Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/10/2022 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| HB187 | |
| HB146 | |
| HB60 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"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."
3:22:15 PM
HELGE ENG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, introduced the PowerPoint Presentation:
"HB 98 (CSHB 98) Forest Land Use Plans; Negotiated Timber
Sales; Emergency Firefighters" (copy on file). He shared
that there were a couple of trends that precipitated the
bill. One of the trends was to halt any old growth timber
sales from the Tongass National Forest, which had been
catastrophic for the timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
The administration had responded by increasing timber sales
on state lands and the bill would make the timber sale
process more flexible and more efficient.
Mr. Eng turned to slide 4 and explained there were three
major elements to the bill. The first issue was that the
timber industry was struggling to survive. The solution was
to change the negotiated timber sale statutes to allow a
local industry to sell all the timber it harvested and
export it if necessary. The next element was limiting
appeals for forest land use plans. He explained that most
timber was sold competitively, and therefore the sale went
to the highest bidder. Logs from domestic sales could be
used domestically or could be exported. Sometimes
negotiated sales occurred, which were sales directly to a
particular company. Under existing law, negotiated sales
had to be processed domestically and could not be exported.
The bill would permit timber from negotiated sales to be
exported to allow for flexibility and a market driven
solution in order to make timber sales nimbler. He
explained that expanded flexibility would also help provide
and protect jobs.
Mr. Eng moved to slide 9 and relayed that the bill proposed
that forest land use plans would no longer be appealable.
The bill pertained to state lands only. The forest land use
plans step was the last step in the sequence of
opportunities for the public to comment on the timber sale
process. The asterisk at the bottom of the slide indicated
that a step was subject to appeal. He thought there were
already sufficient opportunities for the public to comment
and that limiting appeal on forest land use plans would
streamline the process. He reported that appeals were rare
and he had only seen six appeals in the last ten years and
had received no lawsuits. The Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) listened to public requests and comments
and most of the issues were resolved and not elevated. He
added that the bill was also a response to longer wildfire
seasons that involved more intense fires that were more
difficult to control. The Division of Forestry (DOF) needed
to have an increased presence and more aggressive approach
to address the change in wildfires.
3:30:42 PM
Mr. Eng turned to slide 10 and relayed that fire prevention
efforts were paramount to be proactive in addressing
wildfire danger. An example of a prevention measure was
fuel breaks, but in order to successfully implement such
measures, firefighting crews needed to be robust. The bill
would change existing law which did not allow firefighting
crews to work in a non-emergency capacity using general
funds. He thought the change would help prevent fires from
spreading and from threatening subdivisions. Fuel breaks
around communities in fire-prone areas could dramatically
increase the chances of stopping a fire, saving human
lives, and save millions of dollars. The cost of the bill
was small when compared to the projected payoffs. He was
happy to answer questions.
Representative Carpenter wondered what the reason was for
using firefighters to put in fuel breaks. He thought anyone
trained to make fuel breaks could do the job.
Mr. Eng responded that the department was willing to hire
anyone who was properly trained. He explained that
firefighting crews in the state were consistently
diminishing in size and that it was an attrition in the
workforce. Although anyone who was trained could do the
job, he thought it made the most sense for firefighting
crews to put in fuel breaks. Firefighters would normally
separate from employment following the wildfire season, but
the bill would allow firefighters to continue working year-
round putting in fuel breaks. The state would then benefit
from having a trained workforce that would not need to be
retrained every wildfire season. He thought it was a win-
win solution.
3:34:51 PM
Representative Edgmon thought the bill was interesting. He
mentioned that the bill focused on state land and thought
the proposed solutions to help the timber industry were
reasonable. He did not understand the thinking regarding
the application of firefighting strategies. He thought the
bill eliminated the best interest finding process for
timber sales less than 500,000 board feet. He would like to
learn more about the bill and the process.
Mr. Eng responded that the bill did not propose changing
any best interest findings. He indicated law already
exempted timber sales of less than 500,000 board feet from
best interest findings. It was a compromise for small
purchasers to execute a timber sale more easily.
Representative Edgmon asked if the bill would impact the
Southcentral part of the state where there were many old-
growth forests. He did not think the bill would have a
major impact on Southeast Alaska.
Mr. Eng relayed that the bill came out of concerns from the
timber industry in Southeast Alaska. The bill would apply
to all areas in the state.
Representative Edgmon was trying to understand how the bill
applied to the state as a whole when environments were very
different across the state.
Mr. Eng thought Representative Edgmon had a good question.
The only changes from existing law proposed by HB 98 were
the export provisions for negotiated sales and changes to
the forest land use plan appeals. He did not see best
interest findings or the public process being impacted.
3:40:31 PM
Representative Wool asked about the implications of
doubling the allowable acreage from 10 to 20 in forest land
use plans. He thought this seemed like an additional change
proposed by the bill. He asked if 20 acres was considered a
small timber sale and what 500,000 board feet equated to in
acres.
Mr. Eng corrected himself and agreed that there was an
additional change which was identified by Representative
Wool. The existing language set a 10-acre limit but a 20-
acre limit equated to 500,000 board feet. He thought the
change mostly consisted of clean-up language and would make
the provisions more consistent.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated there was one invited testifier.
3:43:07 PM
TESSA AXELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FOREST
ASSOCIATION, spoke in support of HB 98. The Alaska timber
industry was reliant on a predictable timber supply from a
variety of landowners. She thought legislation was needed
to streamline processes and ensure efficient forest
replanning. She saw the following three primary benefits of
the bill: DNR would be provided the ability to negotiate
timber sales with any timber resource, the state would be
able to conduct timber sales more efficiently by limiting
forest land use appeals, and environmental standards and
public comment opportunities would be upheld. She was
available for questions.
Representative Wool asked for information on the size of a
common small-lot timber sale.
Ms. Axelson responded that it would depend on the operator.
All operators needed roughly 500,000 board feet of timber
every year in order to maintain operations. She would defer
the definition of small-lot to Mr. Eng.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Mr. Eng to review the fiscal note.
Mr. Eng reported that the fiscal note from DNR with a
control code of FZzrP was a zero fiscal impact note.
3:47:24 PM
ALISON ARIANS, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, SPECIAL PROJECTS
COORDINATOR (via teleconference), offered to speak further
to the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Merrick encouraged Ms. Arians to provide
additional testimony.
Ms. Arians relayed that the bill could not change any
program and would therefore not have a fiscal impact. It
also would not increase expenditures for firefighters
because the general funds that would be used were already
appropriated. She thought it was helpful to spend the
general funds that had already been appropriated.
Representative Wool asked for clarification around the
number of acres that would be exempt from forest land use
plans.
Mr. Eng responded that there were requirements that the
director or the commissioner could only sell up to 500,000
board feet to the same operator in one year. The intent was
to avoid stacking timber sales.
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Eng's comment about the
director or commissioner only being able to sell 500,000
board feet to the same operator in one year was a
requirement to remain exempt from forest use plans.
Mr. Eng responded, "That's correct."
3:50:46 PM
Representative Edgmon thought that although it might seem
that there would be less work involved in the timber sale
process if the bill passed, there would be more work
because of an increase in smaller negotiated sales. He
thought the process would become more time intensive.
Mr. Eng replied, "Possibly." He added that for the state
and the division, increasing small sales was more than a
financial decision. He thought small sales would help small
to medium companies better facilitate their businesses. It
served a greater purpose to diversify the timber industry.
Representative Edgmon thought that the department would
have more work. He suggested that a primer on the topic
would be helpful. He suggested more staff would be needed
later.
Mr. Eng understood and would be happy to give a
presentation on the topic at a later date.
3:53:48 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood that Mr. Eng reported that HB
98 only applied to state-owned land.
Mr. Eng responded that Vice-Chair Ortiz's understanding was
correct for the forest management aspects of the bill. The
firefighter aspect of the bill applied to the DNR's entire
area of responsibility.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what percent of the Tongass National
Forest the state had access to.
Mr. Eng replied that it was somewhat in flux. He understood
that a very small percentage of the approximately 18
million acres of the Tongass would be available for timber
production.
3:55:21 PM
Ms. Axelson responded that it was very small but that she
would provide the specifics to the committee. However, the
industry was reliant on the small available acreage of the
Tongass.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted that the reason why the operators in
Southeast were becoming more reliant on the small available
acreage was because over the years, the availability of
federal lands had decreased.
Ms. Axelson responded that Vice-Chair Ortiz was correct.
She relayed that the United States Forest Service (USFS)
controlled about 75 percent of available lands in the
Tongass. There were currently no significant sales on the
horizon, and she thought that operators would only become
more reliant on available lands. It was also important to
note that the industry was transitioning from being based
on old growth forests to young growth forests.
3:56:45 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought the bill would be a way to support
the few remaining jobs in the timber industry in Southeast
and preserve the economic level of the industry. He asked
if he was correct.
Ms. Axelson replied in the affirmative and that it would
also help support operators in the Fairbanks region and the
Kenai Peninsula.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the presenters and reviewed the
agenda for the following day.
HB 98 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.