No rationale to amend timber harvest

To the editor:

It has come to my attention that a terrible injustice is about to be foisted upon the Mat-Su Borough’s natural resource and forest management program, and the residents of the borough.

Proposed ordinance No. 13-019, which amends MSB 23.20.040 Annual Allowable Cut, is scheduled for assembly introduction Jan. 15. The IM accompanying this proposed ordinance provides no background or rationale for amending the annual allowable cut. At the same time, it eliminates Chijuk Creek Natural Resource Management Unit timber from calculations of the borough’s annual allowable cut, so the timber from that unit can be made available to improperly settle an old lawsuit.

Obtaining this block during the selection process by the borough provided the best inventory of harvestable timber in the borough’s ownership. Calculation of the borough’s current annual allowable cut was based on a scientific inventory and application of professional judgment by several knowledgeable foresters, not from some number grabbed from the sky or political process, such as the proposed ordinance change seems to be is all about.

Before they make hash out of the Natural Resource Management Unit Plan, completed with a great deal of public input and assembly approval only a few years ago, they should revisit all of the reasons they might be considering for making this change. I’m thinking that one of the twisted reasons may be to settle an issue concerning past timber harvest on the Chijuk unit and to make the borough attorney’s job more simpatico.

In the late 1990s, Charles Nash was issued a contract to harvest timber in the entire Chijuk block. My memory is skimpy on all the details of the contract; however, he was required to harvest several hundred acres a year. He never came close to harvesting that amount. The borough worked with Nash by amending the contract several times to lower the amount to be harvested and allow time extensions. He never even harvested the lower amounts. He continually offered up worn out excuses why he couldn’t get the timber cut and removed.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the contract was closed for noncompliance. He appealed the closure to the board of hearings and appeals, but walked out because the board would not grant him an extension of time to bring in witnesses to bolster his case. He then appealed to the District Court, which found in the borough’s favor. However, he appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court in part because he was not given ample opportunity to be heard by the Board of Hearings and Appeals at the administrative appeal level. The state Supreme Court ruled that the District Court should have ruled on that matter and never got to the issue whether Nash was out of compliance on his contract. It now appears that the present borough attorney has decided that they should simply settle out of court, even to the extent of reinstating the contract.

Yeah, I guess it is easier to give up rather than stick up for what is right.

Reinstating the contract will have long-term negative impacts on resource management actions into the future. As a professional forester with a 35-year career as a natural resource manager, it is my professional opinion that it is ludicrous for any further consideration of proposed ordinance No. 13-019. In the name of sound resource management, it is important that Nash’s contract remain closed and that the sustained yield requirements of the state Constitution, the state’s Forest Practices Act, borough code and the Natural Resource Management Unit Plan be complied with.

I think that if they take a hard look into the case file and issues surrounding this ill-advised ordinance they can only come to the same conclusion.

Bishop T. Buckle

Wasilla

Editor’s note: This letter was sent to Mat-Su Borough Manager John Moosey, Assembly members Vern Halter and Warren Keogh and the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman.