Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/19/2021 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 | |
| HB22 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2021
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 22
"An Act relating to shared animal ownership; and relating to the
sharing and sale of raw milk and raw milk products."
- MOVED HB 22 OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 22
SHORT TITLE: SHARED ANIMAL AND RAW MILK/PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) CRA, RES
03/30/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/30/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/06/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/06/21 (H) Moved HB 22 Out of Committee
04/06/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/07/21 (H) CRA RPT 6DP 1NR
04/07/21 (H) DP: MCCARTY, DRUMMOND, PRAX, MCCABE,
HANNAN, SCHRAGE
04/07/21 (H) NR: PATKOTAK
04/16/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/16/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/16/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/19/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 98
SHORT TITLE: FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) RES, FIN
03/12/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/19/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/19/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/14/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/19/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, provided introductory
remarks on HB 22.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 22, answered a
question about the bill.
TIM DABNEY, Acting State Forester/Acting Director
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 98, spoke on
behalf of the administration and answered questions related to
the bill.
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 98, answered
questions on behalf of the administration regarding the bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:06 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives McKay,
Fields, Cronk, Schrage, Gillham, Hannan, Rauscher, Hopkins, and
Patkotak were present at the call to order.
HB 22-SHARED ANIMAL AND RAW MILK/PRODUCTS
1:01:51 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 22, "An Act relating to shared animal
ownership; and relating to the sharing and sale of raw milk and
raw milk products."
1:02:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, provided introductory remarks on HB 22. She expressed
her excitement regarding how much support there is for the bill.
She offered to answer any questions on the bill and said the
forthcoming amendment by Representative Rauscher will provide
further discussion on the bill.
1:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that he visited a farm and has
returned with some tasty cheese for committee members to try.
1:03:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
which read:
Page 2, line 6
Delete item (c)
Re-letter the rest accordingly
1:03:43 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
1:03:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained that Conceptual Amendment 1
comes from trying to understand what HB 22 is attempting to do,
which, in his opinion, is to ensure that raw milk is available
for people to purchase. He said Conceptual Amendment 1 points
out that the language on page 2, line 6, "(c) A person may not
sell raw milk or a raw milk product", is foreign to what is
trying to be accomplished with the bill. Therefore, the
amendment would delete (c) and re-letter the rest accordingly.
1:04:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR spoke to what would be the effects of
Conceptual Amendment 1. She provided a history to put things
into context. She related that in 2017 she learned about a
movement called Food Freedom when she met a North Dakota state
representative who had introduced a food freedom bill in that
state's legislature. In talking with the representative about
the bill, she became very interested in bringing this to Alaska.
Conceptually it is about shortening the supply chain and making
it easier for consumers to get products directly from producers,
ranchers, and farmers. She said she filed House Bill 217, which
would have expanded the opportunity for raw milk products as
well as animal products. However, she continued, at that time
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) expressed
concern that this much more expansive option would cause an
increase in foodborne illness outbreaks. The original fiscal
note provided by DEC for the bill projected about $1 million per
year to hire staff to investigate and respond to DEC's
anticipated increase in foodborne illnesses. Since then,
Representative Tarr specified, multiple states North Dakota,
Wyoming, Utah, to name a few have expanded these policies and
have more fully adopted this food freedom policy. Those states
are not seeing increases in foodborne illnesses, she related,
and therefore she believes Alaska could accomplish this safely.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that in recognition of Alaska's fiscal
situation, the bill currently before the committee is much more
modest in what it is attempting to accomplish. She explained
that when there has been tension between public health and
safety and increasing opportunity, she has tried to find ways to
move forward and prove the safety. One example is food hubs,
which are online sales opportunities for farmers and producers.
When food hubs were first proposed [DEC] was very concerned, she
said, so only one food hub was allowed in Alaska as a pilot
program during the original year. It was successful and proved
it could be done safely. The food hub concept has now been
expanded and there are multiple food hubs around Alaska,
increasing the opportunity for consumers to get these products
and using online sales as the platform for making those
purchases. So similarly, she pointed out, it was decided to
pick a more modest step forward in this bill.
1:08:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that HB 22 would put the existing
herd share program into statute. Strengthening this program by
moving it from regulation into statute would provide certainty
to the farmers that it will exist in perpetuity. Currently the
herd share program is limited to fluid milk products, she said,
[and HB 22 would provide] expansion to value-added products like
cheese, ice cream, butter, kefir, and other products that a
[producer] wants to make available.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated she finds herself in the position of
saying she supports what Representative Rauscher is suggesting
and thinks it can be accomplished safely in Alaska. She said
she wants HB 22 to move forward and be passed by the legislature
because it would provide a new business opportunity in Alaska at
a time when people are struggling, and the state is recovering
economically. The bill would have immediate positive business
and consumer impacts for Alaskans, she noted, so she doesn't
want to do anything that might slow the bill down. She said she
is therefore cautiously opposing the amendment right now with
the understanding that the conversation will be continued and
that she will continue working with the governor who personally
called her last week about the legislation. Representative Tarr
related that the governor is interested in this legislation and
even in the more expansive opportunity, but she thinks the best
option today is to move forward with what is known and make sure
there are no unintended consequences. She emphasized that she
is very committed to working with anyone who is interested in
food freedom more broadly. She said it doesn't have to be her
who is working on this, she would be happy to share the
legislation that was originally drafted with any other member
and support that member in working on it too.
1:10:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY requested clarification on whether
Representative Tarr is in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied she is opposing the amendment today
because she doesn't want to have any unintended consequences
that would slow down HB 22. She said she has talked with the
amendment sponsor and has committed to continue working with
him. If this is realistic and feasible in this legislature,
then, yes, she would take the opportunity to strengthen Alaska's
agriculture. It isn't about her idea, she added, but rather
about ensuring that [the bill] keeps moving forward.
CHAIR PATKOTAK invited the director of DEC's Division of
Environmental Health to provide an understanding of what
Conceptual Amendment 1 might change as far as the administrative
side of things for raw milk and the industry as a whole.
1:11:37 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated she would
need to look at the bill and revisit the fiscal analysis since
it was done a few years ago. She said DEC is committed to
working collaboratively on this issue and offered her
appreciation for the sponsor's willingness to engage with DEC.
1:12:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she appreciates Representative
Rauscher's attempt to broaden the scope, but as stated by the
bill sponsor, this incremental change to what currently exists
of herd sharing from the milk's fluid state to cheeses and such,
keeps it within herd sharing. She recalled that the committee
looked at some legislation last year about a bigger legalization
of raw milk products and it quickly got complex financially and
statutorily. While she would like to look at things that would
support a bigger dairy industry, including raw milk as a part of
that, she said she thinks it would derail the proposed bill's
passage and she would like to see the bill move forward now.
She pointed out that the bill's fiscal note is zero, the bill
has no agency opposition or concern, and the bill has very broad
support in both bodies. She further recalled that last year
when the legislature looked at cutting the dairy inspector in
the budget, it was learned that there are many federal
regulations about what a state can do to sell milk. She said
herd sharing is not a work-around, but is an avenue permitted
under the law that the state can expand on and prove up. She
said she therefore will oppose Conceptual Amendment 1.
1:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his appreciation for the
discussion but said he doesn't see anywhere in HB 22 that says
selling raw milk is acceptable. He continued:
So, this is basically saying that now you're confining
something that has really nothing to do with the bill
at all. It steps outside of what we're talking about,
which is herd sharing. So, I'm not saying this
changes it to allowing, and nowhere in the bill does
it say allows us to sell raw milk to, or ... a raw
milk product. All of a sudden, this language appears
where it says we can't, nowhere did we say we can, and
nowhere are we talking about doing that. But here we
just come out of the blue and we say a person may not
sell raw milk or raw milk product. And so you see why
I don't understand why it fits, why I've drawn the
amendment. To what you said and to what I've heard
from the maker of the bill, and I have also by the way
co-sponsored this bill from its inception when it was
first planted into the House, and I did in the years
before only because I would like to see the bill move
forward also. But I really don't understand why we
start ... to make laws against things that have
nothing to do with what we're talking about. I'll
remove it, but I think that discussion needs to happen
because I don't know why you want to make other things
illegal when we're just trying to talk about something
we'd like to see illegal, which is why I'll withdraw
it at this time. But I would like to at least find
out a better understanding of why.
CHAIR PATKOTAK clarified Representative Rauscher had withdrawn
Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 22.
1:17:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report HB 22 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal notes.
1:18:11 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked the committee for its interest and
support of HB 22. She restated her commitment to Representative
Rauscher to continue discussing the amendment he proposed.
1:18:45 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection. There being no further
objection, HB 22 was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
1:19:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:19 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.
HB 98-FOREST LAND USE PLANS; TIMBER SALES
1:23:51 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."
1:25:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK moved to adopt Amendment 12 to HB 98,
[labeled 32-GH1607\A.24, Bullard/Radford, 4/19/21], which read:
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the
legislature that, when deliberating whether a timber
sale is in the best interests of the state under
AS 38.05, the commissioner of natural resources
consider, in addition to any factors required by
statute, the extent to which the sale may provide
(1) economic benefits resulting from
(A) the local manufacture of high
value-added wood products; and
(B) local processing of the timber
undertaken by the purchaser, including the local
manufacture of other value-added wood products;
(2) the creation and maintenance of a
stable local job base; and
(3) other foreseeable benefits to the state
and local economy."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
1:25:10 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK explained his reasoning for Amendment 12.
He noted HB 98 would repeal AS 38.05.123 and replace it with the
language in the bill on page 6, [paragraphs 1-6 on lines 4-10].
He stated that this language is vague and therefore he would
like to include some intent language to provide clarification.
1:25:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked which amendment this would
supersede to remove from the committee packet.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated Representative Rauscher will clarify which
proposed amendment will be deleted if Amendment 12 is passed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, regarding the deliberations on whether a
timber sale would be in the best interest of the state, inquired
if it would be for the best interest finding that the
commissioner is charged with doing before moving forward on a
timber sale, and that the legislature would be intending for
these to be included in the department's efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he strongly supports this language
and these goals. He asked why not put them in the bill so that
they are required to be looked at, whereas intent language is
not nearly as strong if the goal is to support local
manufacturing products. He said he has in this in his district
as well and wants to see them succeed.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK responded that it was discussed with the
commissioner, and it was felt that this intent language
clarifies paragraphs (1-6) that have been added.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he will probably support the
amendment in the end, but he thinks the clarification could be
made clear by including it in statute within the bill and that
that would be a better way.
1:27:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated he supports this intent, but he
also has some amendments on local manufacturers, local hire, and
local contractors. He said he hopes this can be done, as well
as go a little further.
1:28:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she supports this intent language,
but wishes it were in statute as it is currently. She noted
[the proposed] intent language is very similar to AS
38.05.123(e), which is being repealed in this bill because it is
only to these negotiated sales and the negotiated sales is being
changed in location in the statute. The language that requires
local manufacturing analysis and local job base is being
deleted, and she continues to think it's a mistake for the bill
to go forward and not keep the local use provisions that already
exist in law. She will support the amendment with the
legislative intent, she continued, but hopes it can still be put
in the statute because it does not hurt to underscore in two
ways that the goal, the use by Alaskans for jobs and personal
use, is always of substantial value to Alaskans and the reasons
there have been timber wars. [The committee] wants to ensure
the timber is available for Alaskans to be used in Alaska for
their homes, jobs, and businesses. She reiterated she would
like to see it in statute but will support the intent language.
1:29:50 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney of the Department of Natural
Resources or Mr. Orman of the Department of Law to comment on
the effects of Amendment 12.
1:30:01 PM
TIM DABNEY, Acting State Forester, Acting Director, Division of
Forestry, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded that
the intent language proposed by Representative Cronk is good.
He said it is aligned with DNR's support of Alaska jobs. Also,
he continued, it is aligned with at least three of the six
factors that need to be considered by the commissioner at [AS
38.05.110(c)], specifically local timber markets, domestic
markets, and the local economy about a sale.
1:31:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether Representative Rauscher
was going to talk about what amendment would be removed from the
committee's consideration. He observed that Amendment 1 talks
specifically about firewood, a value-added product, and he is
assuming it is Amendment 1 that would be removed, yet there is
no mention of firewood for any type of use in Amendment 12.
CHAIR PATKOTAK offered his belief that Amendments 1 and 2 would
not be offered if Amendment 12 is passed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that in reading Amendment 12,
he is considering removing Amendment 2. Regarding removing
Amendment 1, he said he would refer to Representative Cronk as
to whether he would mind a conceptual amendment to a word in
Amendment 12.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked what Representative Rauscher's specific
conceptual amendment would be to Amendment 12.
1:33:00 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:34:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK summarized his explanation of Amendment 12.
He said the amendment's intent language is to add protections in
some areas that are vague. He suggested that if Amendment 12 is
adopted, that Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 be presented.
CHAIR PATKOTAK related that during the at-ease the committee
discussed that Legislative Legal Services could clean up the
different iterations of amendments to make them into a concise
committee substitute (CS), and that was the route agreed upon by
the amendment sponsors.
1:35:00 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 12. There
being no further objection, Amendment 12 was adopted.
1:35:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
GH1607\A.23, Radford, 4/17/21], which read:
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the
legislature that the state increase the areas
available for personal use firewood while ensuring
that the additional areas provide equitable acreage
across the state in reasonable proximity to population
areas and prioritize road access."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
1:35:18 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained Amendment 1 would add intent
language that the legislature agrees the state would increase
areas available for personal use firewood while ensuring that
additional areas provide equitable acreage across the state in
reasonable proximity to population areas. He said the reason
for that is because providing sales where people must drive 100
miles to get to it provides no service to the people, so this
basically localizes it.
1:36:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there is another place
included [in the bill] for incentivizing commercial interest
firewood sales. He observed that the committee packet includes
a letter of support from Aurora Energy Solutions, which is the
wood fired kiln in Fairbanks where very small mom and pop
commercial entities bring their cut wood from various areas and
timber sales for drying.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether Representative Hopkins is
offering a conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS replied not yet. He stated that while
the committee is incentivizing sales for personal use firewood,
he is wondering whether there is also the opportunity for
commercial use of these small firewood sales.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded he understands the intent and
where Representative Hopkins is going. He said the idea behind
this is for much smaller use because they are usually left out
of the equation. He doesn't have enough research to understand
exactly where Representative Hopkins wants to go with this, he
continued, but understands the logic. Because he doesn't know
how much of a detrimental position [commercial firewood users]
are in right now, it would be hard for him to commit.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated he thinks it could easily be done
on line 6 of the amendment, but he will let it pass given his
intent is slightly different than the amendment sponsor's.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney or Mr. Orman to comment on
what Amendment 1 would look like administratively.
MR. DABNEY noted that Amendment 1 is intent language and said
the Division of Forestry does everything it can to meet the
firewood needs of Alaskans. The more citizens are encouraged to
contact their local forestry offices, he advised, the better the
division can provide well distributed firewood cutting areas.
For example, the division currently has about 10 firewood areas
in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley. To more evenly
distribute firewood areas so people don't have to drive as far,
the division is adding two more areas this summer. He stated
that the division will continue providing firewood to Alaskans
to heat their homes. The division encourages legislators and
local people to visit the division's offices or check online and
let the division know what it can do to provide that important
service to Alaskans.
1:40:14 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division Juneau Office, Department of Law (DOL),
advised, when thinking about intent language, to consider how
well it merges and marries with the substantive provisions of
the statutes. He cautioned that there might be some hiccups
with Amendment 1 a little more than with Amendment 12, but that
he would defer to the committee.
1:41:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER summarized regarding Amendment 1. He
said the current administration is doing a fantastic job of
providing firewood and timber sales for people who are
requesting them, but he doesn't agree that it's been that way in
the past. So, he continued, the intent language is for 10-15
years from now when this administration is long gone, and the
intent of the bill's language is trying to be understood.
1:42:00 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:42:16 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:42:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he would remove Amendment 2,
[labeled 32-GH1607\A.22, Radford, 4/17/21].
CHAIR PATKOTAK explained that Amendment 2, in the committee
packet, would not be offered.
1:42:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 32-
GH1607\A.20, Radford, 4/16/21].
Page 6, line 8:
Delete "and"
Page 6, following line 8:
Insert new paragraphs to read:
"(6) detrimental effects on the surrounding
environment, including erosion, drainage, and riparian
stability;
(7) effects on wildlife habitat; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
1:42:49 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained his reasons for proposing
Amendment 3. He pointed out that all the criteria in the best
interest findings of the state are economic in nature. He said
he believes a more wide-ranging look at the impacts of sales
should be taken than simply an economic impact. Amendment 3
would get to some of that, he continued, such as concerns about
riparian stability, which is the banks along rivers and streams
that are incredibly sensitive; erosion impacts from sustainable
harvesting, which is the ground qualification and stability; as
well as effects on wildlife habitat, including fish given that
fewer than half of Alaska's anadromous streams and spawning
grounds are currently mapped and this could be one of the only
ways to have an opportunity to ensure strong salmon habitat.
Representative Hopkins advised that this does not stop a forest
sale from happening but could just move the sale back a few feet
from the river or stream banks to ensure maintenance of that
habitat. The state has dwindling salmon streams and fishing
grounds, he noted, and this is critical to maintaining that
while still allowing the process to move forward at an expedited
rate, which is the goal of HB 98 for timber sales and harvests.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney provide an overview of the
administrative effects of Amendment 3.
1:44:54 PM
MR. DABNEY responded that looking at the detrimental effects on
surrounding environment and the effects on wildlife habitat are
already in statute under the Forest Resources and Protection Act
(FRPA) at AS 41.17 and its regulations [in the Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC)] at Section 11 AAC 95. He specified
that AS 41.17.115, management of riparian areas, specifically
addresses the protection measures for riparian issues, such as
erosion, drainage, and stability. He further specified that AS
41.17.098 affords wildlife habitat protections and gives the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) due deference on
state lands for wildlife habitat. He stated that the division
considers these items as part of determining any potential
adverse environmental impacts of a timber sale. He offered his
belief that Amendment 3 probably isn't necessary in this
location under 110(c) because 110(c) looks at the type of
provision or contract that would be used to sell timber. So, he
advised, 110(c) is more about the market and what kind of timber
sale contract the division is going to use as opposed to
considerations associated with environmental impacts.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether it is fair to say that if Amendment
3 is passed, then it wouldn't necessarily considerably change
how the commissioner administers management plans because it is
almost in duplicity to something that is mentioned somewhere
else.
MR. DABNEY answered that both the best interest finding and the
forest land use plan (FLUP) must adhere to FRPA. He said he
therefore doesn't believe it necessary to include [Amendment 3]
as an item to consider because it wouldn't be relevant to the
commissioner's decision for which type of contract to use.
CHAIR PATKOTAK inquired whether Amendment 3 would considerably
hamper the commissioner's ability to implement a FLUP.
MR. DABNEY replied no, it would not impact the department's
ability to adopt a FLUP.
1:49:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS spoke in support of Amendment 3. He said
he has been thinking about areas where timber sales could occur,
and maybe in some areas there aren't competing uses and maybe in
some areas there are. Riparian habitat certainly matters when
there is a jet boat operator taking fishermen upriver to fish on
a creek where water quality has an impact on production and
therefore local jobs. In areas where tourism is important the
viewshed must be taken into account. He stated he hears the
department saying one could argue that this isn't necessary,
however if the committee is going to pass this bill, then it's a
good thing to be responsive to some of the citizens the
committee has heard from about these competing uses and ensure
there's a balance. It's a matter of emphasis, he continued, and
it shows that the committee respects what can sometimes be
competing interests.
1:50:28 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:50 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.
1:52:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK stated that part of HB 98 is a long overdue
cleaning up of redundancies and, as the department said,
Amendment 3 is redundant because there is already AS 41.17.115
and 41.17.098. Because the purpose was to clean this up and not
have redundancies, he said he must oppose Amendment 3.
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted HB 98 is the administration's bill and said
the purpose of his back-and-forth on Amendment 3 is that it
doesn't gut or take away the intent of the bill from the
administration's standpoint. He asked Mr. Dabney to clarify.
MR. DABNEY responded that the main point here is that the six
factors [proposed for addition] under AS 38.05.110(c) are
factors that the commissioner is to consider when determining
what type of contract is going to be used to harvest the timber,
not what types of environmental analysis are going to be done to
make a determination for the best interest finding. These are
very important aspects of FRPA, he said, and it is inherent that
that's what the department is going to be considering and
analyzing as part of the best interest finding. It's not really
an item that would be appropriate, he continued. It's not going
to make a difference whether it's a negotiated timber sale or a
commercial timber sale in how the timber is harvested.
Regardless of what the contract type is, the same protections
are going to be afforded to the environment.
1:55:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN voiced her support of Amendment 3. She
noted that in this cleanup the administration has repeatedly
said that the idea is to consolidate the state's timber sales
process from three sections of statute into one. The concern
she has heard most from people about the bill, she related, is
the lack of public process and the truncating of some appeals.
Amendment 3 speaks to a couple of reasons that people frequently
appeal, she said. It doesn't stop [the department] from the
sales, and it might be a little bit awkward, but it says to
anyone critical of this effort that those concerns about
riparian habitat are affirmed. She pointed out that the appeals
process is being shortened and put in one place instead of two.
Amendment 3, she added, affirms that if state land is used for
commercial harvest that noncommercial concerns have been
considered. Representative Hannan agreed that FRPA and federal
law require [the state] to do that but stated that putting it
into Alaska statutes says [the state] is going to take that into
account, because the most controversial timber sales are always
when they are close to communities and have multiple use demands
on that forest habitat. It does not stop those sales from going
forward and does not detract from the considerations the
commissioner might have, she continued, but to people who are
skeptical that this consolidation will leave them out it
footnotes that their interests will be taken into account. She
said she will therefore vote yes on Amendment 3.
1:57:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS summarized his reasoning on Amendment 3.
He said that in looking at trust and transparency in Alaska's
process, the Forest Resources and Protection Act (FRPA) is in an
entirely different title of statute, Title 41, versus Title 38,
which is being dealt with today. The commissioner shall
recognize fish habitat as the primary value in riparian areas
and they'd work with the commissioner of ADF&G, he stated, but
there is an entire offset of appeals opportunities for people
who disagree or the agency to disagree. He referenced AS
41.17.098(f), "if a disagreement described in (e)," which is the
due deference to ADF&G, "an officer of an agency may require
reevaluation of the disagreement at a higher level." Many of
the concerns expressed in emails about this bill, he related,
also have to do with the public's interest in areas spoken to by
Representative Fields, such as jobs and tourism entities and the
opportunity to appeal based on concerns about habitat when they
might not have had an opportunity before through AS 41.17.098.
He pointed out that Amendment 3 is not adding an additional step
of appeal. As stated by the department, he continued, Amendment
3 would not negatively impact the administration's goal and
intent for HB 98. Representative Hopkins noted that the forest
management plans are not always quickly updated with new
information as that information is discovered. Amendment 3
would allow that flexibility as more anadromous streams are
mapped, he continued, and would allow that new knowledge to play
into those decisions going forward. It would not hamper the
process, he stated, but simply add a level of protection to
ensure the ability to have multiple uses in one area going
forward sustainably.
2:00:03 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 3.
2:00:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK? objected to Amendment 3.
2:00:12 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Hopkins,
Hannan, Schrage, and Patkotak voted in favor of Amendment 3.
Representatives McKay, Cronk, Rauscher, and Gillham voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 5-
4.
2:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 32-
GH1607\A.19, Radford, 4/17/21], which read:
Page 7, lines 1 - 2:
Delete all material and insert:
"(e) A person may file only one appeal with the
commissioner regarding a best interest finding and a
decision to adopt a forest land use plan."
2:00:55 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS explained Amendment 4 would keep it to
one appeals process or step under the best interest findings
(BIFs) and forest land use plans (FLUPs). He said Amendment 4
would allow an individual to appeal a BIF and/or a FLUP under
one appeal under the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC), which
would be the way the standard appeals process moves forward.
The ability to develop these timber harvests would not be
delayed, he stated, but full public interest and public
transparency would be allowed by not eliminating the ability to
appeal on a FLUP. As he sees it, he continued, this is in
consort with the intent of the administration for this bill,
which is to expedite the process for getting more timber to
market, whether it's local or the trees are shipped somewhere.
This doesn't slow that down, he reiterated, it simply does not
eliminate an opportunity for Alaskans.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney to provide an overview of
what Amendment 4 would cause administratively.
2:02:22 PM
MR. DABNEY responded that the intent of HB 98 is to avoid having
redundant appeals, and Amendment 4 would allow the continuation
of appeals on subsequent FLUPs. He offered his belief that
Representative Hopkins' intent is to afford an opportunity for
interested parties, typically those who live and recreate near
harvesting areas, to have some influence at the forest land use
plan stage, basically how the harvest is conducted. He stated
that the Division of Forestry will continue its long history of
working with the public to allow public input and comment at the
FLUP stage. Working with commenters at the FLUP stage the
Division of Forestry regularly modifies harvest units to address
visual impacts as well as windthrow. He said his read of the
amendment's language is that it does not quite meet the intent
of Representative Hopkins because most of the appeals seem to
come from groups and there are signatories of persons who are
members of those groups. His interpretation of the amendment's
language, he continued, is that a person who is a member of a
group could appeal at the BIF stage, and then another member of
the group could appeal at the FLUP stage, thereby having
redundant appeals.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Orman's comment on Amendment 4.
2:05:16 PM
MR. ORMAN stated that Mr. Dabney covered most of the issues and
concerns here. He explained that, currently, forest land use
plans can be administratively appealed pursuant to AS 44.37.011.
With [the change proposed in Amendment 4], he said, the apparent
goal is that either the person can appeal the best interest
finding or appeal the forest land use plan. But, as pointed out
by Mr. Dabney the problem is that subsequent now, forest land
use plans could still be appealed ostensibly because it seems as
though the idea here is that the best interest finding is almost
merging with this one forest land use plan. He noted that an
issue not raised by Mr. Dabney is how to then track this. How
does the Division of Forestry track that somebody appealed the
best interest finding and ensure that that has already happened,
and then the division would be saying "you're precluded now from
appealing the forest land use plan because you appealed the best
interest finding?" He referenced the example cited by Mr.
Dabney and stated it almost then opens the door as well to the
idea that not only will best interest findings still be appealed
as HB 98 considers, but then that forest land use plans can be
appealed. It just simply becomes who ends up filing and who
then presents the appeal at a certain specific time. Some of
the legal issues here, he summarized, are how it would be
tracked, how it would be applied, the denial of an appeal, the
process and showing by the department when an appeal is denied,
and then that determination decision. He said he understands
the intent and the goal of the amendment, but that it raises a
lot of issues that then become secondary to this language
pursuant to appeal.
2:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE inquired about removing the best interest
finding from the amendment language so that it just pertained to
the forest land use plan. He asked how that would differ than
what is proposed in the underlying bill, and how it would affect
the number of appeals available to the forest land use plan.
MR. ORMAN responded that he will answer from a legal perspective
and surmised that Mr. Dabney will want to respond from a policy
component. He stated that the idea in HB 98 is that forest land
use plans will not be administratively appealed, but best
interest findings will remain appealable. So, he advised, if
the provision about forest land use plans is removed [from
Amendment 4], it somewhat mirrors what is the intent and the
goal of HB 98. The difference is that HB 98 clearly articulates
in Section 4(e) that forest land use plans are not appealable.
He said he thinks the problem here would be that a person may
file only one appeal with the commissioner regarding a best
interest finding if that was it and was left to that. He
further said he thinks there'd be some confusion about the
forest land use plan and then its appeal without the section
that's been drafted in the current bill of HB 98. He deferred
to Mr. Dabney for further response.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE rephrased his question for Mr. Dabney.
He asked whether currently, without implementation of HB 98,
FLUPs can be appealed more than once or whether there is a limit
of just once.
2:10:11 PM
MR. DABNEY answered that as part of the adoption process FLUPs
can be appealed, there is an appeal period, and FLUPs are only
eligible to be appealed once. He stated that each harvest unit
has a FLUP - and here now he is talking about subsequent FLUPs
to the BIF - and there is only one appeal period for each forest
land use plan. So, he continued, a single forest land use plan
could not be appealed by the same person multiple times.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE opined that this gets to his underlying
concern with the bill, which is that he thinks there is value
with the FLUPs being appealable. He said he understands the
department's concern that when the FLUPs aren't available to be
produced at the same time as the best interest finding, then
later they are subsequently produced and those then get appealed
and it draws out the entire process. But, he reiterated, there
is value in being able to appeal that FLUP. If Amendment 4 were
to be amended to remove the verbiage about best interest
finding, he stated, it would make him much more comfortable with
this bill in allowing the appeal of the FLUPs to continue.
2:12:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the language
"notwithstanding AS 44.37.011" means all that is still intact.
MR. DABNEY deferred to Mr. Orman for an answer.
MR. ORMAN replied that the "notwithstanding" language is
confusing language and is something that is commonly used. The
purpose of that and the reference to AS 44.37.011 is noting in
total that the forest land use plans aren't appealable pursuant
to AS 44.37.011. In general, the purpose of that entire clause
is to say no administrative appeals for a forest land use plan.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether all of 44.37.011 would
be repealed.
MR. ORMAN responded, No, absolutely not." He explained that
all this phrase is doing is noting that these forest land use
plans will not be appealable as far as the process that exists
for administrative appeals under AS 44.37.011. He drew
attention to Section 12 of HB 98 and pointed out that AS
44.37.011 is not part of the repeal provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that there
basically is an appeals process in AS 44.37.011.
MR. ORMAN confirmed that AS 44.37.011 is the administrative
appeal process for decisions that are made either by the
director or the commissioner. There are two different ways that
appeals can go, he said. With subsection (e) as drafted [on
page 7, lines 1-2], an individual would not be able to
administratively appeal a forest land use plan through the
administrative process of AS 44.37.011.
2:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew Amendment 4 and said he will
work on clarifying that language with the department and any
other committee members who want to help. He said he would
bring the amendment up again later in the week at the chairman's
discretion.
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted that [HB 98] would be considered again on
Friday [4/23/21].
2:15:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, [labeled 32-
GH1607\A.18, Radford, 4/16/21], which read:
Page 7, line 27:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 8, following line 1:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) If the commissioner determines that
additional analysis is necessary to complete the best
interest finding for a sale under this section, the
commissioner may require a prospective purchaser to
retain and pay for the services of a contractor to
assist the commissioner in evaluating the proposed
sale and financial and technical data related to the
proposed sale. The contractor shall be selected by the
prospective purchaser from a list of consultants in
forestry and timber economics provided by the
commissioner. If the commissioner requires a
prospective purchaser to retain the services of a
contractor under this subsection, the commissioner
shall determine the scope of the work to be performed
by the contractor."
Page 9, line 3:
Following "38.05.115(c),":
Insert "and"
Delete ", and 38.05.123(g)"
2:15:55 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained Amendment 5 would take a piece
that is being repealed in Section 12, AS [38].05.123(g), which
is negotiated sales, and which are currently restricted to
domestic sales. She noted that HB 98 would repeal that area of
statute because the bill is compressing both domestic and export
sales into one area. However, she stated, she would like to
carry over this current language in statute about negotiated
sales that if the commissioner, in analyzing a sale, found that
outside expertise was needed to evaluate whether it is in the
best interest of the state to go forward with the negotiated
sale, an outside contractor could be hired to do that analysis.
That isn't the buyer of the timber, that is a timber economist
or such, she added. Representative Hannan related that she has
heard from the administration that this provision hasn't been
used so it isn't needed. She posited that it hasn't been used
because when looking at domestic negotiated sales it is clear
whether there is a local concern that can buy the timber and has
jobs for people. But, she continued, in now taking negotiated
sales from being domestic use to being exportable, she foresees
that finding the best interest of the state may require doing a
more complex analysis. Amendment 5 would take the current
language for domestic negotiated sales that is being repealed
and keep it in the statutes as these sales are opened up, and
thereby include the ability to hire a contractor - if the
commissioner chooses. It is not a mandate, Representative
Hannan pointed out, but would allow [outside expertise] to be
hired and the purchaser is picking up the tab because that is
the crux of it. The state could do this analysis, she
continued, but it's a more complex analysis when looking at
bigger sales, longer term, out of Alaska, and it must be ensured
the state isn't being set up to have to pay to decide if it's in
the state's best interest to go forward with the sale.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney or Mr. Orman to provide an
overview of what Amendment 5 would mean administratively.
2:18:46 PM
MR. DABNEY replied that Representative Hannan made good points.
Although this part of the statute has never been used and its
removal was considered part of streamlining the process, he said
he too can see where there could be potential in the future for
the commissioner to want to take advantage of the flexibility
that this current statute allows. While it hasn't ever been
used before and may never be used, he allowed that if there were
to be a situation where the commissioner would like to have that
flexibility it would be good to have it there. He stated that
keeping Representative Hannan's amendment would be acceptable to
the department.
2:20:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether Amendment 5 would cause a
fiscal note.
MR. DABNEY replied he would get back to the committee with an
answer.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY said his understanding is that the buyer of
the timber would pay for the contractor to do a study.
MR. DABNEY concurred with Representative McKay and therefore
concluded that there would be no change in the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that "may" and "shall" are two
different words, and "may" is used here. He inquired whether it
would raise the price of most of the contracts considering some
of them may be reevaluated through a third-party contract.
MR. DABNEY answered he doesn't see where utilizing this part of
the statute would impact what the market value would be of the
timber sale. He said that, if utilized, he envisions this for
the commissioner to better evaluate the financial and technical
data related to the proposed sale, not the market value.
2:22:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN summarized her explanation of Amendment 5.
She noted the administration doesn't think it would be a
burdensome step, the commissioner would not be required to do
this, and for local negotiated sales she speculates the
commissioner will continue not needing this. But, she said, the
bill is streamlining and talking about export sales being
something Alaska's forests would be used for, and she wants to
ensure those can be moved forward without a big ticket to the
state to commercialize other timber.
2:23:18 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 5. There
being no further objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
2:23:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 6, [labeled 32-
GH1607\A.17, Radford, 4/17/21], which read:
Page 7, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "[TO A LOCAL MANUFACTURER OF WOOD PRODUCTS
OR A USER OF WOOD FIBER]"
Insert "to a local manufacturer of wood products
or a user of wood fiber"
2:23:32 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said Amendment 6 would restore the export
ban and explained his reasons for wanting to do this. He
recounted that at its previous meeting the committee had a lot
of discussion about local benefits and how local benefits are
closely tied to local manufacturers, local firewood production,
logs for homes, dimensional lumber. He further recounted that
the committee also had some discussion about how it is easier to
protect state interests when state people are doing the job and
a little harder if there is, say, an Oregon company. He said a
lot of Chinese colonialism has been seen driven by the communist
party, and he has concerns about that looking at [Alaska's]
resource wealth, particularly in Southeast Alaska. Harvesting,
processing, and selling these resources in Alaska will guarantee
there are public benefits that are consistent with Alaska's
constitutional framework around resource production, he stated.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney or Mr. Orman to provide an
overview of what Amendment 6 would mean administratively.
2:24:45 PM
MR. DABNEY replied that one main point of HB 98 is to allow for
export of negotiated sale. He said these negotiated sales are
not designed to accommodate foreign purchasers but are designed
to allow Alaska industry to sell all the timber it harvests.
Some tree species and log sizes cannot be manufactured locally,
such as hemlock and small diameter material. Particularly in
Southeast Alaska, he continued, there is no market for that to
be milled locally, and so parts of many [state timber] sales are
already exported because that's what the local purchaser must do
to sell the logs that it harvests.
2:26:40 PM
MR. ORMAN responded that in thinking holistically about HB 98,
Amendment 6 would be returning language back to [AS 38.04.118].
However, he specified, HB 98 takes portions of negotiated sales
that are currently in 38.05.115 and moves them to 118. Now in
115, as far as those small, negotiated sales, the only kind of
strong restriction is no more than a certain amount of board
feet within a one-year period; so that's the limitation in 115.
[Under HB 98] those would be moved to 118 and then with
Amendment 6 those small timber sales presumably that were in 115
now are going to have this additional restriction under 118.
Mr. Orman further stated that there would be many other
structural impacts legally from Amendment 6 that would then need
to be considered and potentially addressed if this [language]
was just added back in. It would be different if it were clear
that 115 is going to remain unchanged from its current
iteration; then essentially what is being done is now making 118
what it was before as well prior to this proposed amendment and
leave 118 how it currently is, which is what seems to be the
idea. But, he said, that's not what would necessarily happen if
this amendment were made to 118 because of then the changes that
have been made as far as 115. Those small timber sales in 115
that have been moved to 118 are now going to be changed, he
stated, and the restrictions are going to change then with this
amendment to 118 if the small timber sales stay in 118.
2:28:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether Ms. Radford of Legislative
Legal Services, [and drafter of Amendment 6], is online.
CHAIR PATKOTAK answered that Legislative Legal Services is not
online because HB 98 is a governor's bill. He explained that
Legislative Legal Services wouldn't be online unless requested
by committee members offering amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he was asking because he is curious
whether Ms. Radford would agree with the interpretation.
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted that the committee would be considering
amendments again on Friday [4/23/21] and Representative Fields
could reintroduce it then.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that the intent with Amendment 6 is
to remain with the status quo in terms of an export ban. He
said he will go back to Ms. Radford and make sure the amendment
has been drafted consistent with that.
CHAIR PATKOTAK said Amendment 6 would be considered again on
Friday [4/23/21] pending follow-up.
2:30:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 7, [labeled 32-
GH1607\A.16, Radford, 4/17/21], which read:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "AS 38.05.035(e) is amended"
Insert "AS 38.05.035 is amended by adding a new
subsection"
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "(e) Upon"
Insert "(r) Notwithstanding (e) of this section,
for parcels north of the latitude of Thompson Pass and
west of Cook Inlet, upon"
Page 4, lines 23 - 25:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) a contract for a negotiated sale of
timber in an amount equal to or less than 500,000
board feet or equivalent other measure authorized
under AS 38.05.118;"
Page 6, line 3:
Delete "by considering"
Insert ". For parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet, the commissioner
shall consider"
Page 6, lines 11 - 25:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, following line 26:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) For parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet, for harvests of
20 acres or less or timber salvaged from land cleared
for a nonforest use, the department may not permit the
harvest of timber in a harvest unit until a site-
specific forest land use plan has been adopted. A
forest land use plan under this subsection may
authorize timber harvests for multiple harvest units
included in a timber sale contract. The department is
not required to adopt the forest land use plan before
awarding a timber sale contract."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 6, line 27:
Delete "A"
Insert "For parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet, a"
Page 6, line 30:
Delete "section"
Insert "subsection"
Page 7, line 1, following "AS 44.37.011,":
Insert "for parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet,"
Page 7, lines 3 - 26:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 4. AS 38.05.115 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) For parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet, the commissioner
shall determine the timber to be sold and the
limitations, conditions, and terms of sale. The
limitations, conditions, and terms shall include the
utilization, development, and maintenance of the
sustained yield principle, subject to preference among
other beneficial uses."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 27:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 7, following line 27:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(d) Notwithstanding AS 38.05.120 and 38.05.123,
for parcels north of the latitude of Thompson Pass and
west of Cook Inlet, upon a finding that a sale is in
the best interest of the state, the commissioner may
negotiate a sale of timber at appraised value. The
period of a contract for a sale of timber negotiated
under this subsection may not exceed 25 years. The
contract shall provide that the appraised value of
timber remaining to be harvested under the provisions
of the contract shall be redetermined at least once
every five years.
(e) Notice of intent to negotiate a contract
authorized by (d) of this section for the sale of
timber in an amount greater than 500,000 board feet or
equivalent other measure shall be given in accordance
with AS 38.05.945."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 7, line 28:
Delete "Within"
Insert "For parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet, within"
Page 7, line 31, following "measure":
Insert "under this subsection"
Page 8, line 3:
Delete "AS 38.05.118 [AS 38.05.115]"
Insert "AS 38.05.115, 38.05.118,"
Page 8, line 6:
Delete "or"
Insert "and, for parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet, for"
Page 8, lines 18 - 28:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 7. AS 38.05.123 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(k) For parcels north of the latitude of
Thompson Pass and west of Cook Inlet, the commissioner
may negotiate a sale of timber under this section if
the prospective purchaser agrees to use to the maximum
extent commercially practicable the timber subject to
the sale for the local manufacture of high value-added
wood products. In evaluating proposals, the
commissioner shall take into account the proposed
manufacture of other value-added wood products to be
produced under a negotiated contract."
Page 8, line 31:
Delete "AS 38.05.118 only [AS 38.05.115]"
Insert "AS 38.05.115 and 38.05.118 only"
Page 9, line 3:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
2:30:00 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained why he is offering Amendment 7.
He said that in listening to the discussion and reading public
comments from Alaskans on HB 98, it seemed there was some
support for the Interior of basically wood production in the
Interior. He didn't see any support in the public comments from
areas with marketable timber in the Prince William Sound region
or in Southeast Alaska. So, there seems to be some real
geographical differences in terms of people's perspective on
this bill. He stated he therefore asked for an amendment to be
drafted that would limit the geographic scope of this bill to
the Interior where public support has been seen. He allowed he
doesn't know if that is the best way to thread the needle in
getting the benefits of this bill without some of the costs in
fisheries, tourism, and so forth. He said he is interested in
hearing from committee members. If this is an approach that
members support, then he is happy to offer it and have a vote,
and if not an approach members support, then he will withdraw
it.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney to provide an overview of
what Amendment 7 would mean administratively.
2:31:23 PM
MR. DABNEY responded that HB 98 is a statewide bill, and an
important main point of the bill is to allow negotiating timber
sales that can be exported. This is predominantly a concern
that would benefit Southeast Alaska purchasers, he said, and
would allow more flexibility for the remaining companies of
those purchasers in Southeast Alaska. He stated he doesn't
believe Amendment 7 meets the intent of HB 98.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Orman to provide an overview of
what Amendment 7 would mean administratively.
2:32:39 PM
MR. ORMAN responded that as he reads Amendment 7, the area
limitation would apply to negotiated timber sales, which would
be the [AS 38.05.115, 38.05.118, and 38.05.123] sales. There
would be no area limitation for the [38.05.120] sales, which is
the competitive bid sales and competitive bid process. He said
that as he reads the amendment, although maybe this was not the
intent, a disparity would be had in some ways between Southeast
Alaska, and timber sales in Southeast Alaska, and ostensibly no
negotiated timber sales within Southeast Alaska as pursuant to
115, 120, or 123, and yet those negotiated timber sales would be
allowed in the Interior area. At its core that would create a
disparity between timber markets and timber markets would be
treated differently depending on their location, he stated.
Southeast Alaska is only a competitive bid process, and the
Interior is negotiated sales or competitive bid process
potentially, which would create a problem. Mr. Orman posed a
scenario in which it becomes an equal protection analysis and
said the lowest level of scrutiny that the court would talk
about would probably be a rational basis test. The question
would then be: What would be the rational basis for timber
markets and the timber industry in Southeast Alaska being
treated differently than the timber market in the Interior? In
general, that's probably the initial legal effect and legal
problem, he advised. Mr. Orman then addressed page 2 of the
amendment, lines 3-4, which state, "Page 6, following line 26:
Insert a new subsection". He stated he thinks that new
[subsection] might be problematic legally. He noted that the
[proposed] new subsection states "for harvests of 20 acres or
less" of timber "the department may not permit the harvest of
timber in a harvest unit until a site-specific forest land use
plan has been adopted." He said the language isn't clear about
more and greater harvests, which may be a typo or error in some
way. He advised that there is an error with that provision that
[the drafter] might need to look at.
2:35:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted Amendment 7 is four pages and said
he doesn't want to vote no, and he doesn't want to vote yes.
Given how much information is in the amendment and given
amendments will be taken up again, he stated he would like some
time to study the amendment using the books of law. He said
that if he must vote today, he will have to vote no.
2:36:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked how much timber sale volume, on a
scale of 1-100, would be removed if Southeast Alaska is taken
out of the bill.
MR. DABNEY responded that 100 percent of the volume that is
subject to export at this time in the State of Alaska that the
Division of Forestry has jurisdiction over is exported from
Southeast Alaska. Currently, he said, none of the timber from
timber sales in the rest of the state is exported, so the answer
would be 100.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY concluded that if Amendment 7 were to pass,
the whole purpose of HB 98 would basically be negated.
MR. DABNEY answered correct. He said one key point of the bill
is to allow exporting negotiated timber sales, in Southeast
Alaska in particular.
2:38:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated he is happy to give members time to
review Amendment 7. He referred to a letter from Aurora Energy
Solutions, an Interior company, which states HB 98 streamlines
the timber sale process providing predictable timber harvests,
so including pulp grade spruce materials and birch logs for
firewood. He said he thinks there is also a letter from another
Interior business in support of the bill. His intent with
Amendment 7, he explained, was to get whatever efficiencies
might be gained in local use, and it seems the Interior is most
germane. He further explained his intent was to also get those
areas where there might be the greatest conflicts in terms of
tourism, fisheries, and so forth, which to oversimplify could be
Southeast Alaska. He pointed out that Amendment 7 is written in
such a way that it protects the ability to harvest in the Glenn
Highway corridor in recognition that there could be some local
use there. He expressed his interest in further input from
committee members and added that he thinks HB 98 could be
written potentially in a way that this is not necessary.
However, Representative Fields continued, without perfecting
amendments in terms of process he doesn't want some of Alaska's
most valuable timber in Southeast to just go to China or Oregon.
2:40:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated he appreciates Representative
Fields' intent to target the Interior with Amendment 7, given
the letters of support and the vastly different types of forest
in the Interior as opposed to Southeast Alaska. He asked
whether using Thompson Pass and Cook Inlet would provide an
adequate legal marker if Amendment 7 were adopted, or whether
something more specific than landmarks is needed.
MR. ORMAN replied yes, but qualified that if moved forward this
kind of amendment would probably need intent language. He said
that if the idea is to treat harvests and timber in Southeast
differently than the Interior, and just broadly try to say so
through a general marker and boundary, which he thinks is the
goal, there needs to then be an explanation for the intent as
far as the rational basis for that. In his opinion looking at
this as a drafter, this doesn't seem as though it's an issue
like a park boundary, for example. For park boundaries, he
explained, there must be clear identification of the lands that
are included within the park boundary. This, however, is more a
delineation of the areas where negotiated sales are going to be
available versus those where competitive sales are going to be
available. He therefore said he thinks a general description as
provided here is probably sufficient because it's not so much
setting aside land for something and doing so with specificity
as much as trying to generally articulate an area and a
distinction between two areas.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that different parts of Alaska are
treated differently for oil and gas development: Middle Earth,
Cook Inlet, and the North Slope. He said he is glad that
Thompson Pass and Cook Inlet would work in this amendment.
2:43:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether it is Representative
Fields' intention that the Cook Inlet sales on Kenai Peninsula
be lumped with Southeast Alaska, given the Kenai Peninsula is
east of Cook Inlet and Thompson Pass kind of splits it.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that given the geography of the
state and the nature of the forests it isn't possible to have a
simple latitude. He explained the intention was that the Glenn
Highway corridor and areas north would be included, hence the
Thompson Pass boundary; and that the Interior region around
McGrath could potentially also be included because that forest
ecosystem is more like the Interior. In the spirit of not
excluding the broader McGrath/Yukon-Kuskokwim region, he said he
wanted to reference west of Cook Inlet to include the west shore
of Cook Inlet and everything west because he can see potentially
a local sale for local production and use and potentially that
could be a good thing. He further explained that excluded from
the streamlined provisions of HB 98 would be the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, Prince William Sound, and all coastal Alaska stretching
east to Representative Hannan's district and points southeast
because, basically, there are more competing uses. He said he
is sensitive to Mr. Orman's question about equal protection.
However, he stated, there are different types of trees for
different purposes. So, it's not really equal protection; it's
different species used for different things in different
regions. Therefore, he added, it makes sense to have different
processes, which gets back to Representative Hopkins' point.
2:45:19 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated the committee would consider Amendment 7
again on Friday [4/23/21].
2:45:31 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:45 p.m.
2:46:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK moved to adopt Amendment 10, [labeled 32-
GH1607\A.12, Radford, 4/13/21], which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "sales;":
Insert "relating to emergency firefighters;"
Page 8, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 41.15.030(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commissioner may hire emergency
firefighting personnel, and shall establish
classifications and rates of pay for the emergency
firefighting personnel consistent with the
compensation paid by other firefighting agencies. The
commissioner may adjust the classifications and rates
based on findings of the federal Bureau of Land
Management for Alaska. The commissioner may assign
emergency firefighting personnel to conduct fire
suppression, hazard reduction, fire prevention,
habitat restoration or improvement, and other related
activities in emergency and nonemergency
circumstances. The assignment of emergency
firefighting personnel to nonemergency activities may
not be used to replace permanent or seasonal state
employees. [THE COMMISSIONER MAY NOT USE
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT FROM STATE GENERAL
FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY FIREFIGHTING PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN
NONEMERGENCY ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS SECTION.]"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
2:46:40 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for purposes of discussion. He noted
Representative Cronk and Representative Rauscher had proposed
similar amendments and said either of them could explain what
the amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK spoke to Amendment 10. He stated that lack
of consistent work for Alaska's emergency firefighter (EFF)
crews has been an issue over the past years. These crews are
extremely important to Interior villages, he said, as well as
non-Interior villages like Hooper Bay. He explained there is a
statute that prohibits the commissioner from using certain funds
for EFF work, so Amendment 10 would hopefully create some steady
employment opportunities for rural-based firefighting crews.
This would strengthen local economies and family life and
enhance the public safety in Alaska and [those places in] the
Lower 48 that rely on these crews for assistance. He further
stated that this proposal aligns with Governor Dunleavy's
priorities to provide economic opportunities for Alaskans to
enhance public safety and empower rural Alaskans in their
response to manage the state's resources. He specified that
Amendment 10 would allow the use of state general funds for
emergency firefighter personnel engaged in non-emergency
activities such as clearing out forests around villages, and
prescribed work that would make Alaska's villages and towns much
safer from wildfire. For example, if it is a rainy summer and
firefighter crews aren't working, Amendment 10 would give them
the opportunity to do these other things. Over the last 20
years, he continued, employment opportunities in the villages
through the firefighting system have drastically decreased.
Amendment 10 would provide a way for the department to use
general funds to put crews to work during the summer.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Dabney provide an overview of what
Amendment 10 would do administratively.
2:48:48 PM
MR. DABNEY answered that it would be very beneficial to be able
to use general funds for non-emergency activities. He stated
that currently emergency firefighters are essentially part-time
workers during the fire season. Depending on how active the
fire season is the firefighters may have a good season or a bad
season - 2019 had lots of fires and was a good season for EFF,
2020 not many fires and so little opportunity for employment.
He specified that Amendment 10 would enable the hiring of
additional firefighters so [the department] could build back
some of its capacity of firefighting crews. The primary
responsibility of those crews would be to be prepared to work on
active fires but when it is raining or is the shoulder season,
those crews could perform hazardous fuels reduction around
communities. He said this would increase [the department's]
ability to protect communities, would increase employment in the
state, and would increase the number of crews because if
Alaskans see the ability to have full-time seasonal work as
opposed to part-time seasonal work, then [the department] would
get a lot more interest.
CHAIR PATKOTAK invited Mr. Orman to provide an overview of what
Amendment 10 would do administratively.
2:51:12 PM
MR. ORMAN related that he researched the legislative history of
AS 41.15.030, including some of the discussions from 1996 as
well as the "Personnel Act" [AS 39.25]. He advised that there
are no legal issues with Amendment 10 as far as removing that
last sentence.
2:51:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE inquired whether from his historical
research, Mr. Orman could provide any context as to what the
thinking was for why that prohibition was put into place.
MR. ORMAN replied that in 1996 the discussion or the concern was
pursuant to the "Personnel Act" and there was the lack of long-
term non-permanent employees. So, he said, quite a bit of the
language in AS 41.15.030(b) was added because of concerns about
the "Personnel Act," some of which he believes were raised by
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. That last
sentence was still part of that. He noted that there was also
discussion in the minutes regarding potentially federal dollars
or general fund dollars and those concerns, which don't really
exist either. Mr. Orman further noted that changes were made to
the "Personnel Act" in 2000 which allow for long-term non-
permanent employees. He offered his belief that the changes in
2000 cured in part the concerns that the legislature had in 1996
and as a result this can be removed because of those changes to
the "Personnel Act."
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he appreciates Amendment 10 and
thinks it is a great idea.
2:53:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that his amendment is identical to
this one. He drew attention to the third sentence under
subsection (b) of Amendment 10, which states: "The commissioner
may assign emergency firefighting personnel to conduct fire
suppression, hazard reduction, fire prevention, habitat
restoration or improvement, and other related activities in
emergency and nonemergency circumstances." He opined that this
is more important than just being a jobs amendment because for
decades the state has drifted away from doing preventative
measures, and that is why he appreciates this amendment. Over
the past decade, he related, he has heard firefighters complain
that the state isn't doing preventative measures anymore, which
is one reason why fires in Alaska get so large so quick.
2:54:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS concurred with Representative Rauscher.
He related that, as well, he learned about this type of language
earlier in the session during a discussion with the Division of
Forestry. He pointed out that last year in the Department of
Natural Resources Budget Subcommittee, money was put forward in
the budget for the first time in the state's history for fire
prevention, such as fire breaks and land clearing, that would
help eliminate the growth of some of these fires, although not
on federal land. Some of the concerns [the division] had were
not having the work for those clearings, and while [the
division] would have gone through local contractors, this keeps
the jobs even more localized to the villages and the regions
that might be most impacted. This is a good amendment, he said,
and he is interested in seeing the impacts going forward. He
added that along with that first ever fire prevention money
Amendment 10 is timely and good.
2:56:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN thanked Representative Cronk for bringing
forward the amendment and said she supports the goal. She noted
that when there is emergency firefighting there is a stream of
money to pay for that, but this is nonemergency using general
funds and most of HB 98 is about timber sales. She asked Mr.
Dabney whether the mechanism to pay for the fire suppression
activity would be out of timber sales or some other mechanism.
MR. DABNEY responded that for this nonemergency work it would
depend on the activity. In this case, he explained, it would be
general funds; so, as the general fund budget is available it
would be used to pay for the additional days and weeks that
these employees work. As mentioned by Representative Hopkins,
the legislature authorized $5 million to the Division of
Forestry specifically for creation and maintenance of fuel
breaks. That money will go a long way in having these men and
women work in Alaska in the late spring, summer, and early fall.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the $5 million would give
the Division of Forestry enough money this summer to execute
firebreaks in a variety of locations around state forests. She
further asked how that fund would be replenished. When the fund
was first created in the budget, any dollar was a step forward
because it had never been done before, she continued. Now the
legislature is going to direct the division to use it in rural
communities using nonemergency firefighters in their communities
in a prevention strategy. She inquired whether she is correct
in understanding that if $5 million is spent this summer then
next year the legislature will want to put in $5 million more.
She further inquired whether there is any mechanism that is an
ongoing part of the Division of Forestry to both sell trees and
fund [EFF personnel for nonemergency activities] to ensure
protection of the state's assets.
MR. DABNEY offered his belief that the $5 million [capital
improvement plan (CIP)] has a five-year lifespan, so he
anticipates the division would not spend all $5 million this
year, as well the division does not have the capacity to do that
currently. He said there is millions of dollars' worth of need
across Alaska, but it must be planned, and different mechanisms
used such as contractors and employees. He concurred that a
mechanism to ensure a replenishment of funding for this
important work would be beneficial because after fuel breaks are
created the vegetation grows back and therefore maintenance is
needed every 10 years or so. Much of that maintenance, he
added, is an example of where firefighters can do work by hand.
3:01:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he appreciates the representative's
question but drew attention to subsection (b). He noted that
[line 7] states the commissioner "may" hire emergency
firefighting personnel and [lines 11-12] state the commissioner
"may" assign emergency firefighting personnel. So, he said, if
there is no funding at the time, it is not directing the
commissioner to do this. Rather, it is saying the commissioner
has the ability to do this if there is funding.
3:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS related that his wife's father was a smoke
jumper for his entire career and her brother is a smoke jumper.
He stated it is amazing how much the climate has changed and
with it the profession. What used to be ground fires that could
be fought by hand now are super storms that create their own
weather and be deadly. He said Amendment 10 is a good idea, but
the reality is that the state is going to spend a lot more money
fighting fire regardless of whether it wants to and will have to
more actively manage the landscape to prevent these super fires.
He said Representative Hannan raises a good question, and it is
a question he supports addressing, whether in this bill or
otherwise. He offered his support for Amendment 10, the hiring
of Alaskans to support the local economy, and looking further at
how to do it structurally.
3:03:42 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 10 was adopted.
3:03:55 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 98 was held over.
3:05:13 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 98 Letter Becky Long 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Letter John Strasenburgh 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 HRES Amendment Packet 1 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Memo Amendment A.15 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Amendment Cronk A.24 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 22 Conceptual Amendment Rauscher 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |
| HB 98 HRES Action on Amendments 4.19.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |