Legislature(1993 - 1994)
05/08/1994 10:35 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the management and sale of state
timber; relating to the classification of state land
that would preclude harvesting of timber or would
designate harvesting of timber as an incompatible use;
1
relating to the administration of forest land,
proposals for state forest, and the determination of
sustained yield; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Brown questioned whether the 24 hour public
notice had been met on SB 310.
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 47
(copy on file). She explained that the amendment would
insert "multiple" on page 10, line 29.
RICK Solie, STAFF, SENATOR FRANK stated that Senator Frank
did not object to Amendment 47.
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 47. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 48
(copy on file). She explained that the amendment would add
a new requirement that "provisions guaranteeing necessary
public access for uses described in (d)(1) of this section"
would have to be included in a Forestry Management Act
agreement (FMA).
Mr. Solie emphasized that page 7, line 29 contains language
that covers provisions for existing public access. He
suggested that language on page 7, line 29 be deleted if the
amendment is adopted, to prevent redundancy.
Representative Brown MOVED to AMEND Amendment 48 to delete
subsection (n) page 7, line 29. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 48 as amended.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 49
(copy on file). She explained that the amendment would
delete "at the discretion of the state." She expressed
concern that the language would not provide for fair market
value of the dispositions of FMA's.
Mr. Solie pointed out that the amendment was added by the
subcommittee at the request of Co-Chair MacLean.
TOM BOUTIN, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES described possible discretionary uses by the
state.
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 49.
Representative Therriault OBJECTED. A roll call vote was
taken on the MOTION.
2
IN FAVOR: Hoffman, Brown,
OPPOSED: Grussendorf, Navarre, Foster, Hanley, Martin,
Parnell, Therriault, MacLean, Larson
The MOTION FAILED (2-9).
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 50
(copy on file). She explained that amendment 50 would
delete "or another provision of this chapter" on page 3,
line 19. She MOVED to AMEND Amendment 50, delete "section"
and insert "chapter" on page 3, line 20. She explained that
the purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the Forest
Practices Act is not removed from the provisions of AS
38.05. This statute addresses best interest findings and
public notice requirements for land disposal and other
management actions.
Mr. Solie spoke in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Boutin
expressed concern that the amendment would create confusion.
He maintained that the amendment was unnecessary. He
explained that AS 38.05.112 substantiates AS 38.05.945 which
provides for public notice. He emphasized that section 3
(d)(1) contains language provided for under AS 38.05.112.
He asserted that section 3 (d)(1) has been strengthened and
is better, in regards to timber, than current statutory
language.
There being NO OBJECTION, AMENDMENT 50 was amended to delete
"section" and insert "chapter" on page 3, line 20.
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 50 as amended.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Navarre, MacLean
OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Grussendorf, Larson
The MOTION FAILED (4-7).
Representative Navarre MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 51 (copy on
file). Representative Therriault OBJECTED. He explained
that Amendment 51 would insert, "(4) determine the allowable
harvest of the forest unit to be managed under an agreement
authorized by AS 38.05.122 which shall not exceed 70
percent." He stressed that 30 percent of the allowable
harvest would be reserved for other multiple uses or smaller
operators.
Mr. Boutin noted that allowable harvest is calculated by
resource. He stated that there might be a FMA which
utilizes the entire allowable harvest.
3
Mr. Solie spoke in opposition to the amendment. He felt
that the amendment would restrict the practice of sustained
yield as the criteria. He noted that page 6, line 3
requires that land or timber necessary to sustain a saw mill
or wood processing facility is not taken.
Co-Chair MacLean spoke in support of amendment 51.
Representative Navarre stated that the language on page 6
did not adequately address his concerns.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
51.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Grussendorf, Navarre, MacLean
OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Larson
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Representative Navarre MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 52 (copy on
file). He noted that the amendment would insert
"economically viable" after "encouraging" on page 10 line
24. He clarified that for the purpose of AS 41 there would
be "economically viable" development of commercial forest
lands. Representative Therriault OBJECTED.
Representative Therriault maintained that the legislation
only highlights commercial use. He stressed that the
amendment would tip the balance that has been maintained.
Representative Navarre suggested that it makes sense that
the FMA be economically viable.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
52.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Navarre, MacLean, Larson
OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Grussendorf
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Representative Navarre MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 53 (copy on
file). He explained that amendment 53 would add a sunset
clause to allow the legislature to come back and exercise
its oversight authority, to make sure that FMA's are in the
best interest of the state.
Co-Chair MacLean spoke in support of amendment 53.
Representative Therriault spoke in opposition to amendment
53.
4
Representative Navarre clarified that the contract
provisions in effect would be valid and enforceable. He
stressed that the amendment would allow the issue to be
revisited in order to determine if FMA's should be
continued.
Mr. Solie relayed that legal counsel advised that the
amendment would "muddy the waters" since it is unclear if an
existing contract would be impaired. He emphasized that the
legislature can always revisit the issue. Representative
Navarre disagreed that existing FMA's would be effected.
Representative Therriault reiterated that the legislature
can revisit the issue at its discretion.
Representative Brown noted that if the annual requirement
for solicitation resulted in one FMA a year, that by 1999
the state will have exhausted the amount of available land.
SENATOR STEVE FRANK spoke in opposition to the amendment.
He emphasized that the commissioner is not required to enter
into a FMA.
Representative Therriault referred to page 3, section 3 (b).
He noted that the commissioner may provide a written finding
to the governor that the market or other conditions make it
unlikely that such a solicitation will be accepted.
Representative Navarre pointed out that the commissioner
would still maintain discretion without legislative approval
or disapproval.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
53.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Grussendorf, Navarre, MacLean
OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Larson
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 54 (copy on
file). She explained that the amendment would remove all
changes to the Forest Practices Act. Provisions
establishing FMA's would be retained. She provided members
with a letter from the Board of Forestry stating that the
Forest Practices Act is accomplishing its intended purpose
of perpetuating and protecting Alaska's forest resources.
The Board did not recommend any changes to the Forest
Practices Act. She stressed that the Forest Practices Act
was the result of years of negotiations among affected
5
groups. She maintained that a delicate balance exists
between different competing uses that are trying to coexist
and make multiple use of the state's forests. She
maintained that a comprehensive public process is needed
before changes should be made. She contended that the
amendment would allay some of the public's concerns.
Mr. Boutin pointed out that the Board of Forestry did not
discuss the impact of SB 310 on the Forest Practices Act.
He maintained that the bulk of SB 310 does not modify the
Forest Practices Act.
Representative Grussendorf noted that his concerns in
regards to the Forest Practices Act have been addressed.
Representative Brown referred to testimony by the United
Fishermen of Alaska (UFA). She noted that UFA testified
that the legislation's changes to the Forest Practices Act
reduces the intent to manage state and municipal forest for
multiple uses, weakens the forest planning and review
process, and alters the requirement for reforestation on
private land.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-166, Side 1)
Mr. Boutin acknowledged that the Board of Forestry has not
specifically addressed the ramifications of SB 310.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
54.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Navarre, MacLean
OPPOSED: Grussendorf, Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell,
Therriault, Larson
The MOTION FAILED (4-7).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 55 (copy on
file). She explained that the amendment would delete
changes made in subsection (d). She noted that subsection
(d) limits requirements only to designated state forest.
She recommended that the changes in subsection (d) are
unnecessary and not be adopted.
Mr. Boutin noted that subsection (d) has been modified to
contain language supplied by the Department of Fish and Game
and the Department of Natural Resources. Representative
Brown agreed that subsection (d) was improved. She
questioned why subsection (d) should be limited to
designated state forests.
Mr. Boutin did not interpret subsection (d) to be limited to
6
timber.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
55.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Navarre
OPPOSED: Grussendorf, Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell,
Therriault, MacLean, Larson
The MOTION FAILED (3-8).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 56 (copy on
file). She explained that the amendment would clarify that
standards only apply to state and municipal forest lands, by
the insertion of new language on page 9, line 30. She
observed that the legislation deletes the requirement to
look at immediate and long term individual and collective
effects.
Mr. Boutin stressed that the Department of Natural Resources
has to meet the requirements of the Forest Practices Act.
He observed that the amendment would impact the coastal
consistency review of the Tongass National Forest.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
56.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Hoffman
OPPOSED: Navarre, Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell,
Therriault, MacLean, Larson
The MOTION FAILED (3-7).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 57 (copy on
file). She observed that the amendment was proposed at the
request of the Boreal Forest Association. She explained
that the amendment would assure that acceptable seedlings
would be of a variety native to Alaska. She observed that
the amendment would discourage "tree farms" and provide for
variety of habitat.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in opposition to amendment
56.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to AMENDMENT 57.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Navarre
OPPOSED: Hoffman, Grussendorf, Foster, Hanley, Martin,
Parnell, Therriault, MacLean, Larson
The MOTION FAILED (2-9).
7
Representative Brown WITHDREW AMENDMENT 58.
Representative Navarre MOVED, on behalf of Representative
Davies, to ADOPT AMENDMENT 59 (copy on file). Amendment 59
would delete "sales of less than 50,000 board feet" and
insert "personal use timber harvest" on page 1, line 8.
Representative Davies spoke in support of amendment 59.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
59.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Grussendorf, Navarre, MacLean
OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Larson
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Representative Navarre MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 60 (copy on
file). He explained that the amendment would make sure a
proposed agreement is consistent with municipal land use
plans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES spoke in support of amendment 60.
He emphasized the need for municipal consultation early in
the process of adopting a FMA.
Representative Therriault OBJECTED. A roll call vote was
taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT 60.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Grussendorf, Navarre, MacLean,
Larson
OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault
The MOTION PASSED (6-5).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 61 (copy on
file).
Representative Davies noted that his constituents are
concerned with the size of potential FMA's. He explained
that the amendment would limit the size of FMA's in the
Tanana Valley. The amendment would limit timber harvests to
no more than 6,000 acres of land or 1,000 acres of white
spruce in the Tanana Valley drainage area.
Mr. Solie spoke against adoption of amendment 61. He noted
that the subcommittee held open amendment 5. He recommended
that amendment 5 would be less constraining to the
Department of Natural Resources. Amendment 5 would insert a
new paragraph to read: "(2) the tentatively successful
proposed agreement covers no more land or timber than is
necessary to make the proposed agreement economically
8
sustainable over the life of the proposed agreement."
Representative Davies expressed concern with the discretion
given to the commissioner of Department of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Boutin maintained that limits on acreage would encourage
clear cutting.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
61.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Hoffman, Grussendorf, Navarre, MacLean
OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Larson
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Representative Therriault MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 5. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Therriault discussed section 8, page 11,
lines 4 - 7. He discussed sections granting separate
severability. He noted that by highlighting these sections
for severability the courts could construe that other
sections are not severable. He MOVED to delete section 8.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown questioned the assumptions used by the
Department of Natural Resources in determining that there
will be no fiscal impact associated with the legislation.
Mr. Boutin maintained that FMA's will only be entered into
if they are cost effective.
Representative Brown noted that page 9 requires that the
commissioner strictly enforce the provisions of the final
agreement and review operator's performance under the
agreement.
MCKIE CAMPBELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME estimated that the Department's fiscal note would be
zero for the first two years. For any FMA that occurs the
Department would expect a financial cost of $102.9 thousand
dollars.
Representative Navarre asked if there are current
negotiations for a FMA. Mr. Boutin replied that FMA's in
the Interior, Delta Junction, Tok and Fairbanks has been
discussed. He stressed that the timber would be offered for
sale through long term negotiated contracts if FMA
legislation is not enacted.
9
Representative Brown further questioned the Department's
assertion that there would be no fiscal impact as a result
of the legislation.
Representative Therriault MOVED to report HCS CSSB 310 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Brown
OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Grussendorf, Larson
OPPOSED: Brown
Representatives Hoffman, and Navarre were not present for
the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-1).
HCS CSSB 310 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Fish and Game and with a zero fiscal note by
the Department of Natural Resources, dated 3/30/94.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|