Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1994 03:33 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 22, 1994
3:33 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Miller, Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Drue Pearce
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Fred Zharoff
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chairman
Senator Al Adams
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the management and sale of state timber;
relating to the classification of state land that would preclude
harvesting of timber or would designate harvesting of timber as an
incompatible use; relating to the administration of forest land,
proposals for state forest, and the determination of sustained
yield; and providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 310 - See Resources minutes dated 3/2/94 and 3/16/94.
WITNESS REGISTER
Florian Sever
1706 Edgecumbe Dr.
Sitka, Ak. 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Don Muller
P.O. Box 1042
Sitka, Ak. 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Sean Damron
801 Lincoln St.
Sitka, Ak. 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Matt Kinney
P.O. Box 1540
Valdez, Ak. 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Terry Hermach
P.O. Box 2493
Valdez, Ak. 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Ed Davis, Professional Engineer
P.O. Box 1616
Fairbanks, Ak. 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Troy Reinhart
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman, #200
Ketchikan, Ak. 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 310.
Cliff Skillings
111 Stedman #200
Ketchikan, Ak. 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 310.
Clarence Furbush
HC 1, Box 6001
Palmer, ak. 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Dori McDannold
Valley Alaska Center for the Environment
HC 03, Box 8012
Palmer, Ak. 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Winslow Hoffman
P.O. Box 1842
Homer, Ak. 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Kathy Smith
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
1193 Cooper Ct.
Homer, Ak. 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
Larry Smith
1520 Lakeshore Dr.
Homer, Ak. 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Diane Jenkins
Tok Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 149
Tok, Ak. 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 310.
Ted Charles
P.O. Box 416
Tok, Ak. 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310.
Joe Young
P.O. Box 42
Tok, Ak. 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310.
Byron Bondurant
HC 1, Box 1258
Soldotna, Ak. 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Vesta Leigh
P.O. Box 905
Kenai, Ak. 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Al Gilliam
P.O. Box 124
Haines, Ak. 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Clair Soliman
General Delivery
Haines, Ak. 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Bart Henderson
Chilkat Guides
General Delivery
Haines, ak. 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 310.
Gretchen Goldstein
Box PPV
Port Protection, Ak. 99950
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Mike Mortell
Sumner Straits Fish and Game Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 53
Point Baker, Ak. 99927
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Mike Walleri, General Counsel
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 First Ave., Suite 608
Fairbanks, Ak. 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 310.
Chris Maisch
Tanana Chief's Conference
122 First Ave., Suite 608
Fairbanks, Ak. 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the CSSB 310.
Tabitha Gregory
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 6853
Ketchikan, Ak. 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Robert Mikol
P.O. Box 80106
Fairbanks, Ak. 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Randy Mayo
Stevens Village
General Delivery
Stevens Village, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Ronnie Rosenberg
841 9th Ave.
Fairbanks, Ak. 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310.
Terry Brady
2900 Boniface Pkwy.
Anchorage, Ak. 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310.
Ken Freeman
7604 Snow View Dr.
Anchorage, Ak. 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 310.
Cliff Eames
Alaska Center For the Environment
519 W 8th, #201
Anchorage, Ak. 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Loisann Reeder
Susitna Valley Association
9600 Slalom Dr.
Anchorage, Ak. 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310 and CSSB 310.
Jim Minton
Flat Horn Lake Property Owners Association
P.O. Box 190121
Anchorage, Ak. 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Jim Seely
Redshirt Property Association
4330 Seely Ct.
Anchorage, Ak. 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310 and CSSB 310.
Jim Page
Seward Forest Products
563 E 34th Ave., #200
Anchorage, Ak. 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 310.
Daryl Doutent
P.O. Box 38
Chugiak, Ak. 99567
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310 and CSSB 310.
Ron Brooks
P. O. Box 10916
Fairbanks, Ak. 99760
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 310.
Debbie Miller
1446 Hans Way
Fairbanks, Ak. 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Albert Pagh
2849 Parks Hwy.
Fairbanks, Ak. 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 310.
Lane Thompson
P.O. Box 80368
Fairbanks, Ak. 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 310.
Jan Dawe
P.O. Box 82003
Fairbanks, Ak. 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Sean McGuire
351 Cloudberry
Fairbanks, Ak. 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Gabe Roden
P.O. Box 460
Delta Junction, Ak. 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Douglas Yates
P.O. Box 221
Ester, Ak. 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
Larry Paquid
966 Gold Mine Trail
Fairbanks, Ak. 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 310.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-24, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN MILLER called the Resources Committee meeting to order at
3:33 p.m. and announced SB 310 (STATE/PRIVATE/MUNI TIMBER
OPERATION/SALE) to be up for consideration.
SENATOR FRANK, sponsor, said they had prepared a CS as a result of
previous testimony. They had strengthened the public process by
adding another public comment period of 90 days. It insured that
all FMA's would be public information once the public comment
period began. It clarified the environmental protections that were
intended by requiring that FMA's be consistent with existing land
use plans and that they retain site specific land use plans. A cap
was put on the small sale exemption of 1 million acres per region.
Biannual operating plans are required so the Department would have
an ongoing role in any FMA that was approved. Operating level and
inventory plans are also required under an FMA. The CS also
clarified the protection for other forest uses. He said they
removed provisions of the bill not essential to the central purpose
including the requirement that any closures of more than 640 acres
come back to the legislature. The reforestation and modifications
were taken out, because they were confusing. They retained the
activities and lifestyles wording that was important to the public.
They also retained the requirement that timber sales be on the five
year sale plan for two years in advance.
RICK SOLEY, Aide to Senator Frank, ran through the CS with the
Committee.
TOM BOUTIN, Director, Division of Forestry, said the Department did
have some problems with SB 310 because it impacted the public
processes in Title 38. The CS takes care of those concerns.
Section 1 modifies what must be considered in a forest land use
plan only in the instance of an area where there is a plan already
in place. Section 2 allows an exemption from 38.05.113 for sales
of 500,000 board feet or less. Section 3 gives the Department the
ability to do long term negotiated timber sales.
SENATOR MILLER asked for a list of the timber sales in the last
five years. MR. BOUTIN said he didn't have that information with
him, but the state has been averaging 25 million - 30 million board
feet per year, about 100 sales per year.
FLORIAN SEVER, Sitka, said SB 310 as amended still creates a
monumental boondoggle. It's a sweetheart deal struck between the
Commissioner of DNR and whoever he wishes to give a long term
contract to. This bill will cause more trouble than it's worth.
It should be withdrawn.
DON MULLER, Sitka, said SB 310 ranks right up with the worst of the
bills. It is being put forth by a desperate timber industry.
Please vote against this bill, he said.
SEAN DAMRON, Sitka, said SB 310 is an embarrassment. Timber
harvest can be done better in a sustainable manner. There should
be consistency with state and federal lands.
MATT KINNEY, Valdez, said he has his own lodge business and that he
was able to harvest his logs at the mile 70 beetle kill. He said
the land surrounding his lodge is state land which isn't under any
management plan at all. He is concerned that the state will come
in and harvest the timber. He said this bill has no process for
him to have input into what happens to the surrounding land.
TERRY HERMACH, Valdez, opposed SB 310, because it's a very poor
utilization of state land. Cutting the beetle kill spruce is fine,
but going into healthy tracts of timber to cut for export to the
orient is a foolish attempt, at best, to utilize the land, he said.
Number 416
ED DAVIS, Professional Engineer, said he is a recreational user
depending on the remote and wild character of Alaska's resources .
He personally knows several people who dedicated 3 years of their
lives to developing the agreements on which the Forest Practices
Act was conceived. This Act reflects painstaking consensus
building efforts by five representatives of the forest products
industry, five representatives of other forest users, and including
representatives from DNR, ADF&G, DEC, DGC, and DCED. They wanted
to avoid the divisive and bitter disputes that have plagued elected
officials in the Pacific Northwest. They envisioned a responsible
timber industry that would have wide spread support throughout the
communities in which they are located. They sought agreements by
consensus rather than by disputes and endless court decisions. SB
310 is designed to benefit only one of the many users of our
state's forest. Both versions of SB 310 represent bad public
policy, MR. DAVIS said.
In reference to Mr. Boutin's comment that he had seen some sites in
the Fairbanks area which would grow 20,000 board feet per acre. He
said, if you take a look at the 1984-85 inventory, there is only
18,800 acres up there that fit that description. That would be
gone very quickly under the five year plan which would cut 14,300
acres per year. No other lands up there come close to having that
volume of timber.
TROY REINHART, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
supported CSSB 310. He said they realized there are many
misconceptions regarding this proposed legislation. They feel the
CS addresses the public concern with the earlier bill and
strengthens the state's ability to manage its forest lands. It
will allow DNR to respond to forest health problems and bring
positive returns to the state treasury. It will result in a
sustained yield harvest of state forest land and allows for public
input.
CLIFF SKILLINGS, Ketchikan, said SB 310 provides the potential for
increased wage jobs and employment in remote areas where employment
levels have historically been low.
Number 516
CLARENCE FURBUSH, Matsu, said he objects very much to SB 310,
because it doesn't give opportunity to private individuals to own
and manage land resources. This would increase unemployment and
welfare.
DORI MCDANNOLD, Valley Alaska Center for the Environment, opposed
SB 310. It is a farce, she said, the basic premise being use of
FMAs which are not acceptable. She said the state does not make
money on large timber sales.
WINSLOW HOFFMAN, Homer resident, opposed CSSB 310. All uses of the
forest have been swept aside in the attempt to extract timber and
there is no benefit to the state to enter into forest management
agreements, he said.
KATHY SMITH, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, still opposed SB
310. They remain concerned with the long term contracts and FMAs
which have not been successful elsewhere. They are a very
inefficient way of managing timber resources. The rotation period
on regeneration time of second growth forest in Alaska is 80 or 120
years plus, so there is no incentive for timber companies to make
any investment in reforestation under FMAs. Basically SB 310 gives
the timber to timber barons and the Alaska Forest Association.
LARRY SMITH, Homer resident, said he was a member of the Forest
Practices Review Steering Committee. He said there are some things
in SB 310 that shake the Agreement. He said large timber sales
tend to make timber less available to the small guys. The
provision in the state law requiring primary processing of round
logs fell to a constitutional challenge. He suggested getting a
good legal analysis of the FMAs and how they would work in the
U.S., because Canadian law is totally different from American law
on questions like this. Otherwise, our experience with the four
large timber sales in the state have all been disasters.
He noted there are some improvements in the new version of the
bill, but there are also somethings wrong. Section 1 needs to
assert that coastal districts need notice of proposed sales.
Although in section 2, 1 million board feet per region might be a
good cap, 500,000 board feet is too large to allow in a negotiated
timber sale in the Division of Forestry.
TAPE 94-24, SIDE B
Number 549
DIANE JENKINS, Tok Chamber of Commerce, said the Tanana Valley
Basin is comprised of over 29 million acres, roughly 15 million
owned by the state, 10 million owned by the feds, and 2.3 million
are owned by native communities. They are talking about
approximately 1.5 million acres to be harvested and managed. There
are still 27.5 million acres left in the Basin, using just 5% for
timber harvest. She didn't think they would be cutting out the
small scale companies by letting the bigger companies cut the
larger tracts. She supported CSSB 310.
TED CHARLES, Tok resident, supported the CSSB 310, because it would
provide more jobs for the Tanana Valley.
JOE YOUNG, Young's Timber, Inc., supported SB 310. He said the
world wide environmental concept calls for sustainable utilization
which is what SB 310 does.
BYRON BONDURANT, retired agricultural civil engineer and educator,
said he spent considerable time in international development. He
felt the proposed CSSB 310 was just cosmetic, and still flawed in
content and context. It is not a management development bill, but
merely a giveaway bill. There is nothing value added about it. He
said it will do nothing but create a few temporary jobs and line
the pockets of big business.
VESTA LEIGH, Kenai resident, asked if the uses in section 1 were
listed in manner of importance. MR. BOUTIN said there was no
priority. She thought SB 310 was a poor representation for all the
people of Alaska. It would make a few people very rich and give
others jobs, but the whole population would be losing.
AL GILLIAM, Haines resident and member of the Alaska Wilderness,
Recreation, and Tourism Association, said his business revolves
around guiding a variety of people into and around the Haines State
Forest. His business would be severely impacted by passing SB 310.
He said it pulls the rug out from under people who have built their
businesses based on the multiple use of our lands.
Statistics show a direct link between the amount of timber removed
from the Chilkat Valley and a sharp decline in the number of
subsistence harvested moose and fur animals from the Haines forest,
MR. GILLIAM said.
CLAIR SOLIMAN, testifying from Haines, said she didn't see how they
could hold a hearing on something without adequate notice.
BART HENDERSON, Chilkat Guides, said he was concerned there would
be local input into any long term large scale sales.
Number 389
GRETCHEN GOLDSTEIN, Port Protection, said the proposed CSSB 310 is
still not acceptable for our state needs. Section 2 on page 2
should be omitted, because the public should review all timber
sales regardless of size. The state should not enter into any long
term Forest Management Agreements.
MIKE MORTELL, Sumner Straits Fish and Game Advisory Committee, said
they voted unanimously to oppose SB 310. Their main concern would
be destruction of local salmon streams and wildlife habitat. He
said there's hardly anything left on the lower end of Prince of
Wales Island where he lives. What little fringe they have left is
used for subsistence and fishing. He said this bill wouldn't
create any jobs for their community. A bunch of guys had come up
from Oregon and logged Prince of Wales and then they went home
leaving the residents with the aftermath.
MIKE WALLERI, General Counsel for Tanana Chief's Counsel, and Chris
Maisch, Director of their Forestry Program, joined the Committee.
MR. WALLERI said the CS addressed a number of the issues raised in
their earlier testimony. It reinstates multiple use designations,
it protects private land from trespass by timber access roads, it
reinstates the mandated planning processes for areas covered by
area and forest plans, it continues the avenues of public input
into the forest planning process. Additionally, the inclusion of
a number of considerations the Commissioner must weigh in the
evaluation of FMA's is in some ways an improvement over existing
law providing for greater protections of other uses, in particular
the protection of subsistence habitat and those types of issues.
They still have a few concerns regarding sustained yield, notice on
the small tracts, and emergency sales coordination of the timber
sales and state processing, below cost sales, consistency with
local government plans, and the length and deactivation of the
FMAs.
MR. WALLERI explained a 20 year length for FMAs is probably
appropriate given the fact that plant equipment will be fully
depreciated in 10 - 15 years. The extension of another 20 years
has some negative downside in that it actually subsidizes fully
depreciated equipment and plants, as a disincentive to future
investment in the industry. The only reason for a 40 year
agreement would be to pass on an FMA to your children which isn't
really a sound policy.
The bill does not deal with deactivation of an FMA in any detail.
They are very concerned that there will be residual obligations
after the term of the FMA, like reforestation, stabilization, and
monitoring. They think the bill should specifically authorize and
require that the provisions of the FMA address those concerns and
specifically authorize the Department to require a bond as a method
for insuring residual obligations are met under an FMA.
MR. WALLERI said that they continue to be concerned about an FMA
resulting in a below cost sale which is just not economic sense.
The FMA should require that they pay for themselves and they not
result in a net loss of revenue to the state.
MR. MAISCH specifically addressed the sustained yield issue. The
bill continues to define sustained yield to allow harvest on a
declining yield basis as defined currently in Title 41. Interior
forest operations require longer rotation cycles than in the
coastal forests and they feel that sustained yield should be
defined as "even flow." Such harvest may adversely affect coastal
harvest, so they propose amending the definition of sustained yield
as it relates to just the Tanana Valley State Forest lands and to
use the definition used by the Society of American Foresters:
"Sustained yield shall mean the yield that a forest can produce
continuously at a given intensity of management providing
continuous production so planned to achieve at the earliest
practical time a balance between increment and cutting."
They believe the state should continue to give notice (page 2, line
18) to local communities on small sales.
On page 4, line 4 of the CS the greatest advantage of FMAs to local
communities and the industry is they would allow coordination of
timber sales and encourage instate timber processing. Neither
factor is considered by the Commissioner in evaluating FMA
proposals. They believe these criteria should be included in the
factors to be considered in the actual evaluation process, MR.
MAISCH said.
Number 217
SENATOR ZHAROFF asked if the proposed definition of sustained yield
would reflect on lands in the Tanana Valley State Forest only. MR.
MAISCH answered yes. SENATOR ZHAROFF asked if they do support this
bill now. MR. MAISCH answered that they were clearly opposed to
the first bill, but they haven't formally developed a position on
the CS. The sustained yield issue is probably the most critical to
them.
TABITHA GREGORY, Ketchikan resident representing the Alaska
Environmental Lobby, opposed SB 310, because FMAs or negotiated
long term contracts effectively reduce public oversite on large
tracts on state forested lands. FMAs favor a large scale timber
industry dominated by a single company over a more diversified
timber industry shared by numerous smaller companies. This makes
the Alaskan economy more vulnerable to the boom and bust cycles.
This bill disregards many other uses of forest land. The state has
an obligation to protect the other activities. She said that
Alaskans have worked hard to expand their economic base. Why at
this point are some individuals encouraging our timber industry to
move backwards away from diversification and into a single product
market, she asked. If a large business comes in and gets the
community to rely on it and then has to close for some reason, as
with the mill in Sitka, the community then again has big problems,
she stated.
TAPE 94-25, SIDE A
Number 001
ROBERT MIKOL said he was concerned with the FMAs and long term
contracts, because they could very well lock up multi-land use.
People in the interior feel the bill will threaten wildlife
habitat, because trees in the interior are slow growing. Much of
the land is easily accessible by road and are prime grounds for
subsistence, hunting, etc. This bill does nothing to support
sustainable jobs. These are generally considered low scale, low
wage, and unattractive jobs. The Department of Labor reports that
approximately 40% of these jobs go to non-resident workers.
RANDY MAYO, Chief, Stevens Village Counsel, testified against SB
310 and amendments for all the reasons mentioned. He said the
Tanana Valley is already heavily impacted by the Haul Road. There
is little regard for the people who live there or the resources.
RONNIE ROSENBERG, Fairbanks resident, said that SB 310 ties the
Commissioner's hands by mandating the development of commercial
forest land under principles of sustained yield as a priority. She
said FMAs don't work where they have been tried. It is extremely
foolhardy to enter into something that will just perpetuate the
boom and bust economy.
TERRY BRADY, Special Consultant Forester, supported CSSB 310. He
would like it to require bonding in case there is a default in the
contract. We are facing the worst disaster of the century with the
bark beetle infestation and SB 310 would give the state tools to
deal with it.
CARL PARKER, Resource Development Counsel, supported SB 310. FMAs
are a desirable tool in accomplishing timber development. It would
help diversify the timber industry. The CS is a much stronger
version. It is important to recognize that all provisions of the
Forest Practices Act, including fish habitat, water quality, and
buffer zone considerations would apply to the FMAs.
KEN FREEMAN, Anchorage, supported SB 310, because it encourages
reasonable, responsible timber development, and increased long term
high paying jobs for Alaskan citizens in the forest industry.
Forest Management Agreements are an example of good public policy,
because the government owner can dictate the specific conditions of
a timber harvest. They also provide incentive for private industry
to invest in proper forest management and local manufacturing
facilities while shifting the cost to the private sector.
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, opposed CSSB 310.
FMAs are a 20-40 year lock up of a single resource for a single
purpose that is incompatible with most other uses. They don't
think the purposes of the state forests should be changed.
Emergency sales should not be exempt from the 5 year schedule
requirements. Regarding the spruce bark beetle infestation, he
said that has been exaggerated. He said state biologists have been
telling us consistently that the impact of the beetle will have
little or no impact on the resources.
LOISANN REEDER, Susitna Valley Association, opposed both SB 310 and
CSSB 310. Jeff Parker, Alaska Sportfishing Association and Trout
Unlimited, asked her to state for the record that his organization
opposes this legislation also.
MS. REEDER said the CS addresses some of the concerns voiced at
previous hearings. It still has 3 major areas of concern: the
exemption of small sales from the 5 year schedule, use of FMAs, and
large scale long term timber harvesting.
JIM MINTON, Flat Horn Lake Property Owners Association, highlighted
some surveys and gave the Committee an overview of the Susitna
Guideline Project. Participants cited importance of the recreation
and tourism industry to the Valley economy and quality of life. He
asked how many times the public had to keep saying there is no
question that FMAs advance timber harvesting as a priority use of
the land.
Number 340
JIM SEELY, Redshirt Landowners Association, opposed SB 310 and CSSB
310. He testified that this legislation is so important that it
should go back to the voters. Town meetings should be held and
people should be asked if this is what they want in their forest.
JIM PAGE, Seward Forest Products, said that FMAs work. He has seen
them work in Canada, Sweden, and Norway. He said the mill in
Seward has yet to receive any state wood. He supported CSSB 310,
because it starts to manage the state's forest resources which are
renewable. Under section 2 (c) he didn't see the reason to have a
1 million board foot threshold. It should be based on the
biological needs of the forest.
DARYL DOUTENT, Anchorage, opposed SB 310 and CSSB 310. The effect
in either case will be of increasing timber harvest at the expense
of other uses. Any large scale expansion or long term contracts
are inappropriate.
RON BROOKS, Fairbanks, said beetle kill forests do have an effect
on hunting, fishing, recreation, and tourism. He said this bill is
excellent, because it does address forest health. He said it is
just the first step toward economic development in the Tanana
Forest.
DEBBIE MILLER, Fairbanks resident, opposed CSSB 310. She was
against 20 year FMAs. Looking at Canadian statistics, 65% of the
boreal zone in Canada have been logged. 50% of those logged areas
have not regenerated. We are considerably farther north than
northern Alberta and she questioned whether clear cutting is right.
ALBERT PAGH, Fairbanks, said he has been in the sawmill and logging
business for 24 years. He supported CSSB 310. He thought local
industry was protected in the bill. He thought there should be a
bond requirement equal to at least three years of reforestation.
LANE THOMPSON, Civil Engineer, said he was in favor of a healthy
sustainable logging industry in the interior. He said he would
like to have more time for public comment on this important issue.
He thought they needed an inventory of the state timber before
making any decisions.
JAN DAWE, Fairbanks resident, said she needed more time to study
the bill and to receive feedback from the forestry professionals
she has contacted. She said the CS is an improvement over the
original bill. She is still concerned with the public process.
She does oppose the CS to SB 310, because it favors FMAs and makes
production of commercial timber the higher purpose of a state
forest.
SEAN MCGUIRE, Fairbanks, said people need more time to figure this
bill out.
TAPE 94-25, SIDE B
Number 580
He said there is a very strong negative reaction to large scale
clear cuts in the interior. This bill is specifically tailored to
open the door to large scale clear cutting. MR. MCGUIRE said 20
year contracts is the key to letting in the large timber
corporations. There is a lot of support for small scale local
timber harvest, but the division comes when they talk about large
scale cutting.
GABE RODEN, Delta Junction, said they needed more time to consider
the CS. There are still a lot of things they can't accept in the
Substitute bill. She said they needed to remember the timber that
will be harvested on University and Mental Health lands and add
that to what will be harvested under SB 310. The forest needs to
be managed for multiple purposes. Sustained yield should meet
present needs and those of generations to come. Timber cutting
should go to local residents. Low cost contracts on timber should
be eliminated. There should be continued use of existing trails
and access routes within state forest for subsistence use.
Number 524
DOUGLAS YATES, Ester resident, appreciated the opportunity to
testify, but he saw little to recommend this effort to mandate
large scale logging in the state forest. Opening forests to FMAs
will promote a level of harvest that will in all probability
squeeze small loggers out of the market. This legislation favors
powerful outside interests over those Alaskans that are currently
making a living from Alaska's resources. He asked if they had
given any consideration to the burgeoning population in Alaska's
villages or to what will occur when subsistence resources are
reduced in the areas of logging clear cuts. The provision for
public input appears in a superficial way with no real powers to
affect decisions on the way areas are cut. The bill gives the
Commissioner complete discretion to make decisions regardless of
public comment.
Number 486
LARRY PAQUID, Fairbanks resident, said FMAs still concentrate too
much power in the hands of the Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources, a politically appointed position. SB 310 makes
development of commercial forests the most important use locking
out all the other uses. He thought the exempt emergency sales
needed to be defined.
Number 465
SENATOR MILLER thanked everyone for their testimony and adjourned
the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|