Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/05/2003 03:34 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 149-TIMBER/ TIMBER SALES/ STATE FORESTS
CHAIR OGAN reminded members that the committee had adopted a
committee substitute (CS), Version H, as its working document at
the last meeting and announced the committee would take public
testimony.
MS. BOBBY JO SKEVO (ph), representing herself, said the CS
dramatically weakens the planning process for timber management
on state lands. She said the existing five-year management plan
process works. When people know a timber sale is coming up, they
have the opportunity to plan ahead. She added that salmon
habitat is always a significant state interest.
CHAIR OGAN noted that Mr. Jeff Jahnke, State Forester, was
available to answer questions.
SENATOR ELTON noted the deletion of language on page 2, lines 2-
4, requiring the commissioner to consider information that
describes immediate and long term effects of forest activities
on the timber base and on other resources and uses. He asked Mr.
Jahnke whether the information that describes immediate and
long-term effects is useful.
MR. JEFF JAHNKE, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), said the intent is to remove the requirement to
provide information on the collective effects on a forest land
use plan (FLUP) for a relatively small area of the landscape.
The Division of Forestry believes the collective effects
analyses would be better placed in the area plan and the forest
management plan for the state forest.
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Jahnke to describe "collective forest
activities" and suggested eliminating the word "collective" if
the terminology is the problem.
MR. JAHNKE said by "collective effects" he means the effect of
multiple actions across the landscape or across a watershed as
opposed to an individual project.
SENATOR ELTON asked why it is a bad idea to have that
information.
MR. JAHNKE said he is not saying it's a bad idea, he believes
the best place for that information is in the broader scale area
plan and forest management plan.
SENATOR ELTON referred to language on page 4, line 10, which
says the primary purpose of establishing state forests is timber
management. He asked:
Are we talking about just when state forests are
established and why they are established or are we
suggesting that, for example, if you take a look at
the Haines State Forest where there are competing
uses, including an increasing demand from tourism
operators who are accessing that area, does this
suggest that timber trumps tourism each and every
time?
MR. JAHNKE said he believes it means timber has priority if
there is a conflict between the two.
SENATOR ELTON asked:
If there is an established tourism organization that
is doing canoe or raft float trips down a river that
runs through the Haines State Forest and if there is a
proposal that there be a timber harvest in adjacent
lands to where that float trip is utilizing it ...
this language to me suggests that that timber
operation would always be prioritized over an
established business that is currently that part of
the state forest. Would that be a correct assumption
on my part?
MR. JAHNKE said only if there is, in fact, a conflict between
the two users.
SENATOR ELTON said he was assuming that it is easy to perceive a
conflict on the part of the float trip operator. He then
referred to language on page 4, line 5, and asked if there is a
statutory definition of the term "compelling state interest."
MR. JAHNKE said he is not aware of a definition in statute.
However, he is aware of substantial case law that identifies
what a "compelling state interest" is.
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Jahnke if he is referring to the
judicial system.
MR. JAHNKE replied, "I think that the definition that has come
about as a result of reviewing 'compelling state interest' in
the court system would be looked at as providing guidance to
what 'compelling state interest' is."
SENATOR ELTON commented that it would be interesting to know if
DNR uses a grid to determine a "compelling state interest" and
requested a copy of such a document before SB 149 reaches the
Senate floor.
CHAIR OGAN indicated the grid would be art. VIII, sec. 1, of the
Alaska Constitution, which says resources should be developed
for the maximum benefit of the people. They also must be managed
on a sustained yield basis subject to preferences amongst
beneficial uses. He said the Constitution clearly provides
authority to establish a preference. He reads this bill to say
the highest use of state forests is for timber production. He
said some would argue that not doing that would be poor
stewardship. He maintained that the forests around the Haines
area are not healthy because of spruce bark beetle infestation.
He pointed out that forest fires do not occur in Southeast so
the other way to manage timber is through the sustained yield
principle of timber harvest.
SENATOR ELTON said it sounds to him like Mr. Jahnke has a pretty
good notion of what a "compelling state interest" is based on
court cases and asked for that information before SB 149 reaches
the floor.
MR. JAHNKE agreed to provide information.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she asked Mr. Jahnke the same question at
the last meeting and Mr. Jahnke was supposed to provide a
definition to the committee.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he believes it is important that members
remember the State of Alaska has some very strict riparian
standards that require 100 or 200-foot buffer zones along the
river, as well as harvest limits. Those standards would make it
very difficult to not enjoy a float trip on a glacial river in
the Haines State Forest. He expressed concern that:
We're creating the wrong picture when we think that
it's an either-or situation and that for some reason
that it would be offensive to every tourist that came
into the state if they were to see where someone had
cut down a tree in order to provide jobs for Alaska
people. So, in the terms of multiple use, the
agriculture department with the national forests -
multiple use originally meant that it allowed things
like timber harvesting, mining, cattle grazing, as
well as other uses, but it didn't mean that you
couldn't timber harvest if someone was going to object
that it might take away their idea of what a pristine
view should be. There are millions of acres of
national parks in the State of Alaska that accommodate
that. There are darn few forests. And to be able to
say that some of these forests should be put to use to
be harvested to be able to sell timber, to be able to
employ Alaskans, ... that if for some reason that that
were to offend an individual of some kind who didn't
want to see that, I don't think is good policy for the
state.
[SENATOR WAGONER arrived.]
CHAIR OGAN said he would continue to take public testimony at
this time.
MR. ALBERT POTT, a Fairbanks sawmill operator for the last 33
years, said he would like to see this legislation pass as is
because it puts the state's forests back to their primary
purpose. The original state forest bill passed because 253,000
acres was set aside for the Chena Hot Springs recreation area
and because land earmarked for timber harvest was being "chopped
up" for other purposes. When that legislation was being
considered, the state forester and deputy commissioner of DNR
opposed it because they believed it took too much land for one
use. The result was the establishment of 14 uses compatible with
timber harvest. Over the years, timber harvest has become
secondary to all of the other uses.
MS. NANCY FRESCO, Northern Alaska Environmental Center (NAEC),
told members that although the Tanana Valley State Forest
comprises only 2,000,000 acres, it is under some of the greatest
competition for multiple use. The NAEC believes the multiple use
designation is the most appropriate one. She pointed out that
under the current plan, almost all of the land in the Tanana
Valley State Forest is harvested on a sustained yield basis. It
is a working forest used for hunting, fishing, non-timber
products, recreation and tourism. The economic value of those
uses has not been measured. A study is being undertaken right
now to place a value on the other uses. SB 149 puts the cart
before the horse by placing timber harvest as the top priority.
MS. FRESCO told members she has a Masters degree in forestry and
environmental studies so this issue is near and dear to her
heart. She said before any changes are made to the status of
value-added, the state needs to determine some means of showing
what value is being added to the trees and it needs to provide a
more flexible definition which adding to the list will not do.
Regarding buffer zones, SB 88 adds buffer standards to interior
waterways. A lot of scientific and community effort went into
reaching agreement on SB 88 but that legislation has not yet
been enacted. She would hate to see [SB 149] undermine those
efforts. She emphasized that a lot of positive public effort was
made to make the Tanana Valley State Forest a working, multiple
use forest. It would be a mistake to change that designation at
this point in time, after so many people have worked to find a
balance between all of the viable uses.
CHAIR OGAN stated that Senator Lincoln has proposed an
amendment, which he supports, that deletes "41.17.230(c)" on
page 5, line 17. It retains the public hearing process
requirement.
SENATOR LINCOLN explained the amendment [Amendment 1] would
retain the section that reads:
A management plan may not be adopted or revised after
the establishment of the state forest without prior
review by the Board of Forestry and by other
appropriate state agencies or without prior public
hearing held in a community approximately located to
the state forest or to a unit of a state forest.
She moved to adopt Amendment 1.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS objected and asked for time to consider it.
CHAIR OGAN informed those who are testifying that the committee
is considering retaining the public process provision.
4:00 p.m.
MR. ROBERT OTT told members that the Tanana Chiefs Council (TCC)
supports most of the changes in CSSB 149(RES) but it remains
concerned about a few issues. TCC's first concern is in the
change to the primary purpose of the forest from multiple use to
timber production. He pointed out the current [statutory]
language says multiple use provides for production, utilization,
and replenishment of timber resources so it already emphasizes
timber. The Tanana Valley State Forest is a public forest; not a
tree farm. TCC is concerned that people deriving income from
non-timber forest products may be shortchanged if a big timber
industry were to develop. TCC believes that anyone looking to
derive revenue from the state forests should have equal
opportunity to do so. The emphasis should not be on timber at
the exclusion of other things if a conflict arises.
MR. OTT said TCC's second concern is with Section 14. Removing
the requirement to review the plan every five years seems too
open-ended. TCC believes there should be some maximum time
period within which the forest plan must be reviewed to keep it
up-to-date with new management approaches and public concerns.
That change removes a time period that is, perhaps, too short to
be reasonable but replaces it with no timeframe.
MR. OTT said that TCC supports Senator Lincoln's amendment. TCC
is concerned about removing the Board of Forestry review and
public hearing process prior to the adoption of forest
management plans. He said TCC's final concern is with Section 7;
high value added wood products are finished products but pulp
has been added to that list. Pulp is an intermediate process
product. It is more finished than wood chips but it is not a
finished product to the degree the other items on the list are.
He suggested some "wordsmithing" could clean that section up. He
repeated that other than those concerns, TCC supports the
legislation.
CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Jahnke why the requirement to review the
forest management plan at least once every five years is being
removed. He asked when a review would be considered necessary.
MR. JAHNKE said the division looked at that requirement and
realized the Tanana Valley Forest Plan took five to seven years
to complete so a review every five years seemed too frequent to
be efficient. The division felt the drive to change a forest
management plan should be triggered by a significant change in
condition or in the market that does not fit within the
timeframe of the existing plan.
MR. DAVE LACEY told members he was involved in the public
process on the Tanana basin management plan and the state forest
for many years. He is concerned this legislation will toss out
efforts made by the public to develop those plans. He believes
the emphasis on a single purpose of timber management is short
sighted. He is aware of the state's immediate revenue needs, but
a long-term outlook must be kept. He said the state must be as
conservative as possible in its management because of future
unknowns. Cumulative impacts of multiple uses must be taken into
consideration. He has been involved in the tourism and
recreation industries for years. He does not want to see those
residents who make their living from those industries pushed
aside for a single use emphasis. He supports the buffer zones in
SB 88 to protect recreational and commercial fishing in the
Interior.
MS. JAN DAWE, Alaska Boreal Forest Council, stated support for
several sections of CSSB 149(RES), especially those that make
the process less burdensome for the operators to get access to
timber sales. Simplifying the timber sale schedules will save
money. She suggested including a sunset clause for portions of
the management plan that have not been revised. The Council
agrees that requiring a review once every five years is too
frequent but would like to see language included to say that
portions of the management plan would be reviewed. The Council's
main concern with the bill is changing the primary purpose of
state forests. She read an amendment suggested by the Council:
The primary purpose in the establishment of state
forests is forest management that provides for the
production, utilization, and replenishment of
commercial timber and non-timber resources while
allowing other beneficial uses of public lands and
resources.
MR. ERIC PYNE, Alaska Forestry Products, said the recently held
election in November showed that the majority of Alaskans favor
resource development. Changing the emphasis of the state forests
to timber management will go a long way toward encouraging
industry to invest in Fairbanks, Delta, Nenana, and outlying
areas. Those investments create jobs and allow local people to
create a lifestyle they enjoy.
MS. DAWE explained to members that the Council's intent in
requesting the proposed amendment is that all extracted forest
products be given equal weight. The rationale is that there are
a lot of special use areas in the state where birch bark or sap
and other products cannot be extracted. University researchers
have said that decades of resource management reports support
multiple resource management rather than single resource
management. The Council is also working on an economic
development project with the schools to make birch syrup. One
local person plans to go into commercial production next year
using about 2,000 trees. The Council is trying to look forward
to what future resource development might look like. It is not
trying to distract from timber management. She repeated the
Council wants the primary purpose of the state forest to be
multiple use.
CHAIR OGAN announced that public testimony was closed.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS removed his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1, therefore it was adopted.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS moved CSSB 149(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR ELTON objected.
CHAIR OGAN stated that he sees this legislation as an attempt to
get more timber into the hands of value-added processors in the
state. He supports this legislation contingent upon that
happening; he encouraged the Division of Forestry to do all it
can to make that happen. He said he is aware of constitutional
limits and the Interstate Commerce Clause, which prevent the
state from banning the export of logs. He said he will be
monitoring this legislation and wants to be briefed by the
Division on how much of this timber is used for value-added
products.
The motion to move CSSB 149(RES) from committee carried with
Senators Stevens, Dyson, Seekins, Wagoner and Ogan in favor, and
Senators Lincoln and Elton opposed.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|