Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/23/1998 02:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 284
"An Act relating to infestations and diseases of
timber."
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS noted that HB 284 was an act
relating to infestations and diseases of timber. The
legislation would amend AS 41.17.082(d) to require the
commissioner to implement necessary salvage measures when
timber on State or municipal forestland is:
? Infested or diseased and thereby poses a
significant threat to surrounding healthy timber;
or
? Subjected to an environmental catastrophe, and as
a result, is susceptible to infestation or
disease, to prevent the spread of infestation or
disease, the timber shall be salvaged as rapidly
as practical.
Representative Hodgins pointed out that since 1992, the
spruce beetle insects have caused tree mortality and account
for 2.3 million-acre loss. Representative Hodgins explained
that the infestation occurs from a small wood-eating beetle
which bore into a tree, lay eggs, and then those worms gird
the tree. Once the tree has been girded, the circulation of
nutrients is cut off and the tree dies. This beetle does
not fly well, but will move with the wind, as the
infestation process has demonstrated.
Representative Hodgins noted that there has been a task
force investigating this situation although no action has
occurred to date. The problem stands that the infested
timber is only in good quality for a few years, then it
starts to loose moisture content and looses its weight. A
lot of the Kenai Peninsula infested timber has been used for
pulp.
Representative Hodgins stressed that the most important
concern is fire hazard because a fire in a spruce bark
invested area burns much hotter. He urged that this concern
be scrutinized. In South Central Alaska, the statewide
aerial surveys mapped more than 1.1 million acres of dead
and dying beetle-infested spruce in 1996, which is a 61%
increase in the past two years.
The legislation would mandate that the Commissioner "shall"
be involved with a remedy. To begin an initiative will
create jobs while addressing fire suppression and public
safety. Representative Hodgins advised that the most
important aspect of a salvage bill is the reforestation. He
emphasized that the forests need to be saved for future
generations and habitat.
In response to Representative Martin's concern,
Representative Hodgins noted that Mayor Navarre supports the
finding a solution for the spruce beetle concern and is
pushing for federal reforestation dollars. He emphasized
that the bill states that the Department of Natural
Resources will address the spruce bark beetle infestation.
Representative J. Davies voiced concern that by replacing
"may" with "shall" on Page 1, Line 9, would not give the
commissioner any latitude to determine if it is feasibly
possible to control the situation. Representative Hodgins
assumed that some of the regulations brought forward such as
the Forest Practices Act or the Reforestation Act would
address that concern. He recommended that there are areas
in which the commissioner could waive and make a
determination.
Representative Kelly questioned how a buffer zone of
diseased timber would be beneficial. He suggested that the
diseased trees would eventually become dangerous, ripping up
the bank as they fall. Representative Hodgins replied that
initially, it had been recommended that the commissioner be
given the discretion. In the House Resources Committee,
Representative Ogan felt that was too much power to give to
the commissioner, consequently, he inserted language on Page
2, Line 19, which would allow the discretion of the
commissioner to be somewhat dampened. Representative Kelly
believed that it would be better to give the commissioner
the leeway and then the foresters could decide if the trees
in the buffer zone should be cut or left standing. He noted
that he would offer an amendment to address that concern.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the life cycle of the spruce
beetle. Representative Hodgins replied that the bug could
be transmitted in many different ways, but mostly by the
wind. Basically, the bugs have been hitting trees 6 inches
and above. Initially, there will be little holes in the
tree, and then the tree will exude pitch as a defense to
kill the bug. If a tree has pitch running out of it and the
tree is a reddish color, then it is assumed infected. A
tree remains a host while it contains moisture.
Discussion followed between Representative Grussendorf and
Representative Hodgins regarding the inclusion of "may" or
"shall" and the responsibilities of the commissioner with
use of each.
MARTHA WELBOURN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, noted that the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) opposes the bill because:
? It would not reduce the impacts of major
infestations, but it would substantially increase
agency costs.
? It doesn't provide effective new tools to address
infestations. DNR already has the authority to do
emergency sales and below cost sales. The
authority to waive the Forest Practices Act (FPA)
notification requirements risks water quality and
fish habitat protection without effectively
combating beetle populations.
? The Spruce Bark Beetle Task Force has nearly
finished drafting its recommendations for actions
to respond to the beetle infestation. Legislative
changes should be coordinated with Task Force
recommendations.
Ms. Welbourn noted that HB 284 would have little or no
effect on large infestations because it does not address the
main factors that prevent control of insect outbreaks.
First climatic conditions play a key role in determining the
size of outbreaks, and are not controllable by agency
action. Pests such as bark beetles occur naturally
throughout Alaskan forests and their population can explode
when weather conditions are favorable. Second, feasible
salvage harvesting is limited by weak markets for low value
timber, funding for timber sales and reforestation, and
multiple use concerns about impacts of timber harvest and
raiding on other resources and activities.
Ms. Welbourn pointed out that HB 284 would increase state
costs by requiring the State to do more intensive insect and
disease surveys, and to develop agreements with private
landowners, regardless of the private owners' interests.
Landowners respond to infestations in a variety of ways
depending on their management intent and authorities for
their land. Reforestation actions after harvest also vary
depending on the owners' long-term intent for the land and
their financial situation. It is unclear whether Section 1
would require the State to pay for "necessary salvage
measures" on private land.
She added that implementing the bill would be costly, since
it requires action statewide. The sites are scattered
around the State, many in areas that are remote. Because of
the land ownership patterns in Alaska, many of these
outbreaks cross ownership boundaries. It is not feasible or
cost effective to actively fight all the outbreaks;
particularly in remote areas.
Co-Chair Therriault asked when the task force
recommendations would be available. Ms. Welbourn replied
that the short-term recommendations are currently available;
DNR is working with the U.S. Congress and Senator Stevens to
acquire federal money for approval for the task force
projects and implementation of the short-term
recommendations. The final recommendations will be drafted
on May 6th, 1998.
Representative Mulder asked how large were the 26 salvaged
sales on the Kenai Peninsula. Ms. Welbourn replied that the
largest one was about 3400 acres. There are 2 million total
acres infested statewide with the spruce beetle and around
100 thousand acres on the Kenai Peninsula. She noted that
there had been responses on all sales but 2. Representative
Mulder stressed the importance of the problem which exists
on the Kenai Peninsula and which warrants a quick response
soon.
Representative J. Davies questioned the percentage of
ownership between private and State lands. Ms. Welbourn
stated that the breakdown is approximately in thirds, i.e.,
State, federal and private.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Department has an
aggressive program to stop the infestation in these areas
where most of the spreading is occurring. Ms. Welbourn
replied that the population of the beetles is out of control
and that other than clear-cutting, those areas are
questionable. The ownership of the land is split. It is
not possible on state lands to control what is happening on
adjacent lands. In response to concerns of Co-Chair
Therriault, Ms. Welbourn pointed out that on all state
lands, the Department is overseeing reforestation.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the commissioner had
made a determination that the spruce bark beetle was a
threat to the forestlands and adjacent timber owners. Ms.
Welbourn replied that a determination has not been made
because the Department did not feel that would give them any
additional tools in how to respond. Representative
Grussendorf asked why the Department was concerned about the
bill. Ms. Welbourn noted that once a determination is made,
then the public assumes that the Department can control the
outbreak, which they can not.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 123, Side 2).
Representative Grussendorf reiterated that the power of the
determination rests with the commissioner.
Representative Hodgins advised that the State of Alaska owns
approximately 2.1 million acres of land on the Kenai
Peninsula or approximately 20% of the total area. Half of
the State land is in State parks, refuges and critical
habitat areas. Of the 1.1 million acres of the public
domain, 439 thousand acres are forested lands. The State
has selected an additional 410 thousand acres which may be
State owned in the future. The estimated annual cut for the
forest plan for the Kenai Peninsula is 1652 acres.
Allowable cuts are regulated over a ten-year period. The
basis of this bill is that more could be harvested.
PAMELA LABOLLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, stated that the spruce bark beetle infestation has
been a major concern of the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce. She noted that their resolution calls for a
declaration of an environmental emergency. Since logging
began in the Tongess National Forest more than 40 years ago,
400 thousand acres has been harvested. In nine years, the
spruce bark beetle has harvested over a million acres.
Ms. La Bolle advised that we have a resource being lost with
no economic benefit. The spruce bark beetle is destroying
valuable habitat on both public and private lands,
diminishing property values, increasing fire risks and
taking resources which wildlife needs. Ms. La Bolle urged
the Committee to pass the proposed legislation.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Copy
on File]. Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion. Representative J. Davies explained that the
amendment would clarify that the statute would be
interpreted the way in which the sponsor believed it to be.
Representative Hodgins commented that he did not have a
problem with the language of the amendment. Co-Chair
Therriault WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO further
OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
Representative J. Davies questioned the meaning of
"municipal" on Page 1, Line 12. He asked if the legislation
would give the State authority to "mow down" a municipal
forest without their consent. Representative Hodgins
replied that there are a lot of municipal forests on the
Kenai Peninsula and when an epidemic is being controlled,
there would be steps taken which do not exist under normal
circumstances. This must be the commissioner's prerogative.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the language read that
the commissioner "shall enter into an agreement with an
owner or governmental agency". The Committee agreed that
language clarified the concern.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW Amendment #1. [Copy on File].
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED a conceptual Amendment #3 to
Page 1, Line 12, clarifying that municipal forestland would
be under an agreement which is the agreement spoken to on
Line 9. This would prevent the State from dictating what
happens on municipal land without some type of pre-existing
agreement. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced the fiscal note and asked why
DNR was not indicating any revenue stream from the timber.
Ms. Welbourn replied that there could be a small amount of
revenue, although, it would probably be low cost sales
particularly because of the costs associated with
reforestation. The most recent sales were going for $5
dollars per thousand board feet.
Following Committee members voicing support of the
legislation, Representative G. Davis MOVED to report CS HB
284 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations
and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 284 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Natural Resources dated 4/9/98.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|