Alaska DNR Forestry: Haines State Forest RMA Project Update Meeting – October 10, 2024

Two people in the lobby recognize one of them? Okay. Yeah. Everybody on our team ready to go ahead and get started? Okay.

Yep.

Okay. Well, welcome to a virtual public meeting for the public review period of the Haines State Forest Resource Management Area Management Plan amendment. Thanks for making time to join us, folks that just came in from the lobby. And I'll wait a couple more minutes before I start off with introductions. And we've got a short presentation, but I'll just wait two minutes maybe for any other folks to log in before we get started.

Sa.

And cut one more.

Okay, I think we can go ahead and get started. And as folks join on, can one of the Division of Forestry staff help me with admitting from the lobby?

Okay. Well, thanks, everyone, for making time to join us this evening. My name is Geneva Preston. I'm a forest planner with the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection. This is a virtual public meeting that's being held as part of the public review period for the draft Haines State Forest Management Plan or Haynes State Forest Resource Management Area Management Plan.

I'll let you, the other Division of Forestry and Fire Protection staff introduce themselves and then we'll roll into a short presentation before opening up for questions or comments. So, Jeremy, do you want to start us off with introductions? Sure. Evening, everybody. My name is Jeremy Dowse.

I'm the state forester and the director of the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection. And I'll kick it over to Greg.

Good evening. I'm Greg Palmeri. I'm the coastal regional forester and manager of the Haynes State Forest for some time here before that.

Good evening. I'm Trevor Dobell. I'm the statewide forest planner and Cooperative Forestry programs manager, and I'm out of Anchorage.

All right, thanks, folks. I will ask that y' all bear with me as I get the presentation queued up here. Sometimes it can take a couple seconds to start working.

So is everyone able to see the opening slide?

I can. Got it, Geneva. Thank you. Alrighty. So welcome to this public meeting for the public review period of the draft Hane State Forest Resource Management Plan.

This meeting, I'll give a brief overview of some of the policy concepts that are related to each other. Land use designation in the state forest and some of the shifts that we're seeing in this draft, as opposed to the version, the last version that was published in 2002. I'll give a little bit of information about the next steps in the planning process, and then the majority of the meeting will be open for comments or questions from folks who have joined us this evening. So a little bit of background before we dive into each of those land use designations. There are four within the Haines State Forest Resource Management Area.

Lands are designated for resource management, public recreation, wildlife habitat or forest land uses. And one of the most significant changes between the plan that was published in 2002 and the current amended draft is a change in policy that allows timber sales to be a potential use in the public recreation or wildlife habitat lands. And so this presentation is kind of focused on some examples of how those activities might manifest in the future if timber harvest were planned on those each land designation. So I have some summary information in this presentation, but I want to really emphasize to folks that the way to really see the comprehensive management goals and intentions is to look to the full text of the plan. And this is not a comprehensive representation of that.

And that plan is available on the project website. Maybe one of the division staff who's not presenting can drop a link to the project website in our meeting chat here.

So we'll start with resource management designated lands. This is one of the more kind of like broad management intentions for this land use designation. Some of the general themes that you'll see in resource management designated lands are that policy facilitate a wide variety of uses. The timber harvest strategies are variable, so some units prioritize selective harvest or limit the size of even age harvests. Some units have fewer of those limitations and just focus on the sustained yield and Forest Resources and Practices act requirements.

Scenic values are considered in the design of timber sales on these resource needed lands. But those specifics of how scenic resources would be managed, effects of timber harvest would be mitigated, would be specified in forest land use plans. So you won't see specific prescriptions or actions outlined in this management plan. And within the Haines State Forest resource management area, 300 foot buffer around anonymous streams and 500 foot like retention buffers around lakes with anadromous fish populations apply throughout the forest. And those are referred to as special management zones.

So here are some examples of subunits within the state forest that fall into this resource management category.

So we'll see in. In unit 1 a commercial timber harvest is allowed without any significant stipulations. But in other areas like in subunit 7A, even age harvests are limited to 10 acres or less and visual screening is a part of it needs to be a part of the design of timber cells and that area. So I will not read through all of these. I have a few tables in here with management information for the units in each category.

This presentation will be posted on our project website probably tomorrow so folks can revisit to read through. But I will spare you the experience of me reading through a table verbatim.

So on public recreation designated lands, any harvest, any timber harvest or resource development activities must be designed to exist compatibly with public recreation uses. And so typically that would look like timbers harvests that are designed to support recreation facilities or support access to areas that are important for recreation.

There's more management provisions on public recreation lands that address visually screening timber harvest activities from popular recreation sites. And again, those special management zones for anadromous surface waters would apply through all lands in the state forest.

Subunit 1B is unique in that any proposal for development in this subunit would need to be reviewed specifically by the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve Advisory Council. And as we look through these management policies, again we can see size limits on our even age harvest treatments.

I think 5 acres in unit 3H is the smallest size limit that we see and other units have a cap at 20. 20 Acres is the largest even age timber harvest that I think is permitted in these public recreation designated lands.

Lands that are designated wildlife habitat, their primary use is supporting fish and wildlife habitat values. And so any development activities would need to be designed in support of those values.

Timber harvest would are very likely to be designed in coordination with the Department of Fish and Game and they would be designed with the purpose of enhancing habitat. And generally this will look like selective harvest in these units as well. You'll see size limits on the even aged harvest options. And in many of these units public recreation is emphasized as a secondary management goal.

So moving through some examples here you can see these size limits on our even age harvests. I think 10 to 20 acres is the range of size limits that you'll see in the wildlife habitat designated subunits. And the management intent statements consistently identify habitat values as the priority for management on these lands and some areas like unit five you can see recreation is also like a high print, high priority management consideration.

And finally in forest designated lands, these are the lands that are the management intent is focused primarily on commercial timber harvest. In these lands too, you'll see some subunits that allow timber harvest that the primary focus is aligning with the Forest Resources and Practices act standards and maintaining that sustained yield. And some subunits have more stipulations like identifying them to be used in the small scale timber sale program.

Subunits in this classification with high habitat values and emphasize collaboration in harvest design with the Department of Fish and Game and consistently throughout the state forest these special management zones apply to anadromous water bodies, so oh, it looks like maybe my table didn't update. So we can see in unit 1C or in subunit 1C, there's a note that the special management zones might be expanded to prevent erosion on steep terrain. And for example, subunit 3C is identified as only usable for small commercial sales, but other lands are open to larger scale timber sales.

So.

Moving into our next steps in the planning process, the draft is available for review that is available digitally on our project website and hard copies will be available in the Forestry office in Haines if folks are interested to come look at a physical copy and we'll ask that you submit your comments by 5pm on June 5th. You're welcome to do that through email to the project email address that you see on this slide or physical mail or if you'd rather submit comments in person. We'll have our final public meeting for this review period tomorrow in Klukwan at the Alaska Native Sisterhood hall, so we'll have options to submit comments in writing or record oral testimony. And in the near ish future you can be expecting public notice of our intent to adopt for this plan. So during the intent to adopt period, the Division will publish an issue response summary where we acknowledge the topics of comments that we received during this review period and the Division's response to those comments will identify any recommended revisions that we'll make to the plan and that information will be available for review for 30 days.

The timing of that depends some on the volume of comments that we receive or the content of comments that we receive during this public review period, but our target is for that to occur in fall of this year. So with that I think I'll leave this slide up for a little while. If anyone wants to take note of addresses or email addresses, but we can go ahead and open up for comments or questions. You will need to raise your hand before we so we know to grant you access to your microphone. So the feature to do that will be at the top of your teams window.

The center icon is shaped like a hand, so I'll go ahead and open up for questions or comments.

Okay, I see. First av, you should have access to your microphone now, but you'll still need to we can hear you. Thank you Geneva. Thanks all the DNR staff who are here on the virtual call and additionally for the day prior and tomorrow in terms of setting up these hearings and doing the work you've done to put together the draft. RMP seems as though there are a Few, only a few people on the virtual call.

So I'm going to try to pace myself. I feel like I could ask an endless amount of questions.

First thing I wanted to ask, I happened to see the Tenant of Valley State Forest RMP was adopted fairly recently. And I noticed that there are like management policies and categories of management policy in that document that aren't in the, you know, chapter two forest wide management policies for the hsd. I'm wondering for DNR staff who worked on both of those, whether there's, you could, you know, shed any light on the difference between those two processes and what went into making those management decisions. I'm thinking specifically about like the climate adaptation element. I think it's called forest health and Climate change in the Tanana Valley RMP in a provision or a management policy on cultural resources and whether there's an opportunity to recognize, recommend including those kinds of management policies in the draft RMP for the Haines State Forest.

Thank you.

Thanks for that question, Av. I can take a stab at it. And if any other Division of Forestry staff want to follow up, please do.

I mean, the primary difference between the Tana Valley State Forest and the Haines State Forest Resource Management Area is that they are categorized under different authorizing statutes or they're designated under different authorizing statutes. And so that doesn't necessarily mean that we have changes in our management approach in terms of climate adaptation or cultural resources. But I mean, from my perspective, there was a little bit of a different mindset entering the two projects or I was hesitant as a planner to directly mirror the Hanes plan with the Tanana Valley plan because I was still learning the differences in terms of the enabling statute. I think there's absolutely space for a comment or a recommendation to add information to the Hanes plan.

And that's essentially the purpose of this public review period.

So some of that can be chalked up to my learning curve. And I don't know if anyone else wants to shed any light on that difference.

No, I think, I think you, I think Geneva hit it. You know, it was a new planning process. We put, you know, we were putting the carbon, the new carbon legislation in there. The interior, you know, the Boreal Forest of the interior does have some different disturbance drivers than are, you know, seen down in the Haines State Forest. And, and so some of that was appropriate and it also has some,.

There. Are some critically important sites that Shipo would identify in the Tanana Valley State Forests. And so that was addressing some of that stuff too. But I think it Was it was the first plan that Geneva had done, and so she added some of that stuff to it.

And I would add. Please leave that in your comment. That's a very good comment. Thank you.

Thanks, dnr. Appreciate it. Yeah, thanks, av. We'll move on to Eric.

You. You should have access to your microphone now, Eric, You may need to unmute yourself. That should be at the top right of your screen.

Okay. It's Katie Palmer with Eric Holly on the same computer. I have a simple question. I just want to know how many pages long the plan is.

Gosh, that's off the top of my head. I think it's somewhere close to 230, but I don't actually know the exact number of pages off the top of my head. Okay. I thought I had seen a much larger number. That's why I was asking.

Okay, thanks. This is Eric. Can I jump in here now with a couple of questions? Sure.

I actually have a bunch of questions, so I think I'll start with the most general one.

What is the goal? I mean, what. What is the justification for changing what's in place? What's driving this desire to change the existing plan? Is it still intended to be a way to get carbon offsets and enhance the state economy?

Or is there another philosophy behind this? Do you want to answer that and then wait for other questions? Or how would you like to. Let's see.

Yeah, I think let's talk through one or two questions now and then maybe see if any other folks want to ask questions and want to make sure that we have time space for everyone to participate.

The goal of management in the state forest is to maintain multiple uses and support a variety of resource values that are described in the enabling statutes, which unfortunately are across the room from me right now. So I can't read it verbatim, but those include, like, fish and wildlife resources, traditional uses, extractable mineral resources, and timber, among others. So the management goal for the state forest includes balancing a wide range of values and uses. One of the goals in the revision is to include carbon offsets among those uses. And there needs to be language in the plan that identifies carbon offsets as a potential use before any planning or, like, consideration of projects can occur.

So that's part of our goal with the amendment. And beyond that, we are also making some changes to our policy to reflect that management of that broad range of uses that's described in the authorizing statutes in our policy across the forest.

Okay, well, if you'll give me a second question, then I will ask another Question. How can the public access easily access without doing a research project objective data that shows that timber sales, particularly timber sales in the resource management areas, provide an economic benefit. In other words, I would wonder where I could see a real cost benefit analysis where the costs include administrative costs and you know, labor to lay out timber sales, road building, such things as that, versus the amount of money that would be expected to go into the state coffers.

You're asking about a comparison between revenue from timber sales and versus the amount of money that's invested in developing a timber sale. Exactly. And in past years that's been very difficult to find because of the way that information is divided up in the state records.

Well, I would think our division annual report would be a good place to start, but I'll pass that off to Greg or Jeremy. You two are a little more involved with the execution of policy than I am. Yeah, sure. And I'll start. And Greg can start kind of at a statewide perspective.

And, and Greg can get, if, if he has information from our specific information, then he can provide that. But so Eric, there is, there is data that you can find through the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research. They do mill surveys up here. They're part of the, they work with the Forest Service to do mill surveys across the state. And you can get an idea of.

The,.

The level of impact, economic impact that it has on the state. And I would, I would just warn that that revenue directly, like in terms of stumpage, what, what the state receives from, from timber sales is, I would say it's, it's, you know, there is a, the state is getting a profit on that, but even beyond that, not a huge profit because stumpage is not, is not intended to not be, you know, super high. It covers land management costs and the state receives some money for that. But on top of that, you know, there's also the added benefits of employment at the mills. So you know, that's, that's revenue that's generated in those, in those communities.

And then those, the value added products that they're creating that particularly the ones that stay in state are being used by contractors to do things like build housing and you know, so there's some added benefit to it. But if you just wanted to like look at kind of what the state of the, of the industry is in Alaska, that University of Montana, it's bber, Bureau of Business and Economic Research does do that mill survey work. And then I'll kick it to Greg if he's got anything to add.

Yeah, Jeremy, I really don't have anything to add to that. I think that's a good direction to go look for that information.

But they have information on Alaska.

Okay, Well, I'll take a break from my questions then, but thanks for that.

Thanks for your question, Eric. And if we have a few minutes, go by with other questions, feel free to chime back in.

Looks like AV has got their hand up again. I believe you still have access to your microphone. Yeah. Thanks, Geneva. Maybe this is a follow up to Eric's question.

The presentation today really did outline what I think is the biggest change to the plan, which is the shift from the 2002 Prohibition on Commercial timber harvest or other types of timber harvest activity in areas designated wildlife habitat and public recreation. Is there any record of decision or basis upon which DNR has made that determination that there is a compatibility there beyond what's provided in the draft? RMP I've read the draft. It's obviously a big document. I haven't gone through it with a fine tooth comb.

I think there's a great amount of detail and attention paid to the resources present on each unit and subunit. And like you laid out, Geneva, there are the acreage limits and, you know, even age harvest limits and selective harvest preference for those areas. But as a basic question, there was an administrative determination in the 80s and again in 2002 that said timber harvest isn't compatible. As a matter of fact, with the areas we've identified, the best and highest resource value is wildlife habitat or public recreation. And just as a matter of public input, obviously I imagine DNR has fielded or heard some concern about how it made that decision.

Is there a decision document or anything DNR could point the public to that provides a basis for its decision there?

Thanks for that question. AV I think this might be a good question for Greg to speak to, just given his specific experience in this area. I don't we don't have like a memorandum or like an explicit decision document other than the revision of plan policy that like identifies a moment where that shift has occurred. I think a lot of that thought process has evolved over decades of correspondence with Department of Fish and Game and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and their feedback on the timber harvest activities that have planned, been planned and have occurred in this area. But Greg maybe can provide a little bit more detail and certainly more experience than I can with that question.

Yeah. Thanks, Geneva. Appreciate the question. Can you maybe point to your reference to where there was a determination in the previous management plan of incompatibility of Uses, please. Yeah, I'll have to look into the 2002 document.

But that commercial timber harvest was a prohibited activity in all of the wildlife, habitat and resource, public recreation lands, certainly. But it wasn't determined to be incompatible. It was a policy decision that was made at the time by the managers in charge. And the decision for this policy change is based on the legal status written in the statute. And that's where it comes from.

Yeah, yeah. To add to Greg's point there, AV the decision would be at the point of disposal. Right. So we're just making a policy call here, just like they did back in the, you know, in the previous version of the plan, no decision document was made. I mean, the plan is the decision document, so to speak, and so the same thing here.

So. But if a timber sale were to happen in those areas, because that's a disposal of state interest, for sure, there would be a best interest finding, which is what our decision documents would be before any timber harvest would take place. And I want to make sure everybody's completely understanding here that any timber harvest that takes place in those land classifications has to be in alignment with the management intent. So if it's for wildlife habitat, we are altering the condition of the forest, the vegetation, to meet a habitat objective that ADFNG has completely, you know, worked with us on. Same thing with recreation.

We would be working with DPO R to do things like improve access to recreation facilities or whatever the case might be. I just want to make sure that that's clear.

Thanks, jeremy. Thanks, green.

Another question from AV and then I. See Eric raised his hand, so I'll defer. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Let's see.

Eric, you have access to your microphone. Go ahead.

Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Thanks. This is a really broad question.

I hope it's not too broad, but it's. Excuse me. It's widely acknowledged by International Union for Conservation of Nature and other similar scientific bodies that there is an extinction crisis going on now in the world that is perhaps even more serious than climate change. And I wonder if that is somehow acknowledged. In other words, are there prescriptions and guidelines that acknowledge that that will be in this plan, particularly regarding connectivity between different regions of the forest, especially where old growth, large parcels of old growth, exist.

And so when I talk about biodiversity, I'm talking about not just, you know, the large mammals and the more charismatic megafauna, but also the small stuff, you know, the mycorrhizal fungi that connect trees below the surface and flying squirrels and things like that. Does that play a role in this new management plan.

That is a broad question.

I think the Division of Forestry as an agency doesn't really have the authority to write management policy that addresses animal populations or like the habitat conditions that are needed to support animal populations. And so our tools really for addressing like, the needs of the biotic community in, you know, in this landscape would be like having the ability to use forest management activities in a way that the Department of Fish and Game is advising the division to do. So. The, the Department of Fish and Game is the agency that has legal authority to make recommendations or develop policy about how to support the animal populations and on state lands in Alaska. And so our, our tool to address like the extinction crisis that you referred in your comment would be an ability to respond to the Department of Fish and Game if they are recommending or requesting habitat enhancement treatments.

Because our, like, our kind of realm of, of operation as the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection is pretty strictly limited to forest resources like vegetation treatments and designing ways to access vegetation areas to make any changes. We don't have any policy that's written specifically about managing animal populations, but we do have a lot of policy that references deferring to the recommendations of Fish and Game, which is the group that has authority to make those decisions.

Okay, just, just before we move on to the next question, just to add to that. Right. Like U.S. fish and Wildlife Service regulates threatened and endangered species. And if they had identified something and identified critical habitat, then we would have to adhere to that. Additionally, they're the ones that, you know, provide us with the statutes that we have to follow for like Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act and that sort of thing.

So just to make, to make that clear too.

Okay, thanks, Jeremy. Thanks. I have a couple of, I think, very simple, quick questions and then I would be done if you would like, or would you rather jump back to AV right now or someone else?

I think we have time to do one or two more questions with you, Eric, and then we can go back to touching base with av. Okay. In the previous plan, clear cutting was the preferred method for harvest. I don't know, maybe specifically on resource management plans. Not sure about that.

And so I wonder if. Is that the same and is the rotation period still the same and is there a new completed inventory that comes as part of this, the new plan?

I will go ahead and hand that question off to Greg. Those are resource specific for sure. Thanks, Geneva and Eric. Absolutely. You can reference our latest inventory report online on our website.

It was published in 2025, revised from a previous publication of that document and the inventory work that we've done since the last management plan revision occurred in 2012 and 2018. Finally, with a comprehensive sampling of our second growth stands that contributed to the growth model in the inventory report you'll find on our website.

Remind me again what your other question was, Eric. I'm sorry? Is the rotation period the same or changed, or has it been divided up based on specific.

Microclimates? Right. The rotation age is the same.

Eric, you did. You did ask about clear. Clear cuts as the preferred silvicultural system, too, and I believe we took. We have changed that. There's a whole slew of silvicultural systems that could be used.

Clear cuts are one. You know, it's even aged management. It is a legitimate silvicultural system, but there's a whole slew of silvicultural systems that could be used. Okay, thanks. I'll look into the full plan.

My wife Katie is here. She could ask a question if you have time for that.

Is that okay? Go ahead, Katie. Well, I'm just wondering when you say some of these things are not the responsibility of the forestry department, I'm wondering who in the state is responsible, for instance, for what we now know is essential to the forest, which are the mycorrhizae. And I would like to know. I don't think Fish and Game is necessarily responsible for.

For that.

No, I don't think Fish and Game has any.

Any responsibility or authority in that. In that realm. I mean, it's certainly part of the forest system and it's part of the forests that Greg manages here. I'm curious if you can refer us to some examples of, like, management practices that are specific to mycorrhizae or mycorrhizal communities, or if you have examples of other, like, states or other nations that. That you think effectively address that topic.

Yes, yes, I do. In Chile, there is a law now, and it has been a law for quite some years, that no activities can occur if. If the mycorrhizae are impacted. No activities, whether it's, you know, mineral or forestry, but definitely not forestry, definitely forestry. Cutting and things like that cannot occur because the mycorrhizae are considered equal to all.

To the wildlife, to all the plants. Everything that, you know, normally is considered. For instance, here when you're looking about, you're talking about cutting and how that will be done. The mycorrhizae. Now it's.

It's a law there that they have to Consider the mycorrhizae for every activity that's done.

And also a BC forester named Herb Hammond, maybe you are familiar with him, his plans always consider impacts to mycorrhizal fungi also.

Geneva, I can. So mycorrhizal fungi are. They're endemic in this, in forested soils across the world. Right. And they're important here, just like they are in any forested ecosystem.

They do even after, after treatments, they are present. They're particularly in forest. They don't tend to be host specific. They are present in the soil and. But they are really, they're.

They're critically important for reforestation. You know, we're working with ADFNG to do a study now. It's up in the interior, but this has been done, replicated in other parts of the country to show the importance of red back voles for the dispersal of mycorrhizal fungi in treated areas. And they're coming up with some real management guidelines for the dispersal of woody debris across the treatment area for small mammal habitat so that they can disperse mycorrhizal fungi. But if you look at like the work that even NRCS has done in Alaska in forested ecosystems, you know, short of very severe burns in black spruce stands after treatment, mycorrhizal fungi continues to exist in those stands.

In that. In the soil. Those stands. And I'll add one other thing that, you know, we follow the Forest Resources Practices Act. Minimizing soil disturbance and encouraging natural regeneration are two of the key elements for encouraging more fungus to remain on site.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you for your question and those references to some of the international examples that you shared. We appreciate that.

The woman in Chile is Juliana Ferci, who got this legislation, really was the person to enable that to happen in Chile years ago.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you for that. Let's go back to av. I see you have your hand up again.

Hello again, dnr. This is maybe a follow up to the last few questions I saw. In the Tanana Valley rmp, there is use of the term adaptive management, both for climate adaptation, but I also think for force management practices. I wonder from the managing foresters in the Haines State Forest whether there's an appetite for just including that language in the draft ARM RMP for the Haines State Forest to make it clear that that's, you know, in the toolkit of forest management strategies. And then I have a follow up after that question.

Well, I think that that's a perfectly fine comment to submit either in writing or if you come to the meeting and clock one.

Yeah,.

Av. I mean, our FERPA is adaptive management, right? Like the definition of adaptive management is to do something and to evaluate its results and then make adjustments based on that. And we do that. You know, FERPA is, is very much that we have compliance monitoring, but we also have effectiveness monitoring where we, you know, we determine if, what the practices that we are asking the, the operators to implement, if they're actually effective in meeting their, their intent.

Yeah. Thank you both Jeremy and Greg. That sounds right to me. I didn't assume that there was an absence of that kind of process in forestry. It just stood out to me, frankly, reading the RMP as kind of a more affirmative thing that is maybe more easily digestible to the public in terms of outlining management process.

In addition to that and understanding how you operate within the context of FERPA and try to use basically the best available data. I'm also curious, frankly, interested in seeing in the Haynes State Forest RMP some acknowledgement that traditional ecological knowledge is an available, you know, database basically to draw from in making management decisions and putting forward kind of the best, best forestry practices within the context of the rmp. I don't know if you have fielded any questions, comments, recommendations around how the department engages with tek, either broadly or in any specific management area, but just curious what your initial thoughts are about the possibility of having traditional ecological knowledge written into the Haynes State Forest management plan as something that the department would look to as part of its decision making process in managing the forest.

Jeremy, do you want me to chime in first? Yeah. You want to take a stab at it? Yeah, that's for sure. And then I can, I can, if I have anything to add, I can add.

Yeah, I think that traditional ecological knowledge is definitely an appealing source of information and data. And it's also something that, I mean from my perspective as a planner, I don't want to cultivate a sense of entitlement to that information or to assume that like an indigenous group that's local to any of our management areas would just like that that relationship would automatically exist without building it first. So I think like in our current management areas, like relational dynamics, like we're not at a point where we're seeing that exchange of information. And I think we're definitely making strides toward that. But I think one of my, I guess, thought processes is that like would want to confirm that that's like.

Something that we would have permission to include before putting it in a management plan. I'm not sure if Jeremy would want to follow up on that at all. No, I think that's a good, good way to answer it. The way. So we have, we do have a tribal liaison within the department now and the state, you know, the state is not like the federal government and that we're not as we don't have that same kind of government to government relationship that the federal government does.

But we are making, you know, we have that liaison to help with some of this process. What I would say though is that what's great about this public process that the state has is that we take all information and we do, particularly in Alaska, obviously, because of the number of tribes that are in Alaska. We make a point of reaching out to tribes just like we would Burroughs or any other group to get information from them. And that tends to come through that the TEK information tends to come through in that process, even though it's not maybe officially called tek.

Yeah, thank you both, both for those responses. My perspective on it is pretty similar to what we just covered with adaptive management, that it's already well within the scope and likely within the existing practices of forestry and just considering whether it might be worthwhile to name it as, you know, part of the available set of, of tools you're looking to draw from. And Geneva, your. Your point is well taken, that, you know, I wouldn't recommend putting into the management plan some kind of binding obligation to follow TEK because that puts a burden that hasn't been discussed with any knowledge holders to supply that information. But I do wonder if there's more of a middle distance that just acknowledges because frankly there isn't that sort of, you know, federal framework that has made much more clear in the last several years, especially that TEK is part of its, you know, land and resource management decision making processes, both writ large and in specific agreements with tribes.

But that to me, it's an opportunity for Alaska to set a good example because of the presence of, you know, of the Alaska Native community in the state.

But I'll have something written up for public comment for sure, in terms of having something that might fit within the context of the RMP itself. I appreciate that feedback, AV and I really appreciate your perspective about sort of just identifying this kind of middle in between space that we're occupying on that topic. Thank you.

If it's all right, I do have one more question. Sure, go ahead. Yeah, this one's a little wonky. Maybe.

The Haines State Forest Enabling Statute and the Chilkat Preserve Statute both identify that among the purposes are the continuation of traditional uses and what is it, beneficial uses and traditional uses and other recreational opportunities. But I've seen in every version of the Hainestate Forest RMP that traditional uses is kind of subsumed within the category of recreation. And I wonder if there's ever been a consideration whether traditional uses use really ought to have a standalone management guidelines or management policy around it. Because the way I read the statute, it. It is distinct enough from other recreational uses and is singled out in the statutory language of the Enabling act in a way that I don't think is reflected so clearly in management policy in the rmp.

And that's. It's not as though there was a big change between the 2002 and this draft. It wasn't in the 2002 management policy either. And then this is where I'm a little bit in the weeds on it. The definition that is supplied in this draft RMP and the 2002 RMP suggests that traditional uses means traditional modes of access under the Alaska Land use law in 3804.

But that statute wasn't passed at the time that the Haines State Forest was established. And so I don't think it's what they were referencing the legislature in 1982. I think it's more clear on the record that what they meant was preserving the way of life of the local community, including, with specific reference, the Native community. And so I wonder if there is time in this public comment and draft review process to really consider whether to align management policy with the statutory purposes of the forest. There is more attention given to the specificity, the local specificity of traditional uses in the area.

I'm gonna. Genevieve, I'm gonna go ahead and respond to that if that's. If that's okay. Avi, it's a really interesting point you bring up and one that I see in other parts of the state. You're right.

Currently, traditional use would typically refer to access. And even that point is changing to include things like Snow machines and ATVs as a traditional use. And for the state, from everything that I've seen in policy, the term traditional does not refer to. To Native populations like you would think it would. It refers to what Alaskans have used previously.

Right. So traditional use could be hunting or fishing or gathering or subsistence activities with, like, a little less subsistence, not the federal version of subsistence. So it's. It's. I think it's.

I think the state takes that word, that that term traditional, and applies a different definition to it than like what the federal government does.

Yeah, thanks for that. And I. I would tend to agree as well, especially that distinction between the capital s and lowercase s subsistence. And even so, like, I think the traditionally compatible uses are laid out in the Hane State Forest enabling statute. And so I think it would be better aligned with that legislation if that were the definition used and applied throughout the draft RMP, as opposed to looking out to what is it as 3804. Because you just go down, I don't know, from section 310 to 315, and it says the traditionally compatible uses are.

And it lays out that list, like you just mentioned, Jeremy, which includes subsistence, but. But not, you know, a certain range of subsistence practices that I understand for constitutional reasons, have to apply to all rural Alaskans. But even so, there's a local element to that, and the established patterns of use are going to have that local character. And I think that's something that the Haines State Forest RMP really ought to reflect in how it manages the forest. That would be a fantastic comment, Preet, for you to make, av.

I find that stuff really interesting, too. And it's. It's like this is going back to, you know, statehood and, you know, certainly things with Anilka and all that. So.

Thanks, av. Let's go. I see, Eric, you have your hand up again.

You should have access to your microphone.

Oh, I actually didn't have any more questions, but I would say I'd like to say ditto to what AV has brought up, and I hope that I believe you have a meeting and Klukwan, and it seems like that would be a good opportunity to look a little more deeply into the issues that AV brought up here. Anyway, I appreciate your answer regarding that, Jeremy, and hopefully you can maybe take a deeper dive into that before the plan is finalized. Anyway, thanks again.

I'll probably bow out now, but thanks very much. Okay, thank you. Thanks for making time to join us this evening.

Go ahead, av. Just gonna keep letting it rip. But before I do, I want to say thank you as well. I. I just. I appreciate the time and commitment DNR staff has made to really seeing the public process through, and I appreciate your willingness to continue doing that.

One question I had. Has there been.

Has there been any consideration of reclassifying any of the units, I mean, or subunits in the forest? That was one of the things that stood out to me in the updated RMP is that the underlying kind of resource values present in terms of what are the highest priority hasn't Changed, you know, if you're able to say, as a matter of process, whether any were under serious consideration based on any kind of survey inventory, new information, conversations with departments in the last 20 years. Yeah. Just obviously don't want to go too far into the black box. But just as a matter of curiosity.

Yeah. Whether there was any consideration of identifying a different highest and best use for any of the units or subunits in the forest.

That's. Yeah, thanks for that question. I.

At my level, I was not involved in any discussions about potentially changing the classifications of the land within the state forest boundary.

That in terms of, like, the information that would drive that discussion. Like, we didn't receive any input or recommendations from the. From other, like, management agencies to indicate that there was a significant shift, I guess, in the resource distribution on the landscape since the 2002 plan. I don't know if Jeremy or Greg received information that didn't trickle down to me, but I wasn't involved in any conversations of that nature.

I. Greg probably has the best information information on that. Just being kind of the local forester and being in this community. I would say, though, that the way that resources are allocated across the forest, you know, there's been a long commitment to recreation in those. In those land classifications. Most of the forested ground is in the forest classifications, so the distribution seems to make sense.

But I'll let Greg. He might have more information. Sure. I don't know that I have anything really specific. There hasn't been a discussion at all about changing the classifications in my tenure.

For many of the agencies that we work with over or that I've worked with over the years. I can say that the development of classifications of lands in the state of Alaska is really led by our Mining Lands and Water Division, that that is our lead planning entity for dnr. And in regards to the Haines State Forest Management Plan, specifically conversations that I had with those individuals and leadership about land classification in the forest at the beginning of this process, which dates back to spring of 2024 and fall of 23, really, they educated me on the work and effort that would be required to make a recommendation of a change and part of their emphasis on the challenges that we would face if that was in fact the division's intention in our amendment to reclassify lands, which it wasn't, but I was simply inquiring with them on process that they pointed out that, you know, the length of time, the period that these classifications of these specific lands has existed is a significant weighted factor in identifying those classifications as Correct. And so making a proposed change to overturn those classifications would be, would require a very significant study, as you referred to, and probably a quite lengthy process to make the determination that a change would be required. And you know that that is the extent of involvement in that conversation as we began this process, you know, with that lead agency who does that planning and those classifications for state lands across the state as the leaders in dnr.

I don't know if that helps you Avi, but I can tell you that was my experience with that topic.

Yeah, Greg, I really appreciate it.

Sorry Avi, did I cut you off?

No, I wanted to, to add as well a lot of the classification determinations on state lands like their tied to factors that if they change or that's occurring on a more like a geologic timescale because it's a consideration of the site qualities, the drainage, groundwater behavior like soil types, presence of anadromous streams. It's sort of like a lot of those classification decisions are based on landscape features that wouldn't change in a human lifetime. And including the forest classification, it's based on the site's ability to grow productive forest stand. It's not based on the presence or age of trees or the volume of forest of wood that's present at that time. And the classifications that come to mind for me that are more temporal or more subject to change would be settlement or agriculture, both of which imply an intention to dispose of lands to other outside ownerships.

And because of the legislative designation of the state forest, that's not possible. It's not possible for land within the state forest to be sold to outside organizations. So part of the, part of the logic behind not changing things would be that it's so unlikely, I guess that those influencing features would have changed in a period of 30 or 50 years.

Yeah, thank you both for that. It really was just a matter of curiosity. I mean I've seen in the administrative code that like the public can propose a classification or reclassification and I had a hunch that it was much more high level backend decision making than just that, some sort of public initiative. But yeah, getting, getting a sense of. For one, I didn't know it was DMLW that really weighed in heavily on those decisions.

But it makes sense putting those things together that it's, it's looking at really long time frame factors in the land. So. Thanks. Thanks Av.

Yes, I see a hand up for Roy. You should have access to your microphone now.

Yeah, I got a question on the carbon credits. Understand that's part of this management plan update. And if that goes through, is there. A mechanism in place where it's likely. That the division can sell some of.

Those credits and get money to help run the state forest with carbon credits?

I'm gonna. I'll go ahead and take that one. Thanks, Jeremy. Yep. So, yeah, so Roy, as you know, the legislation, legislation passed there seems to be an echo.

I wonder.

You guys hear me? Okay. There you go. So, yeah, the legislation passed a couple years ago with the idea was to see what opportunities the state had for implementing carbon projects. That, you know, part of the reason that this plan is going through just like the other state forests is to have that as an allowable use on the, on the state forest that, you know, there's a carbon program in the, in state government now.

And they're trying to find opportunities to get carbon projects on state land, not just state forests, but just all general state lands. So, you know that that's something that could occur. It's. There's. What we mostly have access to are the voluntary, the voluntary market right now.

And there's some problem. You know, there's some. There's two ways that we can do that. Essentially, it's improved forest management, which is kind of offsetting timber harvest to a, to a. Some future date.

And then you can get carbon credits that way. Or there's reforestation, which, you know, in like burned areas that are not coming back, they're not reforesting appropriately, and you can get carbon credits over the rotation that way. The IFM projects seem to be problematic. There's not as much of a market. You know, the markets are really, really highly variable and just volatile.

And there doesn't seem to be a lot of opportunities for IFM right now.

You need to have that additionality in place, which is, you know, the quote, unquote, threat of the timber being harvest to be able to even have a project exist. And in many cases where there's no access in Alaska, that's, that's problematic. And then the reforestation thing is mostly something that there are some project developers that are looking kind of interior Alaska to see what opportunities there might be. But even that seems challenging. So the long winded way to say that, yeah, we're still looking for opportunities, the state is still looking for opportunities for carbon projects, but we haven't found much as of yet.

I want to address one thing I heard in Roy's question, a kind of specific inquiry about if the revenue from potential carbon offset projects in the state forest would be made available to support the management of the forest. I think the.

It's been a while since I've looked this up, so I'm, I want to give that disclaimer first, but I think that this, the enabling statutes for the carbon offset program do define that the revenue from that program would be divided between the, like the general, general funds for the state and a portion of it would be put in the, like a renewable energy fund. But there's not any direct, like, stream of revenue that circles back to management of the state forest system, to my knowledge.

That's my understanding of it as well.

I'll give us a quick time check here. We've got about 10 minutes left in our, in our meeting time for this evening. So any folks who have additional questions, feel free. But I do want to bring attention to that. We have about 10 minutes left.

I did have. Sorry, I did have one more question that I just remembered. Go ahead, Av. I know. And you pointed out that in at least some units or subunits, decisions will be coordinated with the Bald Eagle Preserve Advisory Council.

The, the, is that a, is that a policy or legal decision? Is it based on like, adjacency to the preserve or some underlying identification of the, you know, connection between resources across the boundary from the preserve to the forest and. Yeah, maybe I'll leave the question there.

That's a, that's a good question. I think so. The Advisory Council for the Bald Eagle Preserve would be a part of the review process for any, any decision. So they would be included in the review of a best interest finding or a forest land use plan for any proposed activity.

I'll let Greg elaborate, but my understanding is that these subunits where the, the inclusion of the advisory council in the design phase of a potential timber sale would be connected to two subunits that are adjacent to the Eagle Preserve.

Yeah, go ahead, Greg. So specifically in areas where that is called out as a requirement, what you'll find is that, that there's a land designation or I'm sorry, there's a use designation in there that falls under an interagency land management agreement for Division of Parks on State Forest. And so giving them the opportunity to have.

More of a collaborative interaction in that particular area is recognizing the authority that we've given them under the, what we call an ILMA for management of recreation in that particular subunit. And this, this is, this is in addition to, or goes, you know, is a precedent to the typical collaborative review process that the Bold Eagle Preserve Council would have that Geneva mentioned.

Thank you. That's really helpful. And then that that ilma, is it attached as an appendix in the rmp?

Yes. Thank you all. Our agreements with Parks and our shared management agreements with Parks are part of the document in the appendices. Yeah.

Okay, that's all my questions for tonight. Thank you all.

Thanks, av.

Well, if we don't have additional questions from anyone, we've got about five minutes left, so I will go ahead and wrap up the meeting. Sorry, I'm working on turning my camera back on.

We'll go ahead and close up the meeting for tonight. I thanks Many thanks to the folks who made time to join us this evening and thanks for your thoughtful questions. Please do share your comments and recommendations with us in writing.

If you have more questions or process questions, feel free to reach out to me. My contact information is all over our project website and we'll look forward to seeing your comments in email or via mail. Or perhaps we'll see you tomorrow in Klukwan. But thanks everyone for joining us this evening.