Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
05/08/2023 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB137 | |
| HB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2023
4:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator James Kaufman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 137
"An Act relating to the refined fuel surcharge; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 104(RES) AM
"An Act relating to salvage sales of timber, negotiated timber
sales for local manufacture of wood products, and expedited
timber sales; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 137
SHORT TITLE: REFINED FUEL SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
04/24/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/24/23 (S) RES, FIN
05/05/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/23 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/08/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 104
SHORT TITLE: TIMBER SALE: EXPEDITED/SALVAGE/NEGOTIATED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/23 (H) RES
03/20/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/20/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/24/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/24/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/03/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/14/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/14/23 (H) Moved CSHB 104(RES) Out of Committee
04/14/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/23 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NEW TITLE 4DP 2NR
04/17/23 (H) DP: RAUSCHER, MCCABE, SADDLER, MCKAY
04/17/23 (H) NR: ARMSTRONG, PATKOTAK
04/20/23 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/20/23 (H) VERSION: CSHB 104(RES) AM
04/21/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/23 (S) RES
04/24/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/24/23 (S) Heard & Held
04/24/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/05/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/23 (S) **Streamed live on AKL.tv**
05/08/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question relating to
Amendment 1 for SB 137.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, District 36
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 104.
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff
Representative Mike Cronk
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 104.
HELGE ENG, State Forester and Director
Division of Forestry and Fire Protection
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing on
HB 104.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel
Legal Services
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing on
HB 104.
ACTION NARRATIVE
4:02:21 PM
CO-CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dunbar, Wielechowski, Claman, Co-Chair
Giessel, and Co-Chair Bishop. Senator Kawasaki arrived
thereafter.
SB 137-REFINED FUEL SURCHARGE
4:03:11 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
137 "An Act relating to the refined fuel surcharge; and
providing for an effective date."
He noted that there was an amendment for the committee to
consider.
4:03:26 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 33-
LS0768\B.2, for SB 137.
33-LS0768\B.2
Dunmire
4/26/23
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR BISHOP
TO: SB 137
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "AS 43.40.005(a)"
Insert "AS 43.40.005"
Page 1, following line 5:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The following refined fuels are exempt
from the surcharge imposed under
this section:
(1) fuel sold to a federal or state
government agency for official use;
(2) fuel consigned to a foreign
country [REFINED AND USED
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES];
(3) liquefied petroleum gas;
(4) aviation fuel;
(5) fuel sold or transferred between
qualified dealers."
CO-CHAIR BISHOP objected for purposes of discussion.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL explained the genesis for Amendment 1. A US
flagged tug and barge company transports fuel to Skagway where
it is loaded onto a truck that is owned and operated by a US
firm and trucked to the Yukon Territory. The amendment proposes
exempting that company from paying the refined fuel surcharge
because the fuel is not used in the US.
4:04:22 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP removed his objection. He noted that Brandon
Spanos was available to answer questions.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked Mr. Spanos to articulate the potential
financial impact of the amendment.
4:04:57 PM
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that he was unable to answer
the question because too few taxpayers are affected to be able
to aggregate the information. The only available information was
confidential.
4:05:31 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if that means that the fiscal note that the
Finance Committee considers won't reflect the impact of the
proposed amendment.
MR. SPANOS responded that the division will amend the fiscal
note if the amendment passes. It will state that there will be a
negative impact on revenue but the amount is indeterminate due
to taxpayer confidentiality.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP said the members will see the fiscal note before
the bill leaves the committee.
4:06:15 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked at what level the tax is paid.
MR. SPANOS replied that the tax is assessed on the distributor
when the fuel is sold to the retailer.
4:06:47 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP found no further objection and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
4:06:56 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP held SB 137 in committee.
HB 104-TIMBER SALE: EXPEDITED/SALVAGE/NEGOTIATED
4:07:00 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 104(RES) am "An Act relating to salvage sales of timber,
negotiated timber sales for local manufacture of wood products,
and expedited timber sales; and providing for an effective
date."
4:07:25 PM
At ease
4:07:44 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP reconvened the meeting.
4:07:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, District 36, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 104, introduced
himself.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP stated that this was the second hearing of the
bill and public was open. After discerning that nobody wished to
testify, he closed public testimony on HB 104.
4:08:14 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP closed public testimony on HB 104.
He asked for a brief summary of the section on expedited sales.
4:08:44 PM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, responded by articulating the
following questions that have been asked with some frequency.
I. What are the current types of timber sales?
II. What does HB 104 do?
III. What is the current salvage sale process?
IV. How does this bill propose to change the
salvage sale process?
V. Do these changes to the salvage sale allow the
commissioner to give "sweetheart deals"?
VI. Do these changes to the salvage sale process
deny the public the right to object to a
salvage sale?
VII. Are expedited timber sales in current law?
VIII. How does the bill change expedited timber
sales?
IX. Why is this new process necessary?
X. Is the authority provided in this bill too
broad, as the entire state is at risk of fire
or insect infestation?
XI. Does the phrase "the commissioner is not
required to notice an expedited timber sale
under this section?" violate the constitution?
4:10:15 PM
MR. STANCLIFF said he was also asked to research the best
interest finding and the constitutionality regarding public
notice. What legislators and local assemblies in rural areas
have to ask is whether there is sufficient opportunity for the
public to weigh in on an expedited sale.
He stated that HB 104 seeks to streamline the process to allow
the commissioner to move rapidly, but while following criteria
to ensure the public interest is served. He opined that it's a
policy question as to whether this will be beneficial to the
state. What the sponsor is pointing out is that this bill will
provide an opportunity to utilize timber that has been fire
damaged or infested with beetles before it has no value.
4:13:58 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP noted that the bill packet includes a memo from
Legal Services regarding whether the bill raises constitutional
issues, an FAQ sheet from the sponsor, and additional support
letters.
4:14:34 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI joined the committee.
4:14:42 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether there had been problems under the
current structure on salvage sales in getting a best interest
finding timely, as required under AS 38.05.035(e), so the sale
can be held before the timber loses its merchantable value.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP noted who was available to respond to questions.
MR. STANCLIFF deferred the question to the state forester.
4:15:52 PM
HELGE ENG, State Forester and Director, Division of Forestry and
Fire Protection, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Anchorage, Alaska, said he believes the division is capable of
producing a best interest finding fairly quickly for salvage
timber sales, get public input, and salvage the timber before it
rots on the stump.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if that's also true for salvage sales of
timber that's been killed by beetles and other insects but not
subject to fire.
MR. ENG said yes, it applies to salvage sales of timber that's
been killed by both fire and insects.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if it was fair to say that the division is
able to work under the current statutory definition of a salvage
sale to identify timber that needs to be harvested in a two-year
window to maintain value, do the best interest findings, and get
the sale processed in time to sell the timber for the value such
timber has.
MR. ENG said that's correct; the limitation typically is not the
process but access and other logistical limitations.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked him to elaborate.
MR. ENG responded that access refers to whether the area has
roads to haul the timber to a processing facility. He added that
there's generally not a lot of demand for salvage timber.
4:18:26 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI paraphrased the second paragraph on page 2 of
the May 8, 2023 Legal Services memo regarding the
constitutionality of HB 104 and asked for an explanation of that
process for HB 104 if it were to pass. The paragraph read:
If, under the bill, the commissioner elects to hold a
salvage sale under AS 30.05.117, the sale will still
have to address constitutional notice public interest,
and public trust concerns. It will be up to the
commissioner to ensure that a salvage sale meets these
constitutional requirements. The commissioner has
broad authority under AS 30.05.020(b)(1) and (4) to
adopt regulations, or ensure by other means, that a
salvage sale of timber meets these requirements.
MR. STANCLIFF deferred the question to Alpheus Bullard.
SENATOR KAWASAKI repeated the question.
4:19:31 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel, Legal Services, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the process
would be that the commissioner could adopt regulations and show
constitutional requirements are met in regard to salvage sales
under AS 38.05.117.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked 1) what the safety valve would be or how
somebody would protest a salvage sale if the new regulations
don't meet those constitutional requirements and 2) what laws
govern the adoption of new regulations.
MR. BULLARD responded that if the bill passes and the
commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources effects a
salvage timber sale, DNR has to comply with applicable
constitutional requirements. If the sale does not comply with
the applicable requirements, the safety valve is that litigation
will likely commence.
4:22:18 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR observed that the fact that salvage timber will
lose economic value is important in the legal memo. He said he
didn't think it would be very controversial to have burned or
beetle killed timber removed quickly in a salvage sale within
two years. He likes the retrospective nature to the salvage, but
it's a concern that these sales also seem to have a prospective
nature. He directed attention to Section 8 of the bill and
paraphrased paragraphs (1)-(3) in subsection (b). He said
paragraphs (1) and (2) aren't a concern but paragraph (3) says
that a salvage sale may include timber cleared as part of a fire
prevention or suppression activity, and that is a concern.
He asked Mr. Eng how large a swath of land could be justified
under the salvage timber provision. The worry is that if it's
subjective, a creeping economic interest may start to color the
fire suppression interest, and the swaths could get wider. He
asked Mr. Eng if that was possible.
4:25:07 PM
MR. ENG responded that there is a meaningful distinction between
fire prevention, which includes proactively making fuel breaks
around communities, and fire suppression, which is what is done
when a fire is actively moving across the landscape and you're
trying to put it out.
In the first case where there is no fire, he said Tok has 300
foot wide fuel breaks around parts of the town, which are fairly
sizeable fuel breaks. He continued that the department prefers
to sell such trees as timber sales rather than using public
funds to pay people to remove them. He said it's a win-win and
he didn't think DNR would ever be a situation where monetary
considerations would result in a wider fuel break.
In the case of fire suppression, he said the existing statutes
allow the division to remove fuel between an advancing fire and
a community. So the question is really one of getting the
equipment to the location at the right time.
SENATOR DUNBAR asked what the bill changes in regard to fire
prevention activities when the division already puts in
firebreaks and sells the timber when it makes a community safer.
MR. ENG deferred the question to the sponsor.
SENATOR DUNBAR emphasized that he wanted to hear from the state
forester and the people who do the fire work in order to
understand how the bill will change their activities.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked Mr. Eng if he wanted to think about it and
provide an answer when the bill is heard next.
MR. ENG said he'd appreciate some time to consider his response.
4:28:38 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked Mr. Eng to expand on the response he gave
earlier about access and distance because it goes to Senator
Dunbar's question about how this legislation would change what
the division is doing today. He asked whether the division was
prevented from doing these sales today as opposed to sales that
might be interesting but because of access and distance, the
reality is that nobody will bid on them.
4:30:15 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP dovetailed onto Senator Claman's question, which
gets into stumpage value. He posited that in some instances
there may be no stumpage value but the bill would encourage
someone to harvest the timber and hopefully pass the savings
along to a homeowner for the saw logs.
MR. ENG responded that the division already does salvage sales
under existing statute. To the question about access and
distance, he said the triple curse of Alaska forestry is 1)
finding high quality, green saw timber, 2) finding timber within
an economical hauling distance to a sawmilling facility, and 3)
finding access to the timber in the first place. He said Alaska
has by far the largest timberland base in the nation, but access
to the timber is difficult. It's also a broader issue than HB
104 because it gets to the governor's effort to grow the timber
sector in Alaska. It's not something that's done overnight, but
a combination of strategic investment and opportunities will
probably pay off over time by turning unmanaged remote forests
into managed forests with road access.
4:32:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced the last paragraph on page 1
that says that a disposal of state resources must be noticed,
and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) on the last page of the bill that
say that the commissioner is not required to notice an expedited
timber sale. He asked how that provision comports with the memo
that says notice is required for the disposal of state
resources.
MR. BULLARD replied that AS 38.05.113(d)(1) qualifies the
exemption from the notice requirements. The provision provides
for certain notice of regular timber sales every two years on a
five-year schedule.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what sort of notice would be required
in an expedited timber sale.
MR. BULLARD opined that every circumstance is different and the
bill leaves the details of the notice to the commissioner to
decide.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked him to discuss the seeming disparity
between the language at the end of the first paragraph in the
legal memo that says that the sale will serve the best interests
of the state, and the language in the first sentence of bill
Section 7 that says, "the commissioner may, without making a
written finding that the disposal will serve the best interests
of the state, offer for salvage sale timber...".
MR. BULLARD replied that the lines in the memo were selected
from bill Section 2 that amends AS 38.05.035(e), which removes
the written best interest finding. That section of the statute
has procedural rules for the disposal of state resources and the
bill exempts these sales from that procedural process.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he needed a better explanation.
MR. BULLARD responded that, in this instance, nothing that is or
is not put in statute relieves the commissioner of the
constitutional obligation to notice these sales, make sure they
are in the best interest of the state, and ensure they are
consistent with the public trust doctrine. He continued that he
believes that the constitutional notice provision will be met
even if the written best interest finding process provided by AS
38.05.035(e) isn't used.
4:38:13 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP agreed with an earlier statement that nothing
precludes somebody from filing a lawsuit if they think such a
sale is unconstitutional.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what the notice process would be for
people who have a trapping cabin or undeveloped land in an area
close to a proposed salvage sale.
MR. BULLARD replied that the bill provides a process to notify
people by a written best interest finding, but it doesn't
provide a specific process for that type of notice. Those
decisions are left to the commissioner to determine how it
should occur. He reiterated that the final agency decision is
subject to a challenge in superior court.
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that it's this sort of decision that
falls under the broad authority that the bill gives to the
commissioner.
MR. BULLARD said yes, but it's important to remember that these
timber sales are bounded by AS 38.05.035(e) and the
commissioner's discretion to hold these sales is limited to fire
and insect killed wood that needs to be harvested within two
years if it's to maintain its economic value. That's the
legislative discretion the bill provides.
4:41:35 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if the sponsor's vision was that the
commissioner would make a best interest finding but not put it
in writing or that the commissioner would not make a best
interest finding at all.
4:42:26 PM
MR. STANCLIFF responded that the commissioner has indicated that
he will make a best interest finding in writing.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP added that this doesn't preclude the
commissioner from putting the finding in a regulation package as
well.
MR. STANCLIFF agreed.
4:43:03 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned the reason for the provision
saying the commissioner doesn't have to make a best interest
finding if this commissioner plans to do so. He asked if it
wouldn't solve a lot of concerns to leave the statute as is.
MR. STANCLIFF said the obligation is in the constitution and
that's not escapable.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked why the statute should be changed to
say the commissioner doesn't have to make a written notice if
it's a constitutional obligation.
MR. STANCLIFF responded that the salvage sale process provides
that the commissioner will look at the dead timber, timber that
will lose economic value, and timber that is cleared for
conversion the same way as under current law, but the weight of
public notice isn't the same.
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if there was a way to amend the statute,
without being too prescriptive, to make sure there is a written
best interest finding.
MR. STANCLIFF deferred the question to Mr. Bullard.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked Senator Dunbar whether he wanted Mr.
Bullard to comment or if he wanted to pose the question in an
email.
SENATOR DUNBAR asked Mr. Bullard if the statute was prescriptive
with respect to what a best interest finding has to look like.
4:46:31 PM
MR. BULLARD replied that the existing written best interest
finding process is detailed in AS 38.05.035(e). It discusses
process, timing, and has links to public notice requirements. To
the question about whether the statute could be amended, he said
the Legal Services attorneys would be happy to draft whatever
the committee members would like.
SENATOR DUNBAR commented that the committee was getting
somewhere now.
4:47:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL commented that the committee should be crafting
policy regardless of who is commissioner, and if the feeling is
that it should be written down then it should be written down.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he'd like to associate himself with
those remarks.
4:48:13 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked for more description about the way the
expedited timber sales differ from the salvage timber sales when
they both talk about an area that is creating or will create a
public safety issue. He asked how the commissioner would decide
which of the two processes to use.
4:48:59 PM
MR. STANCLIFF responded that one difference is that the bill
brings all dead timber into the salvage sale category. If the
timber no longer has value as a standing tree and arguably has
negative value as a fire hazard, receiving any compensation is
in the state's best interest. For this reason the bill proposes
to exempt salvage sales from the prescriptive finding in AS
38.05.
He said the rationale is that the timber is a threat and a
negative economic value to the state, so the question is whether
the whole timber sale process have to be followed before the
timber can be harvested. HB 104 attempts to say that in certain
instances and at the commissioner's discretion, the full process
would not need to be followed. He continued to talk about the
time that could be saved if expedited sales were allowed in
specific circumstances and when it's in the state's best
interest.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP summarized that the goal of the bill is to
harvest timber in half the usual time to get value from the
damaged and dead timber.
MR. STANCLIFF added that another important aspect is that the
timeframe for the entire sale is increased from three to five
years.
4:53:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK pointed out that there's also an
opportunity to manage those forests. He cited the example of the
300 foot buffer around part of the community of Tok as an
example of removing the timber preemptively when it still had
full value. He also spoke about how Sweden's managed forestland
had doubled in the last 100 years. Last year the country
exported timber valued at $17.4 billion. He opined that in 30
years Alaska could replace oil with timber exports. HB 104 is
the first step.
4:55:22 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that nobody on the committee is
necessarily opposed to what the sponsor is saying, but the
concern with the expedited timber sales is the broad discretion
the bill gives the commissioner and with limited notice to the
public. He said he was trying to find a balance.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK acknowledged the validity of the concerns,
and posited that the lack of managing forests has brought about
this situation. He cited the Tok fire and the fire potential in
the Hillside district in Anchorage as examples. He emphasized
the importance of refocusing efforts to manage state forests for
fire and to use those resources to generate revenue.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP commented on the efforts in 1991 to keep the
community of Tok from burning to the ground.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she agreed that the committee wasn't
against the concept of HB 104; it meshes with the carbon offset
bill and it addresses public safety. However, it needs some
adjustments.
4:58:20 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR commented that any effort to harvest a lot of
timber from the Anchorage Hillside district would elicit a very
interesting reaction from the public. He asked 1) whether the
division manages the Interior forests and the boreal forests in
appreciably different ways, 2) if different portions of the bill
were more applicable to one region than another, and 3) if it
was the case that the entire state is either high fire danger,
high beetle kill, or both.
MR. ENG responded that there was no chance of a 100-acre clear-
cut on the Anchorage Hillside, but it's an example of needing to
address the problem because it's areas where the wild and urban
interface that will bear the brunt of the damage from a
wildfire. He continued that the Division of Forestry and Fire
Protection works closely with the Anchorage Fire Department to
reestablish and maintain the firebreaks that were put in that
area years ago.
To the question about different management styles for different
forest types, he confirmed that the fire regimes were different
depending on the area. He cited the example of the 200-acre fuel
break around Tok but not Ketchikan. Nevertheless, he said the
principles of forest management are fairly universal throughout
the state.
5:01:36 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked why the forest land use plan (FLUP) for a
state forest couldn't include salvage and expedited sales.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP added to the question by asking whether an
expedited or salvage sale could already be inside a FLUP.
MR. ENG responded that the FLUP is the step following the best
interest finding. It specifically describes how to implement a
particular timber sale. He asked Co-Chair Bishop to repeat the
second question.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked about the hypothetical possibility of
having a salvage sale on a section of land that already had a
best interest finding and a FLUP.
MR. ENG said he'd follow up with a response.
5:04:35 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP held HB 104 in committee.
5:04:57 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Bishop adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 5:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 137 DEC Response to Committee Questions 05.05.23.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| SB 137 DOR Response to Committee Questions 05.05.23.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| HB 104 Public Testimony rec'd by 05.08.23.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HB 104 |
| HB 104 Support Letters Fairbanks Chamber, AK Forest Association 04.25.23.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HB 104 |
| HB 104 Support Document Public Hearing Opportunities 05.08.23.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HB 104 |
| HB 104 Support Document FAQ 05.08.23.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HB 104 |
| HB 104 Support Document Legal Memo 05.08.23.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HB 104 |
| SB 137 Amendment #1.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| HB 104 Division of Forestry Responses to SRES Questions 05 08 2023.pdf |
SRES 5/8/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HB 104 |