Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/12/2021 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 98-FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
1:04:35 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the only order of business would
be 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."
1:05:24 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources, read an introduction to HB 98:
Good afternoon Chair Patkotak and committee members.
For the record I am Brent Goodrum, Deputy Commissioner
of the Department of Natural Resources. We thank you
for the opportunity to bring before you House Bill 98,
a bill that seeks to help modernize our timber sales
processes and to make our decisional processes more
consistent with contemporary practices. Proposed
modifications to these statutes will help grow
predictability and jobs in Alaska's timber industry,
an industry that has longed for more flexible and
longer-term negotiated sales necessary to meet the
current needs of their intended markets. The Division
of Forestry and Alaska's timber industry have been
seeking to find needed resolution to these challenges
for several years, and the administration was first
able to introduce legislation last year in the Covid-
abbreviated legislative session and simply ran out of
time. The time is right to help Alaska's timber
industry and our state economy, but prudent
modifications to our timber sales and decisional
processes statutes. The benefits of an acting House
Bill 98 will result in more efficient land use
planning and more predictable timber harvests. Who in
business today doesn't rely upon predictability?
Importantly, House Bill 98 is a zero fiscal note. I
am joined this afternoon by Tim Dabney, Acting State
Forester, who will present House Bill 98 to you. Tim
will be joined by Chris Orman with the Department of
Law, who will be available to assist with any legal
questions related to this important legislation.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present House
Bill 98, and I'll now hand it off to Acting Director
Tim Dabney.
1:07:33 PM
TIM DABNEY, Acting Director, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources, presented HB 98 with a PowerPoint (hard copy
in the committee packet). He described the first issue
addressed by HB 98 as the matter of negotiated timber sales;
current law prohibits long-term negotiated timber sales for
export.
1:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for clarification on whether Mr.
Dabney is referring to foreign exports, or exports from Alaska.
MR. DABNEY clarified that it is for export from Alaska out of
the state to emerging markets.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN followed-up with the question of whether
there is any intention to differentiate between foreign buyers
and buyers within the U.S. market.
MR. DABNEY said that he is not aware of those differences in
this statute change. He then continued the presentation with
slide 4, "Background: Negotiated Timber Sales," which he read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
? AS 38.05.115: Small-scale sales
? AS 38.05.118: Local manufacture sales
? AS 38.05.123: Local manufacture sales of high value-
added wood products
MR. DABNEY moved on to slide 5, "Inadequate Authority for
Negotiated Sales," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Current statutes focus on in-state timber use, and
prohibit negotiated sales for export.
? As Alaska's timber market shifts to Asia, industry
needs flexibility and long-term negotiated sales for
export.
1:11:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if any of the current statutes
cover in-state personal use such as firewood for heating a
residence.
MR. DABNEY answered that personal use is not addressed in
current statute, nor is it included in the proposed legislation.
MR. DABNEY continued his presentation with slide 6, "Action
Needed: Negotiated Sales," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? Consolidate authority for both small and large
negotiated sales into two statutes.
? Delete requirement that negotiated sales can only be
for local manufacture.
Result: Flexibility in resource development to meet
economic needs; simpler statutes.
1:13:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if the proposed change would ensure
any protection for Alaska buyers. She talked about the need to
protect Alaskan manufacturers with value-added processing having
the first chance to buy local timber, instead of a small in-
state business having to compete with a large foreign national
buyer for the same timber harvest.
MR. DABNEY said that the commissioner would be required to
consider the local timber market to ensure that the local
industry and jobs are protected.
MR. DABNEY continued his presentation with slide 7, "Issue 2.
Forest Land Use Plans," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Steps in a Timber Sale
Public and agency comment gathered at each step.
1. Regional Planning: Area Plans & State Forest Plans
2. Five-Year Schedule of Timber Sales
3. Best Interest Finding (BIF)*
4. Forest Land Use Plans (FLUP)*
*Subject to appeal.
MR. DABNEY moved on to slide 8, "BIF vs. FLUP: What's the
difference?," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Best Interest Finding
Decisional document:
?Should we sell this timber?
Forest Land Use Plan
Implements BIF on the ground:
? How should we sell this timber?
MR. DABNEY explained further with slide 9, "What is a Best
Interest Finding (BIF)?," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The BIF is the decisional document that ensures the
sale will serve the State's best interest.
Division of Forestry (DOF) must adopt a final BIF
before selling timber (AS 38.05.035(e)).
MR. DABNEY moved on to slide 10, "Best Interest Finding:," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Establishes overall sale area
? Determines amount of timber sold and duration of
sale
? Sets harvest and reforestation strategy
? Ensures sale proposal complies with sustained yield
principles
? Selects sale method (i.e., competitive or
negotiated)
? Determines appraisal method used to determine sale
price
1:18:19 PM
MR. DABNEY continued the presentation with slides 11 and 12,
"What are Forest Land Use Plans (FLUPs)?," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
? FLUPs present detailed information on the location,
access, harvest methods, duration, and proposed
reforestation for each sale.
? DOF must prepare a Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) for
timber sales over 10 acres before harvest can begin.
? FLUPs follow multiple use and sustained yield
principles, and consider non-timber uses and resources
within the sale area.
FLUPs are subject to public comment and agency
review.
? FLUPs may now be reviewed either during or after the
Best Interest Finding process.
MR. DABNEY continued to slide 13, "Forest Resources and
Practices Act," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FRPA,
AS 41.17) governs timber harvesting, reforestation and
access on state, private, and municipal land.
FRPA protects fish habitat and water quality, and
ensures prompt reforestation while providing for a
healthy timber industry.
MR. DABNEY moved onto slide 14, "FLUPs & Appeals," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
DOF may sometimes issue a BIF and award a timber sale
before all FLUPs for the sale area are completed.
The BIF and FLUPs now can be appealed at different
times. This delays the sale, interrupts harvest
operations, and creates uncertainty.
MR. DABNEY presented slide 15, "Baby Brown Sales; Phase 1,"
which he described as an example of how the best interest
finding (BIF) and forest land use plans (FLUPs) can be appealed
at different times; slide 15 illustrated the BIF appeals, which
were denied, and the contract was awarded. Slide 16, "Baby
Brown Sales; Phase 2," showed the same map area but illustrated
the FLUPs, which were appealed, and the contract was
subsequently cancelled.
1:22:27 PM
MR. DABNEY continued to slide 17, "A sale can be appealed at
both BIF and FLUP stages," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? Timber buyers value the steady supply offered by
large, long-term sales.
? DOF cannot easily prepare all required FLUPs before
offering the entire sale.
? DOF prepares 2-3 FLUPs, then more as harvest allows
access to further units.
? Redundant FLUP appeals can interrupt harvest of
long-term sales, even if they repeat objections
addressed in the already adopted BIF.
1:23:02 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked about the process for public engagement and
whether there is any commissioned body involved within the
timber industry for oversight.
MR. DABNEY replied that he didn't know.
1:24:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to slide 7, which listed four
steps in a timber sale and asked whether, under current statute,
steps one and two are appealable.
MR. DABNEY responded that those steps are not appealable,
although public comment and review is encouraged.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS followed up to ask if his understanding
of a FLUP is correct, in that it restricts practices such as
clearcutting.
MR. DABNEY defined FLUPs as the plan that covers all of harvest
activities in the timber sale contract.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for confirmation on his
understanding that a timber sale contract would be required to
be in compliance with the FLUP.
1:27:47 PM
MR. DABNEY noted that there is a Board of Forestry, which serves
to ensure statutory compliance.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked Mr. Dabney to detail where the Board of
Forestry would be involved within the four steps of a timber
sale, as described on slide 7.
MR. DABNEY said that the Board of Forestry meets quarterly and,
while it's not directly involved in the steps of a timber sale,
it does provide regular oversight.
1:29:01 PM
1:29:08 PM
MR. DABNEY resumed his PowerPoint presentation on slide 18,
"Example: Baby Brown Sale" which concluded that the appeals
process highlighted in slides 16 and 17 forced the cancellation
of this large, long-term timber sale, resulting in a five-year
delay.
1:29:48 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked for further clarification on the appeals
process, describing it as "nimble enough for industry growth,"
yet with accountability measures in place. He also asked why
exactly the timber sale was cancelled.
MR. DABNEY explained that the FLUP appeal was to the
commissioner, who decided to cancel the sale due to a procedural
error made by the Division of Forestry.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether the statute changes proposed in HB
98 would address a similar situation.
MR. DABNEY answered that this statute would "alleviate that
particular procedural error."
1:32:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked for examples of what BIF and FLUP
appeals would be, and who originated them.
MR. DABNEY said that appeals had been made by environmental
organizations due to the perceived negative impact on the
environment.
1:33:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Mr. Dabney to explain the process
for public notice in the BIF and FLUP portions of the sale.
MR. DABNEY said that the first opportunity is the public notice
of upcoming sales in the five-year schedule of timber sales, and
after that the BIF and FLUP plans are public documents with
opportunity for review and comment. He noted that it's not
unusual for a public comment made at the FLUP stage to result in
a modification of the sale.
1:36:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Mr. Dabney's earlier
description of a procedural error made by the Division of
Forestry that cancelled a sale.
MR. DABNEY clarified that, prior to awarding the sale, there was
an error made by the Division of Forestry in the documents.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for confirmation that it was not an
appeal by an outside entity that cancelled the sale, but rather
an error in the Division of Forestry.
MR. DABNEY, over the course of several subsequent exchanges with
Representative Hopkins, explained that the appeal was for
multiple reasons including this specific procedural error.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that the initial offer for this
particular sale was in 2016; he then asked when exactly the sale
was cancelled, and also asked how many other timber sales have
been denied due to appeal by outside entity.
MR. DABNEY said that the 2016 sale was cancelled in 2017, and
that he is not aware of any other sales that have been cancelled
as the result of appeals.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for confirmation that, had the
Division of Forestry not made the procedural error, the sale
would have been fulfilled.
MR. DABNEY replied that he does not know.
1:40:54 PM
1:40:46 PM
MR. DABNEY returned to his presentation with slide 19, "Action
Needed: FLUPs," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Refocus appeal process at BIF stage
? Retain public opportunity to appeal
? Avoid redundant FLUP appeals
Results: More predictable timber harvests; more
efficient forestry planning; no appeal interruptions,
continued robust public process and agency
participation.
MR. DABNEY noted that it's difficult for the Division of
Forestry to get the FLUPs done in advance of the BIF, it's
preferable to have long-term sales to alleviate that pressure.
1:42:35 PM
1:42:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked how many, as a percentage, of the
timber sales get appealed.
MR. DABNEY answered that there have been six of seven appeals at
either the BIF or FLUP stage, from multiple appellants, all of
which have been for sales in Southeast Alaska. He said that
even if an appeal is denied, it slows down the process of
getting timber to the market.
1:44:25 PM
1:44:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked about the appeals process,
specifically how it works and how long the process takes.
MR. DABNEY answered that the appeal first goes to the "decision-
maker," which in this case would be the Director of the Division
of Forestry; the appeal can then be escalated to the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, referred to
as a "request for reconsideration." The process takes anywhere
from several months to two years.
1:46:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, returning to Representative McKay's
question, asked about the percentage of applications that are
appealed and the size (out of small, medium or large) of the
applications.
MR. DABNEY responded that of the six appeals he's aware of
during the last 10 years, all were in Southeast Alaska and he
said that the appeals constituted more than 50 percent of the
large timber sales in that area.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked about the size of the sales.
MR. DABNEY answered that he believes that the sales were "not
less than 500,000 board feet."
1:48:04 PM
1:47:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked, of those six or seven appeals, how
many were for the same plot of timber.
MR. DABNEY said that each appeal was for a unique timber sale.
1:49:16 PM
1:48:03 PM
MR. DABNEY resumed his presentation with slides 20 and 21, "Why
is HB 98 important?", which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Streamlines timber sale process
? Efficient forestry planning
? Retains public & agency participation
Provides more certainty for businesses and the jobs
they support
? Predictable timber harvests
? No appeal interruptions
Increases flexibility to meet market demands
? Supports export market (allows negotiated round-log
sales)
? Protects local markets (retains negotiated sales for
local manufacture)
1:50:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK noted that slide 21 is a log yard in Tok
and that it's a local employer, and he spoke about the benefits
of long-term sales and continuity of harvest.
MR. DABNEY thanked Representative Cronk for his comments and
noted how the proposed legislation would be beneficial.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK followed up to speak about the amount of
fire protection that happens in and around Tok and how that work
is good for the economy, and he emphasized the importance of
ensuring local loggers have the protection they need in order to
continue that work.
MR. DABNEY noted that the bill would be beneficial to the
development of fuel breaks. After a brief exchange with the
committee in which they acknowledged availability to go more in-
depth on the benefits of HB 98 at a later date, Mr. Dabney
resumed his presentation on slide 22, "Why is HB 98 important?
(cont'd)," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Modernizes statutes
? Consolidates and simplifies confusing negotiated
sales law
Saves money 22
? Zero fiscal note
1:55:58 PM
1:55:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether this bill would cover Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA) and/or University of
Alaska (UA) land sales.
MR. DABNEY said that the proposed statute change would not
change anything about the way AMHTA operates its timber sales;
he then deferred to Christopher Orman for additional comment.
1:57:11 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said that
AMHTA is a unique operation in that it adopts its own policy,
regulations, and principles. He said the trust has its own
policies regarding land and timber disposals, so this proposed
legislation would not change that operation.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked to follow up regarding the Brown
Baby sale to get clarification on whether this type of sale
would include timber on AMHTA land.
MR. ORMAN confirmed that, while he isn't familiar enough with
the specific sale being discussed to be able to speak to it, HB
98 would not change the way AMHTA disposes of timber or land.
2:00:58 PM
2:00:49 PM
MR. DABNEY spoke about AMHTA and UA lands working together with
the local forester on timber sales.
2:02:59 PM
MR. DABNEY resumed the presentation with slides 24 and 25,
showing the Sectional Analysis, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
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 (BIF) requirement.
Section 2
Adds specific criteria the DNR commissioner must
consider when deciding whether to offer a negotiated
timber sale:
? best interests of the state
? local timber market
? specialized or developing foreign or domestic
markets
? presence of underutilized timber
? economic constraints of the intended timber market
? other benefits to the state and local economy
2:05:43 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked Mr. Dabney to talk about the specified
number of 500,000 board feet.
MR. DABNEY deferred to Mr. Orman.
2:06:54 PM
MR. ORMAN responded that the size of the timber harvest
correlates with the statutes listed on slide four of the
presentation; HB 98 would create different negotiated sale
provisions. The proposed legislation is an effort to streamline
the scale of timber sales.
CHAIR PATKOTAK expressed his understanding.
2:08:57 PM
2:08:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for clarification on the difference
between small, medium, and large sales vs. board feet; less than
500,000 board feet is a small sale, but a larger sale might have
to do more with the term of the contract than the amount of
wood.
MR. DABNEY said that there is no real definition of a "medium"
or "large" sale, but that the term of the contract could be
substituted for board feet, so sales with terms of three to four
years could feasibly be considered "medium", while a contract
for 10-25 years could be considered "large."
2:10:15 PM
2:10:09 PM
MR. DABNEY resumed his presentation on slide 26, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 3
? Expands from 10 acres to 20 acres the size of timber
sales exempt from the need for a FLUP.
? Requires a FLUP to be adopted before harvest.
? Allows a single FLUP to authorize timber harvest for
multiple harvest units in a timber sale contract.
? Allows DNR to award a timber sale contract before
adopting a FLUP.
2:11:05 PM
2:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Mr. Dabney to reconcile the bullet
points on slide 26 that say a FLUP must be adopted before
harvest, but DNR may award a timber sale contract before
adopting a FLUP.
MR. DABNEY explained that the Division of Forestry would award a
timber sale contract based on the BIF, but timber can't be
harvested from the individual units until the FLUP for that unit
has been adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the map on slide 25 and used
it to rephrase his question.
MR. DABNEY responded that one of the advantages of this proposed
legislation is that some units can be harvested while the FLUP
is being processed for other units.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked if, in the case of an appeal on the
harvest of one of the units, the entire sale stops or only the
parts which contains that discrete unit.
2:16:22 PM
MR. DABNEY answered that it would affect only those particular
harvest units subject to appeal, rather than the whole contract
area.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether that practice is in current
statute, or is the proposed statute under HB 98.
MR. DABNEY said that under HB 98 the significant change would be
that there would be no delays associated with appeals to the
FLUPs.
2:18:21 PM
2:18:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referred to the measurement of volume of
board feet in deciding whether the sale is small, medium, or
large. She noted that slide 25 changed the measurement from
board feet to acres, and noted that different plots of land can
provide different amounts of board feet even if the plots are
the same size.
MR. DABNEY explained that Section 3 is acreage-based, so volume
is not a consideration in this section.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Mr. Dabney to explain why the
measurement switched from board feet-based to acreage-based.
MR. DABNEY said that for the most part, the "small" sales in
terms of acreage are for local manufacturers.
2:21:01 PM
2:20:52 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether the proposed change in language in
HB 98, from using measurements in board feet to using
measurements in acres, would change when a FLUP is in effect.
MR. DABNEY said that there would be no change in volume
requirements in HB 98; volume comes into play because this bill
would change the statutes, allowing negotiated timber sales.
2:22:30 PM
MR. DABNEY resumed his presentation with slide 27, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]
Sections 4-6
Section 4 Removes individual's power to appeal FLUP
decision to the DNR commissioner.
Section 5 Combines small negotiated sales with
large.
Section 6 Eliminates requirements for local
manufacture of wood for negotiated sales.
2:23:26 PM
2:23:19 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked for clarification on Section 4, noting that
it "has a negative connotation" when discussing "removing an
individual's power."
MR. DABNEY said that the FLUP process would be more focused at
the BIF stage, adding any additional points to consider
including public involvement and comment.
CHAIR PATKOTAK said that his understanding was that this would
focus the power of individuals to appeal in a previous step, but
would negate the power to appeal later in the process.
2:25:16 PM
2:25:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether an entity other than an
individual would be able to appeal at the FLUP stage.
MR. DABNEY clarified that the terms "individual" and "group" are
synonymous.
2:25:58 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK mused aloud that there is a lot of work that must
be done by the Division of Forestry in between each of these
steps, and that it's preferable that an appeal which could
hinder or cancel the work happen earlier in the process before
much more work has been done.
MR. DABNEY agreed with that statement and said that this
provision in HB 98 would remove the risk of subsequent appeals
impacting the timber sale.
2:27:31 PM
2:27:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS described a hypothetical scenario of a
long-term timber sale going right up to the edge of the Tanana
Valley State Forest. He speculated that even if the forest
management plan specified that there must be a 500-foot buffer
from the edge of the state forest, if a person applies for a
timber harvest to go [past the buffer] all the way up to the
edge of the state forest, nobody would be able to appeal that
decision and that timber harvest.
MR. DABNEY answered that the BIF finding stage under HB 98 would
be aware of this restriction, and the FLUP would be prepared.
There would also be public comment allowed and all of the
entities involved could work together to come to an
understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS clarified that he should have said "under
the FLUP it would not be appealable."
MR. DABNEY replied that in that case, the forest management plan
for the Tanana Valley State Forest would already be in place and
would not be appealable.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the BIF would have to
appeal to the forest management plan.
MR. DABNEY said that the BIF has to be compliant with the
management plan, but can still be appealed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for clarification again that the
BIF would be required to comply with the already-set forest
management plan, but the FLUP would not.
2:32:43 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK interjected and talked about the steps of the
contract and asked whether one could change the plan between the
BIF and the FLUP; he referred to the forest management plan
"having teeth" at the BIF stage but not at the FLUP stage, and
whether something that was filtered out in stage three could be
re-added in stage four.
MR. DABNEY explained that the forest management plan itself
provides a general plan for the area. The BIF "hones in" on a
small portion of the area to determine whether or not a sale
should happen, and the FLUP determines how to implement the
sale.
2:35:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE referred to an earlier mention of
duplicate appeals and asked whether Mr. Dabney was talking about
appeals at the FLUP stage as well as the BIF stage, or appeals
by multiple entities at one or more of the stages. He said that
he understands that the issue of duplicate appeals was one of
the reasons for justifying the changes proposed in HB 98.
MR. DABNEY answered that typically the appeals are at the BIF
stage, and those can be either single or multiple entity. He
said that in one case, there was a repeat appeal at the FLUP
stage.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that it seems that this bill
wouldn't eliminate the issue of multiple appeals at the BIF
stage, but it would remedy the issue of having a dissatisfied
entity appeal at the BIF stage, be denied, and then appeal again
at the FLUP stage.
MR. DABNEY confirmed that HB 98 would focus the attention of the
public and avoid redundant appeals, which are typical in these
contracts; currently, if an appellant isn't satisfied with the
result of their initial appeal, he said, they appeal at every
stage.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he understands that some FLUPs
are prepared while others are still in progress (for other units
in the same contract), and he asked whether, if all of the FLUPs
were ready at the same time as the BIF, there is anything that
would prevent an entity from appealing on both levels at the
same time.
MR. DABNEY explained that if all of the FLUPs were included with
the BIFs for the sale, then there would be just one appeal
possible, which would need to cover all of the documents
involved in the FLUPs and the BIF.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked what the limiting factor is on
having the FLUPs ready for every unit at the same time rather
than some prepared later in the process.
MR. DABNEY answered that a large timber sale would have multiple
harvest units, and it's very difficult for the staff to have
access to each unit to be able to prepare multiple FLUPs at the
same time; he said that they have in the past had to use a
helicopter to access the units. He said that if it's a 25-year
timber sale with dozens of harvest units, it's just not
practical to assess each unit prior to the contract. He said
the industry would suffer under the process, and the industry
prefers to have FLUPs adopted as the timber harvest progresses
across the landscape and creates better and more efficient
access.
2:42:00 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK mentioned that he was planning on gaveling in
public testimony, and that the bill was noticed, but there is no
public testimony waiting.
He then asked Mr. Dabney to confirm his understanding that "the
FLUP is going to maintain compliance with the BIF, and the BIF
is going to maintain compliance with the overall [forest]
management plan."
MR. DABNEY said that he believes the question was whether the
FLUP "would take teeth out of the [forest] management plan," and
he said the answer to the question is no.
CHAIR PATKOTAK restated his understanding and said that the
purpose of HB 98 would be to strike a balance between the
public's opinion and the opportunity for industry to be
undertaking these projects.
MR. DABNEY said that the purpose is to refocus the decisional
process at the BIF stage in order to increase the considerations
at that stage.
2:44:38 PM
2:44:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referred to slide 7 and the ability to
reconsider a long-term contract, addressing the potential for
Alaskans to lose the ability to develop their own business. She
opined that [it is one thing] to streamline a process, but
another "to streamline and prevent anyone else from having a say
in it for the next 25 years."
MR. DABNEY spoke about the BIF stage and the importance of
striking a balance between local and export markets; instead of
"locking up an entire forest for export," local market changes
would be considered.
2:48:03 PM
2:47:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referred to the shifting culture of
timber, and "who's warring with who over the use of what trees."
She said that it's difficult to anticipate what could develop
over a 25-year contract. She said that it would be difficult
for a small, local manufacturer to know its timber needs over
the next 25 years, and used the hypothetical of a Tok
manufacturer whose timber was eliminated in a forest fire, with
the only other timber nearby already under contract for export.
MR. DABNEY replied that he understands and shares that concern,
but that through this proposed legislation, the consideration of
a 25-year contract would stipulate an amount of surety that
Alaska has enough forest to meet all of the needs, rather than
tying up all of the available timber.
2:51:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether the state could limit the
duration or time period of the appeals at various levels.
MR. DABNEY said that he doesn't have a good answer for that, but
that as far as appeals go, HB 98 would "minimize any
opportunities for a second bite of the apple."
2:54:46 PM
MR. DABNEY followed up with the concern about 25-year timber
sales, and said that the term of 10 years is more likely. He
then resumed the PowerPoint presentation with slide 28 and 29,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sections 7-8
Section 7 Consolidates all negotiated sale
authority.
Section 8 Allows one large timber sale (500,000
board feet)/purchaser/year.
Sections 9-13
Section 9 Allows timber sales to be negotiated for
local manufacture of both high-value-added and low-
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.
Section 11 Clarifies negotiated timber sales for
personal use.
Section 12 Consolidates negotiated sale authorities.
Section 13 Establishes an immediate effective date.
2:57:42 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 98.
2:58:14 PM
Deputy Commissioner Goodrum said that he appreciated the
opportunity to share HB 98 with the committee.
2:58:33 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK, after ascertaining that no one was waiting to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 98.
3:00:18 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 98 Sponsor Statement 2.11.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Sectional Analysis Version A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Support DNR Timber Sales Briefing Paper 2.11.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Presentation to HRES 3.12.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Letter of Support Northland Wood Products 3.12.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |