Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/20/1994 08:15 AM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 20, 1994                                        
                            8:15 a.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Representative Bill Williams, Chairman                                       
  Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman                                    
  Representative Con Bunde                                                     
  Representative Pat Carney                                                    
  Representative John Davies                                                   
  Representative David Finkelstein                                             
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Jeannette James                                               
  Representative Eldon Mulder                                                  
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                    
  Representative Joe Sitton                                                    
  Representative Fran Ulmer                                                    
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  SB 310:   "An Act relating to the management and sale of                     
            state timber and relating to the administration of                 
            forest land."                                                      
            HEARD AND HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION                           
  SB 46:    "An Act relating to moose farming and relating to                  
            game farming."                                                     
            HCS CSSB 46(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH                       
            INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS                                         
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  GLEN JUDAY                                                                   
  4837 Palo Verde Avenue                                                       
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  479-3765                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  JAN DAWE, Representative                                                     
  Alaska Boreal Forest Council                                                 
  Fairbanks, Alaska                                                            
  Phone:  474-8343                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  COLIN REED                                                                   
  653 Love Road                                                                
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99712                                                    
  Phone:  474-5075                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  CHRIS GATES, Director                                                        
  Division of Economic Development                                             
  Department of Commerce and Economic Development                              
  P.O. Box 110804                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska   99811-0804                                                  
  Phone:  465-2017                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  TABITHA GREGORY, Representative                                              
  Alaska Center for the Environment                                            
  19530 Pribilof Loop                                                          
  Eagle River, Alaska   99577                                                  
  Phone:  696-1215                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  JUDY HARGIS                                                                  
  8920 Pioneer Drive                                                           
  Anchorage, Alaska   99504                                                    
  Phone:  269-4565                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  DANE WAGNER                                                                  
  4801 Aircraft Drive                                                          
  Anchorage, Alaska   99502                                                    
  Phone:  298-4341                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  JIM MINTON, Representative                                                   
  Anchorage Property Owners Association                                        
  P.O. Box 190121                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska   99519                                                    
  Phone:  248-1965                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  MEREDITH MARSHALL                                                            
  P.O. Box 7418                                                                
  Ketchikan, Alaska   99901                                                    
  Phone:  225-2134                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  SANDRA MESKE                                                                 
  P.O. Box 1445                                                                
  Ward Cove, Alaska   99928                                                    
  Phone:  225-1060                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  MICHAEL MESKE                                                                
  P.O. Box 1445                                                                
  Ward Cove, Alaska   99928                                                    
  Phone:  225-1060                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  JOSEPH SEBASTIAN                                                             
  P.O. Box 129                                                                 
  Point Baker, Alaska   99927                                                  
  Phone:  559-2218                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  SYD WRIGHT                                                                   
  P.O. Box 624                                                                 
  Petersburg, Alaska   99833                                                   
  Phone:  772-4859                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  BOB ELLIS, Representative                                                    
  Sitka Conservation Society                                                   
  P.O. Box 319                                                                 
  Sitka, Alaska   99835                                                        
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  KAREN MARTINSEN, Representative                                              
  Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association                        
  103 Sunset Drive                                                             
  Sitka, Alaska   99835                                                        
  Phone:  747-8999                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  ELEANOR HUFFINES                                                             
  P.O. Box 981                                                                 
  Palmer, Alaska   99645                                                       
  Phone:  746-3580                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  CHARLES BOOTH                                                                
  P.O. Box 102                                                                 
  Seward, Alaska   99664                                                       
  Phone:  224-5751                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  MARK LUTTRELL                                                                
  P.O. Box 511                                                                 
  Seward, Alaska   99664                                                       
  Phone:  224-5372                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  AL SCHAFER                                                                   
  P.O. Box 610                                                                 
  Seward, Alaska   99664                                                       
  Phone:  224-3130                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  JOSEPH YOUNG                                                                 
  P.O. Box 42                                                                  
  Tok, Alaska   99780                                                          
  Phone:  883-5060                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  LARRY SMITH, Representative                                                  
  Kachemak Resource Institute                                                  
  1520 Lakeshore Drive                                                         
  Homer, Alaska   99603                                                        
  Phone:  235-3855                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  KATHERINE SMITH                                                              
  1193 Cooper Court                                                            
  Homer, Alaska   99603                                                        
  Phone:  235-5448                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  DOUG BOWERS                                                                  
  Address Unavailable                                                          
  Nenana, Alaska   99760                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  PAT STANLEY, Representative                                                  
  (Indiscernible) Tribal Government                                            
  Address Unavailable                                                          
  Fort Yukon, Alaska   99740                                                   
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  BURL SHELDON, Representative                                                 
  Lynn Canal Conservation, Inc.                                                
  P.O. Box 952                                                                 
  Haines, Alaska   99827                                                       
  Phone:  766-2709                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  VIVIAN MENAKER                                                               
  P.O. Box 118                                                                 
  Haines, Alaska   99827                                                       
  Phone:  766-2360                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  BILL FLIRIS                                                                  
  Address Unavailable                                                          
  Tanana, Alaska   99777                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  CHRISTINA SCHNEIDER                                                          
  P.O. Box 80883                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  SEAN MCGUIRE                                                                 
  351 Coloudberry                                                              
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  479-7134                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  ROBERT AMMICHT                                                               
  2784 Railroad Drive                                                          
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  EVA SAULITIS                                                                 
  P.O. Box 83715                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  474-4584                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  SARAH JAMES                                                                  
  Arctic Village, Alaska   99722                                               
  Phone:  456-2329                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  OAKLEY COCHRAN                                                               
  P.O. Box 85071                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  474-7146                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  RON RICKETTS, Executive Director                                             
  Fairbanks Industrial Development Corporation                                 
  269 Topside Road                                                             
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99712                                                    
  Phone:  452-2185                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  BETTY ROLLINS                                                                
  P.O. Box 5516                                                                
  North Pole, Alaska   99705                                                   
  Phone:  488-6614                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  RONALD WOLFE, Chief Forester                                                 
  Klukwan Forest Products                                                      
  9466 Brady Place                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska   99801                                                       
  Phone:  789-7104                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  LILLER COTTER                                                                
  P.O. Box 462                                                                 
  Nenana, Alaska   99760                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  GAYLE STEVENS                                                                
  P.O. Box 38                                                                  
  Nenana, Alaska   99760                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  DUANE ANDERSON                                                               
  37685 Conner Road                                                            
  Soldotna, Alaska   99669                                                     
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  ED DAVIS, Representative                                                     
  Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association                        
  P.O. Box 1616                                                                
  Fairbanks, Alaska                                                            
  Phone:  479-7236                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  NANCY LETHCOE, President                                                     
  Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association                        
  P.O. Box 1313                                                                
  Valdez, Alaska   99686                                                       
  Phone:  835-5175                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  BRIAN JOHNSON                                                                
  P.O. Box 2661                                                                
  Kodiak, Alaska   99615                                                       
  Phone:  486-4684                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  ED OPHIEM                                                                    
  1421 Kouskov                                                                 
  Kodiak, Alaska   99615                                                       
  Phone:  486-4460                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  RICK ERNST                                                                   
  P.O. Box 13172                                                               
  Trapper Creek, Alaska   99683                                                
  Phone:  733-2721                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  NANCY HILLSTRAND                                                             
  P.O. Box 674                                                                 
  Homer, Alaska   99603                                                        
  Phone:  235-2572                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  MIKE MORTELL                                                                 
  General Delivery                                                             
  Port Baker, Alaska   99927                                                   
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  KEN JESSEN                                                                   
  P.O. Box 80424                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  479-6354                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  HOWARD LUKE                                                                  
  Address Unavailable                                                          
  Fairbanks, Alaska                                                            
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  DAVE LACEY, Manager                                                          
  Yukon River Tours                                                            
  P.O. Box 71371                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99712                                                    
  Phone:  474-8224                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  ROGER SIGLIN                                                                 
  169 Frog Pond Circle                                                         
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99712                                                    
  Phone:  457-6612                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  CONNIE STRICKS                                                               
  P.O. Box 81437                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  455-6308                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  DOUG YATES                                                                   
  P.O. Box 221                                                                 
  Ester, Alaska   99725                                                        
  Phone:  479-8300                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  PUTT CLARK                                                                   
  P.O. Box 80106                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  479-3761                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  LARRY PAQUIN                                                                 
  966 Goldmine Trail                                                           
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99712                                                    
  Phone:  457-6714                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  BYRON HALEY                                                                  
  1002 Pioneer Road                                                            
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99701                                                    
  Phone:  456-4426                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  LANE THOMPSON                                                                
  P.O. Box 80368                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  479-6712                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  RICHARD HAYDEN                                                               
  470 Canary Lane                                                              
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  479-0374                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  BIRCH PAVELSKY                                                               
  6063 Reconstruction                                                          
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  IRV LIPSCOMB                                                                 
  6 Mile Chena Ridge                                                           
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  479-6833                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  TARIKA LEA                                                                   
  1703 Fiddle Way                                                              
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  479-3820                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  CINDY GEAR                                                                   
  University of Alaska Fairbanks                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99775                                                    
  Phone:  474-6666                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  DANIEL LUM                                                                   
  P.O. Box 70169                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99707                                                    
  Phone:  456-8143                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  SYLVIA WARD, Representative                                                  
  Citizens Advisory Committee                                                  
  Tanana Valley State Forest                                                   
  218 Driveway                                                                 
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99701                                                    
  Phone:  452-5021                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  LARRY MAYO                                                                   
  282 Hay Way                                                                  
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  479-2954                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  RONNIE ROSENBERG, Representative                                             
  Green Party                                                                  
  841 Ninth Avenue                                                             
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99701                                                    
  Phone:  452-6476                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  JIM SYKES                                                                    
  P.O. Box 68                                                                  
  Talkeetna, Alaska   99676                                                    
  Phone:  278-7436                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  CARLY BOEHNERT                                                               
  1851 Barrester                                                               
  Anchorage, Alaska   99508                                                    
  Phone:  274-3621                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  STEPHEN BODNAR                                                               
  P.O. Box 2262                                                                
  Cordova, Alaska   99574                                                      
  Phone:  424-5427                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  MARY SHIELDS                                                                 
  P.O. Box 80961                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  455-6469                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  CHARLES SIMMONS                                                              
  P.O. Box 81724                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  479-0406                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  TED SWEM                                                                     
  P.O. Box 82068                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99708                                                    
  Phone:  474-9324                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  FRED BROWN                                                                   
  1469 Holy Cross                                                              
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99709                                                    
  Phone:  479-0215                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 310                                        
  JIM SEALY, Vice President                                                    
  Susitna Valley Association                                                   
  4330 Seelu Court                                                             
  Anchorage, Alaska   99502                                                    
  Phone:  243-7001                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  JOHN REEDER                                                                  
  9600 Slalom Drive                                                            
  Anchorage, Alaska   99516                                                    
  Phone:  346-1943                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  KATYA KIRSCH, Executive Assistant                                            
  Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                   
  P.O. Box 22151                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99802                                                       
  Phone:  463-3366                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  BARBARA KELLY                                                                
  6751 Marguerite                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska   99801                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 310                                          
  DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, Director                                                  
  Division of Wildlife Conservation                                            
  Alaska Department of Fish and Game                                           
  P.O. Box 25526                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99802-5526                                                  
  Phone:  465-4190                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on SB 46                             
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  SB 310                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)FRANK,Taylor,Pearce,Sharp,                             
  REPRESENTATIVE(S) Olberg                                                     
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/14/94      2829    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/14/94      2829    (S)   RESOURCES                                        
  03/02/94              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  03/02/94              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/05/94              (H)   MINUTE(ECO)                                      
  03/16/94              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  03/16/94              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/22/94              (S)   RES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  03/24/94              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP                        
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/28/94              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  03/30/94      3406    (S)   RES RPT  CS 4DP 1DNP NEW TITLE                   
  03/30/94      3407    (S)   ZERO FN TO SB & CS PUBLISHED                     
  03/30/94              (S)   RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/30/94              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  04/05/94      3448    (S)   RULES RPT  3CAL  2NR 4/5/94                      
  04/05/94      3449    (S)   HELD TO 4/6/94                                   
  04/06/94      3476    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/06/94      3477    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  04/06/94      3477    (S)   AM NO  1     MOVED BY LITTLE                     
  04/06/94      3478    (S)   AM NO  1     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3478    (S)   AM NO  2     MOVED BY LITTLE                     
  04/06/94      3479    (S)   AM NO  2     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3479    (S)   AM NO  3     NOT OFFERED                         
  04/06/94      3479    (S)   AM NO  4     MOVED BY LITTLE                     
  04/06/94      3479    (S)   AM NO  4     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3480    (S)   AM NO  5     MOVED BY DUNCAN                     
  04/06/94      3480    (S)   AM NO  5     FAILED  Y8 N12                      
  04/06/94      3480    (S)   AM NO  6     MOVED BY DUNCAN                     
  04/06/94      3481    (S)   AM NO  6     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3481    (S)   AM NO  7     MOVED BY DUNCAN                     
  04/06/94      3482    (S)   AM NO  7     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3482    (S)   AM NO  8     MOVED BY DUNCAN                     
  04/06/94      3482    (S)   AM NO  8     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3483    (S)   AM NO  9     MOVED BY LINCOLN                    
  04/06/94      3483    (S)   AM NO  9     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3483    (S)   AM NO 10     MOVED BY ZHAROFF                    
  04/06/94      3484    (S)   AM NO 10     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3484    (S)   AM NO 11     MOVED BY ZHAROFF                    
  04/06/94      3484    (S)   AM NO 11     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3485    (S)   AM NO 12     MOVED BY LINCOLN                    
  04/06/94      3485    (S)   AM NO 12     FAILED  Y10 N10                     
  04/06/94      3486    (S)   AM NO 13     MOVED BY ZHAROFF                    
  04/06/94      3486    (S)   AM NO 13     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/06/94      3486    (S)   AM NO 14     MOVED BY ADAMS                      
  04/06/94      3487    (S)   AM NO 14     FAILED  Y8 N12                      
  04/06/94      3487    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD                     
                              Y11 N9                                           
  04/06/94      3487    (S)   THIRD READING 4/7 CALENDAR                       
  04/07/94      3506    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME                              
                              CSSB 310(RES)                                    
  04/07/94      3506    (S)   PASSED Y11 N8 E1                                 
  04/07/94      3506    (S)   Adams NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                  
  04/08/94      3527    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING                  
  04/08/94      3527    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11                    
                              N7  E2                                           
  04/08/94      3531    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  04/08/94      3212    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/08/94      3212    (H)   RESOURCES                                        
  04/08/94      3220    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):  OLBERG                        
  04/15/94      3526    (H)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                               
  04/15/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  04/15/94              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  04/20/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  BILL:  SB  46                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE MOOSE FARMING                                         
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER,Frank,Pearce,Sharp,Taylor;                     
  01/14/93        60    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/14/93        60    (S)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                               
  01/15/93        76    (S)   COSPONSOR:  LINCOLN                              
  01/29/93       189    (S)   COSPONSOR:  SHARP                                
  02/01/93              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  02/01/93              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  02/03/93              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  02/05/93       240    (S)   RES RPT  4DP                                     
  02/05/93       240    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)                           
  02/17/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  02/17/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  03/01/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  03/01/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  03/03/93       588    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  5DP 1DNP NEW TITLE                  
  03/03/93       588    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DNR)                     
  03/03/93       588    (S)   ZERO FNS TO CS (F&G, DEC)                        
  03/03/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  03/09/93              (S)   RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/09/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/10/93       710    (S)   RULES RPT 3 CAL 1NR  3/10/93                     
  03/10/93       714    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/10/93       714    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1                        
  03/10/93       715    (S)   AM NO  1     FAILED  Y5 N14 E1                   
  03/10/93       716    (S)   AM NO  2     FAILED  Y7 N12 E1                   
  03/10/93       717    (S)   AM NO  3     FAILED  Y8 N11 E1                   
  03/10/93       715    (S)   AM NO  4     FAILED  Y8 N11 E1                   
  03/10/93       716    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FLD Y11                   
                              N8 E1                                            
  03/10/93       719    (S)   THIRD READING 3/11 CALENDAR                      
  03/10/93       723    (S)   COSPONSOR:  TAYLOR                               
  03/11/93       755    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME                              
                              CSSB 46(FIN)                                     
  03/11/93       755    (S)   PASSED Y11 N8 E1                                 
  03/11/93       756    (S)   ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                  
  03/11/93       757    (S)   COSPONSOR WITHDRAWN:  LINCOLN                    
  03/12/93       784    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING                  
  03/12/93       785    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12                    
                              N7 E1                                            
  03/12/93       786    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/15/93       642    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/15/93       642    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                               
  03/15/93       658    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT                     
  04/16/93              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  04/17/93              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  04/19/93              (H)   RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  04/19/93              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  02/18/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  02/18/94              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/09/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  03/09/94              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  04/20/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-56, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Resources Committee was called to order by                         
  Chairman Bill Williams at 8:17 a.m.  Members present at the                  
  call to order were Representatives Williams, Bunde, Carney,                  
  Davies, and Mulder.  Members absent were Representatives                     
  Hudson, Finkelstein, Green, and James.                                       
  CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.                  
  He stated the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,                   
  Cordova, Fairbanks, Glennallen, Homer, Kodiak, Ketchikan,                    
  Mat-Su, Petersburg, Seward, Sitka, Kenai/Soldotna, Tok,                      
  Valdez, Nenana, Haines, Port Protection, Fort Yukon, Tanana.                 
  SB 310 - State/Private/Muni Timber Operation/Sale                            
  GLEN JUDAY, FAIRBANKS, stated SB 310, as written, clearly                    
  violates some important principles of managing renewable                     
  resources for the long term public interest.  He is not                      
  opposed to managing the state's forest lands for the                         
  production of forest products.  He explained one of the                      
  principles violated in SB 310 is that the bill reflects more                 
  faith in the approaches of a command economy rather than a                   
  free market.  SB 310 is inviting a monopoly.  He felt it is                  
  not an acceptable principle to operate the program on.  He                   
  said the state can continue to operate an annual timber sale                 
  program or even increase it without tying up all options                     
  through long term, single party agreements.                                  
  MR. JUDAY said SB 310 incorporates a feature which has the                   
  effect of passing off the uncertainty of the future to the                   
  state, which he felt is unfair.  He thought that should be a                 
  risk borne by a private profit making party.  He stated                      
  amendments which would rectify these and other problems                      
  include a full and independent accounting of the costs,                      
  liabilities, and an honest statement of the benefits.                        
  Second, a provision is needed which will remove the                          
  incentive to renegotiate the contract as situations unfold                   
  in the future.  Finally, referring to Section 3(b) of the                    
  bill which says forest management agreements (FMAs) shall be                 
  solicited each year, he felt there is no need to continue to                 
  add infinite items soliciting FMAs.                                          
  Number 066                                                                   
  JAN DAWE, FAIRBANKS, stated she is a participant in the                      
  Alaska Boreal Forest Council (ABFC) and believes strongly in                 
  the public process.  She stressed it is essential the public                 
  process be maintained.  The legislature did well last year                   
  by providing funds for an inventory update in the Tanana                     
  Valley State Forest, which will be completed this year.  She                 
  said the area regional management plan is currently being                    
  revised.  She stated SB 310 will significantly alter the                     
  landscape both on the ground and the management practices                    
  conceived thus far and will also significantly weaken the                    
  process, which ABFC is against.  She noted because FMAs will                 
  be put on a separate track from the timber sales on the                      
  current five year schedule, ABFC is concerned about the                      
  removal of both agency and public oversight.                                 
  MS. DAWE pointed out that any forested lands let for                         
  timbering have to be over the 500,000 board foot limit and                   
  need to go though two editions of the harvest timber                         
  schedule.  SB 310 will allow a significant proportion of the                 
  cut to go unexamined until contracts are being let for the                   
  FMA.  ABFC feels it is not good to give the commissioner of                  
  the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), who will be                       
  negotiating and soliciting FMAs on an annual basis, so much                  
  decision making power.  She noted one of the proposed                        
  amendments, which looks good, is that FMAs will need to be                   
  coordinated across land ownership lines, including private                   
  lands.  She said if FMAs are to be negotiated across land                    
  ownership lines, ABFC implores the committee to insist that                  
  the agencies redo their fiscal notes because of the need for                 
  oversight on private land through the Forest Practices Act                   
  MS. DAWE stated ABFC's positive vision is something other                    
  than the FMA model, which has not been successful in Canada                  
  or in Southeast Alaska.  ABFC proposes community based                       
  forestry instead, with consensus building boards and local                   
  loggers being encouraged.                                                    
  Number 105                                                                   
  COLIN REED, FAIRBANKS, said he is both interested and                        
  concerned about the diversity of the economy in Alaska.  The                 
  state's primary resource base, oil, is finite and drying up.                 
  He felt if the state's forests are managed improperly, the                   
  same thing will happen to them.  He stated SB 310 does not                   
  properly define sustainability.  He pointed out the entire                   
  forest can be cut down and harvested again in 125 years, so                  
  by some people's definition of sustainability, that may be                   
  adequate.  However, his definition of sustainability                         
  requires an even flow of jobs in perpetuity for Alaskans.                    
  He felt the definition of sustainability in SB 310 needs to                  
  be looked at closely.                                                        
  MR. REED stated SB 310 proposes competition in a market                      
  which is already dominated by existing pulp and                              
  (indiscernible) board producers around the world, many of                    
  which are losing money with their existing infrastructures.                  
  He felt SB 310 proposes to do the same in Alaska--build new                  
  infrastructure and expect to compete, even though the                        
  state's transportation costs are somewhat higher.  He                        
  pointed out that the forests in Southeast Asia and South                     
  America are being extracted at a loss, mainly to pay the                     
  debt to the International Monetary Fund and other world                      
  organizations.  He did not think Alaska could compete in                     
  those markets very healthfully and may be forced to give                     
  away resources as a consequence.                                             
  MR. REED said Japan is probably willing to buy the state's                   
  logs at good prices on the short term, although they will                    
  not allow the state to do value-added in the state, as they                  
  prefer to do that in their own country.  He stated if                        
  experiences in other countries are any example, Japan will                   
  try to renegotiate the state's contracts 10-15 years down                    
  the road, once the state has already generated a dependency.                 
  He wondered what the real numbers on SB 310 are.  There has                  
  not been any cost analysis done on the state forests.  He                    
  asked how many jobs will be created on the long term.  He                    
  felt such a study is needed before such sweeping legislation                 
  is passed.                                                                   
  Number 144                                                                   
  his job is to find responsible jobs and economic activity                    
  for the people of the state, especially in light of the                      
  realities of the future and the jobs being lost both in oil                  
  and the fishing industry.  DCED views SB 310 as one tool to                  
  help counter the loss of jobs in the state-a tool which can                  
  be used correctly, or as many people think, used                             
  incorrectly.  He said there is risk in any law or regulation                 
  passed.  DCED feels SB 310 is an important tool for the                      
  state to use in creating jobs and economic activity with the                 
  state's forest industry.                                                     
  MR. GATES stated SB 310 will allow better management of the                  
  state forests by having hundreds of people with a vested                     
  interest seeing those forests produce money for their                        
  companies and giving those companies a vested interest in                    
  managing their assets correctly.  DCED believes SB 310                       
  provides a better opportunity for encouraging outside                        
  investment in the state.  He said as mentioned earlier,                      
  there is currently a great incentive to export all of the                    
  logs and do the value-added elsewhere.  DCED can use SB 310                  
  to help encourage building those type of plants and making                   
  those things happen in Alaska.                                               
  MR. GATES said SB 310 provides an opportunity to better                      
  manage the state's beetle infested forests, especially along                 
  the river systems where there is very little chance of                       
  seeing value-added industry so far away from population                      
  centers.  He stressed if the state has FMAs, encouraging                     
  investment in the Interior, those logs will possibly have a                  
  market.  He pointed out there is a better chance with SB 310                 
  to have targeted management.                                                 
  Number 179                                                                   
  ENVIRONMENT, testified via teleconference and expressed                      
  opposition to SB 310.  She said through institutionalizing                   
  FMAs or negotiated long term contracts, public oversight on                  
  large tracts of state forest land is reduced.  FMAs favor a                  
  large scale timber industry, dominated by a single company                   
  over a (indiscernible) timber industry which is shared by                    
  numerous smaller companies.  SB 310 does not reflect the                     
  changing conditions present in Alaska today.  It makes the                   
  Alaska economy more vulnerable to the boom and bust cycle.                   
  FMAs reduce the public's ability to participate in                           
  management oversight.  Once FMAs are final, Alaskans lose                    
  control and oversight of large tracts of public land for 20                  
  years or longer.                                                             
  MS. GREGORY stated SB 310 disregards many other uses of                      
  forest land.  She felt turning over management of public                     
  lands to private hands does not show good faith towards all                  
  of Alaska.  Long term contracts (indiscernible) Alaska's                     
  timber industry (indiscernible) timber development for                       
  twenty years or longer.  While these contracts may attract                   
  companies to establish mills in the state, she asked if that                 
  is really best for Alaska.  She said the state has always                    
  relied on a single major industry--from the early days when                  
  salmon harvest was a single enterprise, to the present                       
  situation of relying on oil.  She noted that Alaskans have                   
  worked hard recently to create a range of diversified                        
  industries which expand the state's economic base.  She                      
  wondered why, at this point, are some individuals                            
  encouraging the state's timber industry to move backwards,                   
  away from that diversification into a single private market.                 
  MS. GREGORY said long term contracts present adaptation to a                 
  changing market (indiscernible) special conditions.  She                     
  stated it is difficult for large mills to adapt.  The state                  
  has never seen a long term contract which has been                           
  successful for the entire term of the contract and leaves                    
  people in a boom and bust situation.  (Indiscernible)                        
  provides for three to five year timber sales and allows                      
  existing and future small businesses to build a diverse,                     
  stable product industry.  Management of public resources                     
  remains in the public hands (indiscernible) oversight.  She                  
  urged committee members to not pass SB 310 out of committee                  
  as it is currently written.                                                  
  Number 219                                                                   
  JUDY HARGIS, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                     
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  She stressed the public has                 
  been against FMAs since 1987 and the heart of SB 310 is an                   
  attempt to force FMAs down people's throats.  She said all                   
  of the fancy clarifications making the bill sound like it is                 
  not a FMA are a sham.  She is glad SB 310 has been referred                  
  to the House Finance Committee.  She hoped that committee                    
  will recognize the weaknesses and inadequacies of the bill.                  
  She expressed concern that the bill contains no requirement                  
  for the bonding of loggers.  She stressed if SB 310 passes,                  
  the state will ultimately spend a large amount of money to                   
  clean up the mess left behind.                                               
  (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES                 
  HUDSON, FINKELSTEIN, GREEN, JAMES, AND MULDER had joined the                 
  committee.  He noted that REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was also in                   
  the audience.)                                                               
  Number 243                                                                   
  DANE WAGNER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                     
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He expressed displeasure                    
  with the meeting schedule and hearing process.  He wondered                  
  why there is such a need to quickly pass SB 310, which he                    
  feels is a poorly thought idea.  He also wondered what                       
  reforestation is taking place in previously large scale                      
  clearcuts in the state.  He asked why committee members are                  
  so eager to destroy the forest, which many people make their                 
  living from, including almost every viable business in the                   
  MR. WAGNER asked committee members to prove to the Alaskan                   
  people that timber harvesting is more lucrative than                         
  existing tourism-based industries; prove to the Alaskan                      
  people that a single tree is worth more cut down and shipped                 
  out of state than it is left standing; prove to the Alaskan                  
  people that there are still renewable forests in the lower                   
  48 and that the timber industry has a good track record;                     
  prove to the hard working Alaskans that they will be better                  
  off with large scale timber harvests than they are now;                      
  explain to the Alaskan people why the timber companies want                  
  to come to Alaska and set up cutting for their own                           
  masterpieces.  He hoped the committee members would hold SB
  310 until more public hearings  can be held in Anchorage,                    
  Fairbanks, and many other potentially impacted communities.                  
  Number 271                                                                   
  ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                     
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He said the bill has many                   
  shortcomings.  DNR is unable to handle the load of their                     
  existing oversight responsibilities for current timber sales                 
  volume, let alone properly monitor a large scale program,                    
  which SB 310 will implement.  He stated SB 310 opens the                     
  door for a major financial drain to the state, judging from                  
  past performances on the majority of large scale projects.                   
  It is also felt the public process is put after the fact,                    
  when contracts have already been negotiated.  He noted                       
  another factor leaving the state wide open to financial                      
  boondoggle is the lack of bonding required.  He felt SB 310                  
  is full of inequities to the public and public lands.  The                   
  association urges the committee to kill the bill.                            
  MEREDITH MARSHALL, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference                   
  and expressed support of SB 310.  She said utilizing                         
  Alaska's state forests to create industry and provide jobs                   
  is a positive step for the state.  She stressed the concept                  
  of FMAs, as a way of supplying industry and ensuring                         
  environmental compliance from an operator who has a vested                   
  interest in the land management process, is an idea which is                 
  overdue.  Long term contracts allow a producer to amortize a                 
  large investment in a reasonable period of time and is a                     
  benefit to the communities that will see increased                           
  employment.  She stated streamlining the state timber                        
  management process will not put other resources at risk and                  
  will finally get a viable timber sale program on state                       
  MS. MARSHALL also read a statement from Kathy Miller:  " I                   
  am part owner of Miller, Inc. in Ketchikan.  I am here today                 
  in support of SB 310 and the managed use of our forest                       
  resources.  The forest products industry provides sound                      
  economic development and guarantees year-round jobs in the                   
  state of Alaska.  We have provided for a family here, sent                   
  our children to school, and we plan to be here for the rest                  
  of our lives.  However, federal decisions about the                          
  management of our lands could jeopardize all of that.  This                  
  is why we must take steps to manage our state lands.  Timber                 
  dependent communities rely on a stable, predictable supply                   
  of timber at market prices.  FMAs make this possible,                        
  attract the investment necessary, and support our                            
  communities.  We harvest at sustainable rates and have a                     
  healthy forest in Southeast Alaska.  The Interior and                        
  Southcentral regions of our state promise further economic                   
  and social development on a sustainable basis.  SB 310                       
  provides for public comment, and FPA provisions.  It is a                    
  healthy bill, good for the environment, and good for the                     
  Number 329                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and expressed support for SB
  310 which will allow FMAs for state lands.  She represents                   
  and supports timber dependent communities and the forest                     
  products industry in their efforts to effectively manage and                 
  sustain the state's vast timber resources for the economic                   
  and social benefit of its residents.  Timber is a commodity                  
  and is a renewable, reusable, recyclable material with no                    
  fabricated alternative to match its quality, value, and                      
  sustainability.  Processing wood products requires less                      
  energy than any of its substitute products such as steel,                    
  concrete, plastic, etc., and using wood products does not                    
  jeopardize the earth's finite supply of nonrenewable                         
  MS. MESKE felt opening forest lands in the Interior and                      
  Southcentral Alaska will provide jobs and economic growth.                   
  She said that concept is threatened in Southeast Alaska due                  
  to the recent Clinton Administration decision to cancel                      
  Alaska Pulp Corporation's contract.  She stressed the state                  
  must manage its lands with its residents and sound economic                  
  growth in mind, since the federal government has proven it                   
  can but will not do it.  FMAs are an important tool for                      
  managing state lands.  SB 310 is good for Alaska's economic                  
  well being.  She urged committee members to pass SB 310 for                  
  the good of the people who want to make a year-round living                  
  in the state.                                                                
  Number 353                                                                   
  MICHAEL MESKE, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and                   
  stated he makes his living in the timber industry.  He                       
  stressed the timber industry is proud of its stewardship                     
  with Alaska's timber resources.  He said the Tongass                         
  National Forest is the only forest in the nation to require                  
  buffer zones on spawning streams.  He pointed out there are                  
  no endangered species in Alaska.  He noted only 10 percent                   
  of the national forest will ever be harvested and that is on                 
  a 100 year rotation.                                                         
  MR. MESKE said people's lives are still jeopardized by the                   
  federal policy makers who have never seen this land.  He                     
  stressed it is important that does not happen in the                         
  Interior and the Southcentral regions of the state, where                    
  there is tremendous potential to expand the state's forest                   
  products industry and continue the stewardship on timbered                   
  land.  He stated there is a focus on sustainable timber                      
  harvests wherever they may be.  The state will still retain                  
  control of the land and the management practices therein.                    
  The FPA will provide protection for fish, wildlife, and                      
  public resources in the Tanana Valley, as it has on the                      
  Tongass.  SB 310 is a practical means to encourage the                       
  development of Alaska's Interior forests, is healthy for the                 
  environment, and for the economy.  He supports SB 310 and                    
  urged the committee to do the same.                                          
  Number 386                                                                   
  JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, POINT BAKER, testified via teleconference                  
  and asked if anyone has studied the state of Washington's                    
  timber sale program.  He wondered if anyone has compared SB
  310 to something which is real, working and has been working                 
  for the past 50 years.  He said although he is not aware of                  
  the complexities of Washington's program, he does know the                   
  state manages a lot of land.  He felt their contracts would                  
  be worth reviewing, instead of blindly running forward and                   
  committing (indiscernible).                                                  
  MR. SEBASTIAN stated there is no teeth in SB 310.  He felt                   
  it will be difficult to enact a FMA because there will be a                  
  line for variances.  He said in British Columbia, the                        
  Mitsubishi Corporation is in the chopstick business.  He                     
  stressed incredible wastes of the forest are occurring                       
  there, since there are so many (indiscernible) trees.  These                 
  trees are left to rot because they are worthless and there                   
  is no other use for the material.  He urged the committee to                 
  take another year and fine tooth comb SB 310.                                
  Number 427                                                                   
  SYD WRIGHT, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and                     
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He felt the FPA supplies                    
  adequate management of the state forests.  He said SB 310                    
  puts emphasis on timber production which will create                         
  temporary jobs, while jeopardizing other permanent jobs.  He                 
  pointed out that state land is usually close to communities                  
  and many of those communities are becoming more and more                     
  dependent on an increase in tourism.  He stated tourists are                 
  very sensitive to what is happening to the forests and most                  
  of those tourists tend to see both the state and federal                     
  forests.  Tourists are not pleased with clearcutting.                        
  MR. WRIGHT stated SB 310 encourages loggers, who have run                    
  out of trees elsewhere, to come to Alaska to log until these                 
  trees are gone and then be out of work here.  Since the                      
  national forest has been clear cut at a great rate for 30                    
  years, the United States public realizes the rate is too                     
  fast.  He asked why state residents should be any less                       
  sensitive with their trees.                                                  
  Number 456                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and stated his group has a long                 
  record of concern for state forest resources.   SCS opposes                  
  SB 310.  He said based on experiences in Sitka, SCS is                       
  especially against long term contracts.  Such contracts make                 
  it impossible to adjust to changes in timber supply and to                   
  new knowledge relative to the effect of logging on other                     
  resources.  He said the experience of the state with long                    
  term contracts attempted in Haines should give everyone                      
  MR. ELLIS said SCS feels the emphasis on logging will result                 
  in the losses of subsistence resources--resources which are                  
  available to everyone, every year, at no cost to the state                   
  budget.  SB 310 should, if passed, ensure that the logging                   
  companies finance DNR and the Alaska Department of Fish and                  
  Game (ADF&G) habitat staff sufficiently, so they can define                  
  the need for protection before logging, and monitor logging                  
  operations to ensure protection of all of the forest                         
  resources.  He stated the emphasis in SB 310 seems to be on                  
  economics.  There is little recognition of all of the forest                 
  resources including timber, which constitutes a form of                      
  permanent fund.  He pointed out that all of the state's                      
  forest resources are paying dividends through subsistence                    
  users every year, with no cost to the state budget.                          
  MR. ELLIS stated the FPA has many good things in it but                      
  these good things (indiscernible) by DNR and by legislation                  
  which inadequately funds the habitat section of ADF&G.                       
  Number 508                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and stated AWRTA is opposed to                  
  SB 310.  She said SB 310 violates the principles of a free                   
  market, the ongoing review of the impact on resources and                    
  the opportunity for public participation in such a process.                  
  She expressed support of a community-based timber industry.                  
  She stressed SB 310 denies multiple use of the state                         
  forests.  She pointed out that tourism relies almost solely                  
  on intact wilderness and wildlife, which is and will                         
  continue to be a very vital part of Alaska's economy.                        
  ELEANOR HUFFINES, PALMER, testified via teleconference and                   
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  She said SB 310 will not                    
  solve the economic problems of the state.  Once a FMA                        
  contract is issued, timber harvesting becomes the                            
  controlling land use.  She stressed other forest values such                 
  as management of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation,                      
  tourism, and other forest dependent businesses, all become                   
  secondary to timber development.  She stated getting the cut                 
  out for a mill has priority but without value-added to                       
  timber in Alaska, unprocessed timber exported from Alaska                    
  means Alaskan jobs are lost.  She urged committee members to                 
  not pass SB 310 out of committee.                                            
  Number 550                                                                   
  CHARLES BOOTH, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and read                 
  a petition.  It said:  "We, the undersigned want the                         
  following conditions implemented in whole to SB 310 to                       
  include: 1) All state log sales or leases are to be utilized                 
  in domestic industry or consumption; 2) at no time shall                     
  state timber be shipped overseas in the round; 3) that all                   
  state logs for overseas use will be:  a) those logs that are                 
  lumber grade must be made into finished lumber in the state                  
  of Alaska; and b) logs of lower grade must be chipped or                     
  processed in the state of Alaska.  He state approximately 75                 
  people had signed the petition.                                              
  Number 570                                                                   
  MARK LUTTRELL, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and                      
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He said he opposes SB 310                   
  for three reasons.  SB 310 provides too much power to the                    
  DNR commissioner, eliminates meaningful public                               
  participation, and requires no bonding for logging                           
  companies.  He noted in SB 310, Section 5 says, "The primary                 
  purpose in the establishment of state forests is the                         
  development of commercial forest land..."  He stressed that                  
  denies multiple use, which he very much favors.                              
  Number 587                                                                   
  AL SCHAFER, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and                         
  expressed support for SB 310.  He said there is a major                      
  sawmill in Seward which has no timber.  He felt anything                     
  which gets timber moving is good.  He thought it is                          
  important to keep the timber industry in the state, because                  
  once it dies, it will be difficult to reinstate it.  He                      
  stated the environmental movement has put too much study and                 
  not enough faith into people who are foresters and are                       
  trying to manage timber.  He pointed out that the Seward                     
  mill currently has less than a week's supply of wood and not                 
  a sale in sight.  He stressed anything which can be done to                  
  expedite sales will be appreciated in Seward.                                
  JOSEPH YOUNG, TOK, testified via teleconference and said the                 
  state of Alaska contains 365 million acres of land, with 215                 
  million acres or 60 percent under federal ownership.  He                     
  stated most of this land is dedicated to parks, habitat, and                 
  recreation for eco-tourism and other noncommodity uses.  He                  
  pointed out there are 46 million acres of Native land in                     
  Alaska.  There is 104 million acres of state land which is                   
  supposedly dedicated to the use of all citizens of the                       
  state, as directed by the state Constitution.  He said most                  
  of this land is being used for habitat and recreation uses.                  
  MR. YOUNG said most of the state has been locked up and is                   
  being used as one big national park.  He felt the                            
  preservationists, the vocal minority who the committee is                    
  hearing, wants to lock more land up.  He did not feel that                   
  was in the best interest of all citizens of the state.  He                   
  played an audio tape and told committee members the words                    
  they were about to hear fit the present situation in Alaska.                 
  Number 663                                                                   
  RESOURCE INSTITUTE, testified via teleconference and stated                  
  more work needs to be done on SB 310.  His fear is that the                  
  state is going to feed the export market again.  He pointed                  
  out it has not been very many years since the export market,                 
  according to the legislative audit report in 1991, killed                    
  two sawmills--one on each end of the Kenai Peninsula.  He                    
  said the 1991 legislative budget and audit committee report                  
  stated, "The state of Washington offers short term sales and                 
  most of their contracts are for two years.  A consultant                     
  hired by the Department of Law recommended that the state                    
  consider limiting sales to less than three years.  By                        
  offering timber sales for shorter periods, the state will                    
  avoid the problems that arise with the (indiscernible)                       
  stumpage price.  The state has not had success on either                     
  renegotiating the price or on using an index to adjust the                   
  price.  A short term sale eliminates the need for                            
  (indiscernible) price adjustment."                                           
  KATHERINE SMITH, HOMER, testified via teleconference and                     
  stated 20 year contracts are not FMAs, but rather long term                  
  timber sales.  FMA is a misleading misnomer.  The purchaser                  
  of a FMA will not manage the forest but will harvest the                     
  timber in the most cost effective way.  Logging companies                    
  who do not own the land they are cutting have no vested                      
  interest in its continued productivity whatsoever, and                       
  certainly not in fish, wildlife, recreation, scenic                          
  watershed, plants or ecological value.  The burden of                        
  monitoring a harvest and forcing the reforestation standards                 
  will be borne by the state.  She said in regard to                           
  reforestation, forest research and monitoring of the FPA are                 
  in danger of being cut from the capital budget.  She                         
  wondered how the committee can justify SB 310 and the direct                 
  administrative costs of DNR and ADF&G.  She wondered what                    
  the indirect costs will be for fishing, tourism, and                         
  recreation.  The cost to Alaskans of large yield, long term                  
  logging cannot be justified by any amount of...                              
  TAPE 94-56, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MS. SMITH stressed the people in the state have repeatedly                   
  (indiscernible) subsidizing the timber industry with state                   
  resources.  She said the state's lands should not be handed                  
  over for 20-40 years and be locked in today's low returns on                 
  timber.  Most of these (indiscernible).  She felt the state                  
  should not (indiscernible) long term timber sales, which                     
  severely limit its management option.  The state is now just                 
  learning that timber stands are critical for salmon, deer,                   
  bear, eagle, mink, otter and other wildlife.  She stated it                  
  will be very difficult to back out of FMAs if public                         
  resources are threatened such as the salmon stocks in the                    
  Pacific Northwest and the big game populations in parts of                   
  Southeast Alaska.  She stressed existing forest resources                    
  must be protected.  The state cannot afford subsidized                       
  logging through FMAs.  She urged the committee to conserve                   
  the state's natural and financial resources and not lock                     
  them into FMA's, which are too costly.                                       
  Number 012                                                                   
  DOUG BOWERS, NENANA, testified via teleconference and stated                 
  his family's entire existence is provided by the Tanana                      
  River and the surrounding country.  He said the chum runs in                 
  the Yukon/Tanana River drainage have been declining in the                   
  past years.  The fishermen in the rivers, particularly the                   
  Tanana, have given up significant fishing time in an effort                  
  to rebuild those stocks.  The damage to fish runs in                         
  Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Southcoastal Alaska                 
  is well documented.  He pointed out there has been much                      
  published about the effects of clearcutting on salmon                        
  streams and other areas but nothing on the rivers of the                     
  Interior of Alaska.                                                          
  Number 020                                                                   
  MR. BOWERS stated the Tanana and the upper Yukon river                       
  systems are the spawning grounds for salmon stocks for all                   
  of western Alaska.  Some stocks are close to being placed on                 
  the endangered species list.  He asked if the state can                      
  afford any damage to the spawning and rearing habitat of                     
  these stocks which are already in trouble.  He pointed out                   
  that the entire Tanana Valley is in a flood plain, unlike                    
  the mountains of Southeast.  The stands of forest shade the                  
  winter snow pack and allow for controlled run off in the                     
  spring, as well as absorb the cushion for heavy rainfall in                  
  the summer.  He wondered what will become of the homes and                   
  fish runs as they are washed down the river by uncontrolled                  
  run off.  He gave an example of the effect of clearcutting,                  
  as related to flooding, in the state of Washington.                          
  MR. BOWERS said 90 percent of the food chain in the river                    
  system occurs within a couple of hundred feet of the river.                  
  He stated the head forester from the Tanana Chiefs                           
  Conference has said that buffer strips mean nothing along                    
  the river corridors because the river will take it anyway.                   
  They have tried to leave buffer strips but they make no                      
  difference.  He wondered how long have the buffer strips                     
  been tried.  He asked what effect will buffer strips have                    
  ten years from now.  With all of the new roads and                           
  previously unaccessed lands, he wondered who will pay for                    
  ADF&G's protection in regard to the increased hiking and                     
  fishing pressure.  He wondered if the Department of                          
  Transportation will be asked to upgrade logging roads for                    
  year-round access.  He also wondered who will eventually pay                 
  for this subsidy to the timber industry.                                     
  Number 040                                                                   
  MR. BOWERS stated the Department of Conservation (DEC) will                  
  be required to monitor the water run off and other                           
  environmental concerns.  He wondered if the timber companies                 
  will be subsidized (indiscernible).  He said the Division of                 
  Habitat is going to be required to look at the effects of                    
  logging on habitat, which is something that cannot be                        
  summarized in one report, one time.  It will take years of                   
  monitoring to properly evaluate.  He noted the skilled                       
  loggers will come from other parts of the country.  Local                    
  residents are going to be competing for unskilled labor in                   
  chipboard plants and the self-esteem of the people who want                  
  to provide for themselves is going to be reduced                             
  dramatically, requiring increased social services which are                  
  already stretched to the limit.                                              
  Number 050                                                                   
  MR. BOWERS said Klukwan Native Corporation has less than one                 
  year's timber work remaining on its own lands.  He wondered                  
  if the state's local Native corporations want to compete                     
  with outsiders for jobs and resources.  The small loggers he                 
  has talked to oppose large clearcut logging practices,                       
  labeling them destructive and wasteful.  They question the                   
  quality of the material available in the Interior now.  They                 
  are all in favor of small selective sales which are easily                   
  managed and result in high grade logs.  They question why                    
  there is a need to clearcut in the first place because the                   
  Interior trees are left down to rot.  He felt FMAs are going                 
  to be the ultimate lock up.                                                  
  Number 064                                                                   
  GOVERNMENT, FORT YUKON, testified via teleconference and                     
  stated the increased hunting and fishing pressure, which                     
  will occur by opening up these areas for large scale timber                  
  harvesting, is going to put added pressure on people wanting                 
  to use these areas for subsistence.  She wondered if all of                  
  the costs involved have been considered.  She stressed there                 
  has been no cost analysis done in relation to people using                   
  the resources for subsistence.  In terms of jobs, there are                  
  no statistics as to how many jobs SB 310 will bring from                     
  outside of the state as opposed to inside of the state.                      
  There is also a question of what SB 310 will do to the small                 
  scale, value-added timber industry which already exists in                   
  the Tanana Valley.                                                           
  HAINES, testified via teleconference and stated SB 310                       
  (indiscernible) oversight to small timber sales, which are                   
  most sales in the Haines State Forest.  SB 310 weakens the                   
  flexibility by promoting long term contracts, which have                     
  proven to be unworkable and too costly in Haines and the                     
  Tongass.  SB 310 eliminates multiple use as a priority on                    
  state lands, in favor of single use extraction and does not                  
  emphasize cost/benefit analysis.  Further, SB 310 does not                   
  promote value-added such as fishing, tourism, recreation,                    
  and subsistence.                                                             
  MR. SHELDON stated Haines has seen a rather sad legacy in                    
  regard to FMAs and long term contracts.  He said presently                   
  the derelict remains of Haines's one large mill are being                    
  dismantled and sold for scrap.  He stressed the tragedy is                   
  amplified historically and prior to the long term contracts,                 
  which led to the establishment of the now defunct Pacific                    
  Forest Products mill.  Haines has seven small scale local                    
  mills, providing jobs and lumber for the residents of the                    
  upper Lynn Canal.  These businesses were self-sustaining and                 
  operated without subsidized timber access programs.  Upon                    
  the creation of a long term contract in the Haines State                     
  Forest between 1980-1985, the Division of Forestry spent                     
  over $1 million on forest and timber programs in Haines.                     
  Adding to that, the $5.6 million the state loaned to the                     
  forest operator, including interest and even with the                        
  payments to the state from the timber operators, a very                      
  bleak picture is drawn.  The state lost over $8 million in                   
  it's last FMA in Haines.                                                     
  MR. SHELDON said any and all contracts, long term or short                   
  term, should be subject to a cost/benefit analysis so the                    
  state does not squander more funds on subsidies to                           
  irresponsible timber operators.  He observed DNR has never                   
  paid attention to the valid concerns regarding habitat                       
  impacts to fisheries from large scale clearcuts.  He stated                  
  ADF&G has repeatedly raised concerns regarding impacts on                    
  local king salmon spawning habitat from logging bridges in                   
  the Kelsall River drainage with little or no response from                   
  DNR.  FMAs will clearly place burdens on ADF&G personnel,                    
  with no guarantee that habitat concerns will be adequately                   
  Number 131                                                                   
  VIVIAN MENAKER, HAINES, testified via teleconference and                     
  stated at the first teleconference on SB 310, she listened                   
  to testimony from Fairbanks and heard many people speak                      
  against SB 310 with whom she agrees, especially Celia Hunter                 
  and Ginny Wood.  She said SB 310 seems to be a single use                    
  approach to state forests.  When loggers get through cutting                 
  down the trees, no other activity can take place.  Tourists                  
  will not want it; fish streams become too cold in the winter                 
  and too hot in the summer; slash falls into the water                        
  clogging the flow and the fish die; moose have summer browse                 
  but will starve in the winter or die of exposure.  Other                     
  wildlife will equally be displaced.                                          
  MS. MENAKER stated Haines has another problem.  In 1979, the                 
  Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan was developed and                          
  emphasized the multiple use concept.  In 1984, the next five                 
  year plan was developed which also emphasized the multiple                   
  use concept.  She stressed in 1989, there should have been                   
  another five year plan but the Forest Service did not                        
  produce one.  Now a fourth five year plan should be prepared                 
  but the local forester has told her it is too expensive and                  
  says there is an annual plan done now.  She is not aware of                  
  any local input for the annual plan.  She pointed out that                   
  some people think there might be a shortage of timber but                    
  there is no way to know.                                                     
  MS. MENAKER said Haines had a long term timber sale for the                  
  Schnabel Timber Company but it cost the state about $6-8                     
  million in loans by the time it finally closed.  The state                   
  was able to sell the mill for about $1 million.  She                         
  stressed there is a need for a small mill for local lumber.                  
  When Haines had two large mills running two shifts a day in                  
  the 1960s, people there could not buy a local two-by-four.                   
  All finished lumber had to be purchased from Seattle.  She                   
  stated now when SB 310 comes along calling for large scale                   
  mills, long term contracts, no public review, it begins to                   
  look like a public resource giveaway.                                        
  MS. MENAKER felt if SB 310 passes, Haines will be in a                       
  crisis situation.  The first inventory of Haines Borough                     
  timber was done in 1965, which was written as a public                       
  report and all sales were based on it.  In 1985, after                       
  considerable public pressure, another forest inventory was                   
  done but there has never been a public report, so the public                 
  has no idea whether or not a sustainable yield has been                      
  maintained.  She said there have been nine years of delays                   
  and excuses as to why there has not yet been a report for                    
  the public.  She called the Inventory Forester in Anchorage                  
  in March and he thought the report might be out in April.                    
  She called again in April and he thought it would be ready                   
  in May or June.  She wondered if he will be allowed to                       
  finish the inventory or will he be given another assignment                  
  before the report is finished, which has happened                            
  previously.  In the meantime, the local forester says he can                 
  read the numbers and says not to worry, all is fine.  In                     
  view of all of the above, she opposes SB 310.                                
  Number 177                                                                   
  BILL FLIRIS, TANANA, testified via teleconference and stated                 
  he is a subsistence and commercial fisherman.  He expressed                  
  opposition to SB 310 because the public process is being                     
  avoided.  He felt there is inadequate information in Tanana                  
  regarding the possible results of the passage of SB 310.  He                 
  said the previous planning program for the Tanana Valley                     
  State Forest (indiscernible) revised, the advisory committee                 
  was consulted, there was a lot of education involved in                      
  setting up the plan and the idea which came out of the input                 
  was for multiple use.                                                        
  MR. FLIRIS expressed concern about fish habitat                              
  (indiscernible) for Tanana.  He noted there have been                        
  problems with the chum salmon runs on the Yukon and Tanana                   
  Rivers.  He felt there has not been enough study to go in                    
  and give out large scale contracts, without knowing what the                 
  total impact is going to be.  He thought there will be legal                 
  challenges if SB 310 passes.                                                 
  CHRISTINA SCHNEIDER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference                 
  and expressed displeasure with the hearings on SB 310.  She                  
  felt many voices will not be heard because of the short time                 
  allowed for testimony on SB 310.  She asked committee                        
  members to consider why, after decades of noninterest, the                   
  forests of remote Alaska are suddenly interesting and                        
  potentially profitable to the timber technocrats.  She said                  
  it is because the timber industry has destroyed the timber                   
  resource base everywhere else.  She also asked committee                     
  members to consider that people are spending millions of                     
  dollars every year to visit Alaska.  They come to the state                  
  because it has what they want and what they no longer have:                  
  intact wilderness, standing and never logged forests, and                    
  wild and healthy populations of endemic species.  She                        
  stressed if the state destroys what it has, people will take                 
  their dollars elsewhere.                                                     
  MS. SCHNEIDER stated the price of Alaska will only rise as                   
  everyone else continues to live beyond the capacity of their                 
  homelands.  She said people must not cave in to pressure to                  
  irrevocably develop and destroy the state forests.  Alaskans                 
  must preserve what they have and manage it locally,                          
  sustainably, and on a small scale for modest gain.  She told                 
  committee members they do not have the right to invite rude                  
  outside profiteers to her home as she does not want them.                    
  She stressed eventually the Tanana Valley and other intact                   
  forests of Alaska will be worth more than all the timber                     
  ever produced the world over.  She urged committee members                   
  to oppose SB 310 and allow community councils to draft                       
  consensus forestry management proposals for consideration                    
  next legislative session.                                                    
  Number 333                                                                   
  SEAN MCGUIRE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                    
  expressed displeasure with the hearing process on SB 310.                    
  He felt every citizen should not be heard.  He said since SB
  310 was introduced, it has received more and more opposition                 
  and continues to have massive opposition.  He stated there                   
  is very little support for SB 310.  He urged committee                       
  members to kill SB 310.                                                      
  ROBERT AMMICHT, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                  
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He urged committee members                  
  to vote no on SB 310.                                                        
  EVA SAULITIS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                    
  encouraged committee members to hear all of the public                       
  testimony from around the state.  She felt if everyone                       
  cannot be heard, another hearing should be scheduled.  She                   
  expressed opposition to SB 310 and believed that all                         
  interested parties should discuss how local loggers can be                   
  helped.  FMAs will not help local loggers.  She stressed the                 
  community should not be divided any further but rather                       
  develop a bill that everyone can agree on--one that                          
  encourages and supports local industries, not outside                        
  Number 305                                                                   
  SARAH JAMES, ARCTIC VILLAGE, testified via teleconference                    
  and expressed opposition to SB 310.  She is opposed to long                  
  term, large scale logging.  She stressed Alaska is still                     
  rich in natural resources.  Alaskans are (indiscernible) to                  
  the big companies.  She said subsistence is very important.                  
  Fishing is very important to all Alaskans.  She pointed out                  
  that clearcuts will destroy fish spawning.  She travels to                   
  the lower 48 and British Columbia and it is cut in pieces.                   
  (Indiscernible)...  She felt there should be more public                     
  input on SB 310.  She said what has happened to the chum in                  
  the Tanana affect her area.                                                  
  OAKLEY COCHRAN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                  
  stated she spoke against the earlier version of SB 310                       
  because it eliminated public involvement.  She said the bill                 
  was recently revised to be more inclusive of the public.                     
  Now she questions the sustainability of this enterprise in                   
  terms of people and their jobs and in terms of the forest.                   
  She stated clearcutting is systematic of a hyperactive                       
  culture like small children racing around in a sugar induced                 
  frenzy, when what is really needed is some hot milk and a                    
  long nap, so there is a capability of listening to the world                 
  around us.                                                                   
  MS. COCHRAN pointed out that clearcutting does not concern                   
  the future of the forest but rather is an economic benefit                   
  here today and gone tomorrow at the cost of landscape.                       
  Although sustainable forestry will not produce a huge                        
  instantaneous yield, it will provide people with long term                   
  jobs and will be better for Alaska economically and                          
  environmentally.  She asked committee members to consider                    
  the unsustainabilities of large scale, large industry                        
  controlled logging.  She felt the state forests should not                   
  be a part of the boom and bust economy.  She urged committee                 
  members to think long and hard about SB 310 and then                         
  consider the future.                                                         
  Number 373                                                                   
  DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, testified via teleconference and                    
  expressed support of SB 310.  He stated there has been a lot                 
  of misinformation regarding SB 310 and its implications.  He                 
  said there are perceptions that a mega-project is being                      
  contemplated and there is a plan to decimate the Tanana                      
  hillside trees, which is not true.  He said there still is a                 
  requirement for sustained yield, which means trees can be                    
  cut over a long period of time, yet also sustain them.  He                   
  said there is also an inference that the state is going to                   
  subsidize any project.  He pointed out SB 310 requires the                   
  commissioner to have provisions in the contract which                        
  address such issues as oversight by an agency.  The intent                   
  of the bill is those costs will be borne by the operator.                    
  He stressed the goal is for any FMA to yield a net return to                 
  the state.  Mr. Ricketts stated there is also an inference                   
  that the small operators will be shut out.  He said the                      
  small operators he has talked to support SB 310.  He urged                   
  committee members to pass SB 310.                                            
  BETTY ROLLINS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                   
  stated the Fairbanks Daily News Miner opposed SB 310.  She                   
  asked where in SB 310 are Alaska jobs guaranteed.  She also                  
  asked where in the bill is the economic (indiscernible) in                   
  the affected communities.  She opposed SB 310.                               
  Number 429                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and expressed support for SB
  310.  He said KFP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Klukwan                    
  Incorporated, a Southeast Alaska Native Corporation, and                     
  holds the unique distinction of harvesting its own timber as                 
  well as purchasing timber from a wide variety of Alaska                      
  timber owners.  KFP has purchased timber from the federal                    
  government, the University of Alaska, other Native                           
  Corporations in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska, and it                    
  has even purchased a little timber from the state of Alaska,                 
  which heretofore has not been able to put up very much                       
  timber for sale.                                                             
  MR. WOLFE stressed SB 310 offers an alternative to the                       
  existing way the state sells timber, which really has not                    
  been very successful, so that long term benefits can be                      
  attained.  He said this is particularly true for the boreal                  
  forests of the Interior and Southcentral, where the lack of                  
  infrastructure frustrates forest resource development.  The                  
  main benefit of SB 310 is a reliable timber supply for                       
  industry to make capital investments, and if this is allowed                 
  to occur, Alaska's forest industry will be allowed to expand                 
  and improve.  He pointed out that a reliable supply of raw                   
  materials is an absolute necessity for industry to obtain                    
  financing to build manufacturing facilities and necessary                    
  infrastructure, or invest capital corporate assets into such                 
  a venture.                                                                   
  MR. WOLFE asked committee members to amend the Alaska Forest                 
  Resources and Practices Act by removing a confusing                          
  reference to sustained yield with respect to reforestation                   
  in section 41.17.060(b)(4).  He noted that legal services                    
  has prepared language which will accomplish his request in                   
  amendment X10.  He stressed this is something which should                   
  have been done when the FPA was amended several years ago.                   
  In considering the reforestation regulations in Section 5 of                 
  AAC 11, this change will be more housekeeping than                           
  Number 476                                                                   
  LILLER COTTER, NENANA, expressed her strong opposition to SB
  310.  She said for the past eighteen years, she has made her                 
  livelihood on or near the Tanana and Kantishna Rivers                        
  fishing, trapping, selective logging and dog racing.  She                    
  stated this has been a chosen lifestyle and one which has                    
  financially supported her husband and her totally.  She is                   
  pro-responsible resource development and feels SB 310 is                     
  irresponsible.  She has witnessed the devastating results of                 
  clearcutting through personal witness, as well as through                    
  research.  She felt everyone must learn from the mistakes of                 
  those who have made the sad choice and have lived to regret                  
  MS. COTTER stated clearcutting will greatly increase the                     
  threat of flooding and will also destroy the trail system by                 
  wiping out the natural wind buffer that trees provide.  She                  
  felt clearcutting will lead to progressive clearcutting as a                 
  result of blowdown and from the blowdown will come the                       
  beetles.  She said the promise of a lot of jobs is a                         
  fallacy.  The truth is many people will lose their jobs.                     
  She remarked when it is so difficult for someone to get a                    
  permit for house logs and now there is a desire to mow the                   
  forest all down, it does not make sense.  She noted there                    
  has been so much opposition to SB 310 and so much                            
  devastation as a result of other people's choice to                          
  clearcut.  She stressed she does not want to lose her                        
  livelihood.  She is sending up a red flag.  There are people                 
  who live out there who work and support themselves and are                   
  not a burden to the state.  The priority should be multiple                  
  use.  She urged committee members to not pass SB 310                         
  Number 512                                                                   
  GAYLE STEVENS, NENANA, expressed opposition to SB 310.  She                  
  said her family participates in many activities within the                   
  forest including hunting, trapping, fishing, snow machining                  
  and dog mushing.  She has seen the damage which is done by                   
  clearcut logging.  She felt the damage from clearcutting can                 
  be widespread.  The potential damage to spawning streams is                  
  not something to be gambled with, considering the declining                  
  salmon runs.  With the small scale logging which is taking                   
  place in her area the last few years, she has seen the                       
  damage and waste.  The amount of cut trees which are left in                 
  huge piles is unbelievable.  She stated there have not been                  
  any local jobs or local hire except for one truck which was                  
  MS. STEVENS said the interior forest does not grow fast                      
  enough to support this type of logging.  The already                         
  threatened subsistence lifestyle will suffer.  Flooding and                  
  erosion is a danger.  She said as people now travel on the                   
  dog trails, the decline in wildlife is already apparent.                     
  They never know whether or not they will run into a three                    
  foot snow berm right across a traditional trail or if there                  
  will be a logging truck bearing down on them around a                        
  corner.  She felt multiple use will be eliminated.                           
  (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE                  
  SITTON had joined the committee.)                                            
  Number 541                                                                   
  DUANE ANDERSON, SOLDOTNA, testified via teleconference and                   
  stated Senator Frank is famous for his "I don't knows" and                   
  Mr. Boutin is famous for the fact he has a cut deal with                     
  someone to put in a particle board plant.  He said the                       
  Seward mill (indiscernible) has ten days of wood                             
  (indiscernible) and the same situation is occurring in                       
  Soldotna--none of the wood has been hauled out and there is                  
  a (indiscernible) sitting at the state university sale.  The                 
  need for log product for that mill is entirely restricted.                   
  He conducted research just prior to the meeting to give                      
  committee members an idea of what value they will be giving                  
  away versus what might be received from the forest if they                   
  are determined to have a large scale or some value-added                     
  facility.  He stressed there is no other world source for                    
  birch and hence, the forest in Alaska is a gold mine.  He                    
  outlined current prices.                                                     
  Number 560                                                                   
  ASSOCIATION (AWRTA), FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference                 
  and urged committee members to hold another meeting on SB
  310 to allow everyone to testify.  He said Alaska's prime                    
  forest lands should rightfully sustain a small scale timber                  
  industry.  However, SB 310 will manage the prime forest                      
  lands for the exclusive use of large scale, corporate                        
  clearcutting interests.  He stressed these lands must also                   
  be managed to sustain the tourism and recreation industries.                 
  SB 310 fails to recognize that wholesale clearcutting of the                 
  state's publicly owned forests will unravel the fabric which                 
  binds the people to Alaska and brings tourists and vacation                  
  dollars to the state.                                                        
  MR. DAVIS told committee members to think of their                           
  constituents.  He asked how many of their constituents chose                 
  to live in Alaska because it offers something in addition to                 
  economic opportunity.  He asked how many of those                            
  constituents are in Alaska because of things which depend on                 
  healthy forest ecosystems, like salmon runs and pristine                     
  waters or perhaps abundant wildlife that is only a hike,                     
  float plane ride or boat ride away from the road.  He said                   
  most people are unwilling to sacrifice something as close to                 
  their hearts as the attractions which first brought them to                  
  Alaska and which still bond them to their homeland.  He                      
  stated most people are aware of the damage caused by                         
  unsustainable logging.  He urged committee members to look                   
  at the clearcut near Yakutat, as it is shocking.                             
  MR. DAVIS stated FMAs proposed under SB 310 are the missing                  
  link which will bring the same type of forestry to the                       
  Tanana Valley.   He said if the five year plan for the                       
  Tanana Valley State Forest is reviewed and the harvest rates                 
  to the timber available is compared, one will see that the                   
  economically viable forest lands will be depleted in 22-55                   
  years, depending on the definition of sustainable forest                     
  Number 680                                                                   
  NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, AWRTA, VALDEZ, testified via                       
  teleconference and stated AWRTA opposes SB 310.  She said                    
  she was a member of the Governor's committee which revised                   
  the state FPA.  She noted that revision was done with                        
  representatives from state agencies, the forest products                     
  industry, environmental groups, the fishing industry, and                    
  other interests.  She stressed it was a difficult process to                 
  reach consensus.  Many gave up things they really wanted                     
  such as scenic values recognized and logging done in a way                   
  that minimized the impact on tourism.  She pointed out none                  
  of that was included in the revision but what was received                   
  was limited buffer strips along streams which protect the                    
  salmon habitat for sport fishermen.                                          
  MS. LETHCOE said SB 310 will change what was a consensus                     
  agreement and institute FMAs.  She urged committee members                   
  to table SB 310, put together a new consensus group and                      
  attempt to work out the issues.  She pointed out that the                    
  tourism industry is very like the timber industry.  The                      
  tourism industry needs a reliable, long term access to the                   
  forest in order to obtain financing and make corporate                       
  investments in their companies.  If the tourism industry                     
  does not have that access, it weakens the tourism industry                   
  and makes it difficult for people to enter into the tourism                  
  industry.  She stressed that the tourism industry is a long                  
  term employer in the state, unlike the timber industry,                      
  which clearcuts and then moves on to another area.                           
  TAPE 94-57, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MS. LETHCOE (cont.)...in order to further develop the                        
  economic stability of the state through jobs in tourism.                     
  BRIAN JOHNSON, KODIAK, testified via teleconference and                      
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He stated small businesses                  
  employ the majority of people in the country and looks out                   
  for the needs of the workers.  He views SB 310 as a large                    
  corporate entity versus small business people.  He thought                   
  there should be short term contracts and a lot more emphasis                 
  put on value-added wood, instead of long term, large scale                   
  contracts which do not consider the environmental and                        
  community needs.  He felt present logging does not allow for                 
  a renewable resource.  He said good wood takes hundreds of                   
  years.  He pointed out when people can get a better price                    
  abroad and all of the logs get exported, rather than putting                 
  people in Alaska to work.  He urged committee members not to                 
  give the state's timber away to large corporations but                       
  rather keep it for the people and let them make decisions on                 
  a small scale.                                                               
  Number 031                                                                   
  ED OPHIEM, KODIAK, testified via teleconference and stated                   
  he has worked with wood since he was a child.  He said if he                 
  were to do any repairs to his boat, such as changing a                       
  plank, the cost would be $9 a board foot versus $3.50 a foot                 
  when he built the boat 21 years ago, although that wood is                   
  not available anymore.  He stated much of the spruce in                      
  Alaska works fine for boat lumber if one could only get it.                  
  He felt SB 310 does not do much for boat builders.  He urged                 
  committee members to keep timber and processing in the                       
  state, so people in the state can benefit from it.  He added                 
  that the fishing industry in the state is a mess and two 20-                 
  year timber leases will eliminate that industry completely.                  
  He said the state's oil is just about dried up and the state                 
  is going to be left with a bunch of stumps and holes in the                  
  RICK ERNST, TRAPPER CREEK, testified via teleconference and                  
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He said FMAs are not                        
  desirable because they tie up too much of the state's land,                  
  for too long to private interests.  Once a FMA is signed, no                 
  matter what the state and legislature say, the state loses                   
  control.  Big timber corporations and their money and                        
  lawyers will make it very difficult to change existing rules                 
  in changing economic circumstances.  He envisions more state                 
  money and energy being tied up in litigation and                             
  enforcement.  He felt SB 310 is an economic giveaway by the                  
  state to big timber companies.                                               
  MR. ERNST said FMAs make timber harvesting and wood                          
  extraction the primary use and value of state forest lands                   
  and puts other forest values such as recreation, habitat,                    
  subsistence fishing and hunting, and tourism in a secondary                  
  position when making best use assessments of an area.  He                    
  stated the first public input comes after bids for an area                   
  are received and the next public input comes after the                       
  contracts are let.  The commissioner can still change and                    
  negotiate after all is done and said.  Then everyone waits                   
  15 years for additional public input.  He felt public input                  
  in all cases seems to be only a rubber stamp for whatever                    
  DNR and the big timber companies want.                                       
  MR. ERNST said the exemption for small lease sales should be                 
  dropped.  He pointed out that 67 percent of the sales for                    
  the next five years are sales of less than 500,000 board                     
  feet and SB 310 exempts these sales.  He stated tourism is                   
  the state's second or third most viable economy in the                       
  state.  People do not come to Alaska to see logging trucks                   
  and cut forests.  He felt it is shortsighted to concentrate                  
  on extraction industries that disrupt the state's landscape                  
  and scenery at the expense of a long term, stable tourism                    
  economy--an economy with a proven record.                                    
  Number 087                                                                   
  NANCY HILLSTRAND, HOMER, testified via teleconference and                    
  wondered when committee members hear all of the voices                       
  speaking to them, that perhaps they might think there is a                   
  problem.  She said SB 310 does have deep problems, which the                 
  people of Alaska are telling the committee.  She asked                       
  committee members if they are listening to the people.  She                  
  felt SB 310 should be tabled this year.  She stated the FPA                  
  does not adequately protect fish or wildlife--wildlife is                    
  not even mentioned in the act.  The riparian areas run on                    
  either side of the stream systems all the way up to the                      
  tributaries and they are not protected adequately.                           
  MS. HILLSTRAND stated there are 66 foot buffers on either                    
  side of the stream systems and Konkor, down in Afognak, is                   
  asking to have variances allowing them to go close to 20                     
  feet from the river to take trees out.  She wondered if                      
  these variances are being allowed, why does the state even                   
  have buffer strips in the first place.  She stressed the                     
  state does not have adequate protection for its fisheries                    
  and wildlife, which bring money into the state.  She said                    
  the state needs a new FPA before it allows any type of FMA.                  
  The land belongs to the people of the state, not to a                        
  company from outside or to any of the corporations which may                 
  want to take large scale timber from the state's land.  She                  
  asked committee members if they are going to be responsible                  
  for damage which may be done to the state's fisheries or                     
  wildlife population.                                                         
  Number 116                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES stated there are 50-60 people                     
  left to testify and suggested that the hearing be extended,                  
  enabling the committee to hear from everyone who wants to                    
  MIKE MORTELL, PORT PROTECTION, testified via teleconference                  
  and stated it is unbelievable that with all of the public                    
  outcry on SB 310, the bill is still proceeding.  If the bill                 
  is going to pass, he asked committee members to consider                     
  several amendments.  He said the contractor should be made                   
  responsible for all of the costs to the state, related to                    
  administering, monitoring, and enforcing the FMA.  The                       
  contractor should also be responsible for the scaling, road                  
  construction, and gravel costs.  He felt DNR and ADF&G                       
  should be fully funded so they can adequately monitor the                    
  FMAs.  He thought there should be a requirement that the                     
  timber not be sold at a loss to the state.  Provisions                       
  should be included for penalties and fines for contract and                  
  regulatory violations.  SB 310 should have a requirement                     
  that the FMAs conform and be consistent with the municipal                   
  and land use plans.                                                          
  MR. MORTELL felt SB 310 should include a local hire                          
  provision.  Currently 40 percent of the workers in the                       
  timber industry are from out of state.  He stressed timber                   
  jobs should go first to Alaskans.  Most of these state lands                 
  are adjacent to little villages and employment should go to                  
  these rural people, instead of these big corporations.  SB
  310 should provide for adjustments to the FMA harvest plans                  
  if new information about forest (indiscernible) and forest                   
  productivity, fish and wildlife habitat, and other concerns                  
  indicate that the original harvest level is too high.  He                    
  thought SB 310 should require that value be added to the                     
  timber in Alaska.  Unprocessed timber exports from Alaska                    
  means Alaskan jobs are lost.  He pointed out that it is                      
  currently more profitable to sell unprocessed timber                         
  overseas, than it is to mill it in the state.                                
  Number 175                                                                   
  KEN JESSEN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                      
  stated tourists come to the state because it is so special.                  
  He felt that uniqueness should be preserved because the                      
  state can make so much more money through tourism than                       
  cutting down trees and shipping them out of the state.  He                   
  grew up in the Pacific Northwest which has been plundered                    
  and he is very familiar with all of the big timber                           
  companies.  He wondered who will want to recreate in a sea                   
  of stumps.  He told committee members if they want the state                 
  to make big money and create jobs, they should keep the                      
  state's landscape intact.  He opposed SB 310.                                
  HOWARD LUKE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                     
  wondered how he is going to teach young people about his                     
  traditional ways.  He stated he does not like all of the                     
  promises being made.  He uses the trees, fish and other                      
  resources.  He stressed those resources are his livelihood.                  
  He said the legislature does not know anything about his                     
  Number 238                                                                   
  via teleconference and stated his customers come to the                      
  state because of wilderness and Native culture.  Both of                     
  those (indiscernible) to identify the intact ecosystem and                   
  unblemished (indiscernible) in Alaska.  Native culture                       
  (indiscernible) subsistence and without the subsistence                      
  economy the Native culture cannot exist.  He felt SB 310 may                 
  mess up the road system in the Interior and will lead to                     
  more depletion of fish and game resources around the urban                   
  areas.  The road system will put more and more hunters and                   
  fishermen out into the village hunting areas.  He did not                    
  think the proposed amendments help.  He also felt the costs                  
  involved should be looked at again.  He asked committee                      
  members to not damage jobs in the rural areas in order to                    
  create jobs for someone coming in from out of state.                         
  ROGER SIGLIN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                    
  stated supporters of SB 310 act as if the forest, as it                      
  exists, has no value.  They ignore those who already make                    
  (indiscernible) or make their living off of the forest.                      
  They ignore those who value the visual beauty the forest                     
  adds to their lives and ignore those who value its                           
  subsistence and recreational consumptive uses such as                        
  hunting, fishing, and trapping.  He stated all of those                      
  values are to be sacrificed for one goal--maximum monetary                   
  gain for the commercial forest industry.  He said supporters                 
  have asked people to trust industry and the regulators who                   
  watch over the industry.  He noted the forestry staff                        
  members are probably intelligent but unfortunately, the                      
  tendency is for all regulatory agencies to become the                        
  promoters of the industry they are suppose to regulate.                      
  MR. SIGLIN stated industry consistently demonstrates the                     
  tendency to abuse the public's air, water, and other                         
  resources in its efforts to maximize profit and will not sit                 
  at the (indiscernible).  The only anecdote to these                          
  tendencies is full public involvement in every step of the                   
  resource management process.  He felt SB 310 gives too much                  
  power to (indiscernible) and the end result will be the                      
  general public paying the bill.  He said committee members'                  
  efforts should be (indiscernible) on forest management                       
  practices and fairly balance the needs for jobs in wood                      
  products, wildlife habitat, scenic, recreational and                         
  subsistence activities and invest it all into one that is                    
  sustainable and ecologically viable.                                         
  MR. SIGLIN stated the committee should not sell out for the                  
  relatively small (indiscernible) or take the position that                   
  the public does not have the intelligence to sort out                        
  (indiscernible) and develop a sensible solution.  He urged                   
  the committee to let the public decide how this forest                       
  should be managed and reject SB 310.                                         
  Number 292                                                                   
  CONNIE STRICKS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                  
  stated after considering the issues and ramifications of SB
  310, she feels it is ill-conceived, panders to special                       
  interests, and attempts to support a bloated budget.  She                    
  felt as written, this bill's passage will demonstrate to the                 
  people of the state both negligence and irresponsibility on                  
  the part of the legislature.  She said Alaska is still a                     
  very special place in terms of its wilderness areas and                      
  natural resources and the heritage the state can offer                       
  children.  She stressed it is incumbent on everyone to                       
  develop and nurture a proper relationship with the                           
  environment, and that it not be plundered for potential                      
  short term gain.  She felt SB 310 violates that trust.                       
  DOUG YATES, ESTER, testified via teleconference and stated                   
  if committee members can assure him that in 20-30 years SB
  310 will not create the same set of conditions in the Tanana                 
  basin which now are present in Sitka, Ketchikan and                          
  Wrangell, he would not be opposing SB 310.  He said                          
  unfortunately, economic falldown on the forest based                         
  economies of these Southeast communities is the result of                    
  the same set of assumptions driving SB 310.  The situation                   
  in Southeast Alaska offers a textbook example of why the                     
  reliance on a single resource base, like the Tongass,                        
  inevitably leads to large spread economic and environmental                  
  degradation.  He stated in the Tanana basin, people can                      
  learn from the mistakes of the past and prevent the                          
  crippling problems of poverty, job loss, habitat                             
  destruction, and federal intervention.  A series of                          
  interrelated legal, social and economic concerns need to be                  
  MR. YATES stated the cost/benefit and range of economic                      
  threshold (indiscernible) as proposed by Dr. Colin Reed is                   
  the place to start learning from the state's mistakes in the                 
  Tongass.  The apparent cavalier assumption on the part of                    
  the bill's sponsor that opponents of SB 310 are green fringe                 
  and that if so-called environmentalists oppose SB 310, then                  
  it must be doing good, is a twist of logic which belongs in                  
  a four year old's sandbox.  He stressed that opponents of SB
  310, if they had a chance to speak in a comprehensive                        
  fashion, would tell committee members they are doctors,                      
  lawyers, truck drivers, teachers, housewives, small tourism                  
  operators, and small mill operators.  They are people up and                 
  down the Railbelt and along the coasts who fear a repeat of                  
  the same old tired economic prescriptions of the past.  He                   
  felt putting all of these people under a quick label                         
  shortcuts the committee's opportunity for a careful                          
  MR. YATES stated 90 percent of the available forests in                      
  Alberta, Canada, where FMAs have the widest application, are                 
  now under contract.  The details of these management plans                   
  between government officials and multinationals were so                      
  sweeping, a lack of respect for the resource so profound,                    
  that all meetings were held in secret.  He said only after                   
  the deals were signed, were the details made public.                         
  Number 348                                                                   
  PUTT CLARK, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                      
  stated she does not choose to live in Alaska because of a                    
  promise of a job but rather because she wants to.  She is                    
  disappointed and personally offended that SB 310 has come                    
  this far.  There has been a vocal majority in the Interior                   
  voicing either concerns or opposition to SB 310, yet the                     
  bill has been fast tracked with ease.  She wondered if the                   
  people in the Interior are not being listened to.  She                       
  stated the bill, in its written attempt to flush the voice                   
  of the public, is indicative of the treatment the public has                 
  so far received in regard to SB 310.  She harbors contempt                   
  for legislators and their blatant disrespect of the public.                  
  MS. CLARK stated the Tanana Valley boreal forest contract                    
  has become a (indiscernible) which the makers of SB 310 say                  
  the legislation will provide jobs.  She stressed jobs                        
  already exist within the forest and provide for a much more                  
  stable, local financial base than the proposed SB 310 ever                   
  could.  As seen before, the contractors will undoubtedly                     
  hire out of state and the corporate profits will be                          
  (indiscernible) locally.  The current uses of the forests                    
  are all sustainable, with many different people benefiting                   
  from it's riches.  SB 310 will devastate the forest.  She                    
  supports the current small scale logging procedures.                         
  MS. CLARK said as always, the cost of a creation such as SB
  310 will be more than what is foreseen.  She wondered who                    
  will pay for the roads that will provide access to the                       
  logging areas--the state.  Who will pay for the long term                    
  monitoring of the environmental impact--the state.  She                      
  asked how SB 310 will impact the game on which many people                   
  subsist hunt or fish.  She stated SB 310 is the most unwise                  
  creation, whose sponsor will be paying for this backlash in                  
  the next election.                                                           
  Number 378                                                                   
  LARRY PAQUIN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                    
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He felt some of the                         
  (indiscernible) made in the FMAs such as the attempt to keep                 
  in-state processing of timber is not realistic.  He said                     
  there is a U.S. timber export law which allows the export of                 
  Alaskan timber except when it is not shown to endanger the                   
  local supply.  (Indiscernible) finding the best interest                     
  (indiscernible) to allow in-state processing.  He stated                     
  there will be logging by litigation with each FMA                            
  (indiscernible) SB 310, because the state will have to prove                 
  there is endangerment of a shortage of timber supply locally                 
  to stop export of timber.                                                    
  MR. PAQUIN said he knows a woodcutter who says he can make                   
  10-30 times as much value on (indiscernible) a cord of wood.                 
  If that is extrapolated out, one would see there is much                     
  more potential in value-added than there is in exporting                     
  timber.  He stated FMAs do not turn out the value of                         
  Alaska's resources.  He stressed there is life after FMAs.                   
  He urged committee members to get rid of FMAs and consider                   
  value-added amendments to SB 310 and existing laws.  He                      
  opposed SB 310.                                                              
  Number 436                                                                   
  BYRON HALEY, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                     
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He said DNR has a very bad                  
  track record for in-house regulations (indiscernible).                       
  Number 445                                                                   
  LANE THOMPSON, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                   
  stated the lead sponsors of SB 310 refuse to allow much of                   
  the public to testify, thereby dismissing the public's                       
  testimony as unimportant.  He said as the Greeks knew,                       
  hubris is followed by Nemesis.  He commented since the                       
  bill's powerful backers make it unlikely that SB 310 will be                 
  postponed or defeated, he sent the committee a proposed                      
  amendment which will put a limit on the annual timber                        
  harvest in the Tanana Valley.  Since other logging will be                   
  taking place outside state FMAs, the limit proposed is                       
  larger than desirable for a sustainable forest industry.                     
  However, in order to avoid having no limits at all, the                      
  proposed limit has been set deliberately at a level believed                 
  to be acceptable to the proponents of SB 310.  He outlined                   
  his proposed amendment and urged committee members to take                   
  the time to study the amendment before SB 310 is passed out                  
  of committee.                                                                
  MR. THOMPSON reminded committee members that each mature                     
  spruce in the Tanana Valley takes over 1 million hours to                    
  grow (indiscernible) to improve SB 310.  He stated if the                    
  committee cannot take the time, please postpone SB 310.                      
  Number 494                                                                   
  RICHARD HAYDEN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                  
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He said although he is                      
  normally an easygoing person, Senator Frank's persistence                    
  toward a bill which nobody wants is beginning to make him an                 
  unhappy man.  He felt SB 310 and FMAs are not management                     
  agreements at all.  They are butchering.                                     
  ...(indiscernible).  He stated SB 310 is an idiotic and                      
  suicidal attempt to make a few people who read paper                         
  (indiscernible) dollar.  He cannot believe (indiscernible)                   
  the money flow into Alaska are proposing to put a "rip out                   
  the stuffing" leaving a (indiscernible).                                     
  MR. HAYDEN stated the backbone of Alaska is naturally grown                  
  forests which support the wildlife.  He pointed out that                     
  tourism brings in millions of dollars annually and will be                   
  around for a lot longer than large scale logging.  Tourism                   
  in Alaska is not limited to the national population--it is                   
  international.  People from all over the world come to see                   
  this flat, natural land.  He stressed Alaska has been                        
  holding its own in the economy world very well.  He said if                  
  SB 310 is passed, the economy might escalate slightly, then                  
  it would drop significantly.  He urged committee members to                  
  not pass SB 310.                                                             
  Number 553                                                                   
  BIRCH PAVELSKY, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                  
  stated he has read SB 310 and does not understand its                        
  (indiscernible) foundation.  FMAs have failed to create                      
  locally hired, long term, secure jobs in Alberta and British                 
  Columbia.  Those areas have a worsening poverty economy.                     
  (Indiscernible) not be based (indiscernible) multiple use                    
  (indiscernible) inventory has yet to be completed.  FMAs                     
  cannot be based on sound economics because no cost/benefit                   
  exists.  He said visions of community and state benefits                     
  which are implied in SB 310 are pies in the sky.  He stated                  
  SB 310 seems to be based on greed and arrogance.                             
  MR. PAVELSKY stated a few years ago, he approached the small                 
  local sawmill to buy some house logs and the owner told him                  
  he had no house logs to offer because they were all being                    
  sold to Japan.  House logs cost about $5.15 per foot.  He                    
  wondered how much those logs will cost in a few years under                  
  SB 310 or if they will even be available.  He urged                          
  committee members to rewrite or kill SB 310.                                 
  Number 586                                                                   
  IRV LIPSCOMB, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                    
  stated he represents three generations of Alaskans.  He                      
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  FMAs are bad and even worse                 
  politics for its sponsors.  He said there are no jobs for                    
  Alaskans.  He stressed that multiple use in state forests                    
  works fine.  A sustainable forest use management program can                 
  be developed.  He said there is no data which supports                       
  sustainable forest use (indiscernible).  He urged committee                  
  members to listen to the people.                                             
  TARIKA LEA, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                      
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  She stated she was the                      
  Earth Day coordinator for Fairbanks in 1990-91 and one in                    
  ten people came to the event, which points out that people                   
  are in Alaska because they love the wilderness.  She felt                    
  tourism is the state's future industry and she does not                      
  believe in giving the forest away to foreign special                         
  interests groups.  She said in listening to the testimony,                   
  there are over 50 people opposed to SB 310 and only eight                    
  people in support of SB 310.  She stressed people do depend                  
  on small businesses.                                                         
  MS. LEA stated when observing a clearcut, it is dead land.                   
  She said there is so much information and studies on what                    
  can be done for the sustainable harvest of trees.  She                       
  echoes the common voice.  There needs to be more study and                   
  more considerations.  The forests belong to the public.  She                 
  urged committee members to not pass SB 310.                                  
  TAPE 94-57, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CINDY GEAR, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                      
  stated she does not believe the committee understands the                    
  ramifications of SB 310.  She said a prayer for the trees.                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the meeting will be recessed                     
  until 3:30 p.m., at which time the committee will take one-                  
  half hour of testimony on SB 310 and then discuss whatever                   
  amendments committee members care to offer on SB 310.                        
  THE COMMITTEE RECESSED UNTIL 3:30 p.m.                                       
  TAPE 94-58, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the meeting back to order at 3:35                   
  p.m.  He stated the committee members present are                            
  REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, CARNEY, GREEN, and DAVIES.                           
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the committee will take additional                  
  testimony on SB 310 and then hear SB 46.                                     
  SB 310 - State/Private/Muni Timber Operation/Sale                            
  Number 065                                                                   
  DANIEL LUM, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                      
  acknowledged his elders Sarah James and Howard Luke.  He                     
  said opposition to SB 310 needs to organize against the                      
  representatives who support SB 310.  He felt large industry                  
  cannot dominate, control, and manipulate resources in Alaska                 
  and legislators need to realize that.  He stated if the                      
  representatives do not represent the public's positions, the                 
  public must do whatever possible to extract them so these                    
  situations do not reoccur.                                                   
  MR. LUM said after a conversation with Senator Frank's                       
  office he deduced the following.  Senator Frank is not                       
  receptive to the public at large and input thereof, which is                 
  a statement in itself about the lack of true concern Senator                 
  Frank has for the people he represents.  He wondered what a                  
  person is to do when the people elected do not listen.  He                   
  suggested those people be voted out.  He also wondered why                   
  an Interior representative would fight so hard for out of                    
  state industry.  He stated SB 310 will not employ a huge                     
  work force.  He encouraged the legislative process to                        
  investigate Senator Frank and his team to determine what is                  
  driving him so hard for out of state industry.                               
  MR. LUM stated the continuing consensus that Alaska is one                   
  large resource is now conveyed in the political arena by the                 
  current representatives.  He reminded everyone that this                     
  land was once all Native land and Natives balanced their                     
  lifestyle with the land without gobbling up the resources.                   
  He said this is Alaska, the last frontier.  When people come                 
  to this state and see northern Washington's vast type                        
  clearcuts, their hearts will drop as soon as they realize                    
  that Alaska is no longer a frontier.  He thanked Senator                     
  Frank for taking away the state's beauty and for trying to                   
  mute the public's objections.                                                
  Number 104                                                                   
  TANANA VALLEY STATE FOREST, FAIRBANKS, testified via                         
  teleconference and stated she is not speaking on behalf of                   
  the committee.  She said the original version of SB 310 had                  
  specific effects on the responsibilities of the Citizens                     
  Advisory Committee.  She stated the current version still                    
  contains a section which has direct implications on the                      
  state forest in the Tanana Valley.  She referred to page 8,                  
  lines 9-15, pertaining to the purposes of the state forests.                 
  She noted the eleven member Citizens Advisory Committee                      
  which is supposed to advise the state on the state forest                    
  (indiscernible) to be established for totally different                      
  purposes other than what it was originally established for.                  
  She stressed the language in SB 310 changes the                              
  establishment of the state forest from being the                             
  perpetuation of multiple use to one use above all uses and                   
  that is commercial timber development.  Ms. Ward stated the                  
  proponents of SB 310 should not bother (indiscernible)                       
  relative bill to the committee which has a lead role in the                  
  community for the users of the state forest.                                 
  MS. WARD said one of her concerns in regard to SB 310 is an                  
  economic issue.  SB 310 cannot require local hire.  She felt                 
  timber jobs should go to Alaskans first but the state, as                    
  the signer of a contract, cannot require that.  He stated SB
  310 cannot do what the proponents supporting the bill say it                 
  can do.  She commented her second concern is the value-added                 
  processing, which is purported to come from SB 310.  That                    
  cannot take place until an act of Congress allows the state                  
  to restrict exporting of raw logs.  If the committee is                      
  genuine about being interested in value-added processing and                 
  using a mechanism like SB 310 to require it, they should                     
  ensure that Congress will agree to that requirement.  She                    
  noted SB 310 gives tremendous authority to the commissioner                  
  of DNR and that person will be able to negotiate and sign a                  
  contract, locking up the state's timber for up to 20 years.                  
  She stressed her biggest concern is the state's white spruce                 
  being exported directly to Japan.                                            
  (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES                 
  BUNDE, FINKELSTEIN, AND MULDER had joined the committee.  He                 
  said REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA had also joined the committee.)                 
  Number 158                                                                   
  LARRY MAYO, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                      
  stated SB 310 attempts to provide economic improvements for                  
  Alaskans through intensive cutting of the state's forests.                   
  He felt SB 310 will more than likely harm the state more                     
  than it will help it.  He pointed out that forests on state                  
  lands already provide many benefits ranging from fisheries                   
  to hunting, trapping, wildness, subsistence, a nice place to                 
  live, tourism, clean air and water, house logs, fire wood                    
  research, recreation, and peace of mind.  He stressed all of                 
  these benefits provide economic and other values to most                     
  residents.  He said the concept driving SB 310 is the woods                  
  do not contribute satisfactorily to the economy.  He stated                  
  that is false.                                                               
  MR. MAYO stated SB 310 is not the state's salvation after                    
  oil.  He pointed out experience elsewhere is that long term                  
  FMAs lead to increased subsidies and much smaller timber                     
  revenues compared with competitive bidding.  FMAs help                       
  multinational corporations, not local governments.  He is                    
  surprised and distressed with the Republicans who are                        
  pushing SB 310.  For years, these same people have been                      
  saying that outside interests should not control Alaska.  He                 
  stated SB 310 is tailored for multi-national timber                          
  companies.  He said if these companies come into the state,                  
  the public will lose access into their contract areas, few                   
  Alaskans have the education to run their types of                            
  operations, they will need generous state subsidies to                       
  survive, and their primary purpose will be to ship the wood                  
  out with the least possible work involved in Alaska.                         
  Countries like Japan can survive economically only when they                 
  can import cheap resources for their own workers and                         
  Number 183                                                                   
  MR. MAYO said by contrast, economic benefit is already being                 
  realized by a number of small, hometown wood industries that                 
  provide local employment for those who work with wood, make                  
  lumber, build log cabins, harvest fuel wood, and make birch                  
  syrup.  He noted to the state's greater benefit, these                       
  industries do not need to cut huge amounts from the state's                  
  wild forests, which leaves extensive forests for all the                     
  other benefits mentioned earlier.  He stressed it is most                    
  important for the committee to understand that as the earth                  
  becomes more damaged, people come from around the world in                   
  increasing numbers to Alaska to witness a fully functional                   
  natural ecosystem.  He said it makes sense that in less time                 
  than a 20 year FMA will run out, the wildness of the forest                  
  will emerge as the state's most important economic and                       
  ecological value.  He felt SB 310 is history.                                
  MR. MAYO stated he has put together seven suggestions if                     
  there is to be an improvement in FMAs.  1)  The Division of                  
  Forestry should establish an independent group to conduct                    
  ecological research, inventories, and monitoring.  2)                        
  Provide wild forest reserves that act as natural seed banks                  
  for biodiversity and as reservoirs of intrinsic values. 3)                   
  Develop strategic plans for dealing with forest declines                     
  caused by clearing, accidents, fires, insects, game                          
  management, storms, climate shifts, etc.  4)  Replace large-                 
  scale clearcutting with something less damaging.  5)  Create                 
  incentives for sustainable management on privately-owned                     
  forests.  6)  Provide flexibility so that any new economic                   
  activity of greater benefit can replace an established                       
  activity.  7)  Ensure, forever, that public forests are                      
  managed principally for public benefits as current law                       
  clearly provides.                                                            
  (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE                  
  JAMES had joined the committee.)                                             
  Number 214                                                                   
  RONNIE ROSENBERG, REPRESENTATIVE, GREEN PARTY, testified via                 
  teleconference and stated there is overwhelming opposition                   
  to SB 310 in Fairbanks.  She expressed concern about FMAs                    
  which have been tried in Alberta, Scandinavia, and Southeast                 
  Alaska and have not been successful.  She said there is                      
  nothing leading her to believe that FMAs will be any more                    
  successful if tried in Interior Alaska.  She stated there is                 
  great concern about the state getting involved in long term,                 
  long-range 20 year plans when an insufficient inventory of                   
  all resources has not been conducted.  The state is going to                 
  bind itself to a 20 year plan and she wondered what happens                  
  if five years down the road the plan is not working.                         
  MS. ROSENBERG reviewed the committee substitute on SB 310                    
  and felt there are many loopholes.  She said there is no                     
  bonding requirement in SB 310.  She noted there is also no                   
  legislative oversight over any contracts that the                            
  commissioner chooses to enter into, which will assure the                    
  public that adequate protection will happen if one of the                    
  companies goes bankrupt, leaves or does not fulfill its                      
  responsibilities.  She pointed out that these large lumber                   
  companies do have a history of not fulfilling their                          
  responsibilities.  She is also concerned that the work on                    
  the FPA is being gutted through SB 310, although in the CS,                  
  the commissioner has to consider a number of criteria.                       
  However, the bottom line is that the primary use of the                      
  forest is commercial development in SB 310.                                  
  MS. ROSENBERG stated she is not much of a user of the state                  
  forest.  However, many people in Fairbanks are dependent on                  
  the forest and many who are not dependent on the forest for                  
  resources, live in Fairbanks because of the forest.  She                     
  said the forest is one of the prime reasons she chose to                     
  move to Fairbanks.  She stressed SB 310 is so bad that it                    
  cannot be amended but rather it should be killed.  She urged                 
  committee members to listen to those who have testified.                     
  Number 278                                                                   
  JIM SYKES, TALKEETNA, testified via teleconference and told                  
  committee members they are heading for dangerous legal                       
  territory with SB 310, and he did not feel there is a need                   
  for it.  He pointed out that the state does comprehensive                    
  plans, coastal zone management plans, and community plans to                 
  prioritize likely uses.  He chaired a long community                         
  planning process for the 300 square miles of the Chase Comp                  
  Plan.  He said the state forest is one of multiple uses,                     
  like most forests.  SB 310 creates an unnecessary conflict                   
  with the already established planning process and                            
  prioritizes trees for commercial timber harvest.  He felt                    
  the proposed amendment to Section 5 should be stricken.                      
  MR. SYKES felt committee members should be aware that where                  
  plans are in conflict, a higher level of review is triggered                 
  before industry can proceed.  For example, if the federal                    
  government wants to do something that goes along with a                      
  management plan, only an environmental assessment may be                     
  required.  If the project is in conflict with a plan, the                    
  National Environmental Policy Act kicks in and a full                        
  environmental impact statement is required.  He stressed SB
  310 could create that kind of conflict.                                      
  MR. SYKES said what is even worse is that SB 310 gives the                   
  DNR commissioner almost god-like authority to develop                        
  whatever long term FMAs she or he feels like.  He stated SB
  310 definitely shuts out the public process, where there is                  
  already not enough citizen participation.  He felt if the                    
  committee does not have an example of what an FMA is going                   
  to look like, they should not pass legislation giving full                   
  authority to the DNR commissioner to figure it out in the                    
  absence of the public process.  He differs with the                          
  sponsor's impression that FMAs have become a desirable tool.                 
  He thought the experience of people elsewhere should be                      
  investigated.  He recalled the sponsor testified that the                    
  FMAs in Alaska will not be the same as those which failed                    
  outside.  He thought the committee needs to make sure that                   
  failure will not take place before SB 310 is passed.                         
  Number 313                                                                   
  MR. SYKES stated the worst part of this proposed system is                   
  the state will be paying people to cut down its trees and                    
  cart them off.  The state loses in two ways--getting only                    
  ten cents in return for every dollar spent, and the resource                 
  is gone.  He recalled former state forester, Ted Smith,                      
  testified before the Chase Comp Plan committee that the                      
  Susitna Forest could not be profitable without subsidies for                 
  roads and bridges.  He said it is time for the state to wise                 
  up and quit being the sucker for anything that sounds like                   
  economic development.  The question of who benefits, while                   
  the state pays, needs to be considered.                                      
  MR. SYKES said Section 2(c) of SB 310 is one of those "one                   
  size fits all" kinds of laws that will not work.  He                         
  stressed exempting a sale of a half million board feet in                    
  Southeast Alaska might be 20 acres, and in his forest it                     
  might be 200 acres.  He felt timber sales lasting up to five                 
  years should be made on an as needed permit basis.  All                      
  timber sales should have extensive public input from the                     
  communities most affected before they are considered.                        
  MR. SYKES stated several years ago, the values of tourism,                   
  recreation, and remote uses were figured to have a yearly                    
  financial benefit greater than cutting down and selling the                  
  entire Susitna Forest.  The people there have a multiple use                 
  forest where recreation is the primary benefit along with                    
  local loggers who historically cut from 500-1,500 acres a                    
  year.  He stressed there is no need for SB 310.  He urged                    
  committee members not to pass SB 310.  He noted if he was                    
  Governor, he would veto it.  If the bill becomes law and he                  
  becomes Governor, he will work to repeal it in the next                      
  Number 347                                                                   
  CARLY BOEHNERT, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                  
  stated she, like others, has invested a lot of time, money,                  
  and effort in SB 310.  She said the hundreds of people                       
  involved and testifying on SB 310 should mean something to                   
  the committee.  Most people are saying that SB 310 is a                      
  terrible bill and one of the clearest examples of a giveaway                 
  to a specific industry seen in a long time.  She felt SB 310                 
  is biased against the tourism industry, the fishing                          
  industry, subsistence, and the general public and their                      
  recreational use of the forest.                                              
  MS. BOEHNERT stated when timber harvest is set as the number                 
  one priority of the forest, subsistence users, hunters,                      
  fishers, and tourism are getting a kick in the pants.  She                   
  stressed tourists do react to the appearance of clearcuts                    
  and do not pay money to look at clearcuts.  She felt tourism                 
  has a big financial stake when considering SB 310, as does                   
  subsistence users and fishing.  She pointed out that FMAs do                 
  not work.  She was bothered that Senator Frank had not done                  
  his basic economic homework in looking at the finances from                  
  either the previous timber sales where long term contracts                   
  were tried or looking at the losses on the Tongass.                          
  When the losses to the state incurred with SB 310 are                        
  reviewed, one will understand why everyone is calling the                    
  bill a giveaway.                                                             
  Number 397                                                                   
  MS. BOEHNERT recalled that most testimony has been against                   
  SB 310, which is a signal that the people benefitting are                    
  those in the timber industry or the large timber operators,                  
  not the average people.  She felt SB 310 should be killed                    
  and cannot be amended.  She made a few suggestions.  The                     
  state needs to make industry responsible for paying costs                    
  for roads, etc.  Timber cannot be sold at a loss to the                      
  state.  ADF&G needs to be fully funded for monitoring.                       
  However, she recommends the committee kill SB 310.                           
  Number 415                                                                   
  JIM MINTON, testified via teleconference and stated members                  
  of the property association are strongly opposed to SB 310.                  
  He stated extensive oversight by ADF&G and DNR is going to                   
  be necessary.  He noted that both agencies are currently                     
  underfunded to properly monitor existing levels of activity.                 
  He pointed out that underfunding of similar projects in the                  
  past has cost a lot in wasted state revenues and in most                     
  cases, a blight on the landscape which is a future reminder.                 
  He said if FMAs are such a great system, then why does                       
  British Columbia look like it took a nuclear hit as a result                 
  of FMAs.  He cannot believe that SB 310 is still alive when                  
  the vast majority of the committee's constituents have                       
  opposed it.  He felt SB 310 should be killed as it cannot be                 
  Number 449                                                                   
  STEPHEN BODNAR, CORDOVA, testified via teleconference and                    
  stated as a citizen of Alaska, he owns the trees and feels                   
  the forest should be managed for all uses, not one single                    
  purpose.  He said another objection he has to SB 310 is that                 
  it applies statewide.  Many people are not aware of that                     
  fact.  He noted his area is one of the last areas where a                    
  Native corporation is settling their land claims and there                   
  are many parcels which will become state land, meaning they                  
  will be subject to SB 310.  He pointed out that if one were                  
  to look at the way the Natives are treating their lands                      
  there, they are destroying a very important mountain goat                    
  habitat and fish spawning habitat.  He felt if such private                  
  land practices continue, the only habitat which will remain                  
  will be on state and federal land.                                           
  MR. BODNAR said he has been working on a scientific study in                 
  Prince William Sound on forest regeneration after                            
  disturbance and can assure committee members that                            
  sustainability, as defined in state law, is unrealistic.  He                 
  stated if an 80 year old tree is cut down, it does not mean                  
  it will take 80 years for it to grow back...if one wants to                  
  make a timber farm, maybe, but if the desire is for a forest                 
  that can support habitat, it takes 300-400 years.  He hoped                  
  that the scientific studies mentioned in SB 310 are not just                 
  an internal administration scientific study on                               
  sustainability or viability of the cut and is open for                       
  comments by other scientific parties.  He urged committee                    
  members to kill SB 310.                                                      
  Number 509                                                                   
  NANCY LETHCOE, testified via teleconference and stated since                 
  testifying at this morning's earlier hearing, she has                        
  reviewed the proposed amendments.  She expressed                             
  appreciation for the amendment which will include the words                  
  "tourism" and "recreation" in Section 1, on page 2.  She                     
  expressed concern about the proposed amendment by                            
  Representative James for page 1, following line 4.  If this                  
  amendment is introduced, looking at accumulative effects,                    
  she pointed out there is no agency currently having                          
  statutory authority for describing the effects of timber                     
  harvest on tourism.  Therefore, the amendment is asking for                  
  something which is impossible to attain.  As a result,                       
  tourism will be left out of the equation.                                    
  MS. LETHCOE stated the same problem occurs also in the                       
  proposed amendment on page 2, following line 14, "insert a                   
  new subsection to read..."  If read carefully, particularly                  
  the last underlined sentence--again tourism has no state                     
  organization doing any type of scientific study to determine                 
  the effects of clearcutting on the tourism industry.  She                    
  pointed out that everyone knows, through informal surveys,                   
  that clearcutting is incompatible with the type of tourism                   
  Alaska specializes in--the nature tours and adventure                        
  travel.  She stressed although there may be a slight                         
  creation of jobs in the timber industry, there will be an                    
  accompanying loss of jobs in the tourism industry.                           
  Number 560                                                                   
  MS. LETHCOE said she is also concerned about amendment                       
  number 21 which Representative James has proposed and                        
  whether or not proposed agreements are public record.  She                   
  felt it is important to have proposed agreements as a part                   
  of the public record.  She stated if the committee does not                  
  pass Representative James's amendments, the AWRTA remains                    
  opposed to SB 310.  AWRTA feels SB 310 is not the                            
  appropriate way to go about changing the FPA, which was                      
  reached through a consensus agreement.  She urged committee                  
  members to table SB 310 and set up a consensus group to                      
  again look at SB 310 and other issues facing the forests.                    
  She described ways of cutting which will help an area                        
  recover much faster and reduce the impact on the tourism                     
  industry.  She thought the fishing industry would probably                   
  also like to look at ways to reduce the adverse effects of                   
  logging on that industry.  She noted what is most important                  
  is that an analysis be done which really shows that SB 310                   
  is going to not only produce jobs in the timber industry,                    
  but also will not cause a reduction in jobs in other                         
  industries, resulting in a net loss.                                         
  Number 628                                                                   
  MARY SHIELDS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                    
  stated every day in the summer, visitors tell her how                        
  precious Alaska's natural beauty is.  They tell her to be                    
  sure that the state does not make the same mistakes other                    
  places have made outside.  She mentioned that many people in                 
  Fairbanks contributed in raising money for air fares to send                 
  three of Fairbanks' finest and most creative minds down to                   
  the committee:  Dr. Jan Dawe, Dr. Glen Juday, and Dr. Colin                  
  Reed.  She urged the committee members to talk to them and                   
  learn from their expertise.                                                  
  MS. SHIELDS asked committee members to not make foolish                      
  mistakes in their weariness as people will have to live with                 
  those mistakes forever.  She stated the people in the Tanana                 
  Valley did not ask for large scale timber development and                    
  they do not want it.  She stressed it is alarming that the                   
  committee is proceeding with SB 310 after the overwhelming                   
  testimony across the state in the morning.  She urged                        
  committee members to oppose SB 310 for the following                         
  reasons.  First, the people living in the Tanana Valley have                 
  told the committee they do not want SB 310.  Second, there                   
  is no local hire provision in SB 310.  She said Fairbanks                    
  will have a hard time supporting new families who move to                    
  town from other depressed logging communities out of state.                  
  She felt SB 310 should be held until a waiver can be                         
  included which will protect against out of state migration                   
  to take the jobs.                                                            
  MS. SHIELDS continued with her reasons for opposition.                       
  Third, FMAs have been disastrous everywhere else they have                   
  been tried with only one or two exceptions.  The Department                  
  of Forestry cannot even manage the present 1,000 acre                        
  harvest without wasting a lot of the trees.  Fourth, the                     
  state does not have the economic or biological data to know                  
  the risk.  A cost/benefits analysis is needed before the                     
  state gives the forests away with all future options.                        
  Fifth, some of the best foresters in North America recently                  
  visited Fairbanks (Jerry Franklin, Gray Jones, Chad Oliver).                 
  They all said the management must start from the people up.                  
  SB 310 is coming from a few at the top down, and is headed                   
  for disaster.  She pointed out that last Friday, Senator                     
  Frank admitted he did not have a personal knowledge of how                   
  FMAs work or do not work but he thought there were people                    
  who thought they worked.  She felt that is not good enough                   
  and expects more homework on the part of the legislators.                    
  She asked why Senator Frank is pushing so hard for SB 310,                   
  when his district is so opposed to it.                                       
  MS. SHIELDS said her sixth reason is that real value-added                   
  processing would provide lots of jobs, using few trees.                      
  Small local businesses will be squeezed out if the                           
  jumbotron, international industries are attracted by cheap                   
  raw material.  Competitive bids would bring much higher                      
  stumpage prices than the FMA system.  She felt the state                     
  cannot afford to give its resources away and she holds the                   
  committee responsible for this protection.                                   
  MS. SHIELDS stressed that change is coming, but there is a                   
  need to work together to invite change which will make lives                 
  better.  She acknowledged that people need jobs but the                      
  people are not willing to pay the price of locking up their                  
  forests for the next 20 years.  She urged committee members                  
  to slow down, use common sense, and hold off on SB 310 until                 
  the costs and benefits are known in terms of all jobs using                  
  the forest, of clean air and water, and healthy habitat for                  
  people and wildlife.  She stated people want to have                         
  community control of their forest.  The five year plans and                  
  guidelines, like the Susitna Valley has, are better ways to                  
  MS. SHIELDS stated the public process must be respected.                     
  Public comments are not just to be given, they are to be                     
  listened to and worked with.  She stressed that communities                  
  cannot be divided even more than SB 310 has already done.                    
  Fairbanks is a small town and the people need to live                        
  together and work together to assure the best future.                        
  TAPE 94-58, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHARLES SIMMONS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                 
  expressed opposition to SB 310.  He felt SB 310 amounts to a                 
  potential giveaway of state resources under the philosophy                   
  of (indiscernible).  He stated Senator Frank should not be                   
  surprised at the public reaction to SB 310.  He wondered why                 
  the public would cheer when citizen input is eliminated and                  
  the DNR commissioner is being given far too much power.  He                  
  is a local wood worker and furniture builder and uses local                  
  products.  He supports sustainable levels of forest use and                  
  supports intelligent use of the state's resources.  He felt                  
  SB 310 does not come anywhere near that standard.  He urged                  
  committee members to not be in such a rush to make Alaska                    
  like all of the places which people have moved to Alaska                     
  from.  He said SB 310 should be killed.                                      
  Number 025                                                                   
  TED SWEM, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and said                   
  since Senator Frank introduced SB 310, there has been                        
  overwhelming opposition to the bill voiced in the Interior.                  
  He said the citizens voicing opposition are not a bunch of                   
  radical environmentalists or animal rights activists from                    
  out of state, but rather are the people who live in the                      
  Interior who understand the bill.  He described the letters                  
  to the editor in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and a recent                 
  MR. SWEM noted that Senator Frank expressed bewilderment to                  
  the opposition to SB 310.  He said there is nothing                          
  bewildering about this opposition--it has been articulately                  
  expressed, people understand the bill--the only thing that                   
  is bewildering is that Senator Frank continues to ignore his                 
  constituents who are telling him to withdraw SB 310.  He                     
  stated the reasons FMAs are a bad idea have been identified.                 
  He recalled that people have said they are not opposed to                    
  the development of timber resources in the Interior but that                 
  FMAs are not the way to approach it.  He stressed the                        
  resource has not been adequately inventoried and the                         
  economics on how to best utilize the resource has not been                   
  studied.  He said if the state develops a resource, it needs                 
  to maximize the benefits.  He felt FMAs are not the way to                   
  do it.                                                                       
  MR. SWEM said the people in the Interior know what the trees                 
  provide and it is more than just short term dollars for a                    
  quick timber sale.  He stated that when legislators run for                  
  office, they imply or state they want to represent the                       
  people.  After watching Senator Frank, he was a little                       
  concerned that there is a misunderstanding of the definition                 
  of "represent."  He noted the dictionary says "represent"                    
  means to act on a person's behalf.  He stressed that people                  
  are telling the committee what they should do with SB 310                    
  and they should do it--kill SB 310.                                          
  FRED BROWN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and                      
  expressed support for SB 310.  He felt there are advantages                  
  especially in respect to the use of the spruce beetle kill                   
  resource.  He stated FMAs provide a tool to the Division of                  
  Forestry to use and is not a requirement.  He said the terms                 
  of the agreement can be written in a way that tourism and                    
  other interest groups are protected.  He noted his family is                 
  involved with a corporation based in Homer which is working                  
  on removing beetle kill timber and the people in that area                   
  are satisfied with the FMA there.                                            
  (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE                  
  MOSES had joined the committee.)                                             
  ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and expressed                        
  displeasure with the hearing process on SB 310.  He                          
  requested another hearing be scheduled on SB 310.  He                        
  recalled that last week it was stated that bonding will be                   
  waived in SB 310 because of price fluctuation.  He felt the                  
  real reason bonding is being waived is because bond pricing                  
  is too high because logging has a reputation of being very                   
  expensive due to nonperformance or poor performance on                       
  contracts.  In light of past failures, the state has paid                    
  millions of dollars to bail these projects out.  He felt                     
  bonding should not be waived in SB 310, but rather be                        
  MR. SEALY expressed concern in regard to the absence of                      
  ADF&G in SB 310.  He felt it is important that ADF&G be                      
  involved, working with the Division of Forestry.  He said                    
  ADF&G's involvement is the public's check and balance to                     
  ensure that habitat is being monitored.  He stated he has                    
  been a registered Republican since he was 18 years old.  He                  
  commented that when this type of legislation is shoved down                  
  people's throats, he has little choice but to look for a                     
  Democratic governor who will appoint a commissioner who will                 
  not abuse or use this type of legislation.                                   
  Number 138                                                                   
  JOHN REEDER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                     
  stated the development of the forest resources in the state                  
  requires mechanisms which can resolve conflicts between                      
  competing uses and balance the financial benefits of the                     
  forest development with the financial benefits of                            
  recreation, tourism, and fishing.  The problem with SB 310                   
  is that it strips away the public process which brings about                 
  this balance, which is unfair to the public and the timber                   
  industry.  The burden of resolving these conflicts is being                  
  shifted away from the government and being put on the                        
  industry's shoulder.  He said the industry is not equipped                   
  to handle it.  He felt what is going to happen is that the                   
  public, who has tools and weapons to fight this kind of                      
  development, will be able to fight even more effectively                     
  under this circumstance.                                                     
  MR. REEDER stated he is not aware of any natural resources                   
  development in the state which has been successful and                       
  carried out when a large segment of the public is opposed to                 
  it.  He urged committee members to hold SB 310 until next                    
  session, look into the public process question, and try to                   
  develop a mechanism to ensure that if the state decides to                   
  go forward with a timber development plan, that the plan is                  
  economically feasible, that large segments of the public                     
  support it and it does not sacrifice existing industries                     
  such as tourism or recreation.                                               
  Number 173                                                                   
  LOBBY (AEL), stated FMAs are more likely to benefit                          
  corporations than the state.  The state should not lose                      
  money subsidizing the removal of the state's forest.  She                    
  said in Haines, the state lost more than $8 million between                  
  1979-1985 and noted that was a long term, 15 year contract                   
  with an option to renew.  The state lost more than $8                        
  million in road credits, subsidies, infrastructure, and                      
  management costs.  She stated after the mill went belly up                   
  there several times, the state cancelled the contract in                     
  MS. KIRSCH stated contrary to the DNR's briefing paper on                    
  long term timber sales, statistics show the state spent more                 
  than $1 million for the Haines forestry office related to                    
  five years of that sale.  At the time of bankruptcy, DNR                     
  owed the contractor more than $388,000 in purchaser credits                  
  due to road construction.  The state spent more than $7                      
  million in mill related investments via the Alaska Resource                  
  Corporation.  She said in Haines, long term contracts look                   
  like a very bad idea.                                                        
  MS. KIRSCH said primary manufacture is a problem with SB
  310.  She noted the Supreme Court has ruled that state                       
  timber does not need manufacture--it can be shipped out in                   
  the round.  She wondered why that provision would not be                     
  challenged in court again when an FMA is contracted.  She                    
  felt the state legislature should work to gain federal                       
  Congressional authorization banning export of state round                    
  logs.  The state of Oregon did that in 1990 via federal                      
  legislation, in large part to create more jobs.  FMAs will                   
  only be a guarantee of value-added jobs in Alaska, if round                  
  log exports are banned through Congressional authorization.                  
  Number 202                                                                   
  MS. KIRSCH stated inventories which seem scientifically                      
  correct have been found to be in error years later, with                     
  less timber available than originally calculated.  She noted                 
  that has been the case in the Tongass and Haines.  A                         
  contract based on misinformation may have to be honored,                     
  even if that means harvesting above sustainable yield                        
  levels, possibly harming important fish and wildlife habitat                 
  or recreation areas.  She stressed the state needs to put a                  
  higher priority on timber inventory data, which by law is                    
  needed to harvest areas.  In Haines, people are still                        
  awaiting final inventory data ten years after the raw data                   
  was taken.  Ms. Kirsch said SB 310 still contains public                     
  policy problems.  Agency and public comment and oversight                    
  will only be 120 days for the FMAs as opposed to the normal                  
  two year scheduling process.                                                 
  MS. KIRSCH said the state should retain its current policy                   
  which provides for 3-5 year timber sales.  If DNR does                       
  accurate inventories and takes into account other important                  
  values like fish, subsistence, tourism, recreation, etc., if                 
  there are accurate field data inventories, and if all                        
  multiple uses are taken into account, then a reliable                        
  sustained yield can be ascertained and there can be some                     
  certainty that interested purchasers can have a steady                       
  supply of timber to bid on, at fair market value.  The state                 
  will not be locking up resources for 20 years, will not be                   
  locking out other interested timber purchasers, and there                    
  will not be a giveaway of multiple public resources.                         
  Number 224                                                                   
  MS. KIRSCH explained other areas of SB 310 which AEL                         
  believes are bad policy.  Eliminating public and agency                      
  oversight of emergency sales and the one million board feet                  
  in each region, each year is a bad public policy.  She said                  
  one million board feet in individual sales could mean 50                     
  acres or more near Fairbanks, 333 acres in the Mat-Su area,                  
  and about one-eighth of the allowable cut in Haines.  She                    
  felt a 30-day notice on these amounts of timber is                           
  inadequate and feels these sales should go through the                       
  normal two year planning process.  Referring to Section 5,                   
  she stressed the primary purpose of state forests should not                 
  become commercial development.  Other values like fisheries,                 
  subsistence, wildlife, and personal firewood are just as                     
  important.  She urged the committee to allow SB 310 to die                   
  as it contains bad public policy and is likely to cost the                   
  state money.                                                                 
  Number 240                                                                   
  BARBARA KELLY, JUNEAU, expressed concern regarding the                       
  effects of SB 310 on the Tanana Valley region.  She opposes                  
  SB 310.  The original version was written with disregard for                 
  the public process and it clearly promotes the interests of                  
  timber companies at the expense of the public's interest.                    
  She acknowledged that in the face of overwhelming negative                   
  public testimony, SB 310 has been revised, which she                         
  appreciates.  Provisions have been made for more public                      
  comment.  Many of the sections in SB 310 which were                          
  criticized have been eliminated and important considerations                 
  left out in the original version have been put in.  She felt                 
  the original intent and the heart of SB 310 still remains                    
  which bothers her.                                                           
  MS. KELLY said the intent and philosophy of SB 310 is                        
  expressed in Section 5, where the purpose of the state                       
  forests is redefined.  She does not agree that the primary                   
  purpose of the state forests should be the development of                    
  commercial forest land.  That statement is in direct                         
  conflict with the idea of multiple use management and puts                   
  every other use as a secondary use and of secondary                          
  importance.  She pointed out the heart of SB 310 is the                      
  section on FMAs.  She felt it is not in the best interest of                 
  the people of the state to enter into such long term                         
  contracts as the FMAs will allow.  Allowing 20 year and up                   
  to 40 year contracts, which SB 310 still allows, takes away                  
  all the flexibility the state has to negotiate on anything                   
  when conditions change.  She does not see any reason to                      
  eliminate that flexibility, when shorter contracts can work                  
  much more to the benefit of the state.  She stated long term                 
  contracts can only benefit those who are involved in the                     
  timber industry.                                                             
  MS. KELLY voiced other concerns about SB 310.  SB 310 will                   
  allow the export of higher quality logs to foreign markets,                  
  with a resultant loss of value-added products, which could                   
  more directly benefit local economies and communities.  She                  
  does not understand how the costs outlined in the fiscal                     
  note provided by ADF&G can be one-half of a similar fiscal                   
  note done by DNR in 1989 regarding a similar bill.  It does                  
  not make sense that the costs in 1994, five years later, can                 
  be one-half.  She said Fibreform Wood Products's corporate                   
  proposal, as indicated in the ADF&G fiscal note, is a clear                  
  indication of what large corporations have in mind for the                   
  Interior.  That company had a corporate proposal requesting                  
  up to 115 million board feet annually of mixed species.  She                 
  pointed out the total allowable sustainable cut is 60                        
  million board feet.  Therefore, if one company wants 115                     
  million board feet, she wondered how monopolies will be                      
  MS. KELLY stated there were concerns expressed in the ADF&G                  
  fiscal note about the difficulty government has in                           
  monitoring FMAs and detecting violations.  She said if DNR                   
  and ADF&G are not funded currently to do the jobs they are                   
  supposed to do, she asked how are they going to possibly                     
  adequately monitor these FMAs and detect violations before                   
  too much damage has been done.  She does not like the idea                   
  of placing control and management of large areas of land in                  
  the hands of large corporations who do not have any local                    
  concerns or interests.  Their primary interest is making a                   
  profit.  She felt local interests should be of primary                       
  MS. KELLY wondered if the committee ever steps back to take                  
  a long term perspective look at how long human beings have                   
  been on the earth and how much detrimental affect on the                     
  earth there has been in the last 100-200 years.  She felt if                 
  that continues, the remaining habitat will be destroyed.                     
  She pointed out that FMAs continue that kind of destruction.                 
  Number 342                                                                   
  CHRIS GATES, stated SB 310 allows the state to have a tool                   
  not now available.  He pointed out that many places have                     
  found that FMAs do a lot of good.  He said representatives                   
  of the city of Prince George, British Columbia, attribute                    
  their entire basis of their economy on properly managed long                 
  term contracts to manage their forests, primarily beetle                     
  kill.  He noted one valley there produces 19,000 jobs--7,500                 
  value-added jobs, 2,000 harvest jobs, 9,000 support jobs--                   
  jobs they say are caused because of the long term contracts                  
  which allow people to invest money in their city.  He                        
  pointed out those jobs are out of 40,000 total jobs.  Prince                 
  George has 16 sawmills, three pulp plants, one newsprint                     
  plant, and 15-20 value-added facilities, including                           
  furniture, window making, boxes, molding, doorjambs, etc.                    
  Those representatives said they could not possibly think of                  
  having a viable forest products industry without secure                      
  fiber for those mills                                                        
  MR. GATES said while spending time in Prince George, he                      
  noticed the access to the forest which allowing properly                     
  managed development gives.  There were campers everywhere.                   
  That access does not happen in Alaska because the state has                  
  not managed its resource to allow people access to the                       
  forests.  He stated there are two million seedlings going                    
  strong in the Prince George area because of their desire to                  
  stay in front of the beetle kill and keep some economic                      
  value in their timber before it is wasted.                                   
  MR. GATES pointed out there is a good case study in this                     
  area with regard to a long term contract and what it can                     
  mean to a community.  He noted there is a team in Ketchikan                  
  putting together the plan to handle the "nuclear bomb" when                  
  the long term contract stops in Ketchikan in the year 2004.                  
  That team is saying 1,158 direct jobs are associated in                      
  Ketchikan with having that contract and the manufacturing                    
  facility which that long term contract allowed to occur; $40                 
  million in payroll; population decreases of 15 percent are                   
  expected; $40 million in gross business sales lost; $160                     
  million of property tax base lost; population base revenues                  
  from the state lost; fees from the state lost; over $1                       
  million of direct city revenues gone if there is no viable                   
  forest products industry.                                                    
  MR. GATES pointed out the Fibreform project wanted 62 acres                  
  in downtown Seward for their plant.  He stressed the                         
  Fibreform people and the Fibreform project was never real.                   
  He regrets that the Fibreform project is being talked about                  
  in regard to SB 310.  He stated SB 310 allows the state to                   
  have a tool that will create proper and responsible jobs and                 
  economic activity in the state.                                              
  Number 415                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if the committee has an                      
  option of mandating in-state processing of the resource in                   
  SB 310.                                                                      
  MR. GATES replied the state does not have to accept any                      
  contractual long term FMAs if they are not in the best                       
  interest of the state or do not call for value-added                         
  manufacturing in the state.                                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if that language can be inserted                 
  in SB 310.                                                                   
  MR. GATES stated it cannot be mandated under law.  He said                   
  FMAs can be structured in a way that every single agreement                  
  provides value-added as opposed to the exporting of logs                     
  from state property.                                                         
  Number 437                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she does have concerns                   
  with SB 310 and asked what the difference might be with                      
  passing SB 310 this session versus next session.                             
  MR. GATES responded there will be no problems.  He said it                   
  is a philosophy of having tools to try and make things                       
  happen.  The state is in a very competitive world.  Alaska                   
  is usually the last in and the first out of the world forest                 
  products market.  Alaska has the opportunity to put lots of                  
  Alaskans to work in a proper manner with good controls and                   
  excellent monitoring, if the tools are available to do it.                   
  He stressed the only difference is opportunity.                              
  Number 461                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stated he agrees with                       
  Representative Carney on the idea of looking at some way to                  
  do in-state processing.  However, he felt Mr. Gates's                        
  proposal is too simplistic--one cannot say it is against the                 
  law and if a restriction on primary manufacture is not                       
  allowed, a deal will be made and proposals will not be                       
  accepted unless in-state processing is included.  He said                    
  that cannot be done.                                                         
  MR. GATES responded there is no compulsion to do something                   
  which is not in the best interest of the state of Alaska and                 
  if it is determined that it is not in the best interest to                   
  export Alaska's logs, that will be the end of any discussion                 
  on a proposal which does that.                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES wondered if that is the case,                     
  then why is there truckload after truckload of round logs                    
  going out of his valley to Japan.                                            
  MR. GATES said if the logs are coming off of private lands,                  
  there is no interference as to what private landowners do                    
  with their property except for FMAs which are required if                    
  any forest management is allowed.  He stated the tools                       
  available to protect disturbances on private and public                      
  property will exist with FMAs.                                               
  Number 496                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if the ban on the export of                 
  round logs is still in effect in Oregon.                                     
  MR. GATES thought it is.                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if the same ban in Alaska has                 
  been discussed.                                                              
  MR. GATES said DCED has been talking about a ban a lot and                   
  feels a ban will be a good idea.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if DCED has any indication                       
  showing the inducement of corporate investments might                        
  generate the types of jobs which Prince George has.                          
  MR. GATES stated there is a situation in Seward, where                       
  professional marketers of plywood from Oregon have taken                     
  over the plant there and would love to build a plywood plant                 
  for an additional $10 million investment.  They cannot                       
  induce any investment without some assurance of enough fiber                 
  going through that plant to amortize the investment, cover                   
  their costs, and hopefully produce a profit.                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said people have testified that unless                 
  it can be shown there is a scale of economy which would                      
  absolutely require the long term leasing option...he felt it                 
  would help the committee understand better the correlation.                  
  Number 561                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if Mr. Gates had thought                 
  about the serious implications SB 310 may have on the                        
  MR. GATES replied his team has received $100,000 from the                    
  Economic Development Administration to try and address those                 
  concerns.  He said one of the problems seen in Ketchikan                     
  leading to the desire to have investments in the forest                      
  product industry was reliance upon feast and famine and the                  
  stability that the long term contract gave to Ketchikan.  It                 
  is felt the positive effects of that stability might be                      
  enjoyed elsewhere as well, including the rural areas and the                 
  river system.  He pointed out that ADF&G has signed off on                   
  SB 310 as meeting their concerns.                                            
  REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that $100,000 will not do                  
  the job.                                                                     
  Number 615                                                                   
  SB 46 - Authorize Moose Farming                                              
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated this is the fourth committee                        
  meeting on SB 46 and at the last meeting a subcommittee was                  
  appointed.  He said although the subcommittee never met,                     
  Representative Carney, Chair of the subcommittee did submit                  
  a suggested draft revision of the bill.  Since the last                      
  meeting on SB 46, the commissioners of the three affected                    
  state departments, DNR, the Department of Environmental                      
  Conservation (DEC), and ADF&G met and developed a whittled                   
  down list of what they considered to be their bottom line                    
  amendments needed to make the bill acceptable to the                         
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he had a CS drafted to add those                      
  seven suggested amendments to the draft CS previously before                 
  the committee.  It is that version which will be before the                  
  committee.  He stated the committee has spent considerable                   
  time on SB 46 and he hoped the committee could reach a                       
  decision and take action on the bill.                                        
  Number 650                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated before the committee                       
  adopts this version, he would like to hear ADF&G describe                    
  what is in it.                                                               
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if a CS is adopted, then the                          
  committee can use it as a working draft.                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated as a member of the subcommittee                 
  which worked on SB 46, he would rather adopt the report the                  
  subcommittee developed.                                                      
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested that ADF&G outline what is                   
  contained in the House CS.                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated he would like to adopt the House CS                 
  and work from the document.                                                  
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if there are no objections, the                       
  MOTION PASSED.                                                               
  TAPE 94-59, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON requested that ADF&G be invited to the                 
  table to explain their strong recommendations of changes to                  
  be made to SB 46.                                                            
  REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if ADF&G's recommendations                   
  are in the House CS.                                                         
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied they are.                                          
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stressed there is no resemblance                       
  between the House CS and what the subcommittee did.                          
  Number 029                                                                   
  stated the amendments the Administration put forward were                    
  agreed upon by the commissioners of DNR, DEC, and ADF&G.  He                 
  said the first two amendments will relieve animals held                      
  under an experimental animal husbandry permit from the                       
  authority of DNR and put them under the authority of ADF&G.                  
  Animals held under these permits are not yet game farm                       
  animals and are not domestic animals, but rather are wild                    
  animals.  The intent of the experimental animal husbandry                    
  permit is to allow an individual to experiment with these                    
  animals to determine if they are suitable as domestic or                     
  game farm animals.  He said those amendments appear on page                  
  2, lines 15-16 and lines 22-23.  The amendment deletes the                   
  words "and animals subject to an experimental animal                         
  husbandry permit under AS 16.40.010."                                        
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 4, lines 11-12, the words                       
  "caribou, moose, Sitka black-tailed deer" are deleted.  He                   
  stated caribou, moose and Sitka black-tailed deer should not                 
  be defined as game farm animals until they have been                         
  successfully bred and raised as livestock under the terms of                 
  an experimental animal husbandry permits.  On page 5, lines                  
  30-31, the words "or to an experimental animal husbandry                     
  permit under AS 16.40.010" are deleted.  He stated animals                   
  held under a Title 16 experimental animal husbandry permit                   
  should not be defined as domestic, and removed from                          
  department and fish and game oversight, until they are                       
  actually held under a game farming license.                                  
  Number 062                                                                   
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 7, lines 28-29, following the                 
  word "The", the words "possession and utilization of animals                 
  acquired under this section for commercial purposes and" are                 
  deleted.  He said Title 3 statutes and regulations adopted                   
  under Title 3 should apply only to game farm animals, not to                 
  animals held under Title 16 permits or used for commercial                   
  purposes other than game farming.  On page 8, line 10, the                   
  words "and sell the meat from" are deleted.  He said the                     
  sale of meat from animals held under Title 16 experimental                   
  animal husbandry permits is inappropriate and could                          
  compromise wildlife enforcement regulations adopted by the                   
  Board of Game.  At such time as ownership of animals held                    
  under these permits is transferred to the permittee under                    
  Title 3 game farming licenses, the sale will become legal.                   
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 8, lines 11-17, following the                   
  word "animals", the words ", and may charge a fee to the                     
  public for viewing of the animals.  The preparation and sale                 
  of meat or other products under this subsection for human                    
  consumption are subject to AS 03 and regulations adopted                     
  under AS 03.  Except as otherwise expressly provided in this                 
  subsection, the possession of animals for experimental                       
  animal husbandry purposes is subject to AS 03 and                            
  regulations adopted under AS 03 in the same manner as the                    
  possession of game farm animals" are deleted.  He stated                     
  regulation of animals held under Title 16 permits should be                  
  by ADF&G.  Experimental animal husbandry permits are                         
  intended to test the feasibility of using surplus wildlife                   
  for game farming, not for zoological exhibition.  Exhibition                 
  is currently regulated under Title 16 scientific/educational                 
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 9, lines 8-16, all material                   
  related to surplusing is deleted.  He said criteria for                      
  declaring game as surplus can best be achieved in                            
  regulations adopted under AS 16.40.010(a) Section 15.  Some                  
  of the criteria listed in this draft are allocation matters                  
  that should be considered by the Board of Game such as                       
  declaring animals in proximity to highways, railroads, and                   
  urban areas as surplus.  He pointed out these are also the                   
  animals most in demand by the public for subsistence, sport                  
  hunting, viewing, etc.  He also pointed out that most of the                 
  state's roads, railroads, and towns happen to be in valley                   
  bottoms.  When winter arrives and the animals are forced                     
  down into the bottom, any animal could be declared surplus.                  
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G feels SB 46 can be a good bill                    
  and provide a very necessary function in the regulation of                   
  game farming.  ADF&G feels there is a chance for success in                  
  game farming in Alaska, particularly with elk, bison, musk                   
  ox and reindeer.  These animals have a proven history of                     
  utility.  ADF&G hopes the committee will proceed cautiously                  
  on the addition of new species and do it under the                           
  experimental animal husbandry permit under ADF&G control.                    
  Number 116                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted caribou was included in the                      
  species which are not currently considered a domestic                        
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded he is aware of the federal                         
  definition of a reindeer--as soon as a caribou is in                         
  possession, federal law considers it to be a reindeer.  When                 
  wild deer were being herded in, occasionally caribou were                    
  mixed in with the herd.  Therefore, the reason for the                       
  inclusion was so the federal government did not have to ask                  
  a Native herder to differentiate between the two.  He                        
  stressed caribou are definitely not reindeer.                                
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said he has been led to believe that                   
  including caribou as a domestic animal will give the state                   
  an advantage on getting access to the use of those animals                   
  in lieu of reindeer.                                                         
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE said unless there is a change in federal law                 
  regulating reindeer herding in Alaska, he is not sure that                   
  is a correct interpretation.                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought at the department's                       
  suggestion, caribou is included in the House CS on page 6,                   
  line 30.                                                                     
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded in that section, any of those                      
  animals can be considered for possession under the                           
  experimental animal husbandry permit, which ADF&G will                       
  regulate.  Those animals will not be game farm animals until                 
  farming of the those animals is tested for feasibility.                      
  Number 160                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said in Section 4, game farm animals                   
  are identified as bison, elk, reindeer, and musk ox and does                 
  not include moose.  He clarified there is a difference                       
  between game animals and game farm animals.                                  
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied game animals are all animals.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked where in the House CS does it say                 
  that moose are available for experimental licensing.                         
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied at the bottom of page 6.  He stated                  
  moose will be available for possession under the terms of an                 
  experimental animal husbandry permit.  ADF&G has stated in                   
  the past that moose are not a suitable animal for game                       
  farming.  However, if someone wants to try moose farming, it                 
  is provided for in the House CS under the terms of an                        
  experimental animal husbandry permit.                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if a person has a game farm                       
  license for moose, what can that person do with the moose.                   
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied under the House CS for CSSB 46, a                    
  person will not be able to have a game farm license to hold                  
  a moose.  Under a game farm license, a person can hold elk,                  
  bison, musk ox, or reindeer.  He explained if a person wants                 
  to hold a moose, caribou, or black-tailed deer, they will                    
  have to do that under the terms of an experimental animal                    
  husbandry permit.  That permit will be issued for the                        
  purpose of propagating, determining if the animals can be                    
  bred, raised and kept in a healthy condition and in a manner                 
  that will promise to have economic opportunities.  He said                   
  the animal can be eaten, it can be milked, etc., but it                      
  cannot be commercially sold.                                                 
  Number 223                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is a section in the                      
  House CS which defines experimental animal husbandry.                        
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G will issue the experimental                       
  animal husbandry permits and the department will monitor the                 
  health of the animal and the operation.  He stated any                       
  animal under the permit will belong to the state and be                      
  regulated by ADF&G, as opposed to the game farm animals                      
  which are handled by the commissioner of DNR.                                
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he understands that, but is                      
  wondering if the House CS says that.                                         
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied the explanation begins on page 6,                    
  line 28 and continues down on page 7.  He said there is no                   
  definition of experimental animal husbandry included because                 
  no regulations have been developed since the legislation has                 
  also not been developed.                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated on page 7, line 1, it says                      
  "under regulations adopted by it,"...                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON told committee members to look at page                 
  8, line 3 on down.                                                           
  Number 279                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that experimental animal                      
  husbandry means slaughtering and selling the antlers, horn,                  
  etc.  He felt it sounds more like a slaughtering-type of                     
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE pointed out page 8, line 2, which says                       
  "intends to raise and breed..."  He said if there is proof                   
  to the satisfaction of ADF&G that the person intends to                      
  raise and breed the animal, which is basically husbandry,                    
  then below that line are the allowable uses that a person                    
  may make of an animal held under an experimental permit.                     
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the slaughtering is for personal                   
  consumption, not for commercial sale.                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified if a person has had the                      
  experimental animal husbandry permit for five years, then                    
  they can request title to the animal.                                        
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is correct.                                     
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the subcommittee's work draft is                    
  being distributed and asked Representative Mulder to brief                   
  the committee on that draft.                                                 
  Number 338                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER explained the subcommittee made                        
  changes to version X.  The first recommendation placed                       
  regulatory authority over the experimental animal husbandry                  
  permit with DNR.  The second recommendation shortened the                    
  duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit to two                  
  years.  He said the five year provision in version X was an                  
  arbitrary number chosen by the drafting attorney because a                   
  specific time period had not been provided at the time of                    
  drafting.  The third recommendation was to remove Sitka                      
  black-tailed deer from the entire bill.                                      
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said the subcommittee recommended a                    
  penalty clause for tampering with game farm fences in a                      
  manner that would allow animals to escape or be stolen.  The                 
  subcommittee did discuss the issue of surplus and the                        
  definition was retained.                                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the subcommittee recommended                  
  retaining the fee which can be charged for public viewing of                 
  the animals.                                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was in the original bill and                 
  the subcommittee recommended to retain it.  However, ADF&G                   
  recommends deleting that provision.                                          
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referring to page 8, lines 15-16, asked                 
  if moose fall into the category of a game farm animal.                       
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied to be classified as a game farm                      
  animal, an animal has to be designated as such by the                        
  commissioners of DNR and ADF&G.  If after five years of                      
  captivity and husbandry the animal proves to be farmable,                    
  then the commissioners can designate it as a game farm                       
  animal, even though it is not defined as such.  He said                      
  there is a provision in all of the drafts that the                           
  commissioners can, at any time, jointly designate another                    
  species as a game farm animal.  He stressed the goal is to                   
  not rush and call a wild animal a domestic animal and cause                  
  problems with the management of the wild stocks.                             
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern in that he has a                      
  friend who had a young moose bed down by his house, they fed                 
  it and it stayed all winter long without any fence.  He felt                 
  that particular animal could qualify as a game farm animal                   
  because it was young, hand fed, and used to humans.                          
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated he understands how a young animal                     
  acts in the winter.  He recalled an experience of taking                     
  care of a buck black-tailed deer that had been received as a                 
  fawn and bottle fed.  He said when that buck came into rut                   
  the first time, the animal was super aggressive.  He                         
  stressed there is a distinct difference between wild animals                 
  who are acting in a certain manner at a certain time of year                 
  and that same animal at a different part of its lifecycle                    
  and the ability to domesticate these animals.                                
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated moose held in captivity die at seven                  
  years old, yet a moose out in the woods lives up to 18 years                 
  old and nobody knows why.                                                    
  Number 502                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she is not comfortable with                      
  having the departments determine, after a certain length of                  
  time, that a certain animal is a game farm animal.  She felt                 
  that if the committee has the option to make that                            
  determination in regulation, it should be included in the                    
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if the committee wants the                         
  legislature to make that decision, he has no objections.  He                 
  stressed that as SB 46 progressed, there were many trade-                    
  offs and some people felt it would be more expeditious for                   
  the commissioners to jointly make that determination, rather                 
  than having to come to the legislature to add each species                   
  to the law.                                                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked ADF&G's position if the                          
  committee adopts the subcommittee's recommendations.                         
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied he would recommend to the                            
  commissioner, that he recommend to the Governor a veto.  He                  
  felt the state of Alaska should not forge ahead too fast in                  
  this endeavor because of the experiences in other states.                    
  He stressed the version that the three departments agreed on                 
  is a measured step in the right direction, allowing the                      
  industry to be regulated and problems be looked at before                    
  they become ingrained problems with property rights                          
  instilled.  He said a lot of effort was required to get the                  
  three departments to agree.                                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON thought the committee had decided that                 
  Sitka black-tailed deer should not be included in SB 46.                     
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded there is no future in farming                      
  Sitka black-tailed deer.                                                     
  Number 594                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the other only real difference                   
  between the subcommittee's version and the department's                      
  version is that the subcommittee's version shortens the                      
  duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit from                    
  five years to two years.  She expressed support for five                     
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated his concern with the                            
  subcommittee's version is the placing of the regulatory                      
  authority over the experimental animal husbandry permit with                 
  DNR, instead of ADF&G.  He felt as long as an animal is                      
  classified as a wild animal, ADF&G should have the                           
  regulatory authority.  He expressed support for version I.                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still felt uncomfortable with the                       
  departments making the determination on adding a species to                  
  the definition of a game farm animal.  She would like to                     
  have language in the bill instructing what happens when a                    
  moose goes from an experimental to a game farm animal.                       
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said there is already language in the                  
  bill which does that.  He referred to page 8, lines 15-21.                   
  Number 685                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated a farmer has done fine for five                  
  years and animal A becomes a game farm animal.  If the                       
  person is going to game farm, a female animal is needed.  He                 
  wondered where the farmer will get the female since he                       
  cannot import it or trap it in the wild.                                     
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if a person is involved in the                     
  experimental animal husbandry permit, that person should                     
  have a him and a her early on in the operation.  He said                     
  obtaining moose is a problem.  He stated page 8, line 15                     
  says "The department shall grant title to the animals if the                 
  person has..."  He said if that was rewritten to say, "The                   
  department shall grant title to the animals if they are                      
  defined as game farm animals under Title 3 and the person                    
  has..."  He pointed out that change will allow the animal to                 
  continue under the experimental animal husbandry permit                      
  until either the legislature or the commissioners classify                   
  the species as a game farm animal.                                           
  TAPE 94-59, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt if a person is going to get into a                 
  farming mode, that person cannot depend on orphan moose for                  
  a supply.  He thought just four or five animals does not                     
  make a successful farm.                                                      
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated that was the crux of the department's                 
  testimony in both the Senate and House.  ADF&G surveyed over                 
  125 different farms that had moose, and the department could                 
  not find a single farm that was raising moose as a game farm                 
  animal--they were just kept as oddities.                                     
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the way SB 46 will work                         
  conceptually is logical.  First, the department will set up                  
  regulations to define certain kinds of animals as surplus                    
  and then can authorize a person to take portions of the                      
  surplus for the purpose of raising and breeding the animals                  
  as domestic stock for commercial purposes or for                             
  experimental animal husbandry purposes, resulting in                         
  possibly a small herd.  He said page 8, beginning on line                    
  12, says a person who holds the experimental permit, has                     
  possessed animals under the permit and intends to raise the                  
  animals for commercial purposes.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Representative Davies was                      
  talking about a herd of moose.  He maintained there are not                  
  a lot of surplus moose.  He stressed a person cannot go into                 
  the wild and pick up moose.                                                  
  Number 042                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                             
  deleting any reference to Sitka black-tailed deer.                           
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Kelleyhouse why the                          
  reference to the definition of surplus was deleted.                          
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G recommended deleting the section                  
  on surplus because it falls into the allocation lap of the                   
  Board of Game.                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER clarified ADF&G would rather do the                    
  determination of a surplus by regulation.                                    
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied ADF&G does not like doing things in                  
  direct opposition to the Board of Game, but the commissioner                 
  does have the authority to declare the surplus.  He said it                  
  is much better for the department to go the Board of Game                    
  and outline the situation and get their concurrence.  He                     
  felt the definition of surplus which the subcommittee                        
  offered contains inherent problems.  He told the committee                   
  if their fear is ADF&G will not declare a surplus, and                       
  thereby veto the legislature, he would rather do it up-front                 
  and recommend the Governor veto the entire legislation.  He                  
  pledged that if SB 46 passes, the department will take                       
  actions conducive to putting the legislation into effect.                    
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated his fear is that when the                       
  commissioner is given that type of sweeping authority, he                    
  does what he wants to as opposed to any kind of intent or                    
  desire.  He said there is potential in game farming but that                 
  potential will never be realized if there is never a surplus                 
  designated by the commissioner.                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said many times orphan moose calves are                 
  surplus in that there are no zoos, etc., which will take                     
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is his thought also.  He                        
  pointed out that not only did the commissioner of ADF&G                      
  declare the bison herd on (indiscernible) Island as surplus,                 
  but also recommended to the Board of Game that the                           
  department be able to surplus some musk ox.  The Board of                    
  Game rejected the musk ox recommendation and the department                  
  did not push it.                                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the bill precludes someone                   
  from having an animal viewing area and charging a fee.                       
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that activity is already permitted                   
  under a Title 16 permit.  He said ADF&G's fear is a                          
  situation like the dilapidated roadside viewing areas in the                 
  Midwest and West.                                                            
  Number 165                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered an amendment on page 1, line 1                  
  the words "moose farming and relating to" be deleted and on                  
  all pages the word moose be removed.                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated the committee is not allowed to                 
  make a title change without a concurrent resolution.                         
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out there is a provision in                    
  the bill that moose can become a game farm animal.                           
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the sponsor of SB 46 does not want                    
  moose taken out of the bill.                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he does not understand why                        
  retaining the definition of surplus in the bill will not                     
  work.  He asked Mr. Kelleyhouse to go through the list of                    
  surplus animals and tell the committee what the problems                     
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded 1) unnecessary to the sustained                    
  yield management of a game population--would this mean only                  
  out of parks if the population was not being harvested.  He                  
  said if the surplus is from a harvested population, the                      
  Board of Game has already set a policy, regarding                            
  consumptive use of game, and has generally listed uses for                   
  commercial agriculture last.  He cannot envision where a                     
  surplus animal would be unnecessary to the sustained yield                   
  management of a game population.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered about a situation where a cow                 
  had been hit by the Alaska Railroad and there are two calves                 
  sitting by the side of the road.  He thought the department                  
  could find, in that case, that those two calves are                          
  unnecessary to the sustained yield management of a game                      
  MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that would be true.  He added                      
  there is competition for these calves from zoos, scientific                  
  education permit holders that are exhibiting animals, etc.                   
  He continued:  2) Members of a game population that                          
  currently exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat--he                    
  said carrying capacity is a good concept much like sustained                 
  yield.  He stated putting a definition on carrying capacity                  
  is difficult.  He did not feel one could ever demonstrate                    
  that a population is indeed in excess of its carrying                        
  capacity.  3) Members of a game population for which there                   
  is no closed season on the take of animals from the game                     
  population.  ADF&G fears that any animal which comes near a                  
  road or any animal that anybody wants could point back to a                  
  statute to obtain that animal and circumvent the Board of                    
  Game process.  He said if the fear is that there will be no                  
  animals made available for the experimental animal husbandry                 
  permits, he stressed once the statute is passed, ADF&G will                  
  do what they can to see if it will work and declare that                     
  Number 270                                                                   
  as amended with attached fiscal notes out of committee with                  
  INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.                                                  
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OBJECTED.                                               
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote.  Voting in                     
  favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN, BUNDE,                 
  HUDSON, DAVIES, JAMES, MULDER, AND WILLIAMS.  Voting against                 
  the motion was REPRESENTATIVE GREEN.  The MOTION PASSED 7-1.                 
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on                       
  Friday, April 22 at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 215 and SB 310.                     
  There being no further business to come before the House                     
  Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting                 
  at 6:24 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects