Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/23/1994 08:15 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 23, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Davies
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 398: "An Act relating to rights in certain
tide and submerged land."
ADOPTED CSHB 398(RES) AND MOVED OUT OF
COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
*HJR 55: Relating to the importance to the economy
of Southeast Alaska of continued timber
harvests on the Tongass National Forest.
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
*HJR 56: Relating to an exemption for federal lands
in Alaska from the federal PACFISH management
strategy.
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
HB 199: "An Act providing for oil and gas exploration
licenses, and oil and gas leases, in certain
areas of the state; and providing for an
effective date."
NOT HEARD IN COMMITTEE; WILL BE RESCHEDULED
(* first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HB 398
GARY WILLIAMS, City Manager
City of Whittier
P.O. Box 608
Whittier, Alaska 99693
Phone: 472-2337
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 398
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Lands
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 398
BOB JUETTNER, Administrator
Aleutians East Borough
1600 A Street, #103
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 274-7559
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 398
TROY REINHART, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman, #200
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-6114
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 55 and HJR 56
JOEL KAWAHARA
507 Katlian Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-5811
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 55 and HJR 56 with
amendments
ERIC JORDAN
103 Gibson Place
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-6743
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 55 and HJR 56
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
501 W. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 276-0347
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 56
JOHN STURGEON, President
Koncor Forest Products
3501 Denali, Suite 202
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 562-3335
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 56
CHIP THOMA
2 Marine Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 55 and HJR 56
ROLLO POOL, Spokesman
Alaska Pulp Corporation
4600 Saw Mill Creek Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-2283
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 55 and HJR 56
JOHN SISK
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-2544
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 55 and HJR 56 as written
CHUCK ACHBERGER, Director
Juneau Chamber of Commerce
124 W. Fifth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-6420
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 55 and HJR 56
DAVID KATZ
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
419 Sixth Street, #328
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-6942
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 55 and HJR 56
LARRY SMITH
P.O. Box 15337
Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-3855
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 55 and HJR 56
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 398
SHORT TITLE: LAND CONVEYED TO & FROM MUNICIPALITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OLBERG
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/94 2153 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/26/94 2154 (H) COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS,
RESOURCES
02/01/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/01/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/10/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/10/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/15/94 2405 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NEW TITLE 4DP
2NR
02/15/94 2405 (H) DP: SANDERS, BUNDE, TOOHEY,
OLBERG
02/15/94 2405 (H) NR: WILLIS, WILLIAMS
02/15/94 2405 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 2/15/94
02/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 55
SHORT TITLE: TONGASS NATIONAL FORST TIMBER HARVESTS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE HOUSE ECONOMIC TASK
FORCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/11/94 2344 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/11/94 2344 (H) RESOURCES
02/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 56
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPT ALASKA FROM "PACFISH" REGS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE HOUSE ECONOMIC TASK
FORCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/11/94 2344 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/11/94 2344 (H) RESOURCES
02/23/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 199
SHORT TITLE: OIL & GAS EXPLORATION LICENSES/LEASES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/05/93 549 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/05/93 549 (H) OIL & GAS, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/05/93 549 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/5/93
03/05/93 549 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/09/94 2312 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NEW TITLE 3DP
2NR
02/09/94 2312 (H) DP: G. DAVIS, KOTT, GREEN
02/09/94 2312 (H) NR: OLBERG, SITTON
02/09/94 2312 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 2/9/94
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-19, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:20 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, Finkelstein, Green, and Mulder. Members absent were
Representatives Davies and James.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.
He said the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Homer, Kodiak, Ketchikan and Sitka. He advised
the committee they will hear HB 398, HJR 55, HJR 56 and HB
199.
HB 398 - Tide and Submerged Lands
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS told committee members there is a draft
committee substitute for HB 398 in their folders.
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG, PRIME SPONSOR, said committee
substitute for HB 398 is a bill which puts second class
cities and boroughs on equal footing with first class cities
and home rule cities as related to tidelands adjoining them.
The definition of tidelands is a strip of land between mean
low water and mean high water. He stated currently there is
no provision for second class cities and boroughs to obtain
tidelands for development purposes, but HB 398 accomplishes
that.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES had joined the committee at 8:21 a.m.)
GARY WILLIAMS, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF WHITTIER, testified via
teleconference, and stated the committee substitute for HB
398 meets all the criteria for good legislation, as it
solves problems and creates opportunities. He stressed HB
398 provides potential economic development opportunities
for all 16 boroughs in the state, for at least one first
class city and 49 second class cities. He said the
conveyances of tide and submerged lands under HB 398 will
not result in wholesale demand for conveyances, nor will it
place unreasonable demands on the ability of the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) to process conveyances because as
this bill provides, municipalities must have a locally
(indiscernible) in order to apply for this conveyance.
MR. WILLIAMS stressed HB 398 provides that all
municipalities who have the ability, take measures to secure
economic development in their communities given the natural
resources at their hand, which in this case, is their
waterfront. He urged a do pass recommendation on HB 398.
Number 050
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LANDS, DNR, testified via
teleconference, and expressed support of HB 398. He said HB
398 provides equities to all cities, boroughs, and fiscal
governments. The bill also provides good local control for
development projects and will remove liability problems from
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked how HB 398 will affect a
private land owner who has land on the waterfront, when the
municipality gets title to the submerged lands in front of
that land.
MR. SWANSON replied under state law, the owner has a
permanence right to the tidelands in front, so the
municipality will have to work with the uplands private
owner.
Number 063
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN wondered if there is a potential
problem of the mean high to the mean low tide going to the
municipality, but the rest of the submerged lands out to the
three mile limit being state, and asked if the state will
still have any input as to what goes on when this transfer
takes place due to the possible adverse effect of what is
left for the state.
MR. SWANSON replied HB 398 still requires that
(indiscernible) go through either a state land use plan, a
local land use plan or a coastal management plan, so the
state will have input on what is going to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there are any legal
ramifications when the state gets title to submerged lands
and the lands are then donated to another entity.
MR. SWANSON said HB 398 does require the public trust
doctrine be enforced and if it is not enforced, the state
can go back to court to ask that the land come back to the
state.
Number 087
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if there is a large amount
of general grant land which municipalities are entitled to,
but have not been selected to date.
MR. SWANSON responded there are about 600,000 acres of land
yet to be conveyed to municipalities, plus DNR has to
certify three or four municipalities for additional land
entitlement.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that submerged lands and
tidelands will not increase or decrease the entitlement, but
can be selected by municipalities in lieu of uplands.
MR. SWANSON replied that is essentially correct. It does
not (indiscernible) entitlement, but allows the
municipalities to select and get conveyance without the
acres being charged. (Indiscernible) other municipalities
which were formed previous to 1964 received their
(indiscernible) without charging the municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG pointed out that the committee is
working with the work draft for HB 398, LS1582/O.
Number 107
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to ADOPT CSHB
398(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were objections. Hearing
none, CSHB 398(RES) was ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER said the sponsor summary
indicates it cannot be determined why second class cities
were left out of the conveyance authorization and asked if
there is any institutional memory as to why that occurred
back in 1963.
MR. SWANSON responded it was way past his institutional
memory.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY made a motion to MOVE CSHB 398(RES)
out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
Number 127
BOB JUETTNER, ADMINISTRATOR, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH (AEB),
testified via teleconference, and said over the past six
years he has been involved in applying for a lease for
tidelands as well as administering a private existing lease.
The AEB finds that tidelands are important and urges passage
of CSHB 398(RES) for two reasons. First, the AEB has been
actively involved in capital improvement projects
(indiscernible) projects that are built on tidelands. Every
time the AEB goes out to bond, they keep running into the
Hicksen case. In the Hicksen case, the court found against
Juneau, a geobonding fund could not be used on property
which they do not own or have a substantial ownership
interest.
Number 140
MR. JUETTNER stated the AEB cannot go out and secure a
decent strip of ownership in tidelands (indiscernible). He
added that the process is complex and time-consuming. The
process also lacks conformity. DNR has supplied different
situations of lands at different times, and they have a hard
time dealing with the concept of the 55 year lease as it
applies to local government. He gave examples of the
problems with the current process.
MR. JUETTNER stressed that passage of HB 398 will accomplish
several primary goals: It will substantially reduce the
time demands on DNR and leasing of tidelands; it will make
practices consistent with what DNR's staffing level is; it
will facilitate AEB's needs for developing infrastructure;
AND it will ensure the integrity of the public
(indiscernible).
Number 186
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
DAVIES had joined the committee at 8:30 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
HJR 55 - Tongass National Forest Timber Harvests
HJR 56 - Exempt Alaska From "PACFISH" Regulations
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will hear both HJR
55 and HJR 56 since the two resolutions relate to two very
similar timber issues. He noted that many who will be
testifying will likely want to comment on both resolutions.
He said both of the resolutions were introduced by the House
Economic Task Force. The resolutions were drafted and
proposed to the task force by the Timber Issues Subcommittee
which he chairs.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained that HJR 55 urges Congress to
increase the amount of timber available for harvest in the
Tongass National Forest, and to provide sufficient funding
to the Forest Service to facilitate offering the maximum
amount of timber harvest in the Tongass, allowable under
current law. He stated that HJR 56 asks the federal
government to permanently exclude lands managed by the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in
Alaska from the provisions of the so-called "PACFISH"
(Pacific Anadromous Fish) strategy. PACFISH is the plan the
federal government has developed for managing Pacific
anadromous fish watersheds and habitats in several western
states.
Number 225
TROY REINHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION
(AFA), testified via teleconference, and stated that AFA is
a coalition of over 300 companies who depend on and/or
support the development and management of Alaska's forest
resources. AFA members believe the management of forests,
through intensive silvicultural practices, will result in
better jobs, communities and environment. He stressed that
AFA is in support of HJR 55 and HJR 56 and stated that while
the two resolutions are interconnected, they have important
differences.
MR. REINHART stated there is currently a timber supply
crisis on the Tongass National Forest for those who depend
upon it for its raw material source. This timber supply
shortage is not due to a biological shortage of trees, but
rather a political shortage. He stressed that only ten
percent of the Tongass National Forest will ever be accessed
for the management of timber. The remaining 90 percent is
protected in wilderness or other administrative set asides.
MR. REINHART remarked it is believed that the Tongass
National Forest is being managed beyond a sustainable level;
that if harvesting is left to continue at present rates, it
will run dry in the next decade. He stressed nothing could
be farther from the truth. He said in the last decade,
harvest levels from the Tongass National Forest have never
been funded at a level over 450 million board feet per year.
Since the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA),
funding has not exceeded 420 million board feet per year.
He noted these levels are far below the over one billion
board feet which could be biologically produced from these
lands or the over 500 million board per feet called for in
Governor Hickel's sustainable preferred alternative.
Number 263
MR. REINHART said having only been in Alaska since August
1993 and having been a professional forester for the last
ten years, he has learned not to believe anything told to
him by the professional preservation groups. However, he
had heard a lot about Prince of Wales Island and the Tongass
National Forest from these groups. He mentioned he did not
know what to expect when he came to Alaska but added that
what he saw were lots of trees. He pointed out that the
Tongass National Forest is nothing but trees. Mr. Reinhart
stated since the coming of settlers, only a small fraction
of the Tongass has ever been harvested.
MR. REINHART explained the federal government made a
commitment to the communities of Southeast Alaska that the
Tongass National Forest would be managed to produce year
round jobs in the region. People brought their families and
dreams to Alaska with this promise in mind and the promise
was reaffirmed by Congress most recently in the TTRA of
1990. He pointed out that in that legislation, Congress
created even more wilderness on the Tongass and in addition,
directed the Forest Service to supply the existing industry
through what is now known as the "seek to meet" language.
Number 280
MR. REINHART advised that AFA recently filed suit against
the Forest Service for failure to meet that requirement.
The organization filed the lawsuit mainly because the Forest
Service has failed to meet the independent sale program
requirements given it by Congress. Since the passage of
TTRA, the lack of timber supply to this segment of the
industry has resulted in the closure of several sawmills and
logging companies in the Tongass region.
MR. REINHART said in each year since passage of TTRA,
Congress has provided the Forest Service with funds to
harvest 420 million board feet of timber. In each of those
years, the Forest Service has only made slightly over 300
million board feet available. This 120 million board feet
shortfall has meant mills closing and being unable to
reopen. He stressed that AFA does not believe this is what
Congress intended through its "seek to meet" language.
Number 296
MR. REINHART stated the manner in which the forests are
managed also has an impact on Alaska's other important
renewable natural resource industry - fishing. AFA believes
and the science bares out that the state can manage for both
a significant forest products industry and a large scale
fishing industry. He said to do so, there must be a
realization that forest products and the fishing industry
have more in common than they have differences.
MR. REINHART mentioned he had a lot of science and research
information which clearly shows that timber harvesting and
fisheries are compatible. Statistics from the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) show that fisheries
production has increased at the same time timber harvesting
has increased. He said while AFA does not pretend to claim
there is a direct relationship between these two activities,
the evidence does show that both are occurring and
compatible.
MR. REINHART stated last spring the federal government
developed the PACFISH strategy to address the fisheries
crisis in the Pacific Northwest. With no research or
evidence, the Forest Service and BLM made the decision that
Alaska should be included in the strategy. He said it has
been well documented through the Forest Service and the
media, that the PACFISH strategy would reduce timber
harvesting on the Tongass National Forest by 50-85 percent.
This would mean the loss of jobs, family incomes and damage
to the social fabric of the region. He noted all this would
occur with no evidence to support the decision.
MR. REINHART said not only should the proposal be of concern
to the forest products industry, but it should also concern
the fishing industry. The PACFISH strategy deals with what
are known as the four H's - harvesting, hatcheries,
hydroelectric development, and habitat. He stressed not
only is the federal government attempting to reduce timber
harvest through the PACFISH strategy, but also they are on
the path to controlling offshore fish harvest and the
state's successful fish hatchery programs.
Number 332
MR. REINHART told committee members that last year the
Alaska Congressional delegation led by Senator Ted Stevens
stopped implementation of the PACFISH proposal through the
Interior Appropriation Bill. He said this effort was
successful for several reasons. First, was the fact that
the science was on the state's side. There is no evidence
that fish stocks in this region are at risk due to timber
harvesting. The state, through Dr. Rusanowski at DEC, made
this point very effectively. Second, was the passage of
TTRA. He stated the Tongass is the only national forest in
the system which has legislatively mandated 100 foot, no
harvest, stream buffers. Alaska has already addressed the
habitat issues on public lands and is doing so effectively.
He pointed out that a recent Forest Service report on the
southern Tongass shows that stream buffer implementation was
meeting the letter of the law with few exceptions. The
report found the average buffer width is 169 feet.
MR. REINHART stated the third factor was the progressive and
state-of-the-art Alaska Forest Services Act (FSA). Alaska
is one of the leaders in implementing stream buffers on
private and state lands. The FPA has set the standard for
protecting fisheries and allowing private landowners to
maximize the return on their investment.
MR. REINHART noted that recently there were concerns raised
over the implementation of the FPA stream buffer regulations
on private lands, which allows for timber harvesting within
the buffers as long as no significant harm will result to
fisheries values. Since these concerns were raised by the
ADF&G, several important events have occurred which should
lay any fears to rest. These activities have included three
separate biological reviews of stream buffer implementation,
an on-site visitation by the commissioners of DNR and ADF&G
to review stream buffer implementation and review of stream
buffer implementation on the ownerships of major private
landowners.
Number 372
MR. REINHART remarked that each of these events produced the
opinion and evidence that the FPA on private lands is
working to protect fisheries values, which was good news to
the forest products industry. AFA is committed to a strong
FPA which gives the public assurance that their resources
are being protected. He stressed that AFA and the forest
products industry are currently in the process of designing
and implementing the continuation of past fish/forest
research efforts. The AFA and the forest products industry
are committed to finding answers and having the data to
prove and insure that the state's forest practices protect
fisheries values.
MR. REINHART summarized that HJR 55 and HJR 56 are important
statements of state policy in regard to the management of
the state's natural resources. AFA hopes that his testimony
has summarized their commitment and belief that the state's
forests, fish, wildlife, and communities can be managed for
the benefit of all. He said AFA strongly urges the
committee to pass the two resolutions.
Number 397
JOEL KAWAHARA, SITKA, testified via teleconference, and
advised committee members that he is a commercial fisherman.
He read an article from the Ketchikan Daily News which
appeared January 24, 1994. He also read several articles
from a Department of Commerce publication and information
from an ADF&G article. He suggested additions for HJR 56 on
page 3, lines 5 and 6, "exclude lands in Alaska managed by
the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management from the
PACFISH requirements..."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Kawahara to fax his suggested
additions, as it was difficult to hear his exact suggestions
over the teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was not clear as to whether
Mr. Kawahara is in support of HJR 55.
MR. KAWAHARA responded he is in support of HJR 55, but
thought the equal importance of the fishing industry should
be added. He supports HJR 56 with amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES again asked Mr. Kawahara to mail or
fax his proposed amendments to the House Resources
Committee.
Number 530
ERIC JORDAN, SITKA, testified via teleconference, and said
he is a lifelong commercial fisherman and subsistence user.
He expressed opposition to HJR 55 and HJR 56, as written.
He wondered why the AFA cannot find an Alaskan to direct
their association when they claim 600 jobs have been lost in
Alaska over the past two years. He thought maybe it is
because long time Alaskans cannot take such an extreme
position anymore. He stressed that the forest products
industry and the fishing industry do have a lot in common.
Both need a healthy resource, a long-term sustainable
management plan, and the need to harvest with a minimum
impact on associated wildlife. He said in the case of
fishermen, it includes minimizing by-catch and eliminating
adverse impacts on marine mammals. In the case of the
forest industry, it means changing harvest methods to
minimize adverse impacts on deer, salmon, and other
wildlife.
MR. JORDAN stated both groups must be managed to protect
subsistence values. He felt the two FURTHER RESOLVED
paragraphs beginning on lines 29 and 32, page 2, of HJR 55
should be struck or amended, as they conclude and request
increased and maximum timber harvest without consideration
of other values of the forest for other resources. He said
it is one thing for the AFA to take extremist positions, but
it is another for the Alaska legislature to pass unbalanced
resolutions. Anyone who is seriously considered to manage
these resources, whether it is Congress, the federal
government or anyone in the state, will reject these
resolutions because they are not balanced and show no
creditability.
MR. JORDAN stated in regard to HJR 56, Alaska should be
enthusiastically embracing the PACFISH management strategy.
One of the main losses to the economy in Southeast Alaska is
due to the dams and the loss of habitat in the Pacific
Northwest. Alaska can live with PACFISH. He said the
forest industry is in the same position as the fishing
industry was in territorial days. The timber industry is
dominated by a few big corporations like the fishing
industry was dominated by a few canning operations and the
fish traps. He stressed how much Alaska's fishing industry
improved when the fish traps were eliminated. He stressed
it is time to change the way timber is harvested in
Southeast Alaska; eliminate the big monopolies and count on
a lot of individual people to be involved in the timber
harvest to maximize the value for everyone.
Number 611
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he fished for salmon from 1950-1970.
The trap was discontinued in 1958 and the fish did not come
back until the 200 mile limit was imposed.
STEVE BORELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION
(AMA), testified via teleconference, and expressed support
of HJR 56. He said rather than being an honest attempt to
protect the fisheries in Alaska, PACFISH is the latest
initiative to lock up natural resources in Alaska.
Scientific facts do not support the application of PACFISH
to Alaska but rather, PACFISH was developed to address
specific fisheries problems in the Pacific Northwest and
areas where there has been intensive human activity for many
decades. He stressed most of Alaska is off limits to
development of timber or mineral resources and as a result,
Alaska will never see the level of (indiscernible) as the
Pacific Northwest. He added that Alaska is far ahead of the
Pacific Northwest and has statutes and regulations in place
which protect the fisheries. Every mining project must be
evaluated under Title 16, and if a stream is affected in any
way, a Title 16 permit must be obtained. ADF&G has absolute
veto power when it comes to any activity in, over, or around
a salmon stream.
MR. BORELL said the AMA suggests two changes in HJR 56.
First, it is suggested the resolution be changed so it is
clear that it applies to all Forest Service and all BLM
lands in Alaska and is not limited to the Tongass. This is
stated in the actual resolution section, but is not
referenced as clearly as it should be in the lead-in
statement. Second, the AMA recommends that HJR 56 be
expanded to reference the mineral resource potential of the
lands in addition to the timber resources. The U.S. Forest
Service and BLM lands in Alaska have significant potential
for mineral development and AMA suggests that this fact be
included in the lead-in statement of the resolution. AMA
urges passage of HJR 56.
TAPE 94-19, SIDE B
Number 000
JOHN STURGEON, PRESIDENT, KONCOR FOREST PRODUCTS, testified
via teleconference, and expressed support of HJR 56. He
felt PACFISH is not needed in Alaska because the state has
adequate protections for salmon streams. It is difficult to
separate what happens on federal, state and private lands
and he thought private landowners have a success story,
which helps substantiate that the fishing and timber
industries can work together. Approximately three years
ago, the FPA was passed which was a consensus among many
groups, including environmentalists, fishermen, private
landowners, agency people, etc. The process was
confrontational and lengthy and the most difficult point to
resolve was how to protect salmon streams while giving
private landowners the ability to harvest timber along
streams.
MR. STURGEON said the law which resulted provides for 66
foot buffers along all Class A streams and allows the
harvesting of individual trees if they are approved by ADF&G
and DNR. Recently there has been a self-evaluation of how
the buffer system is working. ADF&G, DNR and three
biologists went out to determine how successful buffers have
been in protecting salmon streams. One of the people
included in the evaluation was Dr. Jim Buell, a biologist
who stated in his report, "from a technical and
administrative perception, the consensus was that the system
had been working very well and (indiscernible) restored
working relationships to its former level of cooperation and
(indiscernible). Furthermore, the consensus was that the
system has had working results of generally healthy
conditions for type A streams. Only a few relatively minor
incidents were noted. Everyone generally agreed previous
decisions regarding selection of trees could have been more
conservatively executed and even these areas covered by
(indiscernible) of the streams. In my view, no significant
long-term harms should be dissipated from these inferences."
MR. STURGEON continued that Sealaska, Konkor and
(indiscernible) combined data and added that the three
companies had about 45 miles of streams protected. Of that
45 miles, approximately 1.5 trees were harvested per 100
feet. This means that approximately 40,000 trees were left
in the buffers over the last three years from these three
companies. The objective of protecting salmon habitat and
allowing private landowners to secure maximum values from
these buffers went very well. He felt both the fishing and
timber industries should be proud of their effort.
MR. STURGEON pointed out that the value of the trees left
over the past three years was in excess of $9 million. It
is a large amount of money, but if it assures that the
fisheries habitat is being protected and allows private
landowners to get trees out of the buffers without harming
habitat, it is a good compromise and shows that the buffer
system is working. He again endorsed HJR 56 and added that
he supports the additions which the Alaska Miners
Association had suggested.
Number 078
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Sturgeon to summarize the
differences between what PACFISH requires with respect to
buffers and what the FPA requires.
MR. STURGEON responded on private land, the FPA says that
all type A water bodies, which are the main salmon streams,
require a 66 foot buffer. The law says that fish
biologists, ADF&G and DNR can go in and approve individual
trees within the buffer zones for harvesting, if harvesting
those trees does not cause significant harm to either salmon
habitat or water quality. The PACFISH proposal is a much
more rigid proposition. There are no-cut zones and there is
no flexibility in being able to harvest trees in the buffer
zones. It also includes more streams such as the feeder
streams going into the main salmon streams and the buffers
are much larger.
Number 107
CHIP THOMA, JUNEAU, expressed opposition to HJR 55 and HJR
56. He stated he has been working on timber issues in the
Tongass for 23 years. He contested the employment and
monetary figures contained on the first pages of each of the
resolutions. He said the McDowell group generated the
figures for the AFA, and he did not believe they are valid
figures, which puts a question into the validity of the
resolutions. He stressed for his purposes, he does not want
the committee to change the resolutions.
MR. THOMA remarked upon close reading of the resolutions,
they actually say that Congress and the administration
should supplant and replace the alleged lost jobs in the
industry; specifically those from the "near completion of
first harvest on private land." He said Congress will not
consider any continuation of regional or village corporation
logging activities. Congress is grappling with its own
Forest Service losses and to get further involved with
private land and discussions on keeping employees in Alaska
is out of the question.
MR. THOMA stated it has been the great hope of the pulp
industry and the Chambers of Commerce in the region to meld
the private and public timber harvest into one big industry.
He felt that is not going to happen. There are no
contracts, no primary processing requirement, no Forest
Service oversight, no Congressional oversight and no DNR
oversight. He complimented the Cape Fox Corporation, one of
the few village corporations doing something with their
resources and making a profit for their shareholders.
MR. THOMA said by the end of the fifty year contracts in
Southeast Alaska, it has been documented with Congress that
$3 billion will have been lost by the federal government in
direct outlays of funds, not including habitat lost. He
felt the Tongass has been the biggest debacle in the entire
U.S. and stated it is the largest deficit forest in the
country. He stressed there is no way that Congress or the
administration is going to allow it to continue. The
current goal is to get out of the threat of litigation by
Senator Murkowski and others. If the contracts are
cancelled quickly, corporations are going to sue for $1 1/2
billion.
MR. THOMA said over 102,000 letters were sent to President
Clinton after his forest summit in Portland. It is a
serious issue with many people in the U.S., and added there
is a very high affinity for habitat and for protection of
old growth. He felt the timber industry is an
anachronistic, inept and totally inappropriate industry for
Southeast Alaska. He said the trees in Southeast are not
regenerative. He stressed he is looking forward in his
lifetime to seeing the timber industries shut down and more
appropriate industries take their place.
MR. THOMA noted in the 1950's when the Forest Service laid
out five pulp mill sales in Southeast Alaska, it was done by
three-four foresters, judging from the air how much timber
was down there and saying there were enough trees for five
pulp mills.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if that fact was documented.
MR. THOMA said the facts can be found in the Forest Service
archives. He stressed that is how the volume of timber that
was estimated for the Tongass was determined. He said those
volumes were completely overestimated and because of the way
the contracts were structured, the contracts have been
overharvested ever since. He expressed concern about the
current push on keeping the timber industry going.
Number 205
ROLLO POOL, SPOKESPERSON, ALASKA PULP CORPORATION, expressed
support of HJR 55 and HJR 56. He said his company is part
of an industry in transition, but added that Sitka is also
in transition with the closure of the pulp mill in September
1993. With the closing and the loss of 400 jobs in Sitka,
about 530 indirect jobs were also lost. Total payroll for
those combined, indirect and direct jobs, totals
approximately $30 million. He stated upon reviewing other
industries in Sitka, the manufacturing jobs paid 70 percent
higher than the average Sitka wage. These were important
jobs to the community in terms of their buying power.
MR. POOL remarked when people discuss the timber industry in
this region, they do not consider the cumulative economic
impact. The cumulative biological impacts are always looked
at. He said during the late 1980's, the Forest Service
issued a report on the cumulative value to the communities.
That number reached a high in 1990 of about $560 million per
year, money which was generated in this region because there
was a federal timber program. He noted that figure was
exclusive of the private land and timber corporations which
were harvesting at the same time.
MR. POOL said his company feels HJR 56 is a good resolution.
The restrictions of PACFISH when applied to Alaska will
create a situation where there are buffer zones over buffer
zones. He pointed out that maps have been produced showing
areas where fish will be harvested and in some cases, two-
thirds of the timber which can be harvested will be
eliminated because of PACFISH regulations. He stressed he
knows of no one in the timber industry who would like the
fishing industry to go away.
MR. POOL remarked that one other statistic which points out
the fallacy of the PACFISH need is that in the early 1960's,
when looking at the trend of the commercial salmon catches
in Southeast Alaska, plotted against the timber harvest, an
increase in catches can be noted for each year since that
time period. The salmon harvest during the early 1960's
averaged about 15 million fish per year and in the past
five-six years, the catch has been around the 55 million
fish range. There is not a decline in Alaska as there is in
the Pacific Northwest. He noted he has a chart showing the
upward trend in both timber harvesting and fishing.
MR. POOL felt that letters and resolutions are a good step,
but he stated there is a need to take it a step further. He
would like to see a joint federal/state/local commission
established to address some of the state's resource issues.
Number 280
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the average salary in Sitka
is.
MR. POOL responded the average salary is $2,200, which is
based on all salaries in the community.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the average is without the
pulp mill salaries included.
MR. POOL said he did not know.
Number 308
JOHN SISK, JUNEAU, stated his background is in wildlife
biology and he has a masters degree in forestry. He said he
cannot support HJR 55 and HJR 56 as they are currently
written. He believed the timber industry is a significant
and valid part of the regional economy, but there is much
missing from the resolutions as written. He noted the
WHEREAS refer to declines in employment since 1990 and
pointed out that those job declines in the timber industry
are generally not related to timber supply from the Tongass
National Forest. Timber supply averages have been at or
above those in the 1980's, since 1990. In addition, the
declines resulted from other factors. He explained private
landowners have the prerogative of logging and liquidating
their timber quickly to generate cash for a variety of
purposes and largely have done so. Much of that logging is
over. It has been unsustainable and the decline is being
seen.
MR. SISK stated pulp markets have been weak and there have
been problems with market share and price, while lumber
prices have gone up. What that means is, for example,
Alaska Pulp Corporation has made a financial decision to
maximize profits by closing their Sitka mill and running the
same amount of volume they are getting under the contract
through the Wrangell mill, making a substantial profit.
MR. SISK noted that Mr. Reinhart had said a lack of
independent timber sales supply has resulted in the closure
of independent mills. Mr. Sisk pointed out that the two
mills which closed in Haines and Klawock did so as a result
of marketing disputes with the Weyerhauser Corporation. He
added that corporation did end up operating some of the
timber sales after the mills were closed. He felt it was
misleading for anyone to make those points because supply is
not the driving factor in terms of the changes being seen in
the Southeast Alaska Tongass related timber industry.
MR. SISK felt it was going to be difficult to use the
Tongass to maintain the boom seen in logging on private
land. Private Native corporations have the prerogative of
short-term liquidation of timber of dominant use; whereas on
public forest lands, there is a legal commitment in place to
long-term sustained yield and to multiple use, which is a
different mission and different legal framework within which
the national forest has to operate.
MR. SISK urged committee members to recognize that timber is
part of a complex forest ecology and economy. The themes of
multiple use and economic diversification can strengthen the
entire picture. He stressed it is important to recognize
all the key sectors which depend on the Tongass National
Forest; timber, fisheries (both commercial and sport),
wildlife, tourism and recreation, and subsistence. This
forest has to supply all of those uses and those uses tend
to rely on the same 10-15 percent of the Tongass that is the
biologically productive forest land - where the salmon
streams are, where the deer habitat is, where the prime
recreation opportunities are, and where there are also a lot
of big trees. He felt it is misleading to say that 90
percent is off-limits to logging and there is only 10
percent available and all that will be taken. He stressed
that 10 percent is the heart of the Tongass National Forest
which is critical to sustaining a diversified economy in
this region.
MR. SISK stated it would also be good to recognize the
opportunities for developing all of the sectors of the
economy instead of one dominant emphasis. Examples include
new value-added wood processing facilities, investments by
the federal government in tourism, infrastructure for each
community, commercial fisheries product and market
development, sport fishing, and protecting subsistence for
rural residents who need the forest the most.
MR. SISK said in addition to having a mixed economy and a
lot of mixed values and uses, it is important to recognize
there is land designations such as wilderness areas,
intensive timber harvest areas, fisheries habitat, etc. He
stressed the key words are sustainability of the use of the
forest, diversification of the community and regional
economies, protecting the basic integrity and the bottom
line of the forest ecosystem, adding value to the resources
and trying to keep as many jobs in forestry and fisheries in
Alaska. He emphasized the Tongass is a multiple use forest
and not a dominant use forest.
MR. SISK said in regard to HJR 56, he expressed concern that
there has been an overreaction to what PACFISH represents.
He agreed that it is a mistake to take a policy developed
elsewhere and blindly slap it down in Alaska. He suspected
there are many elements and a lot of research which has been
done and there is a need to think about how fisheries,
timber and wildlife are managed. He urged committee members
to not take such a doctrinaire extreme position. There may
be things to learn by the PACFISH regulations.
Number 455
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated Native corporations are exporting
approximately the same amount of timber now as they have in
the past five years, so the decline of timber resources is
coming from the pulp mills. He felt the timber industry is
trying to take care of the fishing industry, looking at
different types of industry, etc., and that is one of the
reasons the timber being logged today is not paying its way.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if logging improves deer
habitat.
MR. SISK responded research shows that in Southeast Alaska,
general logging does not improve deer habitat and removes
some of the critical components. He said there are ways to
reduce that loss and spoke about deer in the Rockies who go
down in the sagebrush when logging is ongoing. In Southeast
Alaska, there is no place for the deer to go.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if logging provides more food.
MR. SISK replied a new clearcut in the summer provides
additional forage, but when it gets buried in snow, that
food is not available.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Sisk's estimation on how
long it takes to regenerate the forest in Southeast Alaska.
Number 522
MR. SISK stated there is a timber production viewpoint and a
broader ecological viewpoint. If there is a desire to just
grow pulp fiber, it can be done quickly, perhaps in around
100 years. If there is a desire to grow high quality saw
timber, it would be beyond that. To recover the ecological
characteristics which support wildlife habitat, an even
longer rotation is needed. To have a multiple use forest, a
big section needs to be left alone and another section needs
to be on a long rotation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY questioned how long it takes to create
a two foot diameter tree.
MR. SISK responded it is variable. In some places, it could
be grown in 80 years, while in other places it takes much
longer.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he is interested in the comments
made by Mr. Sisk indicating 10 percent of the entire Tongass
is the productive area and asked Mr. Sisk to provide
additional information if he has it. Representative Hudson
also noted that Mr. Sisk had mentioned the resolutions do
not take into consideration sufficient diversity, multiple
use and other aspects of the Tongass. He stressed as seen
before, Congress takes dynamic action and takes no
consideration that in Alaska an effort has been made to
develop a Forest Practices Act, for example, which includes
the environmentalists, the timber industry, the fishing
community, etc. He felt there is a need to educate
Congress on the fact that the state does have a solid Forest
Practices Act, the state is concerned about tourism, sport
fishing, commercial fishing, etc., and has tried to develop
balanced laws and resolutions.
MR. SISK felt the phrases about maximizing timber which
appear in the resolutions are probably red flags, just as
they might be if someone were to say, let's maximize
wilderness.
Number 648
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated she appreciated Mr.
Sisk's approach on different uses of the forest, but thought
there is a feeling of frustration by the people in the lower
48 who do not have trees anymore because they have been
logged off, generally for agricultural purposes. They do
not understand what Alaska does to get economic activity
from timber and how well the state does manage. She said
the further frustration is because they are so far away and
they have more money. Alaska does rebel when a blanket
regulation approach is taken which really affects other
areas. The state rightly says that we have more knowledge
about how we ought to manage our forests and we would like
the opportunity to do that.
TAPE 94-20, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that HB 199 will be rescheduled
to Monday, February 28 at 8:15 a.m.
CHUCK ACHBERGER, DIRECTOR, JUNEAU CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
expressed support of HJR 55 and HJR 56. He said the state
has a model in the state Forest Practices Act and it does
not need to be fixed. The multi-faceted use of the forest
is looked at more in Alaska than anywhere else in the world.
He stated in regard to supporting the timber industry in
Southeast Alaska, too often it is looked at as a pulp mill
here, a pulp mill there. It is an industry and without a
sustainable yield of timber it is difficult to run that
industry. The industries cannot make capital improvements
and cannot secure a steady flow of jobs. He felt what is
important on resolutions of this type is that they send a
message to Congress, the people of the United States and the
various environmental organizations.
DAVID KATZ, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, expressed
opposition to HJR 55 and HJR 56. He encouraged the
committee to change HJR 55 to incorporate the concepts of
sustainability instead of maximum timber production. With
regard to HJR 56, he asked the committee to take a more
judicious view and not simply reject the PACFISH strategy.
He felt the entire debate on the timber industry is quite
interesting because a question is being faced on how a
timber industry, which has become entrenched and does
business in a certain way, can change for the future. He
remarked the timber industry is recognizing the need to
change, but is resisting the change. As a result, there are
resolutions like the two being proposed, rejecting something
which is in fact the result of a lot of research in the
lower 48 and which will be applied judiciously on a case by
case basis in Alaska.
MR. KATZ told committee members that the Forest Service did
estimates on the results of employing PACFISH in Alaska and
he felt the impact most likely to occur is a possible 17
percent reduction in timber. A lot of the timber initially
taken out of the timber base can come back in, once a
watershed analysis is done. He said the Forest Practices
Act is currently being argued by the Forest Service. He
stressed that Act does not apply to the areas which PACFISH
will apply to. Free markets, clear limits and
sustainability for all resources is what is needed to change
the timber industry for the future.
Number 075
LARRY SMITH, FRITZ CREEK, testified via teleconference, and
said he has been working with Alaska spruce for 35 years and
served on the Forest Practices Act Review Steering
Committee. He said everyone on that committee agreed on a
100 foot buffer with a zipper edge. The legislature reduced
the buffer zone from 100 feet to 66 feet. He explained the
committee (indiscernible) a conditional harvest zone when
the buffer was on public land. He stated to compare the
state Forest Practices Act and its effect on federal lands,
state public lands, municipal lands, and private lands is
something that should be looked at. Mr. Smith continued
with a general discussion on buffers. He advised committee
members to not mix public land buffers with private land
conditional harvest zones. No significant standard
(indiscernible) forest resources, fish wildlife, or the
sustained yield of trees. He reminded everyone of the
decline of the Pacific Northwest mixed economies, timber,
fish and forest recreation.
Number 135
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN MOVED to AMEND HJR 55 page
3, lines 4, 5, and 6 as handed out to read, "FURTHER
RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature requests the
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, to
manage the Tongass National Forest in order to provide
maximum opportunity for timber harvest, recreation,
fisheries and other multiple uses.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said what was heard from many
people is that there is a need for a balanced effect, and
added there is a variety of uses of the Tongass National
Forest. He stressed there is nothing in HJR 55 which
acknowledges that. In reading the resolutions, a person
would believe that both state and federal laws have made the
area a single use forest. He stressed that is not the case.
Thousands of people depend on the forest for recreation,
tourism and fisheries. He felt there should be at least a
minor acknowledgement of that fact or the committee will be
producing an extreme, one-sided resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she supports balanced forest
use, but stressed the purpose of the resolution is to give
emphasis to timber. She felt inserting the words
recreation, fisheries and multiple uses eliminates the
emphasis on timber. She is opposed to the amendment as she
feels it destroys the intent of the resolution.
Number 163
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated for those who want to improve
the opportunity for harvesting timber and want to see proper
harvesting go forward should want to make this kind of
change because in the discussions which are ongoing in
Congress currently, this kind of resolution will be viewed
as so extreme it will be rejected out of hand. He said if
there is a desire for people to seriously consider the
concerns there are for the forest industry in Alaska, the
concerns need to be couched in more reasonable terms so that
people will read it. He felt the way the resolution is
written, it is so far extreme to one end, it will be dropped
in the wastebasket.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt there is a need to be extreme.
Things are happening which are extreme to the industry.
Towns are being shut down and people are being hurt.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that argument assumes that
extremism works and what many members of the committee have
accused the other side of is extremism. If extremism is
going to be used to respond, it may not serve the purpose
desired. It might be better to get across that the state
does care about all the resources.
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said all of the aspects of recreation,
fisheries and other multiple uses are embodied in the other
provisions which Congress has placed upon the state's lands.
He viewed the resolution as a statement by the Alaska
Legislature to Congress saying that the committee seriously
wants Congress to consider making timber available for use
in Alaska, for the value of jobs and the economy it provides
the state. He felt the amendment is not needed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that on page 3, line 4, after
"FURTHER RESOLVED that" insert the words, "notwithstanding
the use for recreation, fisheries and other multiple uses".
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he will accept the concept
as a friendly replacement language, but he will not use that
exact language because if notwithstanding is used, that
means regardless of these concerns. He suggested using the
word "recognizing" rather than notwithstanding.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she believes that HJR 55 is to
put emphasis on timber and if there is any place for
Representative Finkelstein's suggested amendment it would be
in one of the WHEREAS sections. She objected to putting the
language in the RESOLVE section.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the amendment being voted on
is whether the committee recognizes recreation, fishing and
other multiple uses.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a vote with a show of hands on
the amendment. The MOTION was DEFEATED by a vote of 4-3.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out that on page 2, line
14 there is an extra zero. In addition, he said there had
been testimony earlier saying there is not a current
decrease going on in the amount of timber being harvested
from private lands, and pointed out there are two places in
the resolution which states "near completion of the first
harvest on private land" indicating it is over and there
will be no more harvest on private lands. He said another
WHEREAS basically says the same thing. If that is not the
case and there was no testimony saying it is over, he
suggested the two references be removed.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN MOVED to remove the language on
page 1, line 15, "and the near completion of the first
harvest" and the second WHEREAS on page 2.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the words "near completion of the
first harvest" is probably correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said no testimony had been heard
to that fact, but rather the testimony said it is not over.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stressed there is still timber being
harvested from private land.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the language makes it
sound like the private harvest is over, and it is not
necessary for the resolution to say that is the case if
there is no evidence that it is over.
Number 291
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS suggested that committee members review
the resolutions over the weekend. He announced the
committee will hear HJR 55 and HJR 56 again on Monday,
February 28.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced he would like to distribute to
the committee a proposed committee substitute which was
drafted for HB 238, the bill relating to the Oil and
Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund. He said the
committee had three hearings on the bill last session and
during the interim and another hearing will be scheduled
soon.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS advised he decided to draft a simple,
straightforward version to work from, aimed at fixing what
is broken with the 470 Fund and leaving the rest alone. He
hoped this approach will simplify and speed up the
deliberations on the bill. He said he wanted to get the
work draft out to the committee, the oil industry and the
public in advance of the next meeting on the bill, so that
everyone will have a chance to review it.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|