Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee:

Thank you for hearing Senate Joint Resolution 24, A Resolution Relating to the Tongass Land Management Plan and to Continued Congressional Oversight of that Plan. The Alaska Forest Association (AFA) wishes to be on record in support of SJR 24, and urges the committee to act on it quickly so that it may be heard on the Senate floor soon.

As you know, the Tongass Land Management Plan has been a matter of great controversy throughout Southeast Alaska over the past several years. The plan under which the Forest Service and the industry are currently operating has been in effect since 1979. The Revised Plan has been in the works for more than 10 years. A Record of Decision was produced in 1993 which specified new environmental protections but demonstrated the ability of the Forest Service to continue an Allowable Sales Quantity ( ASQ ) of 450 million board feet ( mmbf ). That decision was never signed, and since that time the Forest Service has completely reworked the Revised Plan. Last spring, the Forest Supervisors unveiled their new draft preferred alternative, which reduced the ASQ to 357 mmbf , of which the Forest Service says only 297 mmbf will be economic to harvest under current conditions.

While the AFA believes this ASQ was unnecessarily low, members of the industry are now more greatly alarmed by persistent rumors that the lengthy delay in releasing the plan is related to efforts by the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS ) to push the Allowable Sales Quantity much lower; perhaps into a range below 100 mmbf . If this turns out to be the case, it will utterly destroy any hopes Alaskans may harbor for maintaining and restoring that segment of its timber industry operating on Federal land.

Among the key factors that are likely to influence to contents of the plan are the persistent efforts to obtain Endangered Species Act listings for the so-called Alexander Archipelago wolf and the Queen Charlotte (or Northern) goshawk. Actual data collected so far on both these creatures would lead a reasonable person away from the conclusion that the listings are warranted, but it appears that political factors are limiting the information that is being considered as part of the decision-making process. In any event, the failure by the Forest Service to release the plan as scheduled seems to be a factor in the attempts by radical elements within the FWS to obtain the listings.

For all these reasons, the AFA considers the present resolution to be an important part of an overall effort to continue Congressional oversight of the proposed Tongass Land Management Plan revision. If ever there were a situation in which it is appropriate for elected leaders to monitor carefully the activities of the unelected bureaucracies, this is one. The entire Clinton/Gore alliance with the radical national environmental community is at work on this one, and the honest, working people of the Tongass are those who stand to lose if they prevail. The timber workers of Southeast Alaska, together with their families and the timber dependent communities need the full attention of Congress directed to this issue. Your assistance in this through actions like SJR 24 are very useful in helping maintain that focus.

In closing, I do believe there is a change you should consider to the resolution as written. On page 3, lines 2 - 11, the resolution refers twice to a harvest level of 300 mmbf , and urges the Forest Service to maintain that harvest level. While it is appropriate for the industry and the legislature to talk about the need for a specified minimum harvest level, the Forest Service cannot actually control a harvest level. What they can control is consistent offerings of economic timber sales spread throughout each fiscal year. So, I would urge the committee to rewrite those two resolved clauses so that they assert the need for the Forest Service to make an annual amount of at least 300 mmbf of economic timber available with offerings uniformly released throughout each fiscal year. This will more correctly address the problem of annual harvest levels needed to keep the industry healthy, while using language that reflects what the Forest Service can actually control.

Thank you for considering my comments. And thank you again for weighing in on this crucial problem facing the timber industry in Alaska. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.