Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/07/1998 04:10 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 284 - TIMBER THREATENED BY PESTS OR DISEASE
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked everyone for their testimony and set the
issue aside and announced HB 284 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, sponsor, said that HB 284 relates to
diseases of timber and amends AS 41.17.082(d). He said basically
when trees die from the spruce bark beetle it takes about three or
four years and they turn a bright red color. On the Kenai
Peninsula there are several million board feet that have been
impacted and the problem he sees is that there have been too many
task forces that all decide that something should be done. This
bill will give them an incentive to do some things. He showed the
Committee a chart of the infestation that has occurred on the Kenai
Peninsula.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how small the trees were that are being
impacted now.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said it's beginning to impact below six inch
trees and most of them are fairly vigorous still. The larger trees
are not as vigorous and are more severely impacted.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the Commissioner could require selective
cutting since they have been told that there's a greater chance of
the new growth taking hold with scarification. He supported the
reforestation clause in the bill and hoped the legislature could
fund that.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS responded that there is quite a bit of
latitude in this for the Commissioner allowing him to determine an
area to not have any harvest. His first thought was to make this
a selective harvest bill and open it up as much as possible to the
small timber operator, because that's where you get your highest
value from. He said they don't expect to control or stop the
beetle with this legislation. They would like the ability to
remove some of the fire fuel in places like the Miller Reach fire
where there was $45 million spent for suppression and damage done.
He said they face the same thing on the Kenai Peninsula.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked him how it would impact private lands.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS explained this bill would encourage some
selective harvest that will be up to the private land owner. Under
the Forest Practices Act, the Commissioner could determine if the
infestation was so severe that he could waive any portion of that
act if he could, except for the portion around salmon streams.
SENATOR TORGERSON said he didn't read it as leaving out private
land owners and municipal land and it says the Commissioner shall
implement salvage measures.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS responded that on private land, the State
could not go in and mandate that something happen. They can work
out an agreement with the land owner to make something happen.
There could be the possibility of helping land owners with
reforestation. The same thing with municipalities; they can not
allow the State on their property in which case nothing would
occur.
SENATOR TORGERSON said his concern is that it says if the forest
land owner does not comply with the final order of the
Commissioner, the Commissioner may enter onto the land and
undertake the actions ordered by the land owner and the land owner
is liable for the cost of those actions. Now it's amended to say
that he has to implement the proper salvage measures.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to respond to the letter from the
Director of Forestry and one of the fiscal notes for $615,000.
TAPE 98-40, SIDE B
Their concerns were that DNR already has the authority to do
emergency sales and this legislation doesn't help them in that
regard. She was also concerned that the authority to waive the
Forest Practices Act risks water quality and fish habitat
protection, but has little effect on the beetle population.
Another area mentioned was the Spruce Bark Beetle Task Force which
will issue a finalized report on May 8 which will make
recommendations. She said the mayor of the Borough has put
together a task force on the infestation which hasn't been
completed. She thought they were getting ahead of themselves in
making these recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS responded that this Administration does not
want to cut trees and he said this is an infestation on the Kenai
Peninsula and with their salvage timber operations there has not
been an emphasis to cut trees. They will not control the beetle
with this bill. He would like to have the ability to go into areas
that the Commissioner deems important enough to do some salvage and
go forward with that.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the reason he put this bill together was
to control the beetle infestation.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS answered yes it is, but the reason it will
not control the infestation is because there is so much acreage
that is now impacted, the cost of controlling it would be
approximately $8 million and even that would not completely solve
the problem. There is a tremendous health and safety problem with
dry fuel standing that could become very explosive. This standing
dry fuel, in a wind storm, could knock out a lot of the utilities
that range between Kenai and Homer along the highway. There is a
tremendous need for reforestation, because without it, these
forests are going to become grasslands in several years. The fact
that we have habitat that depends on the forest ecosystem that is
being destroyed is pretty evident. The Spruce Bark Beetle Task
Force hasn't led them to any resolution of the problem.
Number 536
MS. MARTY WELBOURN, Chief, Forest Resources, clarified that the
Department of Natural Resources is continuing to salvage and
reforest infested areas on State lands. For example, on the Kenai
Peninsula alone, they have held 23 salvage sales since 1994. They
have done this despite a lawsuit that opposes salvage operations.
By contrast, the US Forest Service which has a much larger staff
and budget has held only two sales during the same period.
She reaffirmed their opposition to HB 284. The Department of
Natural Resources continues to oppose this bill because it would
not reduce the impacts of major infestations, and will be expensive
to implement. The bill does not provide effective new tools to
address infestation. DNR already has the authority to develop
agreements with land owners to waive reforestation requirements
under the Forest Practices Act and to offer emergency sales and
below cost sales. DNR is already offering salvage sales that don't
fully offset the costs of salvage and reforestation. The proposed
authority to waive other Forest Practices Act requirements risks
water quality and fish habitat protection while having little
effect on beetle population. The Forest Practices Act do not
significantly hamper salvage operations. Finally, the Kenai Spruce
Bark Beetle Task Force, led by Mayor Navarre, has completed its
recommendations for near-term action. The recommendations for long
term action have been drafted and will be finalized tomorrow. The
Task Force has recommended that timber harvest focuses on reducing
risks from wild fires near populated areas, but it does not
recommend other salvage operations. However, little of the land in
the high fire risk areas is State owned. DNR is working to
implement the Task Force recommendations wherever possible. They
feel the current bill does not reflect the Task Force
recommendations. HB 284 would have little or no effect on large
infestations, because it does not address the main factors that
cause insect outbreaks and limits their control. Climatic
conditions play a key role in determining the size of outbreaks and
can not be controled by agency action. Pests such as bark beetles
occur naturally throughout Alaskan forests and their populations
can explode whenever weather conditions are favorable. Wherever
you have white spruce, you have spruce bark beetles in Alaska.
Feasible salvage harvesting is limited by weak markets for low
value timber, by limited funding for timber sales and reforestation
and by multiple use concerns about the impacts of timber harvest
and roads on other resources and activities. HB 284 increases
State costs by requiring the State to develop agreements with
private land owners regardless of their interests. Further, it is
unclear whether Section 1 (d) would require the State or private
land owners to pay for the "necessary salvage measures" on private
lands.
MS. WELBOURN said implementing this bill would be costly since it
applies statewide. In 1997, for example, aerial surveys recorded
17 different types of insects or diseases, each damaged more than
100 acres of forest land in Alaska affecting a total of 2.5 million
acres. The fiscal note submitted by DNR is very conservative. In
1996, the Society of American Foresters invited forest health
experts from British Columbia to view the bark beetle infestations
in Southcentral Alaska. Those experts recommended that the State
spend at least $50 million per year to respond to the infestation.
She asked the Committee not to pass HB 284 and offered to work with
them on ways to implement the Task Force recommendations.
Number 514
MS. PAM LABOLLE, President, State Chamber of Commerce, said this is
one of their priority pieces of legislation. They have passed a
resolution saying they would like an emergency declared by the
State on the spruce bark beetle. In the almost 50 years that the
Tongass has been harvesting trees, they have harvested about
400,000 acres and in nine years, the spruce bark beetle has taken
out 3 million acres (according to her figures).
SENATOR TORGERSON asked Representative Hodgins what his intent was
for already dead stands.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS answered that he wanted to remove the fuel
source, and he thought an owner would initiate an action like that
with the Department. He thought the language in the bill would
allow for a better agreement between the private property owner and
the Commissioner. He didn't foresee the Commissioner ever coming
in and condemning someone's trees for a specific reason if they are
on private property.
SENATOR GREEN moved to pass CSHB 284 (FIN) from Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|