Legislature(2003 - 2004)

05/16/2003 01:35 PM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                          May 16, 2003                                                                                          
                           1:35 p.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair                                                                                                 
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair                                                                                        
Representative Carl Gatto                                                                                                       
Representative Cheryll Heinze                                                                                                   
Representative Carl Morgan                                                                                                      
Representative Kelly Wolf                                                                                                       
Representative Sharon Cissna                                                                                                    
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 149(RES)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating to timber, to the sale of timber by the state,                                                                 
and to the management of state forests."                                                                                        
     - MOVED CSSB 149(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 196                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to carbon sequestration; and providing for an                                                                  
effective date."                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 196(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
BILL: SB 149                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:TIMBER/ TIMBER SALES/ STATE FORESTS                                                                                 
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR                                                                                                   
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/17/03     0517       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
03/17/03     0517       (S)        RES, FIN                                                                                     
03/28/03     0617       (S)        COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS B                                                                      
05/02/03                (S)        RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                 
05/02/03                (S)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
05/02/03                (S)        MINUTE(RES)                                                                                  
05/05/03                (S)        RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                 
05/05/03                (S)        MINUTE(RES)                                                                                  
05/06/03     1178       (S)        RES RPT CS 5DP 1DNP 1AM NEW                                                                  
05/06/03     1179       (S)        DP: OGAN, SEEKINS, STEVENS B,                                                                
05/06/03     1179       (S)        DYSON; DNP: ELTON; AM:                                                                       
05/06/03     1179       (S)        FN1: ZERO(DNR)                                                                               
05/07/03     1234       (S)        FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                                                                          
05/11/03     1320       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR 5/11/2003                                                                  
05/11/03     1320       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
05/11/03     1320       (S)        RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                  
05/11/03     1320       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   5/12 CALENDAR                                                                                
05/12/03     1340       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
05/12/03     1340       (S)        PASSED Y12 N8                                                                                
05/12/03     1340       (S)        ELLIS NOTICE OF                                                                              
05/13/03     1366       (S)        RECONSIDERATION HELD TO                                                                      
05/14/03     1406       (S)        RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                 
05/14/03     1408       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
05/14/03     1408       (S)        VERSION: CSSB 149(RES)                                                                       
05/15/03     1676       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
05/15/03     1676       (H)        RES, FIN                                                                                     
05/16/03     1734       (H)        FN1: ZERO(DNR)                                                                               
05/16/03                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
BILL: HB 196                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:CARBON SEQUESTRATION                                                                                                
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)BERKOWITZ                                                                                          
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/14/03     0541       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
03/14/03     0541       (H)        RES, FIN                                                                                     
04/23/03     1080       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): GARA                                                                           
05/07/03     1438       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): GUTTENBERG                                                                     
05/09/03                (H)        RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
05/09/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
05/12/03                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
05/12/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
05/12/03                (H)        MINUTE(RES)                                                                                  
05/14/03     1663       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA,                                                                      
05/14/03                (H)        RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
05/14/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
05/15/03     1714       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): KOTT                                                                           
05/16/03     1766       (H)        FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                                                                          
05/16/03                (H)        RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                   
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
KELLY HUBER, Staff                                                                                                              
to Senator Robin Taylor                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Introduced  SB 149  on  behalf of  Senator                                                               
Taylor, sponsor.                                                                                                                
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, Regional Forester                                                                                          
Northern Region Office                                                                                                          
Division of Forestry                                                                                                            
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)                                                                                           
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:    Explained  SB 149 and  answered questions;                                                               
answered questions relating to HB 196.                                                                                          
LESLIE GUSTAFSON, Owner                                                                                                         
White Spruce Enterprises                                                                                                        
Salcha, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Urged support  for SB 149 as  someone whose                                                               
business uses the Tanana Valley State Forest.                                                                                   
SCOTT BATES                                                                                                                     
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  hearing on  SB 149,  voiced concern                                                               
about the  removal of "multiple  use" language from  the statutes                                                               
and cited  a study showing  the sheer volume of  nontimber forest                                                               
uses in the Tanana Valley State Forest.                                                                                         
DEIRDRE HELFFERICH                                                                                                              
Ester, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  on SB  149,  saying  her  main                                                               
concern is with replacing the  primary importance of multiple use                                                               
management  with timber  management  in the  hierarchy; spoke  in                                                               
favor of a broad spectrum of uses.                                                                                              
AL PACH                                                                                                                         
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified on  SB 149,  suggesting multiple                                                               
uses can continue even if timber becomes the primary use.                                                                       
MARJORIE K. COLE                                                                                                                
Ester, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  on SB  149  in  opposition  to                                                               
promoting  timber  management to  the  primary  use; spoke  about                                                               
quality of life for Interior Alaskans and other concerns.                                                                       
GLENN JUDAY, Ph.D.                                                                                                              
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on  SB 149, saying it  is fatally                                                               
flawed;  suggested   having  Section   11  apply   to  commercial                                                               
resources, not timber specifically, and proposed language.                                                                      
LAURA HENRY                                                                                                                     
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  on SB  149;  suggested  either                                                               
tabling the  bill until the  interim or keeping  the multiple-use                                                               
priority, which  better reflects the diversity  of public opinion                                                               
in Interior Alaska.                                                                                                             
JAN DAWE, Ph.D., Director                                                                                                       
Alaska Boreal Forest Council                                                                                                    
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on  SB 149; urged the committee to                                                               
hold the bill  over the interim to  work on it or, if  it must be                                                               
moved, to amend  the portion dealing with the  primary purpose of                                                               
a  state  forest  to include  multiple  use;  provided  suggested                                                               
EMILY FERRY                                                                                                                     
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Expressed concerns about SB  149, saying it                                                               
needs serious changes or should be voted down altogether.                                                                       
ANISSA BERRY, President                                                                                                         
Lower Chatham Conservation Society                                                                                              
Port Alexander, Alaska                                                                                                          
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Voiced indignation  about SB  149, stating                                                               
concern that it will result  in lost revenues and will jeopardize                                                               
fisheries,  habitat, recreation,  and subsistence;  urged members                                                               
to either not pass it or change multiple use portions.                                                                          
SETH LITTLE                                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  in  opposition  to the  current                                                               
version of  SB 149 and changing  the mandate for multiple  use to                                                               
timber  production  as  the primary  purpose;  urged  members  to                                                               
listen  to  suggestions  and   possible  amendments  proposed  by                                                               
previous testifiers and to rework the bill in committee.                                                                        
BOBBIE JO SKIBO                                                                                                                 
Eagle River, Alaska                                                                                                             
POSITION  STATEMENT:    Testified  on SB  149,  echoing  concerns                                                               
voiced  by  previous testifiers  and  stating  opposition not  to                                                               
logging,  but  to  a  focus  on  a  single-interest  rather  than                                                               
multiple use.                                                                                                                   
MATT DAVIDSON                                                                                                                   
Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV)                                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Testified  on SB  149,  calling it  poorly                                                               
crafted  and  expressing  concerns  about what  it  changes  with                                                               
regard to planning, riparian standards,  and other matters; asked                                                               
the committee to take time to really look at it.                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
TAPE 03-46, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  HUGH FATE  called the  House Resources  Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to order  at  1:35 p.m.    Representatives Fate,  Masek,                                                               
Gatto,  Heinze, Morgan,  Guttenberg, and  Cissna were  present at                                                               
the call  to order.   Representative Wolf arrived as  the meeting                                                               
was in progress.                                                                                                                
SB 149-TIMBER/ TIMBER SALES/ STATE FORESTS                                                                                    
Number 0130                                                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE  announced that the  first order of business  would be                                                               
CS FOR SENATE  BILL NO. 149(RES), "An Act relating  to timber, to                                                               
the sale of  timber by the state, and to  the management of state                                                               
Number 0178                                                                                                                     
KELLY  HUBER,  Staff  to  Senator   Robin  Taylor,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  introduced  SB 149  on  behalf  of Senator  Taylor,                                                               
sponsor.  Noting that this bill  was done in conjunction with the                                                               
administration,  Ms.  Huber  turned   the  presentation  over  to                                                               
Mr. Maisch.                                                                                                                     
Number 0244                                                                                                                     
JOHN "CHRIS"  MAISCH, Regional Forester, Northern  Region Office,                                                               
Division  of Forestry,  Department  of  Natural Resources  (DNR),                                                               
paraphrased   the   sponsor   statement/sectional   analysis   in                                                               
committee packets.   He explained that SB  149 addresses planning                                                               
requirements for  forest management, including  forest management                                                               
plans  for  legislatively  designated  state  forests,  Five-Year                                                               
Schedules of  Timber Sales  (FYSTSs), and  Forest Land  Use Plans                                                               
(FLUPs) for  individual timber sales.   Currently, there  are two                                                               
legislatively designated state forests:   the Tanana Valley State                                                               
Forest and the Haines State Forest Resource Management Area.                                                                    
MR. MAISCH discussed how the  legislation affects Forest Land Use                                                               
Plans.   Section 1 moves  the guidance  on when  general planning                                                               
requirements  under  AS 38.04.065  apply  to  FLUPs, a  technical                                                               
change based  on other changes  in the  bill.  Section  2 deletes                                                               
the  reference  to  consideration of  information  on  collective                                                               
effects   of   forest   activities,  because   consideration   of                                                               
collective effects cannot be done  on a sale-by-sale basis and is                                                               
better  addressed  through  regional   planning  such  as  FLUPs.                                                               
Section  3  deletes  the  list  of specific  uses  that  must  be                                                               
considered  in FLUPs  and  replaces it  with  a requirement  that                                                               
FLUPs on land outside the  state forests shall consider nontimber                                                               
forest resources and uses.                                                                                                      
Number 0414                                                                                                                     
MR.  MAISCH  turned  to how  the  legislation  affects  Five-Year                                                               
Schedules of Timber  Sales.  He said Section 4  changes the five-                                                               
year  schedule from  an annual  to a  [biennial] requirement,  to                                                               
reduce the  division's workload from preparing  and reviewing the                                                               
schedules  while keeping  the industry  and  the public  informed                                                               
about proposed sales.   Section 5 changes the  requirement that a                                                               
sale be on  two schedules preceding the sale; now  the sale would                                                               
have  to be  on  one of  the two  schedules  preceding the  sale.                                                               
Individual  sales  will be  reviewed  through  the FLUP  process.                                                               
Section 16 is a technical change he said he wouldn't go into.                                                                   
MR. MAISCH addressed state forest  purposes and forest management                                                               
plans, probably  one of the  more important aspects of  the bill.                                                               
He said Sections 8 and 9  address management plans for the Haines                                                               
State  Forest  [Resource  Management  Area].   They  replace  the                                                               
specific  planning  requirements  for  the  Haines  State  Forest                                                               
Resource   Management  Area   in  [AS]   41.15.315(a)  with   the                                                               
[requirements  for]   state  forest  management  plans   in  [AS]                                                               
41.17.230.  Hence  the two state forests would be  subject to the                                                               
same guidance  for management plans.   Specific  requirements for                                                               
consultation  between DNR  and the  Alaska Department  of Fish  &                                                               
Game (ADF&G) and  between ADF&G and local fish  and game advisory                                                               
committees would be  retained.  Deleted are  requirements for the                                                               
plan to  be based on the  inventory completed within the  last 10                                                               
years and to  revise the plan when  a new inventory is  done.  He                                                               
told members  this wouldn't require  any changes at this  time to                                                               
the current forest management plans for the state forests.                                                                      
Number 0563                                                                                                                     
MR. MAISCH  turned to Sections  11, 12, and  15.  He  pointed out                                                               
that  they  change  the   management  emphasis  in  legislatively                                                               
designated  state  forests  from  a  mix  of  multiple  use  that                                                               
provides for timber management; now  it will be timber management                                                               
that allows other beneficial uses  compatible with timber.  These                                                               
sections change  the primary  purpose of  the state  forests from                                                               
multiple  use  that  provides for  production,  utilization,  and                                                               
replenishment  of  timber  resources;   now  it  will  be  timber                                                               
management while allowing other beneficial uses.                                                                                
MR.  MAISCH  said  these  sections delete  "multiple  use"  as  a                                                               
principle for  managing a state  forest.  These changes  apply to                                                               
the  Tanana  Valley  State  Forest.    The  Haines  State  Forest                                                               
[Resource  Management   Area's]  purpose  is   established  under                                                               
AS 41.15.300 to AS 41.15.315, and isn't changed by this bill.                                                                   
MR.  MAISCH  explained  that  Section  13  requires  that  forest                                                               
management plans consider nontimber uses  to the extent such uses                                                               
are  compatible  with timber  management.    In conjunction  with                                                               
Section  3, it  moves consideration  of nontimber  uses in  state                                                               
forests from the  individual FLUP to the management  plan for the                                                               
state forest.  This section applies to both state forests.                                                                      
Number 0668                                                                                                                     
MR.  MAISCH said  Section  14 makes  the  timing requirement  for                                                               
review  of forest  management plans  more  flexible; rather  than                                                               
every  five years,  it's as  necessary.   Section 16  deletes the                                                               
requirement  for  proposals  of  new  state  forests  to  include                                                               
findings  of incompatibility  for the  timber and  nontimber uses                                                               
previously listed in AS 38.05.112(c)  and agency comments on such                                                               
findings; it also deletes the  requirement that forest management                                                               
plans be provided to the legislature after adoption.                                                                            
Number 0722                                                                                                                     
MR. MAISCH explained  that Section 10 revises  the conditions for                                                               
imposing  riparian-protection standards  on state  land that  are                                                               
more  stringent than  those established  in the  Forest Resources                                                               
and  Practices  Act.   He  noted  that  SB 88  establishes  those                                                               
standards for the Interior.                                                                                                     
MR.  MAISCH   turned  to  negotiated   timber  sales   for  local                                                               
manufacture of  wood products.   He said  Section 6  broadens the                                                               
area where  sales under this section  may be offered.   Section 7                                                               
makes  the definition  of "high  value-added  wood product"  more                                                               
flexible  by   allowing  the   commissioner  to   determine  what                                                               
additional products qualify.  He offered to answer questions.                                                                   
Number 0812                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   GUTTENBERG   related  his   understanding   that                                                               
management of the Tanana Valley  State Forest has been with "user                                                               
groups and  large groups of  people getting together  and sitting                                                               
at  the  table."   He  asked  whether  this  [bill] came  from  a                                                               
consensus process with the affected constituent groups.                                                                         
MR.  MAISCH  said it  wasn't  done  through  a process  used  for                                                               
revising the forest management plan  itself, but different people                                                               
were  consulted in  the community  by the  parties who  worked on                                                               
this legislation.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG  asked  whether  it was  part  of,  or                                                               
outside of, the consensus process.                                                                                              
MR.  MAISCH  said he  wasn't  fully  involved in  preparing  this                                                               
legislation,  was  present  currently to  address  the  sectional                                                               
analysis, and couldn't answer that.                                                                                             
Number 0860                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred  to page 4, line 5,  where it talks                                                               
about  a commissioner's  finding  of  compelling state  interest;                                                               
page   5,  line   4,  where   it   talks  about   a  finding   of                                                               
incompatibility in  the management plan;  and  page 5,  lines 11-                                                               
12, where it  says "when necessary".  He said  he could deal with                                                               
the first  ones, though  they leave it  to interpretation  of the                                                               
commissioner.   Highlighting "when  necessary", however,  he said                                                               
it's a wide-open  door, whereas [review] has  been required every                                                               
five years.  He asked Mr. Maisch how he feels about the change.                                                                 
MR. MAISCH offered his experience  that five years was too short.                                                               
He said the  division had found itself in a  never-ending loop in                                                               
terms of  revising the  forest management  plan, and  he believed                                                               
the last plan revision took close  to seven years to do; thus the                                                               
whole plan would have to be revised  in two and a half years.  He                                                               
opined  that  "when  necessary"  is  appropriate;  if  there  are                                                               
changes  in forest  conditions or  the level  of management,  the                                                               
plan can be revised.                                                                                                            
Number 1055                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired  about having it say  "no less than                                                               
one time in any 10-year period".                                                                                                
MR. MAISCH said it'd be nice  to have more flexibility than that.                                                               
He elaborated:                                                                                                                  
     Currently, the  level of management that  occurs on the                                                                    
     state forest,  even over  a 10-year  period if  we look                                                                    
     back  over the  last  20,  there's been  not  a lot  of                                                                    
     change  in the  level  of harvesting  that's ...  taken                                                                    
     place.  So I'd hate to  commit the division to a review                                                                    
     process  that's   not  needed,  because   those  review                                                                    
     processes are  very time consuming,  and they  cost the                                                                    
     state a lot ... of money and time to complete.                                                                             
Number 1114                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CISSNA  addressed  removal of  the  principle  of                                                               
multiple use in the bill; she  cited page 4, line 14, Section 12,                                                               
as  an example.   [The  sponsor statement/sectional  analysis for                                                               
Sections 11, 12, and 15  said these sections "delete multiple use                                                               
as a principle for managing  a State Forest."] She suggested this                                                               
might be logical  in some areas where multiple use  is minor, but                                                               
pointed out  that in  some areas  of the  state, multiple  use is                                                               
extremely  important to  the  community, for  tourism  and for  a                                                               
number of  local businesses; looking  at just timber  sales could                                                               
hurt the  local economy.   She  asked why  multiple use  is being                                                               
replaced with timber in some of these places.                                                                                   
MR.  MAISCH asserted  that  it doesn't  remove  the principle  of                                                               
multiple use  from management  of the  state forests,  but places                                                               
timber  management   above  those   other  multiple  uses.     He                                                               
     Those other multiple uses will  continue to occur, and,                                                                    
     in  most   cases,  are  very  compatible   with  timber                                                                    
     management.    In fact,  a  lot  of the  access  that's                                                                    
     provided  ... in  the state  forest for  other multiple                                                                    
     uses  is  provided  because of  the  timber  management                                                                    
     program.     So  it  does   not  remove   multiple  use                                                                    
     management  from the  state forests;  however, it  does                                                                    
     put  timber at  a  higher  consideration level,  should                                                                    
     there  be  a  conflict between  timber  management  and                                                                    
     multiple uses.                                                                                                             
Number 1258                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA  asked whether that  would be true  even if                                                               
the multiple use was jeopardized  by timber production.  She also                                                               
asked whether timber production trumps any other local use.                                                                     
MR.  MAISCH answered,  "Within the  state forests,  ... if  there                                                               
were competing  uses for  the same piece  of land,  we'd consider                                                               
timber higher  than the other uses.  ... I don't know  if I'd say                                                               
it would  trump per se, but  it would certainly put  it higher up                                                               
on the list  of considerations."  In response to  a question from                                                               
Chair Fate, he said:                                                                                                            
     The  forest management  plan still  stays in  effect on                                                                    
     this, and it  goes into great detail in  the plan about                                                                    
     other uses that are permitted  and allowed on the state                                                                    
     forest.     The   way  I   understand  this   piece  of                                                                    
     legislation,  it just  simply puts  timber at  a higher                                                                    
     consideration  level,   should  there  be   a  conflict                                                                    
     between multiple uses and timber management.                                                                               
CHAIR FATE asked, "But those are in  the plans as well as in this                                                               
piece of legislation?"                                                                                                          
MR. MAISCH affirmed that and said,  "They are listed out in quite                                                               
a bit  of detail  and how  we intend to  manage those  other uses                                                               
within the state forest."                                                                                                       
Number 1387                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG  asked  whether  [the  division]  does                                                               
timber sales now.                                                                                                               
MR. MAISCH answered in the  affirmative.  In further response, he                                                               
said,  "We're under  10  percent of  what  the allowable  harvest                                                               
levels would be on the state  forest.  Right now, roughly about a                                                               
thousand acres  a year are  harvested in  the state forest  or on                                                               
nearby classified lands."                                                                                                       
Number 1419                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG  asked whether  all of those  leases or                                                               
bids  are  used,  whether  there is  competition  for  them,  and                                                               
whether there is a  need for more now.  He said  he was trying to                                                               
figure out  why timber would  be put  above other purposes.   For                                                               
example,  is the  timber harvest  not  meeting the  needs of  the                                                               
MR. MAISCH said it depends on  the area of the state forest being                                                               
discussed.   The  state forest  is divided  into four  management                                                               
areas.   In some,  sale offerings are  keeping pace  with demand.                                                               
In the Fairbanks  area, for example, sale offerings  are ahead of                                                               
demand level,  and there are  some sales available  via over-the-                                                               
counter offerings.  He noted  that the over-the-counter offerings                                                               
have started to  pick up lately, with a number  being sold in the                                                               
last few weeks.                                                                                                                 
Number 1490                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG asked,  "But  you're  still below  the                                                               
level that you can be without interfering with multiple use?"                                                                   
MR. MAISCH responded that only about  10 percent of what would be                                                               
permitted under the sustained yield concept is being harvested.                                                                 
CHAIR  FATE  offered  that  it  isn't a  matter  of  having  land                                                               
available  for multiple  use; rather,  the use  of the  timber in                                                               
that plan [would have] a higher priority than multiple use.                                                                     
MR. MAISCH  agreed, saying  multiple use is  a concept  that "all                                                               
these  uses  can   occur  across  the  landscape   more  or  less                                                               
simultaneously."  He  added, "There are rare  occasions where you                                                               
may  have  conflicts between  some  of  those multiple  uses  and                                                               
timber management."                                                                                                             
Number 1570                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE     HEINZE     referred     to     the     sponsor                                                               
statement/sectional analysis for Section  6, which read [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     Negotiated timber sales for local manufacture of wood                                                                    
     Section  6 (AS  38.05.123(d)  broadens  the area  where                                                                  
     sales  under this  section may  be offered.   Currently                                                                    
     offerings   are  limited   to  areas   "designated  for                                                                    
     forestry  uses"  by  an  area   plan,  to  areas  where                                                                    
     forestry  is an  allowed use.   This  would allow  this                                                                    
     sale type in areas  that have more general designations                                                                    
     such  as   "Resource  Management"  or   "General  Use".                                                                    
     Review  of proposed  sales through  the FYSTS  and FLUP                                                                    
     processes would continue to  ensure that proposed sales                                                                    
     are  compatible  with  the management  intent  for  the                                                                    
     particular location.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked how much land this affects.                                                                         
MR. MAISCH said he didn't know off the top of his head.                                                                         
Number 1623                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked whether there  has been any effect from                                                               
the spruce-bark beetle.                                                                                                         
MR. MAISCH  said no.   The  spruce beetle  that has  affected the                                                               
Kenai  Peninsula  hasn't  occurred  [in  the  same  way]  in  the                                                               
Interior.   A different  beetle, the  "Ips" beetle,  impacted the                                                               
area a few years ago;  it doesn't cause widespread mortality, but                                                               
usually kills individual tops of  trees.  In further response, he                                                               
said there's  always a  potential [that  the spruce  beetle could                                                               
have an effect].  He explained:                                                                                                 
     The spruce  beetle is here  in the Interior,  just like                                                                    
     other parts  of the state.   It's at ... what  would be                                                                    
     referred to as  an endemic level, which  is it's always                                                                    
     present.  It  could at any time perhaps  break out into                                                                    
     an epidemic; we had one on  the Yukon River in the mid-                                                                    
     to-late  '80s.   It  was  one of  the  first times  the                                                                    
     spruce beetle  was recorded that  had [an]  outbreak as                                                                    
     large as ... it got.  It  did run its course in about a                                                                    
     five-year  period  of   time,  affected  mostly  Native                                                                    
     timber holdings,  some state timber holdings,  but in a                                                                    
     very  remote area  in  the Interior.    It could  occur                                                                    
     here,  but  it's hard  to  predict  when and  if  those                                                                    
     conditions would actually take place.                                                                                      
CHAIR FATE asked  that Mr. Maisch stand by  on teleconference for                                                               
later questions.   He requested  that testifiers  limit testimony                                                               
to about two minutes.                                                                                                           
Number 1717                                                                                                                     
LESLIE  GUSTAFSON,  Owner,  White  Spruce  Enterprises,  informed                                                               
members that  she is involved  in the timber-harvest  industry in                                                               
the Tanana Valley State Forest  and with value-added construction                                                               
from her  company's log and  lumber products.  She  urged support                                                               
for SB 149  in its current form, without further  amendment.  She                                                               
told members:                                                                                                                   
     This  bill supports  the forest  industry,  one of  our                                                                    
     state's  renewable resources.   In  SB 88,  we gave  up                                                                    
     buffer  zones to  work with  groups  opposed to  forest                                                                    
     use.  But  in this bill, we want to  protect the timber                                                                    
     base and the  purpose of the part of our  forests.  Our                                                                    
     forests  do have  multiple uses  for different  groups.                                                                    
     But much of  that use is created  by the timber-harvest                                                                    
     roads.  After  we put in a road, we  see the ATVs [all-                                                                    
     terrain vehicles], the snow  machines, the mushers, the                                                                    
     horseback riders that  use these roads that  are in and                                                                    
     would not  be available  if they  weren't in  there, as                                                                    
     far  as even  firewood cutters,  lots of  them, ...  as                                                                    
     soon as  we put in  a road.   The roads would  not have                                                                    
     been created  if there was  not some timber  harvest in                                                                    
     there.  We  see moose; we see bear [and]  other game in                                                                    
     these open areas that are created.                                                                                         
     There's approximately  20 million acres of  state parks                                                                    
     currently,   with    their   primary   use    ...   for                                                                    
     recreationalists and ...  off-limits to timber harvest.                                                                    
     There should  be some  equity to the  use of  the small                                                                    
     section of  forest that is designed  for timber harvest                                                                    
     as a  primary purpose.  I  see this as "there  is not a                                                                    
     lot of harvest."  ... I like the wording  that has some                                                                    
     primary use,  with recreational use  and other  uses on                                                                    
     top of it.                                                                                                                 
Number 1822                                                                                                                     
SCOTT BATES  voiced concern about the  disappearance of "multiple                                                               
use" language from the statute.   He said there are many multiple                                                               
consumptive uses  in the  forest in  the Tanana  River watershed,                                                               
including in the  Tanana Valley State Forest;  these uses include                                                               
commercial, subsistence, and general  household uses by Alaskans.                                                               
He surmised that the same is true for the rest of the state.                                                                    
MR.  BATES referred  to a  document he'd  provided entitled  "The                                                               
Tanana Valley Forest Use Survey:   How households used the forest                                                               
in  the Tanana  River  Watershed from  September  1999 to  August                                                               
2000."   He  said he'd  worked on  this survey;  his project  was                                                               
aimed  at placing  values on  these harvest  activities.   In the                                                               
survey, households reported  harvesting moose, firewood, berries,                                                               
birch sap, diamond  willow, artist conks, and  many other things.                                                               
Table 4  shows probably  35 percent  of Tanana  Valley households                                                               
picked blueberries  in 2000; the  potential harvest  was 112,000-                                                               
plus  quarts in  the  Tanana  Valley alone.    If  they'd had  to                                                               
purchase the  berries at grocery  stores, they'd have  spent over                                                               
$1.75 million.   For  other berries,  it would  take close  to $3                                                               
million of effort to replace them for Tanana Valley households.                                                                 
CHAIR FATE informed Mr. Bates  that committee members didn't have                                                               
the packet he'd  provided, but asked him to continue.                                                                           
MR.  BATES noted  that  Tables  [2 and  3]  summarize timber  and                                                               
nontimber harvests.  For example,  firewood replacement value for                                                               
Tanana Valley  households was  more than  $5 million.   Nontimber                                                               
items that were  collected included diamond willow,  at more than                                                               
$200,000 in replacement  value for people who  buy walking sticks                                                               
instead of  harvesting them; 30,000  pole logs, which  would have                                                               
required a  quarter million dollars  to purchase  equivalent 4x4s                                                               
at a  lumber yard; and 17,000  pieces of birch bark  to make into                                                               
baskets, for example, to sell in tourist shops.                                                                                 
MR.  BATES  closed  by  saying  the  survey  shows  Alaskans  are                                                               
accustomed to  many uses  for the  forests, including  the Tanana                                                               
Valley  State Forest;  he surmised  this  is true  for the  other                                                               
state  forest as  well.   He  said an  ADF&G  survey showed  that                                                               
Alaska's  registered voters  value wildlife  viewing at  $408 per                                                               
trip  and value  other  trips during  which  wildlife viewing  is                                                               
incidental at $82.  He expressed  hope that members would look at                                                               
the rest of  the report he'd provided to see  the sheer volume of                                                               
activities participating in by Alaskans.                                                                                        
Number 2078                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  FATE  said  the  committee   would  look  closely  at  it.                                                               
Referring  to  Mr.  Bates' concern  about  the  disappearance  of                                                               
multiple  use,  he opined  that  nothing  in the  legislation  or                                                               
previous testimony  even suggests  the disappearance  of multiple                                                               
use; rather, it sets some priorities.                                                                                           
Number 2139                                                                                                                     
DEIRDRE HELFFERICH testified  on her own behalf,  noting that she                                                               
is  the  managing  editor  for  both  Mushing  magazine  and  the                                                             
publications  office  of  the School  of  Natural  Resources  and                                                               
Agricultural Sciences, University  of Alaska.  She  said her main                                                               
concern is with replacing the  primary importance of multiple use                                                               
management  with timber  management in  the hierarchy.   Multiple                                                               
use implies the inclusion of timber, she pointed out.                                                                           
MS.  HELFFERICH referred  to Section  13, beginning  at [page  4,                                                               
line 28],  noting that  the new  language says  in part,  "To the                                                           
extent they are  found to be compatible with  the primary purpose                                                           
of state forests";  thus the plan shall be  geared toward timber.                                                           
She said  it should  be geared  toward a  broad spectrum  of uses                                                               
instead.   She  offered  her perspective  that  mushers use  [the                                                               
forest] with  the trees intact,  and expressed concern  that this                                                               
hierarchy [change] is unnecessary.                                                                                              
CHAIR FATE  remarked that he  was a musher  for 16 years  and was                                                               
always happy to see a trail that was made through the timber.                                                                   
MS. HELFFERICH said she didn't disagree.                                                                                        
Number 2249                                                                                                                     
AL PACH informed  members that he's been in  the sawmill business                                                               
33 years.   He said multiple  uses have been happening  the whole                                                               
time he's  been here and he  sees no reason they  won't continue,                                                               
even if  timber is the  state forest's primary purpose,  which he                                                               
said was  intended when it was  first formed.  He  suggested that                                                               
because of the large amount of  acreage, timber harvest is like a                                                               
grain of  sand on  the beach,  and said people  don't need  to do                                                               
activities where logging  occurs.  He mentioned  33 million acres                                                               
in the  Tanana Valley  and said  this is  only talking  about 1.8                                                               
million, of which a small fraction is being logged each year.                                                                   
Number 2327                                                                                                                     
MARJORIE K. COLE, noting that she  has hiked and canoed in Alaska                                                               
since 1966, told members:                                                                                                       
     Unlike  Alaskans  across  the  political  spectrum  who                                                                    
     protested SB  310 in  1994, I  am opposed  to elevating                                                                    
     timber  management   to  the   primary  use.     People                                                                    
     testified then  in favor of multiple  practical uses of                                                                    
     the forest, and  also of its spiritual uses.   Over and                                                                    
     over again  they testified.   These  two words  are not                                                                    
     opposed.  They  are two words for the  very same thing,                                                                    
     which is quality of life.                                                                                                  
     Our  quality  of  life  as  Interior  Alaskans  is  not                                                                    
     located   in  the   investment  portfolios   of  timber                                                                    
     managers.  Do  you hear this sound?   [Rustling paper.]                                                                    
     That's  a  Fred Meyer  shopping  bag  made from  timber                                                                    
     pulp.   This is not  a value-added product as  [SB] 149                                                                    
     describes  it.    It  is  a  value-taken-away  product.                                                                    
     Alaskans do  not want to  see our forests  stripped for                                                                    
     this purpose.                                                                                                              
     [SB]  149 might  apply a  little salve  to the  state's                                                                    
     budget crisis, but  it will not add to  quality of life                                                                    
     for Interior Alaskans.   Today's [Fairbanks News-Miner]                                                                  
     contains  a slew  of letters  in support  of an  income                                                                    
     tax.   Obviously, we are  asking you guys for  a little                                                                    
     more discussion and debate,  a completely open process,                                                                    
     not  a last-minute,  crisis-driven  rush  through of  a                                                                    
     bill like [SB] 149.   Across the political spectrum, we                                                                    
     ask  you  for  more  debate.    It  is  shabby  of  the                                                                    
     legislature to  try to rush  this bill through.   It is                                                                    
     also alarmingly slick.                                                                                                     
Number 2433                                                                                                                     
MS. COLE continued:                                                                                                             
     Will  Rogers said  that the  pioneers were  really just                                                                    
     people robbing  from future generations.   I'd  ask you                                                                    
     again:   Let's not be this  way.  We spoke  up in 1994,                                                                    
     and  if  the  price  of a  healthy,  intact  forest  is                                                                    
     eternal  vigilance,  then here  we  are  [to] speak  up                                                                    
     again.   I'm adding my  voice to those who  are telling                                                                    
     you  to please  leave it  alone.   Wait.   Open up  the                                                                    
     It  will not  grow  back  the same.    A ...  renewable                                                                    
     resource, as you call it, is  not a green light to take                                                                    
     the money and run.   Forests did not return in Michigan                                                                    
     or Washington State,  to places where I've  also done a                                                                    
     lot of hiking  and canoeing.  They  are changed forever                                                                    
     by  harvest.   The  rate  of  tree growth  has  already                                                                    
     slowed  down due  to global  warming  and our  slightly                                                                    
     damper climate.   White spruce  grows slower  this year                                                                    
     than it did 20 years ago;  ask any forester.  An intact                                                                    
     forest  is  also essential  for  air  exchange on  this                                                                    
     planet.   We need  the planet  just as  it is,  for our                                                                    
     strength  and health,  just as  Samson needed  his long                                                                    
Number 2472                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked  Ms. Cole whether she was  part of the                                                               
management group  that worked on  the Tanana Valley  State Forest                                                               
[plan] in the past.                                                                                                             
MS.  COLE said  no,  although  she'd read  parts  of  it and  the                                                               
testimony from 1994 through the present.                                                                                        
Number 2493                                                                                                                     
GLENN JUDAY, Ph.D.,  testified on his own behalf,  noting that he                                                               
is  a  professor  of  forest   ecology  in  the  Forest  Sciences                                                               
Department at the  university, has been a  national office holder                                                               
in the Society  of American Foresters, received a  plaque in 1983                                                               
for his efforts  in establishing the Tanana  Valley State Forest,                                                               
and worked with [then-Senator] Bettye  Fahrenkamp in drafting the                                                               
original  legislation  establishing  state   forests.    He  told                                                               
     I'm here  to just point  out that  I think the  bill in                                                                    
     front  of you  is  fatally flawed.  ...  There are  two                                                                    
     issues  that  are floating  around  here,  and I'm  not                                                                    
     intending to address  one of them.  One of  them is the                                                                    
     perennial  argument  about  whether  our  public  lands                                                                    
     should  be  used  for preservation  or  for  commercial                                                                    
     purposes;  I'm not  here addressing  that.   What I  am                                                                    
     here   [for],    as   a   conservative    speaking   to                                                                    
     conservatives, is to ask you  not to do something dumb,                                                                    
     which  is to  try to  pick  winners and  losers in  the                                                                    
     economy.  And it's not a good idea.                                                                                        
     I would suggest that you  just replace the language ...                                                                    
     in the  current bill draft  in ... Section 11  with ...                                                                    
     the statement,  "a forest management that  provides for                                                                    
     the  production,  utilization,   and  replenishment  of                                                                    
     commercial resources" - not  timber resources - because                                                                    
     if  you  say  timber  resources,  that  means  you  are                                                                    
     elevating  a priority;  you're making  a decision  that                                                                    
     [an] on-the-ground-level forest  manager should make as                                                                    
     to which  commercial resource would be  of the greatest                                                                    
     benefit  to the  state on  the public  lands.   And you                                                                    
     will  be  tying  his  hands   from  making  a  logical,                                                                    
     rational ... decision that meets  the local needs.  And                                                                    
     I don't understand why you would want to do that.                                                                          
     So I'm  just saying  don't elevate timber  resources if                                                                    
     your purpose here is to try  to make clear that, ... as                                                                    
     a public policy,  you want to see the  state lands used                                                                    
     for  commercial   purposes  for  the  benefit   of  the                                                                    
     citizenry.   Leave the language  "commercial resources"                                                                    
     and let  people who  can deal with  changing situations                                                                    
     on the ground make that decision.                                                                                          
Number 2653                                                                                                                     
DR. JUDAY, in response to a question from Representative Wolf,                                                                  
said he'd edited some papers for the Forest History Society.                                                                    
CHAIR FATE announced that Dr. Juday's suggestion would be                                                                       
considered.  He stated his intention of moving the bill forward                                                                 
but said there can always be amendments on the floor.                                                                           
Number 2696                                                                                                                     
LAURA HENRY testified, noting that she is a graduate student at                                                                 
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).  She told members:                                                                        
     I lived  here in  Fairbanks for about  two and  a half,                                                                    
     three  years  between 1997  and  1999,  and I  left  to                                                                    
     return home ... to the  eastern area of the country, in                                                                    
     West Virginia and  Pennsylvania, for a few  years.  And                                                                    
     I  came back  to Fairbanks  partly because  I had  this                                                                    
     opportunity to  participate as  a graduate  student and                                                                    
     because  ... I  love Interior  Alaska; it's  a place  I                                                                    
     want to spend more time.                                                                                                   
     I  want to  start by  saying that  ... I  support local                                                                    
     logging  industries  like  those  of some  of  the  ...                                                                    
     testimony  we've heard  here  from some  of the  people                                                                    
     who've testified here, Leslie and  Al.  But I primarily                                                                    
     support management  of our  Tanana Valley  State Forest                                                                    
     with  a   multiple-use  perspective.    I   think  that                                                                    
     "multiple  use"  language   leaves  room  for  logging,                                                                    
     leaves room for the  timber industry without making the                                                                    
     timber industry the management priority.                                                                                   
     I believe  ... a multiple-use priority  better reflects                                                                    
     the diversity of public opinion  in Interior Alaska, at                                                                    
     any  rate.   During my  previous time  in Fairbanks,  I                                                                    
     participated briefly  - about three months,  I think it                                                                    
     was - on  the Cache Creek advisory  subcommittee ... to                                                                    
     the citizens'  advisory committee  [CAC].   During that                                                                    
     process,  I  ...   gained  a  lot  of   faith  in  that                                                                    
     consensus-based  process, to  pass recommendations  for                                                                    
     the management of the Tanana  Valley State Forest on to                                                                    
     the CAC.   And my concern  with this bill is  that it's                                                                    
     removing  a lot  of the  hard work  of that  consensus-                                                                    
     based  process  that  gave voice  to  so  many  diverse                                                                    
     public  opinions.   That's ...  my primary  concern, is                                                                    
     that this  bill is ignoring that,  that really intense,                                                                    
     ... very good-natured process.                                                                                             
MS. HENRY  closed by suggesting  that the bill be  tabled [until]                                                               
the interim  in order to  have more discussion and  debate before                                                               
rewording the management  priority of the state forests.   In the                                                               
alternative,  she   recommended  retaining  the   "multiple  use"                                                               
perspective or priority language.                                                                                               
Number 2824                                                                                                                     
JAN DAWE, Ph.D., Director, Alaska  Boreal Forest Council, pointed                                                               
out that members should have  in their packets a memorandum dated                                                               
May 16, 2003.  She  explained that this document provides results                                                               
that were  e-mailed in  response to a  question asked  of natural                                                               
resource  professionals  and  members  of the  public  about  the                                                               
preferred wording  with regard to  the state forests.   She urged                                                               
the committee to hold the bill  over the interim in order to work                                                               
on it.  If it must be  moved this session, though, she asked that                                                               
the portion be  amended that deals with the primary  purpose of a                                                               
state forest.  She said:                                                                                                        
     Our testimony goes  in line with much of  what has come                                                                    
     before, with  one exception:  the  Alaska Boreal Forest                                                                    
     Council  is in  the business  of promoting  sustainable                                                                    
     community and  economies throughout  Alaska.   We would                                                                    
     be okay if the primary  purpose of the state forest had                                                                    
     a management emphasis  on timber, as long  as the words                                                                    
     "multiple use" remain in the primary purpose.                                                                              
     For that reason,  if any of the  ... preferred language                                                                    
     that you see in our memo  to you is okay to the council                                                                    
     - one  that is supported  by ... Carol Lewis,  dean and                                                                    
     director  of  the  School   of  Natural  Resources  and                                                                    
     Agricultural    Sciences,   and    director   of    the                                                                    
     [Agricultural]  and  Forestry Experimental  Station  at                                                                    
     the university,  and also  by Edmond  Packee, who  is a                                                                    
     certified  forester and  soil scientist  - the  primary                                                                    
     purpose  reads exactly  as  it's in  the  CS, with  the                                                                    
     addition  of  one  word:   "multiple"  after  the  word                                                                    
     "beneficial".  That would be okay.                                                                                         
Number 2916                                                                                                                     
DR. DAWE continued:                                                                                                             
     Better than  that is what  Dr. Juday  mentioned before,                                                                    
     which  is ...  Option  1, which  reads:   "The  primary                                                                    
     purpose  in  the  establishment  of  state  forests  is                                                                    
     forest  management" -  instead of  timber management  -                                                                    
     "that  provides for  the  production, utilization,  and                                                                    
     replenishment of commercially  valuable resources while                                                                    
     allowing  other  multiple  uses   of  public  land  and                                                                    
     resources."   This  is our  preferred wording  from the                                                                    
     Alaska  Boreal  Forest  Council.     It  also  was  the                                                                    
     preferred wording  of five people who  responded to our                                                                    
     e-mail request who are professional resource managers.                                                                     
     So, either  one of those  statements.  But  without the                                                                    
     word  "multiple" in  the primary  purpose, we  have to,                                                                    
     with all  respect, say that  this change is  profound -                                                                    
     not  in  the  short  term  perhaps,  with  the  current                                                                    
     management that we have, but  certainly when the Tanana                                                                    
     Valley State  Forest [management]  plan is  updated the                                                                    
     next time; the tenor of  the debate and the discussions                                                                    
     will be changed  if the primary purpose  were no longer                                                                    
     "multiple  use  management,"   but  solely  for  timber                                                                    
     resources. ...                                                                                                             
     And  a final  historical  note, just  to  add to  Glenn                                                                    
     Juday's:  if we do  have the packet, which the Division                                                                    
     of Forestry can  provide to you with  the wording going                                                                    
     between  [then-Senator]   Bettye  Fahrenkamp   and  the                                                                    
     drafters  of the  original  legislation, that  supports                                                                    
     putting land  into public ownership for  multiple uses,                                                                    
     including extractive resources  and nonextractive uses,                                                                    
     commercial, private,  and public,  and to keep  that as                                                                    
     under multiple-use management.   It has always been the                                                                    
     primary  purpose to  be under  multiple-use management,                                                                    
     and  we  hope that  the  23rd  legislature finds  it  a                                                                    
     responsible thing  to keep  it under  that -  make your                                                                    
     primary resource emphasis on  timber, but keep multiple                                                                    
     use in.                                                                                                                    
[Not on  tape, but reconstructed  from the  committee secretary's                                                               
log notes,  was a member's request  to Dr. Dawe for  the language                                                               
from then-Senator Fahrenkamp.]                                                                                                  
TAPE 03-46, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 3014                                                                                                                     
DR. DAWE asked  whether there was time to get  the information to                                                               
the committee before the bill is moved out.                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE indicated he meant to move the bill out that day.                                                                    
Number 2944                                                                                                                     
EMILY  FERRY,  Southeast  Alaska  Conservation  Council  (SEACC),                                                               
explained that  SEACC is a  coalition of  18 member groups  in 14                                                               
communities   from   Ketchikan   to  Yakutat;   members   include                                                               
commercial   fishermen   and   small-scale   value-added   timber                                                               
operators.   She told  the committee  that putting  timber before                                                               
all other uses of the  state forest lands would make second-class                                                               
concerns  of  fisheries,  subsistence, recreation,  tourism,  and                                                               
other uses;  this violates the  state's public trust  doctrine to                                                               
manage all of  Alaska's resources for all citizens,  not just the                                                               
special interests of a selected few.                                                                                            
MS.  FERRY also  expressed  concern that  the  bill makes  little                                                               
sense  financially   because,  according   to  DNR,   the  fiscal                                                               
year 2002 (FY  02) state timber  sales only brought  in $500,000,                                                               
while state  parks brought  in nearly $2  million.   In addition,                                                               
she said the Haines State  Forest Resource Management Area now is                                                               
being managed almost exclusively  for tourism-recreation, in part                                                               
because the  world timber  markets are  so low;  furthermore, the                                                               
Tongass National Forest  has nearly 300 million  board feet under                                                               
contract to  be cut, but the  timber isn't being cut  because the                                                               
worldwide timber markets are so low.  She told members:                                                                         
     So value-added  products mean that  we have  jobs added                                                                    
     to  our  communities.    Traditional  pulp  and  timber                                                                    
     processing yields  about 5 jobs per  million board feet                                                                    
     of  wood processed.   Value-added  operations typically                                                                    
     yield  14 to  18  jobs  for the  same  amount of  wood.                                                                    
     Clearly,  pulping does  not create  the same  number of                                                                    
     jobs as  traditional high value-added activities.   The                                                                    
     definition of "high value-added"  should not be changed                                                                    
     to include pulp.                                                                                                           
     And finally,  this bill  represents another  attempt to                                                                    
     cut  the citizens  and our  representatives out  of the                                                                    
     management  of our  public lands  and, again,  violates                                                                    
     the state's obligation to manage  all resources for all                                                                    
     people. ...  This bill needs serious  changes or should                                                                    
     be voted down altogether.                                                                                                  
CHAIR FATE  offered his understanding that  the forest management                                                               
plans and local  plans do involve the stakeholders,  and thus the                                                               
public has a review process and due-process consideration.                                                                      
Number 2828                                                                                                                     
ANISSA  BERRY,  President,  Lower Chatham  Conservation  Society,                                                               
told  members   she  is  indignant   that  this   bill's  primary                                                               
motivation is  to turn the  state forests into clear  cuts, which                                                               
in  the long  run will  result in  lost state  revenues and  will                                                               
jeopardize  fisheries,  recreation,  and subsistence  from  these                                                               
state forests.  Noting that the  bill says the state forests will                                                               
be managed primarily for timber,  with other values and uses such                                                               
as  recreation,   watersheds,  habitat,  and   subsistence  being                                                               
secondary,  she  said  under  this  bill  the  state  can  create                                                               
millions of acres of new  forests without considering whether any                                                               
other use  or resource preempts  these lands from  becoming state                                                               
forests solely created for a timber base.  She told members:                                                                    
     In the bigger picture  ... Governor Murkowski envisions                                                                    
     a future land exchange with  the U.S. Forest Service to                                                                    
     create  a huge  state forest  in the  Tongass.   Senate                                                                    
     Bill  149's purpose  is  to set  the  groundwork for  a                                                                    
     management  directive of  logging  before any  exchange                                                                    
     takes  place.    Hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  of                                                                    
     Southeast  Alaska's remaining  intact watersheds  would                                                                    
     potentially  be   threatened  by  timber   harvest  and                                                                    
     reduced  habitat protections,  under current  state law                                                                    
     and Senate Bill 149.                                                                                                       
     Too  many   of  Alaska's   prized  resources   here  in                                                                    
     Southeast  Alaska, such  as our  world-class fisheries,                                                                    
     our million-dollar  viewscapes, and healthy  wild game,                                                                    
     are at stake.  ... They are too Alaskan  to risk losing                                                                    
     for  the short-term  gain of  turning state  forests to                                                                    
     stumps.    On the  next  island  over from  here,  many                                                                    
     locals  from our  community use  the  forest. ...  They                                                                    
     flight see.   They hunt and  trap and fish.   And those                                                                    
     are not compatible  uses with timber harvest.   Our use                                                                    
     will be overridden because of  the quality of the high-                                                                    
     productive forestland that is over there that could be                                                                     
     turned into state forest in the future.                                                                                    
     Sufficient   buffers  for   salmon   habitat  have   no                                                                    
     guarantees under this bill.   Fish habitat will only be                                                                    
     protected  if  the  commissioner makes  a  finding  of,                                                                    
     quote, "significant state interest when necessary".                                                                        
Number 2714                                                                                                                     
MS. BERRY concluded by saying she  feels the risks to other users                                                               
will be  great if these  lands are  harvested.  Alluding  to [the                                                               
administration's stated  intention of] resolving  fiscal problems                                                               
through resource development, she  said clear cutting millions of                                                               
acres  of state  land leaves  the landowner  - the  state -  with                                                               
little gain compared with a multitude  of losses in the long run.                                                               
She surmised that most of the  timber will be exported to Asia in                                                               
the round,  and said  she sees  little gain with  the bill.   She                                                               
urged members  either to not pass  it or to make  huge changes to                                                               
the "multiple use" part.                                                                                                        
Number 2687                                                                                                                     
SETH  LITTLE began  by saying  he would  echo previous  testimony                                                               
that  it is  wrong to  replace the  current multiple-use  mandate                                                               
with  timber  production  as  the  primary  purpose.    He  cited                                                               
benefits to local  and state economies from multiple  use such as                                                               
for  food, materials,  and value-added  wood products,  and cited                                                               
tourism and recreation as examples  of indirect benefits.  Saying                                                               
healthy   forests  provide   habitat  for   wildlife  and   ample                                                               
opportunities for hunters, and that  intact forests provide clean                                                               
water  and  habitat  for Alaska's  world-renowned  fisheries,  he                                                               
expressed concern  that other,  economically viable  uses besides                                                               
timber will suffer in the long run.                                                                                             
MR. LITTLE urged  members to look at  testimony, suggestions, and                                                               
possible amendments proposed that day,  rather than move the bill                                                               
to the  House floor for amendments.   He said committees  are set                                                               
up  to really  look at  bills  and figure  out what  needs to  be                                                               
changed  to  make  them  better  before they  go  to  the  floor.                                                               
Stating opposition to the current  bill version, he asked members                                                               
to listen  to the concerns  voiced by  the public with  regard to                                                               
these policies that will affect the state.                                                                                      
Number 2531                                                                                                                     
BOBBIE  JO  SKIBO  told  members she  would  echo  and  reiterate                                                               
concerns  expressed this  day, especially  those from  the forest                                                               
ecologist from the university;  Emily Ferry's economic arguments;                                                               
and  some arguments  about aesthetics,  recreation, and  multiple                                                               
use.   She  said  she was  thrilled that  the  majority of  folks                                                               
testifying  that day  were speaking  in  opposition.   Specifying                                                               
that she isn't opposed to logging,  she noted that she lives in a                                                               
wooden cabin  and burns  firewood, part of  the multiple  uses of                                                               
the state  forests.   She spoke in  opposition to  prioritizing a                                                               
single-interest focus on logging.  She told members:                                                                            
     Our  state  was  built  on  a  foundation  of  resource                                                                    
     extraction.   However, it has definitely  progressed to                                                                    
     a ...  multifaceted, multiuse  economy, ...  which does                                                                    
     include logging, tourism  - all the lists  - and timber                                                                    
     extraction.  And  it's not exclusive; we have  a lot of                                                                    
     uses on our forests.   And we've watched logging create                                                                    
     a deficiency in the  overall well-being of the Tongass,                                                                    
     and  ...  we've  watched  the  state  and  the  federal                                                                    
     government spend a  lot of money to let this  go on and                                                                    
     continue.   Our timber  is exported,  generating little                                                                    
     benefit to the local Alaskans.                                                                                             
MS. SKIBO  agreed with earlier  testimony that a paper  bag isn't                                                               
value-added,  and suggested  the  need to  really understand  its                                                               
definition.  She said job  security, recreation, and multiple use                                                               
should  be   the  priorities  on   state  lands.     Highlighting                                                               
Ms. Ferry's  point and  the difference  between  the $10  million                                                               
spent by  DNR on forest  programs and  the money brought  in, Ms.                                                               
Skibo asked  how [timber]  can be the  priority when  it's losing                                                               
money.   Saying she feels  this is irresponsible  management, she                                                               
told  members,  "As  Alaskans,  we  can do  better  and  be  more                                                               
creative with our industries."                                                                                                  
Number 2320                                                                                                                     
MATT DAVIDSON,  Alaska Conservation  Voters (ACV), called  this a                                                               
poorly crafted bill.   Noting that it's the  first House hearing,                                                               
he suggested the bill needs to  be looked at closely.  Addressing                                                               
his first point, he told members:                                                                                               
     When the state does timber  planning, they have an area                                                                    
     plan, the  regional plan, which  I have one of.  ... So                                                                    
     the state is  saying that this document  should be used                                                                    
     to do  land planning.   It should look at  ... wildlife                                                                    
     habitat  and   recreational  use  and  fish   and  game                                                                    
     habitat.   It  doesn't do  that. ...  It says  although                                                                    
     this  plan  establishes   areas  for  potential  timber                                                                    
     harvest,  it  does   not  make  timber-harvest-specific                                                                    
     decisions.   Before timber-harvest decisions  are made,                                                                    
     they need to do a Forest Land Use Plan.                                                                                    
     Well,  this  bill  takes  away  ...  the  consideration                                                                    
     elements,  a part  of  forest land  use  planning.   So                                                                    
     they're saying that  this is the correct  place to look                                                                    
     at those  broad issues  that will happen  from logging,                                                                    
     and this  bill ... tells  you that they  can't consider                                                                    
     those broad issues  ... in the local area  plan.  These                                                                    
     plans don't  do the planning that  ... they're charging                                                                    
     them with  doing.  In  fact, we're taking away  ... the                                                                    
     requirement  that  these  plans be  amended,  both  the                                                                    
     state  forest  plans and  the  area  plans.   So  we're                                                                    
     really   taking  away   planning,   to  consider   [AS]                                                                    
     38.05.112;  those  elements  are  really  important  in                                                                    
     terms of planning.                                                                                                         
Number 2235                                                                                                                     
MR. DAVIDSON  turned attention to  a second concern:   the Tanana                                                               
Valley  State Forest  plan  will be  changed  to be  timber-first                                                               
management, whereas  the same isn't  true for the  Haines forest.                                                               
He said  the administration hasn't given  a good reason why.   He                                                               
told members:                                                                                                                   
     We  also  know  that the  Murkowski  Administration  is                                                                    
     trying  to create  a million-acre  state forest  in the                                                                    
     Tongass,  with  timber-first  management.   Right  now,                                                                    
     those  lands  are  managed  for  multiple  use  by  the                                                                    
     federal government.   There's  a lot of  good fisheries                                                                    
     in Southeast Alaska that may  go away under the limited                                                                    
     review process  under this.   If  the state's  going to                                                                    
     create a new state  forest, there's no requirement that                                                                    
     the Department of  Fish & Game even  describe the lands                                                                    
     and  what the  uses are,  and who  else is  using them.                                                                    
     The legislature  deserves to know before  it designates                                                                    
     a  new state  forest what's  happening on  those lands.                                                                    
     ... Why is that repealed from the bill?                                                                                    
     Representative Heinze asked  a question, adding general                                                                    
     use ... to  the list of value-added  timber sale areas.                                                                    
     It's  a  lot  of  acreage  that will  now  be  open  to                                                                    
     dramatic  logging.  ... Under  the  DNR  area plan  for                                                                    
     this,  ... for  Prince of  Wales Island,  a lot  of the                                                                    
     land is designated  "general use." ... It's  a very big                                                                    
     part of  the area  planning ...  methodology.   So that                                                                    
     allows  for some  logging maybe,  ... some  recreation.                                                                    
     They ...  basically decided they  want to  use "general                                                                    
     use" when they didn't want  to go and designate an area                                                                    
     all for  forestry or  all for something  else.   But by                                                                    
     allowing  value-added,  which includes  pulping,  under                                                                    
     general use  lands, we're really  making a  big change.                                                                    
     And I  know the  folks on Prince  of Wales  Island, who                                                                    
     are surrounded by  general use lands in a  lot of these                                                                    
     communities,  are going  to  be  really concerned  when                                                                    
     suddenly  they're wide  open  for value-added  logging.                                                                    
     So I  encourage you  to look at  your local  area plans                                                                    
     and see  how much of those  lands are general use  - or                                                                    
     settlement, for that matter, is allowed for logging.                                                                       
Number 2139                                                                                                                     
MR. DAVIDSON  asked the  committee to  take time  to look  at the                                                               
riparian standards.   For example, why is the  rule being changed                                                               
that the individual  forest planner can look  and expand riparian                                                               
zones,  the  protective  areas  for  streams,  so  that  now  the                                                               
commissioner  will have  to make  a finding  of compelling  state                                                               
interest?   He said, "Why  not let the  forest manager?   Why not                                                               
let  DNR   individuals,  the   line-item  officers,   make  those                                                               
decisions?   If it's  a problem,  we'll go  back."   He expressed                                                               
concern  that "compelling  state interest"  isn't defined  in the                                                               
bill or in  statute, and said it seems to  be timber harvest over                                                               
all other uses.  "We really owe  it to the people of the state of                                                               
Alaska to take a hard look at this bill," he concluded.                                                                         
Number 2089                                                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE  asked whether  there were  questions and  then closed                                                               
public testimony.  He offered his views:                                                                                        
     There are so  many laws that govern all  the issues ...                                                                    
     that  have been  presented to  us today,  including the                                                                    
     one recently in riparian zones,  that my fear, that all                                                                    
     these  have been  curtailed somehow  in  this piece  of                                                                    
     legislation, just is  not founded.  And  it disturbs me                                                                    
     to  hear  the denigration  of  a  piece of  legislation                                                                    
     without  the knowledge  of  the  overall statutes  that                                                                    
     govern those areas that they're denigrating.                                                                               
     And  even though  there's probably  some parts  of this                                                                    
     piece of  legislation that everybody ...  that looks at                                                                    
     it  may  not  like,  there's  no  place  in  here  that                                                                    
     curtails  multiple  use,  although  it  does  make  the                                                                    
     timber  the primary  --  it doesn't  even  make it  the                                                                    
     primary use;  it just gives  it that priority.   That's                                                                    
     all it simply does.                                                                                                        
Number 1976                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG said  he's  familiar  with the  Tanana                                                               
Valley but  not Haines.   Referring to  then-Senator Fahrenkamp's                                                               
role  in developing  the Tanana  Valley State  [Forest], he  said                                                               
since that  time, under her  tutelage and many  people's efforts,                                                               
the management  and development of  its plan have involved  a lot                                                               
of  stakeholders, compromises,  and  decades of  work.   However,                                                               
this  bill changes  the priority  so although  multiple uses  are                                                               
possible, timber is  the priority above all others.   Whether the                                                               
change  may be  right or  wrong, he  said testifiers  have raised                                                               
concerns  and  the   standard  is  being  changed   just  as  the                                                               
legislative  session closes,  even  though  legislators have  the                                                               
right to do so.                                                                                                                 
Number 1870                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CISSNA   expressed  appreciation   for  testimony                                                               
addressing the multiple  ways the state's resources  can be grown                                                               
and used.  She  said she didn't think the state  had done all the                                                               
creative work possible, and  suggested the longest-term solutions                                                               
can be found by local entrepreneurs.   She said this bill appears                                                               
to counter the wisdom of  allowing the consumers, rather than the                                                               
law  and government,  to develop  the market.   She  told members                                                               
she'd rather hold the bill and see how it can be better crafted.                                                                
Number 1792                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  agreed with Representatives  Guttenberg and                                                               
Cissna, saying  he got  the bill late  and there  are significant                                                               
changes.   He said he'd  like the  opportunity to bring  the bill                                                               
back up  after the coming  interim, with some changes,  and would                                                               
recommend "do not  pass" because he'd rather hold  it and doesn't                                                               
see the need to move it immediately.                                                                                            
The committee took an at-ease from 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                                                                       
CHAIR FATE announced that he wanted to move the bill out.                                                                       
Number 1716                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HEINZE  moved  to  report CSSB  149(RES)  out  of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal notes.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected.                                                                                             
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Morgan,  Wolf,                                                               
Gatto,  Heinze, and  Fate voted  in favor  of reporting  the bill                                                               
from  committee.   Representatives  Guttenberg  and Cissna  voted                                                               
against it.   Therefore,  CSSB 149(RES) was  reported out  of the                                                               
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.                                                                            
HB 196-CARBON SEQUESTRATION                                                                                                   
Number 1664                                                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE  announced that the  final order of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 196,  "An Act  relating to  carbon sequestration;                                                               
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
CHAIR  FATE  asked  whether  anyone wished  to  testify.    [Lisa                                                               
Weissler, staff to Representative  Berkowitz, sponsor, offered to                                                               
answer questions.]   Chair  Fate informed  members that  he likes                                                               
the idea of the bill.                                                                                                           
Number 1600                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  FATE  brought attention  to  Amendment  1, which  was  two                                                               
amendments  stapled  together.   The  first  page read  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     Page 2, line 13-16:                                                                                                        
          delete all material.                                                                                                  
     Page 2, line 27:                                                                                                           
          delete ", the Bureau of Land Management,"                                                                             
     Renumber subsections accordingly.                                                                                          
The second page read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                           
     Page 4, line 13:                                                                                                           
          Delete "On or before January 31, 2004"                                                                                
         Insert "Within nine months after the effective                                                                         
     date of this section"                                                                                                      
     Page 4, line 15, following "prepare":                                                                                      
          Insert "and submit"                                                                                                   
     Page 4, line 30:                                                                                                           
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
          Insert new bill sections to read:                                                                                     
      "*Sec. 4.   The uncodified law of the  State of Alaska                                                                  
     is amended by adding a new section to read:                                                                                
          DIRECTION TO SEEK FUNDING SOURCES.  (a)  The                                                                          
     Department of Natural  Resources shall immediately seek                                                                    
     and apply for  funding of the activities  that would be                                                                    
     authorized by secs.  2 and 3 of this  Act by contacting                                                                    
     the federal  Department of  Energy, the  Pew Charitable                                                                    
     Trust,  and  other   appropriate  federal  and  private                                                                    
          (b)  The Department of Natural Resources shall                                                                        
     notify the revisor of statutes  of the day on which the                                                                    
     department  receives  approval  of  an  application  or                                                                    
     applications  under  (a)  of this  section  that  would                                                                    
     result in  receipt of $85,000  or more from  federal or                                                                    
     private sources.                                                                                                           
      *Sec. 5.   Sections 1  and 4  of this Act  take effect                                                                  
     immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).                                                                                         
      *Sec. 6.  Sections 2 and  3 of this Act take effect on                                                                  
     the day  on which  the department receives  approval of                                                                    
     an application or applications under  sec. 4(a) of this                                                                    
     Act that  would result  in receipt  of $85,000  or more                                                                    
     from  federal or  private  sources  for the  activities                                                                    
     that  would be  authorized by  secs.  2 and  3 of  this                                                                    
[NOTE:    Representative  Berkowitz's staff  later  informed  the                                                               
committee off record that the  foregoing was the wrong amendment.                                                               
Although Amendment 1  ultimately was adopted, it  is Chair Fate's                                                               
concept,  discussed  during  this   hearing,  that  ended  up  in                                                               
CSHB 196(RES).]                                                                                                                 
CHAIR  FATE explained  that  the board  will  be expensive,  even                                                               
though  there is  a  zero fiscal  note.   He  reported that  he'd                                                               
talked  with Representative  Berkowitz  about this.   Chair  Fate                                                               
said he  himself thinks  it will  be just  as efficient  and will                                                               
provide   just  as   much  information   if  the   Department  of                                                               
Environmental Conservation  (DEC) and  the Department  of Natural                                                               
Resources (DNR)  study this  and give  every legislator  a report                                                               
prior  to  the  convening  of  the second  session  of  the  23rd                                                               
legislature.   He  indicated the  amendment  goes along  somewhat                                                               
with Representative Berkowitz's proposal,  which had a little bit                                                               
different time range.                                                                                                           
CHAIR  FATE said  he believes  this has  merit.   One of  the big                                                               
things  about  the amendment  is  to  give information  to  every                                                               
member of  the legislature, not  just this committee.   Thus when                                                               
the  report  comes  from  DEC  and DNR,  and  probably  from  the                                                               
Division  of Forestry  through DNR,  it will  be disseminated  to                                                               
provide  information to  every [legislator].    He mentioned  the                                                               
need  for  an effective  date  at  the  beginning of  the  second                                                               
session of the 23rd legislature,  which he said he didn't believe                                                               
was in this amendment.                                                                                                          
Number 1420                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE  moved to adopt Amendment  1 [text provided                                                               
previously, but see note following the amendment].                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF objected for discussion purposes.                                                                           
Number 1368                                                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE  said the wording  would have to include  "within nine                                                               
months after  the effective date  of this section" on  the second                                                               
page, relating to  page 4, line 13.  He  suggested putting in the                                                               
language  "at the  beginning of  the second  session of  the 23rd                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked which day it would be.                                                                          
CHAIR FATE said  that would be determined, but [the  first day of                                                               
session] is already on the calendar.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said the amendment  would include "an $85,000                                                               
federal or  private-source fund" that  he surmised was  for doing                                                               
the study.   He expressed concern that there is  "a devil tied to                                                               
this  one,"  which is  the  Kyoto  Protocol, a  pollution-control                                                               
treaty  that the  United  States  hasn't adopted.    He said  the                                                               
principle  looks great,  but  highlighted  Alaska's vastness  and                                                               
wildfires  that could  cause  loss of  carbon  credits until  the                                                               
trees  are replanted.   He  specified that  his concern  with the                                                               
amendment is that  moving forward will cause $85,000  to be spent                                                               
just to see whether it works.                                                                                                   
CHAIR FATE pointed out that there  isn't a fiscal note to reflect                                                               
the $85,000.   He asked  Mr. Maisch  how these huge  forest fires                                                               
and the  resulting smoke  will be handled  with regard  to carbon                                                               
Number 1106                                                                                                                     
JOHN  "CHRIS" MAISCH,  Regional Forester,  Division of  Forestry,                                                               
Northern  Region Office,  Department of  Natural Resources,  said                                                               
it's  not  an  issue  that  would  be  affected  by  this  carbon                                                               
sequestration bill.  He explained:                                                                                              
     Those  are  either  natural or  man-caused  fires  that                                                                    
     certainly release  a lot of  atmospheric CO2  when they                                                                    
     burn, but that would not  affect a company's ability to                                                                    
     sell carbon credits.   The state would not  have to ...                                                                    
     try and put  these fires out in a more  rapid manner or                                                                    
     do  something  to  prevent  those  ...  occurrences  of                                                                    
     Simply,  this   bill  would   allow  people   that  can                                                                    
     sequester  carbon  through  reforestation  programs  or                                                                    
     other  programs  - such  as  offsets  of burning  other                                                                    
     fossil  fuel, such  as substituting  wood for  fuel-oil                                                                    
     consumption, which  would create an offset  - you could                                                                    
     trade  that carbon  credit to  a company  that needs  a                                                                    
     credit  to  reduce  their emissions  somewhere  in  the                                                                    
Number 1041                                                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE advised  Mr. Maisch that the  committee was discussing                                                               
an amendment that  has to do with  asking DEC and DNR  to write a                                                               
report about future potential and  what the program is about, "an                                                               
educational piece."   He noted that there is  lack of familiarity                                                               
with  carbon sequestration  throughout the  legislature.   Rather                                                               
than having a  board of 14, he  said this would ask  just DEC and                                                               
DNR to provide the legislature a  report at the start of the next                                                               
session.  He asked, "Do you think that's a doable thing?"                                                                       
MR. MAISCH  said he  couldn't comment, that  it is  a department-                                                               
level matter, and that the  department hasn't taken a position on                                                               
whether to support this legislation or not.                                                                                     
CHAIR  FATE said  he  wasn't  asking for  support,  but about  an                                                               
educational  report and  what the  department  would think  about                                                               
that.   He mentioned time limitations  for departmental personnel                                                               
and so forth.   "We would much  rather do it this  way because it                                                               
seems much simpler than to have  ... a very large board that even                                                               
though we don't  have a fiscal note on that  board, could be very                                                               
expensive," he added.                                                                                                           
Number 0912                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  noted that  an entity  would first  have to                                                               
own carbon  credits in order to  sell them.  He  asked where they                                                               
come from and who would declare that the entity owns them.                                                                      
MR.  MAISCH  said it  would  be  part  of the  certification  and                                                               
verification  process.    A third-party  company  would  have  to                                                               
certify that the entity had  sequestered carbon through some type                                                               
of  project such  as  reforesting on  the  Kenai Peninsula  where                                                               
spruce-bark beetles have destroyed the natural forest cover.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  clarified his  question:    "Last year,  I                                                               
didn't know I had them.  This year,  I have a whole bunch and I'm                                                               
allowed to sell  them to somebody that I don't  even know.  Where                                                               
did I get them from?"                                                                                                           
MR. MAISCH  replied that they've  always been here,  but suddenly                                                               
they  have an  associated  economic value  because  of the  Kyoto                                                               
Protocol.  In further response, he said:                                                                                        
     Essentially, because  of that  treaty, even  though the                                                                    
     United States  has not ratified  that treaty  but other                                                                    
     countries  have,  multinational  corporations  that  do                                                                    
     business in those other countries  could sell and trade                                                                    
     carbon anywhere in  the world.  And so  projects in the                                                                    
     U.S. could be purchased;  those carbon credits could be                                                                    
     purchased by companies that do  business in these other                                                                    
     jurisdictions,  and  they  can   get  credit  in  those                                                                    
     jurisdictions for those credits.                                                                                           
Number 0794                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  asked whether  it's necessary to  belong to                                                               
the [Kyoto  Protocol] in order to  do this, since it  may give an                                                               
unfair advantage otherwise.                                                                                                     
MR.  MAISCH answered  that  one  doesn't need  to  belong to  the                                                               
treaty under the current protocols to participate.                                                                              
Number 0740                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG   offered  his  assessment   that  the                                                               
amendment would narrow the fiscal note  to zero, since it says to                                                               
go out and raise the money.   He indicated all it does it request                                                               
a report  to be provided  on the first  day of the  next session.                                                               
If  the  legislature  doesn't  authorize  it  or  keep  something                                                               
moving, then nothing happens.                                                                                                   
Number 0670                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF maintained his objection.                                                                                   
A  roll call  vote  was taken.    Representatives Cissna,  Gatto,                                                               
Heinze,  Morgan,   Guttenberg,  and   Fate  voted  in   favor  of                                                               
Amendment 1.   Representative Wolf voted against  it.  Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 1  was adopted by a  vote of 6-1.   [See note following                                                               
the text of Amendment 1.]                                                                                                       
Number 0606                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report  HB 196, as amended, out of                                                               
committee  with   individual  recommendations   and  accompanying                                                               
fiscal notes.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF objected.                                                                                                   
A roll call vote was  taken.  Representatives Guttenberg, Cissna,                                                               
Gatto,  Heinze, Morgan,  and  Fate voted  in  favor of  reporting                                                               
HB 196, as  amended, from committee.   Representative  Wolf voted                                                               
against it.   Therefore,  CSHB 196(RES) was  reported out  of the                                                               
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.                                                                            
Number 0543                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WOLF, noting  that  the committee  also had  just                                                               
passed SB 149 concerning the state's  timber, remarked, "This one                                                               
requires that we cut our old-growth forests."                                                                                   
CHAIR FATE offered that HB 196  just enables a report and doesn't                                                               
authorize  any program.   He  indicated he'd  like to  learn more                                                               
about this.  [CSHB 196(RES) was reported from committee.]                                                                       
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects