213 



American Forestry Association 

 Page 4 



Lonq-Tenn Oontracts 



Cancellation of the two 50-year contracts with Alas)ca Pulp Corporation and 

 Ketchikan Pulp Ccn^jany could have significant irrpacts on the structirce and 

 viability of the timber economy in Southeast Alaska. To our knowledge, no one 

 has clearly identified the effects of terminating these contracts on the tvKi 

 large pulp conpanies and the snaller savmill operators vrorking on the Tongass. 

 Due to this uncertainty, we support renegotiation of the long-term contracts 

 rather than cancellation. As guiding principals, we believe the renegotiation 

 should prcmote fair conpetition within the timber industry, enhance the 

 protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and bring the forest 

 planning and nanagement on the Tongass into conformance with practices on other 

 national forests. 



Moratorium on Fish and Wildlife Areas 



Ihe 23 areas identified in S. 346 for tenporary protection from timber 

 harvesting activities have been hic^y controversial over the last couple of 

 years due to their recognized vcilues for fish and wildlife habitat. Vte believe 

 the ajpropriate way to resolve these issues is throu^ the land management 

 planning process. Therefore, while the current plan revision is being cotpleted, 

 placing a moratorium on timber ScLles in these areas seems a logical way to 

 preserve their ecological integrity and maintain a wider range of management 

 options for the planning process. In our si^jport of this provision, ve are 

 assuming that this moratorium, over the short term, will not have a significant 

 iinpact on timber sufply available to the industry, though it might affect 

 specific harvesting plans. 



In sunmery, the American Forestry Association believes that r^jealing the 

 forest nanagement provisions of the Alaslca National Interest Tf\nd.s Conservation 

 Act of 1980 will relieve seme of the immediate problems on the Tbngass. It will 

 allow the current forest plan revision process, vrfiich is due out with a draft at 

 the end of this year, to sort out the resource facts and help establish a new 

 basis for itanagement decisions without legislative constraints. We also believe 

 that a tijnber sale moratorium on the 23 controversial fish and wildlife areas in 

 the Tongass is warranted, since the planning process should be the place to 

 resolve this controversy. For these reasons, we are supportive of S. 346. 

 However, we are concerned about language in Section 202 of the bill that seems to 

 establish new legislative prescriptions, jast as ve are repealing others. We 

 eilso prefer renegotiation of the two long-term tinier contracts, as opposed to 

 cancellation, since there is a high degree of uncertainty about the potential 

 inplications for the region's tunber eoonony. Fincilly, we believe that a special 

 economic development fimd for Southeast Alaska nay still be warranted in view of 

 ANHJCA's history, but that such a fund should be a broad program focusing on 

 diversification of the natural-resource eoonony and environmental enhancement. 



Thank you. We would be pleased to respond to any questions. 



