The Winds of Change in Alaskan Forestry
Conference Report - Winds of Change: The Forest Products Industry and the University of Alaska
Historical Evidence of Forest Ecosystem Management - Cultures and Religions
Report Now Available - 1998 Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in Alaska
International Forest Products Tour of Interior Alaska
Forestry Activities in the Interior
Are changes underway in the Alaskan forestry arena? The March 5 and 6, 1999, Ketchikan Conference was hosted by the Alaska Cooperative Extension and was titled Winds of Change: The Forest Products Industry and the University of Alaska. The Conference focused on the wood products industry in Southeast Alaska and what the University of Alaska can do to assist the industry. The program included speakers from Alaskan forest products businesses, the University system, as well as from other states and Canada. It was an opportunity to hear frank and spirited discussions about our forest products industry, what direction(s) it is headed, and what the needs are. An executive summary will be produced by the Alaska Cooperative Extension and will be available for free to the public by May 1999.
With the collapse of the Asian log export market, and without a well developed infrastructure to manufacture and deliver lumber products for local consumption, the economics of the forest products industry in Alaska have become more challenging. Assessing the economics and opportunities of the forest products industry in Alaska was the focus of the presentation by Dr. Bruce Lippke, director and associate dean for CINTRAFOR of the University of Washington. The recent decline in timber sale volume from the national forests and the associated impacts of these changes on forestry related jobs and on local communities was the focus of the presentation on civic responsibility given by Lynn Jungwirth titled "Collaboration, Sustainable Businesses and Communities." Abridged transcriptions of these two presentations are included in this newsletter.
Dr. John Fox, head of the Forest Science Department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in his presentation on "Pieces of the Puzzle," commented that the difference between an optimist and a pessimist when dealing with Alaskan forestry is that the pessimist has more experience. It was emphasized that the lack of financial support for the University of Alaska system has severely hampered their abilities to address forest resource and community development issues.
Dr. Fox's assessment of optimism in Alaska was further reflected by the degree of frustration and uncertainty expressed by the panel of business representatives from Southeast Alaskan forest product businesses. The presentation by Joe Henri, former member of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, was a very pointed criticism of the federal governments control of vast acreage of Alaskan forest resources with particular focus on the lack of effective forest management practices that include timber harvesting from both the Tongass and Chugach National Forests. Henri feels that the recent forest plan developments on both the Tongass and Chugach National Forests have heightened concerns about whether our national forests in Alaska are being developed as national parks.
The emphasis of the second day of the conference was oriented towards evaluating forest products industry issues, strengths and weaknesses, and recommendations for improving the situation. We heard presentations about the new USFS Wood Utilization Center being located in Sitka and the opportunities for developing a Wood Crafters Network in Southeast Alaska. The conference concluded with an emphasis given to the need to get on with the recovery of our forest products industry utilizing existing timber resources and developing stronger linkages with our communities in order to assure their survival and that the forest resources of the region are being managed with concern for their needs as well.
I have chosen to include the following abridged transcriptions of two of the presentations given at the Ketchikan conference. One on the economics of the wood products industry in Alaska by Dr. Bruce Lippke, and the other was given by Lynn Jungwirth regarding community-based forest planning.
If You Build It, Will They Buy It?
Bruce Lippke, Director and Associate Dean, CINTRAFOR, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington
A central issue in regard to international sales is whether or not you are competitive. What will make you competitive? Location is a very important aspect of what we are talking about. Looking at zones of equal transportation costsis it cheaper for us to get goods to Tokyo from Seattle than it is to get them to Spokane? The same principle applies to logs from Ketchikan. It is probably not much cheaper for you to get things to Anchorage than it is to get them from Seattle to Anchorage. Once you get something onboard a ship, the distances are not that great of a factor in costs. More important is the loading costs, and Seattle likely has a higher loading efficiency than in Ketchikan.
Most of you are interested in value-added. If it is value-added for this region, clearly your greatest opportunity is going to have to be export, but there is an insufficient domestic market (in Alaska) for value-added products so if you are going to do anything on a larger scale it is going to have to be with export. The easiest export strategy is to develop the sales of products locally, and then with a solid base, you can extend into the export market. In your case this is not going to work. Alaska is a distant and less-competitive supplier to national markets. In our case our largest export market is in Japan, and in that case we are going to have to customize products and service. We will have to deal with product specifications. There are different distribution channels for different products. This is in many cases beyond our marketing abilities. We are just beginning to become competitive in export marketing. Alaska is a distant and less-competitive supplier to national U.S. markets. To sell to Japan you must customize service and product. Customer service, customization, and differences in overseas distribution channels are well beyond the scale that most U.S. producers are ready for. In other words, it isn't easy.
What is the highest value-added product? Is it log exports, lumber exports, secondary manufactured exports? The classic definition for value-added is the return on labor and capital. Remember that the economy does not optimize value-added. It optimizes on profits which are equivalent to investments and savings. That's what the economy wants. For example, if the Japanese were willing to pay you $300/mbf more for spruce than your local sawmill, then value-added would be running the sawmill backwards. So be careful when you emphasize value-added that you realize how to get the highest value out of a product. And if the Japanese are willing to do something uniquely with that log that you aren't willing to do with it and raise the value of that log, then that is your highest value-added product. It is also all pure profitso from an economy standpoint, the motivation is stronger than trying to maximize value-added. Most of the time our lumber exports are not priced much differently than our domestic lumber market prices. It seems simple, but lumber has never been the highest value-added product, and in most cases, the logs have been out-pricing the lumber. Things are changing and as we get more closure of Japanese custom-cut small sawmills, and in Japan we are opening up the opportunities for exporting higher value products to Japan.
The classic definition of the highest value-added product is profit plus wages. The economy optimizes on profits. Regionally we always want value-added because we want the jobs that go with it. Secondary manufacturing product exports may or may not be the highest value-added product. They add something like an extra six people per mbf which is three times as much as a new modern sawmill. The big issue that is changing in Japan is deregulation of housing market. Our exports of value-added products went from $50 million a year to $250 million a year. During the current Asian crisis, the prices have come down to about half that level and most of the products in value-added manufacturing have contributed in thisdoors, windows, laminated beams, prefabricated components, prefabricated buildings. Just about every wood product was contributing to this increase in value-added exports. From an opportunity standpoint, there is an enormous Japanese market for prefabricated components and buildings. Most products have not reached 1 percent of the Japanese market share. The opportunities for the market are huge10 to 20 times the size of the current market if we learn to service that market in an intelligent way.
CINTRAFOR's concentration is on research and outreach to determine where there have been successes and how they might translate somewhere else. We investigate domestic supplier niches. We try to match up something that you know how to do with marketing opportunities overseas. This can provide a sound basis for research outreach, education, and information services on the problems and opportunities in the forest products trade to the benefit of industry, government associations, and the economy. We also produce a directory for value-added wood products.
We have conducted country profiles for many of the Asian countries from the standpoint of forest products marketing. It's important to know where your competitors are going to beat your socks off. We didn't know that Europe was going to go into high-priced Japanese markets. Research areas, include Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Europe, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chile, New Zealand and Argentina. Why does it cost twice as much to build a house in Japan as it does in the U.S.? These are huge barriers to our export success. Included in these problems are trade and tariff barriers and code changes. Another area is the changing forest products quality versus what our competitors are offering. We lost the hemlock market to Chile and New Zealand to Radiata pine. Engineered products are new product areas. Product substitution is another threat. What is it that distinguishes a successful exporter from an non-successful one? It is not the raw materials or the resource, but rather it is the commitment of the company to understand the market is what determines success.
What are Alaskan comparative advantages that we need to know more about. Look at the end use studies for some of your species. You single out the things that you have got that that are different than the rest of the worldthose are the things that we need to focus on. Go back to that definition of value-added wood products and remember that you are going to export your highest valued logs that someone is going to pay more for. What you need to do is find markets for the rest of the stuff that that market isn't going to take. You must have not only the highest returns for the highest grade products, but you have to generate the infrastructural investments to make sure that you get as much as you can from the lower grade products. This is one of the harder things to do in Alaska. Now that you no longer have a pulp mill, it seems that you have only got a chip market to Japan, and that is not going to take the full spectrum of residuals.
In Alaska you lack much of the business infrastructure found in Washington and Oregon, and so many of the job multipliers do not exist because you would have to import too much product in order to produce a product.
Alaska has some comparative advantages. One issue is how to increase the market values of species such as Alaska red cedar and high quality spruce, both of which are different from what the rest of the world provides.
The value of timber is determined by quality. What is the value of the highest quality log 300 miles from the Russian coast versus next to the Washington state coast? I guarantee you the difference is $400 per mbf or more. It's not the quality of the log but the whole system to deliver the product that determines value.
Are environmental policies increasing public values globally and/or locally? Environmental policy vs. marketing tradeoff...and do they have an impact on trade? The cost of most of our environmental policies, if you ask the public (not the advocates), is lousy. The job costs and out-of-pocket costs are so high, that relative to the benefits, are really poor and not very effective. The trade-offs are not good. If timber has no market value, its non market utility value is higher. If there is no market for the Tongass timber, then its non-market utility value to New Yorkers is higher. On the other hand, what should be important out here is what the Alaskan's thinkwhat is your value structure. That should be well understood so you can articulate what your Alaskan value structure is for the way you use your resources. Because you don't own most of them directly, you sure should have more to say about them than you have had.
Collaboration, Sustainable Businesses and Communities
Lynn Jungwirth, Executive Director of the Watershed Research and Training Center, Hayfork, California
I come from a timber family that did sawmilling and logging. This is a community of about 2,000 people set in the middle of the Trinity National Forest that is totally timber dependent. In 1990, a judge closed the federal forests until the USFS could come up with a way of saving the spotted owl. Since we were totally timber dependent, the industry in our town was a sawmill that cut annually 100 mmbf. The logging community that logged, the school system, and the forest service were the main employers. In 1990 the community went through a sudden and severe jolt.
In 1993, President Clinton held his Northwest Timber Summit and emphasized that they wanted to solvethis once and for all. At the summit we stated that what we really wanted was a stable supply of timber, and we had been saying that for many years. Well, we got our stable supply, and it was 10 percent of what it had previously been. So my community since 1994 has been dealing with the president's plan and the impact of that.
I also serve as National Chair of the Community's Committee....we have been successful in getting thousands to talk about future of forestry in the U.S. Coming from the presidents plan area for southeast Oregon and northern California I have been able to participate in what we are beginning to call "community forestry."
Why have we called it "community forestry?" Because no one else was willing to do it. The forest industry was chased away, and it was to hard to make a living trying to live with changing government regulations. But the communities wanted to be able to have a communitythey wanted to be able to have a school system and live there. So the community got itself together, and when it got itself together, it did it with the help from the University. Some people from the University had some money, and they came into the community and said that you guys have been fighting these timber wars for 26 years and would you like to come to a neutral table and see if you can work things out.
We said no. We ain't sitting down with those SOBs. We did that before, and every time we sit down with them, we come back with less. They said we can help you do this. They talked to us about civic responsibility...we had heard about economic and environmental responsibility but not about civic responsibility. So they facilitated a process, and we discovered we actually did have some common ground. As we have worked around the country at these community based collaboratives, they take a special talent.
It isn't everybody who likes to collaborate (collaborationan unnatural act performed by non-consenting adults). We found that when we did this that we could bring lots of people to the table and we could begin to integrate the value systems that had torn us apart. So in my town we agreed on three things. We had a strong timber industry, strong environmental community, and we had normal middle ground individuals. We agreed that we wanted to save the fisheries in the
Southfork River, we wanted a watershed research and training center so we could make this transition from being big timber driven to being habitat driven, and we wanted a program on the national forest that would address the fire threat. We wanted an aggressive fuels reduction program. The environmental community was a leader in getting the information that helped us come to that conclusion. So we moved forward as a community on those three fronts, and we began trying to find the resources to make this transition.
The watershed center that we started is a nonprofit 501c3. This assures the timber industry that you are not going to doing anything to compete for profit. We needed a way to leverage money long-term. The University system assisted in this, and they had a post-doc that helped with the program. The University of California Berkeley was a research institution. A post-doc appeared on the horizon and indicated that they would help in understanding community based forestry in the U.S. They asked us what we wanted to do. We felt that public access information was key. If we are going to participate in decisions about public lands then we needed to have access to public information. They told us they would teach us how to do GIS and taught us to use the information systems that are out there. Our local people developed a high tech skill that was marketable. Another University student showed up and said, "I've got to write a thesis on this socio-economic stuff. They helped us do the research. We found out that after timber industry consolidated in 1982, our timber cut was going up, and our manufacturing employment was going down. So just getting the cut out was not necessarily helping our community. We found that if the little guy doesn't have access...then it is going to go to the big guy. This is GOOD for generating jobs for their processing plant in your community, but it is BAD because they take their profit and reinvest them in Indonesia or California or in Alabama. They don't reinvest it in your community. These little guys did invest in our community. That's the kind of reinvestment you need to keep a community alive. So we started looking at where does the benefit go off the public land actually. The University Extension was helpful in facilitating collaborative processes. We could track that because the University Extension was helpful in facilitating collaborative processes. They were conveners for the workshops and conferences to get the people together that had to work things out. They were facilitators, not policy makers. They participated in many local collaborative groups. They got everyone to the table to talk about the key issues.
They found that universities do conflict resolution, and can get people to identify the fact that we need some Jeffersonian democracy. The average individual needs to get involved. We started talking about civic stewardship. Stop leaving it up to the politicians, timber industry and environmental community. The university is a wonderful catalyst for that. Long term goals make them really inflexible. The only way to make it work is to bring in interested third parties. This is the role of the university which has primarily a bias toward the people. You can bring in other money to the table and a university person can help with a three-hour workshop.
Globally, the relationship between people and the forest is going through a tremendous change and there are a lot of international resources out there. Where usually in community forestry around the world, what happens is after the forest has been cut down and is of no commercial value to the community, then they say "go see what you an do." Instead of cutting it down first we have now symbolically done that with government regulation. So we are still in a place in parts of the U.S. where the forest isn't very valuable to the local communities because it has been put off base. We are now trying to figure out how to reestablish that relationship. And as we work with community groups around the U.S. on this problem, this is about political stability of a decision. How do you get that social piece done, how do you change that relationship, and how do you have a relationship with a forest that is socially acceptable and that works economically? I have found that there are four things that they do: 1) need a better process for decision making, 2) one that is open 3)it needs to be transparent, and 4) it needs to be inclusive and science based.
After they have a better process and they get the people to the table (not just the ones that want to argue), then they decide what is the common ground, and what can we move forward on. The concept is stewardship. They want to take care of the wildlife, take care of the trees, the community, and the kids. Then they ask, "How are we going to fund this?" What is the reinvestment strategy? This is where the economic peace comes in. If you don't have an economic engine that can use the low-value hemlock, then you won't be able to get it off. And if you need to take it off to take care of bugs or fire or wildlife habitat, then it's not coming off, and the community needs to develop programs to assist that and make it economically viable. Another role in this for the university is then monitoring what we are doing based on the values of the entire community. Community-based forestry is a concept of democracy. Many of our institutions have failed in solving this natural resource problem and that's why these community groups are coming together. The communities have said that "if government can't do it, then I guess we will have to do it."
The university's role is to help get partners to the table, answer their questions, bring science in a disciplined manner, and respond to the need. There is a lot of "soft money" out there about natural resource issuesthe Ford Foundation, for example. You don't get to access it unless you convene yourselves as a community. This is about rebuilding the community around the different interactions with the forest. At last count, there were 6,000 community-based forest groups in the U.S.some watersheds, some forestry....how are you going to organize yourselves? Holding hands together will help you cover a bigger piece of turf to help these people find a new economic solution.
Q: Hayfork. Did you find other things to diversify into? Did the people and the industry stay?
A: A lot moved away. Our town is now lots of old people and single moms with kids. We have started a little furniture business, and we built a new yarder that is suited to small diameter trees. The community is rebuilding. Some people are trying to find something else they can do. The Forest Service is still there. Their numbers have depleted. Tourism is not yet an option.
Q: Did you find you had to have a certain size of group, a viable entity you needed to have a working group?
A: One of the things they needed was a middle-of-the-road environmentalist. If they contribute to the community, you want to take them. You can do it with a group of five people. They just have to feel like they are connected to the rest of the community. If you create a separate table and say, "We're going to build a retraining program so we can do this technical work in the forest. What would you like to bring?" We tried to push the Forest Service around and make them do things. It didn't work. So now we say, "This is the direction we (the community) want to go." We are needing to rebuild our community and you (USFS) are a member of our community, so how would you like to participate? They became very supportive of our efforts. So create a table for this discussion, have a vision that the people in your community are willing to support, have support of your local government, and ask people in. They will help and bring those resources there.
Comment: Don't be afraid to step out of the box. It's important to figure out what you can agree on and be sure to identify even small early success, no matter how small. It becomes important.
Q: Hayfork is a lot smaller than Southeast Alaska. Have you seen these groups work regionally?
A: Bioregional groups have been very successful. The Quincy Library Group is wrestling with management of 12 million acres. A lot of these groups got together and formed lead partnership groups. They now have that group working collaboratively. It feeds on itselfpeople want to be involved, and then you get policy changes at that level. We built a training program that was reproduced in 16 other communities. We formed a partnership with the forest service, the community college and the department of labor. All of the sudden we had a regional approach.
Q: Using Fairbanks area as an example of a problem that we haveState Division of Forestry and 1.8 million acres timberland....mandated management providing for the value of the resources while producing revenue from the production of timber which goes towards assisting funds for education. We've had an ongoing saga of public meetings to provide input on the management of the TVSF. These tend to be somewhat adversarial public meetings with environmentalists talking about everything that is wrong. If we're going to get on with things, we need to get to a community process that is like what you have described. How do we begin this process?
A: You can set a meeting up to be adversarial. Create a different table. This is civic responsibility. We want to see if we can create solutions that help both of you get what you want. You have got to bring in the schoolteachers, public health, welfare department, and solution-oriented people in the middle. The warriors move to the outside. They used to be in control. The more people you can put in the middle the better.
Comment: I was warned that Alaskans have very strong opinions about things. There is very little middle group. What we really need to do is create more apathy.
Q: There is a collaborative stewardship group on Prince of Wales. There is a place that is valuable to a bunch of people to be logged and to another group as a place they don't want to see roaded and clearcut. We got facilitators for this group and then hear that the facilitators are being pressured by outside industry saying it's not going the way they want it to go. They started getting pressure about job loss. People were starting to be pressured and dropped out of the group because they didn't like the way the group was headed.
A: That's why you need the disinterested party to keep the process honest.
Comment: I still live off the road system and have a phone that rarely functions. I'd just as soon keep it that way. There are other folks who want more roads. The area around me is rapidly disappearing from what I knew as a kid. I'm heartened by your optimism but wonder how we can really contribute to have this kind of thing.
Comment: I've been to these collaborative meetings in Thorne Bay. One thing we could talk about was the green sheet sale issue. It looks like we're making headway.
A: There is a lot of power when it comes from a broad base. I encourage you to stay at the table. The world is run by the people who show up.
Comment: The biggest problem is the radical on one side or the other. I don't believe in cutting every tree on the Tongass either. They cry about how many roads there are on Prince of Wales Island, but they don't mention that there's tens of thousands of acres where there isn't any road nearby. We need moderation on both sides. Maybe I'm getting a little radical because I'm getting pushed out of a way I want to live. We need a medium ground.
A: If everybody hates clearcuts just because it's a dirty word, you need people who know how to write prescriptions for a certified sustainable forestry. Let's make a deal with the university, forest service, industry and environmental community, and we'll all hold hands and say, "We'll just take this 40 acres you were going to clearcut and do a different kind of forestry on it. We'll all be responsible and accountable and see if we can make the economics work." When you do that, people stop arguing about philosophy and start taking about real issues.
Comment: By the time we got back to Hayfork, the timber war was over and it was time to get into reconstruction. When we walked into the battles that were going on, Lynn was able to diffuse a lot of the animosity by saying, "How does what you're suggesting preserve my community?" Both the environmentalist and the people who were big industry have to think about preservation of the community.
Forest ecosystem management&emdash;providing for the long-term health, diversity, productivity and sustainability of forests&emdash;has existed in many forms and been practiced by many different peoples for thousands of years. Having to live within your means through subsistence on the products of the forest and its associated water systems becomes especially crucial to long-term survival of a community if you live on an island. The ancient Hawaiian people developed an elaborate culturally based program to provide for the long-term productivity and sustainability of watersheds, the ahupua'a, on their islands. The ahupua'a were usually a radial shaped area which extended from the upper ridge or mountain tops to the shore line. Certain lands or watersheds were made available for subsistence gathering while others were managed under restricted use (kapu) whereby the diversity of plants and their interrelated linkages with other life forms was to be maintained. To the ancient Hawaiians the concept of economic development of forest resources was consistent with the island ecosystems as long as the integrity and sustainability of the ahupua'a were maintained.
Currently on Maui, a group of Hawaiians are forming the Ka Ohana O Kahikinui (the family of Kahikinui&emdash;Kahikinui is a district on Maui) in cooperation with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to promote a return to responsible land stewardship through land management planning of the ahupua'a. This program was designed to create a community using traditional and scientific land management methods with the goal of becoming economically and socially self-sufficient and self-determining.
This report is annually published jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and the State of Alaska Division of Forestry. This informative and colorful report provides a brief but authoritative discussion on the presence and distribution of current problems with forest insects and diseases throughout Alaska. The following is a brief summary of some of the findings from the 1998 survey.
Insects
Spruce Bark Beetle&emdash;Activity declined by 42 percent with an estimated 316,800 acres attacked in 1998. This decline is attributed largely to the lack of susceptible stands for attack. However, some locations such as in the Anchor River area will likely see an increase in activity. Spruce beetle activity in Southeast Alaska will have significantly declined as well.
Spruce Needle Aphid&emdash;Infestation occurred on 44,300 acres in Southeast Alaska from the southern end of Prince of Wales Island to Cape Fairweather. Although much of the infestation was along the beach fringe, there was some incidence of upslope attack in the Sitka area.
Spruce Budworm&emdash;Activity increased by 128 percent with the majority occurring at Tanana. Most of the intense infestation continues to be concentrated along the Yukon River Basin and is extending westward towards Ruby and Galena.
Willow Leaf Blotchminer&emdash;Insect populations exploded during 1998 with over 120,000 acres infected and is centered mostly along the upper Yukon and Porcupine River Valleys.
Large Aspen Tortrix&emdash;Insect activity increased by over 300 percent with the infestation localized in two areasthe Central Kenai Peninsula and near Northway.
Larch Sawfly&emdash;An estimated 461,800 acres of larch forest were defoliated in 1998 in Interior Alaska. The insect activity has continued now for a sixth straight year and is leading to some larch mortality. The majority of the activity continues to be occurring from the Alaska Range west to the Kuskokwim River.
Diseases
Stem and butt rot fungi are responsible for the loss of nearly 1/3 of the gross volume of the forests in Southeast Alaska. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe results in growth loss, top-kill and even mortality in old-growth forests. The tomentosus root rot along with other root and heart rots continue to have a significant impact on the spruce forests of Southcentral and Interior Alaska. The red belt fungus is producing dramatic loss of sound wood in spruce bark beetle killed trees. A high incidence of stem and root rots continues to cause loss of wood volume in mature birch and aspen stands. In Southeast Alaska the yellow-cedar decline, estimated at nearly 477,000 acres, continues to be a concern.
For more information or to obtain a copy of this survey, please contact either of the following:
Roger Burnside, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Resources Section, 3601 "C" Street, Suite 1034, Anchorage, AK 99503-5937; phone: 907-269-8460; rogerb@dnr.state.ak.us;
Kathleen Matthews, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry/FHM, 3301 "C" Street, Suite 522, Anchorage, AK 99503-3956; phone: 907-271-2574; kmatthewss/r10_chugach@uf.fed.us
The FY99 Omnibus Appropriations Bill directs the FS "to place no less than five full-time employees in Sitka, Alaska, to establish and operate a harvesting and wood utilization laboratory." FS action was initiated at the Regional Foresters and Directors Meeting in November 1998. The decisions from that meeting were to administrate the unit as a team within the Social and Economic Values Research Program as part of the Pacific Northwest Research Station (Portland, Oregon). The PNW Research Station has a long history of conducting research on an array of topics in Alaska. Funding for the Sitka research unit has been allocated from FY98 FS research carryover funds.
Recent changes in the forest products industry of Southeast Alaska have provided impetus for the FS to open the new Wood Utilization Center in Sitka, Alaska. The Center has a Southeast Alaska focus and a state-wide scope. Opened in February 1999, the Center's mission is to identify and evaluate opportunities for viable forest products industries. Elements of the Center's charter include direction to:
The FS Wood Utilization Center is a component of the Pacific Northwest Research Station with assistance in its development being provided by the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. In the Center's first year, four professional research employees will be hired to undertake studies involving wood utilization, processing, economics, and marketing.
For more information contact:
Theodore L. Laufenberg, Team Leader and Research Engineer, Wood Utilization Center, USDA-FS Pacific Northwest Research Station, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835; phone: 907-747-4349; fax: 907-747-4331; tlaufenb/r10_chatham@fs.fed.us
Last year, the Forest Products Manufacturing Project released The Alaska Market for Value-Added Lumber Products study which quantified the in-state market for value-added lumber products and suggested action strategies for increasing Alaska producers' share of the 90-100 MMBF in-state lumber market.
During 1998 the project also accomplished the following technical assistance and grading services outcomes.
Technical Assistance OutcomesYear-to-Date Accomplishments
Grading Services Outcomes&emdash;Year to Date Accomplishments
Funds Available for Feasibility Studies
During 1999 the project is providing funding to partially underwrite the cost of feasibility studies and/or business plans to establish facilities that provide value-added processing services to mills within various geographic regions. These facilities could be operated by for-profit businesses, non-profit organizations, or organizations established by multiple companies such as cooperatives or manufacturing networks. INC will manage the feasibility study/business plan project(s) for applicants selected to receive the partial underwriting.
Firms interested in accessing these funds to cost share the development of a feasibility study and/or business plan should complete a Statement of Interest Form and submit it to:
Lynn Witten, Operations Manager, Alaska, Industry Network Corporation, 3380 C Street, Ste. 100, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; phone: 907-565-5655; fax: 907-565-5645
Sponsored by the Alaska Cooperative Extension and the Yukon Government Department of Economic Development.
When: May 3, 4, and 5, 1999
Where: Fairbanks, bus departure each day at (8 am) beginning at Sophie's Station
Cost: No fee for attending the conference, travel, or the reception (reception and food - March 5, from 6-9 pm, at 107 Wickersham St., Wickersham Hall, Fairbanks)
The Alaska Cooperative Extension in cooperation with the Canadian Yukon Government Department of Economic Development is conducting a three-day tour of forest products operations in Interior Alaska. The three-day tour includes chartered bus travel to a variety of forest products operations including sawmills, log home manufacturers, furniture and flooring, and other value-added wood products manufacturers. The tour begins on May 3, 199, with travel from Fairbanks south towards Delta and Dry Creek. The second day, May 4, 1999, involves visits in the Fairbanks area including both large and small sawmill operations, discussions on lumber drying and grading, furniture, and other value-added wood product businesses. The third day, May 5, 1999, involves several stops along the Parks Highway heading towards Nenana. On Wednesday evening, May 5, a reception is being hosted by the Canadians in Fairbanks and will be an opportunity to hear several brief presentations on the status of the Forest Products Industry in the Yukon and Interior Alaska along with some discussion on forest fires, bark beetle mortality, and timber sale volumes from government and private sources.
The bus tour and evening reception are provided free of charge. If you are interested in participating in the tour, contact Bob Wheeler or Amy Simpson of Extension (phone: 907-474-6363).
Earth Day - April 22, 1999
North Pole High School&emdash;Has a yearly festival celebrating Earth Day, and 600+ students from local schools attend and participate in the activities.
Several elementary and high schools around the Fairbanks area are planning Earth Day events.
Arbor Day - May 17, 1999
Nenana&emdash;Sarah MeClellan of the Tanana Chiefs Conference helped coordinate 25 people planting 200 seedlings at 10 sites around Nenana in 1998. The 1999 plan is to do maintenance, replace dead trees, pull weeds and add mulch and signs around trees.
Delta Elementary School&emdash;Teri Chapman is coordinating with six to 10 classes planting assorted trees around the school.
McGrath&emdash;This area is planning an "Adopt-a-Tree" Program with help from a grant with the Division of Forestry, Urban and Community Forestry Program. Local people will pay a nominal fee and provide maintenance for plantings around McGrath.
North Pole&emdash;Plans are to continue having celebrations in Miller Park involving kids from the local schools.
Snedden Memorial Park&emdash;In the Island Home area of Fairbanks, the plan is to involve the community, the school kids, and local agencies in planting trees around the park.
University of Alaska Fairbanks&emdash;The campus usually has a celebration in various locations around the campus involving the community.
Ester Community Park&emdash;They have a yearly cleanup and tree planting.
Numerous schools around Fairbanks have tree plantings utilizing school groups interested in improving their school environment.
