Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/26/1995 08:10 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 1995
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Eileen MacLean
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 212: "An Act relating to the management and sale of state
timber and relating to the administration of forest land
and classification of state land."
HEARD AND HELD
*HB 261: "An Act relating to the management and sale of state
timber and materials; relating to access across state
land to navigable or public waters; and relating to the
management of state forests."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 212
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 216
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 261
BONNIE WILLIAMS
1335 Sunny Slope
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 455-6652
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
TYLER CONKLE, Representative
Interior Alaska Forest Association
HC 60, Box 4190
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Phone: 895-4768
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
JIM DREW
4725 Villanova Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 479-2212
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212
JOHNNY GONZALEZ, Mayor
Denali Borough
Healy, AK 99743
Phone: 582-2346
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
DR. WILLIAM WOOD
665 10th Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 456-1984
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
BOB ZACHEL, Owner
Alaska Birch Works
P.O. Box 83244
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Phone: 455-6164
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
PETE SHEPHERD
1012 Galena Street
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 474-4685
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
ART GRISWOLD
873 Runawuck
North Pole, AK 99705
Phone: 488-7805
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
ED PACKEE
1977 Melanie Lane
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 479-0929
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
BILL ROBERTSON, Representative
Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce
709 2nd Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-1105
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
JOSH MOORE
P.O. Box 82524
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Phone: 474-2080
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
LYNN LEVENGOOD, Representative
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
931 Vita Way
Fairbanks, AK
Phone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212 and HB 261
SYLVIA WARD, Representative
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
218 Driveway Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-5021
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212 and HB 261
ED DAVIS, Board Member
Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Association
P.O. Box 3332
Valdez, AK 99686
Phone: 835-6123
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212 and HB 261
BIRCH PAVELSKY, Representative
Alaska Boreal Forest Council
P.O. Box 84530
Fairbanks, AK 99788
Phone: 479-8343
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212 and HB 261
DOUG BOWERS
Nenana, AK 99760
Phone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212 and HB 261
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212 and HB 261
DICK HOFMANN, President
Alaska Trollers Association
130 Seward, Suite 213
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-9400
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212 and HB 261
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE: TIMBER MANAGEMENT
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 530 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,RESOURCES,FINANCE
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/95 844 (H) STA RPT 1DP 4NR 1AM
03/22/95 845 (H) DP: JAMES
03/22/95 845 (H) NR: OGAN, PORTER, IVAN, GREEN
03/22/95 845 (H) AM: WILLIS
03/22/95 845 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DEC, F&G)
03/22/95 845 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
03/22/95 845 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/26/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 261
SHORT TITLE: STATE/PRIVATE/MUNI TIMBER OPERATION/SALE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/95 745 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 745 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/26/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-56, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Bill Williams at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, and Davies.
Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Kott, MacLean, and
Nicholia.
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the committee would hear HB 212
and HB 261. He said it was not his intention to move the bills but
rather take testimony by invitation only. He stated the committee
would then consider the two bills at a later date. He noted there
were 14 sites on teleconference.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that Representative Kott
had joined the committee.
HB 212 - TIMBER MANAGEMENT
Number 076
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR, said HB 212 was
introduced at the request of constituents from the timber industry
in Fairbanks. These people are operators of small lumber
businesses in the local communities. She stated their livelihoods
have been impacted by the overly complicated procedures they must
endure to secure timber from the state. It is not the lack of the
resource that has impacted them. Rather, it is the inability of
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to allow the harvesting
of this resource. She pointed out current statutes are such that
the five-year planning and three-year planning updates required by
Title 38 are totally impracticable for the continuation of an
ongoing industry.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told committee members for a number of years,
the Fairbanks Industrial Development Corporation has worked with
and recruited timber companies to come to the Fairbanks area and
set up shop. Thus far, they have not been successful because of
the over restrictive policies mandated by Title 38. She stressed
without the ability to be guaranteed a supply of timber over the
long term, no one will make the capital investment necessary to
develop this industry. She said this long-standing irritation has
deprived her community and other communities across the state from
developing the basic timber industries necessary for jobs and a
healthy economic environment. She felt HB 212 addresses the
minimum changes necessary to ensure the survival of the timber
industry in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES passed out copies of a letter from the
Interior Alaska Forest Association. She stated the most important
part of HB 212 is the reestablishment of the original purposes in
the original Forest Practices Act (FPA) which were then deleted at
a later date. She said when the changes were made to the FPA,
there was no input made from the Interior foresters. The people on
the committees were not picked by the Governor or state agencies
but were picked by public groups. She pointed out the steering
committee was supposed to be a compromise of representation for
those affected by the FPA.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there were five representatives of forest
owners and operators, i.e. those regulated by the forest practices,
on the steering committee including three representatives of
private timber landowners, one municipality with timber ownership,
and a representative from the Alaska Loggers Association. She
stated the members were Sealaska Corporation from Juneau, Klukwan
Forest Products from Skagway, Koncor Forest Products near Kodiak,
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and George Woodbury from Ketchikan
for the Alaska Loggers Association. She stressed none of the
groups were from the Interior. She pointed out the forest industry
representatives were the private forest landowners along the coast
and none of the forest industry representatives were from companies
who depend on state forest land. She reiterated there was no
representation at all from the Interior.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt it was important to have input from the
Interior. She stressed she is not here to rape the environment.
She said there is a need to be cautious of the environment and
protect what the state has for all of the people, for all of the
uses. She stated it is also important to make a living and the way
to make a living is with the state's resources. She added it is
important when making a living off the resources of the state, to
do it in an environmentally sound way. She observed that the
contents of HB 212 accomplishes that goal. Not making a living off
the resources is not the way to protect the environment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated HB 212 does what needs to be done at
the very minimum. She felt there is also a need to build a better
working relationship with the environmental community. She noted
the Interior is fortunate to have the Northern Environmental Center
which is more understanding on the issues than environmental
agencies in other parts of the state are. However, there is a need
to work more to ensure there is an ability to do some economic
activity, including timber, which is a resource that can be
developed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said in talking with people all over the
state, the one thing which distresses people more than anything is
the fact the state cuts trees and ships them round to the outside.
There is no way to avoid shipping trees round outside until a
sufficient amount of timber can be harvested to establish an in-
state value-added processor. She stressed that is where the
problem lies. She stated if a sufficient amount of the resource is
not allowed to provide the ability to financially and feasibly
establish value-added processing in the state, trees will continue
to be shipped outside in the round. She noted she has taken it
upon herself to determine how she might be able to stop shipping
trees to the outside. She pointed out if she were to stop that,
she would stop existing industry in the state because the outside
is their only market.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated in the upper Tanana Valley, there is a
group of people trying to put together a milling of white spruce
and birch hardwood into lumber, and all of their feasibility
studies are completed. She stated the process can only happen if
there is timber available. She felt if some of the state's
economic woes are going to be solved, there is a need to establish
industry in an environmentally sound way.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted there is a plan to work on timber issues
during the interim and have committee hearings in the Fairbanks
area.
HB 261 - STATE/PRIVATE/MUNI TIMBER OPERATIONS/SALES
Number 231
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 212 is a bill to
foster and nurture the local, small timber using consumption
industry in Alaska. He explained HB 261 is intended to encourage
and nurture a large industrial use of the state's timber base. The
premise of HB 261 is to establish a point where harvesting timber
is the highest and best use of the state's forests. He said what
needs to be looked at when utilizing the state's resources is the
fact that about $700 million more is being spent on state services
than what is being brought in through reoccurring revenues. He
stressed the state has to build its tax base if it is going to
continue funding education and other quality services which the
people of the state enjoy, appreciate, and want.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it was important to note there are three
areas in the state that do not have trouble funding local services,
including schools. Those areas include the North Slope Borough due
to the industrial tax base created by Prudhoe Bay; the Unalaska
area due to the large per capita industrial base at Dutch Harbor;
and Valdez, due to the large per capita industrial tax base in the
Valdez area. He stated other areas of the state having good
industrial tax bases are able to raise a tax base and provide
essential government services.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated those areas in the state not having a
tax base, create a tremendous problem for the rest of the state to
finance basic government services. He said the purpose of HB 261
is to encourage industry to look at Alaska's timber resources, to
tell the industry that the state is a reliable supplier of timber
resources, to encourage industry to come to Alaska and invest in
the state, and to let industry know the state will work with them
to harvest the resources to the benefit of everyone.
Number 311
BONNIE WILLIAMS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated
when driving to the teleconference, she drove past a refuge that is
used daily by Fairbanks citizens and tourists year round. The
refuge provides recreation, sports facilities, education, and
wildlife enhancement. She said the only reason the refuge exists
is because of a clear cut on a large amount of land. She stated in
regard to the FPA, multiple use has turned out to mean that
everything listed is expected to take place simultaneously and
continuously, except for logging. Logging is allowed only if it
does not interfere with any of the other uses.
MS. WILLIAMS felt there is a need to address and rephrase how the
state handles and deals with multiple use. She state HB 212 and HB
261 attempt to accomplish that. She said there has been an
enormous growth over the past two years, within state and federal
government, in creating and embracing a decision making process
which assures there will never be a decision. How logging is
treated fits right into that mode. She noted not making a decision
is making a decision. In case of logging, it is a decision
(indiscernible) of irresponsibility to carry it too far.
MS. WILLIAMS said the state has the responsibility to properly
manage its natural resources for the benefit of all Alaskans for
the maximum sustained yield as provided by the State Constitution.
She stated with the paralysis on logging, management is also
paralyzed. She noted the state does not manage logging,
(indiscernible) are not benefitted, and there is no effort at
sustained yield because there is no yield. The state has the
responsibility to provide a healthy economy, including good paying
jobs and to the extent possible, import substitutions for all those
goods being imported to the state from somewhere else.
MS. WILLIAMS said the state has the responsibility to produce, not
just consume. She urged the committee and the House to carefully
consider HB 212 and HB 261 and approve them both.
Number 377
TYLER CONKLE, REPRESENTATIVE, INTERIOR ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION,
testified via teleconference and stated Representative Williams'
bill, HB 121, and recent proposed amendments to HB 268 concerning
funding for timber salvage sales are an excellent attempt to ensure
a supply of timber and utilize an otherwise wasted resource. He
stressed the Interior timber industry is very concerned with the
slow response to HB 212. He noted HB 212 is crucial to ongoing
small operators, as well as any future development. He said
without a primary use statement included in the statutes,
specifically defining the state forests as a timber base for
industry, the industry will continue to be dependent on salvage
bills and increased funding to clean up a dying and bug infested
forest.
MR. CONKLE said the state forests are the only land classification
not protected by a primary use. He felt there is more concern with
parks and recreation than with jobs, families, and homes. He
quoted from HB 261, "The prime object of a management plan shall be
the highest and best use of the forest by timber production under
the principles of sustained yield. The management plan must
consider and allow the uses described in (g)..." He stated those
guaranteed uses within the state forests were once lifted in the
statutes. The 14 uses were deleted, without representation from
the Interior, during the revisions made to the FPA in 1990.
MR. CONKLE stated sustained yield and multiple use management are
the guidelines to sound management. He said timber harvesting will
not exclude any other use but it is important to not allow timber
harvesting to be excluded from the state forests original intent.
He urged the committee to support HB 212 and keep it moving through
the current session. He urged the committee to consider HB 261 and
keep it moving also.
Number 422
JIM DREW, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and said state
forest land is a resource that can provide both economic and social
benefits in Alaska. Currently, the sales of state-owned timber
that create new wealth and jobs in Alaska are bogged down in
excessive, time consuming, and costly procedures. He stated HB 212
or HB 261 will remedy this deficiency. He urged passage of the
legislation.
MR. DREW told committee members that modifications presented in
Sec. 2., AS 38.05.112(b) in HB 212 on page 1 are important because
they simplify procedures and reduce the time and cost for preparing
site-specific forest land use plans for individual timber sales.
At the same time, the preparation of required, regional forest land
use plans will provide determinations of immediate and long-term
effects of individual and collective activities on the timber base
and on other resources and uses now designated in AS 38.05.112(b).
MR. DREW said in Sec. 4., Sec. 38.05.113 in HB 212, new text is as
follows: "The timber sale schedule must provide a timeline that
identifies timber sales, their amounts, and their locations, and
must be sufficient to provide the public and the forest products
industry with a basis to comment on future sale offerings." He
recommended deletion of the words, "and must be sufficient." In
the absence of a clear definition of "sufficient," endless debate
on what is sufficient could lead to continuing delays and increased
costs to the state to administer timber sales.
MR. DREW stated Sec. 7., AS 41.17.200 of HB 212 on page 4 clearly
defines the purpose of the state forests in Alaska, i.e., multiple
use management. He said with 11 million acres of state land
classified for parks and recreation, it is entirely reasonable to
designate less than 2 million acres in the Tanana Valley State
Forest for multiple use management emphasizing the production,
utilization, and replenishment of timber resources while
perpetuating personal, commercial, and other beneficial uses of the
resources.
MR. DREW told committee members in his view, HB 212 could be
improved by adding to it Section 1., AS 38.05.115(a) as prepared
for reenactment in HB 261 on page 1. In addition, he felt HB 212
could be further improved by adding Section 6., AS 41.17.200 as
amended in HB 261 on page 3. He stated that addition would bring
private sector experience and judgement to forest management. If
private sector businesses are to produce the quantity and quality
of wood products necessary to operate in a competitive market, they
must have access to sufficient timber to make their enterprises
cost effective.
MR. DREW stated he strongly urges passage of HB 212 with the
modifications suggested, or the passage of HB 261. He said if
renewable timber resources are harvested on a sustained yield
basis, as proposed in the legislation, then values desired by
nonconsumptive users will be maintained.
Number 487
JOHNNY GONZALES, MAYOR, DENALI BOROUGH, testified via
teleconference and stated HB 212 and HB 261 are important to the
future of Alaska. He agreed with Representative Vezey's sponsor
statement. He said allowing forest timber to rot or burn and then
harvest it for human consumption is a horrible waste. Those who
harvest the timber cannot make a living because (indiscernible).
He expressed support for HB 212 and HB 261.
MR. GONZALES applauded Representatives Vezey and James initiative
in trying to do something with this product in Alaska. He thought
the state could produce timber in an environmentally sound manner.
He said the Denali Borough (indiscernible) and has been working on
this for approximately two years and hopes to receive the land
soon. The only tax base the Denali Borough has is the
(indiscernible) tax. He noted with the land to be received soon,
it is hoped there will be an opportunity to harvest the trees and
make money in order to support those things the borough is supposed
to support, particularly schools.
Number 547
DR. WILLIAM WOOD, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
thanked the committee for hearing HB 212 and HB 261, which will
bring the FPA in the right direction and reestablish the intent
(indiscernible) of the State Constitution. He said after carefully
reviewing HB 212 and HB 261, he endorses the statements made
earlier, especially comments made by Ms. Williams and Mr. Drew. He
is confident the state can make a wise use of the great resource
available. He stated when the accent is just on keeping what the
state has, there is a need to keep adding to the base. Otherwise,
the base will ultimately disappear. He urged passage of HB 212 and
HB 261.
Number 570
BOB ZACHEL, OWNER, ALASKA BIRCH WORKS, FAIRBANKS, testified via
teleconference and read a list of people who have requested a
negotiated timber sale due to the lack of logs for their business.
According to the Department of Forestry's records, there were
twelve negotiated sales in 1990, eight in 1991, three in 1992, four
in 1993, and three in 1994. The prediction for 1995 is three. He
said the list of names read contained 13, which means 10 people
will not have a timber sale.
MR. ZACHEL stated the FPA of 1990 took a system which did work and
changed it to a system that does not work. He pointed out that in
a public meeting on March 25, 1995, the DNR's Deputy Director of
Forestry, Marty Welbourn, was asked if it was possible, under
existing law, for people such as him to get timber sales on less
than a two years notice. The short answer was no. There are no
provisions in the FPA of 1990 for people like him. He felt the
reason there is no provision for him in the FPA of 1990 is because
he had no representation. He thought if he had been represented,
he would not be fighting for his economic survival.
MR. ZACHEL stressed if someone would show him who represented him
on the steering committee, he would publicly apologize and shut up.
He did not feel it was asking too much to have representation on a
piece of legislation that made major administrative changes in the
way he makes a living. He said HB 212 gives him back some of what
was taken away. He pointed out if any one person was given veto
power over timber sales, there would be no timber sales as there
will always be someone who wants to go for a walk, pick berries,
use the trails, etc., in the state forests. He stated he considers
all those uses to be legitimate uses. However, there must be some
place where the small operators have priority. At some point,
there is no compromise because he cannot cut down one-half of a
tree.
MR. ZACHEL stated currently the large companies export everything
they cut and the environmental groups want to save the rest for
large condominiums for spruce beetles. He felt local needs should
be first in line for the resource, yet they are not even being
considered. He said the Tanana Valley State Forest needs to be
managed to provide a wide range of timber sizes. He noted it is
not possible to get tree sized six inch logs from a spruce tree 20
inches in diameter or 2 by 12s out of a 10 inch tree. The trees
used today (indiscernible) make terrible dog sleds and vice versa.
MR. ZACHEL pointed out the salvage timber bill recently passed will
likely provide some short-term relief. However, what he does and
other small operators do is not all salvage. There is a need for
a steady, flexible supply of good quality logs. What they do can
and should stand on its own merits and have its own place in the
Tanana Valley State Forest. He said he considers what he does to
be economically, socially, and environmentally responsible. He
stated he is sending a list of names of most of his customers over
the past three years. The list contains the names of 105
individuals and 20 businesses.
MR. ZACHEL stated he needs logs. He said (indiscernible) but
denies access to the Tanana Valley State Forest to those who use
his products. He expressed support for HB 212 but has not taken a
good look at HB 261, so he will refrain from endorsing that bill at
this time. He commented the Tanana Valley State Forest is not
being seen as a means to balance the state budget for the next
twenty years. The development which needs to take place, needs to
be taken with an eye for sustainability and the advantage of the
local community and the general population of the state.
Number 630
PETE SHEPHERD, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated
he supports the basic intent of HB 212 and HB 261. He said the
bills contain significant changes in language essential to
management of timber resources in the Tanana Valley State Forest.
The intent is to elevate the sustainable harvest as the best and
most beneficial use, while assuring other uses are properly
prioritized. He pointed out the reasons for the changes are
obvious and have arisen from industries and resource management's
frustration with unsatisfactory law.
MR. SHEPHERD stated Interior forests are a product of disturbance.
The lack of catastrophic events in past decades, mainly wildfire,
has led to increasing decadence in forest stands and other
habitats. Consequently, the biotic potential of the Tanana Valley
State Forest has declined. He said professionally managed forest
harvests can substitute for the absence of wildfire regimes and
would result in earlier successional growth favorable to wildlife
diversity and abundance, along with regrowth and replenishment of
forests for the future.
MR. SHEPHERD said as a professional wildlife biologist, he is
concerned with the current lack of wildfire. Interior forests are
losing the capacity to sustain viable populations of many fauna.
Forest practices can be utilized to emulate natural successional
sequences which provide shelter and food for these species. He
stressed sound forest harvest practices should benefit many uses of
the Tanana Valley State Forest for perpetuity.
Number 654
ART GRISWOLD, NORTH POLE, testified via teleconference and stated
he was not present to speak as an expert on timber harvesting,
etc., but as a father of eight children. He said he is trying to
determine whether or not his children have a future living in the
state. He asked if the state does not develop some of its
renewable natural resources and get something going, he did not
know what is going to be left for his children to make a living
with. If these resources are not developed, the children will be
forced to leave the state to earn a living. He felt if the state's
natural resources are not developed and the industries that can
support Alaska's economy are not developed, the state will go down
the tube.
ED PACKEE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated he
strongly supports HB 212 and the concepts in HB 261. He thought
the two bills should be brought together as one bill. He felt
there should also be an attempt to bring together all of the
forestry related legislation into one place. At the timber meeting
recently held in Fairbanks, he thought everyone was at a bingo
parlor because the state forester kept talking about certain
regulations, using their numbers. He noted no one can keep track
of those numbers unless they are a politician or an administrator.
MR. PACKEE said he supports HB 212 because it has the original
intent Senator Bettye Fahrenkamp had when she created the Tanana
Valley State Forest legislation. He stated somewhere along the
line, an idea has developed that humans have no place in the forest
except to walk around and comment on its beauty. He noted a famed
ecologist and forester once stated that in an ecosystem management
approach, man has to be considered a part of nature.
MR. PACKEE pointed out in the beetle kill area on the Kenai
Peninsula, fire breaks are being put in. The fire breaks cost
$1,100 at a minimum to the public. He said if the timber would
have been logged, the only costs would have been the reforestation
effort.
TAPE 95-56, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. PACKEE said his idea of the Tanana Valley State Forest is not
a Fairbanks forest but the entire valley's forest. He objects to
outsiders trying to tell the state how to manage its land. He
stated there are many good environmentalists but when he hears an
organization publicly state one-half of their membership is from
outside the state and they are trying to dictate the management
style, he has a problem.
Number 017
BILL ROBERTSON, REPRESENTATIVE, GREATER FAIRBANKS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, testified via teleconference and expressed support for HB
212 and HB 261. He said the two bills provide minimal steps toward
creating a timber industry in Alaska. He reminded everyone the
state has over (indiscernible) million acres of land in Alaska. He
felt there should be a way to use a small part of the land to
benefit man. He pointed out man and woman are part of the
ecosystem, as well as all of the rest of the critters living on the
land. Important to the ecosystem is having means to sustain lives
and provide jobs. He stated the only means of sustaining the job
base is to develop the state's natural resources, including timber.
MR. ROBERTSON recalled Ms. Williams had commented on the stagnation
in government through planning, planning, planning and doing
nothing. He said in his former employment with the federal
government, he can attest that is true. He noted there was a joke
in his agency at one time that the way to stop action on any
particular project was to plan it to death with studies, public
meetings, etc. He urged committee members to pass HB 212 and HB
261.
Number 055
JOSH MOORE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated he
has twenty years of experience of gazing thoughtfully at mechanisms
(indiscernible). He said present regulations governing timber
sales in Alaska (indiscernible) and only the legislature can be the
mechanic to fix it. He suggested starting with AS 38.05.112 and AS
38.05.115. He stated he views the status quo as the seven
P's...perpetual public planning process postpones production
permanently.
LYNN LEVENGOOD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION (AWCA), testified via teleconference and stated
Alaska's Constitution requires management of the state's renewable
resources for maximum sustained yield. He stated that is an
affirmative requirement which not only allows harvest but requires
harvest for sustained yield. He said this mandate does not allow
the curtailment of logging based upon a perceived conflict with
other users. The Constitution calls for sustained yield, not a
perpetual argument and demagoguery.
MR. LEVENGOOD said the word conservation is defined as a wise use
of the state's resources. The preservationists desire is to
preserve everything and harvest nothing. They claim their
opposition is based upon a perceived risk for which they demand
guarantees that no harm will occur if harvest is allowed. He
wondered if those people do not send their children to school
because there is no guarantee of a safe arrival.
MR. LEVENGOOD stated the AWCA applauds HB 212 and HB 261 and the
efforts promoted in the bills. He said timber harvest benefits
wildlife. The large clear cutting of the past decade in the Delta
area has benefitted bison, moose, and waterfowl to great degrees
and the human resident population of Interior Alaska. He felt the
two bills need to be passed and move forward.
Number 129
SYLVIA WARD, REPRESENTATIVE, NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
(NAEC), testified via teleconference and expressed opposition to HB
212 and HB 261. Founded in 1971, NAEC represents 1,300 members and
remains committed to the sustainable multiple use of forests on
state lands and the perpetuation of those uses and values. She
said NAEC supports logging as one of the legitimate uses of the
forest, but believes that of the many potential and actual uses of
multiple use state lands, large-scale logging remains one of the
few which has the potential to destroy other interests, values, and
uses.
MS. WARD said HB 212 and HB 261 will only help Alaska repeat the
past mistakes of other communities. She felt the community is not
prepared to suffer from the consequences of ill-considered
decisions leading into the maw of large-scale export logging. She
stated the land and the outdoor lifestyles are treasured and there
is an intention to raise families there. For those reasons, NAEC
knows the committee will carefully consider the consequences of
allowing HB 212 and HB 261 to be enacted into law.
MS. WARD stated HB 212 is touted as a small loggers bill by its
sponsors, and although NAEC agrees that sections of the bill may
help small operations, the overall effect of the legislation will
be to open up forest land throughout the entire state to
destructive large-scale logging. NAEC objects to the provisions in
HB 212, Section 7, which change the primary purpose of the state
forests from one of multiple use, where all interests have equal
consideration in the planning, to timber production, where logging
interests will have primary say in the management of the forest.
MS. WARD told committee members the NAEC opposes Section 2 and the
last sentence of Section 9 of HB 212 which eliminate an important
requirement that the state use the best available data to evaluate
the cumulative effects of forestry activity on both trees and non-
timber resources. These sections prevent concerns over impacts to
salmon habitat from being addressed without complete scientific
analysis. She stressed without adequate funding for the Habitat
Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and
time to complete the research, this information will not be
available. She said it seems the legislature is unwilling to
ensure that this necessary funding is available.
Number 190
MS. WARD stated NAEC's greatest concerns are contained in Sections
4 and 5 which expand the DNR's ability to offer timber sales of any
size without the requirement the sale be listed twice in the annual
5-year schedule of sales, thus reducing awareness of the sale and
limiting public participation in the decision process. She said if
the true intent of HB 212 is to help small logging operations
acquire wood to be used in local high value-added products, the
NAEC believes this can be accomplished, without legislation, under
the existing statutes with a few minor changes in the regulations.
With that in mind, NAEC proposed the Community Woodlot Program at
the March 25 meeting in Fairbanks. The purpose of the proposal is
to explore alternatives to the present system of timber sales in
the Tanana Valley State Forest.
Number 217
MS. WARD said HB 261 makes sweeping changes to Titles 38 and 41.
The NAEC strongly opposes HB 261. NAEC objects to the language in
Section 1 which mandates consumptive use. She stressed non-
consumptive uses are equally important to the economy and character
of the state of Alaska. She said language in this section, which
limits public review and comment on timber sales, is unacceptable.
MS. WARD stated Section 6 of HB 261 adds new language to Title 41
which essentially requires the DNR to privatize the management of
state land. She pointed out state land belongs to each and every
individual in the state, and turning over the management to a few
individuals, with a profit motive in mind, is not sound,
sustainable resource management. She noted subsistence, sport
hunters, and fishermen all depend on and appreciate public lands.
MS. WARD said NAEC strongly opposes Section 7 which changes the
purpose of the state forests from one of multiple use to timber
management. She stated Sections 8, 9, and 10, when taken as a
package, set state land management back to the dark ages. These
sections gut any public involvement in forest planning and turn the
state forests over to a few, who would remove all of the trees for
profit with little or no return to the people of Alaska. She noted
tourism and fishing are economically more important to the state
and also mentioned their importance to the quality of life to the
people in the state. She stressed to remove any protection
provided to these other values in the planning process is nothing
short of foolish.
MS. WARD suggested the committee ask the DNR and the ADF&G to
prepare fiscal notes to reflect the costs of HB 212 and HB 261.
She said the amendments proposed on HB 212 by the DNR in the House
State Affairs Committee should be carefully considered. She noted
at the present time, there is broad opposition to large-scale
logging operations in the state's forests, including commercial and
subsistence fishers, small logging operators, Native interests,
local residents, and conservation groups. She stated it is
important to remember that both Titles 38 and 41 were products of
a long-term consensus process, and to gut those statutes with
special interest legislation is unacceptable to the people of
Alaska.
MS. WARD said NAEC believes the answer to any problems with the
management of the state forest land does not lie in special
interest legislation but in broad-based community planning efforts.
NAEC urges the committee to take a close look at the particulars of
the forest debate, support an expanded planning process with
meaningful public involvement, and oppose special interest timber
legislation.
Number 295
ED DAVIS, BOARD MEMBER, ALASKA WILDERNESS RECREATION AND TOURISM
ASSOCIATION (AWRTA), testified via teleconference and stated the
House Resources Committee should take a step back and use fresh
eyes to re-evaluate the assumptions on which HB 212 and HB 261 are
based. He said both bills view the timber industry as the only
public forest user with the ability to expand Alaska's economy and
create economic opportunity. He stressed the reality is the timber
industry is neither the only or the largest forest dependent
industry in Alaska.
MR. DAVIS said Alaska's tourism industry is larger than the forest
products industry in terms of jobs created (15,200 jobs versus
3,185 jobs), industry payroll ($275 million versus $140 million),
and economic value ($600 million in-state visitor spending and $900
million spent on travel to, from, and within Alaska versus $565
million in sales of forest product exports). He noted these
statistics are from the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development. He added that the sport/commercial salmon fishing
industry also creates a forest dependent industry which
collectively is larger than timber.
MR. DAVIS commented on whether or not the 1990 amendments to the
FPA was a consensus act. He said in some respects, Interior
Alaska's forest products industry had a more influential role over
the final language than did the original consensus team. He
pointed out Senator Bettye Fahrenkamp presented the amendments
which weakened the riparian zone requirements for forests north of
the Alaska Range. He noted he quizzed the DNR in regard to what
they remembered about the situation and they said the amendments
came from a very prominent member of the Interior logging community
who now works for the Tanana Chiefs. He felt that person did a
poor job of representing the small Interior loggers.
MR. DAVIS said HB 212 and HB 261 propose to unilaterally repeal the
consensus agreement which provides a statutory balance between
competing users of Alaska's public forests. Given the fact that
the small timber operators were not represented, AWRTA does support
reconvening a consensus type of agreement if any of the provisions
are going to be rewritten.
MR. DAVIS stated given Representative Vezey's record as a
trickster, he was shocked when Representative Vezey failed to
inform the press that HB 261 was this year's April Fool's joke. He
thought perhaps Representative Vezey was setting everyone up for
next year when timber issues will start heating up and come April,
Representative Vezey plans to inform everyone that they are
suckers. He will scold the environmentalists and tell the timber
industry they cannot have their cake and eat it too. He said if
all goes as planned, the comic relief will provide political cover
so the other timber bills slip through. He thought Representative
Vezey probably hopes nobody will notice that the fox is still
guarding the henhouse, even though HB 261 is dead.
MR. DAVIS said since HB 261 may not be a joke, it needs to be
recognized as a misguided attempt to give the timber industry
exclusive access to Alaska's public forests. The bill prohibits
managing forests to sustain nonconsumptive forest industries such
as tourism and fishing, even though these industries are larger
than the timber industry, they provide Alaska with a more diverse
and sustainable economic base, they are as forest dependent as the
timber industry, they have equal rights for equal access to
Alaska's public forests, and they would be seriously hurt by HB
261.
Number 379
MR. DAVIS stated only two provisions in HB 212 open major
roadblocks that inhibit small state timber sales for local timber
operators, i.e. exempting ten acre sales from the Forest Land Use
Plans and the five year plan. AWRTA concurs that the lack of small
state timber sales is a problem and that solutions should be on the
table for serious discussion and implementation. He pointed out
that most of the other major provisions in HB 212 are unnecessary
for expanding small timber sales. Rather, they weaken the public
planning process and multiple use criteria on which tourism
depends.
MR. DAVIS said HB 212 guts the statutory criteria granting all
state forest users equal access. He stated HB 212 requires
expensive scientific studies to protect state forests when logging
is incompatible with tourism. He felt that was inappropriate, and
places the burden of proof on the wrong forest users. He pointed
out scientific studies cannot identify conflicts between clear
cutting and tourism. Logging generates commercial rather than
biological/scientific conflicts with tourism. Scientific studies
cannot identify conflicts between clear cutting and recreation.
Logging generates aesthetic rather than biological/scientific
conflicts with recreational forest users.
MR. DAVIS stated if any group is to be assigned the burden of proof
regarding land use compatibility, it should be the consumptive
forest users, i.e. the timber industry. He said clear cutting
consumes forest resources and irreversibly displaces nonconsumptive
forest users, i.e. tourism, for several generations. By contrast,
multiple use can be abandoned at any time in forests managed for
tourism, recreation, and habitat to allow logging.
Number 404
BIRCH PAVELSKY, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA BOREAL FOREST COUNCIL
(ABFC), testified via teleconference and stated he is a log house
builder and carpenter and has made his living in those trades in
Alaska since 1971. He said ABFC opposes HB 212 and HB 261.
MR. PAVELSKY stated in regard to HB 212, pages 1 and 2, lines 13-2,
this deletion closes the eyes of forest management to the damage
one forest use may do to the others. Monitoring of forest use
cannot be discarded without risking the loss of biological
diversity and the diversity of forest uses. He urged the committee
to reinstate that deletion. He said regarding page 2, lines 13-16,
there is no proof that commercial timber harvest or related
activities, whatever they may be, maintain or enhance wildlife
habitat. ABFC asks that these lines be deleted.
MR. PAVELSKY noted in regard to HB 212, page 3, lines 3-8, ABFC
dislikes the erosion of the economic and environmental analysis.
The local loggers he buys logs and lumber from need to know the
DNR's long term plans, and the public needs information on which to
base its comments on those plans. ABFC wants those lines to be
kept in the statute. He said in regard to page 4, lines 9-12, the
assumption in these lines is the state will gain increased benefits
if timber production is emphasized over the many other uses of the
forest. He pointed out that has not been shown in the state or
elsewhere. He observed perhaps a neutral cost benefit analysis
would support the assumption, perhaps not. In the meantime, he
encouraged the equal use forest be kept.
MR. PAVELSKY said HB 212, page 5, line 15, is a killing blow to the
principle of multiple use forestry. He stated AS 38.05.112(d) is
there to promote and protect all forest uses, and ABFC wants it
retained. He stressed HB 212 needs a great deal of work as it is
based on assumptions, not facts.
MR. PAVELSKY stated in regard to HB 261, page 1, line 5 to page 2,
line 1, this version places too much power in the office of the
commissioner and assumes that human consumption is a priority and
will most highly benefit the state. He said that is not proven for
the current generation and puts at great risk the needs and desires
of future generations. He pointed out that AS 41.17.060 of the FPA
reads, "...forest land shall be administered for the multiple use
of the renewable and nonrenewable resources...in the manner that
best provides for the present needs and preserves the future
options of the people of the state." He stressed this paragraph of
HB 261 gives nonconsumptive uses, like tourism and recreation, a
back seat and effectively subsidizes consumptive industries. He
thought it may well be foreclosing on the opportunities and
benefits of nonconsumptive industries and uses.
MR. PAVELSKY said in regard to HB 261, pages 3 and 4, lines 29-1,
the call for sealed bids again takes power away from the public and
puts it in the commissioner's hands. He pointed out that public
oversight is healthy and essential to community forestry. Sealed
bidding attracts large corporations. He asked why has this course
of action been chosen? Where have sealed bids been shown
preferable to supporting smaller, local operators? What research
is there proving that sealed bids will benefit the state? Seeing
none, the ABFC requests those lines be deleted.
MR. PAVELSKY stated HB 261, page 4, Section 7, seems to call for a
more general, less detailed management plan. ABFC believes the
original language and intent should be retained. The proposed
language calling for timber production as the highest and best use
of a management plan wounds the multiple use principle of the FPA
and should be removed. He said pages 4 and 5, lines 31-1, asserts
that commercial timber harvest and "related activities" maintain
and enhance wildlife habitat. He noted that has not been proven
and in fact, the opposite may be true. He urged committee members
to delete those lines.
MR. PAVELSKY said in regard to HB 261, page 5, Section 10, ABFC
hopes the sections mentioned will be retained until good reason for
their repeal comes forth.
Number 466
DOUG BOWERS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated he
is a commercial/subsistence fisherman who lives four miles down
river from Nenana. He said his family also operates a modest lodge
operation at Tolovana, guiding fishing clients in the summer and
dogsled trips in the winter. He stressed his family's entire
existence is provided by the Tanana River basin and the surrounding
country. His family depends heavily on the subsistence resources
of the Tanana Valley.
MR. BOWERS stated the chum runs of the Yukon/Tanana River drainages
have been declining for the past 15 years. The fishermen of those
rivers, particularly the Tanana, have voluntarily given up fishing
time in an effort to build the stocks. He said the damage to fish
runs in Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and south coastal
Alaska is well documented. There is a lot of information published
on the effects of clear cutting on salmon streams in other areas
but nothing on the rivers in the Interior of Alaska. He stressed
the forest practices of the Tongass National Forest are not
sufficient to protect the Southeast Alaska salmon habitat. That
was stated in a U.S. Forest Service report presented to Congress.
MR. BOWERS pointed out the Tanana and upper Yukon rivers systems
are the spawning grounds for the salmon stocks for all of Western
Alaska. Some stocks are close to being endangered, particularly in
the Toklat River. He asked if the state can afford any damage to
the spawning and rearing habitat of the stocks already in trouble.
He said the Tanana/Yukon River system supports 1,500 fishermen--
multiply that times 3.8 (multiplier for wife and kids) and you come
up with 5,700 people directly connected to fishing from the border
to the coast. He noted that figure does not include processors,
waitresses in the cafe, the guy who sells boats, outboard motors
and gasoline, etc. He asked the committee if they want to be
responsible for an impact on a group of people extending all the
way to the mouth of the Yukon. He stated it says in the management
plan to have public input to the forest plans "proximate to the
sale area." He wondered about the neighbors down river from the
sale area.
MR. BOWERS stated the stands of forests shade the winter snowpack
and allows for a controlled run-off in the spring, as well as an
absorptive cushion for heavy rainfall in the summer. He asked what
will become of homes, businesses, and the fish runs as they are
washed down river by uncontrolled run-off? Will the logging
companies be responsible for those costs? He noted a friend of his
lives in coastal Washington near the Nooksack River. In years
past, the Nooksack flowed at a steady rate year round. He said
with clear cut logging going on near the headwaters, the river
floods with every rainfall and the salmon that previously came
there to spawn are there no more.
MR. BOWERS said 90 percent of the food chain of the river system
occurs within a couple of hundred feet of the river, as well as
controlling the water temperature for emerging fish hatchlings. He
noted the head forester from the Tanana Chiefs, Chris Maisch, told
him in a personal conversation that buffer strips mean nothing
along the river corridors because the river will take it anyway.
Mr. Maisch said they have tried leaving buffer strips and it seems
to make no difference. He asked how long have they tried this.
Over what periods of time? He stated they have only been
documenting these effects along the river and not in the spawning
areas for a short time and on a very small scale. He wondered what
effect it will have on everyone else two, five, and ten years from
now.
MR. BOWERS asked with all the new roads and previously unaccessed
lands which HB 212 and HB 261 would provide for, who will pay for
fish and game protection to patrol the increased hunting and
fishing pressure on lands that have been traditionally hunted by a
few local residents. He wondered what pressure will be brought to
bear on indigenous wildlife and fish stocks. He said there are
examples of these effects just outside Fairbanks which are well
documented. The ADF&G's Division of Habitat will be required to
look at the long term effects of logging on the habitat at a time
when their budget is being cut to the bone. He pointed out it is
not something that can be summarized in one report, one time. It
will take years of monitoring to do a proper evaluation.
MR. BOWERS said he has been told that a chipping plant requires
green logs for operation year round. He wondered if the Department
of Transportation will be asked to upgrade logging roads to year
round access. He was also told that it takes 500 to 600 truckloads
per day to supply one of these plants. He urged committee members
to remember the pipeline. At the peak of construction, there were
350 trucks a day leaving for the Slope and there was a lot of road
damage. He asked who will pay these subsidies to the timber
industry. He stated the Department of Environmental Conservation
will be required to monitor the water run-off, Clean Water Act, and
other environmental concerns. He questioned if the timber
companies will be subsidizing that cost.
MR. BOWERS told committee members the highly skilled loggers of
today will come from other parts of the country. Local residents
will be competing for unskilled labor in chipboard and plywood
plants. He said the self-esteem of people that once provided for
themselves will be reduced dramatically, requiring increased social
services which are already stretched to the limit. He asked if the
timber companies will pick up that tab. He wondered if the local
Native corporations want to compete with outsiders for jobs and
resources. He also wondered if the state wants to sell its natural
resources for less than market value.
MR. BOWERS asked if the logging corporations will be required to be
bonded. He hoped so. He said even used car salesmen and fish
processors in Alaska are required to be significantly bonded. His
dad always told him that when a man speaks of his honor, make him
pay cash. He stated bonding is a good business practice and if
companies are serious and sincere about doing business in Alaska
with Alaskan resources, then a bond will not be a deterrent to
their operation.
MR. BOWERS felt with HB 212 and HB 261, the legislature is setting
itself up for more subsidized industry. He encouraged committee
members to remember Delta Barley, Point McKenzie, and the Valdez
Grain Terminal. He wondered how many times it takes for the
legislature to realize that private industry will invest when the
time is right. He told committee members to keep in mind that
private industry needs to play by the state's rules, and they will,
if they want to play in the state's game.
Number 556
SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL),
stated AEL opposes passage of HB 212 and HB 261. She said the
Alaska Constitution provides for a sustained yield provision. She
believed the legal and judicial reviews have interpreted that the
state's multiple use definitions for public lands help balance the
sustained yield mandate the Alaska Constitution requires. She
pointed out when definitions in the Constitution are adjusted
through statute, and judicial review accepts those definitions for
multiple use, there is a ripple effect. If multiple use is
changed, many laws and users are affected. Unless there is an
understanding of the long range implications of those ripple
effects, the legislature is not doing its job.
MS. HANNAN stated HB 212 and HB 261 are cumbersome bills. They are
complex, and unless all the specific citations are known point by
point, it is difficult to determine what is going on. She said in
1979, the state of Alaska adopted its first FPA. By the mid-1980s,
it was clear the 1979 FPA had vastly underserved the citizens of
Alaska. She noted there had been a huge boom in the timber
industry. A lot of private land, mostly held by Native
corporations in Southeast Alaska, had suddenly increased in value
and outside interests, as well as the owners of that land, used it
to its fullest economic value. She pointed out at that time, the
state had no rights and no laws to require riparian protection.
Therefore, the standard practice was bank to bank clear cuts.
MS. HANNAN said by the mid 1980s it was clear that the fishing
industry in Southeast Alaska was being dramatically impacted by
timber harvest practices. She stated when Governor Cowper, who was
from Fairbanks and was elected as a Democrat even though he would
never say he was an environmentalist and the environmentalists
would claim him, said there was a need to look at the state's FPA
and put some time, energy and good minds behind it to resolve the
concerns about riparian protections, private land use and
development. She pointed out from the mid-1980s until 1991,
Senator Bettye Fahrenkamp chaired the Senate Resources Committee.
Every piece of the FPA had to go through the Senate Resources
Committee. She stressed Senator Fahrenkamp would turn over in her
grave if she heard constituents accusing her of letting their
concerns be left out of the process.
MS. HANNAN stated the Fairbanks citizens' concerns were helped by
the leadership of the legislature and the Governor at that time.
She stressed Fairbanks was not left out of the discussion, although
they may not have had a specific representative on the FPA steering
committee which was made up of 13 delegates. She said that
committee worked with extensive community group input. They had
hearings in every community affected by forest products, they had
hundreds of people serving on advisory committees, and their work
and work product was entailed.
MS. HANNAN pointed out no one ruled the process. Everyone agreed
over the five month push that an extensive compromise would be
reached. The members of the steering committee took what they
considered the consensus agreement and stood by that agreement in
total. She noted there were many pieces the committee did not
reach consensus on and the FPA did not proceed with. She stressed
the FPA passed in 1990 as a result of an extensive consensus
process and the agreement was if a plank was pulled out, the boat
sank, and there was a need to go back and look at it.
Number 618
MS. HANNAN said the concerns from the legislators from the
Fairbanks area are being wrapped together with a major rewrite of
a statewide piece of legislation. She stated the FPA does not just
affect how the two state forests in Alaska are managed. Rather,
the FPA affects how every acre of state forest land is managed.
She pointed out on the map, that all of the areas in blue are state
lands. The majority of those state lands are forested. Within the
blue area, there are two small areas which are state forests--the
Tanana Valley State Forest and the Haines State Forest. She
pointed out the majority of the Division of Forestry's sales are
not in the state forests but are on state forested lands.
MS. HANNAN stated in order for the committee to adequately discuss
the concerns coming from legislators from Fairbanks and HB 212 and
HB 261, there is a need to separate those two. She pointed out how
state forested lands and what is done with the two state forests
are different issues. The state forested lands are there to
provide for a multiple use directive of many economies. The
state's fishing, tourism, mining, dog mushing, etc., economies are
dependent on the state's forests. The AEL and most environmental
groups across the state are not opposed to timber harvesting. The
AEL wants healthy resources and wants them there for a long time.
She said those are assured by adequate public input.
MS. HANNAN told committee members the Tanana Valley State Forest
and the Haines State Forest were in the backyards of communities
that said above and beyond what the state requires for public
access notice and development, they were concerned about what was
happening in their intensely used backyard. The Tanana Valley
State Forest is an area which has heavy use, easy access and year
round tourism. If adequate public input is not provided for all of
the users of the Tanana Valley State Forest, a disservice is being
done to the future economic growth of the state.
MS. HANNAN said the problems small loggers in Fairbanks are finding
are real. They do not get sales which adequately fit the kind of
thing they would like. She noted the Division of Forestry spends
the same amount of staff time to lay out a ten acre sale, a one
hundred acre sale, a one million acre sale, or a ten million acre
sale. Each sale takes the same kind of procedural review. She
pointed out it does not say in the FPA, and there is nothing in
statute that restricts the Division of Forestry from putting out
smaller sales. However, the economies of scale have been that
there is a need to do big sales because those are the ones which
are the most responded to and have the highest profit margin.
MS. HANNAN stated if the legislature is interested in supporting
Alaskan small scale development, there is a need to give the money
to the Division of Forestry and provide intent language which tells
them the desire to encourage small scale sales. She stressed there
is no need to rewrite the FPA and there is no need to tie up the
industry with a multiple year, litigated rewrite and entanglement
which HB 212 and HB 261 would result in. If the intent is to look
at the forest products industry as a long range economic tool for
the growth of Alaska, there needs to be a good inventory of the
state forests. Every time the state wants to sell trees, there is
a need to determine what kind of trees there are and what they are
worth.
MS. HANNAN told committee members they would not dream of selling
a piece of land without appraising it, without looking at the
reason why someone is so anxious to buy it, and without knowing
what is under the ground. She said if there is not an adequate
state forest inventory and good science about how that forest
ecosystem affects the anadromous fish and the other economies
dependent on it, the right asking price cannot be received. She
stated that is all the citizens opposing HB 212 and HB 261 are
asking for. She urged committee members to keep the current review
in place and give the public a say in how trees are managed, which
is not to say something can be done to encourage a diversified
forest products industry in the Interior. She noted it is not
going to happen overnight and it is not going to happen with a
statutorily mandated directive. It has to happen with citizen
involvement.
MS. HANNAN said most of the people heard from are from Fairbanks.
The community of Fairbanks is very concerned about their ecosystem
and the Tanana Valley State Forest. She stated a disservice to
many other areas of Alaska will occur by rewriting the state's
forest laws because the citizens of Fairbanks have some concerns.
She noted she is not dismissing their concerns but contends that
the Division of Forestry needs some direction and leadership to
bridge the ill feelings the people in Fairbanks have and go
forward. She felt interim work will lead to that and the meeting
held on March 25 is the first step in a slow, and steady walk
forward to make sure that the twenty-first century is not a boom
and bust economy.
MS. HANNAN told committee members if the state is going to sell
trees because they have a good price, that is a shortsighted
decision which has a profit for the state. If there is a desire to
make a profit for three generations from the forest products
industry, there is a need to make sure that good science is in
place and the right price is being asked.
TAPE 95-57, SIDE A
Number 000
DICK HOFMANN, PRESIDENT, ALASKA TROLLERS ASSOCIATION (ATA),
expressed opposition to HB 212 and HB 261. He said trollers are
allowed to fish within the area confined by the Canadian border and
Cape Suckling, which is all of Southeast Alaska. The FPA is very
important to fishermen because it protects the rearing areas for
future stocks. The stocks are a replenishable and reusable
resource on a three to five year basis. Timber harvests are 60 to
100 years. He stated the fish return is much more regular and
there is a desire to see that protected.
MR. HOFMANN said fishing has always been an important part of the
Alaskan economy and should be in the future if the health of the
stocks can be maintained. He stated the FPA was a result of long
and intense negotiations by the logging, fishing, and environmental
industries as well as others. He noted perhaps there was an
oversight, as stated earlier, by those in support of HB 212 and HB
261 in that the Interior was not adequately represented.
MR. HOFMANN stated ATA's major concerns with HB 212 and HB 261 is
the exclusion of riparian protection. Both bills specifically
exclude any consideration of the damage which might occur through
harvesting practices and the resulting damage to the fishing
industry. Both bills place a tremendous amount of discretionary
power within the hands of the DNR commissioner. He said ATA does
not see where the DNR in the past has taken the concerns of the
fishing industry to heart. The DNR has been more interested in
pleasing the timber industry and making sure they can cut their
trees, even if it is to the detriment of the fishing industry.
MR. HOFMANN noted there has been a lot of talk by those in support
of the bills about the jobs HB 261 and HB 212 would create. He
said he supports more jobs and would like to see the value-added
processing occur within the state. However, he wondered if it was
right to trade jobs for jobs. If HB 212 and HB 261 are passed,
they will lead to the end of the fishing industry. He recalled an
earlier testifier said there are 13 businesses trying to get access
to timber cuts in Fairbanks. He pointed out there are 2,500 troll
permit holders in Southeast Alaska and that figure does not include
the gillnetters, the seiners, and other users of the resource.
MR. HOFMANN stated he has been fishing for approximately 18 years
and most of his time has been spent in the Icy Straights area. He
noted when he first began, the area was complete wilderness. Now
the eastern half of the straights are clear cut on both the north
and south sides. Last week, he was in Hoonah and there was a ship
there loading logs which had been cut on the northern side of Icy
Straights, and barged across six miles. He said the ships come in
and load logs up throughout the day.
Number 093
MR. HOFMANN said there are concerns being voiced by people in the
Interior in the timber industry who say they want a long term
commitment. He stated he can understand that desire as he would
like to have that commitment as a fisherman. However, it says on
his permit that there is no guarantee he will fish in any given
year. If there is a season, he will be allowed to fish.
Currently, there is a serious possibility that in the next few
years he will not be allowed to fish, not because of problems with
the fish stocks in the state but because of the problems which have
occurred in the Lower 48 where timber practices, such as what would
be enacted by HB 212 and HB 261, have occurred to the detriment of
those fish stocks.
MR. HOFMANN stated Representative James had some good comments when
she talked about the intent of HB 212. He felt Alaska needs to
process its resources and the small businesses are where it is at
for the country's economy. There is a need for small businesses
and those small businesses have to have access. However, he urged
committee members to not eliminate his small business in favor of
someone else's small business.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the testimony heard was by invitation
only. He said 45 minutes were allotted for those in support of HB
212 and HB 261 and 45 minutes for those in opposition to the two
bills. He stated the issues will be worked on during the interim
and a committee meeting will be held, possibly in Fairbanks in the
latter part of September, probably using the invitation only format
again. He added a full public hearing will be held some time next
year.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA expressed appreciation for the
meeting and the format used. She said there are many questions
unanswered. She stated having time to work on the two bills is
helpful as it will give her time to share the bills with her
constituents and get input on changes needed.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that teleconference sites
included Anchorage, Delta Junction, Fairbanks, Glennallen, Nenana
Ketchikan, Seward, Cordova, Homer, Mat-Su, Kenai/Soldotna, Tok,
Tanana, and Valdez.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|