Opinion ID: 1359921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Definition of Sustained Yield.

Text: The basic issue at the trial in the superior court was whether the contract volume of 10.2 mmbf was arrived at in violation of Alaska constitutional and statutory requirements that the timber be harvested on a sustained yield basis. The majority notes its agreement with SEACC's contention that AS 41.17.950(14), which permits harvesting resulting in a declining yield over a rotation period, must be construed narrowly to avoid a conflict with article VIII, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution and AS 38.04.910(10). I agree with the court's adoption of SEACC's position here and note that the superior court finding no. 49, as well as the interpretation of sustained yield followed by the Department of Natural Resources [DNR] in reaching its decision as to the allowable cut, conflict with our interpretation of the sustained yield principle. Although the decisional document accompanying DNR's determination to enter into the contract challenged by SEACC does not explicitly define sustained yield, testimony elicited from Geoffrey Haynes, Deputy Commissioner of the DNR, indicates that the agency's interpretation of the principle was directly antithetical to that proposed by SEACC and adhered to in the draft. He stated that: [A]s far as our administrative interpretation ... the non-declining yield concept was not applicable to sustained yield and does not have to be used in the calculation of any allowable cut. Mr. Haynes then testified that this understanding of the agency's mandate directly affected its decision to market the quantity of timber sold to Schnabel under the disputed contract: In this case, we have a fifteen-year contract with the Schnabel Lumber Company. Rotation period, I believe, up there is a hundred years. That means we are only committing fifteen years of the timber in that area. ... . And the provisions in the contract are protective of other resources, as well as the flexibility we have administrative[ly] at the end of that fifteen-year period  or twenty-five-year period if it goes that long, to re-determine any kind of volumes that will be necessary if timber harvesting, in fact, were to occur there for the remaining seventy-five years. I read note 12 of the court's opinion as rejecting the agency's assumption that a declining yield during a rotation period is acceptable. In so doing, the majority in effect invalidates the methodological approach used by the agency in determining the allowable cut in the Haines area for purposes of the Schnabel contract. In my view, this mandates a remand to the department for redetermination in light of an appropriate construction of sustained yield. [1]