01/24/2001 01:07 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 24, 2001
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act eliminating a requirement that a social security number
be provided by an applicant for a hunting or sport fishing
license or tag; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 48(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Relating to opposition to the inclusion of national forests in
Alaska within President Clinton's Roadless Area Conservation
rule and supporting the overturning of this inclusion by
litigation, by congressional action, or by action of President-
elect Bush.
- MOVED CSHJR 6(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 48
SHORT TITLE:NO SOC SEC. # REQ'D ON HUNT/FISH LICENSE
SPONSOR(S): COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0049 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0050 (H) RES, JUD
01/10/01 0050 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
01/19/01 0134 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
01/24/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE:ROADLESS POLICY
SPONSOR(S): WILSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0044 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0044 (H) TRA, RES
01/16/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/16/01 (H) Moved HJR 6 with an amendment
attached
MINUTES (TRA)
01/16/01 0104 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
01/17/01 0109 (H) TRA RPT W/AMENDMENT 6DP
01/17/01 0109 (H) DP: KAPSNER, KOOKESH, OGAN,
01/17/01 0109 (H) SCALZI, WILSON, KOHRING
01/17/01 0109 (H) FN 1: ZERO (H. TRA)
01/17/01 0109 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
01/24/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 48.
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 48.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED)
Department of Revenue
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 48.
DENNY KAY WEATHERS
c/o PO Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 48.
ERIC JOHN WEATHERS
c/o PO Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 48.
DEAN CURRAN
PO Box 42
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 48.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 6.
JACK PHELPS
Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman Street, Suite 200
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-6599
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
MIKE TINKER, Chairman
Fish and Game Advisory Committee, Fairbanks
PO Box 289
Ester, Alaska 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 511
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
KEVIN HITE, President
Alaska State Snowmobile Association
8050 Summerset Dr.
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
BOB BRIGHT, Planning Director
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
MIKE SALLEE
PO Box 7603
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 6.
TOM BOUTIN
PO Box 35116
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
GERRY MERRIGAN
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association (PVOA)
PO Box 232
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
ERROL CHAMPION, General Manager
Silver Bay Logging
8429 Livingston Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
WAYNE WEIHING
PO Box 1193
Ward Cove, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed issues related to HJR 6.
LOREN GERHARD
Executive Director
Southeast Conference
612 West Willoughby
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HJR 6.
RION SCHMIDT
PO Box 806
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HJR 6.
RACHAEL MORELAND, Associate Director
Alaska Forest Association (AFA)
111 Stedman Street, Suite 200
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in strong support of HJR 6.
JOHN JACK SHAY, Mayor
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
PO Box 3159
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of HJR 6.
SUE SCHRADER
Alaska Conservation Alliance
Alaska Conservation Voters
PO Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HJR 6.
CLIFF SKILLINGS
Gateway Forest Products
PO Box 779
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in strong support of HJR 6.
DICK COOSE
Concerned Alaskans for Resources and Environment (CARE)
PO Box 9266
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in strong support of HJR 6.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HJR 6.
PAT VEESART, Executive Director
Sitka Conservation Society (SCS)
PO Box 316
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HJR 6.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-4, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Masek, Green, Chenault,
Stevens, Kapsner, and Kerttula. Representatives Fate and
McGuire arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 48 - NO SOC SEC. # REQ'D ON HUNT/FISH LICENSE
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 48, "An Act eliminating a requirement that a
social security number be provided by an applicant for a hunting
or sport fishing license or tag; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0125
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as the sponsor of HB 48, pointed out the change in
title from HB 311 to HB 48.
Number 0180
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS), version 22-LS0295\F, Lauterbach,
1/18/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version F
was before the committee.
Number 0240
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL submitted the HB 48 Social Security
Number of Recreational Licenses sectional (in the bill packet),
showing the portions that would be repealed: AS 16.05.360(a);
[AS 16.05.360(b)]; AS 16.05.330(e); and AS 16.05.346(d). He
referred to a letter in the bill packet from David Gray Ross,
Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Administration for Children and Families, to Barbara Miklos,
Director, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Alaska
Department of Revenue. He also referred to a press release by
the [Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for
Children and Families], which notes that [CSED] will obtain that
waiver and no longer require social security numbers on fishing
licenses, provided the statutes are repealed.
Number 0418
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered an amendment to the proposed CS.
The amendment is as follows:
Page 1, lines 12-13
Delete, "Each application shall be subscribed and
sworn to by the applicant before an officer authorized
to administer oaths in the state."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to [ADF&G's] position on
this issue.
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), replied that ADF&G
would be in support of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to report CSHB 48 from
committee with a zero fiscal note and individual
recommendations. [This motion was subsequently withdrawn.]
MR. BROOKS said that the Department of Revenue and
Representative Coghill understand and agree that [requiring
social security numbers on fishing licenses] is not a legitimate
tool for CSED due to the way the vendor system is set up. He
suggested a practical solution of leaving the social security
field on the application as an "optional" field, for the
remainder of the year, in order to make use of the approximate
half-million applications already in distribution. He reminded
the committee that there is an online fishing license
application that was established with the name and social
security number fields, and thus this change to the system will
be a challenge. The benefit of using a person's name and social
security number is that it is a unique identifier and could be
used to populate a person's information from the prior year.
There have been suggestions to use a driver's license number,
although not everyone has a driver's license. Therefore, he
suggested exploring the option of leaving the social security
field on the application as optional. Without a social security
number, online applicants would have to fill out a new
application each year.
Number 0893
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked why the social security requirement
was ever initiated.
MR. BROOKS explained that the requirement for social security
numbers was initially put in use under welfare reform in order
to deal with persons who are not paying child support. Many of
the requirements dealt with occupational licenses. He explained
that [occupational] licensure would be restricted if someone was
in arrears with child support. The problem with this
requirement on recreational licenses is that the state is not
the vendor; there are 1,500 vendors across the state.
Therefore, [the department] merely reports this information to
CSED after the fact. Hence the requirement on recreational
licenses was not an effective tool.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA brought up the subject of the federal
waiver, and asked Barbara Miklos to speak about the possibility
of losing the waiver in the future.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue, (CSED), clarified that originally, the
requirement to collect social security numbers on hunting and
fishing licenses was one of the requirements put forth by the
federal government in order for CSED to receive federal funding
for child support as well as all public assistance money, which
equals approximately $80 million for the State of Alaska. The
federal government granted the State of Alaska a waiver for the
social security number requirement, which will expire in three
years. Ms. Miklos stated that the reason the waiver was granted
was because Alaska's unique permanent fund dividend (PFD)
program provided the social security numbers of its residents,
and she surmised that a waiver would probably continue to be
granted as long as the PFD program existed.
Number 1146
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN withdrew his motion in order to allow
witnesses to be heard via teleconference.
DENNY KAY WEATHERS, testifying via teleconference, noted his
support of HB 48. She requested that HB 48 be amended to
include noncommercial driver's licenses, commercial fishing
permits, and crew licenses. She referred to [Governor Knowles']
press release number 01005, dated January 8, 2000, in which the
governor states that the information provided on the PFD
application is adequate for the needs of CSED. Ms. Weathers
cited a memorandum from the deputy director of Alaska Department
of Motor Vehicles, dated October 21, 1998, which stated that a
United States citizen will not be allowed a nonwork status
driver's license without a social security number, but a foreign
alien can obtain a nonwork status driver's license without a
social security number. Ms. Weathers was denied a driver's
license. Furthermore, one of her family members has been
arrested and charged criminally for [driving without] a license,
[because that individual was also denied a license for not
having a social security number]. She also noted that social
security numbers are optional on the federal fisheries permit
application, and asked why it is mandatory to have a federal
number on a state permit, when it was not mandatory on a federal
permit.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Weathers to clarify whether she
herself did, or did not, have a social security number.
MS. WEATHERS said she does not have a social security number,
and neither does her son or her husband. She stated that [an
Alaskan resident] is not required to have a social security
number for nonwork status (for example, if he/she is self-
employed, or living a subsistence lifestyle).
Number 1489
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL interjected, for those listening on
teleconference, that HB 48 deals with only one issue. Although
Representative Coghill personally doesn't think that the social
security number should be used as an identification number, he
pointed out that the state agreed to do so in return for federal
funding. He reiterated that HB 48 is specific to removing the
social security requirement from fish and game licenses, and
suggested that [legislation] take "one step at a time."
Number 1530
ERIC JOHN WEATHERS, a fourth-generation Alaskan, testifying via
teleconference, said that he is a hunter, fisherman, and long-
haul commercial truck driver. Because of the social security
requirement on fishing and hunting licenses (as well as driver's
licenses), he cannot legally fish, hunt, or work. He would like
the requirement for social security numbers to be repealed, not
only on fishing and hunting licenses, but on driver's licenses
as well.
DEAN CURRAN, commercial fisherman and 49-year resident of
Alaska, testifying via teleconference, went on record as
supporting HB 48. He doesn't want his social security number to
be required on any State of Alaska document, including the PFD
application. The social security number is a federal
identification number for social security benefits. Mr. Curran
stated that by requiring social security numbers on state
documents, the state is making it easier for criminals to commit
crimes against others by stealing their social security numbers.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there were any questions for Mr. Curran.
There being no questions, Co-Chair Masek said the bill had
already been discussed and amended. She requested a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN so moved.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated a point of order and asked if the
committee needed to vote on the amendment. He asked if [the
amendment] was accepted without a vote.
CO-CHAIR MASEK said, "It was unanimous.... There was no
objection." She asked, then, if there were any objections to
moving the bill [version 22-LS0295\F, Lauterbach, 1/18/01, as
amended], with a zero fiscal note, from committee. There being
no objections, CSHB 48(RES) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HJR 6-ROADLESS POLICY
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6, Relating to opposition to the
inclusion of national forests in Alaska within President
Clinton's Roadless Area Conservation rule and supporting the
overturning of this inclusion by litigation, by congressional
action, or by action of President-elect Bush.
Number 1800
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as the sponsor of HJR 6, provided the committee with
a copy of a proposed committee substitute (CS), version 22-
LS0316\C, Luckhaupt, 1/24/01. She referred to the changes that
the CS encompasses, which are as follows: "President-elect
Bush" has been changed to "President Bush"; "President Clinton's
Roadless Policy" has been changed to "President Clinton's
Roadless Area Conservation Rule"; and on page 2, line 25, of HJR
6, version 22-LS0316\A, there was an amendment made by the House
Transportation Standing Committee (TRA) to fix a typo from "five
million board feet" to "fifty million board feet". She remarked
that her sponsor statement was modified to reflect the same
changes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON declared HJR 6 to be a simply stated
opposition to former President Clinton's Roadless Area
Conservation Rule ["Roadless Rule"], which, she stated, he
announced on January 5 [2001]. Representative Wilson called
Clinton's action "devastating to Alaska," and compared it to the
many treaties with Native people that have been broken in the
past. She spoke of the total disregard Clinton's plan had for
the 11 years, and of the $13,000,000 that have been spent on the
Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), as well as the three years
spent on the revision process of the Chugach Forest. She
pointed out that the Roadless Rule violates the "no more" clause
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
She offered written statements received into her office from
people both for and against Clinton's Roadless Policy.
Number 2016
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS), version 22-LS0316\C, Luckhaupt,
1/24/01, as a work draft. There being no objections, work draft
C was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE recalled having seen some news articles
regarding several actions by former President Clinton, which
have been rescinded by President Bush, and asked if the Roadless
Rule had possibly been one of them. He brought up the
possibility of thanking President Bush, if that was the case.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she thought that the Roadless Policy
was not put into place as an executive order, and therefore is
more difficult to straighten out.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked for further clarification.
Number 2148
JACK PHELPS, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
explained that President Bush issued a directive, whereby rules
gone to publication in the federal register, but not yet
implemented, got a 60-day hold on implementation, to give the
President and administration a chance to review them. The
Roadless Rule is one of the rules delayed; however, Mr. Phelps
stated that "there is no rescission actually available to [the
Presidential administrative office] without going back through
NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] procedures by which
[the Roadless Rule] was established". He also mentioned that
there is a provision for a 60-day review by Congress, which
occurs almost simultaneously.
Number 2197
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked for questions from the committee. Hearing
none, she thanked Mr. Phelps and moved on to public testimony,
reminding all prospective witnesses to supply their testimony in
writing, if available, to the committee secretary, and to limit
their testimony to three minutes.
Number 2266
MIKE TINKER, Chairman, Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
Fairbanks, testifying via teleconference, stated that he is a
nearly 40-year resident of Ester, just outside of Fairbanks, and
was speaking on behalf of Fairbanks area sportsmen, including
the Alaska Outdoor Council officers and the local Tanana
Sportsman Association. He wanted to squelch a rumor that the
sportsmen in the Fairbanks area were in support of Clinton's
Roadless Rule. He said that all of the sportsmen whom he talked
to are in opposition to it, and in support of HJR 6. Mr. Tinker
stated that Alaskans use a limited road system for access to
work, recreation, and subsistence resources. He said that
public roads are necessary for all Alaskans to be able to have
access to forest service and public lands. He compared the size
of the Chugach and Tongass Forests to that of many eastern
states, in order to give an example of how "crippling" the
Roadless Rule would be for Alaska. He thanked the committee for
providing the opportunity for public testimony, and for its
support of HJR 6.
Number 2392
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, Alaska State Legislature, pointed
out that former President Clinton's action to set aside more of
Alaska's land as de facto wilderness is contrary to the intent
and law set out in ANILCA. He thanked [Governor Knowles] for
being willing to take the federal government to court on the
issue of the Roadless Rule Policy, and expressed his wish that
[the committee and public] support the governor and the
congressional delegation for their efforts. Representative
Williams stated that the right place to make these land
decisions is on the local level, recalling that more than ten
years and over $13,000,000 were spent designing the Tongass Land
Management Plan (TLMP). He cited a specific example in TLMP,
where more areas were protected through single-use status; out
of the ten million forested acres of the Tongass, less than
600,000 acres were left for multiple-use. Representative
Williams said, "after the concession was made in TLMP to the
environmental industry, the Clinton administration arbitrarily
lowered the land available for multiple use to less than 570,000
acres." He referred to the hand-out (in packet) to show how
long the process usually takes before a decision is made to make
a timber sale offering, and said that former President Clinton
"railroaded" the Roadless Rule Policy through in only 15 months,
in order to approve it before he left office. He pointed out
that the speed at which this policy was pushed through would
have upset environmentalist had it been regarding an agenda to
which they were opposed. Representative Williams referred to
the second page of his handout, which depicted a satellite image
of North America at night, where the vast difference in land
development between the lower 48 states and Alaska was clearly
apparent. He expressed the desire for Alaska to be allowed to
make its own decisions regarding land use, and not to have to
pay the price of former President Clinton's "legacy."
Number 2620
KEVIN HITE, President, Alaska State Snowmobile Association
(ASSA), testifying via teleconference, stated that he was
representing the voice of over 1500 members, 45 businesses, and
26 local area clubs, who, collectively oppose former President
Clinton's Roadless Rule and support HJR 6. He talked about the
failure of the federal government, historically, in protecting
Alaska's land, and said that the ASSA has fought to see the
ANILCA rights protected. Regarding the designation of roadless
areas, Mr. Hite warned that "aside from the real economic impact
to our communities, the recreational access is always the first
that's impacted, and the first to be attacked in any type of
federal action."
Number 2738
BOB BRIGHT, Planning Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB),
spoke on behalf of the KPB. He said the KPB is very concerned
about the impact of the Roadless Rule on its borough, which has
been contending with the "revised Chugach plan process for
several months," during which the KPB discovered that the
"Forest Service['s] preferred alternative would limit access to
the Chugach Forest," and the KPB saw the Roadless Rule Policy as
a continuation of that policy. On January 23, 2001, the KPB
assembly undertook resolution 2001-012 (included in bill
packet), which expresses its strong support for HJR 6.
Number 2800
MIKE SALLEE, testifying via teleconference, representing
himself, stated that he does not support HJR 6. He read
excerpts of a written statement (included in the packet), citing
reasons for his opposition to HJR 6 as follows:
1) The USFS [United States Forest Service] is not
adequately maintaining or otherwise dealing with the
roads it has already built.
2) The Tongass has already experienced major
departures from its historical rural character over
the last several decades due to road building. More
than enough acreage of the Tongass has already been
devoted to roaded, even-aged, grand scale tree farms.
3) The TLMP will be due for revision in another
decade. Yet again, citizens will be required to
respond to a huge federal bureaucracy's obsolete and
over-optimistic timber harvest and development
mandate.
4) We will never develop small value-added timber
operations that, for example, employ small portable
mills and helicopter or trail accessed timber sales,
as long as the remaining available wood is dedicated
to roaded, even-aged, grand-scale tree farms. Round
log export of incidental species will continue to be
the rule as long as we gear timber sales to large wood
processing facilities.
5) A development scenario precedent has been
established on national forests, which is
unsustainable and reminiscent of the tobacco
plantations of Jefferson's time. In Southeast Alaska
we see a similar scenario, a management policy that
perpetually targets virgin stands of old growth, the
difference being we must wait for trees to grow back
rather than for soil to renew itself, and the
boom/bust cycle hasn't matured to the extremes [that]
it has in the Lower 48. Excluding Alaska from a
roadless policy will mean the national forests of
Alaska will be pressured to provide jobs for people
displaced from the lower 48 states.
SE Alaska's forests differ from those of the Pacific
Northwest by being naturally more fragmented due to
Southeast's island geography, and by having a harsher
climate due to its higher latitude.
Mr. Sallee mentioned a special case where he lives, where a sale
on timber is being considered. He then continued with his
written testimony as follows:
I'm not averse to cutting timber on Gravina; I own a
sawmill and recognize a future need for wood for
myself and the community around me. But given the
plethora of roads on Prince of Wales, Annette,
Revillagigedo, and all other major islands in
Southeast Alaska, I would advocate a much more
conservative development scheme for Gravina. Keeping
40 million board feet available for harvest on the
1800 acres, but parcel it out at the rate it grows,
about 300 board feet per acre per year.
CO-CHAIR MASEK stopped Mr. Sallee from further testimony,
because he had come to the end of his three-minute time limit.
She invited him to send the rest of his testimony to the House
Resources Standing Committee for the record.
Number 2948
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Sallee how a 50,000 square
foot policy would affect him. [This question was not recorded,
due to tape change.]
TAPE 01-4, SIDE B
Number 2940
MR. SALLEE said that he did not think his small-scale timber
needs would be affected, since he gets most of his timber from
beaches, blowdowns, or from private landowners, not from roaded
areas. He stated that there is sufficient road access to timber
for the small-scale operators on Prince of Wales Island.
Number 2915
TOM BOUTIN, testified in support of HJR 6. He read a portion of
his written statement as follows:
My name is Tom Boutin. I first moved to Alaska in
1973. I've lived in many of the communities that are
surrounded by the Tongass [National Forest], working
in a professional forestry capacity, and worked as a
professional forester on land surrounded by the
Chugach [National Forest]. On the Tongass [National
Forest] I have laid out a setting, cut the timber and
then been the rigging slinger on that same side.
I've worked, hunted and fished over a good part of
each of the two Forests. I strongly support the
Resolution before you.
There was no public process that led to the adoption
of this Roadless [Rule] Plan. President Clinton
stated what he wanted to have happen, organizations
like the trusts and foundations that support National
Public Radio and environmental groups cranked up their
machines to flood the Forest Service with comments,
and then the President, now former President, adopted
the Plan. Imagine what the environmentalist
organizations would say if a timber [sale] plan were
implemented in that way.
There is no supporting science for this plan and no
evidence whatsoever that salmon harvests, wildlife
habitat or tourism are diminished in any way by forest
roads. On the Chugach [National Forest], forest roads
allow better fire suppression, disperse the personal
use fishing pressure, and allow more cost-effective
reforestation of spruce beetle damage. On the Tongass
[National Forest], the deer herd seems to be doing
best where the most intensive forest management,
including roads, has taken place and tourism seems to
steadily increase even as [more] roads have been
built.
Roads are not the entire issue here. It's private
enterprise that environmental groups want to entirely
eliminate. When I moved here from New Hampshire 29
years ago, wages were 5 times higher in Alaska than in
New Hampshire. Now wages here are slightly below
those in New Hampshire. So long as Alaska has no
manufacturing base, resource development will
determine our economic health. As the resources are
taken off the market or are made much less economic,
higher wage jobs are bound to become fewer in number.
When I first came to Alaska, the forest products
industry and state government had about the same
number of employees. Now state government has about
20 times more employees. The Roadless [Rule] Plan
will reduce forest products employment even more.
Nowhere in North American does the value-added timber
industry that is sometimes described by environmental
extremists as what they envision for Alaska exist.
Visit any state-of-the-art sawmill producing lumber
for construction and you'll find that each mill
produces 100 million board feet a year. Visit Valley
Lumber and Don Abel Building Supply in Juneau and
you'll see [that] their lumber comes from those mills.
Alaska is now far below any reasonable threshold
economy of scale for lumber or pulp production, and I
expect that forest products employment here is below
that of states not usually considered wood producing
states such as Rhode Island and New Jersey.
If roads were really the issue, at least on the
Tongass reasonable timber harvests could resume. Most
of the logging done on the Tongass up into the 1970's
was done without roads. Logs were swung from spar
tree to spar tree for miles until they were finally
put in the bay. One particular Alaska A-Frame was so
large it employed 29 men, not including the fallers,
and had to have it's own code of whistles.
Line logging without roads might not be possible now
given all the restrictions put upon logging practices
since truck logging became the norm. But you can go
back to places that were logged without roads and
clearly see that the habitat and water quality have
not suffered. And now that we've had a few decades
that have passed, even the viewshed is restored.
Number 2730
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK interrupted Mr. Boutin when his three
minutes were up, and invited him to submit the rest of his
testimony in writing.
Number 2725
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Boutin to expound upon the
subject of logging without roads, and to describe the
feasibility of doing so, should Alaskans be left with the former
Clinton Administration's Roadless Rule.
MR. BOUTIN gave a detailed description of the "Alaskan A-frame"
process of logging, which uses a "float" with two "spars,"
whereby logs are swung from one tree to the next, for several
miles, until they reach their destination. He said that this
style of logging without roads had very little impact on the
environment. He declared that "the second growth looks like a
forestry text book the way it's come back, and is all self-
pruning." Mr. Boutin told the committee that roadless logging
was a workable alternative that could credibly be put into
practice again, where there were no roads.
Number 2635
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA followed up with a question for Mr.
Boutin, asking him if a comparison could be made between the
effects on the environment of logging practices now, compared to
when there were no roads.
MR. BOUTIN answered that although A-framing was done by some
into the 1980s, the USFS shut down the Alaska A-frames in order
to protect the land at water's edge from eroding, as a result of
being impacted by the butt end of the logs as they were dropped
into the bay.
Number 2598
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS referred to the previous testimony of
Mike Sallee, who indicated that "the federal government does not
maintain the roads already built." He asked Mr. Boutin if he
would agree that [HJR 6] did not appear to "discourage the
maintaining of those roads."
MR. BOUTIN said he would agree with that. He mentioned an
extended hunting trip that he recent took on Prince of Wales
Island, stating that he thought that the roads were adequately
groomed. He pointed out that "roads on private land, on Native
timber land, are put to bed just by yankin' the culverts," and
commented on the natural erosion of land that occurs from a
combination of close soil, bedrock, and cyclical storms. Mr.
Boutin added that he had not heard of any fish runs being
adversely affected by improperly maintained roads.
Number 2513
CO-CHAIR MASEK stated for the record that Representative McGuire
had joined the meeting, and that Representative Williams had
returned to the room.
Number 2513
GERRY MERRIGAN, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association (PVOA),
testifying via teleconference from Petersburg, explained that
PVOA is a commercial fisherman's group that has existed for over
70 years, and that supports "the conservation and rational
management of North Pacific fisheries resources" and the
protection of fisheries habitat. He informed the House
Resources Standing Committee that 80 percent of the 1999 salmon
harvest in Southeast Alaska "came from streams of origin in the
Tongass National Forest." Regarding PVOA's position on HJR 6,
Mr. Merrigan stated the following:
In commenting on this resolution, we had to weigh the
benefits of increased fisheries habitat protection
that would be derived, versus the principle of
invoking a new national mandate that would override a
long-term existent planning process, for example, the
forest plan process. As tedious and time-consuming as
the forest plan process might be, we support that
process over a one-size-fits-all solution such as the
Roadless Rule. The present process seems to provide
more opportunity to use science, local knowledge, and
land management designation and decision, as opposed
to a broad national policy that is based on general
philosophy and postcards. Therefore, we support this
resolution, but perhaps not as unequivocally as
previous speakers.
MR. MERRIGAN touched upon the subject of timber harvesting and
"roading" in the Tongass, citing a State of Alaska study which
indicates that "road building practices in the Tongass could be
improved to allow for better fish passage for juvenile salmon
through culverts." Mr. Merrigan suggested that the Alaska
legislature consider a parallel resolution that would encourage
the USFS to protect those culverts. He summarized his position
by stating his opposition to any legislation that would bypass
regional management.
Number 2337
ERROL CHAMPION, General Manager, Silver Bay Logging, read his
testimony as follows:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
resolution HJR 6. For more than two decades, Alaskans
have been held to a separate standard from the other
49 states, regarding the way the federal government
approaches land management in Alaska. Each time the
Alaskans and the federal agencies reach an agreement
on policies in our national forests, we've been told,
"This is it. There will be no more withdrawal of
lands."
Recently, I served with 14 other Alaskans on Governor
Knowles' Timber Task Force. At that time, former
Secretary of Agriculture [Dan] Glickman told the
governor and our task force that the 1997 record of
decision should be viewed as conclusive decisions,
after spending $13,000,000 and taking 11 years to
revise the Tongass [Land Management] Plan. But as we
all know, months later Undersecretary Lyons made wide-
sweeping changes to the Record Of Decision with no
input from the public.
At the same time, the roadless policy for our national
forests was being evaluated across the nation, but
Alaskans were told to not worry, the Tongass and
Chugach would be exempt from inclusion, because we had
just completed land use plans. So, we know the rest of
the story. Not only are we included, but as late as
this past December, the effective date was to be 2004;
but in the end, we were included with the same
effective date as every other national forest.
This can only be described as a dead-end road policy.
It's a dead-end road to the sustainability of a viable
wood fiber industry for Alaska. The Presidential
order brings a dead-end road to access routes for
hydro sites and power line corridors. It's a dead-end
road for funding for local schools that would come
from future timber sales receipts. It's a dead-end
road for entrance to watersheds to access public
drinking systems. It's a dead-end road for hard-
surface linkage for our cities and towns. And it's a
dead-end road for the employment opportunities and
further strangles local economies, by forcing families
to move on to seek other jobs - usually in a
completely different field. And sadly, and most
importantly, this latest effort is a dead-end road for
the integrity and the commitment made to Alaskans by
the federal government. When there's no longer any
trust in what our federal officials do and say, we are
fraying the cords that bind democracy together.
The governor has every reason to be outraged at this
eleventh-hour decision, and so should every reasonable
Alaskan. The former President's roadless decision
violates numerous federal laws, and I trust the
attorney general and other groups will be successful
in quickly overturning this action in the courts.
MR. CHAMPION submitted the rest of his testimony in writing,
noting that his three minutes were over.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Champion if there is a "floor"
in place regarding school funding, so that the funding is not
based solely on timber receipts.
MR. CHAMPION confirmed that the funding from timber receipts has
been depleted to the point of no funds, so that other agencies,
such as National Education Association (NEA) and Association of
Counties, among others, worked together to get a bill passed
through Congress to cover that loss.
Number 2113
WAYNE WEIHING, testifying via teleconference, said that he had
heard that there were 1.6 million comments received nationwide
regarding the Roadless Rule. He mentioned there was an 8.4
billion dollar "backlog on existing roads," nationally. He said
he thought that "private industry would never want to build up
an economic liability, and our federal government should be in
the same position." He encouraged better maintenance of
existing culverts, in relation to their affect on fish passage.
He stated that, as a carpenter who values wood, he is opposed to
the practice of exporting round-cut timber, and that it doesn't
make sense to him to continue to access timber, while continuing
to export it. He listed names of groups who export round-cut
timber: University of Alaska, the Mental Health Trust, Ketchikan
Gateway Bureau, and the USFS.
Number 1955
LOREN GERHARD, Executive Director, Southeast Conference, read
the following written testimony:
I'll speak mainly to the issues in the Tongass
National Forest, as those are the ones I'm most
familiar with, as our organization focuses on issues
in Southeast Alaska, although some of this applies to
the Chugach [National Forest] as well. Southeast
Conference and the Southeast Conference of Mayors are
very concerned with the negative impacts the ex-
President's action will have on our regional economy.
We're still trying to deal with the impacts from the
dramatic 75 percent decline in the timber industry
occasioned by the Tongass land management process.
The future impacts of the roadless designation, if it
remains intact, will deal a deathblow to the once-
significant portion of our regional economic base.
This action will cost the region another 1000 jobs,
direct and indirect. The large multinational timber
companies are gone. What we are talking about now are
Alaskans doing business in Alaska, and they will be
put out of work by this action. The environmental
advocates asked for a smaller-scale, sustainable level
of harvest, supporting a scaled-back, value-added
processing industry, and that's what they got.
The advocates for the "roads ban" reference heavy
support in Alaska for this proposal, citing
percentages of attendees at public meetings held in
this state last summer. The Forest Service never
measured those percentages. They are self-serving
estimates by the people in environmental advocacy
organizations that packed those meetings with their
supporters. There was an all-out ad campaign last
summer across the country, with millions of dollars
spent on full-page ads in big city newspapers, and
millions of prepared postcards, handed out on street
corners and in shopping malls to people to send to the
White House. It was a well-executed effort to create
the illusion of broad support across the country,
which has never really been proven. None of these
measures are scientifically valid, and the point is
that forest management is mandated by law to be
undertaken by a more scientific process, less
influenced by mass media public opinion manipulation.
The roadless EIS [Environmental Impact Statement]
clearly shows that the majority of Alaskans do not
favor this designation. There are multiple
resolutions in volume four of the EIS from communities
all around the state opposing it. You may have some
of them in your packet, and I can provide at least ten
resolutions from Southeast communities, opposing the
roadless designation. It is totally appropriate for
the legislature to go on record opposing this
regulatory end, run by a lame-duck President, seeking
to build his legacy. It's yet another example of
federal officials taking liberty with people's lives
thousands of miles from the beltway, with no regard to
the economic consequences or for the process of law.
Four times in the last twenty years, starting with
ANILCA, the federal government has promised us "no
more," and every promise has been broken. We need to
get the message back to Washington that enough is
enough.
We applaud the governor's action in pursuing legal
remedies to this injustice, and urge the legislature
to support him in that effort. The former President
has no right to ignore laws on the books dealing with
forest management, and this directive should be
scrapped. Your unequivocal support with this
resolution will help in that effort.
Number 1770
RION SCHMIDT, testifying via teleconference, stated his
opposition to HJR 6. He said that he lives in a roadless area,
and has a list of people who support former President Clinton's
Roadless Rule, in order to protect fish habitat, as well as
subsistence, business, and recreational use. That list includes
over 80 businesses involved in ecotourism, personal businesses,
or commercial fisheries, and was printed as a full-page ad by
the Alaska Rainforest Campaign. Mr. Schmidt said that he
disagreed with the argument that HJR 6 would hurt Alaska's
industries, and remarked that the existing roads should be
repaired before new roads are built. He said that there are
"millions of board feet on the Tongass that are available on the
current road system, and there really isn't a large corporate
logging interest in the Chugach at this point." He said he
thought the small-scale logging businesses preferred it that
way. Mr. Schmidt told the House Resources Standing Committee
that most of the communities in Southeast Alaska are water-
accessible and therefore do not need roads. He voiced his
opinion that protecting areas from excessive road building is
protecting a way of life that is disappearing.
Number 1590
RACHAEL MORELAND, Associate Director, Alaska Forest Association
(AFA), read her testimony as follows:
The Alaska Forest Association is the trade association
representing the forest product industry throughout
Alaska, and we represent about 90 small businesses
doing business in the forest product industry. We
strongly support HJR 6, and we urge the committee to
move it to the floor as soon as possible. As you
already know, the timber industry, and in turn, the
communities of Southeast Alaska, have already been
badly damaged by imposed federal actions.
The Roadless Rule reduces the land available for
scheduled timber sales on the Tongass from 576,000
acres to approximately 311,000 acres. This is an
extremely small parcel of land, which is certainly not
large enough to support the existing industry, much
less the re-development of a sustainable and value-
added forest products industry.
The net effect of the roadless area withdrawal in
Alaska is particularly drastic. While the Forest
Service [USFS] touts the net impact of the Roadless
Rule to be a mere 2 percent of the nation's land base,
the rule effects 31 percent of all national forest
land. And in Alaska, the roadless rule withdraws an
additional 67 percent, or 15,000,000 acres, from the
Tongass and the Chugach National Forests. This rule
prohibits roaded access to 98 percent of the Chugach
National Forest, and when combined with other
wilderness designations, prohibits roaded access to 91
percent of the Tongass National Forest.
With respect to the Chugach National Forest, 98
percent of that forest is roadless. The Roadless Rule
prohibits all new transportation infrastructure in the
Chugach without the benefit of the public planning
process specific to that forest. The Chugach Land and
Resource Management Plan is presently undergoing
revision under terms set forth in the National Forest
Management Act of 1976. We believe that that process
and other similar processes provided for by law are
the proper venues for land use allocations in our
forests.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Alaska's national
forests in the roadless rule violates the "no more"
clause of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. The rule is inconsistent with
existing forest plans, especially in light of the
latest revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan.
HJR 6 correctly states that the roadless rule creates
de facto wilderness without congressional action or
approval. The state is correct to demand the "no
more" clause of ANILCA be honored.
Concurrently, the Forest Service [USFS] issued new
regulations on their Transportation Policy which, when
combined with the Roadless Rule, creates a one-two
punch for management and stewardship for the entire
national forest system, not just roadless areas. They
are building a wall around 58.5 million acres, with
the Roadless Rule, and then, with the transportation
policy, making it all but impossible for local land
managers to do their jobs.
The government's withdrawal of roadless areas is bad
for all national forests, it is bad for all Americans,
and it is particularly bad for Alaska. There is
widespread opposition within Alaska to this Roadless
Rule and the Alaska Forest Association urges you to
join with that loud chorus in opposition to it.
Number 1352
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said that he had heard that no existing
roads would be closed. He asked Ms. Moreland to verify whether
there was such a policy, and if so, under which policy that
information was stated: "Roadless" or "Roads."
MS. MORELAND offered the following explanation:
We have the Roadless Rule, which is what the
resolution addresses. We also have what I like to
call as the "Transportation Policy," because it gets a
little confusing: Roadless, and Roads Policy.
The Transportation Policy, which I spoke briefly
about, covers the rest of the land in our national
forest. That Act was ... happening at the same time
the Roadless Plan was going through the NEPA [National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969] process. It was
fairly quietly done, and it put very similar
prohibitions on the rest of the areas in our national
forest. And within that ruling, they do talk about
the procedure to decommission roads, and it makes it
very difficult for any industry, timber or otherwise,
to build new roads by mandating a "compelling" reason
to build a road, which is a legal term that I
understand is a very, very high standard.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Moreland whether A-frame
logging constituted a major use of timber or was a small-scale
form of logging.
MS. MORELAND stated that timber harvest is prohibited under the
Roadless Rule. She also said that A-framing would not be
allowed under current forest management practices. She added
that under the Roadless Rule, there is very restricted timber
harvest allowed. One example would be for wildfire management.
Number 1172
JOHN JACK SHAY, Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, testifying via
teleconference, commented that he was speaking on behalf of
14,000 people, which used to be 15,000 before some of the
"timber troubles." He spoke about a recent trip to Washington,
D.C., taken by several mayors from Southeast Alaska. The
purpose of the trip was to discuss the roadless issue with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the chief of the USFS. They talked
about the fact that "this is not just a timber issue, but we're
talking about fishing, recreation, communications,
transportation, mining, watershed management, power
transmission, wildlife management," and many other forest
resources which would be affected by the Roadless Rule. Mayor
Shay said that Secretary Glickman had talked about a four-year
extension, but it was not offered under the Roadless Rule. He
thanked the House Resources Standing Committee for forwarding
HJR 6, expressing his eagerness to have the "completely and
utterly unreasonable and illegal" Roadless Rule overturned.
Number 1010
SUE SCHRADER, Alaska Conservation Alliance, Alaska Conservation
Voters, said that she would not read her testimony, since it was
submitted in writing (included in bill packet). She addressed
her concerns about the amount of misinformation circulating
concerning the roadless issue. She stated that the issue of
whether or not the Roadless Rule violates the "no more" clause
is one that should and would be settled in court. She clarified
that the policy does not do anything to existing roads within
the Tongass and the Chugach. Regarding "anecdotal reports from
Prince of Wales Island," she suggested that everyone would be
better served by getting a copy of ADF&G's report on the status
of the culverts in the Tongass. That Tongass road condition
survey report, released by ADF&G in June 2000, "speaks to the
two-thirds of its failing culverts on salmon streams, [and] 85
percent of the culverts on trout streams." She said that the
"ADF&G committee," chaired by Representative [Bill] Hudson,
researched the roadless issue to make sure that the decisions
made in creating the Roadless Rule were based on good, sound
science. She offered to provide a copy of a letter to [former]
President Clinton, that supported the inclusion of the Tongass
in the Roadless Rule, and that was signed by 330 scientists -
100 of them from Alaska.
Number 0730
CO-CHAIR MASEK interrupted Ms. Schrader's testimony.
MS. SCHRADER commented on the short duration of her three
minutes, and made the following statement for the record:
I think it's clear that there's a lot of interest in
this resolution. The legislature prides itself in
providing public process, public opportunity. Having
three minutes and then being cut off, and having
members of the committee cut off from their questions,
is not providing proper public process.
Number 0705
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned seeing a memo sent by Ms.
Schrader to Representative Kookesh. She asked Ms. Schrader to
talk about the possible impact of the Roadless Rule policy on a
small community's ability to make use of utility corridors to
build roads. She wanted to know if a small community would have
to appeal to the President in order to make an exception to the
rule. In particular, Representative Kerttula wanted to know
what would be done with power cost equalization (PCE).
MS. SCHRADER answered with the following statement:
In the House Transportation Committee, Representative
Kookesh had some concerns about a proposed hydro and
water supply project for the City of Angoon, and how
the Roadless [Rule] would affect that. I'm not an
attorney; however, I've done some poking around in
ANILCA and The Wilderness Act. I think the important
thing to keep in mind on this Roadless [Rule] - and it
is stated in section 294.12 - is that roads are
allowed under certain circumstances. If a road is
already allowed, pursuant to an existent statute -
such as ANILCA, such as The Wilderness Act - that road
can go ahead. This Roadless [Rule] will not stop that
road. If a road is going to receive federal aid
highway money - such as the Juneau access road - that
road is not stopped by the Roadless [Rule]. That's
another exception in the Roadless [Rule] for proposed
roads. In the instance of Angoon, the project is
going to be on wilderness monument land. That land is
pretty much managed under ANILCA, and under provisions
of The Wilderness Act. Those are existing statutes;
they're very specific in the rights that can be
attributed to these projects to access them with road
construction. Those provisions in ANILCA and The
Wilderness Act trumped the Roadless [Rule]. The
Roadless [Rule] will not affect that. The
understanding that I'm hearing from the folks I've
consulted with is that Angoon's water supply project,
the hydro project, is not going to be hindered at all
because of the Roadless [Rule]. On Prince of Wales
Island, where (indisc.), of course, additional number
of communities that would be looking at developing
projects, that is not wilderness land. There the
situation's a little bit different. But again, if
there is a right to develop the project that's already
in an existing statute, or if the road that's being
looked at is going to have federal highway aid, there
should not be any problem with that type of project
going through.
Number 0460
CO-CHAIR MASEK reminded Ms. Schrader that she had had a chance
to testify during the House Transportation Standing Committee
meeting, and again here today, and that it was crucial that she
wrap up her testimony.
MS. SCHRADER replied that she was answering Representative
Kerttula's question.
Number 0395
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Schrader what would happen if
a town needed access to a new hydro project.
MS. SCHRADER answered the following:
I cannot answer that at this point. Again, it depends
on the land status of where the project would be
proposed. If it's on municipal-owned land, municipal
selection. If it's on privately owned land, ANILCA
gives a right of access to in-holding. And again,
that would trump the Roadless [Rule]. If it's on
forest service land, that is not wilderness, not
monument; I think it becomes a little bit more of a
legal question.
Number 0322
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Ms. Schrader if she had any legal
opinions on the subject at hand.
MS. SCHRADER responded that since she was not a legal attorney,
she therefore had no legal opinions on the subject. She said
she was not sure whether there were any written opinions, but
she would see what she could procure.
Number 0277
CLIFF SKILLINGS, Gateway Forest Products, testified via
teleconference. He supplied a written copy of his testimony. In
support of HJR 6, Mr. Skillings read the following excerpt from
his written testimony:
My name is Cliff Skillings, and I am testifying today
on behalf of Gateway Forest Products and its 149 full-
time employees, urging you to support HJR 6 and seek
expedited passage of this important resolution.
Gateway Forest Products is a company of full-time,
year-round employees operating a production sawmill, a
veneer mill, an operational sort yard, and an
industrial complex.
The Clinton Roadless [Rule] fails to recognize the
fact that significant management initiatives have been
applied to the Tongass already. These include ANILCA,
[the] Tongass Timber Reform Act, and continuously
updated versions of the Tongass Land Management Plan.
In the eight years of the Clinton Administration,
Southeast Alaska has seen an allowable sale quantity
(ASQ) that dropped from 550 million board feet to 267
million board feet, with the 1997 TLMP Record [of]
Decision, to 187 million board feet, with the Lyons
ROD [record of decision] in 1999, and the loss of two
production pulp mills and various independent
sawmills.
This latest initiative offers no science, but rather
an emotional plea from national special-interest
groups and legacy opportunity for an outgoing
administration. You have heard the best probable
numbers should this initiative be applied to the
Tongass: 50 million board foot maximum harvest,
further decrease in the manufacturing base in the
region, et cetera. All [of] this is correct. Our
present industry of seven small, independent wood
product manufacturing facilities will surely be
decreased to two with implementation. Our veneer
mill, although being able to run on one shift in this
scenario, will do so at the cost of our sawmill that
may at best operate on a part-time basis if the supply
is available.
The Tongass is fully capable of supporting a viable
timber manufacturing industry to the ASQ stated in the
1997 TLMP decision and then condoned by the governor
that same year. This ASQ of 267 million board feet
provides a level of harvest that maintains year-round,
family-supporting jobs, healthy local economies, and
an industry that has the ability to plan ahead for
operations and make investments in manufacturing
processes.
The Roadless [Rule] also ties the hands of land
managers in the future, relative to forest practices,
to improve forest health, and denies access of our
resource-rich region to those visitors who may be
bound by physical limitations, and wish to see it
first hand.
In closing, I do not believe that a "majority of
Alaskans" support this action as you may hear in
opposing testimony. Local representation is hardly
met by visitors who may sign a prewritten postcard
after being coerced into signing. Significant locals
submitted letters and memos of opposition to the
Clinton Administration relative to this initiative,
and I do not believe that one can base the opinion of
the region by those who chose to stand at [a]
microphone.
Gateway Forest Products and the timber industry of
Southeast Alaska can ill afford to be subject to
additional inaccessibility to the resource, due to
management decisions based on emotional appeals over
sound science...(end of tape).
TAPE 01-5, SIDE A
Number 0030
DICK COOSE, Concerned Alaskans for Resources and Environment
(CARE), testifying via teleconference, said that the Roadless
Rule is "a fiasco, an embarrassment to Alaskans." He thanked
Governor Knowles for his quick action to fight the Roadless
Rule. He handed out an excerpt from a United States Forest
Service news release and fact sheet on the Roadless Rule (dated
1/4/01). Mr. Coose listed his credentials: retired Ketchikan
district ranger on the Tongass National Forest; Ketchikan
Borough Assembly person; and past president of the Ketchikan
Chamber of Commerce. He encouraged the House Resources Standing
Committee to question the misleading claims "provided by many of
the preservation comments," stating that there are "too many
misleading facts and figures ... taken out of context, and used
erroneously."
Number 0169
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC), representing approximately 700 business members
statewide, spoke in favor of HJR 6 and in opposition to the
Roadless Rule. She said that the ASCC thinks that the Roadless
Rule will have a negative impact on the economic growth and
development of Alaska, greatly impacting forest accessibility to
commercial industries groups, such as recreation, tourism,
timber, and mining. Ms. LaBolle continued by saying:
Under the National Forest Management Act, the forests
are to be managed under multiple use. The [Roadless]
Rule denies access to the publicly owned forest land
in Alaska, and will preclude any of these uses in the
future. And under this policy, Alaska's multiple use
areas of the forest land, which are currently 62
percent, will be reduced to about 7 percent (available
for multiple use of Alaska's forests). And I'd like
to point out that the road that connects the Kenai
Peninsula to Anchorage, and to the rest of the state,
goes through the Chugach Forest. Kenai is one of the
precious few economic sites, centers of Alaska; and
had the Roadless [Rule] been in place in previous
times, we wouldn't have access to the Kenai. How many
Kenai areas and opportunities for Alaska's future will
never come to be if this policy is allowed to stand?
Number 0369
PAT VEESART, Executive Director, Sitka Conservation Society
(SCS), testifying via teleconference, spoke against HJR 6, with
the following statement:
In the national - and that's a key word - national
forest planning process, individual forest management
plans are not cast in stone. They are subject to
changes in national policy. Those changes might be
based on economic realities, they might be based on
new science, they might be based on shifts in public
attitude, or in the case of the Roadless [Rule], all
three. There is a legal process for making changes in
individual forest plans. There's a legal process for
conveying changes in national policy to forest
managers at the forests around the nation. What
you're being asked to do today is pass a resolution
that opposes the public will. There was an 18-month-
long public process involved, 617 public hearings
nationwide that were open to everyone. They were open
to the timber industry, they were open to fishing
groups, they were open to sportsmen's groups, they
were open to everyone to organize their constituency
to speak. 39,000 Americans attended those hearings.
1.6 million comments were received. There were 17
hearings in Alaska, all of them open to everybody, and
62 percent of the people who spoke at those hearings
favored the Roadless [Rule], favored inclusion of the
Tongass. Over 25,000 comments were received from
Alaskans on the Roadless [Rule]. In Sitka, the vast
majority of people who testified in Sitka favored the
Roadless [Rule].
Mr. Veesart went on to urge the House Resources Standing
Committee to oppose HJR 6, and to support economic development
in Alaska that will protect its natural resources. He talked
about timber sales sitting on shelves, and low prices of timber,
and he encouraged looking for new opportunities in economical
development.
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Veesart if he could cite the
source of the figures he presented (for example, the 62
percent).
MR. VEESART told Representative McGuire that the figures were
based upon counts taken by the Alaska Rainforest Campaign at all
the Alaska hearings. The counts were then confirmed against
forest service sign-up sheets. He invited the House Resources
Standing Committee members to check the forest service's records
for those hearings.
Number 0717
MR. PHELPS offered a couple of comments for clarification:
One is, I think it's really important for the
committee to realize that in the Roadless [Rule]
proposal, we're not really talking entirely about
areas that are unroaded. And, in fact, if you read
the environmental impact statement, you'll see that
there was a lot of discussion about whether they
should prohibit roads in the unroaded portions of
roadless areas, only, and not in the currently roaded
areas of roadless areas. And that's because the
definitions of these roadless areas were established
in RARE II [Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II]
back in the mid 1970s, and there's been a huge amount
of new road construction in some of these areas. And
that's why, again, in the FEIS [Final Environmental
Impact Statement] and DEIS [Draft Environmental Impact
Statement] you see a lot of discussion about
prohibiting reconstruction of roads in so-called
roadless areas. So, it's really important for you to
realize that ... this whole discussion has been
centered around what amounts to a massive ...
deception campaign, and I think that's more applicable
in some parts of the country than in others, but it's
certainly applicable to some portions of the Tongass
National Forest. So that's an important point that
has not been brought out before, and I think people
need to be aware of that. The press has done nothing
to help make people aware of that.
Secondly, there was some discussion about getting
legal opinions with respect to whether or not ANILCA
"no more" prohibitions apply in section 1326 and
section 708. Since the governor has directed the
attorney general to go to court on this issue, I would
suggest to this committee that the attorney general
might be a really good place to ask for such an
opinion. And I would just offer that as a suggestion,
if I may.
And finally, with respect to how people feel about
this policy, and the massive postcard campaign versus
other people's comments: The forest service, under
the NEPA regulations, is required to accept comments
from elected officials in both communities and states.
They did receive a massive amount of those kinds of
comments, and they're documented in volume four of the
final environmental impact statement. And I've been
through volume four, and discovered that ... a
preponderance of comments in volume four are against
the implementation of this policy. And those come
from elected officials in communities and in states
around the country. Curiously, if you ask the forest
service for a copy of the FEIS, you don't get volume
four. You have to ask for it specifically. So, one
needs to wonder what is going on here.
Number 0946
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Phelps to reiterate his point
regarding no roads in the existing roadless areas, and the
Roadless Rule on reconstruction.
MR. PHELPS made the following statement to clarify:
The roadless areas that are under consideration here,
... the boundaries of those were established basically
in the RARE II process. Since then, some of those
areas have been entered and had roads built in them.
And there was discussion in the environmental impact
statement about whether they should prohibit new road
construction in the unroaded portions of those
roadless areas only, or whether they should prohibit
road construction and reconstruction in both the
roaded and unroaded portion. And the actual decision
on that began to emerge when the FEIS came out and
finally, in the final record of decision, at which
time they ultimately decided to prohibit road
construction and reconstruction in the entire roadless
areas, including the currently roaded portions of
those so-called roadless areas.
Number 1050
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what the final rule on road
reconstruction was.
MR. PHELPS said that the final rule does not allow
reconstruction of currently existing roads in roadless areas,
making road construction and reconstruction generally
prohibited, with the possibility for exceptions to be made.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked if one of the exceptions would be
no reconstruction of culverts.
MR. PHELPS replied that the road itself would have to qualify
for the exception before any work would be done to the culvert.
The most likely scenario, he stated, would be that the road
would be decommissioned, and someone would be hired to come in
and pull the culvert.
NUMBER 1138
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the close of public testimony, and made
note of the written testimony included in the bill packet.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that she had concerns about
the differences of opinion from trusted witnesses on both sides
of the issue. She said that the issue was a difficult one that
affects many of her constituents. She said that her most
critical concern was for small communities to have access to
roads and utilities. She asked to be allowed the opportunity
and time for herself, and possibly Representative McGuire, to
inquire about the utilities and power issue at the attorney
general's office, stating that it would make a big difference in
her decision as to how to go forward.
Number 1263
CO-CHAIR MASEK replied that the sponsor had made her testimony,
and that the bill would be going through, and then going to the
floor. She told Representative Kerttula that she would have
plenty of time at that time to get the information needed, and
to make an amendment on the floor if needed. She then requested
a motion.
Number 1310
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he had previously made a mistake
in moving to adopt the work draft, because it needed further
amending. He noted changes from the language "President
Clinton's" to "the". He pointed out the first change to be on
page 1, lines 10-13, with a total of 10 occurrences.
Representative Green also stated the need for a further
amendment on page 1, line 1, which would change "within
President" to "within former President".
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked the sponsor if she had any objection
to that change in wording.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that's how she had originally
conceived it, but that it had been changed without her
knowledge.
Number 1493
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested that since the Roadless Rule
was put into effect while Clinton was President, it would be
correct to leave his name as "President Clinton."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that he made the recommendation
for the amendment because the resolution is current.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked for a motion to adopt the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN so moved the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked for further clarification on page
1, line 3, where it reads "President Bush", and on page 1, line
10, concerning the change from "President Clinton's" to "the".
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked about the language change in the
sponsor's draft to which Ms. Wilson had referred.
MS. WILSON said she couldn't explain how it happened, since she
didn't even know about it until she arrived for this House
Resources Standing Committee meeting.
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if there were any objections to the
amendment offered by Representative Green. Hearing none, she
announced that the amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that CSHJR 6 [version 22-LS0316\C,
Luckhaupt, 1/24/01] be moved from committee with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Number 1723
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA interjected that although she was not
going to object, she found it ironic that the committee was
discussing a bill concerned with the process used on a policy,
yet the committee did not focus on getting the opinions and
answers during the meeting. She said she would take it upon
herself to do so later.
Number 1755
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that he is really concerned about
the quality of fish habitat and the quality of the culverts. He
said he hoped that ADF&G and the House Special Committee on
Fisheries could become involved to guarantee that the resources
are not being affected.
Number 1815
CO-CHAIR MASEK said she thought that would be a possibility.
She then asked whether there were any objections to moving the
bill out of committee. There being no objection, CSHJR 6(RES)
was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1872
There being no further business before the House Resources
Standing Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|