Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/10/1993 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 1993
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice-Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Ed Willis
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Suzanne Little
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Briefing on Spruce Bark Beetles
Committee Discussion on Mental Health Lands Trust Settlement
Issues
WITNESS REGISTER
Dan Golden
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1008
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 243-4733
Position Statement: Presented a briefing on spruce bark
beetles
Steve Albert
Habitat and Restoration Division
Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Rd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599
Phone: 267-2342
Position Statement: Available for questions on spruce bark
beetles
Steve Gibson
1622 Highland Dr.
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-6487
Position Statement: Voiced concerns about spruce bark
beetles
John Torgerson
Kenai Borough
35322 Spur Highway
Soldotna, Alaska 99665
Phone: 262-6192
Position Statement: Provided information on task force
activities
Ron Somerville, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4100
Position Statement: Answered questions related to buffer
strips
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-16, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, Davies, Green, and James. Members absent at the
call to order were Representatives Mulder and Finkelstein.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the first item on the
committee's agenda would be a background briefing on the
spruce bark beetle problem. After that briefing, he said
the committee would take up discussion of the Mental Health
Lands Trust settlement.
Number 103
DAN GOLDEN of the DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR),
testified that the DNR had been working to assist foresters
in dealing with the beetle problem on the Kenai. He said
that fact-finding was essential in dealing with the beetle
problem, and estimated that 365,000 acres have been affected
by beetle infestation.
MR. GOLDEN referred to a memo in committee members' packets
dated February 4, 1993, to Mr. Golden from the chief fire
manager regarding the fire risk associated with beetle-
killed trees. The specific hazards posed included increased
rates of spread, higher fire risks in the pre-green and
post-green periods, and the tendency of downed timber to
burn hot enough to change the soil's ability to foster new
growth. The result, he said, was that new spruce growth
could be inhibited for years.
Number 180
MR. GOLDEN told the committee that in the worst-case
scenario, there might be a 30,000 acre fire in an eight hour
period. He referred to the second paragraph of page two of
the memo, regarding the odds of simultaneous wind and
drought conditions to contribute to a fire of that size. He
said the odds were that such conditions could occur one in
every ten to twenty years, and there had been an interagency
effort in reaching solutions to the problem. He reported
the Division of Forestry was attempting to manage forests
for multiple use, and a 100 ft. buffer zone was prescribed
by law, and no intrusion into that buffer was proposed.
MR. GOLDEN noted the major concerns of residents and
visitors were the loss of visual comfort and the fear of
fire. A survey by the U.S. Forest Service was recently
completed on perceptions of visitors and residents of the
area. Mr. Golden said dead and dangerous trees were
sometimes removed from the highway buffers, and this was
affecting the tourism industry. The forests were being
managed for recreation values, he noted, including trails
and campgrounds. He mentioned the Forest Service spent
$50,000 an acre to selectively log the Russian River
campground area to preserve that environment.
Number 254
MR. GOLDEN said $1 million had been spent on installing fire
breaks and fuel reduction areas in the Cooper Landing area.
Of that amount, $500,000 came from the borough, and $500,000
were federal monies. He said the U.S. Forest Service had
additional money for Moose Pass. In the areas of prescribed
harvest, the effects on habitat were a serious concern, he
added.
MR. GOLDEN remarked on the economic value of beetle-killed
trees, and said it was marginal compared to timber in
Southeast. Currently, there was a bull market for timber,
however, as described in a Wall Street Journal article that
Mr. Golden referred members to. A shortage of supply
combined with increased demand had increased timber values,
he reported. The economics of doing nothing would impact
tourism, fisheries, hunting, and even things like insurance,
he said. Fire coverage for homes or cabins might increase
or become unavailable in areas of high fire risk, he told
the committee.
MR. GOLDEN referred specifically to provisions in the
Division of Forestry. He said AS 38.05.113(e) required the
Division to have a five-year plan, and to list in that plan
any timber it planned to sell. The Division might exempt
itself from that provision if they felt it was an emergency,
he said. Forest infestation was one of the emergency
situations that could justify such an exemption. In July,
1991, there was legislation passed to fund the Forest Health
Initiative. As a result, the Division will not have to deal
with the five year plan process, he said.
MR. GOLDEN reported seven harvest areas were proposed on the
Kenai that might have commercial harvest value. The first,
False Creek, would call for a 14,000 acre plot to be
selectively cut and harvested. The public response period
for that had closed, but has since been extended. He then
referred to the efforts of the Timber Task Force dealing
with the utilization of timber. A map of affected areas and
susceptible spruce forests was displayed for the committee.
He quoted Paul Forward of the U.S. Forest Service, who
reported to the legislature that spruce tree mortality was
twice the rate of growth on the Kenai.
MR. GOLDEN then presented a video program on the beetle
infestation titled, "Beat the Beetle" which was produced by
the DNR's, Division of Forestry. Mr. Golden said the video
would be distributed throughout the beetle-affected areas in
video stores. The video informs landowners about how to
check for, prevent, and deal with beetle infestations in
their trees.
Number 558
MR. GOLDEN, after the video presentation was concluded,
referred to the False Creek sale proposal. He said a
preliminary appraisal of timber value was $570,000.
Number 570
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that Representative
Finkelstein had joined the meeting and Representative Ed
Willis was also present.
Number 578
STEVE ALBERT testified from Anchorage by teleconference, on
behalf of the ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME (ADF&G),
HABITAT DIVISION, REGION II. He had no prepared statement
but was available to answer questions.
Number 591
STEVE GIBSON testified from Homer by teleconference. He has
been a logger and sawmiller there for approximately 15
years. After gathering information on the beetle problem,
he came to question some of the widely held assumptions
surrounding the problem, he commented. Regarding the fire
hazard, he suggested that it may be greatly exaggerated. He
believed it could be argued that the danger of fire was less
after needle-drop than it was with green trees.
MR. GIBSON remarked on the economic benefit of beetle-killed
trees. He estimated stumpage value might be $20 - $40 per
acre, while the costs associated with harvesting the trees
would be higher than that. Another concern he cited was
regeneration. He referred to an area that was cut and
reseeded 23 years ago and had seen no regeneration. Another
prohibitive cost to harvesting and marketing the beetle-
killed trees, he said, would be road access and road
maintenance. He questioned whether the cost of doing
nothing really would be disastrous, as had been suggested by
the DNR.
MR. GIBSON proposed more site-specific information on
regeneration be developed. He mentioned the Division of
Forestry was considering reforestation to birch, but
questioned whether soil types would sustain birch growth.
MR. GIBSON also cautioned the committee that the market had
been flooded with stumpage from private sources, which would
pose problems for state owned lands. He suggested it would
be unfair competition if state sales were subsidized. It
would be poor policy, he said, to offer sales with the
likelihood that there would be no significant bidders with
higher prices.
MR. GIBSON referred to regulations that had been written but
not enacted, and others that could be adopted quickly. He
said it was important to take affirmative action to protect
the clearing practices agreed upon by all the parties. As
regulations are currently written, he added, all state lands
in Regions II and III receive protection from poor clearing
practices. Region I was exempted, he added, and that
included areas vulnerable to the spruce bark beetle.
Particularly, he said maritime areas have proven to not be
immune from infestation.
TAPE 92-16, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. GIBSON referred to the Afognak area, where infestation
had occurred but then suddenly disappeared. He next
mentioned a Forest Health Plan that was developed through
the efforts of a number of agencies and individuals,
although he said the contents of the plan were not
necessarily sanctioned by all the agencies or individuals
who participated. He concluded by saying there was not
enough information to go forward with drastic harvesting
measures. The seven sales in the plan he said, were DNR
driven items. Regarding the comments of the ADF&G, Mr.
Gibson contended the benefits, from a wildlife standpoint,
were unclear. He felt any effect would be negative, so the
best that could be hoped for was no effect. He repeated
the threat of fire was one of the major areas needing
further study.
Number 079
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted Senator Suzanne Little had joined
the meeting.
JOHN TORGERSON, of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, testified in
Juneau on the activities of a Timber Utilization Task Force
that had been formed to look into utilization of the beetle-
killed resource. The task force was funded with $50,000
from the U.S. Forest Service, $35,000 from the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, and $15,000 from economic
development district funds (EDD), he advised.
MR. TORGERSON noted his previous timber experience included
serving as a general manager with Louisiana Pacific in the
1970's. He noted also that in the past 20 years, the timber
industry had made an estimated $100 million effort at the
beetle-kill resource in the Kenai Borough. The task force
attempted to determine how many acres were actually
infested, and how many resources' owners would be willing to
sell. That data was compiled, and comprised of
approximately 170,000 acres. A large portion of that was
Native-held lands, with 35,000 in state-owned lands, and
40,000 in Kenai Peninsula Borough-owned acres. University
lands also made up a small portion of the acreage, he said.
MR. TORGERSON said the task force attempted to bring all the
public agencies together to avoid contradictions or
duplication of services. The Kenai Peninsula Borough was
established as the lead agency, with the proposal that the
other public land-owning entities would transfer resources
to the Borough. Costs and benefits would then be
transferred back to the resources' owners based on the
percentage of acreage. It was agreed that the parties
would have to come forward with a large acreage to offer to
industry to make any sale viable. They then obtained a
listing of all potential buyers who manufacture products
that could be made form the resource. The third component
was a generic harvesting plan. The final phase was to put
out the information in the form of a Request for Interest
(RFI).
Number 191
MR. TORGERSON told the committee the object of the RFI was
to determine what the options were in terms of potential
markets. The RFI's were sent out two weeks ago, he said,
and two responses have already been submitted. He said of
the ten million acres owned by the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
approximately 2.2 million were forested and of that forested
land, 1.2 million were dead from the beetle infestation.
The marketability of that wood depended on acting quickly,
he added, as the quality deteriorated after two to five
years. He said his task force had not dealt with the issue
of fire risks posed by the dead trees, simply with the
potential for utilization of the resource.
MR. TORGERSON recognized the concerns of various interests,
including tourism, but noted the plan was generic in nature
and explored the possibilities of utilizing the resource.
Number 325
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE referred to a recent newspaper
article which seemed to indicate the mayor of Kenai was not
in full support of the task force's work. He asked Mr.
Torgerson to comment on local support.
Number 338
MR. TORGERSON responded that in the report generated by the
task force, it was estimated that approximately 400 miles of
road would need to be built to get access to remove the dead
and dying trees. These would not be mainline roads, he
added. The concerns locally have to do with fish and
wildlife habitat as well as tourism, he said. However, Mr.
Torgerson said he had not heard anyone suggest that nothing
be done about the million-plus acres of dead or dying trees.
Regarding the mayor, MR. TORGERSON said he had talked with
the mayor many times on the issue. The state and the
university have not necessarily committed to go along with
the task force's plan, and that might be a source of
frustration, he added. In terms of the market for the
resource, Mr. Torgerson referred to the reopening of the
Seward Sawmill, and said they were interested in any
resource and were looking at what might become available.
He also referred to other companies that were currently
utilizing the resource.
Number 378
MR. TORGERSON said the task force was being careful not to
tell industry how to use the resource, but to make it known
through the RFI that the resource was available and to have
them come forward with proposals as to how the resource
would be utilized. He commented that Alaska no longer had a
primary manufacture law, so the trees could be cut and
exported. The RFI, he noted, went out to more than 300
parties.
Number 409
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked if Mr. Torgerson could
describe the features of the RFI, and specifically how it
incorporated requirements of the Forest Practices Act (FPA).
Number 421
MR. TORGERSON answered that the RFI asked that respondents
comply with the FPA.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES then asked if specific terms of sales
would require compliance.
MR. TORGERSON confirmed they would, and read language from
the RFI which stated the reforestation would be a
requirement of the sale.
Number 453
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked whether there was an
extensive list of possible products.
MR. TORGERSON responded that a list had been compiled with
everything the task force could think of.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN then asked whether there was a high
potential for use of the resource.
MR. TORGERSON answered that the potential for use depended
on the condition of the resource, and added there were some
very select trees among the dead and dying spruce. He told
the committee he would have some of the documents, including
a survey, sent to the committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about the relation of time to the
value of the resource, and whether marketing opportunities
were increased by working cooperatively with other resource
owners, like federal, native and private landowners.
MR. TORGERSON responded that federal lands included a large
number of beetle-killed trees, and that some of those could
be available, but that would require a full-blown
environmental impact study. He said it would involve the
question of burning versus logging to clear the trees. He
added industry would not come in without some assurance of
access to the resource. He said the task force had not
approached private landowners regarding marketing the
resource, and he assumed industry would make their own deals
with the private sector.
Number 525
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked whether the task
force plan was initiated in response to a perceived
emergency, and whether marketing the resource was the
highest priority.
Number 541
MR. TORGERSON was of the opinion that the emergency existed
at the leading edge of the infestation. Where the beetles
have already been, the emergency changed to one of fire
risk. He said the need to go in and reforest affected areas
was also an emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented that the emergency
might not be any more urgent than it was 20 years ago, and
that this seemed to be an on-going emergency.
Number 554
MR. TORGERSON responded that if a response plan had been
implemented 20 years ago with a sustained yield basis, the
emergency might have been averted. Regarding the fire risk,
there were people on both sides of the fence. He personally
did not want to take the risk of saying there was no
emergency and then seeing a fire come along.
Number 570
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked who was in danger with the
fire risk.
MR. TORGERSON said he had not seen the report that Mr.
Golden had presented. He estimated nearly $700 million in
property values were at risk of fire.
Number 582
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON raised the concern about
potential loss of life with the infested areas encroaching
on populated areas. He also expressed interest in the
marketing issue.
Number 590
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Torgerson to comment on the 100
ft. buffer strips along fish streams, and how beetle-killed
fallen trees might affect those streams.
Number 596
MR. TORGERSON answered that he had also heard concerns about
trees falling into fishing streams. He proposed a new
approach that would look at infested areas in "zones of
sensitivity," and concentrate attention on the more
sensitive areas.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if the ADF&G had any comment on the
buffer strip question.
Number 630
MR. ALBERT responded from Anchorage that there was a chance
infested trees would fall into streams. In some cases, he
said, logs in the streams were good for habitat. He
referred to Afognak Island and said the department had
decided to leave trees where they fell.
Number 648
RON SOMERVILLE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ADF&G, also responded
to the question. He commented that the FPA made adequate
provisions for removing trees in the buffer strip.
Number 651
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS addressed a question to Steve Gibson,
asking how he derived the figure of $20 - $40 per acre for
stumpage.
Number 663
MR. GIBSON explained that his figure was based on an
estimate of 4,000 to 5,000 board feet per acre, with a
stumpage value of approximately $5 per acre. He wondered
about the basis for the estimate for the False Pass sale.
Number 673
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered a question to Mr. Golden
regarding fish streams being in jeopardy if mature trees
died and fell.
MR. GOLDEN responded that if there was a fire there would
not be any buffer strips left. He said the DNR has the view
that a healthy forest around a stream was better than a dead
forest.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there were any reports
showing that to be the case, or showing where the conclusion
was drawn from.
Number 692
MR. GOLDEN reiterated that a healthy stream was supported by
healthy vegetation around it. He said it was the intention
of the DNR to keep forests healthy. He referred to efforts
at the Russian River campground where the U.S. Forest
Service spent $50,000 on one acre to try to stabilize the
environment, and that effort was unsuccessful.
TAPE 93-17, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. GOLDEN added the DNR intended to work closely with the
ADF&G to enhance fish habitat.
MR. ALBERT, speaking on teleconference from Anchorage, said
to his knowledge no one at the ADF&G had ever asked anyone
to intentionally cut trees and drop them into the streams.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if members of the committee
might have a copy of the public opinion survey that shows
people's feelings on the issue.
Number 029
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked if in the future, Mr.
Golden could provide an analysis of the probability of fire
and on the overall economics of the spruce bark beetle
problem.
MR. GOLDEN said the memo in members' files from Frenchie
Mallott regarding fire risk provided a good analysis of that
issue.
SB 67: MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AMENDMENTS
Number 055
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS thanked participants for their input on
the beetle issue, and announced the committee would take up
discussion of the mental health lands issue for the
remainder of the meeting. He referred to the two previous
meetings where the state and the plaintiffs had presented
their views on the issue. He asked committee members to
consider the options available to them on the issue, one
being to introduce a committee-sponsored bill in the House,
and referred their attention to a draft bill before them.
He also directed their attention to copies of SB 67 and
back-up material in members' packets. Other options
included doing nothing and letting the current settlement
agreement run its course in the courts, or waiting to see
what became of SB 67.
Number 124
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to SB 67 and said his
thought was that the committee should introduce draft
legislation for discussion purposes, rather than waiting
until late in the session to make decisions on such a
complicated issue.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES concurred, and said he thought having
a bill before the committee would give purpose to their
discussions and would be the best course to take.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES objected to introducing bills
just for the purpose of discussion. She was not convinced
any legislation could solve the problem, and felt Chapter 66
should be given more opportunity to work.
Number 158
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY agreed, but said the committee had
to have something to work with. He believed SB 67 could be
modified to suit the committee's intent.
Number 183
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified he was not suggesting
the bill be introduced for the sole purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE was not satisfied with the options
available and wanted more information.
Number 203
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested one of two things could
occur. First, the committee could do nothing and Chapter 66
would go through its process, or second, it could introduce
the draft bill knowing it would not necessarily be the bill
that came out. The advantage of introducing the bill, he
said, was that it would allow all interested parties the
opportunity to come forward with their ideas. He proposed
the committee vote on how members would like to proceed.
Number 240
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS believed the committee needed a bill
before them for the purpose of discussion. He appointed a
subcommittee to look into the issue, which included
Representative Hudson as chairman, and Representatives
Carney, Davies, and James as members.
Number 254
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked that the committee defer further
discussion of the mental health lands issue.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the matter would be examined by
the subcommittee, and thanked witnesses who had offered to
be available.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:50
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|