Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/09/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB60 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 105-SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST
2:50:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to the Southeast State
Forest; and providing for an effective date."
2:51:31 PM
RICK ROGERS, Forest Resource Program Manager, Central Office,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, recalled
that at the last hearing there was concern regarding whether
logs from the Southeast State Forest would go overseas in the
round without any processing in the local sawmills. Upon review
of the past six years, it was found that 87 percent of the logs
from state timber sales remained in the state for manufacturing
in Alaska while 13 percent were exported. Of that 13 percent, 3
percent were exported by sawmills because that percentage of
logs had more value as exported in the round than if processed.
To achieve the aforementioned, sawmills request a variance under
their contract requirements to export a small percentage for
their logs. In balance, the data demonstrates the state is
doing a good job of encouraging instate manufacture of timber
off state lands. Upon review of this statewide, it was found
that only 5 percent of the logs are going out of state in the
round.
2:55:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to the level of processing
sawmills perform on the 87 percent of logs that remain in the
state.
MR. ROGERS answered that it varies by mill. Under the long-term
forest contracts, the past practice was the production of cants,
which was crude processing in which 8-12 inch cuttings were made
and large cants were sent overseas for secondary manufacturing
at mills. However, that has changed quite a bit. In fact, the
Viking Sawmill, the state's largest sawmill, is producing
finished products. He noted that some mills also provide
secondary manufacturing such that they perform planing and have
kilns. In the northern part of Alaska, much of the [logs] are
being used for fuel in which case processing may be as simple as
cutting and splitting firewood. Most importantly, for the state
to see additional investment in manufacturing, there must be a
reliable supply of timber. In Southeast, particularly with the
dominance of federal land, there hasn't been new investment in
manufacturing because there's too much risk involved when there
isn't enough of a reliable supply to amortize the investment.
2:57:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reminded the committee that his community
is primarily situated in the tundra. He then asked if there are
different harvest practices on state lands as opposed to the
clear cuts in the Tongass National Forest in the past.
MR. ROGERS related that the Alaska Forest Resources & Practices
Act guides timber harvest on both state and private lands in
Alaska. State land has a higher standard for riparian buffer
retention. In Southeast Alaska, in particular, anadromous fish
and salmon are another extremely valuable resource to Alaska.
Timber harvest in or outside of the state forest requires a 100-
foot no-cut buffer on each side of salmon bearing waters. The
aforementioned includes a small Coho rearing stream that may be
only a couple of feet wide. Additionally, there is a 100-300
foot zone beyond the aforementioned buffer where additional
consideration is given to the water quality and impacts to the
stream. Also, the land management plans for state land provide
additional guidance. The land to which he is referring is
guided under both the Prince of Wales Area Plan and the Central
Southeast Area Plan, both of which generally have a 500 foot no-
cut zone along the coast. The aforementioned no-cut zone
provides for habitat as well as visual appeal and protection of
eagle nests. Typically, there is a 330-foot radius around any
known eagle tree. Mr. Rogers opined that the state has some
very good protections and a credible program that balances the
state's interest in managing timber along with other resources.
3:00:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that at the last meeting it was
related that the target amount of allowable harvest in the state
forest is 8.3 million board feet. She inquired as to the actual
demand from the existing sawmills in terms of the target
allowable harvest.
MR. ROGERS explained that per the Alaska State Constitution the
division is required to manage the timber in a sustainable
fashion, and therefore the 8.3 million board feet is the result
of the state's inventory and the calculation of growth and
yield. Essentially, the 8.3 million board feet is a sustainable
output of timber from the land base that can be harvested in
perpetuity. However, that is nowhere near meeting the demand
for Alaska's existing mills and certainly wouldn't allow for any
growth and investment in new mills. Mr. Rogers said, "What's
somewhat frustrating about this situation is given the state's
land base, I think this bill represents the state doing what it
can to help the situation on timber supply. And yet, it's not
enough to really overcome the supply issues that industry faces,
but that's really a function of what the land entitlement is for
the State of Alaska." He reiterated that [HB 105] offers a good
balance and package to support the industry.
3:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he understands the idea of a no-cut
zone along salmon streams, but in the Interior that's about the
only location of trees. Therefore, that regulation basically
means there would be no logging at all in the Interior. He
opined that the provision would encourage poaching.
MR. ROGERS clarified that the riparian standards he mentioned
earlier are for coastal Alaska and there are different standards
in the Interior as they are somewhat more permissive. Again, he
stated that it's a balance between protecting important water
quality and fisheries and managing the timber. In spite of the
riparian protections, there is a significant amount of
underutilized allowable cut in Interior Alaska. In further
response to Representative Dick, Mr. Rogers agreed to talk with
him further regarding this matter.
3:04:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the lands
specified in HB 105 are already available for cutting.
Therefore, the purpose of HB 105 is to provide for pre-
management of the lands on a rotation cycle, and the legislation
doesn't place lands unavailable for cutting in an [allowable
harvest zone].
MR. ROGERS said that's correct. He explained that under the
area plan designation, these lands are in the category of
general use, which allows for timber harvest. These are the
lands for which the allowable harvest has been calculated.
Furthermore, these are lands on which the state is already
actively managing timber sales. However, one exception is a
small parcel that is in selection status and is currently in the
adjudication process with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
This land, though, has already been planned for in the Prince of
Wales area plan and has a general use designation.
3:05:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether that 87 percent in state
use will continue if the timber supply is increased or will the
increase merely result in export.
MR. ROGERS remarked that is doesn't really make any difference
because these lands are already part of the timber base the
state is managing. What could make a difference in the future
is whether the state can maintain its existing sawmills to have
the processing capacity to process the timber. One of the
purposes of HB 105 is to provide certainty in the long-term
tenure of the lands in order to perform more aggressive
management. In fact, the state could actually increase the
allowable harvest if the trees can be grown faster. If the
lands will be managed as a state forest, it makes more sense to
consider practices such as pre-commercial thinning, whereby the
allowable cut of these lands could conceivably be more than
doubled over the long term.
3:07:34 PM
MR. ROGERS, in response to Representative Gardner, explained
that if lands are designated general use under an area plan, as
is the case today, the state in the future can sell the land or
subdivide it or move into some other use. Therefore, HB 105 is
deciding whether the state is committing to growing trees on
these designated lands, subject to all the other multiple use
considerations. This legislation provides a commitment and
doesn't include lands that the Division of Mining, Lands and
Water felt were better suited for subdivision or other purposes.
3:10:09 PM
ROBERT CLAUS, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, began by
relating that SEACC supports small mills, micro sales, and the
ability of folks to make a living from the state's forests
through a value-added processing of timber products. However,
SEACC believe that the public lands should remain multiple use
lands and not be [managed] for timber as a first priority, as is
the case in the state forest. Most of the parcels in the state
forest aren't areas that SEACC finds controversial and they do
support small mills, particularly in Thorne Bay. However, SEACC
does object to the Rowan Bay parcel and Hook Arm parcel, which
is on the west coast of Dall Island. As a resident of Prince of
Wales Island, he related that he uses the west coast of Dall
Island and all the outer islands of Prince of Wales for hunting,
fishing, and recreation. Moreover, tourism businesses in the
small town of Craig use the Hook Arm parcel for their business.
Therefore, Mr. Claus opined that Hook Arm wouldn't be a good
addition to the state forest rather it should remain a multiple
use parcel and not be logged.
3:11:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
[HB 105 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1.HB 60 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 2.HB0060A.PDF |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 3.HB0060-2-2-021611-DNR-N.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 4.HB060-DFG-CFD-02-10-11.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 5.Sponsor Statment HB 60.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| 6.Article 02 Aquatic Farming.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 7.Interesting Geoduck Facts.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 8.Home page for three minute trailer for "3 feet under - Digging Deep for the Geoduck".pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 9.Alutiiq Pride Hatchery Geoduck Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |