Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/03/2022 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| SB230 | |
| SB85 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 3, 2022
9:03 a.m.
9:03:31 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Sponsor; Thatcher Brouwer,
Staff, Representative Geran Tarr; Intimayo Harbison, Staff,
Senator Josh Revak; Helge Eng, Director, Division of
Forestry, Department of Natural Resources.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dayna Mackey, Administrative Services Director, Department
of Fish and Game, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau;
Tammy Davis, Invasive Species Coordinator, Department of
Fish and Game, Juneau; Danielle Verna, Prince William Sound
Regional Citizens Advisory Council, Valdez; Lisa Kaaihue,
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, Kenai; David Martin,
Self, Clam Gulch; Paul Shadura, Self, Kalifornsky; Christy
Colles, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining Land and
Water, Anchorage; Peter Buist, Self, Fairbanks; Randall
Zarnke, President, Alaska Trappers Association, Fairbanks;
Al Barrette, Self, Fairbanks; Jessica Plachta, Executive
Director, Lynn Canal Conservation, Haines; Esther Gonzalez,
Self, California; Matt Jackson, Self, Sitka.
SUMMARY
SB 85 FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
SB 85 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 230 TRAPPING CABINS: FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION
SB 230 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSHB 54(FIN)
INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT
CSHB 54(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 54(FIN)
"An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species
Council in the Department of Fish and Game; relating
to management of invasive species; relating to
invasive species management decals; and providing for
an effective date."
9:04:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, introduced herself.
THATCHER BROUWER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR,
introduced himself.
9:04:59 AM
Representative Tarr explained the bill. She noted the
invasive species issues faced by the respective districts
of all members at the table. She thought that the bill
would have a positive impact on all areas of the state. She
discussed the brief history of the bill. She thought that
Alaska was uniquely positioned to establish the Alaska
Invasive Species Council as a mean of early intervention to
save expense and resource devastation. She spoke of efforts
to protect certain areas of the state by known invasive
species, both land and water, and the various stakeholder
groups working to manage invasive species in the state.
9:11:43 AM
Representative Tarr continued to discuss the legislation.
9:12:34 AM
Co-Chair Bishop understood that the surcharge for boats had
been conceptual.
9:12:43 AM
Representative Tarr replied in the affirmative.
9:13:14 AM
Senator Olson understood that the intent of the bill was to
establish a council that would put forth recommendations
for regulations to the department for consideration.
9:13:34 AM
Representative Tarr replied in the affirmative. She added
that the council would provide a strategic plan that
outlined specific steps the state could take to limit
vulnerability to invasive species.
9:14:33 AM
Senator Wielechowski appreciated the intent of the
legislation. He wondered whether the bill pertained to
invasive species introduced by humans or invasive species
that made their way to Alaska due to climate change.
9:15:00 AM
Representative Tarr replied that the bill pertained to
both. She expounded on potential vectors associated with
Arctic shipping.
9:17:36 AM
Senator Wilson noted the fiscal note attached to the bill.
He relayed that the projected spend was $100,000 in the
first year and $64,000 in outgoing years. He added that the
expected revenue was $4,000, which meant the remainder
would come from undesignated general funds (UGF).
9:17:55 AM
Representative Tarr cited intent language at the beginning
of the bill. She said that it was important that additional
UGF dollars not be added and that there was funding outside
of UGF dollars that could be sought to fund the council.
She thought that a representative from the department could
better speak to the matter.
9:19:16 AM
Senator Wilson asked how much the department currently
spent combating invasive species.
9:20:08 AM
DAYNA MACKEY, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, JUNEAU
(via teleconference), introduced herself. She asked Senator
Wilson to repeat his question.
9:20:28 AM
Senator Wilson asked how the bill would be funded in the
outgoing years.
9:20:33 AM
Ms. Mackey explained that there was not current federal
funding for the bill, which meant that it would be funded
with UGF dollars. She added that it was expected that other
funding would be identified.
9:21:03 AM
Senator Wilson asked how much the department spent
combating invasive species on an annual basis.
9:21:16 AM
TAMMY DAVIS, INVASIVE SPECIES COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME, JUNEAU (via teleconference), agreed to
provide that information.
9:21:43 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether Dingell-Johnson Act funds
qualified for use for the invasive species issue
9:22:01 AM
Representative Tarr replied understood that Dingell-Johnson
Act funds could be used. She thought that a follow up with
the department on the matter would be beneficial
9:22:33 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that there was a significant
number of members on the board and the fiscal note did not
account for per diem or travel. He wondered how a diverse
board that represented broadly around the state could be
maintained without considering travel expenses for board
members, particularly those that did not live on the road
system.
9:23:13 AM
Representative Tarr mentioned remote participation. She
thought that there could be a combination of in-person and
remote participation.
9:25:17 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the sponsor would support an
amendment to locate the council at the Sitka Sound Science
Center on the Gulf of Alaska. He suggested those on the
Railbelt could attend remotely.
9:25:42 AM
Representative Tarr had not considered that placement but
thought that it was a possibility. She noted that the
fiscal note suggested the need for some administrative
support.
9:26:36 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought the location was a serious point
to consider. He asserted that the Sitka Sound Science
Center experience with the issue of invasive species and
other marine issues. He added that marine research should
be conducted on the coast, where the fish were.
9:27:27 AM
Representative Tarr stated that she had served on a council
with a modest travel budget, which had afforded her the
ability to travel to remote places. She said she would
consider the location amendment amicably.
9:28:31 AM
Senator Wielechowski read from a Letter from the Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association (copy on file):
Unfortunately, due to permitting delays, an elodea
infestation in Alexander Lake in the Mat-Su spread
from 10 acres in 2014 to over 500 acres by 2016. The
cost for treatment has grew from less than $15,000 to
over $1 million because of this delay, funding the
State of Alaska has had to seek through grants and
other sources. This two-year delay also allowed for
the spread of elodea into neighboring lakes, putting
more environments and resources at risk.
Recent research by UAA's Institute of Social and
Economic Research showed that elodea can significantly
threaten Alaska salmon. The odds for Alaska salmon in
elodea-infested habitats to not exist beyond 20 years
from now are 4 to 1. That is an 80% probability of
extirpation. It was estimated that elodea could
potentially cost the commercial sockeye salmon fishing
industry $159 million per year in damages should it go
unmanaged. Alaska needs a council to ensure
permitting, planning, coordination, and resources are
available to address existing and emerging threats
such as elodea.
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the sponsor had looked
into the research cited in the letter.
9:29:46 AM
Representative Tarr replied in the affirmative. She
explained that the Institute of Social and Economic
Research (ISER) study (copy on file) showed concerning
numbers. She said that several of the supporting documents
included vulnerability studies and research maps that
showed where watercraft form the Lower 48 were coming from
with known infestations of invasive species. She expressed
a significant concern for Zebra Mussels and Green Crab
infestations.
9:31:51 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether the bill would address
invasive species outside of the water. He asked about the
fund established by the bill and wondered whether the fund
should be outside of the general fund for better protection
from lapsing.
9:32:36 AM
Representative Tarr explained that the idea was that having
the fund available would allow for immediate action to be
taken on an infestation.
9:33:56 AM
Senator Wilson expressed concern that the fund could be
swept and thought an amendment should be crafted to assure
that the funds did not lapse.
9:34:26 AM
Senator Wielechowski cited a letter from the Alaska
Invasive Species Partnership (copy on file):
In the spring of 2021, invasive zebra mussels were
found in Alaska attached to aquatic plants sold as
"moss balls" by retailers statewide. The concern was
that live zebra mussels attached to moss balls could
be released into waterways when unwanted aquarium pets
and plants are dumped, causing significant damage to
our fisheries and infrastructure.
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the council could
make recommendations to the legislature concerning moss
balls and the like.
9:35:19 AM
Representative Tarr replied in the affirmative. She cited
Page 5, line 9 of the legislation:
(g) By January 15 of each odd-numbered year, the
council shall prepare and present to the legislature
an updated five-year strategic plan that addresses the
economic effects of invasive species, states the
council's suggested priorities for addressing invasive
species, and recommends legislation and funding
required to implement the council's priorities. The
council shall transmit the plan to the senate
secretary and the chief clerk of the house of
representatives and notify the legislature that the
strategic plan is available.
9:36:14 AM
Co-Chair Bishop thought that the sponsor could focus on the
boarder crossing in Tok and whether there would be an
inspection station for incoming vehicles.
9:36:55 AM
Representative Tarr replied in the affirmative. She said
that the project was just beginning but that the hope was
that inspections for invasive species would improve at
border stations.
9:37:32 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the bill considered invasive
species on land.
9:37:54 AM
Representative Tarr replied that currently the Department
of Natural Resources was tracking terrestrials and the
Department of Fish and Game was handling aquatic invasives.
She noted that occasionally they overlapped as was the case
with Elodea, which was an aquatic plant. She said that
jurisdictions could often be questioned, and that the
council would work to provide clarity on the matter.
9:39:01 AM
Mr. Brouwer discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on
file):
Section One
Adds a new section to uncodified law that states it is
the intent of the legislature that the Department of
Fish and Game does not use money from the state's
general fund to support the Alaska Invasive Species
Council, and instead finds other sources of funding to
support the council.
Section Two
Section 16.20.800 establishes the invasive species
management decals. The decals will be produced by the
Department of Fish and Game annually and made
available for sale to the public. The fee for the
decal will be determined by the Alaska Invasive
Species Council and set in regulation. The department
will work in conjunction with the Alaska Invasive
Species Council described in Sec. 16.20.810 to design
and produce the decals. The legislature may then
appropriate the proceeds from the sale of the decals
to further produce the decals or to the invasive
species response fund described in Sec. 16.20.820, to
carry out the work of invasive species response.
Section 16.20.810 establishes the Alaska Invasive
Species Council in the Department of Fish and Game.
The council will be comprised of representatives from
the Departments of Fish and Game, Natural Resources,
Environmental Conservation and Transportation and
Public Facilities. Furthermore, the council will have
members from stakeholder organizations and industries
appointed by the governor to three-year terms, as well
as representatives from federal agencies that deal
with invasive species. The will also be two members
from the House of Representatives and two members from
the Senate.
Additionally, Section 16.20.810 outlines the
responsibilities of the council. This section requires
that the council be responsible for facilitating
cooperation between state, federal, tribal, local
agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in the
management invasive species. The council will be
tasked with recommending coordinated interagency
strategies and policies related to the management of
invasive species. The council will also provide
guidance on how to prioritize the response to invasive
species and how to best use funds from the invasive
species response fund. Lastly, the council will be
responsible for selecting designers of the invasive
species control decals and approving and promoting the
designs.
Furthermore, Section 16.20.810 provides guidance on
council meetings and deliverables. The council will
meet at least once a year, and by January 15th of each
odd-numbered year, the council shall produce a plan
that addresses the economic impact of invasive species
and recommends legislation and funding to implement
the council's priorities.
Section 16.20.820 establishes an invasive species
response fund in the general fund and allows the
department to use the funds to prevent, control, or
eradicate invasive species.
Section 16.20.850 defines commissioner, council,
department, invasive species, management of invasive
species and non-native species.
Section Three
Section 37.05.146 adds the invasive species decal fee
to the list of separately accounted program receipts.
Section Four
Adds a July 1, 2029, sunset date all the sections in
the bill.
Section Five
Gives direction to the governor regarding the
appointment of the members, chair, as well as timing
and number of meetings in the initial year.
Section Six
Establishes an immediate effective date.
9:42:35 AM
Representative Tarr explained that the sunset date was
added in the other body. She said that she agreed to the
sunset because it would allow for an evaluation of the work
of the council.
9:44:15 AM
DANIELLE VERNA, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND REGIONAL CITIZENS
ADVISORY COUNCIL, VALDEZ (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. She believed that the council
would be beneficial to the state by creating coordinated
strategies between stakeholders. She similar council were
already working in Washington and Oregon. She thought that
monitoring invasive species in the state was important and
discussed the ways that invasive species were transported
to the states land and waters. She encouraged the
committee to consider the benefit of invasive species
prevention.
9:49:11 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
9:49:32 AM
LISA KAAIHUE, COOK INLET AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION, KENAI
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
spoke of the affects of invasive species on the salmon
population. She believed the establishment of a council and
response fund was critical to dealing with the issue of
invasive species in the state.
9:51:32 AM
DAVID MARTIN, SELF, CLAM GULCH (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the legislation. He said that the council
would not only help to develop plans to eradicate invasive
species in the stat but would also educate the public. He
spoke of the various ills of invasive species in the state
both on land and in water.
9:53:47 AM
PAUL SHADURA, SELF, KALIFORNSKY (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He stated that he
was a commercial fisherman, so he understood the issues
related to invasive species. He spoke of various action
taken on the issue at the federal level.
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
HB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 230
"An Act establishing a $25 fee to construct or use a
trapping cabin on state land; and exempting trapping
cabin permittees from additional land use fees."
9:58:03 AM
INTIMAYO HARBISON, STAFF, SENATOR JOSH REVAK, introduced
the legislation. He said that the bill dealt with issues
currently surrounding the Trapping Cabin Permit Program
(TCP). He stated that one such issue was the departments
inability to reissue permits for already constructed
trapping cabins under the TCP program, which resulted in
those cabins being reauthorized under land-use permits, or
other permits, which came with higher costs and fees. He
stated that the bill contained input from relevant
stakeholders and the department and was intended to resolve
many issues currently facing Alaska trappers and trapping
cabin permits. He relayed that the bill would resolve the
issue of trapping cabin permits being issued as other
permits and required the department to issue trapping cabin
permits under TCP. He related that the bill would limit the
application fee to $100 and raised the fee for the use of
the land from $10 to $25, per year of the permit.
Senator Wielechowski asked how many trapping cabins in the
state were under the program.
Mr. Harbison deferred to the department.
9:59:49 AM
CHRISTY COLLES, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, DIVISION OF MINING
LAND AND WATER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), replied
that there were 97 currently under the program in the
state.
10:00:14 AM
Senator Wielechowski wondered how the program worked.
10:00:27 AM
Ms. Colles explained that the two statutes were developed
in the 1980s. One pertaining to an existing cabin, with
very strict requirements to meet the stature; if the
existing cabin was on state land the user had to provide
proof that it was being used regularly before August 1,
1984, that the cabin was being used to provide temporary
shelter and provide proof of ownership. She shared that the
1984 date was the current problem with addressing existing
cabins. She relayed that the other statute required
trappers to apply for a shelter under regulations; the
trapper must show that they have a DF&G trapping license,
receipts of fur sales, and show on a map where the trapline
is noticed. She stressed that that the cabin could only be
used for trapping purposes.
Senator Wielechowski assumed that the cabins were built by
trappers and were maintained without using state resources.
Ms. Colles agreed. The cabins had all been built by
trappers, or if a cabin had been abandoned, individual
trappers could use the cabin. She asserted that none of the
cabins had been built, or were maintained, using state
resources.
10:03:06 AM
Senator Wilson referenced the fiscal note showing a
reduction of 20 percent in the fee for. He asked for the
reasoning and impact.
Ms. Colles responded there was a director order in a large
regulation package passed in 2018, which allowed for a
reduction in set fees by 20 percent. Currently the fees
were reduced by 20 percent, which would allow the
department to increase fees overtime without having to go
through the entire regulation process.
Senator Wilson observed that the division would not
necessarily collect the fees in advance. He asked about the
fee collection process.
Ms. Colles answered that the program in statute has a $10
fee to be collected annually. She said that the new bill
repealed the old statute and set the fees at $100 per
application, $25 per year. She thought this would give
trappers the ability to pay the $250 for the ten-year
authorization up front, or they could pay it annually. She
said that the department was more flexible with the
trapping fees due to the low amount of the fees.
10:06:08 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for the general trapping season
in Alaska.
Ms. Colles answered that it was typically in the winter,
but it was not her expertise.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that it was typically November to
April.
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the cabins were used in
the summer months.
Ms. Colles answered that the cabins were only to be used
for trapping purposes. She said that some trappers might
conduct maintenance or bring supplies to cabins in the off-
season.
10:07:34 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for verification that each cabin
could only be used by one family.
Ms. Colles answered that multiple individuals could be
authorized for one cabin. There was cleanup language in the
bill that gave more direction to the department ton
authorization of multiple users. She stated that multiple
permits could be issued for one cabin.
Senator Wielechowski remarked on the shortage of cabins in
Alaska. He stated that getting a cabin in the Southcentral
in the summer was very difficult. He asked whether there
had been discussion about using the cabins for the general
public in the summer.
Ms. Colles answered in the negative. She explained that the
state did not want to become liable for the maintenance of
the cabins. She noted that most owners left the cabins
unlocked for use in an emergency. She added that the cabins
were often located in very remote areas.
Senator Wielechowski asked whether trappers could store
personal goods in the cabins.
Ms. Colles answered that there were no restrictions on what
people could store in the cabins.
Senator Wielechowski provided a scenario where one of the
cabins was in disrepair. He asked whether the state was
responsible for the cleanup.
10:10:25 AM
Ms. Colles replied that it would be expected that the owner
would be responsible for any clean up.
Senator Wielechowski asked for a map showing the location
of the cabins across the state.
Ms. Colles answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Bishop asked for the number of cabins that were
pre-statehood.
Ms. Colles agreed to provide the information.
Senator Wilson asked for the delinquency rate for payment
associated with the cabins.
Ms. Colles responded that she would follow up with the
information.
Senator Wilson asked how long a person could stay in one of
the cabins.
Ms. Colles answered that there were requirements
disallowing individuals to stay at the cabins through moose
hunting season. She noted the cabins were really used for
shelter and not for living in long-term. She noted that
they were not over 400 square feet. Secondary cabins could
not exceed 192 square feet. The preference was use as
temporary shelter for trapping activities.
10:13:24 AM
Senator Wilson observed it appeared some of the cabins
could be lived in year-round. He asked whether the
department surveyed the cabins for inspection.
Ms. Colles reiterated that the cabins were very remote, and
it could cost the department to go out to look at them. She
recognized the cabin referenced by Senator Wilson and noted
that it was one of the very few of questionable size. She
said that bi-annual evidence of continued trapping use and
photos of the cabin were required to maintain the permit.
10:15:10 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for a review of the sectional
analysis.
10:15:50 AM
Mr. Harbison discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on
file):
Sec 1.
Defines that the director of the department may issue
a permit under this section and clarifies what
restrictions as well as types of lands are available.
Sec 2.
States that the commissioner may issue a permit for a
trapping cabin.
Sec 3.
Clarifies who qualifies for a trapping cabin permit
and the requirements they must meet.
Sec 4.
Defines that a permit is valid for a period of 10
years and that fees may not exceed
$100 per application and $25 per year of the permit.
Sec 5.
States that the State of Alaska is not disposing of
the land issued under this section.
Sec 6.
Clarifies that multiple permits can be issued for a
Trapping cabin if the original permit holder and
subsequent permit holders agree. Further clarifies
that the Department may not charge additional fees
under this section.
Sec 7.
Clarifies definitions.
Sec 8.
Repeals AS 38.95.075, the old Trapping Cabin
Construction Permit Program.
10:16:41 AM
Senator Wilson asked about abandoned cabins and who would
be responsible for removal of the cabin.
10:17:13 AM
Ms. Colles stated that if an individual left a cabin on
state land the department would pursue the individual. She
said that there had been occasions where the department had
removed cabins that were beyond repair. She said that
sometimes cabins were given to DF&G.
10:18:01 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked how many times the state had
disposed of cabins and what was the cost to the state.
Ms. Colles replied that in 15 years she was not aware of
any cabins removed by the state. She offered to provide
more information.
10:18:48 AM
Senator Wilson asked how illegal cabins were dealt with.
10:19:18 AM
Ms. Colles agreed to provide that information.
10:20:01 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the department had
similar programs for fishing or hunting.
Ms. Colles replied that the only other program was the
personal use cabin program that was for existing cabins
back in the 1980s. She said that commercial hunting or
fishing cabins were available but had to be used for
commercial purposes.
10:21:01 AM
Senator Wielechowski thought that the 97 trapper cabins
could be used by others outside of trapping season.
Co-Chair Bishop wondered how many of the 97 cabins were
accessible in the summer without the use of a float plane
or helicopter.
Ms. Colles agreed to provide the information.
10:21:55 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
10:22:29 AM
PETER BUIST, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He noted that he
helped to draft the original legislation and regulation
elated to trapping cabins. He thought that the legislation
would bring fee stability and establish a path for families
to pass on trapping traditions.
10:24:37 AM
RANDALL ZARNKE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
legislation. He thought that the legislation would help
with the simple survival of trappers during the season. He
believed the bill balanced rural and urban interests. He
thought that the bill provided strong statutory sideboards
and would help to protect trapping traditions.
10:26:31 AM
AL BARRETTE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He believed that the legislation kept
fees reasonable and would allow for the continuation of
traditional knowledge within families and communities.
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
SB 230 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:28:48 AM
AT EASE
10:32:45 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 85
"An Act relating to forest land use plans; relating to
forest land use plan appeals; relating to negotiated
timber sales; and providing for an effective date."
10:33:10 AM
HELGE ENG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, discussed the presentation, "SB 85:
Forest Land Use Plans, Negotiated Timber Sales: Senate
Finance Committee" (copy on file). He began with slide 1:
Overview of Presentation
I. SE Alaska timber industry is struggling to survive
II. How to protect timber jobs?
1. Change negotiated timber sale statutes to
allow local industry to sell all the timber it
harvests, as export if needed.
2. Provide contractual certainty: stable and
predictable supply of timber once a timber sale
has been purchased.
III. Sectional Analysis
Mr. Eng pointed to slide 2, "The timber industry in
Southeast Alaska is struggling to survive":
A dwindling supply of timber from the US Forest
Service has gutted the timber industry in Southeast
Alaska.
SE Alaska supports only 325 timber industry jobs
today, compared to 4,000 jobs in the 1990s. Now, even
those jobs are in danger.
Mr. Eng looked at slide 3, "Negotiated & competitive timber
sales":
? Negotiated sales: DOF may choose a timber purchaser
not only based on the price, but also on the number of
local jobs the sale provides. Negotiated sales
currently may not be exported as round logs.
? Competive sales: the highest auction bidder wins.
Timber from competitive sales may be exported.
Mr. Eng pointed to slide 5, "How can we provide and protect
jobs?"
Step 1. Change negotiated timber sale statutes to
allow local industry to sell all the timber it
harvests, as export if needed.
Currently, negotiated timber sales must be sold for
local manufacture, not export.
? A changing timber supply (more young growth) means
that some sizes of timber are not marketable in
Alaska.
? Demand for certain species (e.g., hemlock) is only
overseas or in the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. Eng addressed slide 6, "How can we provide and protect
jobs?"
Step 2. Once a timber sale has been purchased, provide
a stable and predictable supply of timber to the
operator by providing contractual certainty
Mr. Eng highlighted slide 7, "Stable Timber Supply":
An appeal can halt harvesting, which can be disastrous
to a logging company.
SB 85 ensures that once the decision has been made to
sell the timber, no further administrative appeals can
occur.
Input would still be gathered from public and
agencies.
Mr. Eng looked at slide 8, "Steps in a Timber Sale":
Public and agency comment gathered at each step.
1. Area Plans* & State Forest Plans*
2. Five-Year Schedule of Timber Sales
3. Best Interest Finding*
4. Forest Land Use Plans*
*Subject to appeal
Mr. Eng addressed slide 9, "Safeguards on timber harvests":
Timber harvests must adhere to the Alaska Forest
Resources and Practices Act (FRPA, AS 41.17), which:
? protects fish habitat and water quality, and
? ensures prompt reforestation.
Mr. Eng pointed to slide 10, "SB 85 has a zero fiscal
note."
10:37:24 AM
Mr. Eng addressed slide 12, "Section 1":
Amends AS 38.05.035(e)(6)(A) to maintain the exemption
of sales of 500,000 board feet of timber or less from
a written Best Interest Finding
requirement.
Mr. Eng discussed slide 13, "Section 2":
? Expands from 10 acres to 20 acres the size of timber
harvests exempt from needing a Forest Land Use Plan.
? Requires a Forest Land Use Plan to be adopted before
harvest.
? Allows a single Forest Land Use Plan to authorize
timber harvest for multiple harvest units in a timber
sale contract.
? Allows DNR to award a timber sale contract before
adopting a Forest Land Use Plan.
Mr. Eng highlighted slide 14, "Sections 3 & 4":
Section 3 Forest Land Use Plans may not be appealed.
Section 4 Removes negotiated timber sales from AS
38.05.115; moved to AS 38.05.118 (see Section 7 and
8).
Mr. Eng pointed to slide 15, "Section 5":
Adds new subsection to AS 38.05.115(d) requiring best
interest findings to consider whether the timber sale
buyer will:
? hire Alaska residents, ? contract with Alaskan
businesses,
? use or establish Alaskan hiring facilities, job
centers, or internet job systems.
10:39:11 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked where the language in Section 5
originated.
10:39:14 AM
Mr. Eng replied that the language was added in an amendment
from the other body.
10:39:24 AM
Co-Chair Bishop appreciated the language.
10:39:43 AM
Mr. Eng noted that the commissioner already had the
opportunity to consider criteria.
10:39:51 AM
Mr. Eng addressed slide 16, "Section 6":
Local manufacture of wood is not required for
negotiated timber sales.
Mr. Eng pointed to slide 17, "Sections 7-8":
Section 7 AS 38.05.115 negotiated timber sales are
now consolidated in AS 38.05.118.
Section 8 Consolidates another provision from AS
38.05.115 into AS 38.05.118.
Mr. Eng discussed slide 18, "Sections 9-10":
Section 9 Allows timber sales to be negotiated for
local manufacture of both high-value-added and other
value-added wood products.
Section 10 Deletes requirement that negotiated
timber sales must include contract terms limiting the
sale to the amount of timber the commissioner
determines to be the maximum amount that could be
commercially practical to harvest.
Mr. Eng highlighted slide 19, "Sections 11-13":
Section 11 A conforming amendment due to the
consolidation of negotiated timber sales in AS
38.05.118.
Section 12 Because of the consolidation of the
negotiated sales provisions in AS 38.05.118, both AS
38.05.115(b) and (c) are unnecessary. AS 38.05.123(e)
is repealed due to the amendments in Section 2 and
thus to avoid redundancy. AS 38.05.123(g) is repealed
because DOF has not used it for .123 timber sales.
Section 13 Establishes an immediate effective date.
10:41:14 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
10:41:35 AM
JESSICA PLACHTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LYNN CANAL
CONSERVATION, HAINES (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the legislation. She believed that the
states forest laws should be strengthened and not
weakened. She expressed concern that the public comment
opportunity was being removed from the process, thereby
putting communities at risk. She lamented that loggers
would suffer as their livelihoods were sold and exported.
local communities would lose their say over the landscapes
they depended on for their economies, recreation, and
subsistence.
10:43:45 AM
ESTHER GONZALEZ, SELF, CALIFORNIA (via teleconference),
testified against the legislation.
10:45:15 AM
MATT JACKSON, SELF, SITKA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He thought that the bill would harm
the states ability to develop local value-added markets.
He thought that the bill made to many exemptions as to when
best interest finding should be considered. He thought that
the criteria for local value-adding and local economic
impact and the best interest findings should be applied to
timber sales of any size. He opposed any exemptions to the
best interest findings. He disagreed with the removal of
the public comment period after the land use plan was
issued, which he qualified as contrary to the public
process. He strongly encouraged a no vote from the
committee.
10:47:39 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
SB 85 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:48:22 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 a.m.