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 |
---|