Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/14/2021 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 | |
| HB26 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 98-FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
1:24:17 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final 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."
1:25:17 PM
TIM DABNEY, Acting Director and Acting State Forester, Division
of Forestry (DOF), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
referred to the questions raised during the March 12, 2021,
hearing on HB 98 and said that answers have been provided
directly to committee members. He then said that flexibility is
needed to allow negotiation for timber sales and exporting logs,
which HB 98 would allow. He said HB 98 would modernize statutes
by simplifying what he described as "confusing negotiated timber
sale laws," increase flexibility in sales to meet evolving
market demands, and support export markets while still
protecting local markets. He reiterated the parameters proposed
in HB 98 for best interest findings (BIFs) and Forest Land Use
Plans (FLUPs), and summarized again the benefits of the proposed
legislation.
1:30:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said that it's important that local
areas and small companies be considered when large companies
enter into sales contracts. He then referred to a memorandum
("memo") he distributed titled "Intent language HB 98" [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
It is the intent of the legislature that when
utilizing programs in this act that private companies
pay attention to, and should encourage, local hire for
all forestry companies and contractors, including
firefighting, timber sales of any size, and all timber
related activities.
It is the intent of the legislature that the state of
Alaska prioritizes timber access for log homes and
dimensional lumber for local Alaska residents, and
Alaskan companies headquartered in the state, when
conducting timber sales.
It is the intent of the legislature that the state of
Alaska make more areas available for personal use
firewood. These areas, determined by the Division,
should provide equitable acreage across the state in
reasonable proximity to population areas, and access
by road should be considered a priority.
1:34:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed his agreement with
Representative Rauscher and said that it seems Chinese companies
are harvesting timber from more areas. He asked whether a
Chinese company could bring in its own workers to harvest timber
from Alaska.
1:35:49 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, noted that
there are many legal issues surrounding hiring that he would
need time to research.
1:37:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS described China's Belt and Road
Initiative, through which China has invested in economic
development in different countries. He expressed concern over
the ramifications of this initiative and suggested the
possibility of limiting timber harvest to companies
headquartered in Alaska. He also broached considering limiting
the geographic scope of HB 98 to the Alaskan Interior.
1:39:40 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted the importance of the intent language.
1:40:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN commented on the intent language in the
memo from Representative Rauscher, which she characterized as
the "lifting, in the bill, of the provisions that ban exports
under negotiated sales." She said that in a follow-up meeting
with Mr. Dabney, he described the exports as originating in
southeast Alaska, which, she said, is an area of concern. She
opined that a negotiated sale benefits a company, but requiring
the work to be kept in state is a way to operating without
having legal questions regarding only hiring locally. She asked
Mr. Dabney to talk about why it's desirable to lift the export
bank with regard to negotiated sales.
1:42:22 PM
MR. DABNEY said that being able to negotiate for timber exports
would benefit the state in both revenue and jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Mr. Dabney for further explanation.
MR. DABNEY explained that there are various ways to sell timber;
the DNR commissioner would consider the best type of contract
for the local timber market, the domestic market, and the local
economy. He said that it's the stance of DOF that "taking
advantage of negotiated timber sales that would allow for export
could actually have a benefit to the local economy."
1:44:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Representative Rauscher's
memo and asked about the intention of keeping firefighting
local.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said that firebreaks are often done
without a contract.
1:44:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said that local firefighting crews are used
"less and less," and spoke of the intent to amend HB 98 to
include language regarding the use of local labor resources.
1:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that planned firebreaks are in
strategic locations and asked whether they are handled along
with a timber sale.
MR. DABNEY replied that there are situations in which firebreaks
are included in the commercial harvest and used the Tok area
harvests of white spruce as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether DOF takes bids for a
specific firebreak to be cut down or the felled timber is simply
collected or planning and creation of the firebreak is added to
the timber harvest.
MR. DABNEY responded that any of those actions would be
possible.
1:49:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked Mr. Dabney to compare the amount of
state land versus private land affected by HB 98.
MR. DABNEY replied that HB 98 is applicable only to lands under
the jurisdiction of DOF.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS noted that it's legal to require in-state
hiring for work activities on state land, and there is a long-
standing precedent for doing so. He discussed his intention to
work on an amendment requiring in-state hiring.
1:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said that local vendors in his district are
concerned about the lack of protections for local needs. They
would like to have domestic markets take priority over export
markets, as well as giving preference in contracts to businesses
that have established value-added wood product manufacturing
facilities in the state. He said, "All long-term contracts
authorized by the Division [of Forestry] shall have a
requirement to begin full-scale utilization of the timber
resource by the contract holder within two years." He added,
"Hopefully, we're not having people just lock up tracts of
land." Considering long-term contracts, he said, businesses in
his district would like DOF to give preference to businesses who
provide value-added timber like logs, lumber, and chipping;
preference should be given to businesses located in the area and
have limited options for sustainable resources.
1:53:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS related observations during his previous
role at the Department of Labor & Workforce Development of
"fairly horrific labor abuses on federal lands" in which
multinational companies would bring in illegal immigrants who
were then subjected to workplace safety issues. In one
instance, he said, a crew of workers on Chichagof Island was
"effectively abandoned by their company" and took a skiff to the
mainland, where one was attacked by a bear. He characterized
local businesses as having strong interest in the welfare of
their community.
1:55:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether there is a definition of
"value-added" that DOF is required to use.
MR. DABNEY explained that "value-added" includes most of the
wood products in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted the use of the term "local use" and
asked whether DOF considers firewood to be a value-added
product, or whether language on "local use" would need to be
inserted.
MR. DABNEY said firewood would be included in "other value-added
wood products.", as stated in Section 9, subsection (a), on page
8, line 6, of HB 98.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said:
I want to confirm that you are on the record saying
that on Section 9, line 6, other value-added wood
products you would determine that that would include
firewood for a local user, even if they were not
commercially selling it; but say Representative Cronk
is going to go clear railway access and heat his home
with 10 cords of wood for the next two winters, that
that is a value-added product.
MR. DABNEY replied, "Correct."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referred to the part of HB 98 repealing
subsection AS 38.05.123(g), a statute which she described as
allowing the commissioner to require a purchaser of wood
products to fund economic analysis to ensure that the sale
conforms to the BIF. She said Mr. Dabney had expressed to her
that the provision has never been used, which she asked Mr.
Dabney to confirm. She opined that if the statute has never
been used, it's not a hinderance to the process, and she would
like to keep it in statute.
MR. DABNEY confirmed that the provisions under AS 38.05.123(g)
have never been utilized, and that he doesn't expect them to be
used in the future. He said that if DNR needs the information
which would be gleaned from the provisions under that statute,
the service would be sought from an entity other than the
purchaser.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed that the statute requires the
purchaser to pay for the analysis, as opposed to carry it out.
She opined that if more negotiated sales are expected in the
future, and appeals are being reduced, then it's necessary to
ensure that the best interest findings are accurate with regards
to local uses and potential development. She said that with
budget cuts to DNR, it's important to have the ability to
require a contractor to pay for economic analysis rather than
delaying the sale or expecting the expertise to come from within
DNR.
MR. DABNEY said that part of the reason for adding the language
repealing AS 38.05.123(g) was to streamline the statutes.
2:01:32 PM
MR. ORMAN explained that AS 38.05.123 is only for negotiated
sales for local manufacture of wood products.
2:03:26 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK spoke of extending the deadline for amendments,
the several amendment propositions that have been discussed, and
the importance of working the amendments in good faith.
2:04:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said that he has enough information to
move forward in writing amendments.
2:04:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Mr. Orman to explain the reason for
including the repeal of AS 38.05.123(e).
MR. ORMAN noted that he can explain the legal aspect, but would
defer to Mr. Dabney to explain the policy aspect. He explained
that AS 38.05.123(e) cites seven factors to consider in making a
best interest finding; HB 98 would amend AS 38.05.110(c) to
include six factors that, while not identical to the factors
currently listed in AS 38.05.123(e), would provide guides for
considering applicable provisions of a timber sale. Appealing
AS 38.05.123(e) and amending AS 38.05.123(c) would avoid
redundancy in determining appropriate contract provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Mr. Dabney to explain how the
factors specified in AS 38.05.123(e) would translate to the
proposed amended AS 38.05.123(c).
MR. DABNEY explained that for HB 98, the seven factors in AS
38.05.123(e) were reworded into six items. He clarified that
subparagraph AS 38.05.123(e)(7 is identical to the amended
subparagraph AS 38.05.123(c)(6) proposed under HB 98.
2:09:28 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK invited Representative Hopkins to discuss
documents included in the committee packet.
2:09:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that the documents in question were
provided by DNR and explained that the briefing paper covers the
size of a timber sale which would be exempt from a FLUP; he also
referred to a document listing all timber sales under 10 acres
for both personal and commercial uses. He noted that he did not
ask how many timber sales would fall under the new guideline of
20 acres and asked DNR to supply a list of harvests of between
10 and 20 acres from fiscal year 2016 (FY 16) through FY 20 to
get a clearer picture of what the impact would have been over
the past five years under HB 98. Representative Hopkins asked
Mr. Dabney, "In terms of the difference between a management
plan and a forest land use plan, would anything in HB 98 allow
the timber harvest sale to not adhere to a forest management
plan?"
MR. DABNEY replied, "All forest land use plans would have to
adhere to a management plan."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS followed up to ask if there is anything
in FLUPs that would allow a timber harvest to clear cut or
otherwise ignore sustainable harvest principles.
MR. DABNEY responded that DOF is constitutionally required to
main sustained yield principles.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said, "'It's in the Constitution,' those
are the words I wanted to hear."
2:12:18 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK said that HB 98 was held over.