Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/10/2012 09:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB159 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 159-SUSITNA STATE FOREST/TONGASS FOREST
9:09:39 AM
VICE CHAIR FOSTER announced that the only order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 159(RES), "An Act establishing
the Susitna State Forest; urging the Governor to acquire forest
land that is currently in the Tongass National Forest; and
providing for an effective date."
9:10:02 AM
SENATOR LINDA MENARD, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor of SB 159, reminded the committee that Article VIII,
Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution addresses sustainable yield
as follows:
Section 4. Sustained Yield.
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other
replenishable resources belonging to the State shall
be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences
among beneficial uses.
SENATOR MENARD explained that SB 159 seeks to further accomplish
the aforementioned constitutional mandate by creating the
Susitna State Forest. Per SB 159 the Division of Forestry would
manage state forests for a long-term supply of timber to local
processors and retain the land in state ownership for multiple
users. As can be gleaned from the maps in the committee packet,
the proposed state forest includes 33 parcels totaling
approximately 763,200 acres. These Forestry classified lands
are located in 14 large management blocks. Legislatively
designating a state forest would ensure that some land, a little
less than 5 percent of over nine million acres of state land in
the Mat-Su Borough, would remain available for long-term forest
management. Furthermore, the region would retain large open
spaces of public land for the range of benefits residents
currently enjoy. A state forest designation provides the
Division of Forestry the assurance that the lands they're
managing will be there in perpetuity. Moreover, the Division of
Forestry is more apt to invest resources for better roads.
There is also a need for more actively managed lands and
vegetation in order to provide for a variety of forest ages,
which provide for diverse and healthy habitat for wildlife. At
the same time, active management will help reduce wild land and
the extreme fire risk by breaking up the large fuel types and
encouraging regeneration of hard wood species. This
legislation, she opined, will set the groundwork necessary to
accomplish the aforementioned. She informed the committee that
besides the professional mills, the state forest would maintain
a supply of hard wood for personal use. Round wood, wood chips,
and wood pellets have become more common in the world and sought
for residential space heating. Therefore, it's important for
Alaskans to have a place managed for them to obtain such
materials. In fact, the Mat-Su Valley High School is
considering woody biomass to heat the high school. By passing
SB 159, the Susitna State Forest will become the fourth state
forest in Alaska.
9:14:19 AM
Due to technical difficulties the committee took a brief at-
ease.
9:14:52 AM
SENATOR MENARD, continuing her presentation, specified that the
Division of Forestry will manage the Susitna State Forest as
part of the state forest system under AS 41.17.200-.230. The
division will be required to prepare a management plan within
three years of the creation of the forest. Senator Menard told
the committee that the Susitna Forest is a long time coming as
the Division of Forestry has put many years of work into this
plan.
SENATOR MENARD then explained that CSSB 159(RES) includes
exclusions for private lands after working with the Division of
Forestry and the Division of Mining, Land and Water to locate
and designate those exclusions within the boundaries of the
proposed Susitna State Forest. The CSB 159(RES) also includes
intent language on page 31 to urge the governor to
purchase/acquire land from the Tongass National Forest in
Southeast Alaska. From a fiscal standpoint, the Division of
Forestry won't require new positions to administer this new
state forest as is indicated in the division's fiscal note that
relates no negative fiscal impact to the state. In conclusion,
Senator Menard said that SB 159 has been well vetted and would
be a positive addition to the state.
9:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related his initial hesitation to set
aside more state lands that have the potential to be developed.
However, discussions with the sponsor's staff clarified that
there are many things that will be allowed in this proposed
state forest that aren't allowed in other designated areas. He
then inquired as to how the parcels were designated as
appropriate for inclusion in a state forest.
SENATOR MENARD deferred to the Division of Forestry, but noted
that there were inholdings that she didn't want to disrupt. She
identified the area of the proposed Susitna State Forest as
being from Houston on the west side up through a bit above
Talkeetna.
9:18:33 AM
VICE CHAIR FOSTER inquired as to whether access was considered
for those that have private lands within the proposed forest.
SENATOR MENARD replied yes. She then informed the committee
that now that the other state forests are complete, the Division
of Forestry can use its revenue for the proposed Susitna State
Forest to construct roads and trails while keeping in mind all
users. Senator Menard told the committee that she has observed
the timber industry falter [from the top five industries of
Alaska] because of the inability of small processors to
participate.
9:20:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her belief that with logging and
multiple users there will be the need for trails and roads, and
therefore the proposed Susitna State Forest seems to be the
perfect marriage if done appropriately. She then asked if
there's an organization that is working on ideas to create
support of the various activities.
9:21:58 AM
MICAHEL ROVITO, Staff, Senator Linda Menard, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee that he has spoken with
various user groups, including mushers, trappers, and hunters,
who are excited about the possible benefits of a state forest
designation. For instance, the hunters were excited about the
increased management of the timber and the clearing out of some
of the old growth to promote better habitat for moose. A musher
group from Willow was excited about the possibility of roads
that allow them to run their dog teams into the forest.
9:22:55 AM
SENATOR MENARD emphasized that the land in the proposed Susitna
State Forest is state land and will remain as such; the only
change is the proposal to designate it as a state forest.
9:23:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN informed the committee that the
National Wildlife Refuge on Kodiak Island has a lot of private
inholding lands. The owners of private inholdings are fairly
limited in terms of what they can do outside the private
inholdings. Therefore, he asked whether there has been a
discussion regarding the impact of a state forest designation on
the owners of the private inholdings within the proposed state
forest.
SENATOR MENARD acknowledged that although she has done a great
deal of due diligence, there won't be 100 percent buy-in.
However, private inholdings within a state forest are almost
ensured there won't be subdivisions. She characterized a state
forest designation as a protection to the private landholders.
9:25:18 AM
CHRIS MAISCH, Director/State Forester, Division of Forestry,
Department of Natural Resources, clarified that a state forest
designation is a broader land use designation than a state park
and allows for multiple use, use of renewable resources, and
access. He then explained that currently the Division of
Forestry manages the lands proposed for the Susitna State Forest
for forestry purposes because they are classified as forestry
lands per the area planning process. The Susitna Matanuska Area
Plan and the Southeast Susitna Area Plan both govern the use of
the proposed state forest. Both plans have gone through an
extensive public process, which zones various portions of land
for different uses. The state-owned land could be zoned for
purposes of settlement, forestry, and recreation. Mr. Maisch
explained that the lands on the proposed Susitna forest were
chosen because they are highly productive forest lands that are
good locations to practice forestry and were previously
identified during the public process as potential state forest
land. This legislation proposes to designate the lands
identified in the [area plans] as state forest lands. He
informed the committee that the division has performed a forest
inventory of these lands, which provides the sustained yield and
amount of timber available on these lands so that the sustained
yield and renewable yield practices could be followed on these
lands. One of the key points [with SB 159] is to promote the
concept of an anchor forest as it will retain many of the values
in the Mat-Su Valley and allow the development of the timber
industry in a sustainable manner. The development of the timber
industry provides local jobs for local businesses, which are
often small and locally owned. Furthermore, the development of
the timber industry offers resources to help address the energy
problems many communities face. Where there are state forests,
one can be assured of a long-term sustainable supply of fuel for
these energy projects. For instance, both the Tok and Delta
schools recently installed biomass boilers that are fired by the
wood from the state forest. There are many other communities,
including Talkeetna, that are considering wood biomass for its
school system. Mr. Maisch then turned to the public process
that began in 2008 when the first area plans were being revised
for the areas. Starting in 2009 there were seven different
public meetings organized as part of the area planning process.
Furthermore, each winter the division meets with the winter
trails users group in the Mat-Su Valley during which there is
discussion regarding the state forests. There were nine
meetings as part of the area planning process for the Susitna
Matanuska Area Plan; these meetings were held throughout the
Mat-Su Valley and 110 people attended these meetings. In 2009,
there were six other additional meetings to discuss just the
forest management portion of the area plans. Over 22 scoping
comments particular to forestry topics were received and 88
people attended those meetings.
9:30:11 AM
Due to technical difficulties the committee took an at-ease from
9:30 a.m. to 9:34 a.m.
9:34:14 AM
MR. MAISCH, continuing his review of the community involvement
that occurred as part of the area planning process, informed the
committee that once SB 159 was introduced seven additional
meetings were held in the local communities, including a town
hall meeting at the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. There have also
been numerous newspaper articles and radio stories as SB 159 has
moved through the process. Mr. Maisch characterized it all as a
good and aggressive outreach effort to communicate the proposal
to the public and the various local government units in the Mat-
Su Valley.
9:35:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined that this opportunity is great
because it focuses on sustainability. However, she asked
whether there have been any discussions regarding the value-
added aspect of forestry.
MR. MAISCH replied yes, adding that the division and the
department have been very involved and helped facilitate the
value-added topic. For instance, the bowl factory in Fairbanks
uses birch wood from the Mat-Su Valley to make its bowls. The
aforementioned is a good example of the interconnectivity
between areas. He highlighted the Birch Works company that taps
birch trees for sap to make syrup, which could occur in the
state forest. There are also traditional mills that are cutting
wood for value-added projects. Energy is also an important
aspect of timber. Traditionally wood has been thought of as
boards, chips, and perhaps firewood not a replacement for fuel
oil, which occurs in larger applications in which the wood chips
or wood pellets in boilers are used for space heating of large
public facilities. The aforementioned is very cost effective,
renewable, and local.
9:37:55 AM
THOR STACEY, Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA),
related support for SB 159. He informed the committee that the
Alaska Professional Hunters Association currently has about 129
professional members who have active guiding businesses across
the state while there are about 2,000 general members. The
[hunting/guiding] industry relies on wise, foresighted land
management practices in regard to renewable resources,
specifically game. The APHA considers the principle benefit of
SB 159 as maintaining in the public domain large tracts of land
close to population centers in south Central Alaska. In
general, public land favors the [hunting/guiding] industry over
private land. He mentioned the benefits development of timber
in the region has for habitat, specifically with regard to
moose. Having a good sustainable timber harvest in areas with
intensive fire suppression policies encourages a variety of
second growth and first growth habitat from which large
undulates benefit. Mr. Stacey opined that the results of SB 159
are predictable as guiding has continued to thrive in the Haines
State Forest and the Tanana State Forest. In general, forest
designations haven't impacted guiding. In conclusion, Mr.
Stacey reiterated support for SB 159 and encouraged the
committee to move the legislation forward to the House Resources
Standing Committee where it's a better forum for vetting the
legislation, particularly in terms of remaining length of the
session. Furthermore, the amount of public input the
legislation has received over the last few years warrants it
moving [through the legislative process] quickly.
9:41:16 AM
JOHN SANDOR, relating his support for SB 159, paraphrased from
the following written statement [original punctuation provided]:
I served in the U.S. Army during 1945-1946 of World
War II, and later earned a Bachelor's Degree in Forest
Management and a Master's Degree in Public
Administration.
I first came to Alaska in March, 1953 to survey the
forest of Southeast Alaska that year. I subsequently
served in various forestry assignments throughout the
U.S. and served as Regional Forester for the Alaska
Region of the Forest Service from 1976 until
retirement from the Forest Service in 1984.
During Governor Walter Hickel's 1990-1994 term of
office, I also served as Commissioner of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
I support Senate Bill 159 which will designate over
760,000 acres of state land as the Susitna State
Forest in South Central Alaska. State Forest
designation helps assure the professional management
of Alaska's forest lands for the sustainable benefit
of present and future generations of Alaskans.
I also support the SB 159 provisions which urges the
Governor to acquire additional forest land currently
in the Tongass National Forest. This provision will
enable the State of Alaska to manage a State Forest in
Southeast Alaska.
MR. SANDOR related that the [provisions urging the governor to
acquire additional forest land] is especially critical since the
Obama Administration has designated all of Southeast Alaska as
roadless areas. He recalled 1953 through the years he served
[in various forestry assignments] when there were two pulp
mills, a dozen sawmills, and over 3,500 jobs directly [related
to forestry], and an additional 3,500 jobs supporting forestry.
He lamented that the [Tongass National] Forest has essentially
been closed down to multiple use management. Mr. Sandor urged
the committee to move SB 159 forward quickly to restore the use
and access of the forest around the state.
9:44:11 AM
BRIAN KLEINHENZ, Forester, Sealaska Native Corporation;
Chairman, Alaska Society of American Foresters - Juneau Chapter,
related his background, including serving as the Alaska Native
seat alternate on the Board of Forestry. Mr. Kleinhenz provided
the following testimony:
The designation of a state forest allows our Division
of Natural Resource land managers to invest time and
effort and money in forest planning and on-the-ground
stewardship practices. The creation of state forests
is an important way to guarantee the health of Alaska
working forests for future generations of Alaskans.
The Susitna State Forest bill is sound legislation; I
support its passage and I would like to advocate that
this bill move as far as possible in the current
session.
9:45:28 AM
TOM BOUTIN informed the committee that he is a certified
forester and a past Alaska state forester. He requested that
the committee move SB 159 forward today, particularly given the
short time left in session. The state owns 22 million acres of
commercial forest land, most of which isn't located in a state
forest. Most of the timber harvested on state land since
statehood has been from state land that isn't located in a state
forest. Placing state land in a state forest doesn't negate any
use, although it allows the state forester to make investments,
usually out of timber sale receipts, to say build a bridge that
lasts rather than a lower quality log bridge. Furthermore,
forest management increases access and moose habitat,
particularly in the Mat-Su Valley, and it reduces fire
suppression costs. He again reiterated the desire for the
committee to forward SB 159 from committee.
9:48:09 AM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
informed the committee that AOC is a group of about 10,000
Alaskans who hunt, fish, trap, and enjoy the outdoors.
Thousands of AOC's members live in Southcentral Alaska and use
the land described in SB 159. Generally, AOC doesn't oppose the
designation of public lands as state forests, but it does oppose
SB 159 as written as well as the process through which it has
been. He emphasized the need for the committee to understand
that it is legislatively designating a specific use of state
land. Upon review of the state and the country, one discovers
that the land that can't be used is land that's closed to the
public and has been legislatively designated land by either
Congress or the Alaska State Legislature. This legislation
needs to have a specific provision to guarantee access to these
lands after the lands are designated as a forest. He urged the
committee not to trust DNR will do so. If the legislature is
going to designate the land, it should establish the policy
regarding who gets to use the land. The proposed Susitna State
Forest is the largest parcel of land near the populated center
of Alaska; 9 million acres that's close to 75 percent of the
state's population. The proposed Susitna State Forest is the
most affordable and accessible place for people to go when they
head out after work from Anchorage, Chugiak, Eagle River,
Palmer, and Wasilla.
MR. ARNO then opined that SB 159 is moving way too fast. When
the legislature created the Tanana State Forest in 1982/1983 it
allowed the public to participate over the interim.
Furthermore, when the legislature created the Southeast State
Forest, it was introduced in the first session and passed in the
second session. This legislation, however, was just introduced
a few weeks ago. He expressed the need to have a substantive
hearing in the area after work hours. He then recalled the late
1980s when the Susitna Forest guidelines process first started,
there was massive public opposition to creating the forest. In
2008 and 2009 the Susitna Forestry Guideline Citizen Advisory
Committee, of which he was a member, had meetings, but they
resulted in no conclusion because more input was necessary.
With regard to the zero fiscal note for SB 159, Mr. Arno opined
that DNR can't perform this work for free. He reminded the
committee that just a few years ago the Knik Public Use Area,
small in comparison to the Susitna State Forest, was created and
DNR told the legislature it would cost tens of thousands of
dollars to plan how to use that area. Therefore, he questioned
how DNR would now plan an entire state forest for free, and thus
he emphasized the need to nail down the true cost.
9:51:57 AM
NICK STEEN, Ruffed Grouse Society - Alaska Chapter, informed the
committee that he has worked with the legislators from the Mat-
Su Valley, particularly Senator Menard's office, for the past
two years to obtain a Susitna State Forest [designation].
However, Mr. Steen said he couldn't support SB 159 at this time.
Although the society wholeheartedly supports the concept of a
Susitna State Forest, the legislation doesn't do what the
society believes should be done. He specified the need for all
encumbered state lands located between the Beluga River and the
Denali National Park and Preserve draining into the Susitna
River to be included in a Susitna State Forest. The goal is to
hold all of the aforementioned land in trust for public use and
a forest designation, which is the broadest spectrum of
management and would provide the greatest use of those lands. A
state forest designation would allow the forest industry to
coexist with the wildlife habitat, hunting, trapping, fishing,
public recreation, mining, et cetera. The only restriction
would be against the transfer of those lands into private
ownership, which the Ruffed Grouse Society opposes. This
legislation attempts to establish a state forest with 14
noncontiguous parcels of land, which he likened to calling the
roads of King Salmon, Bethel, McGrath, and Barrow areas an
interstate highway system. Mr. Steen urged the committee to
rewrite SB 159 to encompass all unencumbered state lands between
Beluga River and Lake to the Denali National Park and Preserve
draining into the Susitna River as a state forest. Although
some of the aforementioned land isn't prime timber producing
areas, including it would enable reasonable management of the
resources without the restriction of NIMBY [not in my backyard]
that strangles active land and forest management in the state's
more developed areas. The legislation is written to implement
the Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan (SMAP), which is a planner's
idea of what could or should be done with state lands. However,
the Ruffed Grouse Society believes the legislature should direct
the use and [designation] of lands, not DNR. The DNR, he
opined, appears to be attempting to satisfy everyone's needs by
subdividing the land into many small designations of restricted
use, such as for agriculture, forest, wildlife habitat, public
recreation, mining, and public ownership. However, no one wins
in the aforementioned approach. The DNR planners, he charged,
selected only the prime timber areas for inclusion in a state
forest without consideration of the myriad of other uses the
forest offers. Mr. Steen specified that a state forest needs to
be a contiguous, all-encompassing land mass that will protect
its potential for resource development and management and public
use. If it isn't possible to alter SB 159 under the time
constraints of this session, Mr. Steen urged the committee to
reject SB 159 and reconsider a state forest designation during
the next legislative session. Passing the legislation this year
and coming back next year to amend and correct it, as was
suggested to him by several legislators and bureaucrats, isn't
the correct approach. Mr. Steen urged the committee to address
the matter correctly the first time and fix the legislation now.
9:55:39 AM
VICE CHAIR FOSTER, referring to a February 9, 2012, letter from
the Ruffed Grouse Society, related his understanding that the
society is requesting an expansion of SB 159.
MR. STEEN reiterated that the Ruffed Grouse Society supports the
concept of SB 159, but believes the entire area needs to be set
aside as a state forest rather than just small designated timber
areas. The SMAP, as developed by DNR, wants to establish many
small designated areas, which creates difficulties for
management. Furthermore, the SMAP makes it almost impossible
for the general public to utilize the land because [of the
patchwork of land ownership].
9:57:05 AM
CARL PORTMAN, Deputy Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), related support for CSSB 159(RES). He further related
that RDC believes the proposed state forest will be beneficial
to the local economy by creating and sustaining much needed jobs
for the forest products industry while providing many other
opportunities. The RDC also supports Section 2, which was added
to the legislation in order to help address the critical timber
supply issues in Southeast Alaska. The communities in Southeast
were limited to community development land selections in
Southeast since statehood because Congress assumed that federal
national forest lands in the Tongass National Forest would
continue to be managed to provide for an integrated timber
industry in the region. Therefore, Congress assumed there was
little need in Southeast for a substantial state land base since
the natural resources on the federal lands including timber and
minerals would serve as the foundation for the economy.
However, since statehood the federal land management regime has
evolved from true multiple uses to one of very restrictive
management plans that have closed the vast majority of the
nation's largest national forests timber harvesting. As a
result, the Southeast region's forest product industry is a mere
shadow of itself and is struggling to survive. Section 2 of the
legislation encourages the administration to pursue a remedy to
the inequity by encouraging the governor to negotiate amendments
to the Statehood Act or failing that to purchase federal lands
that aren't contributing in a meaningful way to a balanced
economy in Southeast Alaska. Mr. Portman stated that RDC
supports this amendment and views it as a forward looking
approach to breaking the otherwise gridlocked timber issues for
Southeast Alaska. In conclusion, Mr. Portman urged the
committee's support for CSSB 159(RES) to help grow a renewable
forest products industry in Southcentral and Southeast Alaska,
which will be a win-win for both regions.
10:00:02 AM
MELVIN GROVE, President, Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance, stated
that SB 159 makes wholesale changes to the status of hundreds of
thousands of acres of land in the Mat-Su Valley area, yet there
hasn't been a single hearing in any of the communities affected.
Although DNR hasn't had any public meetings on this issue, it
did have hearings on the recently updated Susitna Area Plan.
Many people turned out for those meetings because they are
interested in how the state wants to use the land. When [area
residents] inquired about the forestry and timber cutting, they
were told "Trust us, it'll be in the next plan." "At some point
you'd think the state would tell us what they're planning to do
with our land," he opined. Mr. Grove reminded the committee
that in 2010, the legislature created the Southeast Alaska State
Forest and that process took over two years, yet it's the
smallest state forest and located in an area with a forestry
culture. However, SB 159 has only been around for a few weeks
and in the Susitna Valley there is no forestry culture and very
few hearings and articles from which the public can educate
itself and participate in the process. He reminded the
committee, "Please remember that you are there to represent us
not impose things on us." He then expressed concern with the
lack of language in SB 159 guaranteeing public access to
reclassified lands, although virtually every legislator says
he/she supports public access to public lands. Therefore, the
ability for local residents to have access to these areas must
be written into SB 159 otherwise he predicted that eventually
the Board of Game through the Board of Fisheries will restrict
motorized access of the area. The Alaska Professional Guide
Association, located in many areas of the state, has [been
successful] in restricting motorized access to support only the
guide industry, he opined. He reminded the committee that the
POGO mine created a road system for the mining area, but hunters
are restricted from that public access because of the commercial
use. He expressed the need to avoid similar situations. In
conclusion, Mr. Grove urged the committee not to pass SB 159
until ready, which it is not at this point.
10:03:46 AM
GEORGE WOODBURY, Alaska Forest Association, informed the
committee that he has been in the timber industry in Southeast
Alaska since 1965. He echoed earlier testimony regarding that
management of the forest has evolved to very restricted uses and
no longer contributes to the economy to the level it did in the
past. He encouraged the committee to pass SB 159 as soon as
possible because the timber industry is in the last throws of
the timber supply for the last medium-sized sawmill. He
characterized classifying these lands as a state forest as a
great move. Furthermore, the Division of Forestry has proven
that when it has lands it can manage they produce a reliable,
economic timber supply to keep mills open. Mr. Woodbury related
his support for SB 159 and reiterated the need to move it from
committee in order to realize some timber and keep the mills
operating.
10:06:07 AM
MARK STAHL, Owner/Operator, Denali Log & Lumber, related his
support of SB 159 and urged the committee to take action on it
quickly. He reviewed the last four years of his business during
which there hasn't been a borough or state timber sale within
his working circle. Therefore, he has had to rely solely on
private timber jobs, which makes it difficult to plan for the
future because those supplies go up and down. Having a state
forest designation would help his business as well as others.
Just knowing he has a few years of timber contracts in the
future would allow his business to expand three-fold. Mr. Stahl
emphasized the importance and surety of a well-managed,
sustainable resource base. He then urged [the legislature] to
provide full funding to the Division of Forestry and to
establish a field office in the Upper Susitna Valley area where
the vast majority of the resource is located.
10:09:22 AM
ERIN MCLARNON began by telling the committee that she is a 16-
year Matanuska-Susitna Valley resident who lives in Willow and
who is a dog musher, snowmachiner, hiker, founder of the Willow
Dog Musher's Association, and recreational representative on the
Board of Forestry. Ms. McLarnon related support for SB 159
because the legislation provides for economic gain, a diverse
and healthy habitat for wildlife, and protected and increased
recreational opportunities. She reminded the committee that the
demand for state timber sales is steadily growing and personal
use sales for fuel use have also increased. Local mills that
employ or could employ family, friends, and neighbors depend
heavily on state timber for their raw material supplies. The
creation of the proposed Susitna State Forest would help
guarantee those needs. Furthermore, an actively managed state
forest such as that proposed would promote a variety of forest
ages to provide for diverse and healthy habitat for wildlife.
Simultaneously, active management would help reduce wild land
fire risk. Moreover, state forests protect the recreational
uses on these lands and can even create more recreational
activities by turning the logging roads and other areas into
recreational corridors. The Mat-Su Valley is a recreational
haven for its residents as well as those who visit from outside
of the area and the state. Guaranteed places to recreate, she
opined, can be turned into dollars for the Mat-Su Valley. With
regard to the charge that there hasn't be an adequate public
process in the Mat-Su Valley regarding the creation of the
Susitna State Forest, Ms. McLarnon disagreed. This public
process, she said, began in 1985 with mention in the 1985
Susitna area plan and addressed again the revised plans in 2008
and 2011. In fact, the 2008 adopted Southeast Susitna Area
Plan, which included the Susitna State Forest, had two rounds of
public meetings. Again, during the 2009 revision of the Susitna
Forestry guidelines there were numerous public meetings. Town
hall meetings have been conducted by Senator Menard, the most
recent of which was February 2012, during which the Division of
Forestry discussed this issue. Therefore, she opined that there
has been adequate public process and she encouraged the passage
of SB 159 from committee.
10:12:18 AM
LELANI KNIGHT-MCQUEEN, Tlingit-Haida Central Tribal Council,
informed the committee that Tlingit-Haida Central Council, which
represents 20,000 tribal members that are indigenous to the
Tongass National Forest, opposes SB 159. Throughout the
hearings and floor sessions [on SB 159] the following
terms/phrases have been used: "management plan",
"traditionally", "doing it the right way", and "development",
all of which have meanings to the indigenous people of the area.
However, the hearings and the language of the legislation don't
reflect the aforementioned terms. Ms. Knight-McQueen expressed
hope that SB 159 goes away until there is discussion with the
tribes and there is consideration of a government-to-government
relationship similar to that of government and federal agencies.
With the federal government assisting with the management of the
land, tribes have the ability to continue to protect the land or
provide input to practices that will protect it and the people
who depend upon it. She reiterated earlier points that SB 159
was brought forward quickly, which she opined isn't the
appropriate way. Ms. Knight-McQueen reiterated the Council's
opposition to SB 159 and requested that the Senate require the
governor to mandate the commissioners to establish a mechanism
for developing a government-to-government relationship process
and direct the commissioners to ensure tribal input on any
policy that impacts the air, land, and sea. She then
highlighted the policies being created for the anti-degradation
group as a current example of neglecting to involve tribes. The
anti-degradation group is currently developing language and
policy regarding water quality; however, the workgroup only
includes the attorney of one Native organization. Consultation
with one Native Corporation shouldn't be considered meaningful
input to any policy workgroup.
10:15:50 AM
DANE CROWLEY, Forester/Executive, Superior Pellet Fuels,
informed the committee that Superior Pellet Fuels manufactures
wood pellets in the Fairbanks area. He noted that he is a
former resource manager and forester for NPI, which was involved
in timber operations in the Mat-Su Valley for a number of years.
Mr. Crowley said he is generally in support of SB 159. As
someone who has been involved in timber and forestry in the Mat-
Su Valley for the last 20 years and who wrote his thesis on
logging as a management tool in the Mat-Su Forest, he has spent
a significant amount of time focusing on the opportunities and
aspects of the Susitna area. He then thanked the sponsor for
introduction of the legislation as it has been many years in the
making. However, the current Susitna Forest guidelines have
gone far in prohibiting any opportunity on state lands. Those
guidelines were supposed to expire in 2001 as they were replaced
by the Forest Practices Act, but the continued adherence to the
Susitna Forest guidelines is problematic. Furthermore, the
state lands aren't designated for any particular activity and
thus the Division of Forestry has no management authority for
those lands and the land sits idle. Mr. Crowley then turned to
the opportunities lost in the Mat-Su Valley in comparison with
the Tanana Valley State Forest model. In 2005 NPI operated in
export wood chips and it directly employed 125 individuals.
Through work with the State of Alaska's economist, it was
determined that the aforementioned was a $3.5 million economic
impact directly to the local area. The aforementioned, which is
an example with one company, is what was lost by not having
[similar] forestry opportunities in the Mat-Su Valley. The
Tanana Valley State Forest is a fantastic opportunity that
provides a guaranteed annual allowable cut and hundreds of miles
of road access. He opined that the Tanana Valley State Forest
also provides a good model for multiple user groups and their
input via a citizen's advisory committee. However, he cautioned
the committee with regard to the lack of designated access
because ultimately it will exclude and disenfranchise some and
fail. Mr. Crowley urged the committee to forward the
legislation and include amendments guaranteeing access. He also
noted his agreement with regard to the continuity of [the forest
land] comments. Still, he opined that the [Susitna] state
forest needs to happen and soon if there is going to be any type
of habitat renewal, fire suppression, and other opportunities
that arise from a managed state forest.
10:21:18 AM
VICE CHAIR FOSTER questioned whether intent language to address
the government-to-government relation concerns could be added in
the next committee of referral. He then invited comments from
the sponsor.
10:22:02 AM
SENATOR MENARD opined that SB 159 is good legislation. She then
requested that Mr. Maisch address the access concerns. Senator
Menard mentioned that her husband tried to push this proposal
forward in the early 1990s and she only wants something
available for all Alaskans in perpetuity.
10:23:12 AM
MR. MAISCH, regarding access, explained that if SB 159 passes
the Division of Forestry has to do a forestry management plan
within three years. That plan would detail many of the things
discussed today, including access and development, and would
replace the Susitna forest guidelines. Therefore, even with the
passage of SB 159 there would still be quite a bit of a process.
Mr. Maisch assured everyone that the issues that have been
raised will be addressed.
10:24:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the Southern Southeast State
Forest legislation that passed last year included intent
language regarding access. She also asked whether it would be
acceptable to include intent language with SB 159.
MR. MAISCH answered that the Southern Southeast State Forest
legislation didn't include specific language that addressed
access as that was left to the actual management plan that is
currently being written for that state forest. He noted that
there is a management plan in place for the Haines and the
Tanana Valley State forests which include sections devoted to
the topic of access.
10:24:42 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to why certain areas weren't included in
the proposal.
MR. MAISCH responded that certain areas weren't included because
of the planning process and because these areas were determined
to be more appropriate for other uses. The better forest lands
were identified and those are the lands that are proposed for
this state forest.
10:25:38 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that she is uncomfortable moving the
legislation today, but deferred to the vice chair.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated his agreement, adding that he
would like to have something from the department regarding what
the management plan would be in terms of access. In response to
Chair Munoz, Representative Austerman said that he would like to
see what the department would propose for the management plan
rather than intent language on the access issue.
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the aforementioned information could be
provided to the committee and the legislation brought back
before the committee on Thursday.
VICE CHAIR FOSTER agreed to do so.
[SB 159 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|