Opinion ID: 1359921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allowable Cut Calculation Timber Base.

Text: In my opinion SEACC persuasively contends that the allowable cut calculation principally relied upon by the DNR in negotiating the Schnabel contract failed to reflect the land use guidelines set out in the Haines Land Use Plan. There is no dispute that the December 1978 calculation predated adoption of the final plan in June 1979 and did not reflect changes made in land classification by the latter. [2] Mr. Saupe, who prepared the calculation, admitted that such a revision would have been appropriate. The superior court rejected this argument (as does the majority) by pointing out that the total harvestable acreage figure used by Saupe was less than that set forth in the final Plan. However, the total harvestable acreage figure set out in the Plan included thousands of acres which in fact are not open to immediate logging. They are included in the total because they may be opened up in the future, but at present they are inaccessible and it is apparent that they may remain so perpetually. [3] For purposes of the Schnabel contract, these acres should therefore not have been treated as if the timber resources they contain will be available to satisfy sustained yield requirements. [4] A limited comparison of the raw totals of harvestable acreage used by Saupe and proposed in the Plan fails to do justice to the precision with which Saupe made his allowable cut calculation. I do not think that one can summarily conclude that his estimate would not have been affected by the 1979 proposed withdrawals. In failing to consider the withdrawals of acreage from commercial logging effected by the 1979 Plan before entering into the Schnabel contract, and neglecting to revise its allowable cut figures, [5] it is my view that the agency clearly ignored an important factor in reaching its decision regarding permissible levels of timber harvesting in the Haines area. Thus, its decision was arbitrary, and should be remanded for a redetermination. State v. 0.644 Acres, More or Less, 613 P.2d 829, 833 (Alaska 1980).