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