Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
01/26/2022 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB85 | |
| HB79 | |
| SB85 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 85-FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
3:33:44 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of 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."
3:34:28 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF joined the meeting.
3:34:41 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced SB 85 as follows:
This bill seeks to modernize our timber sales process.
The proposed modifications to these statutes will help
grow predictability and jobs in Alaska's timber
industry, an industry that has longed for more
flexible negotiated timber sales necessary to meet the
current needs of their intended markets. The benefits
of enacting SB 85 will result in more efficient land
use planning and more predictable timber harvests.
Importantly, SB 85 is a zero fiscal note. Presenting
SB 85 this afternoon will be Director Helge Eng,
Alaska's new State Forester. Director Eng has 42 years
of experience practicing forestry and fire protection
in the western United States, British Columbia, and
Scandinavia. Director Eng worked for the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for thirty
years in a variety of capacities within both forestry
and fire protection assignments. He retired from Cal
Fire as Deputy Director for Forestry and was then
appointed as the director of Alaska Division of
Forestry (DOF) after Chris Maisch retired in early
December 2021. Director Eng is very excited about the
opportunity to lead the Division of Forestry during a
critical time as our landscape faces new challenges
from increasing wildfire threats and tree mortality
from spruce beetle infestation.
3:36:35 PM
HELGE ENG, State Forester and Director of Forestry, Department
of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, provided testimony on
SB 85. He indicated that this bill is comprised of two major
categories:
1) The benefits of contractual certainty on forest land
use plans; and
2) A more efficient and flexible timber sale process to
assist the timber industry.
MR. ENG presented a slideshow entitled "Forest Land Use Plans,
Negotiated Timber Sales.Slide 2, Contents:
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.
MR. ENG stated contractual certainty is accomplished by
implementing Forest Use Land Plans that are not appealable.
III. Sectional Analysis
3:38:20 PM
MR. ENG advanced to slide 3, The Timber Industry in Alaska is
Struggling to Survive:
A dwindling supply of timber from the US Forest
Service has gutted the timber industry in Southeast
Alaska.
MR. ENG stated that the U.S. Forest Service actively seeks to
repeal the exemption for the Tongass National Forest roadless
rule. This has resulted in the shutdown of old growth timber
sales from the Tongass National Forest. It was a blow to the
timber industry in Southeast Alaska which has grown dependent on
a reliable Tongass timber supply. He said that, in response to
the decline, the governor introduced this bill to streamline the
timber sale process, make it more flexible, and more efficient.
The governor also increased the amount of purchasable state
timber available to timber operators.
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 noted that the Southeast Alaska timber industry job
situation is a somber statistic; the jobs are in danger. The
hope is that SB 85 will help support the industry.
Amending statutes to support the local industry in
Southeast Alaska will protect existing jobs.
MR. ENG advanced to slide 4, 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 continued with Timber Sale Types: Negotiated &
Competitive, slide 5:
• Negotiated sales allow DOF to choose a timber
purchaser not only based on price, but also on
the number of local jobs the sale provides.
• Local SE Alaskan operators are not able to outbid
larger out-of-state companies for competitive
sales.
Without a consistent timber supply, local industry and
jobs will erode further.
MR. ENG noted that multiple bidders generally result in
competitive timber sales where the highest bidder is selected.
The competitive bid process often has a negative effect on the
local industry.
3:41:49 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the bill is only pertinent to
Southeast Alaska, or if it applies to forests statewide.
MR. ENG answered the bill applies to forests statewide.
MR. ENG continued with 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 explained that once a timber sale has been purchased, it
is critical the operator have a stable and predictable timber
supply. He added that a Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) appeal can
be ruinous to a logging company which typically does not have
the capital to wait for an appeal to be resolved. He elaborated
on this point in 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 pointed out that the appeal option is eliminated once
the decision has been made to sell the timber, however, the
public input process remains intact. He said that public input
on FLUPs, commonly results in the modification of harvest units,
such as setbacks for the visual consideration of nearby
residential areas. DOF endeavors to complete timber sales with
community support and acceptance, and in most cases, will act on
and implement public requests prior to the appeals stage.
3:44:26 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF referred to slide 3 and quoted, "A dwindling
supply of timber from the US Forest Service has gutted the
timber industry in Southeast Alaska.She asked for further
explanation about state land and the reference to federal land.
MR. ENG responded that SB 85 pertains to state land, not federal
land. The reference to the U.S. Forest Service timber supply was
to set the stage, to describe why the local timber industry is
in trouble.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked how many acres of state land are
available for timber harvesting.
MR. ENG responded that he will get back to the committee with
the exact number.
3:45:30 PM
CHAIR REVAK requested the data be sent to the Senate Resources
Office for distribution to the committee.
SENATOR VON IMHOF requested a map.
MR. ENG responded, absolutely.
3:45:45 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE qualified the following two questions, stating
he is pro-timber and supports the timber industry. He asked if
timber sale sites will occur in remote areas, so that the
potential for negative community impact is alleviated. If not,
in the absence of an appeal process, how will issues be
resolved.
MR. ENG directed attention to slides 8 and 9 to answer the
question. He said that there are five steps to complete a timber
sale. This bill restructures the timber sale process, so that
appeals may occur in three of the five steps. He highlighted
that SB 85 proposes step five, Forest Land Use Plans, be
unappealable. Mr. Eng reviewed slide 8, Steps in a Timber Sale:
Public and agency comment gathered at each step.
1. Area Plans*
2. State Forest Plans*
3. Five-Year Schedule of Timber Sales
4. Best Interest Finding*
• Timber may be sold after adopted.
5. Forest Land Use Plans*
• Not all Forest Land Use Plans must be issued
before timber is offered for sale.
• For large sales, prepare Forest Land Use Plans in
phases, as access is developed.
*Subject to appeal.
3:47:27 PM
MR. ENG continued with slide 9, Best Interest Finding vs Forest
Land Use Plan:
Best Interest Finding Forest Land Use Plan
Decisional document: On the ground Implementation:
-Should we sell this timber? -How will the sold timber be harvested?
MR. ENG explained that the majority of input and public opinion
occurs during the Best Interest Finding; the focus is whether or
not timber should be sold.
MR. ENG explained that Forest Land Use Plans are used to
engineer road layouts, culvert sizes, and other
development/plans requiring engineering calculations, which
arguably, do not require public input.
MR. ENG explained that SB 85 proposes the appeal process occur
prior to the Forest Land Use Plan step of a timber sale to
ensure the operator contractual certainty. He added that the
elimination of appeals in the final step also avoids redundancy;
rehashing appeals resolved in earlier steps. He emphasized that
plenty of public opportunity will be available for public input
and appeal in the first four steps.
MR. ENG reiterated that appeals are not common on state lands.
The department takes pride in the resolution of public concerns
before the appeal stage. He referenced Senator Micciche's
previous question and said that visual quality concerns, in a
majority of cases, are resolved with additional buffers.
3:50:00 PM
MR. ENG continued with slides 10 and 11, 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.
• DOF enforces FRPA through inspections, directives,
stop work orders, and civil fines.
• On state-administered sales, the operator is held to
the timber sale contract. Every contract includes a
bond.
MR. ENG stated that every operator must put down a performance
bond which acts as a guarantee that legal requirements are
satisfied.
• If DOF, the landowner, or a member of the public sees
a problem, DOF can issue a notice of violation, and if
necessary, shut down the timber operation until the
problem is remedied.
3:51:27 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that he appreciates FRPA requires the
protection of fish habitat. He said that cutting timber to the
edge of rivers and streams will destroy a fishing industry. He
asked how DOF will manage timber harvests, so that the fishing
industry and timber industry are both healthy.
MR. ENG answered that the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices
Act have the most rigorous rules and regulations on the West
Coast, including hydrology and riparian protection. FRPA has
rigorous buffer zones around all streams and operations are
restricted in those zones. The sustained yield mandate also
protects against overharvesting, limiting harvests to the amount
grown to ensure forests will regenerate after harvest. Young
forests will grow back, protecting soil and water quality
against erosion. The Act and rules focus on protection of water
courses in riparian areas.
SENATOR STEVENS requested assurance that it is possible to have
both a healthy timber industry as well as a healthy fishing
industry.
MR. ENG responded that absolutely, it is possible.
3:53:55 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked whether there are post-harvest replant
requirements, and if so, what species must be planted.
MR. ENG answered that reforestation is required. The Act
requires harvested land be restocked with a natural species mix.
In Southeast Alaska, trees regrow quite readily, so it may not
be necessary to replant.
MR. ENG advanced to slide 12, SB 85 Focuses Appeals at the Best
Interest Finding Stage, Before Timber is Sold:
• Provides stable and predictable supply of timber
once sold
• No interruptions of harvest at a subsequent Forest
Land Use Plan stage
• Includes specific criteria the DNR commissioner must
consider when deciding whether to offer a negotiated
timber sale
• Costs nothing: Zero fiscal note
3:54:55 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF commented on slide 12, "Costs nothing: Zero
fiscal note. She said that sometimes zero fiscal notes generate
revenue and asked whether this bill will generate revenue for
the state.
MR. ENG answered the bill allows the timber industry to be
nimbler and more effective in implementing timber sales. He
expressed his belief that this bill would have a quantifiable
revenue impact, but it is unknown at this point.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked whether a per log tax, even if it is
just pennies, makes sense to generate revenue. She suggested a
tax similar to the fish tax.
MR. ENG said that he needed to ponder the question before he had
an opinion about whether it would be viable.
3:56:29 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how the timber sale process works to
generate state revenue for timber sales purchased by the acre.
MR. ENG answered that every timber sale on state land provides
revenue to the state. He explained that timber sales are either
competitive, which means they are advertised and awarded to the
highest responsible bidder, or they are negotiated. In either
case, it is a transaction which allows the purchaser to harvest
timber in exchange for money.
SENATOR MICCICHE interpreted the answer to mean the bill's
streamlined sales process, coupled with an expanded FLUP
exemption, is expected to attract a greater number of bidders
and sales. He noted that this bill increases the amount of
harvestable acreage eligible for the FLUP exemption from 10 to
20 acres. He agreed that until the bill is enacted, the amount
of revenue expected to be generated is difficult to quantify.
MR. ENG answered yes, it is hard to quantify. He recalled slide
3 which described a beleaguered timber industry. He ruminated on
the difficulty to quantify the risk of bankruptcy, the loss of
revenue and jobs versus the ability for a company to carry-on
and keep going. He stated that SB 85 is expected to have a
positive effect on the timber industry.
3:59:47 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI dove tailed off a previous question which
pertained to reforestation requirements. He referred to slide 8,
"Steps in a Timber Sale" and asked in what step of the timber
sale process is reforestation required.
MR. ENG answered that the reforestation requirements occur after
the Forest Land Use Plan and after the completion of the timber
harvest.
SENATOR KAWASAKI stated a major part of this bill addresses the
appeals process. It seems important that the public be made
aware of reforestation policies up front before a timber harvest
begins. He asked would it not be better to know about
reforestation requirements before the Forest Land Use Plan goes
into effect.
MR. ENG answered absolutely the public has a right to know. The
Act requires adequate reforestation be achieved at a certain
point in time after harvest, if not, DOF has authority to
require it. At some point you have to approve a timber sale,
then reforestation, by necessity, takes place after the timber
is harvested.
4:02:18 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department
of Law, Juneau, Alaska, invited testimony on SB 85. He described
a few differences between the Best Interest Finding and the
Forest Land Use Plan. He said that the Best Interest Finding is
a decisional document that determines whether or not timber is
sold; built into it are compliance and standard requirements
pursuant to the harvest of timber; and the Best Interest Finding
is appealable. In contrast, the Forest Land Use Plan is an
operational document; it decides how the timber will be
harvested; and it is not appealable.
4:03:47 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said that answer clarified the reforestation
question.
SENATOR KAWASAKI followed-up with a Forest Land Use Plan site
prep question and asked whether the public has access to the
engineering particulars prior to the construction of roads,
bridges, culverts, etc... He asked if engineering documents are
available for public review at any point during one of these
three appealable steps: Area Plan, State Forest Plan or Best
Interest Findings.
MR. ENG answered yes. He said that it is a useful distinction to
differentiate between the two planning documents, but it is also
an oversimplification to narrowly categorize the Best Interest
Finding as the "whether to harvest step and the Forest Land Use
Plan as the how to harvest" step.
MR. ENG referred back to the five steps in a timber sale. He
said that how to harvest" is embedded in each step of the sale,
ranging from the Area Plans to the State Forest Plans to the
Five-Year Schedule and the Best Interest Finding.
4:05:45 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the missing key, which creates
uncertainty about this bill, is a lack of Best Interest
Finding and Forest Land Use Plan data. He reflected on past
experience to illustrate the point. A constituent with a long
driveway, may initially be fine with the construction of an
uphill bypass road. However, if a 36" culvert ends up right
above their home, the constituent might be deeply concerned and
want to comment. This concern parallels Senator Steven earlier
comments related to fish habitat hazards.
SENATOR KIEHL asked which details contained in the Best Interest
Finding and Forest Land Use Plan might rouse public comment.
MR. ENG stated the Best Interest Finding is focused on the
general consequences of an areawide timber sale. The question
associated with the Best Interest Finding is whether or not to
put acreage up for sale. However, the transition between a Best
Interest Finding and a Forest Land Use Plan is gradational. In
the gray area, a Forest Land Use Plan is more than an
engineering document.
MR. ENG gave an example to illustrate the point. Environmental
and other factors were considered in a watershed where three or
four timber sales occurred in the last few years. Once the
public had commented on the wisdom of a timber sale in that
watershed, consideration was given to the appropriate view-shed
buffers and options for mitigating ecological concerns. Then,
DOF's attention focuses on engineering calculations like road
location and appropriate size culverts to handle 100-year
storms. These calculations are not subject to appeal, because
the public previously had the opportunity to appeal.
MR. ENG emphasized that it is unusual to receive an appeal on a
timber sale. In a timber sale near Thorne Bay, viewshed buffers
were installed to address and mitigate public concerns, which
resulted in public satisfaction.
4:09:21 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked whether each step in the timber sale process,
must be approved before the sale is advanced to the next step.
MR. ENG answered not necessarily. He said that in a lot of cases
the Best Interest Finding and the Forest Land Use Plan occur
simultaneously. On large sales, the FLUP materializes after the
BIF.
MR. ENG expounded on large sales. A large sale BIF applies to
the entire timber sale. FLUPS occur after the purchase and
harvest units are developed sequentially as needed. Roads are
built to harvest the first units and are used to leverage
subsequent forest land use plans and harvest units. He said that
it would be too time consuming and expensive to develop large
sale FLUPS on all harvest units at one time. The purchaser would
have to wait too long.
4:10:49 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE switched gears to speak on behalf of the timber
operator. He stepped back to slide 8, Steps in a Timber Sale,
Forest Land Use Plans:
Not all Forest Land Use Plans must be issued before
timber is offered for sale.
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that it is essential operators be able
to estimate operation costs prior to submitting a bid. He
hypothesized that it might cost $30,000 for a 20-acre parcel,
only to discover after the sale, that the cost to reforest is
$15,000. He expressed concern that this seems out of order and
asked for clarification on the process.
MR. ENG explained this statement means that some Forest Land Use
Plans can be developed over time. He said that the bid on the
sale is done with a high degree of certainty. For example, the
reforestation requirements are already known, and an experienced
operator will know the estimated cost to reforest. Forest Land
Use Plans serve both the purchaser and DOF well in terms of
flexibility and implementation.
MR. ENG asked whether the committee would like to proceed with
the sectional analysis.
CHAIR REVAK responded that an abbreviated overview is
sufficient.
4:13:34 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how it came to be that the state
prohibited timber exports.
MR. ENG answered that the prohibition on exports is a fairly
common requirement. It protects the domestic timber industry,
encouraging local jobs, domestic processing facilities and
value-added products, as opposed to exports which result in only
one sale. He said that the question of whether to use domestic
sales or export sales is a notorious financial question; SB 85
proposes both. Historically, the overwhelming majority of DOF
sales have been domestic, competitive sales. However, SB 85
proposes the state take advantage of market signals and respond
to the constant change of supply and demand factors.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how this bill ensures both local and
export timber sales or if it may deny locals access to a timber
supply.
MR. ENG answered that this bill is intended to supply both the
export and domestic markets.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether the Department of Natural
Resources has the authority to ensure a balance, so that a
sufficient supply of timber is available locally.
MR. ENG answered yes. The commissioner has the authority to
decide the particulars of a timber sale. He noted that Section 2
of the bill contains specific criteria the commissioner uses to
make timber sale decisions.
4:17:24 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF expanded on the idea of in-state versus out-
of-state timber sales. She asked whether the commissioner has
the latitude to choose a lower in-state bid over a higher out-
of-state bid.
MR. ENG answered yes.
SENATOR VON IMHOF stated that the nationwide shortage of timber
products coupled with lumber price increases have resulted in
both housing shortages and affordable housing in Alaska. She
surmised that this bill could revitalize the timber industry.
She envisioned, "Grow Alaska,self-sufficiency in the
production of timber and lumber. Alaskan grown, harvested, and
processed timber could potentially alleviate housing pressures
in Alaska.
MR. ENG said that highlights an excellent point that the forest
industry has grappled with for the last 50 years. Supply and
demand change rapidly. He explained that supply and demand can
be influenced from anything like a glut of blown-down trees from
a southeastern state's windstorm to Canadian lumber tariffs
which can shift the market equation. He said that the timber
market is fluid and is not a fixed target. That being said, the
division wants to incentivize the domestic industry, especially
in Southeast Alaska. While it is important to incentivize new
investments, it is also important to maintain and keep afloat
existing timber enterprises.
CHAIR REVAK commented that Senator von Imhof's "Alaskan Grown
point was well taken.
4:22:10 PM
CHAIR REVAK commented that one of the main stipulations of SB 85
is contractual certainty. He asked what the expected effects of
this bill are whether it passes or fails.
MR. ENG answered that the outcome of this bill is largely
unknown. It was proposed to resolve an appeals problem, which
occurs after the purchase of a timber sale when the operator is
primed and ready to roll. He explained that an appeal which
occurs after a purchase, can stop a small to medium-sized timber
company in its tracks; it can put a company out of business.
CHAIR REVAK asked whether the current system of appeals is used
frivolously as a tool against the process to prevent timber
sales.
MR. ENG responded that the public has a right to comment on
timber sales. The five-step process illustrates that the process
could be nimbler and more efficient. Not every timber sale needs
five levels of public go-around and comments.
CHAIR REVAK summarized his understanding of the previous
statement.
MR. ENG clarified that the five-step process includes the Forest
Land Use Plan.
CHAIR REVAK set SB 85 aside.
SB 85-FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
4:41:40 PM
CHAIR REVAK returned attention to SB 85 and opened public
testimony.
4:42:12 PM
KARI NORE, Project Manager, Resource Development Council for
Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 85 and the
Council submitted written comments. Ms. Nore offered the
following testimony:
The Resource Development Council for Alaska (RDC) is a
statewide trade association comprised of individuals
and companies from Alaska's fishing, forestry, mining,
oil and gas, and tourism industries. RDC's membership
includes Alaska Native corporations, local
communities, organized labor, and industry support
firms. RDC's purpose is to encourage a strong,
diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the
states economic base through the responsible
development of our natural resources.
Senate Bill 85 offers small volume timber sales with
greater operator efficiency. It allows the ability to
negotiate sales with any use of timber resources.
Senate Bill 85 allows the State to conduct timber
sales more efficiently, without compromising required
environmental review, public comment and process
requirements, by eliminating the ability to appeal a
Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP).
RDC supports Senate Bill 85 which creates greater
efficiency when it comes to responsible development of
our natural resources.
4:43:45 PM
TESSA AXELSON, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
Ketchikan, Alaska, testified in support of SB 85. She said that
the Alaska Forest Association (AFA) is the forest product trade
association that represents an array of members with an interest
in the forest products industry in Alaska. Membership in AFA
includes, but is not limited to, timber operators, contractors,
equipment suppliers, fuel distributors, tribal organizations,
forest product vendors, sawmills and other affiliated industry
associations and private citizens.
MS. AXELSON stated that less than four percent of land in Alaska
is privately owned which leaves the timber industry and the
forest products industry heavily reliant on other landowners,
primarily, the state of Alaska and the federal government
Department of Agriculture/Forest Service (USDA/USFS). Most
important to the industry is a reliable, predictable timber
supply. She said that limitations on sales as a result of
decisions and policies by federal landowners, USDA/USFS;
Secretary Vilsack July 2021 announcement to substantially
reduce old growth harvest and transition to young growth; USFS
Tongass 2016 Land Management Plan statements; prevailing market
conditions that were discussed earlier, necessitate state
legislation that streamlines agency processes and ensures
efficient forestry planning.
MS. AXELSON gave three reasons the AFA supports SB 85:
First, the bill enables DOF to negotiate sales with any use of
timber resources.
Second, the bill does away with inefficiencies in the appeals
process that have existed with Forest Land Use Plans while
simultaneously ensuring that required public environmental
review and public comment processes are not compromised.
Third, the bill provides the state the ability to offer small
timber sales with greater efficiency.
MS. AXELSON said that these changes holistically help to ensure
the struggling industry is able to operate efficiently and is
able to support community jobs. Above all, it will help to
ensure small business operators have the supply that allows them
to continue to operate in various markets.
4:47:17 PM
ED MARTIN JR., representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 85. He stated that since the 1990s the state has
struggled with the Spruce bark beetle, not to mention the shut
down of the Tongass National Forest when many people lost timber
industry jobs. He recommended the state prioritize reforestation
after forest fires. He recommended that the timber industry get
going in Alaska; this bill will help.
4:50:22 PM
CHAIR REVAK closed public testimony on SB 85.
4:50:45 PM
SENATOR STEVENS jumped back to HB 79. See final comment after
Mr. Martin's public testimony.
4:51:40 PM
CHAIR REVAK held SB 85 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 85 DNR Presentation 1.26.22.pdf |
SRES 1/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 85 |
| SB 85 Fiscal Note DNR 1.6.2022.pdf |
SRES 1/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 85 |
| HB79 Sectional Analysis ver. I 5.13.21.pdf |
SRES 1/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Explanation of Changes ver. A to I 5.13.21.pdf |
SRES 1/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Fiscal Note 1.21.2022.pdf |
SRES 1/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |