HJR 55 - Tongass National Forest Timber Harvests HJR 56 - Exempt Alaska From "PACFISH" Regulations CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will hear both HJR 55 and HJR 56 since the two resolutions relate to two very similar timber issues. He noted that many who will be testifying will likely want to comment on both resolutions. He said both of the resolutions were introduced by the House Economic Task Force. The resolutions were drafted and proposed to the task force by the Timber Issues Subcommittee which he chairs. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained that HJR 55 urges Congress to increase the amount of timber available for harvest in the Tongass National Forest, and to provide sufficient funding to the Forest Service to facilitate offering the maximum amount of timber harvest in the Tongass, allowable under current law. He stated that HJR 56 asks the federal government to permanently exclude lands managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Alaska from the provisions of the so-called "PACFISH" (Pacific Anadromous Fish) strategy. PACFISH is the plan the federal government has developed for managing Pacific anadromous fish watersheds and habitats in several western states. Number 225 TROY REINHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION (AFA), testified via teleconference, and stated that AFA is a coalition of over 300 companies who depend on and/or support the development and management of Alaska's forest resources. AFA members believe the management of forests, through intensive silvicultural practices, will result in better jobs, communities and environment. He stressed that AFA is in support of HJR 55 and HJR 56 and stated that while the two resolutions are interconnected, they have important differences. MR. REINHART stated there is currently a timber supply crisis on the Tongass National Forest for those who depend upon it for its raw material source. This timber supply shortage is not due to a biological shortage of trees, but rather a political shortage. He stressed that only ten percent of the Tongass National Forest will ever be accessed for the management of timber. The remaining 90 percent is protected in wilderness or other administrative set asides. MR. REINHART remarked it is believed that the Tongass National Forest is being managed beyond a sustainable level; that if harvesting is left to continue at present rates, it will run dry in the next decade. He stressed nothing could be farther from the truth. He said in the last decade, harvest levels from the Tongass National Forest have never been funded at a level over 450 million board feet per year. Since the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), funding has not exceeded 420 million board feet per year. He noted these levels are far below the over one billion board feet which could be biologically produced from these lands or the over 500 million board per feet called for in Governor Hickel's sustainable preferred alternative. Number 263 MR. REINHART said having only been in Alaska since August 1993 and having been a professional forester for the last ten years, he has learned not to believe anything told to him by the professional preservation groups. However, he had heard a lot about Prince of Wales Island and the Tongass National Forest from these groups. He mentioned he did not know what to expect when he came to Alaska but added that what he saw were lots of trees. He pointed out that the Tongass National Forest is nothing but trees. Mr. Reinhart stated since the coming of settlers, only a small fraction of the Tongass has ever been harvested. MR. REINHART explained the federal government made a commitment to the communities of Southeast Alaska that the Tongass National Forest would be managed to produce year round jobs in the region. People brought their families and dreams to Alaska with this promise in mind and the promise was reaffirmed by Congress most recently in the TTRA of 1990. He pointed out that in that legislation, Congress created even more wilderness on the Tongass and in addition, directed the Forest Service to supply the existing industry through what is now known as the "seek to meet" language. Number 280 MR. REINHART advised that AFA recently filed suit against the Forest Service for failure to meet that requirement. The organization filed the lawsuit mainly because the Forest Service has failed to meet the independent sale program requirements given it by Congress. Since the passage of TTRA, the lack of timber supply to this segment of the industry has resulted in the closure of several sawmills and logging companies in the Tongass region. MR. REINHART said in each year since passage of TTRA, Congress has provided the Forest Service with funds to harvest 420 million board feet of timber. In each of those years, the Forest Service has only made slightly over 300 million board feet available. This 120 million board feet shortfall has meant mills closing and being unable to reopen. He stressed that AFA does not believe this is what Congress intended through its "seek to meet" language. Number 296 MR. REINHART stated the manner in which the forests are managed also has an impact on Alaska's other important renewable natural resource industry - fishing. AFA believes and the science bares out that the state can manage for both a significant forest products industry and a large scale fishing industry. He said to do so, there must be a realization that forest products and the fishing industry have more in common than they have differences. MR. REINHART mentioned he had a lot of science and research information which clearly shows that timber harvesting and fisheries are compatible. Statistics from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) show that fisheries production has increased at the same time timber harvesting has increased. He said while AFA does not pretend to claim there is a direct relationship between these two activities, the evidence does show that both are occurring and compatible. MR. REINHART stated last spring the federal government developed the PACFISH strategy to address the fisheries crisis in the Pacific Northwest. With no research or evidence, the Forest Service and BLM made the decision that Alaska should be included in the strategy. He said it has been well documented through the Forest Service and the media, that the PACFISH strategy would reduce timber harvesting on the Tongass National Forest by 50-85 percent. This would mean the loss of jobs, family incomes and damage to the social fabric of the region. He noted all this would occur with no evidence to support the decision. MR. REINHART said not only should the proposal be of concern to the forest products industry, but it should also concern the fishing industry. The PACFISH strategy deals with what are known as the four H's - harvesting, hatcheries, hydroelectric development, and habitat. He stressed not only is the federal government attempting to reduce timber harvest through the PACFISH strategy, but also they are on the path to controlling offshore fish harvest and the state's successful fish hatchery programs. Number 332 MR. REINHART told committee members that last year the Alaska Congressional delegation led by Senator Ted Stevens stopped implementation of the PACFISH proposal through the Interior Appropriation Bill. He said this effort was successful for several reasons. First, was the fact that the science was on the state's side. There is no evidence that fish stocks in this region are at risk due to timber harvesting. The state, through Dr. Rusanowski at DEC, made this point very effectively. Second, was the passage of TTRA. He stated the Tongass is the only national forest in the system which has legislatively mandated 100 foot, no harvest, stream buffers. Alaska has already addressed the habitat issues on public lands and is doing so effectively. He pointed out that a recent Forest Service report on the southern Tongass shows that stream buffer implementation was meeting the letter of the law with few exceptions. The report found the average buffer width is 169 feet. MR. REINHART stated the third factor was the progressive and state-of-the-art Alaska Forest Services Act (FSA). Alaska is one of the leaders in implementing stream buffers on private and state lands. The FPA has set the standard for protecting fisheries and allowing private landowners to maximize the return on their investment. MR. REINHART noted that recently there were concerns raised over the implementation of the FPA stream buffer regulations on private lands, which allows for timber harvesting within the buffers as long as no significant harm will result to fisheries values. Since these concerns were raised by the ADF&G, several important events have occurred which should lay any fears to rest. These activities have included three separate biological reviews of stream buffer implementation, an on-site visitation by the commissioners of DNR and ADF&G to review stream buffer implementation and review of stream buffer implementation on the ownerships of major private landowners. Number 372 MR. REINHART remarked that each of these events produced the opinion and evidence that the FPA on private lands is working to protect fisheries values, which was good news to the forest products industry. AFA is committed to a strong FPA which gives the public assurance that their resources are being protected. He stressed that AFA and the forest products industry are currently in the process of designing and implementing the continuation of past fish/forest research efforts. The AFA and the forest products industry are committed to finding answers and having the data to prove and insure that the state's forest practices protect fisheries values. MR. REINHART summarized that HJR 55 and HJR 56 are important statements of state policy in regard to the management of the state's natural resources. AFA hopes that his testimony has summarized their commitment and belief that the state's forests, fish, wildlife, and communities can be managed for the benefit of all. He said AFA strongly urges the committee to pass the two resolutions. Number 397 JOEL KAWAHARA, SITKA, testified via teleconference, and advised committee members that he is a commercial fisherman. He read an article from the Ketchikan Daily News which appeared January 24, 1994. He also read several articles from a Department of Commerce publication and information from an ADF&G article. He suggested additions for HJR 56 on page 3, lines 5 and 6, "exclude lands in Alaska managed by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management from the PACFISH requirements..." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Kawahara to fax his suggested additions, as it was difficult to hear his exact suggestions over the teleconference. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was not clear as to whether Mr. Kawahara is in support of HJR 55. MR. KAWAHARA responded he is in support of HJR 55, but thought the equal importance of the fishing industry should be added. He supports HJR 56 with amendments. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES again asked Mr. Kawahara to mail or fax his proposed amendments to the House Resources Committee. Number 530 ERIC JORDAN, SITKA, testified via teleconference, and said he is a lifelong commercial fisherman and subsistence user. He expressed opposition to HJR 55 and HJR 56, as written. He wondered why the AFA cannot find an Alaskan to direct their association when they claim 600 jobs have been lost in Alaska over the past two years. He thought maybe it is because long time Alaskans cannot take such an extreme position anymore. He stressed that the forest products industry and the fishing industry do have a lot in common. Both need a healthy resource, a long-term sustainable management plan, and the need to harvest with a minimum impact on associated wildlife. He said in the case of fishermen, it includes minimizing by-catch and eliminating adverse impacts on marine mammals. In the case of the forest industry, it means changing harvest methods to minimize adverse impacts on deer, salmon, and other wildlife. MR. JORDAN stated both groups must be managed to protect subsistence values. He felt the two FURTHER RESOLVED paragraphs beginning on lines 29 and 32, page 2, of HJR 55 should be struck or amended, as they conclude and request increased and maximum timber harvest without consideration of other values of the forest for other resources. He said it is one thing for the AFA to take extremist positions, but it is another for the Alaska legislature to pass unbalanced resolutions. Anyone who is seriously considered to manage these resources, whether it is Congress, the federal government or anyone in the state, will reject these resolutions because they are not balanced and show no creditability. MR. JORDAN stated in regard to HJR 56, Alaska should be enthusiastically embracing the PACFISH management strategy. One of the main losses to the economy in Southeast Alaska is due to the dams and the loss of habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Alaska can live with PACFISH. He said the forest industry is in the same position as the fishing industry was in territorial days. The timber industry is dominated by a few big corporations like the fishing industry was dominated by a few canning operations and the fish traps. He stressed how much Alaska's fishing industry improved when the fish traps were eliminated. He stressed it is time to change the way timber is harvested in Southeast Alaska; eliminate the big monopolies and count on a lot of individual people to be involved in the timber harvest to maximize the value for everyone. Number 611 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he fished for salmon from 1950-1970. The trap was discontinued in 1958 and the fish did not come back until the 200 mile limit was imposed. STEVE BORELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (AMA), testified via teleconference, and expressed support of HJR 56. He said rather than being an honest attempt to protect the fisheries in Alaska, PACFISH is the latest initiative to lock up natural resources in Alaska. Scientific facts do not support the application of PACFISH to Alaska but rather, PACFISH was developed to address specific fisheries problems in the Pacific Northwest and areas where there has been intensive human activity for many decades. He stressed most of Alaska is off limits to development of timber or mineral resources and as a result, Alaska will never see the level of (indiscernible) as the Pacific Northwest. He added that Alaska is far ahead of the Pacific Northwest and has statutes and regulations in place which protect the fisheries. Every mining project must be evaluated under Title 16, and if a stream is affected in any way, a Title 16 permit must be obtained. ADF&G has absolute veto power when it comes to any activity in, over, or around a salmon stream. MR. BORELL said the AMA suggests two changes in HJR 56. First, it is suggested the resolution be changed so it is clear that it applies to all Forest Service and all BLM lands in Alaska and is not limited to the Tongass. This is stated in the actual resolution section, but is not referenced as clearly as it should be in the lead-in statement. Second, the AMA recommends that HJR 56 be expanded to reference the mineral resource potential of the lands in addition to the timber resources. The U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands in Alaska have significant potential for mineral development and AMA suggests that this fact be included in the lead-in statement of the resolution. AMA urges passage of HJR 56. TAPE 94-19, SIDE B Number 000 JOHN STURGEON, PRESIDENT, KONCOR FOREST PRODUCTS, testified via teleconference, and expressed support of HJR 56. He felt PACFISH is not needed in Alaska because the state has adequate protections for salmon streams. It is difficult to separate what happens on federal, state and private lands and he thought private landowners have a success story, which helps substantiate that the fishing and timber industries can work together. Approximately three years ago, the FPA was passed which was a consensus among many groups, including environmentalists, fishermen, private landowners, agency people, etc. The process was confrontational and lengthy and the most difficult point to resolve was how to protect salmon streams while giving private landowners the ability to harvest timber along streams. MR. STURGEON said the law which resulted provides for 66 foot buffers along all Class A streams and allows the harvesting of individual trees if they are approved by ADF&G and DNR. Recently there has been a self-evaluation of how the buffer system is working. ADF&G, DNR and three biologists went out to determine how successful buffers have been in protecting salmon streams. One of the people included in the evaluation was Dr. Jim Buell, a biologist who stated in his report, "from a technical and administrative perception, the consensus was that the system had been working very well and (indiscernible) restored working relationships to its former level of cooperation and (indiscernible). Furthermore, the consensus was that the system has had working results of generally healthy conditions for type A streams. Only a few relatively minor incidents were noted. Everyone generally agreed previous decisions regarding selection of trees could have been more conservatively executed and even these areas covered by (indiscernible) of the streams. In my view, no significant long-term harms should be dissipated from these inferences." MR. STURGEON continued that Sealaska, Konkor and (indiscernible) combined data and added that the three companies had about 45 miles of streams protected. Of that 45 miles, approximately 1.5 trees were harvested per 100 feet. This means that approximately 40,000 trees were left in the buffers over the last three years from these three companies. The objective of protecting salmon habitat and allowing private landowners to secure maximum values from these buffers went very well. He felt both the fishing and timber industries should be proud of their effort. MR. STURGEON pointed out that the value of the trees left over the past three years was in excess of $9 million. It is a large amount of money, but if it assures that the fisheries habitat is being protected and allows private landowners to get trees out of the buffers without harming habitat, it is a good compromise and shows that the buffer system is working. He again endorsed HJR 56 and added that he supports the additions which the Alaska Miners Association had suggested. Number 078 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Sturgeon to summarize the differences between what PACFISH requires with respect to buffers and what the FPA requires. MR. STURGEON responded on private land, the FPA says that all type A water bodies, which are the main salmon streams, require a 66 foot buffer. The law says that fish biologists, ADF&G and DNR can go in and approve individual trees within the buffer zones for harvesting, if harvesting those trees does not cause significant harm to either salmon habitat or water quality. The PACFISH proposal is a much more rigid proposition. There are no-cut zones and there is no flexibility in being able to harvest trees in the buffer zones. It also includes more streams such as the feeder streams going into the main salmon streams and the buffers are much larger. Number 107 CHIP THOMA, JUNEAU, expressed opposition to HJR 55 and HJR 56. He stated he has been working on timber issues in the Tongass for 23 years. He contested the employment and monetary figures contained on the first pages of each of the resolutions. He said the McDowell group generated the figures for the AFA, and he did not believe they are valid figures, which puts a question into the validity of the resolutions. He stressed for his purposes, he does not want the committee to change the resolutions. MR. THOMA remarked upon close reading of the resolutions, they actually say that Congress and the administration should supplant and replace the alleged lost jobs in the industry; specifically those from the "near completion of first harvest on private land." He said Congress will not consider any continuation of regional or village corporation logging activities. Congress is grappling with its own Forest Service losses and to get further involved with private land and discussions on keeping employees in Alaska is out of the question. MR. THOMA stated it has been the great hope of the pulp industry and the Chambers of Commerce in the region to meld the private and public timber harvest into one big industry. He felt that is not going to happen. There are no contracts, no primary processing requirement, no Forest Service oversight, no Congressional oversight and no DNR oversight. He complimented the Cape Fox Corporation, one of the few village corporations doing something with their resources and making a profit for their shareholders. MR. THOMA said by the end of the fifty year contracts in Southeast Alaska, it has been documented with Congress that $3 billion will have been lost by the federal government in direct outlays of funds, not including habitat lost. He felt the Tongass has been the biggest debacle in the entire U.S. and stated it is the largest deficit forest in the country. He stressed there is no way that Congress or the administration is going to allow it to continue. The current goal is to get out of the threat of litigation by Senator Murkowski and others. If the contracts are cancelled quickly, corporations are going to sue for $1 1/2 billion. MR. THOMA said over 102,000 letters were sent to President Clinton after his forest summit in Portland. It is a serious issue with many people in the U.S., and added there is a very high affinity for habitat and for protection of old growth. He felt the timber industry is an anachronistic, inept and totally inappropriate industry for Southeast Alaska. He said the trees in Southeast are not regenerative. He stressed he is looking forward in his lifetime to seeing the timber industries shut down and more appropriate industries take their place. MR. THOMA noted in the 1950's when the Forest Service laid out five pulp mill sales in Southeast Alaska, it was done by three-four foresters, judging from the air how much timber was down there and saying there were enough trees for five pulp mills. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if that fact was documented. MR. THOMA said the facts can be found in the Forest Service archives. He stressed that is how the volume of timber that was estimated for the Tongass was determined. He said those volumes were completely overestimated and because of the way the contracts were structured, the contracts have been overharvested ever since. He expressed concern about the current push on keeping the timber industry going. Number 205 ROLLO POOL, SPOKESPERSON, ALASKA PULP CORPORATION, expressed support of HJR 55 and HJR 56. He said his company is part of an industry in transition, but added that Sitka is also in transition with the closure of the pulp mill in September 1993. With the closing and the loss of 400 jobs in Sitka, about 530 indirect jobs were also lost. Total payroll for those combined, indirect and direct jobs, totals approximately $30 million. He stated upon reviewing other industries in Sitka, the manufacturing jobs paid 70 percent higher than the average Sitka wage. These were important jobs to the community in terms of their buying power. MR. POOL remarked when people discuss the timber industry in this region, they do not consider the cumulative economic impact. The cumulative biological impacts are always looked at. He said during the late 1980's, the Forest Service issued a report on the cumulative value to the communities. That number reached a high in 1990 of about $560 million per year, money which was generated in this region because there was a federal timber program. He noted that figure was exclusive of the private land and timber corporations which were harvesting at the same time. MR. POOL said his company feels HJR 56 is a good resolution. The restrictions of PACFISH when applied to Alaska will create a situation where there are buffer zones over buffer zones. He pointed out that maps have been produced showing areas where fish will be harvested and in some cases, two- thirds of the timber which can be harvested will be eliminated because of PACFISH regulations. He stressed he knows of no one in the timber industry who would like the fishing industry to go away. MR. POOL remarked that one other statistic which points out the fallacy of the PACFISH need is that in the early 1960's, when looking at the trend of the commercial salmon catches in Southeast Alaska, plotted against the timber harvest, an increase in catches can be noted for each year since that time period. The salmon harvest during the early 1960's averaged about 15 million fish per year and in the past five-six years, the catch has been around the 55 million fish range. There is not a decline in Alaska as there is in the Pacific Northwest. He noted he has a chart showing the upward trend in both timber harvesting and fishing. MR. POOL felt that letters and resolutions are a good step, but he stated there is a need to take it a step further. He would like to see a joint federal/state/local commission established to address some of the state's resource issues. Number 280 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the average salary in Sitka is. MR. POOL responded the average salary is $2,200, which is based on all salaries in the community. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the average is without the pulp mill salaries included. MR. POOL said he did not know. Number 308 JOHN SISK, JUNEAU, stated his background is in wildlife biology and he has a masters degree in forestry. He said he cannot support HJR 55 and HJR 56 as they are currently written. He believed the timber industry is a significant and valid part of the regional economy, but there is much missing from the resolutions as written. He noted the WHEREAS refer to declines in employment since 1990 and pointed out that those job declines in the timber industry are generally not related to timber supply from the Tongass National Forest. Timber supply averages have been at or above those in the 1980's, since 1990. In addition, the declines resulted from other factors. He explained private landowners have the prerogative of logging and liquidating their timber quickly to generate cash for a variety of purposes and largely have done so. Much of that logging is over. It has been unsustainable and the decline is being seen. MR. SISK stated pulp markets have been weak and there have been problems with market share and price, while lumber prices have gone up. What that means is, for example, Alaska Pulp Corporation has made a financial decision to maximize profits by closing their Sitka mill and running the same amount of volume they are getting under the contract through the Wrangell mill, making a substantial profit. MR. SISK noted that Mr. Reinhart had said a lack of independent timber sales supply has resulted in the closure of independent mills. Mr. Sisk pointed out that the two mills which closed in Haines and Klawock did so as a result of marketing disputes with the Weyerhauser Corporation. He added that corporation did end up operating some of the timber sales after the mills were closed. He felt it was misleading for anyone to make those points because supply is not the driving factor in terms of the changes being seen in the Southeast Alaska Tongass related timber industry. MR. SISK felt it was going to be difficult to use the Tongass to maintain the boom seen in logging on private land. Private Native corporations have the prerogative of short-term liquidation of timber of dominant use; whereas on public forest lands, there is a legal commitment in place to long-term sustained yield and to multiple use, which is a different mission and different legal framework within which the national forest has to operate. MR. SISK urged committee members to recognize that timber is part of a complex forest ecology and economy. The themes of multiple use and economic diversification can strengthen the entire picture. He stressed it is important to recognize all the key sectors which depend on the Tongass National Forest; timber, fisheries (both commercial and sport), wildlife, tourism and recreation, and subsistence. This forest has to supply all of those uses and those uses tend to rely on the same 10-15 percent of the Tongass that is the biologically productive forest land - where the salmon streams are, where the deer habitat is, where the prime recreation opportunities are, and where there are also a lot of big trees. He felt it is misleading to say that 90 percent is off-limits to logging and there is only 10 percent available and all that will be taken. He stressed that 10 percent is the heart of the Tongass National Forest which is critical to sustaining a diversified economy in this region. MR. SISK stated it would also be good to recognize the opportunities for developing all of the sectors of the economy instead of one dominant emphasis. Examples include new value-added wood processing facilities, investments by the federal government in tourism, infrastructure for each community, commercial fisheries product and market development, sport fishing, and protecting subsistence for rural residents who need the forest the most. MR. SISK said in addition to having a mixed economy and a lot of mixed values and uses, it is important to recognize there is land designations such as wilderness areas, intensive timber harvest areas, fisheries habitat, etc. He stressed the key words are sustainability of the use of the forest, diversification of the community and regional economies, protecting the basic integrity and the bottom line of the forest ecosystem, adding value to the resources and trying to keep as many jobs in forestry and fisheries in Alaska. He emphasized the Tongass is a multiple use forest and not a dominant use forest. MR. SISK said in regard to HJR 56, he expressed concern that there has been an overreaction to what PACFISH represents. He agreed that it is a mistake to take a policy developed elsewhere and blindly slap it down in Alaska. He suspected there are many elements and a lot of research which has been done and there is a need to think about how fisheries, timber and wildlife are managed. He urged committee members to not take such a doctrinaire extreme position. There may be things to learn by the PACFISH regulations. Number 455 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated Native corporations are exporting approximately the same amount of timber now as they have in the past five years, so the decline of timber resources is coming from the pulp mills. He felt the timber industry is trying to take care of the fishing industry, looking at different types of industry, etc., and that is one of the reasons the timber being logged today is not paying its way. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if logging improves deer habitat. MR. SISK responded research shows that in Southeast Alaska, general logging does not improve deer habitat and removes some of the critical components. He said there are ways to reduce that loss and spoke about deer in the Rockies who go down in the sagebrush when logging is ongoing. In Southeast Alaska, there is no place for the deer to go. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if logging provides more food. MR. SISK replied a new clearcut in the summer provides additional forage, but when it gets buried in snow, that food is not available. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Sisk's estimation on how long it takes to regenerate the forest in Southeast Alaska. Number 522 MR. SISK stated there is a timber production viewpoint and a broader ecological viewpoint. If there is a desire to just grow pulp fiber, it can be done quickly, perhaps in around 100 years. If there is a desire to grow high quality saw timber, it would be beyond that. To recover the ecological characteristics which support wildlife habitat, an even longer rotation is needed. To have a multiple use forest, a big section needs to be left alone and another section needs to be on a long rotation. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY questioned how long it takes to create a two foot diameter tree. MR. SISK responded it is variable. In some places, it could be grown in 80 years, while in other places it takes much longer. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he is interested in the comments made by Mr. Sisk indicating 10 percent of the entire Tongass is the productive area and asked Mr. Sisk to provide additional information if he has it. Representative Hudson also noted that Mr. Sisk had mentioned the resolutions do not take into consideration sufficient diversity, multiple use and other aspects of the Tongass. He stressed as seen before, Congress takes dynamic action and takes no consideration that in Alaska an effort has been made to develop a Forest Practices Act, for example, which includes the environmentalists, the timber industry, the fishing community, etc. He felt there is a need to educate Congress on the fact that the state does have a solid Forest Practices Act, the state is concerned about tourism, sport fishing, commercial fishing, etc., and has tried to develop balanced laws and resolutions. MR. SISK felt the phrases about maximizing timber which appear in the resolutions are probably red flags, just as they might be if someone were to say, let's maximize wilderness. Number 648 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated she appreciated Mr. Sisk's approach on different uses of the forest, but thought there is a feeling of frustration by the people in the lower 48 who do not have trees anymore because they have been logged off, generally for agricultural purposes. They do not understand what Alaska does to get economic activity from timber and how well the state does manage. She said the further frustration is because they are so far away and they have more money. Alaska does rebel when a blanket regulation approach is taken which really affects other areas. The state rightly says that we have more knowledge about how we ought to manage our forests and we would like the opportunity to do that. TAPE 94-20, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that HB 199 will be rescheduled to Monday, February 28 at 8:15 a.m. CHUCK ACHBERGER, DIRECTOR, JUNEAU CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, expressed support of HJR 55 and HJR 56. He said the state has a model in the state Forest Practices Act and it does not need to be fixed. The multi-faceted use of the forest is looked at more in Alaska than anywhere else in the world. He stated in regard to supporting the timber industry in Southeast Alaska, too often it is looked at as a pulp mill here, a pulp mill there. It is an industry and without a sustainable yield of timber it is difficult to run that industry. The industries cannot make capital improvements and cannot secure a steady flow of jobs. He felt what is important on resolutions of this type is that they send a message to Congress, the people of the United States and the various environmental organizations. DAVID KATZ, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, expressed opposition to HJR 55 and HJR 56. He encouraged the committee to change HJR 55 to incorporate the concepts of sustainability instead of maximum timber production. With regard to HJR 56, he asked the committee to take a more judicious view and not simply reject the PACFISH strategy. He felt the entire debate on the timber industry is quite interesting because a question is being faced on how a timber industry, which has become entrenched and does business in a certain way, can change for the future. He remarked the timber industry is recognizing the need to change, but is resisting the change. As a result, there are resolutions like the two being proposed, rejecting something which is in fact the result of a lot of research in the lower 48 and which will be applied judiciously on a case by case basis in Alaska. MR. KATZ told committee members that the Forest Service did estimates on the results of employing PACFISH in Alaska and he felt the impact most likely to occur is a possible 17 percent reduction in timber. A lot of the timber initially taken out of the timber base can come back in, once a watershed analysis is done. He said the Forest Practices Act is currently being argued by the Forest Service. He stressed that Act does not apply to the areas which PACFISH will apply to. Free markets, clear limits and sustainability for all resources is what is needed to change the timber industry for the future. Number 075 LARRY SMITH, FRITZ CREEK, testified via teleconference, and said he has been working with Alaska spruce for 35 years and served on the Forest Practices Act Review Steering Committee. He said everyone on that committee agreed on a 100 foot buffer with a zipper edge. The legislature reduced the buffer zone from 100 feet to 66 feet. He explained the committee (indiscernible) a conditional harvest zone when the buffer was on public land. He stated to compare the state Forest Practices Act and its effect on federal lands, state public lands, municipal lands, and private lands is something that should be looked at. Mr. Smith continued with a general discussion on buffers. He advised committee members to not mix public land buffers with private land conditional harvest zones. No significant standard (indiscernible) forest resources, fish wildlife, or the sustained yield of trees. He reminded everyone of the decline of the Pacific Northwest mixed economies, timber, fish and forest recreation. Number 135 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN MOVED to AMEND HJR 55 page 3, lines 4, 5, and 6 as handed out to read, "FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature requests the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, to manage the Tongass National Forest in order to provide maximum opportunity for timber harvest, recreation, fisheries and other multiple uses. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said what was heard from many people is that there is a need for a balanced effect, and added there is a variety of uses of the Tongass National Forest. He stressed there is nothing in HJR 55 which acknowledges that. In reading the resolutions, a person would believe that both state and federal laws have made the area a single use forest. He stressed that is not the case. Thousands of people depend on the forest for recreation, tourism and fisheries. He felt there should be at least a minor acknowledgement of that fact or the committee will be producing an extreme, one-sided resolution. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she supports balanced forest use, but stressed the purpose of the resolution is to give emphasis to timber. She felt inserting the words recreation, fisheries and multiple uses eliminates the emphasis on timber. She is opposed to the amendment as she feels it destroys the intent of the resolution. Number 163 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated for those who want to improve the opportunity for harvesting timber and want to see proper harvesting go forward should want to make this kind of change because in the discussions which are ongoing in Congress currently, this kind of resolution will be viewed as so extreme it will be rejected out of hand. He said if there is a desire for people to seriously consider the concerns there are for the forest industry in Alaska, the concerns need to be couched in more reasonable terms so that people will read it. He felt the way the resolution is written, it is so far extreme to one end, it will be dropped in the wastebasket. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt there is a need to be extreme. Things are happening which are extreme to the industry. Towns are being shut down and people are being hurt. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that argument assumes that extremism works and what many members of the committee have accused the other side of is extremism. If extremism is going to be used to respond, it may not serve the purpose desired. It might be better to get across that the state does care about all the resources. Number 191 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said all of the aspects of recreation, fisheries and other multiple uses are embodied in the other provisions which Congress has placed upon the state's lands. He viewed the resolution as a statement by the Alaska Legislature to Congress saying that the committee seriously wants Congress to consider making timber available for use in Alaska, for the value of jobs and the economy it provides the state. He felt the amendment is not needed. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that on page 3, line 4, after "FURTHER RESOLVED that" insert the words, "notwithstanding the use for recreation, fisheries and other multiple uses". REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he will accept the concept as a friendly replacement language, but he will not use that exact language because if notwithstanding is used, that means regardless of these concerns. He suggested using the word "recognizing" rather than notwithstanding. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she believes that HJR 55 is to put emphasis on timber and if there is any place for Representative Finkelstein's suggested amendment it would be in one of the WHEREAS sections. She objected to putting the language in the RESOLVE section. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the amendment being voted on is whether the committee recognizes recreation, fishing and other multiple uses. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a vote with a show of hands on the amendment. The MOTION was DEFEATED by a vote of 4-3. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out that on page 2, line 14 there is an extra zero. In addition, he said there had been testimony earlier saying there is not a current decrease going on in the amount of timber being harvested from private lands, and pointed out there are two places in the resolution which states "near completion of the first harvest on private land" indicating it is over and there will be no more harvest on private lands. He said another WHEREAS basically says the same thing. If that is not the case and there was no testimony saying it is over, he suggested the two references be removed. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN MOVED to remove the language on page 1, line 15, "and the near completion of the first harvest" and the second WHEREAS on page 2. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the words "near completion of the first harvest" is probably correct. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said no testimony had been heard to that fact, but rather the testimony said it is not over. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stressed there is still timber being harvested from private land. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the language makes it sound like the private harvest is over, and it is not necessary for the resolution to say that is the case if there is no evidence that it is over. Number 291 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS suggested that committee members review the resolutions over the weekend. He announced the committee will hear HJR 55 and HJR 56 again on Monday, February 28. ANNOUNCEMENTS