05/18/2003 11:20 AM House FIN

CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 149(RES)                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to timber, to the sale of timber by                                                                       
    the state, and to the management of state forests."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
KELLY  HUBER,   STAFF,  SENATOR  TAYLOR,   SPONSOR,  provided                                                                   
information on  the bill. She  observed that the  legislation                                                                   
promotes  resource  development   for  timber  management  in                                                                   
Alaska's  two state  forests.  There is  a  zero fiscal  note                                                                   
attached.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHRIS  MISH,   FORESTER,  DEPARTMENT  OF   NATURAL  RESOURCES                                                                   
testified via  teleconference. He  provided a brief  overview                                                                   
of  the  bill. He  noted  that  Section  2 would  delete  the                                                                   
reference to  considerations under  the forest land  use plan                                                                   
section,  and  place  them  in a  section  under  the  forest                                                                   
management  plan, which  is a broader  planning document.  He                                                                   
noted  that the  document for  forest timber  sales would  be                                                                   
biennial  rather than  annual.  Timber sales  would still  be                                                                   
required to appear  in at least one five-year  schedule prior                                                                   
to sale.  Individual sales  would still  be reviewed  through                                                                   
the  forest  planning  process.  Sections  8  and  9  address                                                                   
management  plans within  the Haines  State Forest.  Sections                                                                   
11,  12 and  15,  would  change  the management  emphasis  in                                                                   
legislatively  designated  state   forests:  Haines  (270,000                                                                   
acres) and  Tanana State Forest  (1.8 million).  The emphasis                                                                   
on timber management  would allow for other  beneficial uses,                                                                   
which  are compatible  with timber.  The  primary purpose  of                                                                   
state forests would be changed  from multiple uses to "timber                                                                   
management that provides for the  production, utilization and                                                                   
replenishment  of  timber  resources   while  allowing  other                                                                   
beneficial uses".                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Mish observed that they are  currently required to review                                                                   
plans every five years. The legislation  would allow plans to                                                                   
be reviewed  as necessary.   He added  that Section  10 would                                                                   
only  allow  more  stringent   standards  [than  those  under                                                                   
section (a)] if they were in the state's interest.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Berkowitz questioned  what would happen in the                                                                   
case of  a conflict  between fishing  and timber.   Mr.  Mish                                                                   
noted that  they would  refer to  the state Forest  Practices                                                                   
Act,  which  establishes  minimum  protection  standards  for                                                                   
different  stream  standards.   He  speculated  that  if  the                                                                   
conflict was not  related to commerce, it might  place timber                                                                   
on  a higher  level of  consideration. He  stressed that  all                                                                   
parties agreed  that the standards would protect  habitat and                                                                   
clean water.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Kerttula  summarized   that  the  bill  would                                                                   
prioritize  timber. Mr.  Mish noted that  the priority  would                                                                   
only  occur  in time  of  conflict.  Representative  Kerttula                                                                   
asked  what burden  would  have  to be  proved  to show  that                                                                   
timber is  not the first use in  a conflict.  Mr.  Mish noted                                                                   
it would  depend on the merits  of each use, but  that timber                                                                   
would  be  weighted  more  heavily.  Representative  Kerttula                                                                   
questioned  the reason  for the  bill. Mr.  Mish stated  that                                                                   
other conflicts had arisen and been resolved.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Kerttula asked if  the legislation  would aid                                                                   
more timber  development. Mr.  Mish acknowledged that  he had                                                                   
heard that justification from the timber industry.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Kerttula asked  about impact  on other  uses.                                                                   
Mr. Mish predicted no additional  impact on other uses in the                                                                   
short-term.  He speculated  that  there would  have  to be  a                                                                   
great  increase  in harvest  levels  before it  would  impact                                                                   
other uses.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Meyer  MOVED to  report  CSSB  149 (RES)  out  of                                                                   
Committee   with    individual   recommendations    and   the                                                                   
accompanying fiscal  note.  There  being NO OBJECTION  it was                                                                   
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CSSB  149 (RES)  was REPORTED  out  of Committee  with a  "do                                                                   
pass"  recommendation  and  one  zero fiscal  note  from  the                                                                   
Department of Natural Resources.