Lynn Canal Conservation and two other conservation groups on Monday appealed the state’s Baby Brown timber sale, a planned clearcut of about 900 acres near the Klehini River.
Greenpeace and Oregon-based Cascadia Wildlands also are appealing the recent sale decision by the state Division of Forestry, saying it violates state law requiring foresters to use “best available data” and produce timber “without significant impairment of the productivity of land and water.”
“When properly considered, we believe the proposal would result in significant impairment of land and waters, in violation of (state law),” the appellants wrote.
Noting that logs from the sale would be exported whole, the appeal also says the sale would be bad for the economy and the environment. “It also means, in the long-term, less work for locals who use much smaller amounts of timber for milling, firewood and specialty wood products,” LCC president Eric Holle said in a press release.
The sale would be damaging to salmon spawning habitat and to tourism, Holle said. It would hurt tourism as about 80 percent of the cut would be visible to Haines Highway motorists.
Larry Edwards, a Greenpeace representative in Sitka, said the worldwide group has the same concerns as LCC, including that logs from the sale would be exported unmilled.
“It’s an excessively large sale the state hasn’t explained well as a need. It’s larger than any local mill can use. It’s an unnecessary conflict with economic considerations of the eagle preserve and lands around it that people use for a variety of things. We don’t think it’s compatible with multiple use,” Edwards said.
Division of Forestry regional forester Mike Curran approved the sale with a “best interest finding” on March 12. Forestry officials in Haines who drew up the sale this week said they believe the sale conforms to state law. “We agree to disagree, I think is the point,” said Haines-area forester Roy Josephson.
The groups assert that the state has “no basis” for its claim that the sale will add $300,000 to the state treasury and create 20 local jobs. The size of the sale – the largest from the local forest in more than 30 years – “would be a major shift in forest management policy” that’s not explained in the decision approving the sale, the groups said.
(The foresters said in a recent interview that the size of the sale is designed to give a buyer an option to purchase a large volume of timber – making a sale more economic – but also said it’s more likely to be sold as a number of smaller sales.)
The appeal also takes issue with the state’s finding that the “timber harvest should have a minimal impact on the tourism industry.” Foresters maintain that by creating boundaries that blend with the landscape, they may be able to reduce the visual impacts of clearcuts seen from the Haines Highway.
But appellants say the location, size and method of harvest of the cut “will degrade the scenic values of the Haines Highway National Scenic Byway….since 80 percent of the timber sale will be visible from the Haines Highway.”
They call for a review of visual impacts in relation to the borough’s comprehensive plan and the Haines Highway Corridor Partnership Plan.
Appellants are asking the state to withdraw its decision to go ahead with the sale, and to review it again including by comparing economic effects of small sales versus a large one and to analyze the cost of the sale to the state. They’re also asking the state to drop units from the sale visible from the highway and to “consult meaningfully” with state biologists.
The commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources has 10 days to act on the appeal. If no action is taken, the appeal is denied. Appellants then would have 30 days to file a suit against the state in Superior Court.