribute
nothing to the growth and betterment of Alaska.
Timber monopolies have a bad track record here in
Southeast. The United States Supreme Court found that
50-year, long-term pulp contract holders colluded
through price fixing and other illegal means to
destroy the existing small loggers in Southeast.
These repercussions of long-term contracts continue to
span the social, economic, and environmental
landscapes across most of Southeast and the wildlife
on some islands may never fully recover from that.
The management of old-growth-dependent deer
populations also has a bad track record in Southeast.
The Alaska Board of Fisheries and Board of Game are on
record on several occasions requesting the Forest
Resources and Practices Act be amended to include for
the protection and management of wildlife on state
forests to provide for constitutionally mandated
sustainable yield principles. This has not been
accomplished, nor has the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game as co-managers of fish and wildlife on federal
forest lands been successful at preventing severe
crashes in deer populations in Game Management Unit 3
and wolf populations in Unit 2.
Both the briefing paper and the fiscal note analysis
of SB 32 prepared by the director of the Division of
Forestry [have] overlooked the full environmental and
fiscal consequences of the bill in the realms of
environmental impacts on rural communities and human
health consequences. The briefing paper states, "All
timber sales, including negotiated sales, must comply
with the constitutional requirement to manage timber
for sustained yield." But, characteristically, avoids
mentioning that Article VIII, Section 4, titled
Sustained Yield, includes fish, forests, and wildlife.
The health consequences of large-scale conversion to
biomass combustion is a serious concern for healthcare
professionals of the American Lung Association, which
emphasizes pollution from the consequences of
combustion of wood and other biomass sources.
Language providing 25 percent of the revenue from the
timber sale to the nearest municipality
notwithstanding an absent and adequate fiscal, social,
and environmental analysis of SB 32, the City of
Kupreanof requests state legislators to table this
legislation in committee.
1:51:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether he is correct that
there are no state forests near Kupreanof or Petersburg and the
closest one is northeast of Wrangell.
MR. BEEBE responded that that is not quite correct. Game
Management Unit 3 involves a number of state parcels that are
within 10 miles of the City of Kupreanof. The Wrangell Narrows
separates Kupreanof Island from Mitkof Island and Frederick
Point in particular has an area that is one of the last refuges
of a very heavily hit island of winter deer range. The south
end of the island, only about 20 miles away from Kupreanof, is
also a very important deer winter refuge that is pretty much not
going to be regarded for the qualities that it represents to
maintain winter populations of deer.
1:53:12 PM
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
stated he supported this bill last year and still supports it.
The bill gives the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the
flexibility it needs to better manage its timber lands in
Southeast. It would get used from time to time in Southeast
Alaska. The other regions do not have the same issues that
Southeast has, such as remote sites and high mobilization costs
for small parcels, the competition from outside Alaska from
speculators that end up mostly not performing their contracts.
There is an inadequate supply of timber for the existing
operators. Those conditions are pretty much unique to Southeast
Alaska. This flexibility will not get used a lot, but when it
is used it would be very helpful. A number of times conflicts
have arisen because of two different operators trying to use the
same remote log transfer facilities, rafting grounds, storage
areas, and roads. A number of times speculators have put in a
sky-high bid on what few timber sales are out there and then
defaulted, and the state had to go back. The same thing has
happened with the U.S. Forest Service, which usually delays that
timber sale for an entire year during a time of being critically
low on timber. He said Alaska has a good forest practices act
that is designed specifically to protect water quality. Fish
populations in areas on Prince of Wales Island that he is
familiar with have more than doubled in the last 60 years,
particularly in the most heavily logged areas. The Alaska
Department of Fish & Game gave him some records that show the
fish populations have more than doubled all over Southeast
Alaska in the last 60 years. Logging at much higher levels than
what DNR will be harvesting has had no impact on the fish.
Wildlife is also doing very well; deer populations are sky-high
on Prince of Wales Island. People say the wolf populations are
down right now, and they might be down, but it is not because
they do not have enough deer to eat in Game Management Unit 2.
The Division of Forestry can manage its timber sale program
without harming fish and wildlife. Providing the division with
this additional flexibility to operate will provide a much
needed timber supply and help the economy of scale and maybe
keep one or two sawmills open that would otherwise be closed.
Frequently the Forest Service or the state sells a sale where a
portion of it goes export, but the other portion will end up
going to the mills. Sometimes, because of extreme high costs in
these remote areas, that higher value from a portion of the wood
going export gets enough value out of the timber sale so that
the mill can afford to saw the rest of the logs.
1:56:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled the testimony that according to the
2013 annual report it cost $5.9 million to manage the forestry
program and only brought in about $300,000 in receipts, which
means the program is about 2,000 times more costly than the
receipts that are brought in. She asked how Mr. Graham thinks
members should evaluate that in the context of the state's
overall budget problem.
MR. GRAHAM answered that whoever made that remark probably did
not understand the budget. The Division of Forestry gave him a
chart that shows the division makes a good profit on the timber
sales. There is a lot more in the division's budget besides
preparing timber sales and managing the young growth stands that
come up behind the sales. He offered to provide a graph showing
this if requested. Responding further to Representative Tarr,
he agreed to provide this information.
1:58:30 PM
CARL PORTMAN, Deputy Director, Resource Development Council of
Alaska (RDC), spoke in support of CSSB 32(RES). He paraphrased
from the following written statement [original punctuation
provided]:
RDC is a statewide business association representing
forestry, oil and gas, mining, tourism, and fishing
industries. Our mission is to grow Alaska through
responsible resource development. RDC supports
policies aimed at ensuring a reliable and economical
long-term State and federal timber supply.
In the decades since the State's timber sale
authorizing statutes were last amended, the demand for
wood fiber from State lands for energy purposes has
increased significantly in response to escalating fuel
oil costs and State capital investment through the
renewable energy capital grant program. As a result
wood fiber for biomass energy has grown into an
important component of forest products from State
timber sales.
What has also changed over the past decades is the
dependence of our remaining Southeast Alaska mills on
timber sales from State lands. In some circumstances
negotiated State timber sales are essential in keeping
what is left of our remaining manufacturing capacity
operating.
RDC agrees with the administration, as articulated in
Governor Walker's transmittal letter, that competitive
timber sales are the preferred means of selling timber
under most conditions. However some circumstances
warrant the flexibility of offering negotiated sales
at appraised fair market value in order to ensure a
reliable supply of raw material to mills. The
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has a good track
record of limiting its negotiated sales to those
circumstances where it is clearly in the State's best
interest, and the added flexibility afforded to the
DNR Commissioner by this surgical statutory revision
will provide needed flexibility required by today's
realities of timber supply and markets.
By giving the DNR Commissioner added flexibility in
offering negotiated sales and clarifying that users of
wood fiber are also eligible for negotiated sales, the
State will have tools appropriate to conditions that
frankly were not part of the timber supply landscape
when State's timber sale statutes were last revised.
These amendments support recommendations of the 2012
Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force. The task force
recommendations were developed with input from leaders
in the timber industry and have been endorsed by the
Alaska Board of Forestry.
MR. PORTMAN concluded by stating that the basic premise of the
bill is to remove the constraints on negotiated timber sales and
to allow longer term timber sales where appropriate. Passage of
this bill will help keep RDC's members in the forest products
industry in business. The current restrictions limit DNR to
negotiating only with certain sawmills. He urged the committee
to pass the proposed House CS for CSSB 32(RES).
2:01:41 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO closed public testimony after ascertaining
that no one else wished to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested that Mr. Maisch be able to respond
to the testimony about the overall cost relative to receipts.
MR. MAISCH confirmed that Ms. Knight's figures are correct
regarding the overall budget, but said Mr. Graham was correct
that that budget does many more things than just fund the timber
sale program. He said a significant amount of federal money
comes into the division that runs a suite co-op programs around
the state, such as forest health programs, community forestry
programs, and forest stewardship programs that provide technical
assistance to private land owners to help them better manage
their forests. The [2013 Alaska Forest Resources and Practices
Act] was mentioned and many more inspections than one have been
accomplished. Three agencies are involved in that effort, with
the Division of Forestry being the lead agency. The key things
are to protect water quality and fish habitat, so ADF&G is one
of the division's partners and the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) is the other partner. It is correct that
DEC's budget has put DEC in the situation where it is unable to
participate in field inspections as much as it was once able.
Because DEC only participated in one inspection does not mean
that only one inspection was done. He offered his belief that
over 40 or 50 inspections were done last year and ADF&G was a
partner on those inspection.
MR. MAISCH continued, reporting that about $2.1 million remains
in the division's budget for general funds for forestry as a
whole. The division collects about $600,000-$700,000 annually
in timber sale receipts that are directly invested back into
that budget. Statewide that money provides 300-350 full-time
jobs in the forest products sector and creates infrastructure.
Roads and bridges that are built for these timber sales are
written against the timber sales in most cases, so that
infrastructure is paid for as part of the value of the timber
that comes out of the woods and then the division picks up the
maintenance of that infrastructure over the long run and that
infrastructure provides access for a variety of uses. Perhaps
the most important thing it provides the division is access for
wildland fire protection around communities. The management of
that forest reduces fuel loads around communities, making them
safer to live in and enjoy, and this is a hard one to put a
price tag on. During the Willow fire last year the division
protected $360 million in value just in the areas that were
evacuated. The fire two years ago on the Kenai Peninsula was
about $260 million in value. A large-scale landscape fuel break
was done and that allowed the division to save that community
that was evacuated. So, there is a big other benefit from this
forest management that the division does not usually get credit
for and it may be more important than the revenue generated by
the division. He pointed out that many of the division's
[staff] positions have feet in the division's fire program as
well as the resources program. Thus, a position lost on the
resources side is also a position lost on the fire side.
2:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that in a typical fiscal year the
division is not staffed up for the kind of fire event like the
Willow fire. She surmised that most of those additional funds
would come through the supplemental budget.
MR. MAISCH replied correct, a base budget funds the division
just like a fire department ready to fight fire - the fire
engine is ready, staff trained and ready, helicopters and
retardant aircraft - and that is about $19 million. Then there
is the suppression account which is funded at the 10-year
average. This 10-year average has not been updated for almost
20 years and only comes in at $6 million in the budget process;
the division must supplement this throughout the process. An
updated 10-year average would be about $52 million. Last year's
fire season was the division's second largest at 5.1 million
acres. The division is not staffed for that and so relies on
other states and on Canadian provinces through international
agreements. Last year help came from 37 states and 2 Canadian
provinces with 3,700 firefighters at the height of the season.
2:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON understood that the Southeast State
Forest includes about a dozen locations.
MR. MAISCH replied correct. It is a lot of dispersed locations
and is about 50,000 acres in total, which is relatively small
compared to the Interior state forests.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether those aforementioned
locations are all south of Petersburg so that they are between
Petersburg and Ketchikan.
MR. MAISCH answered he would have to look at a map, but he
believes yes. The Southeast State Forest is primarily located
in southern Southeast Alaska, and the Haines State Forest is in
northern [Southeast Alaska].
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON posed a scenario of boating past
Coffman Cove or Edna Bay and inquired whether he would see
management such that he would see second growth coming back or a
complete denuding of the landscape.
MR. MAISCH replied it depends on the site as it is all site
specific. A mosaic of different age classes is represented
across that landscape. A lot of young growth has come in in
Coffman Cove and Edna Bay, primarily on federal sales as the
state has not been in the timber sales business as long as has
the federal government. But, the state does have a significant
amount of young growth that is in a variety of age classes.
When looking across a landscape like that it depends on whether
there are a lot of mountains or relief, because harvest units
will be seen in those areas high above the waterline. There
will be harvested and unharvested units. On federal and state
ground there are buffers along the shorelines and fish streams,
so it will be a mosaic landscape, not a devastated landscape.
However, he allowed, it depends on the eye of the beholder.
2:10:19 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to report the proposed House committee
substitute (CS) for CSSB 32(RES), Version 29-GS1022\N, Bullard,
3/29/16, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
2:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected in order to state that she would
like for more time to be put into looking at the overall cost
and value. When the legislature talks about the overall
sustainability of programs, she said, a look must be taken at
the other economic opportunities in communities if these timber
programs cannot be afforded. She then removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT objected in order to state that a look
must be taken at both sides of the coin. He concerns himself
with the cost of managing the state's forests, he said, but he
also concerns himself with the cost to communities when the
forests are not managed. The fire on the Kenai Peninsula could
easily have devastated a number of communities and some of the
programs spoken to by Mr. Maisch definitely saved houses and
probably some lives. Regarding wildlife, it was found on the
Kenai Peninsula that after a fire goes through the moose
population normally rebounds to be considerably better than
before the fire. So, while he is concerned about the price,
sometimes money is not everything in communities.
2:14:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked Carl Portman and Owen Graham for
identifying who they actually work for and what their mission
was here. Saying he "googled" a couple of the other testifiers,
he maintained that they represent the greater Southeast Alaska
conservation community, which is people that probably would not
want any timber cut.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON thanked and applauded Mr. Beebe and Ms.
Knight for their testimony and said they are doing great work.
In one of the great remaining rainforests he can see the need to
remove some through the sales that are identified as .115 sales,
which are small sales. However, a corner was turned in the
1990s and, yes, jobs were lost, but the economic benefit is
greater to tourism, commercial fishing, ecotourism, sport
fishing, and related industries to say that a few hundred jobs
do not need to be subsidized. They are great jobs and he
particularly likes the finished work products that are reflected
in the .123 sales. He applauds folks who do not want to look at
denuded landscapes; they want to see something sustained in its
natural state and would never naysay them.
2:16:30 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK said he spent four years in Southeast Alaska and
has seen the benefits of the industry. That was before oil. He
recalled how the students who spent the summer working in the
timber, fishing, or mining industries came back to school with a
bunch of money. While his community had government jobs, such
as federal programs for kids after school, those jobs were not
as lucrative. The discovery of oil made a whole lot of
difference. He knows how important those industries are to the
people in those communities. Alaska is blessed with all these
resources. Trees regrow and there are fisheries programs to
ensure the resources are enjoyed by all.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said it has been a long time since he has
heard mutual aid brought up in any kind of a meeting. He
related that within two days of the start of the Funny River
fire there were about 600 firefighters from approximately 10
states, smoke jumpers from the Interior, and Canadian skimmers
and a pilot plane. The cooperation was extremely impressive.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted she is a botanist and these are issues
that she has worked on for about 20 years. She said her
comments were not about fire suppression or the need or lack of
need for those services. While those are certainly important,
she was referring to the actual management for timber harvest.
This has been a longstanding problem in national forests and
that is why she brought up the PILT - there has been a lot of
tension between local communities and the federal government
because those areas that cannot be developed cannot have a tax
base and she wanted to highlight some of the issues she thinks
are worth consideration. In areas where there are not a lot of
other economic opportunities it has been shown time and time
again that ample lead time is needed so people do not experience
severe economic hardship as a result of some of the projects or
jobs going away.
2:21:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT removed his objection. There being no
further objection, HCS CSSB 32(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCS CS SB 32 Ver N.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Support Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Briefing Paper.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 1.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 2.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 3.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 4.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 5.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 6.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Letter of Support 7.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS SB 32 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB0032B(1).PDF |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32CS Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| HB 112 ver P (RES draft CS).pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Sponsor Statement Ver P.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Sectional P.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Explanation of Changes W to P.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| CSHB 266N 4-1-16.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| CSHB 266 explanation of changes.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Resident Hunters of Alaska.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| CSHB112 ver P 4.3.16 CFEC opposing letter.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| SB 32 LOS Denali Log.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| HB 112 Oppose -UFA Hse Resources 040416.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| HB 112 Support LB&A CFEC Audit.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 112 |
| CSSB 32-RDC Support.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| HB 266 Opposing Written Testimony.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |