
Haines State Forest (Credit: Flickr/~dgies)
The largest Haines State Forest timber sale in decades is moving forward. The State Division of Forestry selected a bidder for the 855-acre Baby Brown sale on Thursday. Astoria Forest Products of Oregon bid $274,000 for the 20 million board feet of Sitka spruce and western hemlock. It was the only bid. The minimum price was $250,000.
The timber sale is located about 35 miles up the Haines Highway, between Porcupine and Jarvis Creeks.
Astoria Forest Products is a subsidiary of Murphy Overseas USA Holdings.
The timber company now has 30 days to turn in a contract with its operational plan, including the timeline it follows for the sale. Forestry has set a 5-year maximum timeline.
If the contract is approved, the state will prepare forest land use plans that reflect the details of the contract. The first forest land use plan was drawn up before the bid was selected, to get 137 acres on the east side of Glacier Creek ready for harvest. The land use plans give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed method of harvest and other details. The first plan is in the public comment period until Jan. 5.
In an earlier interview, Haines Forester Greg Palmieri said that the large-scale sale will not be all clear-cut.
“It’s not going to be 855 acres of clear-cut, which is something I think people were concerned about seeing,” Palmieri said.
When Baby Brown was first proposed in 2015, three conservation groups appealed the sale, citing environmental, wildlife and visual concerns. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner denied the appeal and released a final best interest finding, paving the way for the harvest to go out to bid.
Astoria Forest Products Manager Stan Runnels declined to comment on the sale until the contract is final. But he did say “it could turn into a really good deal for people in Haines.”
$247,000 sounds pitiful when you beak that down to about $288 an acre for thick old growth timber. Why is the state forest service so set on removing all the old growth it can? And for such a pathetic amount of money? Because second growth trees are easier to harvest and makes timber companies more profit and to heck with whats best for locals and the environment! So again corporations own public land. Im no tree hugger but Im fully aware of the habitat that only old growth forests provide. I laugh at the term ‘overly mature trees’ that the forest service uses. A word play to make these massive trees look useless when in fact they are far from that. Just wait and watch the soil erosion wash into the near by drainages and the damage to our fisheries. And then they will likely use herbicides to keep the brush down to allow growth for the seedling trees that will be planted IF they plant any. All that herbicide will also get into our salmon streams and rivers. It will also get into wildlife and that moose meat many love. And to top it off imagine the bare mountains. Just look at what happened from logging in Montana, Idaho, Washington state and Canada from such vast logging operations. I witnessed first hand the devastation of that decades ago. Im all for logging IF its done wisely and provides jobs and $ for the state and local area. But this is going to be bad. The local fishermen will see what I mean in a few years. It may take decades for the valley to recover from this.