U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66-652 PDF 2012

H.R. 1408, TO PROVIDE FOR 

THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS UNDER THE 

ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS 

SETTLEMENT ACT 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND 

ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, May 26, 2011 

Serial No. 112-36 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

DON YOUNG, AK, Chairman 

DAN BOREN, OK, Ranking Democrat Member 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, May 26, 2011 ............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State of Alaska 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Claus, Bob, Forest Program Director, Southeast Alaska Conservation 

Council, Craig, Alaska .................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Graham, Owen, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association, 

Ketchikan, Alaska ......................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Mallott, Byron, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau, Alaska ..... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Additional materials supplied: 

American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Berkley Conservation Institute/ 

Pure Fishing, Campfire Club of America, Federation of Fly Fishers, 

et al., Letter submitted for the record on S. 730 and H.R. 1408 ............. 48 

Daulton, Mike, Vice President of Government Relations, National 

Audubon Society, Letter submitted for the record ..................................... 52 

Durglo, Joe, President, Intertribal Timber Council, Letter submitted for 

the record ....................................................................................................... 15 

Elfin Cove, Alaska, Resolution No. 11-02 on S. 730 and H.R. 1408 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 53 

Katz, John W., Director of State/Federal Relations and Special Counsel 

to the Governor, State of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 17 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 47 

Organized Village of Kake, Alaska, Letters submitted for the record ......... 54 

Stein, Alan, Statement submitted for the record ........................................... 58 

Thoms, Andrew, Executive Director, Sitka Conservation Society, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 62 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1408, TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS UNDER THE ALASKA NATIVE 

CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES. 

Thursday, May 26, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Donald Young, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Young, Denham, Kildee, and Hanabusa. 

Mr. YOUNG. The purpose of today’s hearing is to hear testimony 

on H.R. 1408, a bill that I introduced, along with the Ranking 

Member, Dan Boren, and the majority of the other Members of this 

Subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. H.R. 1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act, will authorize 

Sealaska, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast 

Alaska, to finalize its 40-year-old land settlement due under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, of 1971, by selecting Native lands from within a designated pool of land in Southeast Alaska. 

ANCSA allocated 44 million acres and nearly $1 billion to Alaska’s Native people, to be managed by the 12 regional corporations, 

including Sealaska, and more than 200 village corporations. 

First introduced in 2007, this bill has undergone an extensive 

vetting process throughout the region that has resulted in meaningful changes, such as providing for continued public access to 

lands, and modifying certain land selections, among others. 

In addition, the legislation allows Sealaska to move away from 

sensitive watersheds, to select a more balanced inventory of second 

growth and old growth, and to select most of its remaining ANCSA 

lands on the existing road system, preserving on balance as much 

as 40,000 acres of inventoried roadless old growth. 

2 

Further, Southeast Alaska communities face dire economic realities. Some communities have unemployment nearing 50 percent, 

and many more are in the double digits. It was not always this 

way, but through the mismanagement of the forest by the Forest 

Service, and the continued siege from environmental groups, industry has suffered, and over the last couple of decades, the population 

has seen a consistent and steep decline. 

By permitting Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement lands 

from outside of the withdrawal boxes, the Sealaska bill would help 

Sealaska maintain jobs in rural and predominantly Native communities. Sealaska provides hundreds of jobs and is the largest private employer in the entire region. 

After nearly 40 years since the passage of ANCSA, Sealaska has 

still not received conveyance of its full land entitlement. It is critical that Sealaska complete its remaining land entitlement under 

ANCSA in order to continue to meet the economic, social, and cultural needs of its Native shareholders, and the Native community 

throughout Alaska. 

It is very, very important that this bill does pass, and welcome, 

Mr. Kildee. It is good to have you here, and do you have an opening 

statement? 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Young follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to hear testimony on H.R. 1408, a bill I introduced with the Ranking Member, Dan Boren, and the majority of the other Members of this Subcommittee. 

H.R. 1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs 

Protection Act will authorize Sealaska, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for 

Southeast Alaska, to finalize its 40-year old land settlement due under the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 by selecting Native lands from within a designated pool of land in Southeast Alaska. 

ANCSA allocated 44 million acres and nearly $1 billion to Alaska’s Native people, 

to be managed by the 12 Regional Corporations, including Sealaska, and more than 

200 Village Corporations. 

First introduced in 2007, this bill has undergone an extensive vetting process 

throughout the region that has resulted in meaningful changes such as providing 

for continued public access to lands, and modifying certain land selections, among 

others. 

In addition, the legislation allows Sealaska to move away from sensitive watersheds, to select a more balanced inventory of second growth and old growth, and 

to select most of its remaining ANCSA lands on the existing road system, preserving 

on balance as much as 40,000 acres of inventoried ‘‘roadless old growth.’’ 

Further, Southeast Alaska communities face dire economic realities. Some communities have unemployment nearing 50% and many more are in the double digits. 

It was not always this way, but through the mismanagement of the forest by the 

Forest Service and the continued siege from environmental groups, industry has suffered and, over the last couple decades, the population has seen a consistent and 

steep decline. 

By permitting Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement lands from outside of 

the withdrawal boxes, the Sealaska bill would help Sealaska maintain jobs in rural 

and predominately Native communities. Sealaska provides hundreds of jobs and is 

the largest private employer in the entire region. 

After nearly 40 years since the passage of ANSCA, Sealaska has still not received 

conveyance of its full land entitlement. It is critical that Sealaska complete its remaining land entitlement under ANCSA in order to continue to meet the economic, 

social and cultural needs of its Native shareholders, and the Native community 

throughout Alaska 

3 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your 

patience with me. I had another hearing, but first of all, I want to 

thank you for calling this important hearing on H.R. 1408. 

I have been in Congress now for 35 years, and it is great to find 

someone who is a soulmate, someone who believes that justice is 

very important, and that justice delayed is justice denied. 

We have obligations to the Native Alaskans, and we want to 

make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that 

we carry out the land entitlements which were promised them. 

People may disagree as to how and what, but this Congress has 

great authority, and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Young has been 

so diligent and in having this area, and I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Dale Kildee, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan 

I thank the Chairman for calling this important hearing on H.R. 1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act. 

As we know, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the 

Sealaska Corporation is entitled to up to 375,000 acres of land to resolve long-standing native land claims. This land is for the benefit and ECONOMIC development 

of sealaska shareholders. To date, this land entitlement has not been fulfilled. 

H.R. 1408 would allow Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement land from 

outside the land borders designated by ANCSA. While there are differing opinions 

about this process, everyone on this Committee is dedicated to ensuring that 

Sealaska receives the land to which they are entitled. 

I thank the chairman for calling this important hearing and I look forward to the 

witnesses’ testimony to help further the discussion. I am committed to Sealaska receiving the land it is entitled to and to working with the Chairman to resolve any 

concerns to see that this important matter is settled. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman, and this is going to be a little bit awkward, because I just made my opening statement, and 

Mr. Kildee made his opening statement. I have to be on the Floor 

for about 15 minutes, and if I can, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Denham is on 

his way, and I will run over and get back as soon as I can. 

I have an issue on the Floor that I have to take care of under 

the Defense Bill, and I will recess until Mr. Denham gets here, and 

then he will call us back in, and we will hear from our witness 

from the Department of Agriculture. 

I do apologize to you for this. There is only one of us in Alaska, 

and when they are going to have this clone experiment, I say that 

you don’t need two of us, but sometimes I wish there were two of 

us. 

So if you would excuse me for about 15 minutes, and I would like 

to hand you the gavel. I don’t know how that would go over. 

Mr. KILDEE. You wouldn’t object, but some others may. 

Mr. YOUNG. So with that in mind, we will stand in recess until 

Mr. Denham gets here, and as soon as he gets here, we will start 

the discussion with our first witness, and I will be back as soon as 

I can. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Don. 

4 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DENHAM. [Presiding.] The Committee on Natural Resources 

will now come back to order. Thank you. We will now hear from 

our witnesses. On the first panel is Harris Sherman, the Under 

Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment. 

Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in 

full in the hearing record. So I ask that you keep your oral statements to five minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you 

under Committee Rule 4(a). 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our Clerk will start the timer and a green light will 

appear. After four minutes, the yellow light will appear, and at 

that time, you should begin wrapping things up. At five minutes 

the red light will come on, and you may complete your sentence, 

but at that time, we must stop you. 

STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you very much. My name is Harris 

Sherman, and I am the Under Secretary at USDA for Natural 

Resources and the Environment. We are pleased to have a chance 

to comment on H.R. 1408. 

At the outset, I want to state that we fully support Sealaska’s 

finalization of all of its land selections, and finalization of all 

associated issues that come from that. We fully recognize and 

appreciate, and respect the history and the connection of Native 

Alaskans to the Tongass. 

This process has gone on for too long. It needs to be brought to 

closure, and if we do, I think it will help all parties. We are also 

pleased that progress has been made by the parties to resolve a 

number of the issues that came up in prior legislation. 

And this progress has been seen in recent iterations of S. 730, 

and I also should say that we are pleased about the ongoing dialogue between the parties. There remain a number of important 

issues where we need to find common solutions, solutions which 

allow Sealaska to pursue future opportunities, and ones which will 

allow other important principles to succeed. 

And in particular the transition away from old growth and 

roadless forests to second growth forests and restoration projects, 

and the transition to a more diversified vibrant economy in Southeastern Alaska, not only with timber, but it includes commercial 

fishing, and mariculture, tourism, and recreation, and renewable 

energy. 

Many parties have been working on these issues, and I want to 

say that we are particularly appreciative of Sealaska’s efforts to assist us in this regard. All of these efforts will provide jobs both to 

native and non-native communities alike. 

Now, in that context, or concerns with the bill are as follows. 

First, the lands identified by Sealaska for timber development overlap to a considerable extent with lands that are critical to the sucVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:46 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66652.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
5 

cess of the Forest Service’s transition strategy over the next 10 to 

15 years. 

These are lands that are central to providing local mills with sustainable, dependable wood for the foreseeable future. These are 

lands where we have invested over 50 million in the form of infrastructure and thinning efforts. 

And these represent some of the best lands for the transition period. Since Sealaska’s intentions as we understand it are to export 

most of these logs abroad, we are genuinely concerned, however, 

how we will meet the needs of Sealaska’s remaining mills, and the 

value added products that they support. 

Second, a portion of the lands targeted by Sealaska for development outside of the withdrawal areas are old growth reserves, 

which provide essential habitat for the Goshawk and the Gray 

Wolf, both species of concern. 

The Forest Service in its Tongass Land Management Plan committed to protecting these areas was an important factor in the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s support of the plan. If developed, we are 

concerned about the impact of the Goshawk and the Gray Wolf, 

and whether it could trigger petitions to list the species, and what 

the response of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service would 

be. 

Third, the Forest Service remains very concerned with the possibility of 30 new end-holdings of the so-called future sites within the 

National Forests. We know from experience that end-holdings are 

often problematic. 

They represent significant access issues, boundary issues, challenges to handling and controlling impacts on and off Federal land, 

and other general management issues. Fourth, we believe that the 

legislation will likely necessitate amendments to the Tongass Management Plan, a process that has proved difficult in the past years. 

So those are our concerns, Mr. Chairman, and with that said 

though, I want to emphasize that we are prepared to work with the 

Committee, with Sealaska, and other stakeholders to find appropriate solutions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:] 

Statement of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment, United States Department of Agriculture 

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Ranking Member and distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Native 

land claims in Southeast Alaska. I will open my testimony by addressing the direction in which the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Forest Service are 

heading regarding economic sustainability in Southeast Alaska and how our vision 

for economic diversification ties into H.R. 1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land 

Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act. 

The USDA recognizes and supports the timely, equitable and final distribution of 

land entitlement to Alaska Native Corporations, including Sealaska, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The USDA understands Sealaska’s interest in acquiring lands, which have economic and cultural value. The USDA has 

been working with Sealaska. Members of Congress and other community partners 

to find solutions to move forward the land entitlement and finalization, and recognizes the progress that is reflected in S. 730, the Senate version of the Act. I also 

wish to express our continued interest in working collaboratively with Sealaska, 

Congress and other community partners to find an equitable solution that is in the 

public interest. 

While the USDA supports a number of the goals of this legislation, we continue 

to have a number of concerns we wish to work through with the involved parties. 

6 

This will be the focus of my testimony. The testimony will also convey a Department 

of the Interior concern with H.R. 1408 regarding a cooperative management provision of the legislation. 

Background 

When enacting ANCSA in 1971, Congress balanced the need for a fair and just 

settlement of Alaska Native aboriginal land claims with the need for use of the public lands in Alaska. The approach to resolve Alaska Native claims in ANCSA is 

unique in its reliance on the creation of Alaska Native Village and Regional Corporations, which generally receive entitlement from lands located within the original 

Native village withdrawal areas. Congress defined the land entitlements of both village and regional corporations, but provided for some differentiation among corporations to consider individual village or region circumstances. 

One such consideration was the reduction of land entitlement to the village and 

regional corporations representing Alaska Natives in Southeast Alaska. The Tlingit 

and Haida Tribes of Southeast Alaska brought a ‘‘taking’’ lawsuit against the United 

States for land claims and the U.S. Court of Claims awarded damages to the tribes 

shortly before ANCSA was enacted. Recognizing this prior award, Congress reduced 

the entitlement of village and regional corporations in Southeast Alaska, with 

Sealaska receiving its entitlement only under Section 14(h) of ANCSA. 

Sealaska has thus far received more than 290,000 acres of 14(h) entitlement, with 

approximately 63,605 acres of ANCSA entitlement yet to be conveyed, based on the 

Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) estimates. Sealaska has prioritized its selections within the original withdrawal areas as required by the 2004 Acceleration Act, 

with approximately 138,000 acres of prioritized selections identified. The selections 

identified by Sealaska within the original withdrawal areas are more than sufficient 

to meet Sealaska’s remaining ANCSA entitlement, but were put on hold at 

Sealaska’s request to pursue a legislative alternative to select outside the ANCSA 

withdrawl area to settle their remaining entitlements. 

Southeast Alaska Transition Strategy 

Since testifying last before this committee, the USDA has made great strides in 

developing approaches to diversify and sustain the economy in Southeast Alaska. 

Through a coordinated interagency effort, USDA is focusing with local interests on 

ways to provide long-term, sustainable support for a wide array of economic opportunities for Southeast Alaska communities, including Alaska Natives around secondgrowth timber production, ecosystem restoration, bio-energy, ocean products and 

tourism and recreation. Tourism and recreation, as a whole, has been the fastest 

growing industry in Southeast Alaska, employing over 3,200 people and accounting 

for $109 million in wages and benefits. Ocean products, including fisheries and 

mariculture, are providing in excess of $234 million in wages and benefits. Furthermore, we see an ecosystem restoration job sector providing more than 100 jobs in 

Southeast Alaskan communities. Beyond traditional opportunities, the Forest Service and other partner USDA agencies are working to facilitate future opportunities 

and growth in job sectors beyond forestry and forest products. 

To support the communities and people of Southeast Alaska, the Forest Service 

has developed a comprehensive 5-year plan focused on a suite of integrated projects 

including timber projects in the roaded base, pre-commercial thinning, integrated 

stewardship, road and watershed restoration and fish and wildlife habitat improvements, all designed to allow managers to mix and match and meet the local needs 

of Alaska Native villages and Southeast Alaskan communities. Furthermore, the 

agency issued a contract for asset mapping to identify economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to diversification focused on the different economic 

clusters identified in our contract with the Juneau Economic Development Council. 

The USDA agencies just completed several months of meetings with working groups 

comprised of key industry leaders, including participation by Sealaska representatives. The groups addressed the integration of forest restoration and broad economic 

development in the areas of forest, ocean, visitor and energy products. Additionally, 

USDA has announced and distributed more than $55 million last year in funding 

to communities in Southeast Alaska for an array of projects and activities that demonstrates our commitment to Southeast Alaska. I am optimistic that the USDA can 

promote new economic opportunities for Southeast communities, including Alaska 

Natives, beyond the traditional focus of roadless old growth timber harvests. 

In this broad context, the USDA has determined its stance on H.R. 1408 and 

evaluated whether it facilitates or hinders the Administration’s goals for promoting 

job protection, creation, and economic diversification in Southeast Alaska. 

Conflict on the Tongass National Forest pertaining to the harvesting of old growth 

in roadless areas has intensified over the last 10–15 years. The forest has faced 18 

7 

lawsuits during this period, many of which were resolved through settlements or adverse judgments, but all of which cost valuable time and taxpayer dollars. The Administration recognizes a balance must be struck between many diverse and competing needs and we need to chart a course of action that moves us away from old 

growth and roadless area harvests sooner rather than later. To move us away from 

this conflict, we must operate on three primary principles 1) provide timber for local 

value added products; 2) keep the conservation strategy in the Tongas Land Management Plan and environmental values intact and 3) stay clear of roadless areas. 

We understand that Sealaska is interested in maintaining export of round logs, 

using a local workforce generally found in the rural communities of Southeast Alaska to do the harvesting and hauling. The Forest Service’s primary interest is maintaining adequate supply of timber for local processing by existing mills and the jobs 

associated with those mills. This is a central aim of the transition strategy that the 

Forest Service has developed and one that is achievable if the Forest Service has 

access to a sufficient quantity of timber available on lands that have existing roads. 

The Forest Service and Sealaska have an interest in maintaining the loggers and 

other forestry infrastructure to support a local forest economy and both the Forest 

Service and Sealaska have an interest in moving away from the dependency on old 

growth and moving to harvesting young growth stands. 

The lands identified in H.R. 1408 represent a significant part of the Forest Service’s roaded land base for Southeast Alaska identified in the Tongass Land Management Plan as suitable for timber harvest. The majority of the lands identified in 

H.R. 1408 are close to the only remaining medium sized mill and several smaller, 

local mills in the Tongass National Forest. 

The Forest Service has determined that approximately 64 percent of land withdrawn and available for selection in section 4(b)(1) of H.R. 1408 overlaps projects 

listed on the Tongass 5 Year Plan. Specifically, the selections would impact six 

projects, which represent potential profitable sales to the medium sized mill and 

smaller local mills in the next five years. Additionally, the Forest Service has made 

substantive investments in lands identified in H.R. 1408 through environmental 

analysis, stand management, roads, log transfer facilities, maintenance, trails, fish 

habitat restoration and others activities, totaling more than $50 million. 

Approximately 6,900 acres of land identified for selection in section 3(b)(1) support 

an older age class of second growth forests (50 years and older, on productive soils). 

These lands include more than 5,000 acres on Kozciusco Island and another 1,275 

acres on Kuiu. These selections cover areas that represent the Forest Service’s best, 

first entry into commercial second growth, including projects currently listed on the 

Tongass’ 5-year plan. 

Ultimately, the transfer of these of these older second growth stands from the 

Forest Service to Sealaska will reduce the available timber supply for local mills 

and hamper the Forest Service transition to second growth in Southeast Alaska. Removing these stands also means that more old growth areas would be harvested 

longer, because it will take more time for the second growth stands to mature into 

legally harvestable ages. The Forest Service believes this will increase the potential 

for litigation around timber sales and thereby create significant uncertainty for the 

forest industry. 

There are a number of ways this issue could be addressed, and USDA is willing 

to work with Sealaska to find a solution that meets the needs of all the affected 

parties and is in the public interest in Alaska. 

Conservation Strategy and Old Growth Reserves (OGR) 

The Tongass Land Management Plan’s conservation strategy was formulated 

around Sealaska’s selections within the original ANCSA withdrawal areas. Old 

growth reserves found within the land pool identified in H.R. 1408 are central to 

the Tongass National Forest’s conservation strategy as outlined in its land management plan. The land management plan includes a comprehensive, science-based conservation strategy to address wildlife sustainability and viability. This strategy includes a network of variable sized old growth reserves across the forest designed to 

provide for connectivity and maintain the composition, structure and function of the 

old growth ecosystem. 

In 1997, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided not to list Queen 

Charlotte goshawk and Alexander Archipelago wolf under the Endangered Species 

Act, based on the protective measures incorporated in the conservation strategy of 

the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan, primarily the network of old growth reserves and the 

positioning of the reserves across the landscape, and the existence of forested corridors between the reserves. The USFWS reaffirmed this finding regarding the goshawk in 2007, and the Department of the Interior asked the Forest Service to retain 

the Conservation Strategy in the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment (TLMP). 

8 

These were among the main reasons why the 2008 TLMP Amendment kept all the 

major components of the conservation strategy. 

Conveyance of land selections as proposed in H.R. 1408 will decrease the effectiveness of the Tongass’ conservation strategy and could hamper the plan’s ability 

to maintain viable populations of plant and wildlife species. This could lead to the 

need for USFWS to reconsider its previous determinations regarding the goshawk 

and gray wolf. Replacing the old growth reserve areas with an equal number of 

acres from somewhere else within the forest does not resolve the effects on the land 

management plan’s conservation strategy; the location and design of the old growth 

reserve network is critical to the success of the conservation strategy. Distribution 

of the reserves across the landscape and composition of the habitat within each reserve, were carefully considered. Because of the potential Endangered Species Act 

issues, the Forest Service is concerned that H.R. 1408 could increase the chances 

for litigation, which would increase uncertainty for all parties, including Sealaska 

and local mills. The USDA is willing to discuss mechanisms for maintaining these 

old growth reserves to ensure they remain whole. 

Although H.R. 1408 provides that implementation of this legislation will not require an amendment or revision to the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), 

this language would not prevent issues from arising during TLMP implementation. 

If the significant management assumptions and strategies that formed the basis of 

the plan are modified through enactment of H.R. 1408, the TLMP cannot be implemented as currently intended. 

Finalizing Sealaska Entitlement 

As the title of this legislation suggests, any legislated solution finalizing 

Sealaska’s entitlement must actually resolve all of Sealaska entitlement issues upon 

enactment, such as remaining entitlement acres, resolve outstanding split estate 

issues, relinquish existing Sealaska ANCSA selections and removal of the original 

ANCSA withdrawal areas. This issue is significant to the Forest Service because 

without closure the agency cannot identify a stable land base and ensure that investments made today can be capitalized in the future. The Department of the Interior notes that H.R. 1408, if enacted, may set a precedent for other corporations to 

seek similar legislation 

In that context, we also have concerns about in-holdings. Selection from the land 

categories in section 4(b)(2) (‘‘Sites with Traditional and Recreational Use Value’’), 

in section 4(b)(3) (‘‘Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes’’) and in 

section 4(c) (‘‘Sites with Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, or Historic Significance,’’) will 

result in a significant number of sites and routes scattered throughout the forest, 

creating in-holdings that cause significant management issues including access and 

boundary management problems. It is agency policy to avoid the creation of in-holdings. Likewise, the elimination of such in-holdings is, and has historically been, one 

of the agency’s foremost land acquisition priorities. The Forest Service has extended 

considerable public resources to acquire the types of in-holdings that H.R. 1408 

would create. We have concern over the 33 in-holdings created by the new land categories in H.R. 1408. The Forest Service estimates that surveying and boundary 

management for new Sealaska land selections under H.R. 1408. 

Additionally, the escrow provision included in the legislation does not address the 

relinquishment of any rights Sealaska may have to escrow funds from lands within 

the original withdrawal area. In addition, H.R. 1408 is also not clear on what right 

Sealaska may have to claim escrow on the new parcels identified, which have previously been harvested. The USDA advocates clearly articulating the escrow account 

provisions to relinquish Sealaska’s right to escrow within the original ANCSA identified withdrawal areas. 

Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act 

In line with the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004, the USDA supports a reduced conveyance timeline. H.R. 1408, however, only provides for selections under section 4(b)(1) and would penalize Sealaska only if it had not made its 

selection under section 4(c)(2) within 15 years. Sealaska has previously provided 

copies of maps, which identify their sites of preference. Settling on those land selections prior to passage of H.R. 1408, could resolve one of USDA’s primary concerns 

with H.R. 1408. 

Public Access 

We continue to believe H.R. 1408 will affect the Forest Service’s ability to provide 

for continuous public access for subsistence uses and recreation on the Tongass National Forest. The legislation provides Sealaska the right to regulate access on certain lands where the public use is incompatible with Sealaska’s natural resource development, as determined by Sealaska. The ability of the Forest Service to provide 

9 

for access, subsistence activities and public and commercial recreation and tourism 

and will be limited by enactment of the legislation. 

Special Use Permits: Liability and Responsibility 

The USDA supports Sealaska’s willingness to continue to allow outfitting and 

guiding permits on lands identified in section 4(b)(2) (‘‘Sites with Traditional and 

Recreational Use Value’’) for the remaining term of the existing authorizations and 

for a subsequent 10 year renewal. However, the legislation should clearly specify 

that the existing Forest Service permits authorizing these uses would be revoked 

upon conveyance of the land, that Sealaska would allow continued use under the 

same terms and conditions as provided in the Forest Service permits, and that the 

United States would not be liable for the actions of these permittees. As it currently 

stands, the legislation specifically exempts Sealaska from liability, but provides for 

Sealaska to negotiate terms of the permit. 

Amendments to the Tribal Forest Protection Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

This legislation includes amendments to the Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) 

and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to consider lands owned by any 

Alaska Native Corporation as tribal-owned lands for the purposes of these Acts, the 

implications of which are described below. The USDA is willing to discuss amendments to ANCSA; however, we view the amendments to the TFPA and NHPA as 

unrelated to fulfilling remaining ANSCA entitlement. 

The TFPA is intended to strengthen Forest Service relationships with federally 

recognized Tribes and to restore forested lands by authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into contracts and agreements with Tribes to carry out certain 

projects on the National Forests to reduce threats to adjacent or bordering lands 

owned by Tribes. The bill would extend the benefits of TFPA beyond those Tribes 

currently listed on the official list of federally acknowledged tribes in the contiguous 

48 states and in Alaska. The Alaska Native Corporations are not Tribal Governments as recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and they do not have the capability of having the Federal government hold their lands in trust. 

H.R. 1408 would amend the NHPA to include Alaska Native Corporations. Tribal 

lands as now defined in the NHPA include those within the boundaries of American 

Indian Reservations, which are governed by a Tribal Council duly elected by the 

Tribal members. These lands are managed for the benefit of Tribal members. Alaska 

Native Corporation lands, however, are managed by a corporate board of directors 

to provide a for-profit benefit to its shareholders. 

The inclusion of Alaska Native Corporations as parties entitled to the benefits 

prescribed under both the TFPA and NHPA is at odds with the intent to provide 

tribes with certain benefits prescribed by these Acts. Granting tribal status to lands 

owned by for-profit corporations for any purpose could have wider implications than 

what may be intended. The Department would like to have more time to assess this 

potential impact of this provision before the committee takes any action on it. 

Cooperative Management of National Parks 

Although USDA defers to the Department of the Interior, USDA notes that DOI 

has expressed concerns with the cooperative management agreement provisions in 

sections 3(a)(2) and 3(c)(2) of H.R. 1408 would require the National Park Service 

(NPS) to offer to enter into cooperative management agreements with Sealaska and 

other corporations for activities in Glacier Bay National Park. This could confuse 

the execution of existing memoranda of understanding and concession contracts 

which are currently working well in the park. The NPS maintains a Memorandum 

of Understanding with the Hoonah Indian Association, a federally recognized tribe, 

as well as a cooperative agreement with the non-profit Huna Heritage Foundation 

to provide cultural learning activities in the park. Both entities are also partners 

in monitoring the condition of Tlingit historic sites in the park. 

In addition, requiring cooperative management agreements for such activities 

such as guided tours and establishment of visitor sites with profit-making corporations would be inconsistent with the open, competitive process currently provided 

under concession management law and regulation. Existing practices are already resulting in engaging Native Alaskans in the visitor experience: a subsidiary of Huna 

Totem Corporation has the Glacier Bay lodge and tour 2 3 contracts with Aramark 

Leisure Services through 2013, and Goldbelt Inc., a Juneau-based Native corporation, had the contracts between 1996 and 2004. 

Environmental Mitigation, Incentives and Credits 

Section 6(b) of H.R. 1408 would expressly authorize environmental mitigation and 

incentives for land conveyed to Sealaska. The USDA supports these provisions, 

10 

which would allow any land conveyed to be eligible for participation in carbon markets or other similar programs, incentives or markets established by the federal government. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, while USDA supports the goals of this legislation, we remain concerned about the consequences of the legislation, including its ability to actually finalize the entitlement and current outstanding split estate issues and the potential 

for the legislation to bring to closure the question of Sealaska’s entitlement under 

ANCSA. More broadly, USDA is concerned about the impact of H.R. 1408 on the 

supply of timber for local mills; the transition to a sustainable timber harvest regime focused on second-growth forests; and the overarching conservation strategy 

outlined in the Tongass Land Management Plan. However, the Department will continue to work with Sealaska and all the parties involved resolving these concerns 

and finding solutions that work for everyone. 

This concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. I will now recognize 

Members of the Committee for five minutes, and if necessary, we 

would be happy to entertain a second round of questioning. I think 

first to my left, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sherman, your written testimony states that the USDA views the amendments to the 

Tribal Forest Protection Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act included in this bill, as unrelated to the fulfillment of 

Sealaska’s remaining land settlement. 

You also state that you have concerns about imputing the Alaska 

Native Corporations, such as Sealaska, as beneficiaries of these 

statutes. Would the USDA be willing to work with Sealaska on 

changes to these statutes in another bill, or are you wholly opposed 

to them? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Congressman, we are always willing to sit down 

and talk to Sealaska about these issues. Our main concern here 

has been that these provisions that you cited give essentially tribal 

government status to what is a profit making entity, and that is 

a highly unusual procedure. 

It could affect government relationships, and it could affect how 

we treat various things, but we are happy to talk to them, and 

work with them, and see if there is some sort of common approach 

here. But it is an unusual departure from what has happened in 

the past, and it does raise some concerns for us. 

Mr. KILDEE. I have in my State of Michigan 12 Federally recognized tribes, and most of them flow from the Treaty of Detroit, 

signed in the 1850s, and there of course we have a clear-cut government-to-government relationship. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution makes that very clear. 

Do the tribes in Alaska enjoy that same type of sovereignty that 

the tribes, the Federally recognized tribes in the Lower 48 have. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We have a government-to-government relationship 

with the tribes of Southeast Alaska. We do have that. In this particular case, we are not dealing with a tribe, per se. We are dealing 

with a profit making corporation. That is what its purpose is. 

So we have maintained a government-to-government relationship 

with the Southeast Alaska Tribes, but we believe that this is a 

somewhat different situation. 

11 

Mr. KILDEE. Is there something necessarily bad in this instance, 

this unique area of the United States, the land that we purchased 

from Russia, and it became a State, I believe, around President Eisenhower’s time. 

Is there anything necessarily improper about a corporation also 

having a governmental status, or is that just an attitude or feeling, 

or a value judgment? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe it is unusual. Whether it is unprecedented, I don’t know. I mean, we can get back to you on this issue, 

but it is unusual, and it is a departure from the way that we have 

handled things in the past. 

But again we would be happy to sit down and talk about what 

are the specific issues related to this, and whether it would make 

any sense to consider an exception to the general approaches that 

we have used in the past. 

Mr. KILDEE. If you have existing some comparison between the 

status of the Alaskan Native Americans and the status of tribes in 

the Lower 48, and if you have something existing, if you could get 

that both to the Committee and to me, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We would be happy to do so. 

Mr. KILDEE. And thank you very much. Thank you for your interest in this, and thank you for your good work over there. I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. KILDEE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Sherman, in your testimony, the Forest Service expresses concern that the bill will take 

too much economically viable second growth timber of the 50 and 

older age class away from you, and that it will hamper the Forest 

Service’s ability to transition the Tongass to a young growth harvesting strategy. Would you prefer to see Alaska receive increased 

old growth? 

Mr. SHERMAN. What I would prefer to see is a plan which would 

allow both Sealaska and the other entities to have an adequate 

source of timber to proceed in the future. Our concern here, Congressman, is that we have had a very delicate balance where the 

Forest Service has tried to target the next 15 to 20 years by which 

we can provide wood to the local milling industry. 

And that has evolved, and identifying certain productive old 

growth areas outside of the so-called withdrawal areas that 

Sealaska was entitled to select lands in, and it has identified certain second growth areas, which would come on-line in order to 

meet these local needs. 

So our strategy and our plan has been to work on those areas, 

and set up those areas for the future. And unfortunately here what 

we are seeing is Sealaska having an equal interest in those lands 

that we were preparing. 

Now, what does that mean in terms of where Sealaska could go? 

I think that would be—I think we would have to identify within 

the withdrawal areas what lands are available to them for timber 

development on the remaining selections. 

There are some second growth areas within those lands. There 

is a possibility that we could discuss with Sealaska on their participation in timber sales for Forest Service lands. There may be some 

12 

other options that we ought to be looking at, but again these lands 

were very critical to us to provide adequate timber to the local milling industry. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, and I know that the Forest Service is 

looking for more time to work out differences on the bill, and I 

know that the Chairman expects to have this bill done for the 40th 

anniversary, which is this December, but what is your time line for 

working issues out and resolving this? 

Mr. SHERMAN. We have been having productive conversations, I 

believe, with Sealaska. We have been identifying areas that need 

further examination. I think that the area that you just mentioned 

was one where we had to intensify our evaluation of which lands 

they are interested in, and how those overlap with our interests, 

and see if there is some sort of resolution of that. 

We are very focused on these old growth preserves outside of the 

withdrawal areas, because we need to protect those areas. But we 

can talk further with Sealaska about how to protect those areas. 

The in-holdings that Sealaska has identified as so-called future 

sites, these need further evaluation, and we have been working 

with Sealaska on those. All of these areas are fruitful, and future 

discussions that I believe we can have with Sealaska, and there is 

no reason not to continue actively with those discussions. 

I am reluctant to predict some sort of a time line because these 

are complicated issues. Nevertheless, we should roll up our sleeves 

and do our best. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, it is understandable that they are complicated issues, but we definitely work on timelines here, and the 

Chairman has focused on again the 40th anniversary in getting 

this done by December. So do you have any kind of ballpark time? 

Are we talking a month, two months, 45 days? Could you commit 

to 45 days? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I don’t believe I can commit to a particular 

timeline, but I can commit to you that we will continue actively our 

discussions with Sealaska and see what progress we can make. 

Mr. DENHAM. Are you confident that we can complete this then 

this year? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am not either confident nor pessimistic about it. 

I think we have to see as we bore down on these specific—— 

Mr. DENHAM. So you are having ongoing discussions, but you are 

nowhere close right now to any type of resolution? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think we are getting closer to understanding 

what our respective concerns are, and we are working on solutions 

to address those concerns. 

Mr. DENHAM. You are getting closer to understanding what the 

concerns would be? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Closer to understanding, and I believe from that 

understanding, solutions may be forthcoming. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. Thank you. Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sherman, as you 

probably know, I represent Hawaii, and so the issues regarding Native rights are very dear to my heart, and I do believe in self-determination of the Native peoples. 

Having said that, one of the concerns that I have with your testimony is really set forth in your conclusion, where you have conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:46 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66652.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

cerns about the legislation itself, and the fact that it is changing 

the status of lands. 

I am also very concerned about when we try to right a wrong 

that we make it worse by buying litigation. So I would like to understand what is it about it that—and I assume that you are talking about the miscellaneous section of the bill itself, where it 

speaks to the status of the conveyed lands. 

And so I would like to understand from you what is it about the 

statements that are contained in this bill, which I believe talks 

about making them into tribal lands of some sort, and thereby it 

seems like it is transferring it into the same category of Native 

American lands, and a trust relationship may or may not develop. 

So am I understanding your concern correctly, and if not, please 

tell me exactly what you are referring to in your conclusion? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, our concern is multifaceted. We are first 

concerned about if certain lands are selected that present challenges to the conservation strategy that has been set by the Forest 

Service for Southeast Alaska, we are concerned that litigation could 

result from that. 

And we are concerned that certain species could be listed, which 

again would represent a step backwards. Second, we are concerned 

about the in-holdings that I identify, because in-holdings have been 

very problematic across the United States for the Forest Service. 

Many of our programs are designed to eliminate in-holdings, because they represent so many, both legal and managerial, challenges for the Agency. We are very concerned about that. 

And we are concerned that we have to meet the needs of Alaska, 

in terms of timber production. That is a statutory requirement that 

we have, and if we can’t provide the resources to do that, that will 

become problematic. 

So there is a series of issues like that, that again raise both legal 

and managerial challenges for us, and we believe that if we are 

going to change the arrangement that was made under ANCSA 

that it has got to be done very carefully, and we have to go in with 

our eyes wide open. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Sherman, I appreciate the explanation, because I thought that your concern was not so much one—and not 

to minimize your concern, but was not so much one that I feel will 

fall into the category of the self-determination rights of the Native 

people, versus what the Forest Service or the Department of Agriculture may think is in the best interests of everyone. 

I thought that it was more like, for example, in the Carcieri decision of the Supreme Court, which talked whether lands could be 

transferred, and having that clarification from you, aren’t you basically saying now that there is this plan, and you are afraid that 

if Sealaska, if this bill goes through, and they are then afforded the 

right to withdraw these specific parcels of land, that it will somehow cause an imbalance in what you feel to be the plan that has 

come through. Am I understanding you correctly? 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is correct. Let me be very clear. We believe 

that Sealaska is entitled to between 60 to 80,000 additional acres 

of land. Initially, those lands that they had targeted within what 

we call the withdrawal area. 

14 

So this request is now outside of the withdrawal areas, and that 

represents certain challenges to the plan that the Forest Service 

had established for Southeast Alaska. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I understand that, Mr. Sherman, and I would 

just like to add that give your clarification, I believe that for those 

of us who believe in Native rights and Native determinations, the 

fact that this has not been done for 40 years, that I can understand 

very clearly why now the Chairman has proposed this piece of legislation. 

Because it is something that you can’t—when you are trying to 

right a wrong, or right something that has not been done, you can’t 

just say, well, we will do it, but it is conditioned upon everything 

that has gone on for 40 years. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Hanabusa. Are there any additional questions for this witness? If not, I would like to thank the 

Under Secretary for his testimony. Members of the Subcommittee 

may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that 

you respond to those in writing. The hearing record will be open 

for 10 days to receive these responses. 

We are now ready for our next panel of witnesses. Those are witnesses Byron Mallott, a Board Member of the Sealaska Corporation; Bob Claus, the Forest Program Director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council; and Owen Graham, Executive Director of 

the Alaska Forest Association. 

Before I recognize the witnesses, I would ask for unanimous consent that written comments on H.R. 1408 from the Washington, 

D.C. Representative for Alaska Governor Sean Parnell, and from 

the President of the Intertribal Council, be inserted in the hearing 

record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Joe Durglo, President, 

Intertribal Timber Council, follows:] 

15 


66652.006.eps
16 


66652.007.eps
17 

[The letter submitted for the record by John W. Katz, Director 

of State/Federal Relations and Special Counsel to the Governor, 

State of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, follows:] 


66652.003.eps
18 


66652.004.eps
19 

Mr. DENHAM. All the witnesses again are reminded that their 

complete written testimony will appear in the written record, and 

you have five minutes to summarize it. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF BYRON MALLOTT, BOARD MEMBER, 

SEALASKA CORPORATION, JUNEAU, ALASKA 

Mr. MALLOTT. Mr. Chairman, my name is Byron Mallott, and I 

am a Director of the Sealaska Corporation. I have asked Jaeleen 

Araujo, who will provide her name, to sit with me in the event that 

there are specific questions that I am unable to answer if that is 

all right with you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MALLOTT. I want to state that this bill is strongly supported 

by Sealaska. We believe that its intent is clear. That after 40 years, 

it is time to resolve and finalize Sealaska’s entitlement under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

I want to be responsive to several issues that I have heard 

raised. One is that it is Sealaska’s intent to export any timber that 

it harvests from these selections. That is not the case. It has never 

been the case. What we do is to try to find the most reasonable and 

responsible market for our timber. 

And if the market suggests that it is appropriate for us, and that 

is our desire, our absolute desire, is to maximize the local use, the 

local hire, the local economic impact with all of our resources, and 

that is something that I think we need to emphasize. 

The other thing that I want to emphasize, Mr. Chair, is that 

Sealaska’s timber harvest activities over the period since we began 

to establish a new kind of forest products industry in Alaska on 

private tribal lands has put close to in my judgment a billion dollars into the Alaskan economy. 

It has generated over $300 million to other Native corporations. 

It has impacted the overall economy of the region and the State in 


66652.005.eps
20 

the most positive way, and it has allowed a resource to be available 

for regeneration for the future. 

Now, some people would argue that the harvest practices that 

the remaining harvested forests has not meaningful value. I would 

submit that to Native peoples, who are the first peoples of the forest, it does. 

We are here for the long term. We have been here for 10,000 

years, and we will be here for another 10,000 years, and we will 

see cycles of timber begin as seedlings, and achieve old growth, and 

go through the life process many, many times. 

That is our view of the Tongass National Forest. I would also 

say, Mr. Chair, that it is time to resolve this issue. That the Native 

peoples of Southeast can use the land productively, and we can use 

it in the best interests of our Nation, in terms of conservation, in 

terms of all of the uses that such lands can be put to, both in our 

interests and in the public interest. 

It is somewhat ironic to me that the argument can be made that 

the best arbiter, the best judgment about the use of a marketable 

resource, can be made by the government, as opposed to private enterprise and a private owner. 

That argument does not stand. History is replete with the results 

of that kind of management. I also want, Mr. Chairman, to say 

that regardless of what happens with any legislation that affects 

us, our people, that we live with the consequences, good or bad, or 

indifferent, because we will never leave this place, the Tongass. 

It is our home. It is our history, and it is our culture. It is what 

makes us who we are, and we only want to secure our place for 

ourselves, and for our children. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:] 

Statement of Byron Mallott, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Byron Mallott, and I am a Board Member for Sealaska Corporation, 

as well as a former President and CEO of Sealaska. I am from Yakutat, an Alaska 

Native village, and I am Shaa-dei-ha-ni (Clan Leader) of the Kwaashk’i Kwa ́an. My 

Tlingit name is K’oo deel taa.a. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Sealaska, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska, regarding H.R. 1408, the 

‘‘Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act,’’ a bill that we refer 

to as Haa Aanı ́ in Tlingit, which roughly translates into ‘‘Our Land’’ or ‘‘Our Place’’. 

‘‘Haa Aanı ́’’ is the Tlingit way of referring to our ancestral and traditional homeland 

and the foundation of our history and culture. 

Sealaska is one of 12 Regional Corporations established pursuant to the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (‘‘ANCSA’’) of 1971. Our shareholders are descendants of the original Native inhabitants of Southeast Alaska—the Tlingit, Haida and 

Tsimshian people. Our ancestors once used and occupied every corner of Southeast 

Alaska and our cultural and burial sites can be found throughout the region. This 

legislation is a reflection of the significance of Our Land to our people and its importance in meeting our cultural, social and economic needs. 

Forty years ago, as a young man, I traveled to Washington, DC as an advocate 

for the land claims of Alaska’s Native people. Here I am again, forty years later, 

advocating for the equitable completion of Sealaska’s land entitlement. 

This legislation involves less than 85,000 acres from the Southeast Alaska region, 

a region with almost 23 million acres of land; 85% of that land is already in some 

form of conservation, wilderness or other protected status. Putting the Sealaska legislation in perspective, Sealaska’s remaining land entitlement represents about one 

third of one percent of the total land mass in Southeast Alaska. 

Yet this legislation also represents a significant opportunity for the public, Congress, the Administration, communities, environmental organizations and others to 

get it right for once in the Tongass. H.R. 1408 achieves environmental balance, susVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:46 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66652.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
21 

tains jobs, ensures that Native people are viable participants in our economy, and 

returns important cultural and economic lands to Southeast Alaska’s Native people. 

H.R. 1408 fulfills the promise of ANCSA because it: • allows Sealaska to finalize its ANCSA land entitlement in a fair, meaningful 

way; • redresses inequitable legal limitations on Sealaska’s land selections by allowing it to select remaining entitlement lands from outside of withdrawal areas 

that, among the regional Alaska Native Corporations, uniquely constrained 

Sealaska; • allows for Alaska Native ownership of sites with sacred, cultural, traditional 

and historic significance to the Alaska Natives of Southeast Alaska; • creates the opportunity for Sealaska to support a sustainable rural economy 

and to support economic and job opportunities throughout Southeast Alaska; 

and • results in environmental benefits to the public because high conservation 

value lands important for fisheries, old growth wildlife reserves, areas important for local subsistence use and municipal watersheds will remain in public 

ownership. 

As discussed in detail in my testimony below, there is a compelling, equitable 

basis for supporting this legislation. There is no dispute that Sealaska has a remaining land entitlement, and this legislation does not give Sealaska one acre of 

land beyond that already promised by Congress. Sealaska has worked closely with 

the timber industry, conservation organizations, tribes and Native institutions, local 

communities, the State of Alaska, and federal land management agencies to craft 

legislation that provides the best possible result for the people, communities and environment of Southeast Alaska. 

One thing has become extremely clear in our effort to resolve Sealaska’s land entitlement—that every acre of Southeast Alaska is precious to someone. With the vast 

array of interests in Southeast Alaska, there is simply no way to achieve an absolute consensus on where and how Sealaska should select its remaining entitlement. 

However, we truly believe that this legislation offers a balanced solution as a result 

of our engagement with all regional stakeholders. 

Our Dilemma 

Alaska Native Corporations were tasked by Congress in 1971 with supporting the 

economic future of the Alaska Native community, in part by utilizing lands returned 

by the United States to Native people to develop resources that would advance the 

social, economic and cultural well-being of our tribal member shareholders. 

We believe that Congress’ core promise to Alaska Natives in ANCSA was that 

Alaska Natives would be able to develop sustainable economies so that we could 

work to achieve for ourselves economic parity with the rest of America. Socio-economic parity was a focal point of Alaska Natives and the Land, a congressionallymandated study published in 1968, which was a foundational predicate for Congress 

to act on Alaska Native land claims. 

Sealaska has utilized some of its land base to develop timber resources. Of the 

290,000 acres Sealaska has received under ANCSA, Sealaska has harvested timber 

on 189,000 acres in accordance with modern forestry and forest engineering best 

management practices that protect water quality, anadromous fish habitat, wildlife 

habitat, forest soils, and the long term productivity of the forest. Selective harvesting and even-aged harvesting has been employed. Less than half (81,000 acres) 

of managed forest lands have been clear cut (even-aged harvest). Sealaska’s timber 

business has been a powerful economic engine that has helped to support the regional economy for 30 years, and seventy percent of Sealaska’s timber revenues 

have been shared with more than 200 Alaska Native Corporations, as required 

under sections 7(i) and 7(j) of ANCSA. Wherever it selects the land, Sealaska may 

choose to utilize some of its remaining entitlement to support sustainable forestry 

with a timber rotation that could sustain hundreds of jobs in our region, in perpetuity, while protecting important forest resources. 

Unlike the other eleven Regional Native Corporations, Sealaska was directed to 

select the entirety of its entitlement lands only from within boxes drawn around just 

ten of the Native villages in Southeast Alaska. Forty-four percent of the ten withdrawal areas is comprised of salt water, and multiple other factors limit the ability 

of Sealaska to select land within the boxes. This has made it difficult to make equitable selections. No other Regional Corporation was treated in this manner under 

ANCSA. 

To date, Sealaska has selected 290,000 acres of land under ANCSA from within 

the withdrawal boxes. Based on Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’) projections 

for completion of the Section 14(h)(8) selections, and our own estimates, the remainVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:46 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66652.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
22 

ing entitlement to be conveyed to Sealaska is between 65,000 and 85,000 acres of 

land. The only remaining issue is where this land will come from. Of the lands 

available to Sealaska today within the ANCSA withdrawal boxes: • 270,000 are included in the current U.S. Forest Service inventory of roadless 

forestland; • 112,000 acres are comprised of productive old growth; • 60,000 acres are included in the Forest Service’s inventory of Old Growth 

Habitat Land Use Designation (LUD) lands; and • much of that land is comprised of important community watersheds, high conservation value lands important for sport and commercial fisheries and areas 

important for subsistence uses. 

The Sealaska legislation allows Sealaska to move away from sensitive watersheds 

and roadless areas, to select a balanced inventory of second growth and old growth, 

and to select most of its remaining ANCSA lands on the existing road system, preserving on balance as much as 40,000 acres of old growth, much of which is inventoried ‘‘roadless old growth’’. 

Why is Sealaska Corporation Different? 

A common misperception of the Sealaska bill is that Sealaska is required to select 

its Native lands from within the 10 withdrawal areas in Southeast Alaska because 

Sealaska ‘‘asked for it’’. This perception is reflected in opinion pieces in Alaska 

newspapers and has been shared with Committee staff for the House and Senate 

Committees of jurisdiction. We therefore believe this misconception should be addressed here. 

ANCSA authorized the distribution of approximately $1,000,000,000 and 

44,000,000 acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of 

12 Regional Native Corporations and more than 200 Village Corporations to receive 

and manage the funds and land to meet the cultural, social, and economic needs 

of Native shareholders. 

Under section 12 of ANCSA, each Regional Corporation, other than Sealaska, was 

authorized to receive a share of land based on the proportion that the number of 

Alaska Native shareholders residing in the region of the Regional Corporation bore 

to the total number of Alaska Native shareholders, or the relative size of the area 

to which the Regional Corporation had an aboriginal land claim bore to the size of 

the area to which all Regional Corporations had aboriginal land claims. While each 

other Regional Corporation received a significant quantity of land under section 12 

of ANCSA, Sealaska received land only under section 14(h) of that Act. 

Sealaska did not receive land in proportion to the number of Alaska Native shareholders, or in proportion to the size of the area to which Sealaska had an aboriginal 

land claim, in part because, in 1968, some compensation was provided to the Tlingit 

and Haida Indian by the U.S. Court of Claims, which determined that the Tlingit 

and Haida Indians were entitled to recover $7.5 million for the taking of the 17 million acre Tongass National forest and 3.3 million acre Glacier Bay National Park. 

The 1968 Court of Claims payment should be viewed in context with the universal 

settlement reached by Congress just three years later that allowed for the return 

of 44 million acres to Alaska’s Native people. With a population that represented 

more than 20 percent of Alaska’s Native population in 1971, Southeast Alaska Natives ultimately will receive title to only 1 percent of lands returned to Alaska Natives under ANCSA. 

Moreover, the 1968 settlement provided by the Court of Claims did not compensate the Tlingit and Haida for 2,628,207 acres of land in Southeast Alaska also 

subject to aboriginal title. These lands became an important basis for the participation of the Southeast Alaska Natives in the settlement in 1971. The court also determined the value of the lost Indian fishing rights at $8,388,315, but did not provide 

compensation for those rights. These rights were pursued through a property claims 

action before the Indian Claims Commission, originally filed in 1954, but there was 

no decision on the merits when ANCSA passed in1971. The Commission subsequently ruled that ANCSA extinguished such claims and the proceeding became a 

moot. 

Sealaska ultimately would be entitled to recover as much as 375,000 acres of land 

under ANCSA. However, under the terms of ANCSA, and because the homeland of 

the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people had been reserved as a national forest, the 

Secretary of the Interior was not able to withdraw any land in the Tongass for selection by and conveyance to Sealaska. The only lands available for selection by 

Sealaska in 1971 were slated to become part of the Wrangell-St. Elias National 

Park or consisted essentially of mountain tops. 

For this reason, in the early 1970s, Sealaska requested that Congress amend 

ANCSA to permit Sealaska to select lands from within 10 withdrawal boxes estabVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:46 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66652.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23 

lished under ANCSA for the 10 Southeast Native villages recognized under that Act. 

In 1976, Congress granted that right. 

In short, in the 1970s Sealaska sought areas from which to make selections because, at that time, Southeast Alaska’s Native people had no other place to go in 

the Tongass, their very homeland. The suggestion that Alaska’s Native people invited their own exclusion from their Native homeland is an idea that any compassionate witness to our history should find repugnant. It was a choice between something limited or nothing at all. Hardly a choice. 

H.R. 1408 addresses problems associated with the unique treatment of Sealaska 

and the unintended public policy consequences of forcing Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement from within the existing ANCSA withdrawals. The legislation 

presents to Congress and to this Administration a legislative package that will result in public policy benefits on many levels. H.R. 1408 allows Sealaska to select 

from alternative, well defined withdrawals areas in Southeast Alaska. The legislation enables the conveyance of the final acres to which Sealaska is entitled—and 

not one acre more. 

Historic pressures resulted in the political marginalization and spatial confinement of Native people in Southeast Alaska, documented in ‘‘A New Frontier’’ (discussed directly below), including federal pressures to prevent Native claims from impacting the timber industry. These pressures no longer (we hope) restrict the decisions of either the Congress or the Forest Service in pursuing a legislative solution 

that will enable Sealaska to finalize its Native entitlement in a manner that is both 

equitable and results in minimal impacts to other interests in the Tongass. 

Observers unfamiliar with ANCSA sometimes suggest that the Sealaska legislation might somehow create a negative precedent with respect to Alaska Native land 

claims. This seems odd in the context of the history of the Tongass and its impact 

on the Southeast settlement. Moreover, ANCSA has been amended more than 30 

times. ANCSA was and remains a congressional undertaking, and as a statute, it 

is organic. As observed by Senator Mark Begich at a hearing on this bill before the 

Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests in October 2009, Congress has, 

on multiple occasions, deemed it appropriate to amend ANCSA to address in an equitable manner issues that were not anticipated by Congress when ANCSA passed. 

Additional Observations: Why Native Land Claims Are Unique in the 

Tongass 

Two documents present an important historical perspective on the long struggle 

to return lands in the Tongass to Native people: (1) the draft document funded by 

the Forest Service and authored by Dr. Charles W. Smythe, ‘‘A New Frontier: Managing the National Forests in Alaska, 1970–1995’’ (1995) (‘‘A New Frontier’’); and 

(2) a paper by Walter R. Echo-Hawk, ‘‘A Context for Setting Modern Congressional 

Indian Policy in Native Southeast Alaska (‘‘Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska’’). A 

four page summary of the paper by Mr. Echo-Hawk is attached to this testimony; 

due to Committee limitations on the length of attachments to written testimony, we 

were not able to attach the full documents to this testimony. 

The findings and observations summarized below are to be attributed to the work 

of Dr. Smythe and Mr. Echo-Hawk. For the sake of brevity, we have summarized 

or paraphrased these findings and observations. We encourage people with an interest in the history of the Tongass generally, or in this legislation specifically, to take 

the time to read these documents in full. 

Dr. Smythe’s research, compiled in ‘‘A New Frontier’’, found, among other things: 

• By the time the Tongass National Forest was created in 1908, the Tlingit and 

Haida Indians had been marginalized. As white settlers and commercial interests moved into the Alaska territory, they utilized the resources as they 

found them, often taking over key areas for cannery sites, fish traps, logging, 

and mining. 

• The Act of 1884, which created civil government in the Alaska territory, also 

extended the first land laws to the region, and in combination with legislation 

in 1903, settlers were given the ability to claim areas for canneries, mining 

claims, townsites, and homesteads, and to obtain legal title to such tracts. 

Since the Indians were not recognized as citizens, they did not have corresponding rights (to hold title to land, to vote, etc.) to protect their interests. 

• For decades prior to the passage of ANCSA, the Forest Service opposed the 

recognition of traditional Indian use and aboriginal title in the Tongass National Forest. As late as 1954, the Forest Service formally recommended that 

all Indian claims to the Tongass be extinguished because of continuing uncertainty affecting the timber industry in Southeast Alaska. 

• On October 7, 1959, the U.S. Court of Claims held that the Tlingit and Haida 

Indians had established their claims of aboriginal Indian title to the land in 

24 

Southeast Alaska and were entitled to recover compensation for the taking 

of their lands, and for the failure to protect their hunting and fishing rights. • The efforts by the Interior Department in the 1930s and 1940s to establish 

reservations in Southeast Alaska alarmed the Forest Service—which at the 

time opposed the principle of aboriginal rights and its serious conflict with 

plans for a pulpwood industry in Alaska. • The policy of the Roosevelt Administration, with Harold Ickes as Interior Secretary, was to recognize aboriginal rights to land and fisheries in Alaska and 

to support efforts to provide a land and resource base to Native communities 

for their economic benefit. Following hearings on the aboriginal claims related 

to the protection of fisheries, Secretary Ickes established an amount of land 

to be set aside for three village reservations: Hydaburg—101,000 acres; 

Klawock—95,000; acres Kake—77,000 acres. • The judgments of the Department of the Interior were troubling to the Forest 

Service. If realized, the whole timber industry in southeast Alaska would be 

jeopardized. • The Department of Agriculture later expressed its agreement with the efforts 

of the U.S. Senate to substantially repeal the Interior Secretary’s authority 

to establish the proposed reservations in Southeast Alaska. 

Walter Echo Hawk’s paper, ‘‘Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska’’, observes, in part: • The Tongass National Forest was actually established subject to existing 

property rights, as it stated that nothing shall be construed ‘‘to deprive any 

persons of any valid rights’’ secured by the Treaty with Russia or by any federal law pertaining to Alaska. This was ignored. 

• A Tlingit leader and attorney William Paul won a short-lived legal victory in 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller v. United States, 159 F. 2d 997 

(9th Cir. 1947), which ruled that lands could not be seized by the government 

without the consent of the Tlingit landowners and without paying just compensation. 

• To combat this decision, federal lawmakers passed a Joint Resolution authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to sell timber and land within the Tongass 

National Forest, ‘‘notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights’’ based upon 

‘‘aboriginal occupancy or title.’’ This action ultimately resulted in the Tee-HitTon Indians v. United States decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held 

that Indian land rights are subject to the doctrines of discovery and conquest, 

and ‘‘conquest gives a title which the Courts of the Conqueror cannot deny.’’ 

348 U.S. 272, 280 (1955). The Court concluded that Indians do not have 5th 

Amendment rights to aboriginal property. The Congress, in its sole discretion, 

would decide if there was to be any compensation whatsoever for lands stolen. 

H.R. 1408: A Legislative Solution with Significant Public Policy Benefits 

Alaska’s congressional delegation has worked hard to ensure that the fair settlement of Sealaska’s Native land claim is accomplished in a manner that may have 

the greatest benefit to all of Southeast Alaska with the least possible impact on individuals, communities, federal and state land management agencies, and other interested stakeholders. 

This legislation is also largely in symmetry with the goals of the Obama Administration for the Tongass, which has worked to protect roadless areas and accelerate 

the transition away from forest management that relied on old growth harvesting. 

The Administration has been clear that it wants to help struggling communities in 

rural Alaska. The Administration also has dedicated unprecedented resources to 

working with American Indian and Alaska Native communities nationwide. This 

legislation helps to finalize Sealaska’s Native entitlement in an equitable way, while 

supporting a transition by Sealaska to second growth harvesting and maintaining 

rural Southeast Alaska jobs. 

Without legislation to amend ANCSA, Sealaska will be forced either to select and 

develop roadless old growth areas within the existing withdrawals or shut down all 

Native timber operations, with significant negative impacts to rural communities, 

the economy of Southeast Alaska, and our tribal member shareholders. This legislation proposes an alternative: H.R. 1408 would permit Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement lands from outside of the ANCSA withdrawal boxes. The alternative 

land pool from which Sealaska could select under H.R. 1408 includes forestland 

suitable for timber development, but commits Sealaska to also select second growth 

in lieu of the old growth available to Sealaska today. In fact, the legislation ultimately would preserve as much as 40,000 acres of old growth, and even more inventoried roadless acres, to be managed as part of the Tongass National Forest. 

H.R. 1408 would permit Sealaska to select 3,600 acres of land as sacred and cultural sites, and 5,000 acres of small parcels of land often referred to as ‘‘Native fuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:46 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66652.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25 

tures sites’’. Under the terms of the legislation, no timber or mineral development 

would be permitted on sacred sites or Native futures sites. Because Sealaska would 

be permitted to select these sites in lieu of timberlands, these provisions reduce 

overall timber acres available to Sealaska by 8,600 acres. 

Although Sealaska would thus give up ‘‘economic’’ assets under the proposed legislation, we believe the Southeast Alaska Native community will benefit because 

3,600 acres of sacred sites will be returned to Native ownership. The community will 

also benefit from the 30 smaller selections (Native futures sites) that would be made 

available for development as green energy (tidal, geothermal, or run-of-river hydro) 

sites, bases for ecotourism or cultural tourism, or simply to exist as sites in Native 

ownership. By permitting Sealaska to select a handful of small parcels for such 

uses, H.R. 1408 helps to preserve Native culture in perpetuity, ensures that the 

Tongass remains a Native place, and provides the catalyst for creating sustainable 

economies within the Tongass. 

The public benefits of this legislation extend far beyond Sealaska Corporation and 

its shareholders. Pursuant to a revenue sharing provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes 70 percent of all revenues derived from the development of its timber resources—more than $315 million since 1971—among all of the more than 200 Alaska Native Corporations. 

As discussed throughout this legislation, Sealaska’s land legislation strategy was 

also driven in large part by conservation organizations’ stated public goals of ‘‘protecting roadless areas’’, ‘‘protecting old growth reserves’’, ‘‘accelerating the transition 

to second growth’’ and creating alternate economies. 

Finally, movement toward completion of Sealaska’s ANCSA land entitlement conveyances will benefit the federal government. This legislation allows Sealaska to 

move forward with its selections, which ultimately will give the BLM and the Forest 

Service some finality and closure with respect to ANCSA selections in the region. 

The Forest Service’s Plans for the Tongass: Impact of H.R. 1408 on Tongass 

Management 

The U.S. Forest Service has, in the past, expressed concern that H.R. 1408 could 

impact its ability to harvest second growth to support Southeast Alaska mills, and 

could impact other goals laid out in the 2008 Amendment to the Tongass Land Use 

Management Plan. 

We believe Sealaska’s offer to leave behind roadless old growth timber in the 

Tongass is significant; it is a proposal we believe this Administration should support 

based on its goals to protect these types of forest lands. We also believe that lands 

proposed for conveyance under H.R. 1408 conflict minimally with and may ultimately benefit the Forest Service’s Transition Framework for the Tongass. 

The Forest Service uses various classifications to define the condition of its second 

growth. The term ‘‘suitable’’ means that forestland is available for harvest. The term 

‘‘unsuitable’’ refers to lands that are not available for harvest under normal harvest 

prescriptions. For purposes of our calculations, unsuitable lands exclude second 

growth in conservation designations, but include second growth available for restoration and stewardship contracting. 

• There are 428,972 acres of second growth on the Tongass National Forest. 

Æ 57% is available for harvest—suitable acres 

Æ 43% is not available for harvest, except through restoration and stewardship contracts—unsuitable acres 

• Of the oldest second growth (over 40+ years): 

Æ 44% is suitable for harvest 

Æ 56% is unsuitable 

• Sealaska selection of second growth would include approximately (an approximation is made due to differences between the bills introduced in the Senate 

and the House): 

Æ 7% of the total second growth 

Æ 9% of the suitable second growth 

Æ 4% of the unsuitable second growth 

• Sealaska selections of age 40+ second growth include: 

Æ 12% of the total 40+ second growth 

Æ 9% of the 40+ second growth is from suitable acres 

Æ 4% of the 40+ second growth is from unsuitable acres 

For the Forest Service, the most significant limitation to an accelerated transition 

to second growth is the large number of acres of older second growth that is in restricted timber use status. If these restrictions were modified, there could be an acceleration to exclusive second growth harvesting. 

If H.R. 1408 were to pass today, under current standards and guidelines, the Forest Service would retain at least 223,000 acres of suitable second growth and 

26 

177,000 acres of unsuitable second growth that is available for stewardship and restoration. We believe the total pool of lands available to the Forest Service is more 

than sufficient to support log demand for its Transition Framework. 

We also believe that to achieve a successful transition to second growth, the Forest Service needs Sealaska to remain active in the timber industry in the Tongass, 

because Sealaska’s operations support regional infrastructure (including roads and 

key contractors), development of markets (including second growth markets), and 

development of efficient and sustainable second growth harvesting techniques. In 

short, the likely success of the Forest Service’s transition to second growth is significantly improved if Sealaska second growth operations are in close proximity to Forest Service second growth operations. 

Sealaska has 30 years of experience developing and distributing Southeast Alaska 

wood to new and existing markets around the world. Sealaska recently has pioneered second growth harvesting techniques in Southeast Alaska and is active in 

this market. 

This legislation, which moves Sealaska into some older second growth, ensures 

that Sealaska will engage as an early partner with the Forest Service in second 

growth market development, while continuing to provide local jobs and supporting 

the local economy. 

It is also important to note that regardless of whether Sealaska selects within the 

existing ANCSA withdrawal boxes or outside of those boxes, Sealaska must select 

its remaining entitlement lands from within the Tongass. In other words, by selecting Native entitlement lands, whether under existing law or the proposed legislation 

(H.R. 1408), Sealaska’s land selections will incorporate lands suitable for timber development and may require the Forest Service to adjust land management plans. 

However, the ability to make minor management adjustments is built into the revised Tongass Land Management Plan. 

Local Impact of H.R. 1408: Saving Jobs in Rural Southeast Alaska 

The Southeast Alaska region lost about 750 jobs in 2009, the largest drop in at 

least 35 years. In January 2011, the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development reported the unemployment rate for the Prince of Wales—Outer 

Ketchikan census area at approximately 16.2 percent. In October 2007, the Alaska 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development projected population losses between 1996 and 2030 for the Prince of Wales—Outer Ketchikan census area at 56.6 

percent. 

While jobs in Southeast Alaska are up over the last 30 years, many of those jobs 

can be attributed to industrial tourism, which creates seasonal jobs in urban centers 

and does not translate to population growth. In fact, the post-timber economy has 

not supported populations in traditional Native villages, where unemployment 

ranges above Great Depression levels and populations are shrinking rapidly. 

We consider this legislation to be the most important and immediate ‘‘economic 

stimulus package’’ that Congress can implement for Southeast Alaska. Sealaska provides significant economic opportunities for our tribal member shareholders and for 

residents of all of Southeast Alaska through the development of our primary natural 

resource—timber. Sealaska and its subsidiaries and affiliates expended over $45 

million in 2008 in Southeast Alaska. Over 350 businesses and organizations in 16 

Southeast communities benefit from spending resulting from Sealaska activities. We 

provide over 363 full and part-time jobs with a payroll of over $15 million. Including 

direct and indirect employment and payroll, Sealaska in 2008 supported 490 jobs 

and approximately $21 million in payroll. 

We are proud of our collaborative efforts to build and support sustainable and viable communities and cultures in our region. We face continuing economic challenges 

with commercial electricity rates reaching $0.61/kwh and heating fuel costs sometimes ranging above $6.00 per gallon. To help offset these extraordinary costs, we 

work with our logging contractors and seven of our local communities to run a community firewood program. We contribute cedar logs for the carving of totems and 

cedar carving planks to schools and tribal organizations. We are collaborating with 

our village corporations and villages to develop hydroelectric projects. We do all of 

these collaborative activities because we are not a typical American corporation. We 

are a Native institution with a vested interest in our communities. 

Our shareholders are Alaska Natives. The profits we make from timber support 

causes that strengthen Native pride and awareness of who we are as Native people 

and where we came from, and further our contribution in a positive way to the cultural richness of American society. The proceeds from timber operations allow us 

to make substantial investments in cultural preservation, educational scholarships, 

and internships for our shareholders and shareholder descendants. Through these 

efforts we have seen a resurgence of Native pride, most noticeably in our youth. Our 

27 

scholarships, internships and mentoring efforts have resulted in Native shareholder 

employment above 80% in our corporate headquarters, and significant Native employment in our logging operations. 

ANCSA authorized the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage that land so that Native people would be empowered to meet their own cultural, 

social, and economic needs. H.R. 1408 is critically important to Sealaska, which is 

charged with meeting these goals in Southeast Alaska. 

Glacier Bay National Park 

In 1971, Congress tasked Native Corporations with selecting and managing sacred sites on behalf of the Native community. Legislation introduced on Sealaska’s 

behalf during the 110th Congress proposed the conveyance to Sealaska of a handful 

of sacred, cultural, traditional and historic sites in Glacier Bay National Park, based 

on precedent for such transfers to Indian Tribes in National Parks in the lower 48 

states. As a result of concerns expressed regarding these potential conveyances, 

Sealaska sought an adjustment to the legislation to provide merely for ‘‘cooperative 

management’’ of the sites. 

With the National Park Service continuing to express concern regarding the ‘‘cooperative management’’ language in the bill, Congressman Young agreed to help resolve the concerns, and further revised the Glacier Bay language to clarify that the 

cooperative management requirement applies only to Glacier Bay sacred sites identified in the bill, to avoid any misperception that such language could apply to the 

entire Park. 

Cooperative management agreements would ensure Native use and management 

of the handful of very significant sacred and cultural sites identified within Glacier 

Bay, regardless of future changes in Park management. This language does not propose to negate the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the Park and 

the Huna Indian Association (HIA), and there have been discussions about revising 

the language to address a few additional concerns of HIA. As with all elements of 

this legislation, Sealaska remains open to a continued dialogue on this matter. 

Conservation Considerations 

We were disheartened last year when a handful of environmental groups disseminated blatant misinformation about this legislation. We think these groups must 

view this legislation as a part of a larger compromise between development and conservation, and by publishing statements like ‘‘Stop the Corporate takeover of the 

Tongass’’, these groups chose to ignore the Native equitable and other public benefits of this legislation. This only hurts our communities and the people who live 

there, including those who survive on jobs created by Sealaska. 

This legislation is fundamentally about the ancestral and traditional homeland of 

a people who have lived for 10,000 years in Southeast Alaska. For 145 years, people 

from across the western world have traveled to Southeast Alaska with an interest 

in the rich natural resources of the region—an area the size of Indiana. In the mid1800s, Americans came to hunt for whales. In the late-1800s, gold miners arrived. 

In the first half of the Twentieth century, the fishing industry built traps at the 

river entrances, depleting salmon populations. In the 1950s and 1960s, two pulp 

mills signed contracts with the United States that gave the mills virtually unlimited 

access to Tongass timber. In the meantime, Natives from the late-1800’s through the 

1930’s often were being moved from their traditional villages. 

Some conservation groups represent the latest influx of people with an idea about 

what best serves the public interest in the Tongass. In fairness, the conservation 

community writ large has long fought to preserve the Tongass for its wilderness and 

ecological values, and often I have appreciated the balance that the conservation 

community seeks for the forest. 

What I do not appreciate is environmentalism that does not recognize the human 

element—that people have to live in this forest. I do not accept environmentalism 

that does not recognize that the Tongass is a Native place. We welcome people to 

our homeland—but we do not appreciate the assault by some on our right to exist 

and subsist in the Tongass. 

There are groups that consistently agree with us that we should have our land, 

but wish to decide—to the smallest detail—where that land should be. We have 

been asked to place as much as two million acres of conservation on the back of 

our legislation as the price for selecting lands that make cultural and economic 

sense to our people. Native people have always been asked to go second. Let’s not 

forget that H.R. 1408 addresses the existing land entitlement of the Native people 

of Southeast Alaska. 

In attempting to resolve Sealaska’s unfortunate dilemma in an equitable manner, 

the Alaska Congressional delegation has been careful to draft legislation to be in 

28 

alignment with the current Administration’s stated objectives for the Tongass and 

other national forests. 

Moreover, while original withdrawal limitations make it difficult for Sealaska to 

meet its traditional, cultural, historic and—certainly—economic needs, these original withdrawn lands are not without significant and important public interest 

value. For example, approximately 85 percent of those lands now withdrawn for 

Sealaska are classified by the Forest Service as inventoried roadless areas. A significant portion is Productive Old-Growth forest (some 112,000 acres), with over half 

of that being Old Growth Habitat LUD as classified under the 2008 Amendment to 

the Tongass Land Use Management Plan. H.R. 1408 allows these roadless old 

growth lands to return to public ownership, to be managed as the federal government and general public sees fit. 

Some groups claim that ‘‘the lands that Sealaska proposes to select...are located 

within watersheds that have extremely important public interest fishery and wildlife habitat values.’’ They are correct in a general sense. We agree that all lands 

in our region are valuable; our federal lands and our Native lands should be managed responsibly. We acknowledge the need for conservation areas and conservation 

practices in the Tongass. This bill meets those goals. 

Sealaska remains fully committed to responsible management of the forestlands 

for their value as part of the larger forest ecosystem. At the core of Sealaska’s land 

management ethic is the perpetuation of a sustainable, well-managed forest to 

produce timber and to maintain forest ecological functions. We have attached a 2- 

page summary of Sealaska’s land and stewardship practices to this testimony. 

Time is of the Essence 

Timing is critical to the success of the legislative proposal before you today. Without a legislative solution, we are faced with choosing between two scenarios that ultimately will result in dire public policy consequences for our region. If H.R. 1408 

is stalled during the 112th Congress, either Sealaska will be forced to terminate all 

of its timber operations within approximately one year for lack of timber availability 

on existing land holdings, resulting in job losses in a region experiencing severe economic depression, or Sealaska must select lands that are currently available to it 

in existing withdrawal areas. If forced to select within the existing boxes, development will inevitably occur in the inventoried roadless areas available today to 

Sealaska. 

Sealaska Recognizes the Importance of the Public Process 

The alternative selection pool identified in the Sealaska bill is a product of an exceptional public process, including three previous Congressional hearings, more than 

a dozen meetings held by Senator Murkowski’s staff in Southeast communities, and 

hundreds of community meetings held by Sealaska. 

The Sealaska bill has the support of the full Alaska delegation and many residents, communities and tribes throughout Southeast Alaska and statewide: • The legislation is supported by the National Congress of American Indians, 

the Intertribal Timber Council, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the ANCSA 

Regional Presidents & CEOs, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes, and numerous tribes throughout Southeast Alaska. • The Alaska Forest Association—which works with and represents Southeast 

Alaska’s remaining timber mills—fully supports the Sealaska legislation. • The Sealaska bill represents a net gain to the U.S. Forest Service of roadless 

and old growth timber in the Tongass National Forest. The legislation is fundamentally aligned with the goals of the Obama Administration. 

Some critics of this bill want to shut down this legislation because it might mean 

that Sealaska selects lands in ‘‘their’’ backyard, near ‘‘their’’ favorite spots. This is 

understandable. But every acre of the Tongass is precious to someone and we need 

somewhere to go to fulfill our entitlement. Sealaska has been careful to select lands 

that are part of the Forest Service’s timber base. Sealaska has compromised and 

adjusted its legislation several times on the basis of community and even individual 

concerns. 

Congressman Don Young has worked to Resolve Federal, State, and Local 

Concerns 

To address federal, state and local community concerns, Congressman Young committed to reintroducing legislation that: 

• drops lands proposed for conveyance to Sealaska on northeastern Prince of 

Wales Island near Red Bay, and incorporates new lands into the pool of lands 

that would be available to Sealaska for Native selections—all new lands identified in the legislation are to be added solely on the basis of meetings with 

communities and other stakeholders in Southeast Alaska; 

29 

• revises language that allows Native Corporations to work with the Secretary 

of Agriculture under the Tribal Forest Protection Act to address fire hazards 

and spruce bark beetle infestations, and language that allows Native Corporations, as owners of Indian cemetery sites and historical places in Alaska, to 

work with the Secretary of the Interior to secure support under the National 

Historic Preservation Act—our revised bill language clarifies that these 

amendments do not create Indian country in Alaska; 

• clarifies that the conveyance of Native sacred sites is subject to the criteria 

and procedures applicable to the selection of sacred sites under ANCSA; 

• amends the bill to protect local guide permits on lands that would be conveyed to Sealaska; 

• provides that the conveyances of smaller parcels (also called Native future 

sites), which are subject to significant development restrictions, are further 

subject to an easement for public access across such lands in addition to public access easements that would be granted under Section 17(b) of ANCSA; 

• provides that Native sacred sites could be conveyed subject to an easement 

for public access across such lands where there is ‘‘no reasonable alternative’’ 

access, a provision that also provides public access rights in addition to the 

public easements that would be available under Section 17(b) of ANCSA; 

• clarifies that any ‘‘site improvement’’ on any sacred site selected by Sealaska 

(for example, construction of a traditional longhouse or an access trail) must 

not be inconsistent with management plans for adjacent public lands; and 

• provides that the BLM shall have additional time to convey ANCSA lands to 

Sealaska. 

Our Future in Southeast Alaska 

Our people have lived in the area that is now the Tongass National Forest since 

time immemorial. The Tongass is the heart and soul of our history and culture. We 

agree that areas of the region should be preserved in perpetuity, but we also believe 

that our people have a right to reasonably pursue economic opportunity so that we 

can continue to live here. H.R. 1408 represents a sincere and open effort to meet 

the interests of the Alaska Native community, regional communities, and the public 

at large. 

It is important for all of us who live in the Tongass, as well as those who value 

the Tongass from afar, to recognize that the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian are committed to maintaining both the natural ecology of the Tongass and the Tongass as 

our home. We therefore ask for a reasoned, open, and respectful process as we attempt to finalize the land entitlement promised to our community 40 years ago. We 

ask for your support for H.R. 1408. 

Gunalche ́esh. Thank you. 

30 


66652.001.eps
31 

[NOTE: Additional attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official 

files.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Mallott. Mr. Claus. 

STATEMENT OF BOB CLAUS, FOREST PROGRAM DIRECTOR, 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, CRAIG, 

ALASKA 

Mr. CLAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Claus, 

and I live in Craig, Alaska. I have a strong commitment to the people and places of Southeast Alaska. I served as an Alaskan State 


66652.002.eps
32 

Trooper on Prince of Wales Island for 15 years, and I continue to 

work every day with the people on the island. 

I have spent many hours visiting with and listening to the people 

who live in the Native villages, fishing towns, and former logging 

camps, which will be most impacted by this bill. 

The lifestyle of rural Alaska is beyond the imagination of most 

Americans. We build and heat our houses with wood that we take 

from the forest. We eat deer from the woods, and we fish in the 

streams and oceans. We arrange our lives around the strength of 

the fish runs, the winter survival of deer, and the abundance of the 

berry harvest. 

People have lived like this in this place for thousands of years. 

People on the island are opposed to this proposal because of the 

changes that they fear. People are afraid that they will lose their 

ability to hunt along the North Prince of Wales road system. 

They are afraid that they will lose their ability to make a living 

from fishing if they lose Federal buffers for salmon streams. They 

are afraid that the transfer of control from the Forest Service to 

the Sealaska Corporation will mean a loss of local year around 

jobs, contributing to the decline of their towns’ economies. 

They are afraid that the loss of protection for karst and cave 

lands will destroy unique geologic features, and adversely impact 

salmon streams. The cost of this bill outweighs the public benefit, 

and the people of Southeast Alaska know it. 

This is shown by the formal letters and resolutions from communities opposing this proposal. I recently heard a story about the 

history of salmon canneries in one of our small towns. 

A big industrial company came to the village, built a cannery, 

and set up fish traps. Local people fish in cans, and earned a laborer’s wage. The fish traps decimated the fish runs. The big company 

pulled out, and what the people got in return was a few years of 

wages, a destroyed fish run, and a traditional culture in disarray. 

How does putting fish in cans until the fish are gone different 

than loading logs on to ships until the logs are gone? Fishing has 

changed since then, and the timber industry has to change, too. 

Community leaders from across the political spectrum are actively working toward a different vision for the future of Southeast 

Alaska, and we believe that an intact forest ecosystem supports the 

billion-dollar fishing industry, the billion-dollar tourism and recreation industry, and the traditional and customary economies practiced by local residents. 

We believe that the community scaled forest products work and 

energy projects are compatible with this economy. This bill with 

this emphasis on clear-cut logging for export is an attack on our 

vision of the future for Southeast Alaska. 

SEACC recognizes Southeast Alaska as a Native place, and supports Sealaska getting lands rightfully owed to them, but we question the balance of this particular bill. One way to measure fairness is through the resource value as measured by timber, existing 

infrastructure, potential for economic development, and habitat 

value. 

The amount and location of the land selection should reflect the 

true costs to the American people. Sealaska has chosen the most 

productive and easily accessible timber stands. The Native futures 

33 

site selections represent the best sites in Southeast Alaska for tourism and energy related development. 

Some of those are in direct conflict with existing small businesses 

and community plans, and all of them block future investment by 

any other party. The potential selection of cultural sites creates 

conflicts within the Native community over who is the appropriate 

owner of cultural sites, and who decides whether a commercial use 

of those lands is appropriate, and whether these lands could be lost 

to creditors. 

This bill fails to find that balance that supports our true sustainable economy. Part of that balance will be to conserve lands to protect fisheries, habitat, and community traditional use areas. 

SEACC remains committed to a broad balanced solution that addresses the interests of the Sealaska Corporation, and respects Native culture, as well as the economic needs of all of the people of 

Southeast Alaska. We oppose this bill because it does not contribute to that solution. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Claus follows:] 

Statement of Bob Claus, Forest Program Director, 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee: 

My name is Bob Claus and I am a community organizer for SEACC based on 

Prince of Wales Island. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today 

and I respectfully request that my written testimony and accompanying materials 

be entered into the official record for this Subcommittee hearing. 

Founded in 1970, SEACC has members all across Southeast Alaska, from Craig 

on Prince of Wales Island to Yakutat. SEACC’s individual members include commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, small timber operators and value-added wood 

manufacturers, tourism and recreation business owners, hunters and guides, and 

Alaskans from all walks of life. 

SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of Southeast Alaska’s unsurpassed 

natural environment while providing for balanced, sustainable use of our region’s 

resources. Southeast Alaska contains magnificent old-growth forests, outstanding 

fish and wildlife habitat, important ‘‘customary and traditional’’ or subsistence use 

areas, excellent water and air quality, unsurpassed outdoor recreation opportunities, 

world class scenery, internationally and nationally significant cave and karst resources, and provides a unique way of life for the hardy, independent people who 

choose to call it home. 

We were invited to testify here today because of our long involvement with this 

legislation. 1 There was a hearing at the Subcommittee on Public Land and Forests 

yesterday across the Capital on the most recent Senate version of this same legislation, S. 730. Unlike the last session, however, the two bills are not identical. 

Unlike H.R. 1408, Senate Bill 730 does not offer hyperbole for fact like the supposed findings in section 2 of the House bill; 2 encroach upon the federally-recognized tribe for the Hoonah Natives government-to-government relationship with the 

National Park Service over their traditional homelands in Glacier Bay National 

Park; threaten as many small communities or valuable fish and wildlife habitat; or 

fail to see the value in conserving internationally significant karst and cave resources, primary fish producing watersheds, and lands recognized by local community leaders as important just the way they are. Senate Bill 730 recognizes the need 

for stream buffers to protect salmon habitat, although including an ill-advised sunset clause. H.R. 1408 should include permanent stream buffers to protect fisheries. 

I want to be clear—the Senate bill is better than H.R. 1408, but that is little consolation to the communities and forest users most directly affected by this legislation. We hope the Chairman uses this opportunity to draft a bill that doesn’t favor 

one interest or community at the expense of others. 

Community leaders from across the political and economic spectrum are actively 

working towards a different vision of the future for Southeast Alaska than that proposed in this bill. Our salmon forest supports the sustainable nearly $1 billion fishing industry, which employs nearly 10 times the number of workers as timber. Our 

fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation opportunities support over a billion dollars in 

direct, indirect, and induced visitor spending in Southeast Alaska, and provide over 

34 

21 percent of the full and part time jobs in Southeast Alaska. 3 The critical foundation of the region’s economy is customary and traditional hunting, fishing and gathering; salmon is the primary source of food for rural Southeast Alaskans. We acknowledge the difficult times and economic desperation that our small communities 

are facing, but logging watersheds vital to food gathering make it even more difficult for them. 4

We believe that sustainable community-scaled forest products work and energy 

projects are compatible with this vision. This bill, with its emphasis on clearcut logging for export, conflicts with that vision of a bright future for Southeast Alaska. 

Communities Placed in Conflict with One Another 

This legislative proposal is extremely controversial and divisive in Southeast Alaska’s small communities. 

One of our proudest national heritages is the freedom that Americans enjoy to access and use our public lands, anyplace and anytime. The lands sought by Sealaska 

will curtail public access and use of public lands and resources. The uncertain scope 

of the permitted activities and location of the easements proposed in H.R. 1408 

raise concerns, as does the authority given Sealaska to control access and use of the 

easements and adjacent lands. 

The small communities of Edna Bay, Naukati, Cape Pole, Hollis, Whale Pass, 

Kupreanof, Thorne Bay, Point Baker and Port Protection have written formal letters 

or resolutions opposing this bill, and these are the communities closest to the transfer areas. Other communities and organizations formally opposed prior versions of 

this legislation. Hundreds of island residents have signed petitions opposing the bill. 

Many residents of these communities closest to the lands threatened by 

H.R. 1408 question how they can continue their shared way of living if Sealaska 

takes their forest. Many wonder if the existing timber industry will be able to transition away from old-growth logging if Sealaska receives the oldest young-growth on 

the forest. 

Residents of the rural communities on Prince of Wales have long used all the 

lands proposed for selection by Sealaska on North Prince of Wales Island, Kosciusko 

and Tuxekan Islands for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. Without the 

legal requirements for public oversight and participation provided these rural residents under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act on 

public lands, they will have no voice on how these ‘‘private’’ lands are managed by 

Sealaska nor will Sealaska be obligated to minimize impacts to subsistence resources and uses from its management. 

Residents of Hydaburg fought to safeguard lands surrounding Keete/Nutkwa and 

Kassa Inlets and Mabel Bay. Sealaska has targeted these traditional lands for the 

short-term economic benefits associated with clearcut logging and round log export 

to Asian markets. The 1989 House-passed version of the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act, H.R. 987, safeguarded these lands permanently by designating them part of 

the Nutkwa Wilderness. The final compromise legislation in 1990 ultimately left 

these lands unprotected. 5 SEACC and others have consistently advocated for longterm protection for these lands ever since. 

Out-Of-Withdrawal Selections for Economic Development Lands in 

H.R. 1408 Disproportionately Target the Most Ecologically Productive 

Lands in Southeast Alaska. 

The pool of lands from which Sealaska is seeking for clearcut logging possess 

some of the highest biological values represented by salmon, deer, black bears, bigtree old-growth forest, and estuaries on the Tongass National Forest. 6

Analysis of earlier versions of this legislation demonstrate that the ecological productivity of the lands sought by Sealaska for intensive clearcut logging is proportionally higher in 2009, with nearly 47,000 (59.2%) of the acres inventoried as big 

tree forest. Recent maps prepared by the Forest Service also show the significant 

overlap between old growth reserves set aside Tongass-wide to safeguard wildlife 

populations and Sealaska’s selections, particularly on the North Prince of Wales, 

Kosciusko, Tuxekan, Election Creek, Polk Inlet, and Keete parcels. Although Section 

6(c) of H.R. 1408 tries to insulate the Forest Service from the effects to the Tongass 

Land Management Plan from conveying the selected lands to Sealaska, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife’s decision not to list the goshawk and Alexander Archipelago wolf 

under the Endangered Species Act was premised on the adequacy of the Tongass 

Conservation Strategy adopted in the Tongass Plan. Given the extensive modification of that conservation strategy on Prince of Wales and surrounding islands that 

will result if this legislation is enacted, the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife 

Service will face serious questions about the status of these old-growth dependent 

wildlife populations. 

35 

A substantial majority of the lands targeted by Sealaska on North Prince of 

Wales, Kosciusko, and Tuxekan Islands contain world-class karst and cave resources. 7 These resources are protected under federal law, and would lose that protection if turned over to Sealaska. Karst terrain occurs on water-soluble bedrock 

such as limestone, dolomite, or gypsum. It is characterized by underground water 

drainage, sinkholes, pits, and caves. These well-drained soils support some of the 

most majestic old-growth forest on the Tongass. Approximately 71% of the lands 

identified for conveyance by Sealaska are underlain by karst. The forest canopy protects the thin soils atop karst from eroding directly into the soluble rock below. Past 

and proposed clearcut logging on these fragile soils disrupt the natural hydrology, 

harm cave formations that hold information of thousands of years of climate change, 

and alter sediments that hold keys to understanding patterns of human migration 

into the Americas as well as other paleontological clues to our past. Eleven years 

ago, the Forest Service discovered human remains in On Your Knees cave on North 

Prince of Wales Island. DNA testing determined that these human remains were 

10,300 years old. The oldest human remains in Alaska have been found in this cave 

system, and it has not yet been fully explored or mapped. See FOREST SERVICE RE- TURNS ANCIENT HUMAN REMAINS TO TLINGIT TRIBES, Juneau Empire (Oct. 21, 

2007). 8

Futures Sites 

The Native futures sites selections represent the best sites in all of Southeast 

Alaska for tourism and energy related development. Some are in direct conflict with 

existing small businesses and community plans, and all block future investment by 

any other party. Some sites, like Pegmatite Mountain, Spring Creek, and Blake 

Channel are actively opposed by local communities. 9

Unfair to US Taxpayers 

Sealaska’s proposed selections contain millions of dollars worth of public roads 

and facilities built at taxpayer expense, unlike the areas they are currently authorized to select. One way to measure fairness is through the resource value, as measured by timber, existing infrastructure, potential for economic development, and 

habitat values. The amount and location of land selections should reflect the true 

costs to the American public and not just the total number of acres. This should 

be a value for value exchange, not an acre for acre exchange. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the proposed legislation. 

Endnotes for SEACC’s Testimony on H.R. 1408 

1 By this reference, we incorporate testimony we gave the Committee in 2007 on 

H.R. 3560 (available at http://seacc.org/files/FINAL%20SEACC%20H.R.% 

203560%20testimony%2011–14–07.pdf) and last spring on H.R. 2099 (available 

at http://seacc.org/files/SEACC%20Testimony%20%20on%20HR%202099%203– 

31–10%20LH%20%282%29.pdf) into the record for today’s hearing, as well as 

supporting documentation provided committee staff. 2This problem is exemplified in section 3(5)(B) of H.R. 1408’s statement that the $7.5 million awarded by the Court of Claims to the Tlingit-Haida Central Council (THCC) ‘‘did not justify the significant disparate treatment of Sealaska 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act’’ exemplifies our point. Both the 

historical record of Alaska Native land claims and the legislative record for the 

ANCSA reveal that the 1968 settlement was the sole reason Congress decided 

to treat Southeast Alaska Natives differently from other Alaska Natives in the 

ANCSA. See e.g., Section 13(d), H.R. 10367, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, 117 

CONG. REC. 37,067 (1971). 3McDowell Group, Economic Impact of Alaska’s Visitor Industry, Table 9 at p. 20 

(March 2010). This report is available at—http://www.dced.state.ak.us/ded/dev/ 

pub/Visitor_Industry_Impacts_3_30.pdf. 4 As noted by experts at the Alaska Department of Labor: ‘‘Living in Alaska involves 

higher costs no matter where you live, but living in rural Alaska increases those 

costs even more.’’ Alaska Economic Trends at 15 (May 2011) available at http:// 

labor.state.ak.us/trends/may11.pdf 5See House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Amending ANILCA to Designate Certain Lands in the Tongass National Forest as Wilderness, and For 

Other Purposes, H.R. 987, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., (1989), reprinted in House Report No. 101—84, Part I, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., (1989). As reported, the House 

passed H.R. 987 by a vote of 356 to 60, with 15 not voting. See 135 CONG. REC. 

3718 (daily ed. July 13, 1989)(designating approximately 52,654 acres as the 

Nutkwa Wilderness). That fall, Congress enacted the Tongass Timber Reform 

36 

Act into law. See Pub. L. 101–626, 104 Stat. 4426 (Nov. 28, 1990)(designating 

approximately 28,118 acres as the Nutkwa LUD II Management Area). The 

nearly 25,000 acre of lands unprotected in the final legislation are the lands at 

risk in H.R. 1408. 6Schoen, John and Erin Dovichin, eds. 2007. The Coastal Forests and Mountain 

Ecoregion of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. Audubon 

Alaska and The Nature Conservancy, 715 L Street, Anchorage, Alaska. This 

complete report is available online at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/ 

akcfm. See also Exhibit 3 to SEACC’s Testimony on S.881 (Oct. 8, 2009)(a map 

comparing Landscape Scale Density of Oldgrowth Forests 1950’s—2005 on the 

southern portion of the Tongass National Forests with the land pool proposed 

for selection by Sealaska) available at http://seacc.org/files/SEACC%20Final% 

20Testimony%20for%2010–08–09%20Hrg%20on%20S881.pdf 7See Exhibit 4 to SEACC’s Testimony on S.881 (Oct. 8, 2009)(available at http:// 

seacc.org/files/SEACC%20Final%20Testimony%20for%2010–08– 

09%20Hrg%20on%20S881.pdf 8This story can be found on the web at http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/ 

102107/loc_20071021021.shtml. 9See e.g., http://m.juneauempire.com/local/2011–05–07/tenakee-springs-opposes-seal 

aska-and-ipec-geothermal-site-selection 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Claus. Mr. Graham. 

STATEMENT OF OWEN GRAHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. And thanks for the opportunity to 

speak in support of this legislation. The shortage of timber supply 

in Southeast Alaska has led to severe hardship for many people. 

Congress has set aside about 10 million acres in the region as 

wilderness, national monuments, parks, legislated roadless areas. 

Those reserves, which include about two million acres of forestland, 

were permanently set aside largely to satisfy the demands of environmental groups. 

Even with all this land set aside in perpetuity, there is still 

ample forestland to support a viable timber industry. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to most of that, that non-set aside 

forestland. 

The non-Federal lands comprise only about 6 percent of the 

region, and although the State and the private landowners do a 

good job of managing their timberlands, their lands are insufficient 

to supply the minimum volume needed to keep our industry viable 

and sustainable. 

Sealaska is a good steward of the land. I have seen it with my 

own eyes, and I have worked with them for over 30 years. They do 

a good job of harvesting their timber, following the State practices, 

and they do a good job with the reforest station, and they do a lot 

of science studies. 

They protect their fishery values, and they are a good company, 

and a good organization. When Congress made their wilderness 

and roadless withdrawals, they promised to continue to supply 

roughly 12,000 acres of timber annually to support the timber industry and the economy in the region. 

But that promise has not been fulfilled. In 1990, when Congress 

enacted the Tongass Timber Reform Act, we had over 3,000 direct 

jobs in our industry, but immediately after TTRA was passed, the 

supply of timber from the National Forests began to decline dramatically. 

37 

At the same time, timber supplies from most of the small Native 

village lands also declined. The Federal lands are currently providing only about 1,000 acres of timber annually. That is less than 

10 percent of the promised timber supply. 

And yet environmental groups still appeal and litigate nearly 

every timber sale that is prepared. Although both Sealaska and the 

State have continued to provide timber, they just manage a small 

amount of timberland in the region. 

And even without those supplies from the State and the private 

timberlands, our mills would be gone already. In fact, we are down 

to one medium-sized sawmill, and a handful of real small sawmills. 

Of the timber industry people who lost their jobs over the last 

20 years, about two-thirds had to leave the region to find work. 

This created a great hardship, not just for them, but also for the 

communities that they left. 

Many of the people who were able to find work and remain living 

in the region are now facing potential layoffs again as Sealaska’s 

timber supply dwindles. These people will not be able to find jobs 

a second time because there will be no jobs unless both Sealaska 

and the Forest Service are allowed to continue their timber operations. 

Passage of H.R. 1408 will provide Sealaska the opportunity to 

continue their operations and we hope that Congress will also support and encourage the Forest Service to restore the Federal timber 

supply that we were promised so long ago. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:] 

Statement of Owen Graham, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young, and members of the Committee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record of this important hearing on 

H.R. 1408. 

My name is Owen Graham. I am executive director of the Alaska Forest Association. The AFA is the statewide association representing companies engaged in forest 

practices including support companies. We have 115 members and represent timber 

companies, loggers, trucking and towing companies, suppliers, and other members 

who have a stake in the future of a vital and hopefully healthy timber economy in 

Alaska. 

AFA strongly supports the passage of H.R. 1408 without delay. Passage of this 

bill is critical to the future of our remaining industry. Alaska Native timber is in 

decline in part because ANCSA land entitlement has not been fulfilled, even though 

ANCSA was passed over three decades ago. The Native lands represent only about 

3% of the land in Southeast Alaska, but Sealaska’s timber operations, currently support about 40% of the forest industry employment in the region because of the inappropriate reductions in timber harvest from federal lands. 

Drastic reductions in the federal timber sale program since 1990, after the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act was enacted, have been disastrous for our industry and 

our communities. The federal lands comprise about 94% of the total land in the region and, as a result of the dramatic decline in federal timber sales; our industry 

has declined over 90%. If Sealaska is unable to continue their forestry operation, 

we will not be able to maintain much of our industry support infrastructure—transportation companies, fuel barges, equipment suppliers, etc. 

Even though the Forest Service has a timber plan in place which claims to provide up to 267 million board feet annually, the agency has only offered about 15 

mmbf of new timber sales annually. Because the timber sale program on federal 

lands is so unreliable, it is critical that private timber be available to support our 

industry. In most states, there is a mix of federal, state, and private timber which 

provides more opportunity to compensate for periodic declines in the federal timber 

sale program. We do not have that diversity of land ownership in Southeast Alaska, 

but it is vitally needed. This legislation will move the region a little closer to balance. 

38 

From today’s struggles described above, AFA hopes our industry can be restored 

to a level closer to what we had in 1990.That is why the passage of this bill is so 

vital and so timely. This committee and Congress need to act immediately. 

Please do not be persuaded by those who claim the passage of this bill will threaten wildlife viability or plant diversity. This is simply not true. There are millions 

of acres under complete protection in the Tongass including nearly 7 million acres 

of wilderness or legislated LUD II areas where development is statutorily prohibited. These legislatively set-aside areas include about 2 million acres of commercial 

timberland. The Tongass Land Management Plan administratively sets aside more 

than 3 million additional acres of commercial timberland. The commercial lands 

that are the subject of this legislation total less than 85 thousand acres—less than 

2% of the commercial timberlands in Southeast Alaska. 

Sealaska is a good steward for their lands. They comply with the State Forest 

Practices Act regulations and they put an effort into managing their young-growth 

timber for the future. In addition, their lands are managed to allow timber, wildlife 

and fish to all prosper on the same acres. I have seen this with my own eyes. 

Some of those who speak against this legislation are the same people that have 

used administrative appeals, litigation and political pressure to drive down the timber supply from federal lands. 

A number of small communities have expressed concerns about potential impacts 

on the timber supply for local processors. Further, these communities fear a loss of 

recreational and subsistence access to the lands that Sealaska has selected. 

Sealaska has addressed these concerns; land selections have been modified to avoid 

the most contentious areas and Sealaska has agreed to provide public access to their 

lands. Further, the Forest Service timber sale plans for these areas indicate no conflict over the next few years and the agency has ample opportunity to adjust the 

forest plan to account for potential future timber sale impacts. After all, the forest 

plan has about three million acres of commercial forestland held in reserve that 

could be put to use if needed. 

Fish streams, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities are already well protected in this region; what is not assured is the future of our timber industry. We 

have lost 90% of our employment due primarily to a decline in the availability of 

timber from the federal lands in the region. We cannot afford to reduce the timber 

supply from private lands as well. 

Sealaska has agreed to provide access to their lands for both subsistence and recreational hunting and fishing and Sealaska’s operations will provide continued jobs 

and other economic benefits to both regional and local communities. 

This bill does not finalize the total acres that Sealaska will receive under ANSCA, 

so we recommend that the committee instruct the BLM to work with Sealaska to 

negotiate the final entitlement. 

Thank you again. The AFA urges immediate passage of this bill to help keep our 

industry alive and our communities healthy. 

REGIONAL IMPACTS 

• Sealaska employment and its contractor employment combined is the largest 

for-profit sector employer in Southeast Alaska. 

• Many Southeast communities, including Juneau, experience some level of economic impact from Sealaska timber harvest operations. 

• In 2008 Sealaska Corporation, Sealaska Timber Corporation and Sealaska 

Heritage Institute spend $45 million in Southeast Alaska. 

• Sealaska and its contractors directly employed 363 workers in 2008 

• Including both direct and indirect employment, Sealaska-related employment 

totaled nearly 490 workers and $21 million in payroll in 2008. 

Summary 

• The timber industry and the communities in Southeast Alaska need the continued economic activity provided by Sealaska’s operations. 

• The only impacts on the federal timber supply for local sawmills in the next 

5-years are two commercial thinning projects proposed on Kosciusko Island 

(both of which have questionable economic viability). Beyond the next 5-years, 

there is a potential 2% impact, but that impact can easily be avoided by 

minor schedule changes. 

• We need to sustain all of our timber employment—both from private and public lands—and there is more than adequate timber available to do so. The 

maximum timber harvest rate over the next 100-years would still leave about 

90% of the existing old-growth commercial timberlands untouched. 

39 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Graham. All witnesses and Members are reminded that they have five minutes, and we will go for 

a second round of questioning. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate you 

taking over for me, and a thank you to the witnesses, and I do 

apologize, but I did achieve my goal on the Defense Bill, and so I 

feel quite good about that. 

Byron, the question of public access to lands that Sealaska would 

acquire in the Prince of Wales Island has been raised by some of 

the residents, the local communities on that island. 

I have received letters that suggest that people who have lived 

there on these lands and used these lands for 30 years, and that 

Sealaska should avoid land selections near these communities, or 

how is that going to work? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Sealaska has never posted its lands, except in very 

specific instances for specific reasons, and this is over almost a 40 

year period now, and we would not do so in the future. 

The legislation, and the discussions, and the agreements that 

Sealaska has reached with virtually all of the parties involved 

would make essentially unparalleled public access available 

through and on to Sealaska’s lands, and Jaeleen may have a more 

specific answer if she might be given the opportunity, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, in fact, Byron, wouldn’t it be only fair to say 

that the Forest Service could prohibit use of that land as it is supposedly Federal lands, and it remains in the Forest Service’s 

hands, and they could keep people off that land, too. And you are 

not saying that is going to be done and under your jurisdiction, correct? 

Mr. MALLOTT. We are not saying that. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is good, because the Forest Service, I know that 

they have restricted before and restricted uses for types of vehicles, 

et cetera, already. So I don’t know why there are concerns. 

I get very concerned about those that say that this is their right. 

This is not their right, and I know that I have talked to people, 

and they say, well, we have been doing this all these years. It is 

on Federal land, and they have not been restricted before. 

So I commend the Sealaska people for saying, yes, there will be 

utilization on that land. No structures, but utilization and for recreational purposes. Byron, again, I introduced this bill in 2007, and 

it has been vetted throughout the region. 

I have made some modifications based on suggestions received, 

and there seems to be new criticisms every time we introduce the 

bill. Can you describe the negotiations in communities, and the 

work that you have done trying to get a solution? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Sealaska has had almost 200 meetings throughout 

the region with individuals, with groups, with communities. It has 

been involved in the Tongass Futures Roundtable process, which 

has all of the interests in the Tongass National Forest at the table. 

The sacred sites, particularly the future sites, have been modified over the course of three Congresses in which this bill has now 

been introduced, and we continue to this day to discuss and negotiate issues that others have a concern with. 

40 

We feel that we have been fully responsive, fully transparent, 

and we are at a point where we are not sure how much more that 

in the interests of our tribal members, trial member shareholders, 

that we can give. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, again, I have watched this process, and I am 

deeply disturbed by those that keep saying that something is 

wrong with the bill after you negotiate with them, and my goal, 

Mr. Chairman, is to move this legislation as soon as possible. 

You also said that this legislation is the most important economic 

stimulus package that Congress could implement for Southeast 

Alaska. We keep talking about jobs. What is the estimated jobs if 

this thing goes forth for that area? 

Mr. MALLOTT. At the very minimum, there would be hundreds of 

jobs. The opportunity to essentially reconstitute the core of a sustainable timber industry is what we are talking about. If this bill 

is not passed, and Sealaska does not gain access to lands that it 

is entitled to, both for timber harvests and for other purposes—and 

I emphasize the other purposes. They are many, and they have to 

do with our existence in the forests—it is very likely that the timber industry will go away. 

And whether it will ever be reconstituted is problematic. I believe 

that even the United States Forest Service recognizes that, and 

they are I think anxious that somehow the issues be resolved so 

that we can work together to build an industry that is sustainable 

over time. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Byron, and my time is up, and I will 

come back for a second round of questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Mallott, you talked about reforestation. Are 

there plans when trees are harvested? I come from Michigan, and 

my dad’s first job was as a lumberjack, and in 1919, the last load 

of virgin timber in the lower peninsula of Michigan was hauled into 

Trevor City, Michigan. 

And they didn’t think about reforestation. I am pleased that you 

are aware of the fact that reforestation is a very important element 

of forestry, of the timber industry. Back in 1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt saw that, and saw what had happened in Michigan, and 

most of the white pine built most of the houses in Chicago. 

And we planted trees in 1935 and 1936, and I was about five 

years old then, and those trees now are mature trees, and probably 

not as big as some of the huge trees that were harvested originally. 

Are you talking with the USDA about reforestation plans if you 

get access to more of this area where you can do forestry? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Yes, Congressman. Sealaska has an active reforestation and silvicultural program underway on our current lands. 

We spend multimillions on reforestation on steep slopes, for example. 

We live in a very wet climate, and dealing with slopping lands 

is very much an issue. we have relationships with several western 

universities that have specific programs that provide both advice 

and on the ground direction involved in reforestation and the full 

range of silvicultural practices. 

And we know, for example, that we can both from an economic 

perspective, but again from a multi-use perspective maximize both 

41 

the availability and the diversity of second growth through very active silvicultural practices, and we are committed to that, and we 

are engaged in it today at a very high level. 

Mr. KILDEE. All right. I would encourage you to continue that. 

I am not sure what will finally happen to this bill. I know that Mr. 

Young is really determined and has been pushing this for a long 

time, and I think we can do certain things that will help reach your 

goals, while at the same time preserving those things that maybe 

should not be touched, right? 

And then along with reforestation, perhaps we can put something together, but I know what reforestation has done to Michigan. It has helped a great deal, and we should have done much 

more. 

But I think that is something that we did not think of from 1919 

to 1935, and it took Franklin Roosevelt to get the idea of planting 

trees about that high with the Civilian Conservation Corps, and 

young men out there planting those trees. 

But I think that we have to do it in a more scientific manner 

than how we did it in 1935 in Michigan, but I encourage you to 

stay involved in that. 

Mr. MALLOTT. We fully agree. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Claus, in your testimony, very dramatic testimony, you mentioned that there could be 

a point in time when there are no more logs. 

Do you really think that there could be a point in time, and is 

there any type of plan out there to harvest everything? 

Mr. CLAUS. I don’t know. I don’t believe there is a plan to harvest 

everything. I think that would be an exaggeration. What I do believe—— 

Mr. DENHAM. We hear a lot of exaggerations here in this House. 

So, I just wanted to confirm that. 

Mr. CLAUS. Well, I do think that there is a limited amount of old 

growth timber. There is a limited amount of the kind of timber that 

does support our salmon fisheries, and that does support our habitat for endangered species, like the wolf, and the deer that people 

eat. 

And that is in limited supply, especially in the lower elevations, 

and where things are easily accessible. There is a limit to the 

amount of old growth timber that can be taken off the Tongass National Forest. 

Mr. DENHAM. And I agree. And would there also be a limit on 

how much too much growth would be, and where it actually leaves 

a community in jeopardy? In my district, we have a lot of mountainous areas, and at a certain point in my district, when you get 

too much growth, my communities become very concerned. 

And when we have forest fires that not only destroys the forest, 

but also destroys the homes and the towns in that area. Is there 

a point in your estimation where you have too much growth? 

Mr. CLAUS. In Southeast Alaska, we don’t face the kind of fire 

danger that is faced in many other forests across the country. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you can never have too much growth there? 

Mr. CLAUS. I don’t believe so. No, sir. 

42 

Mr. DENHAM. And since 1990 do you know how many timber 

sales Sealaska or SEACC has gone on record to support? 

Mr. CLAUS. Have gone on record to support? 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes. 

Mr. CLAUS. I don’t know. I don’t that. 

Mr. DENHAM. You don’t know, or is there a number? Have you 

supported any plans? 

Mr. CLAUS. Well, what we have done is that we have been working with the Forest Service in a different way in the last five or 

six years in a collaborative way to try to make the timber sales 

more realistic from our point of view to avoid the kind of litigation, 

and the things that have gone on in the past, and I think we have 

been successful at that. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you have been successful in working with the 

Forest Service, and you have supported the plans that the Forest 

Service has put out? 

Mr. CLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. And you have gone on record to support that? 

Mr. CLAUS. I don’t know that. We have worked with them, on the 

Sandy Creek Project, and—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I am just asking how many times you have gone 

on the record to support the Forest Service? 

Mr. CLAUS. The Central—— 

Mr. DENHAM. It sounds like you have worked with a lot of different folks, and a lot of different agencies. 

Mr. CLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. I just want you to go on record and tell me which 

ones you have supported, and if there has been a plan out there 

that you have supported, and if you could provide that to us for the 

record? 

Mr. CLAUS. The most recent one is the Central Cooper sale, and 

that is ongoing, and we can provide more details to you at a later 

time. I don’t have that in front of me. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And it is my understanding that you 

are not prepared to support Mr. Young’s bill at this time. The Senate version, as I understand, does not go quite as far as Mr. 

Young’s bill. Do you support that version? 

Mr. CLAUS. We do not support the Senate version, but it is considerably closer, and I think that with further work with the 

Sealaska Corporation and other entities that might be closer to 

something that we could accept than this bill. 

Mr. DENHAM. Are you in any type of discussions, or are there 

pieces of that bill that you are offering your concern on issues? 

Mr. CLAUS. I am sorry, sir, but I didn’t understand that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Is there anything specifically in that bill that you 

are looking to change so that you can gain your support? 

Mr. CLAUS. We think that there ought to be more conservation 

added to the bill to balance off the timberlands that Sealaska has 

and that we have concerns about. Certain of the future sites, yes, 

sir. So those things we would be happy to discuss in detail. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Claus, I don’t 

know anything about your entity, OK? So you tell me what the 

43 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council is, and also what your position as Forest Program Director entails? 

Mr. CLAUS. Yes, Ma’am. The Southeast Alaska Conservation 

Council, or SEACC, is a 40-year-old organization, and 41 years old 

this year. We have been involved in timber policy on the Tongass 

since then. 

We are a group of members of approximately 1500 members, 

most of them Alaskans, most of them individual people. We have 

a small staff of about 10. My job as the Forest Program Director 

is to help advise on policy to our board of directors. 

And I have a small staff right now of myself and two others who 

do community organizing work in the communities, and mostly in 

Wrangell right now, and Ketchikan, which are our focuses. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So it just happens that it is about 40 years old? 

Did its creation coincide with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act? 

Mr. CLAUS. I don’t think so. It was a coincidence that the land 

issues at that time were the big issue of the day, and SEACC was 

formed at the same time, yes. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Has SEACC been active in all of the discussions 

on the Native Alaskan Settlement Act? In other words, when other 

entities, or other of the 12 entities have actually withdrawn lands, 

have you participated in the process like you are doing here today? 

Mr. CLAUS. Our focus is on forest issues in Southeast Alaska and 

around the Tongass National Forest, and the intersection of the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act with that is not a direct one. 

We have not. So, no, we have not been outside of the region working with the Claims Act. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So anything regarding the Tongass, in that area, 

you have been participating as a voice in terms of how the lands 

are being withdrawn. Would that be a correct statement? 

Mr. CLAUS. Yes, Ma’am. 

Ms. HANABUSA. You said something in your testimony that I 

found a bit troubling. You mentioned the cultural sites, and as I 

stated earlier, issues regarding Native rights, and especially their 

cultural practices, are very dear to me. 

You said that you didn’t know who really owned those sites, and 

who had a right to those sites. Do you remember that part of your 

testimony earlier? 

Mr. CLAUS. Yes. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Could you tell me what you meant by that? 

Mr. CLAUS. Yes, and what my concern is that I hear from Native 

people is that they don’t know that a corporation like Sealaska 

would be the best carrier, the best owner, of cultural sites that they 

believe are attached to their clans. 

And I don’t speak for them. I was saying what I hear are some 

of the concerns from the Native community, and that is as much 

as I should probably say about that. 

Ms. HANABUSA. But your testimony was that you didn’t believe 

it, and so you are saying that it is not you, per se, but it is the 

Native peoples that you spoke to that are saying that? 

Mr. CLAUS. I am sorry if I misspoke. My concern is that there 

is a conflict inside the Native community about how management 

44 

of the cultural sites should go forward, and I think that needs to 

be resolved by the Native people, and not by me. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Do you consider yourself a Native person? 

Mr. CLAUS. I do not. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So, Mr. Mallott, could you tell me what you consider to be these cultural sites that Mr. Claus has difficulties explaining why he made that statement, other than some Native people said to him that they think that there is an issue regarding 

whether Sealaska should do it? 

Are you very clear in your own mine, Mr. Mallott, as to what are 

those Native cultural sites? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Very, very, very vividly clear. They are sacred 

sites that we have an incredibly long historical, and cultural, and 

traditional attachment to, and we want to protect into time immemorial. 

And a for profit corporation is not really what Sealaska is. We 

represent tribal people, Native people, and protecting those sacred 

sites are among our very highest priorities. I would like to ask if 

I could for Jaeleen to comment. Jaeleen is Sealaska’s General 

Counsel. She is also a tribal member shareholder, and knows this 

issue intimately. 

Ms. HANABUSA. I am sorry, but you are out of time, but Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am happy to provide an extra minute. 

Ms. HANABUSA. You will have a minute. Thank you very much. 

Please proceed. 

Ms. ARAUJO. Thank you, Congresswoman. I just want to add that 

Alaska as you know was treated very differently in terms of Native 

land claims. Alaska Native Corporations are the only ones with an 

entitlement to Native lands. 

Our tribes currently don’t have that right, and so if our cultural 

properties are going to go into Native ownership, it will have to be 

through our corporations. We are the only ones in Southeast, in 

terms of a Native institution, that have a remaining entitlement, 

and so we would like to use some of that to get some of our Native 

cultural properties back into Native ownership. 

We have the support of many of our tribes, and our intention 

with these cultural properties, and we already have draft MOUs in 

progress with the tribes, and to work with our tribes to manage 

these properties in perpetuity in a way that is appropriate for our 

local tribes, and our local clans. 

But we are the only ones with the Native land entitlements, and 

so we would like to use that on behalf of our tribes, and because 

all of our shareholders are tribal member shareholders. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, and as Mr. Mallott said, 10,000 years 

in the past, and 10,000 years in the future. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Owen, you have been listening to the testimony. How many acres are in the Tongass? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Seventeen million. 

Mr. YOUNG. Seventeen million. And what are we talking about 

in this bill? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Oh, 80,000 roughly. 

45 

Mr. YOUNG. So, 80,000 and 17 million, and Mr. Claus says that 

the world is coming to an end, and there is not going to be any 

more timber. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. What happened to the timber industry? You have 

been in it for 40 years. How has it changed in the Southeast? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, we have lost 90 percent of our employment. 

We have lost most of our mills. We had two large pulp mills, and 

three large sawmills, and a lot of medium-sized mills. 

We have one medium-sized mill left, and all the rest of it is gone, 

and the people are gone. A few of them are working for Sealaska, 

and we are trying to hang on to those jobs. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I am interested, because Mr. Sherman mentioned that the Forest Service is supposed to supply under the 

present Tongass Land Management Plan, I think, 267 million 

board feet annually? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. And how much do they usually offer? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Over the last 10 years, new timber sales have been 

less, way less, than 20 million board feet per year, way less than 

10 percent. 

Mr. YOUNG. Less than 10 percent? Mr. Chairman, I have to say 

that as an example, we are talking about 80,000 acres of land, and 

the Forest Service is supposed to guarantee 267,000 acres of land, 

and Mr. Claus, how many—and again I go back to the Chairman’s 

question. How many sales have you ever supported? One? 

Mr. CLAUS. That is the most recent one that I recall. I don’t 

know about others. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, with all due respect, but I have been in this 

business a long time, and you have never supported a sale. Even 

this one, you are not really happy with it that we do support if. 

I have been here a long time, and I have watched your organization 

destroy an industry. 

We passed the Tongass National Forest Plan, and we were told 

by your group, Peace In the Valley, we are going to have small 

sawmills, and we are going to support you. You have never supported a thing. You want to kill the industry, and you have tried 

to kill us, and you have done a good job of doing it. 

And isn’t it true that if we don’t get this bill passed, is there any 

chance for any—Sealaska or any other industry in Southeast Alaska, that will work? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, you know, Sealaska is the anchor for our industry, and we are just struggling to hang on right now. If we lose 

Sealaska, we will lose 40 percent of what we have left, and our 

health insurance program would collapse. I think our pension program would collapse. 

I think that a lot of our infrastructure, towing, and suppliers, 

would collapse. I think that it is extremely likely that it would all 

just crumble apart. 

Mr. YOUNG. Byron, I will go back to you again. You are picking 

lands that have mostly been logged already, correct? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. And there is a road structure in, right? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Yes. 

46 

Mr. YOUNG. So we are not doing anything really new. How would 

that—how is the comment that it will affect the fishing industry 

when it has already been logged? How does that jive? 

Mr. MALLOTT. It doesn’t. We are among the strongest supporters 

and local participants in the Southeast Fishing industry. 

Mr. YOUNG. So you are a fisherman? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Yes, salmon, and halibut, and other species, and 

we would be the last to try to be involved in any practices that 

would destroy or inhibit salmon production in any stream in the 

Southeast. 

The move to second growth quite frankly was an effort to continue to move away from any kind of potential impact on other resource values within the forest, while still allowing a sustainable 

timber harvest. 

That is all that I can say. We are absolutely committed to sustaining all fisheries and the value of all aquatic resources in the 

Tongass National Forest. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Byron. Mr. Claus, I want you to submit 

to the Committee the total number of appeals and lawsuits that 

your organization has been a party to since 1990 in the Tongass. 

I expect that information as soon as possible, because I don’t think 

you have it, or you would have said that before. 

Mr. CLAUS. I don’t have that with me. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I need that. I want to show you what you have 

done over these years, and how you have used the legal system, 

and how you have destroyed an economy, and how you are trying 

now to destroy the Native people. 

And I got sort of a kick from the Madam from Hawaii. He has 

heard Natives do it. We have two of the Native leaders right here, 

and we have one more in the back of the room. 

These are the leaders, and I get concerned when a white guy 

starts talking about what the Natives are saying, and I will be 

right up front with you about that. The Native leaders are elected, 

and they are chosen, and they are the spokesman. 

And sacred sites to me is a crucial issue, and the selection of 

80,000 acres, Mr. Chairman, out of 17 million acres. I remember 

going to—and by the way, all these communities that Mr. Claus 

says oppose this were logging camps. 

Now we have some retirees sitting there, and government workers, and people who have it made living on Federal land, and getting a paycheck, and trying to take it away from what I call the 

original owners of the land. 

Now that is the injustice, and in this Committee, there is going 

to be justice served for my American Indians and my Alaska Natives, and no outside organization paid for by some wealthy person 

out of San Francisco is going to interfere with that, because that 

is wrong. It is not justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Young. Any more questions? I have 

one final question. Mr. Mallott, Sealaska has been waiting for nearly 40 years to gain its entitlement of land following passage of the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

I understand that some folks argue that it is the corporation’s 

own fault for accepting a 1996 amendment to that Act that caused 

Sealaska to select inside the 10 selection areas surrounding Native 

47 

villages in Southeast Alaska, and that Sealaska delayed gaining 

lands inside the box several years ago by asking BLM to defer completing your land selections there. 

In your written testimony, you touched on this, but could you explain in greater detail the history of how you ended up with the 

land conveyance choices that you face under current law, and what 

happened in 1976? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Sealaska was unique among the ANCSA corporations in having its land selection opportunities clearly limited to 

within the specific townships surrounding the Native villages within the region. 

We were impacted at the time by the two long term pulp contracts which supplied timber to the Ketchikan and Sitka mills. 

They were at the time the only harvests taking place within the 

Tongass. 

The available timber was large and the opportunity or the ability 

within the framework of those contracts for another entity, even 

the owners of the land, the Native corporations, to make selections 

was severely limited. 

It was not our doing or our choice to limit in any way the opportunity for us to select lands that would give us the opportunity and 

give us a sense of justice fulfilled in any of our practices, and in 

any of our Acts. 

And any decisions that Sealaska took were in the framework of 

circumstances within which we had no control, and were given 

choices that we had to accept or essentially give up opportunities 

that were available to us. 

The choices that were made and where we stood at the time reminds me of the movie Blazing Saddles, where the black sheriff 

holds a gun to his own head, and says that you are going to lose 

the only black sheriff you have ever had, and it is just that crazy, 

Mr. Chairman, for anyone to accuse the Native community and 

Sealaska of making choices that would diminish either its opportunity or put it in a position where it could not realize the selection 

and the utilization of lands that otherwise might be available to 

them. It is ludicrous. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Mallott, and a thank you to all of 

our witnesses for your valuable testimony and patience. Members 

of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to these in writing. 

The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive those responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

The following submissions for the record have been retained in 

the Committee’s official files: • Edna Bay Community, Statement submitted for the record 

on H.R. 1408 

• Moll, Chohla, Spokesperson, Alliance for Access to Sitka’s 

Streams and Forests, Statement submitted for the record 

• Poelstra, Myla, Representing Nine Alaska Towns–Thorne 

Bay, Cape Pole, Hollis, Naukati, Whale Pass, Kupreanof, 

48 

Port Protection, Edna Bay, Point Baker, Statement submitted for the record on S. 730 • Regelin, Wayne, President, Territorial Sportsmen, Statement 

submitted for the record • Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Craig, Alaska, Supplemental testimony and attachments submitted for the 

record 

[A letter submitted for the record by lodge owners, guides and 

outfitters, sporting goods companies, hunting and fishing groups, 

and non-government fish and wildlife conservation organizations 

follows:] 

June 10, 2011 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

RE: S. 730 and H.R. 1408 

Dear Committee Members, 

The undersigned lodge owners, guides and outfitters, sporting goods companies, 

hunting & fishing groups, and non-government fish and wildlife conservation organizations from Alaska and across the country are writing to express our opposition 

to the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection 

Act (S. 730 and H.R. 1408, although the bills are far from identical). 

We do not dispute the fact that Sealaska has legitimate claim to acreage on the 

Tongass. However, the locations for selection were clearly defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. Now, almost 40 years later, Sealaska 

is trying to change the rules by picking high-value public lands outside these defined selection areas. Sealaska has had the opportunity to select from these areas 

for a number of years and absolutely no legislation is required for the settlement 

of their claims. 

Sealaska’s land selections outlined in S. 730 and H.R. 1408 include many of the 

best hunting, fishing, subsistence, and outfitter/guide use areas on the Tongass. The 

sporting community has objected to prior versions of this legislation because of concerns over threats to fish and wildlife habitat from increased timber harvest, limits 

to public access, increased commercial development, and displacement of existing 

businesses and operators. Given these concerns have not been adequately addressed 

in the current legislation, and there is no legal justification for Sealaska to make 

selections outside the ANCSA areas, we urge you to oppose S. 730 and H.R. 1408. 

Thank you for your continued support for fish and wildlife conservation on America’s public lands. 

Best regards, 

National Groups (7) 

American Fly Fishing Trade Association 

Randi Swisher 

President 

Westminster, CO 

Berkley Conservation Institute/Pure Fishing 

Jim Martin 

Conservation Director 

Mulino, OR 

The Campfire Club of America (est. 1897) 

Leonard J. Vallender 

Chair, Committee for Conservation of Forests and Wildlife 

Chappaqua, NY 

Federation of Fly Fishers 

Philip Greenlee 

Chairman of the Board/President 

Livingston, MT 

Recycled Fish 

49 

Teeg Stouffer 

Executive Director 

Nebraska City, NE 

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Society 

James Wilcox 

Secretary and Treasurer 

Olympia, WA 

Wildlife Forever 

Douglas H. Grann 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Minneapolis, MN 

Alaska (7) 

Alaska Bear Guides 

Scott Newman, Master Guide 

Owner/Operator 

Petersburg, AK 

Brightwater Alaska, Inc. 

Charles R. Ash 

President 

Anchorage, AK 

Copper River Lodge 

Pat Vermillion 

Owner 

Iliamna, AK 

Painter Creek Lodge 

Jon Kent 

President 

Anchorage, AK 

Pioneer Outfitters 

Terry Overly, Master Guide 

Owner/Operator 

Tok, AK 

Royal Coachman Lodge 

Pat Vermillion 

Owner 

Dillingham, AK 

Togiak River Lodge 

Larry Lund 

Owner/Managing Partner 

Togiak, AK 

Arizona (2) 

Arizona Flycasters 

L. Gary Stinson 

Conservation Chair 

Phoenix, AZ 

Arizona Wildlife Federation 

Tom Mackin 

President 

Mesa, AZ 

California (7) 

California Division (Izaak Walton League of America) 

Peter Hillebrecht 

President 

Orange, CA 

El Dorado Chapter (Trout Unlimited) 

Ron Zigelhofer 

President 

50 

Placerville, CA 

Golden West Women Flyfishers 

Cindy Charles 

Conservation Chair 

San Francisco, CA 

Northern California/Nevada Council 

(Fed. of Fly Fishers) 

Anne-Marie Bakker 

President 

Sonoma, CA 

Okuma Fishing Tackle Co. 

Douglas Lasko 

President 

Ontario, CA 

Santa Barbara Flyfishers 

Lew Riffle 

Conservation Chair 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Steelhead Flyfisher 

Jeff Bright 

Owner 

San Francisco, CA 

Illinois (1) 

Elliott Donnelly Chapter (Trout Unlimited) 

Grant Brown 

President 

Chicago, IL 

Iowa (1) 

Hunter Companies 

Hunter Parks 

President 

Cedar Rapids, IA 

Maryland (1) 

Waterwisp Flies 

Jim Greene 

President & CEO 

Chevy Chase, MD 

Minnesota (2) 

Bob Mitchell’s Fly Shop 

Michael Alwin 

Proprietor 

Lake Elmo, MN 

Great Lakes Fly Shop 

John Fehnel 

Owner 

Duluth, MN 

Montana (6) 

Big Sky Inflatables, LLC 

Richard Stuber 

Owner 

Stevensville, MT 

Fishing with Larry 

Guy Schoenborn 

President 

Columbus, MT 

51 

Mystery Ranch Backpacks 

Mark Seacat 

Marketing Director 

Bozeman, MT 

Sweetwater Travel 

Pat Vermillion 

Owner 

Livingston, MT 

Triple-M–Outfitters 

Mark Faroni 

Owner/Outfitter 

Dixon, MT 

Yellow Dog Flyfishing Adventures 

Jim Klug and Ian Sinclaire Davis 

Partners 

Bozeman, MT 

Nebraska (1) 

HuntingLife.com 

Kevin Paulson 

Founder and CEO 

Lincoln, NE 

Oregon (2) 

Catch Magazine 

Brian O’Keefe 

Owner 

Sisters, OR 

Fly Water Travel 

Ken Morrish 

Co-Owner 

Ashland, OR 

Togiak River Lodge 

Larry Lund 

Owner/Managing Partner 

Forest Grove, OR 

Pennsylvania (3) 

Arrowhead Chapter (Trout Unlimited) 

Jerry Potocnak 

President 

Sarver, PA 

Chestnut Ridge Chapter (Trout Unlimited) 

Scott Hoffman 

Treasurer 

Uniontown, PA 

Pennsylvania Fly Fishing Company 

Glenn Burgess 

Partner 

Boiling Springs, PA 

Washington (2) 

Steelhead Committee (Fed. of Fly Fishers) 

William Atlas 

Chair 

Seattle, WA 

SunDog LLC 

Dominick Villella 

Owner 

Seattle, WA 

52 

Wisconsin (1) 

Aldo Leupold Chapter (Trout Unlimited) 

Michael Barniskis 

President 

Beaver Dam, WI 

International (1) 

European Fishing Tackle Trade Association 

Jean Claude Bel 

Chief Executive Officer 

London, United Kingdom 

[A letter submitted for the record by Mike Daulton, Vice 

President of Government Relations, National Audubon Society, 

follows:] 

May 25, 2011 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: Testimony on H.R. 1408 

Dear Chairman Young: 

On May 26, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

will hold a hearing on H.R. 1408, the ‘‘Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement 

Finalization and Jobs Protection Act.’’ Please accept this letter as testimony for the 

record on behalf of the National Audubon Society. 

The National Audubon Society opposes H.R. 1408 as the legislation is presently 

proposed. 

H.R. 1408 is a controversial proposal that would allow the Sealaska Corporation 

to select and take title to valuable lands within the Tongass National Forest that 

are currently open to the public for fishing, hunting, and recreation. Much of the 

land sought by Sealaska would be subject to intensive clear-cut logging. Although 

a relatively small total percentage of the forest acreage has been logged on the 

Tongass National Forest, half or more of the large-tree old growth forest has already 

been logged in Southeast Alaska. The very largest trees—the individual ‘‘giants’’ 

greater than 10 feet in diameter—were largely eliminated in the last century. Forest 

stand diversity in the Tongass National Forest has already been substantially altered due to past logging. 

The National Audubon Society fully respects the right of the Sealaska Corporation 

to obtain its full land entitlement as provided for by law under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and supports the prompt conveyance by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) of the lands already selected by Sealaska Corporation. 

H.R. 1408 is not needed to satisfy Sealaska Corporation’s entitlement and would 

convey public lands in the Tongass National Forest from scores of new areas ranging in size from a few acres to several thousands of acres and create numerous land 

use conflicts with local communities and other forest stakeholders. 

All aboriginal Alaska Native land claims were settled under ANCSA, historic legislation that required a complicated balancing of private and public interests. 

H.R. 1408 would bypass ANCSA for the benefit of a single, private for-profit business, the Sealaska Corporation. H.R. 1408 would provide the Sealaska Corporation 

a unique ability to obtain dozens of large and small parcels of high-value public 

lands strategically sited throughout the Tongass National Forest in Southeast 

Alaska. • Sealaska has targeted some of the most biologically productive public 

lands in the Tongass for logging and other kinds of development, including some inventoried roadless areas. Lands that Sealaska Corporation seeks 

to obtain includes areas that are heavily used and highly valued as public 

lands by southeast Alaska residents, commercial fishermen, local outfitters/ 

guides, and visitors to Alaska’s Inside Passage. 

• No further Congressional action is needed for Sealaska to obtain its 

land entitlement. In fact, Sealaska Corporation has already made its final 

53 

land entitlement selections of approximately 65,000 acres with the BLM. 

Sealaska Corporation is itself responsible for the delay in acquisition of its 

remaining entitlement as it has asked the BLM to hold off on conveyance of 

its remaining land selections while it seeks to get more valuable lands by lobbying Congress. • Sealaska has previously received a significant claims settlement. Sealaska received a substantial settlement under ANCSA, including more 

than $90 million and approximately 354,000 acres of land to be selected in 

‘‘compact’’ and ‘‘contiguous’’ tracts within the vicinity of nine Native villages 

in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska’s past selections have included large tracts of 

valuable old growth timber that have since been harvested. • Sealaska supported designation of the land selection areas that it 

now seeks to modify. Sealaska Corporation supported legislation that established the selection areas that the corporation is now seeking to modify. 

As reported by Alaska Congressman Don Young, the selection areas established in 1976 ‘‘embodies a compromise negotiated and supported by 

Sealaska, the State of Alaska, Native villages in the region and various environmental groups.’’ (Congressional Record, Dec. 16, 1975) The land selection 

rights Sealaska Corporation now seeks to change are exactly what the corporation requested previously. Sealaska now wants to override ANCSA so the 

corporation can select more valuable lands in a combination of large and 

small parcels scattered across the Tongass National Forest. • H.R. 1408 would establish a new precedent for the privatization of 

public lands. As proposed, the legislation could predictably result in additional small parcel claims on public lands being proposed throughout Alaska 

by other Alaska Native Corporations. • The lands that Sealaska has proposed to obtain are substantially 

more valuable than the lands it is entitled to under current law. The proposed acquisition is not based on a value-for-value exchange of the lands currently selected by Sealaska Corporation. The lands that Sealaska Corporation 

now seeks are disproportionately valuable relative to the forest overall including old growth timber values that are substantially greater than the forest 

average. 

In conclusion, H.R. 1408 would severely impact the national interest in the balanced management and conservation of public resources within the Tongass National Forest and should not be enacted. 

Sincerely, 

Mike Daulton 

Vice President of Government Relations 

National Audubon Society 

[A resolution submitted for the record by Elfin Cove, Alaska, 

follows:] 

Sealaska Lands Bills S. S730 and H.R. 1408 

Resolution No. 11–02 

Whereas: The residents of Elfin Cove have a long tradition of use of Point Lavinia 

and the Inian Peninsula East for subsistence gathering, hunting and fishing, and; 

Whereas: Elfin Cove is completely surrounded by the Tongass National Forest, 

community members have utilized these areas for tourism enterprise, recreation 

and solitude experiences, and; 

Whereas: Point Lavinia and the Inian Peninsula East are part of a contiguous wilderness area that is in immediate proximity to Elfin Cove, and; 

Whereas: Elfin Cove residents have established a protective stewardship over the 

aforementioned areas, and 

Whereas: These areas contain rare and endangered species of flora and fauna, 

Be It Resolved: That the membership of the Community of Elfin Cove Non-Profit 

Corporation is against the Sealaska Lands Bill lands selection of Point Lavinia and 

the Inian Peninsula East as Native Futures Sites slated for tourism and recreation 

enterprise development. 

Witness: 

Dennis Meier—Chairman, CECNPC 

Attest: 

54 

Janfe Button—Secretary, CECNPC 

Date: 6/3/2011 

Vote at CECNPC meeting: 5 in favor, 1 abstain 

[Letters submitted for the record by the Organized Village of 

Kake, Alaska, follow:] 


66652.008.eps
55 


66652.009.eps
56 


66652.010.eps
57 


66652.011.eps
58 

Statement submitted for the record by Alan Stein 

My name is Alan Stein. Over 40 years ago as a young man, I looked through a 

seaplane window at Prince of Wales Island where today Sealaska has stirred up 

great controversy by having Representative Young introduce H.R. 1408. 

It was April, 1971 when I landed in Port Protection only to learn Native Alaskans 

had blocked all public land transfers in the State of Alaska pending a final settlement in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ANCSA (December, 1971). 

The US Forest Service told me I could not obtain title to the land I homesteaded 

until the Natives settled their claims. 

While building a cabin with a chain saw and hammer, I became the President of 

the Point Baker Association formed to protect Northern Prince of Wales Island. Our 

lawsuit resulted in the National Forest Management Act (1976). I came before this 

committee in March of that year to present oral testimony and I represented the 

United Fishermen of Alaska and PBA. 

I worked as a commercial logger at Dean Hiner’s floating log camp near Calder 

Bay and appreciate the bone weary work men of the woods do. Dean and 50 other 

small outfits sued the two Pulp Companies for anti trust violations that put them 

out of business and won in federal court. But not before they were driven out of 

business. 

I owned and operated many commercial fishing vessels during my 25 years in 

Alaska. I will always consider Alaska my true home. 

In 1989, I organized a coalition of Alaskan Natives, commercial fishermen, canneries, and others into the Salmon Bay Protective Association (SBPA). I was elected 

the Director. About 1,000 commercial fishermen joined our organization. Republican 


66652.012.eps
59 

cannery owners from Alec Brindle’s Ward Cove and Bob Thorstenson’s Icicle Seafoods to Democratic owners such as Terry Gardiner of Norquest Seafoods made substantial contributions. The United Fishermen of Alaska supported our efforts. As did 

the major fishing organizations in SE Alaska. 

Our law suit, Stein v Barton (1990) did two things. 

• First, it led to Congressional recognition and permanent protection of some 

of the habitat Alaskan Natives and others used to hunt and fish on some federal land on Prince of Wales Island. 

• Second it won the first national permanent protections of salmon streams 

during logging; the injunction put into place was used as a model when Congress made 100 foot no cut buffer strips permanent protection provisions in 

the Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990). 

Sealaska Never Acted to Protect Subsistence Habitat on Federal Land 

Spiritual Connection Argument Weakened by its 40 year Inaction 

Sealaska’s arguments of dispossession from their lands by a colonial power would 

be laughable historically were the earnestness of the claim not so great. 

The Wrangell Natives in the SBPA included some whose relatives had been the 

subjects of the Tee Hit Ton decision. 348 U.S. 272 (1955). Byron Mallot attaches a 

report by Walter Echo Hawk claiming this Supreme Court case is ’’ one of the worst 

decisions handed down.’’ P4 Echo Hawk. 

In Echo Hawk’s view, the US Forest Service was a colonial power over the SE 

Alaska Natives and Tee Hit Ton is the ‘‘Law of Colonialism.’’ Echo Hawk p 7 

Mallot’s reliance on Echo Hawk—who invokes ideology steeped in ‘‘genocide,’’ 

‘‘marginalization,’’ ‘‘colonization,’’ ‘‘post colonization,’’ ‘‘subjugation, dispossession, 

and exploitation’’ to urge a new Congressional policy toward the Tlingit and Haida 

‘‘in their indigenous aboriginal habitats’’ (Echo Hawk p1–2)—strikes me as sheer 

nonsense in light of the rest of the story on Salmon Bay. 

Eddie Churchill, an Alaskan Native of blessed memory, who was the head of the 

Wrangell Cooperative Association, sat on SBPA’s board of directors. I fought long 

and hard to make sure that he and his tribe (as well as everyone else) could continue to hunt and fish in Salmon Bay by protecting its fish and wildlife. Congress 

agreed with us when they designated Salmon Bay a LUD II protecting it for all 

users, so long as it remains in US Forest Service hands. 

Sealaska AWOL when it came to protecting indigenous native habitat at Salmon Bay 

in 1990—undercuts their argument they consider all wildlife sacred 

Although I knew many of the members of the Board of Directors of Sealaska Corporation at the time, never did any of them express a desire to assist the Natives 

of Wrangell to preserve the land around Salmon Bay Lake. Never did Byron Mallot 

or Al Kookesh ask to intervene in this case on the behalf of Native subsistence 

users. 

If Byron really believes Echo Hawk’s ‘‘statement that monetary compensation does 

not protect a way of life (hunting, fishing),’’ p 8, then where was Byron and 

Sealaska when I was fighting to save that way of life? 

The absence of the Sealaska Board of Directors from the SBPA case reinforced 

something that I heard from the Chief of the Chilkoot Tlingit, Austin Hammond of 

blessed memory. ‘‘There are those of us who want to honor the land and take only 

what we need,’’ he told me while standing in front of his house on the shore of Lynn 

Canal. 

‘‘Some of the young men in Sealaska only see money in the trees. Remember what I tell you.’’ 

If Austin were here today, I am sure he would disapprove of Sealaska’s bill 

H.R. 1408 to destroy the fishing and hunting grounds of other tribes, other towns 

of men who grew up outside. Austin would get Byron and Al to sit on the peace 

rock along the Chilkoot River and talk, before they could get up, with all the leaders 

of the towns whose lives they want to upset with this bill. Austin would tell them 

Echo Hawk is sheer bull, a policy whose foundations falter on false historical and 

legal interpretation. 

60 

SEALASKA SEEKS EXPANSIONS FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ANCSA, 

ANILCA and other Congressional Statutes 

New land categories are unfair, unjust, and break previous settlements 

hammered out over decades. 

H.R. 1408 must be seen in the context of the substantial benefits Sealaska has won 

from Congress over the last 40 years. 

Since the 1960s, Sealaska has obtained multiple settlements of its lands claims, 

all of which constitute what was fair and just. It has also benefited from other special interest Native bills in Congress. 

H.R. 1408 goes far beyond anything contemplated in ANCSA or subsequent settlements. 

• A cash settlement of over seven million dollars in the late sixties compensated Natives for lands they occupied or used that had been placed into 

the Tongass National Forest. This was a final settlement, but a few years latter, Natives sought more compensation. 

• ANCSA gave Natives a total of 656,400 acres or 1,025.62 square miles. All 

but 65,000 acres or 100 square miles have been transferred. Sealaska also got 

a fair share of one billion 1971 dollars in cash. This land is among the most 

valuable timberland in the United States. 

Æ Villages got 286,400 acres or 447.5 square miles 

Æ Sealaska got 370,000 acres or 578 square miles. Source: 2007 Annual 

Report Sealaska. 

• Natives then sought Subsistence rights to hunt and fish on all federal land 

as a priority over all other users, arguing that their spiritual needs were not 

met by ANCSA. 

• In 1980, Congress in TITLE 8 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act. 

gave Alaska Natives the preferential subsistence hunting and fishing rights 

they sought. This exclusive priority to hunt and fish was a huge additional 

benefit that Natives had not won in ANCSA. 

• Congress created huge tax benefits to Sealaska when it allowed it to sell 

net operating losses (the value of the timber in 1971 minus the value at a 

low point in the market, such that ‘‘Sealaska has not paid State or Federal 

taxes’’) and may not pay taxes on profits long into the future. See Sealaska 

Annual Report 2010 page 54 

• Sealaska shareholders get free medical care from birth to grave even though 

the United States never subdued or conquered Alaska Natives. 

• Finally, Sealaska and other Alaska Native Corporations under the 8 (a) provision of a federal law were given a huge benefit worth in excess of 25 billion dollars over the last ten years. Alaska Native Corporations do not 

have to compete with other corporations for federal contracting. They have exclusive bidding rights. See last year’s Washington Post article for abuses 

under this scheme that Congress failed by one vote to remedy this year. SEE 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100 

707217.html 

Æ http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/030609rb1.htm 

Æ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/ 

lawmakerslcastlalcriticalleye.html 

Despite these and other land, cash, tax, health benefits, and hunting and 

fishing exclusive rights that taxpayers have given the Tlingit and Haida to 

make them whole, the rationale in Byron Mallot’s testimony, in Sealaska 2010 

Annual Report and in H.R. 1408 is that the injustice of conquest was so great that 

only greater and more valuable tax payer assets given to Sealaska’s corporate leaders will bring peace to the soul of America’s conscience. 

Besides resting on false assumptions, the Sealaska approach raises troubling 

issues. 

When is final final? 

When is enough enough? 

Where will the 40 year history of hand outs end? 

Will it be when all public lands in Alaska are tied up, access blocked by Alaska 

Native Corporations, forever breaking the historical compromises hammered out in 

1971, 1975, 1980, and subsequent years? It seems to me ANSCA was supposed to 

put Alaska Natives on their feet, not establish an elite class of corporate officers 

who make high salaries while shareholders get bupkees. This despite the trusts set 

aside for elders and students filled not so much by timber money as 8(a) profits. 

61 

At some point Congress must put its foot down and tell Sealaska they should 

spend their time figuring out how to make money rather than take money from taxpayers. 

I find this approach not only hypocritical but historically inaccurate in that legal 

precedent and demographic movements have been jammed into an ideological prism 

so out of wack with reality that the goal of justice is distorted beyond recognition. 

Specifically the Enterprise or Future Sites have extraordinary value both in dollars and use. The Icy Straights site should be either leased to a private corporation 

based on the projected revenue of power generated from what is likely to be worth 

more than all the Columbia River Dams or developed by a public power authority. 

Sealaska should be allowed no Future or Enterprise sites. Enough is enough with 

taxpayer give aways above and way beyond what justice requires. 

Cultural or Sacred sites such as cemeteries are adequately protected under Federal Law as administered by the US Forest Service. This to is nothing but a scam 

against taxpayers seeking to lock up land now used by many for benefit of a few. 

The location of gravesites is so closely held that the wilderness itself protects them. 

I specifically object to what I have heard from one of Sealaska lobbyists who has 

told me that SE Alaska Natives were disposed of the entire Tongass. This is contemporary myth making on a grand scale and is false. 

No future or sacred sites need to be added to sweeten the deal. 

History and archeology belie Sealaska claims 

Over the ten thousand years of the archeological record of SE Alaska that I have 

studied, several cultures have occupied the roughly 350 mile long coastline. 

• The 9,200-year-old man found in a cave near Port Protection has not been 

shown to be genetically akin to modern Tlingit or Haida. Yet Tlingits claimed 

and obtained the remains as one of their own. 

• A cultural shift occurred around five thousand years ago per the research at 

Tebenkoff Bay by the University of California Santa Barbara archeologists 

who found a transition from back bay fish based economies to front bay deer 

hunting and war like cultures at this period before Abraham left Bagdad. 

• Nevertheless, Tlingit occupation may or may not date from five thousand 

years ago when they migrated out of Japan or Korea and merged with previous cultures. If Tlingits assert their occupation was from time immemorial, 

they draw on myth, not the archeological record. 

• Haida migrations out of the Queen Charlotte Islands, which displaced Tlingit 

villages northward on Prince of Wales, did not occur until just before first 

contact around 1774. 

While Tlingits may argue they occupied the entire Tongass National Forest, the 

archeological truth is that there was very restricted land settlement and occupation 

in winter villages in major bays with a population estimated before the small pox 

epidemic of the early 1830s at less than 10,000. First Coast Survey. Warfare was 

common and villages provided protection. Hence small land areas were occupied. 

By the time of transfer to the United States, the population was estimated to have 

shrunk by half. Id. 

The distribution of population continued to be concentrated geographically to winter villages with smaller groups shifting over time during the summer to sockeye 

stream to sockeye stream with a pattern of depletion and movement prominent. So 

that in any one decade, use of the land was limited to shorelines at productive salmon creeks. Of the 2500 salmon creeks in SE Alaska, very small percentages were 

ever used during any decade. And never continuously. The Tlingit and other prehistoric residents occupied a very small part of the Tongass at any one time. 

The scope of historical occupation is highly relevant to the issue of land ownership. 

Per the Organic Act of 1884, use and possession of land was required to establish 

ownership. Given the transitory use of a limited amount of land, the more than 

1000 square miles Sealaska has/will have received alone is just reflection of the 

scope of the land used and occupied in any one decade prior to 1867. At the turn 

of the 19th century, the scope of town land area shrank even further as detailed 

in further discussion. 

I have studied the historical record extensively from the time of first contact 

through the early 20th century and can find no record of forcible ejection of Haida 

or Prince of Wales Tlingit from their lands on any where near a systematic or extensive basis. (I was trained in the graduate school of history at the University of 

Wisconsin, Madison. I have published on the subject matter of Prince of Wales 

Archeology.) 

So, a far different dynamic than the simplistic charge of Echo Hawk’s colonialism 

was at work 

62 

Abandonment of traditional villages by 1907 or earlier was the rule and practice 

on the Prince of Wales Archipelago. Thus the migration from the Kaigani Haida in 

Klinkwan, Sukwan, Koinglass, and the smaller settlements south of Sukwan Island 

had been completed or were well underway by 1907. Howkan had a post office and 

missionary provided school teacher from about 1883. It inhabitants moved to 

Hydaburg, Craig, Ketchikan, and other places after the turn of the century. The 

abandonment occurred in response to opportunity—opportunity to make money in 

the salteries and new canneries on the West Coast of Prince of Wales; opportunity 

to get a better education; opportunity to be near medical care. 

A similar dynamic occurred for the village of Tukexan and Kareen, Old Kassan, 

and the village near Cape Fox, which was abandoned when the Harriman Expedition arrived with John Muir aboard at the fin de sie`cle. 

It is offensive to the historical record to overlay Echo Hawk’s rigid ideological colonialism explanation for the movement of the Tlingit and Haida from their outlying 

villages in the late 19th century to the towns they occupy to this day. The people 

who moved to Craig and Hydaberg and Klawock did so to learn, work, and embrace 

Christianity. 

As for the land ethic portrayed by Sealaska of respecting all living things, we 

should not forget that between the first Boston men who arrived in the 1780s and 

1820, a vast herd of sea otter were hunted nearly to extinction by Alaska Natives 

on Prince of Wales who wanted rifles, blankets, and other trade goods. While the 

Russians did enslave the Aleuts who they brought to finish off the sea otters after 

1802, the Haida and Tlingit on Prince of Wales were able to bring the population 

of sea otter to near extinction by reason of zeal for modern trade goods alone. 

Northern Sealaska Board Members and logging in Southern tribes’ backyard, most 

of it in ancient Haida territory 

• Almost all the commercial selections in S. 730 are on the southern Tongass 

where most of the heavy logging occurred in the past. 

• Yakutat’s Byron would rather concentrate logging onto Prince of Wales Island 

Archipelago than allow any around his home village at Yakutat and made 

sure Congress made the 100 square mile ANCSA lands at Yakutat off-limits. 

• Angoon’s Al Kookesh made sure logging for his town occurred also in the 

south square in ancient Haida territory. 

• Kluckwan on the Chilkaat was all too willing to select lands for logging off 

the West Coast of Prince of Wales in Haida territory. The combined affect of 

these changes to ANCSA which moved the selections away from their villages 

boxes designated in 1975 amendments and concentrated them onto the Prince 

of Wales Archipelago made sure the hunting and fishing of their fellow Haida 

and Southern Tlingit were put into jeopardy. This is a second example of hypocrisy on the part of Sealaska. 

It is hard for me to fathom why the Tlingit would want to force almost all the 

logging onto former Haida territory. Perhaps some ancient grievance is at the bottom of it. 

I am all for a settlement of Sealaska’s claims in the areas it selected in 2008 when 

it made submissions to the BLM which are inside the boxes established in 1975 by 

request to Congress of Sealaska’s President. 

Congress should walk away from H.R. 1408 and encourage Sealaska to live up 

to the capitalistic goals which Byron Mallot helped create when he worked as an 

aide to Ted Stevens forty years ago. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Andrew Thoms, Executive 

Director, Sitka Conservation Society, follows:] 

Sitka Conservation Society 

Box 6533 

Sitka, Alaska 99835 

(907) 747–7509 

info@sitkawild.org 

www.sitkawild.org 

June 6, 2011 

Dear Members of the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: 

63 

Southeast Alaska is an awe-inspiring place of glaciers, fiords, and towering spruce 

trees. For all of its natural beauty, however, one of the region’s most remarkable 

characteristics is that its land is held almost entirely in public hands as the Tongass 

National Forest. The public not only has free access to the land, but the public has 

a say in how the land should be developed while the Forest Service seeks to find 

the best balance for all users and most significant social/economic impact. The Sitka 

Conservation Society has over 1000 local members who are all part of our organization because they value the lands and waters of the Tongass. Our membership includes native and non-native Alaskans and also includes shareholders of Sealaska 

and other Native Corporations. 

Our membership is extremely concerned about the the Sealaska Lands Bill (S.703 

and H.R. 1408). We are scared of this legislation because, if passed, some of the 

most important and beloved places in Southeast Alaska will be taken from public 

hands and placed in those of a private corporation. The public will need special permission to access the land, and the public will have no power to determine whether 

and how the land should be developed. For these reasons, we oppose the Bill and 

request that you do as well. 

The Tongass National Forest is enormous, but its richest natural resources are 

concentrated in a small handful of places, many of which have been identified as 

Sealaska selections. Most of the acreage in the Sealaska Bill is timber land. A transfer to Sealaska would mean the loss of some of the largest and oldest trees in Southeast Alaska as well as crucial habitat, with only a shortterm financial benefit to a 

limited number of people. It would also mean a loss of millions of dollars of taxpayer investment in Forest Service infrastructure that would be transferred to 

Sealaska Corporation. This infrastructure would include roads, bridges, landings, 

and more. Taxpayer investments in this land also has included timber stand management such as thinning and pruning that significantly increases the value of 

many of the acres that Sealaska has selected, and makes these acres critical for future Forest Service land management plan actions. The land that Sealaska is selecting in the bill is much more valuable than that in the original agreement made 

under ANCSA. If Sealaska is allowed to select outside of the originally agreed upon 

boxes, we would demand that it be a value-for-value trade rather than an acre-foracre trade. 

While we are alarmed by Sealaska’s timber selections, our largest concern lies in 

the 3,600 acres of unidentified cultural sites. Under the Bill, practically anything 

can qualify as a cultural site, regardless of whether there is evidence of human habitation at the site. Sealaska has yet to make its cultural site selections, but, based 

on its previous ANCSA selections, popular subsistence salmon streams appear particularly vulnerable. Sealaska selected Redoubt Falls, the nearest subsistence 

stream to Sitka, as a cultural site under ANCSA, despite no archeological evidence 

that the site had been historically used by Native people. There are a few other subsistence streams within a couple hours of town, which hundreds of Sitka families 

depend on to fill their freezers each year. All of these streams would qualify as cultural sites. We consider the selection at Redoubt to foreshadow the conflicts that 

will occur over the next 10 years as Sealaska strategically selects small parcels of 

critically important social/economic/environment acres across the Tongass. 

. Once in private hands, cultural sites would have no federal protections, such as 

the Native America Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. This means Sealaska, 

which has a horrific land management record, would be left to care for its newly 

acquired lands with practically no oversight. Sealaska has not made it public among 

tribes, clans, historical associations, and local governments that once in their hands, 

important sacred and cultural sites will lose their NAGPRA protections. We find it 

cynical that Sealaska is selling a story of these sites being better protected in their 

hands than with the already strict protections under NAGPRA as well as the taxpayer investment and protection afforded by multiple federal agencies who currently 

oversee these sites in collaborative agreements with local tribes and clans. 

We request that the 3600 acres granted to Sealaska to choose throughout the 

Tongass be removed from the legislation and that Sealaska work with local tribes 

and federal agencies to develop cooperative co-management agreements for the sites 

so that historically important acres remain a public resource and gain all the protections under NAGRPA, the Antiquities Act, and other federal agency management 

protections. 

Finally, we are alarmed that Sealaska has not divulged to local constituencies 

that the privatization of public lands would result in the lands no longer offering 

the subsistence opportunities and regulations that are provided to Southeast Alaska 

residents on public lands. In many cases, the lands that Sealaska is selecting are 

important for subsistence uses for local Native and non-Native citizens. With these 

lands in private hands, the subsistence regulations would change from federal land 

64 

to state/private lands. This would mean that extended seasons and bag-limits would 

not apply to these lands which would further shut off subsistence access. 

Overall, we are extremely disappointed in the way that the Sealaska Corporation 

and its representatives have organized support for this legislation. The most glaring 

case has been when Albert Kookesh, a Sealaska Board Member who is also a sitting 

Alaska State Senator, made an assertion to the Craig City Assembly in an official 

meeting that they would not receive state funding for their needed projects if they 

didn’t support the Sealaska legislation. That Sealaska Board Member/Senator was 

subsequently found in violation of state ethics policies. This blazon threat was made 

in full public display in a City Assembly forum. We have heard worse from local 

citizens of threats made for not supporting the legislation behind closed doors. Locally, we have heard Sealaska board members use race-based arguments to raise 

support for the legislation when challenged with non-racial access and land-value 

issues. It has gone so far as to make people feel that they can’t oppose the legislation based on its merits for fear that they will then be branded a ‘‘racist’’ in the 

region. This dynamic is causing great chagrin in a region that has worked to overcome a history of racial conflict. If this legislation is causing so much divisive conflict, and if the methods of building support are so divisive, we feel that there is 

obviously a problem with the legislation. If the legislation was a good thing for the 

region, it would not be causing so much controversy. 

The Sealaska Lands Bill already has been divisive in Sitka and other communities, but we may be seeing only the start. If the Bill passes and Sealaska follows 

through with the land management practices it has used in the past, communities 

will suffer far more than they will gain. We want what is best for our community 

and the awe-inspiring place that we live. The best thing for us would be that this 

Bill is voted down and sent back to the drawing board. 

On behalf of the membership of the Sitka Conservation Society, we would thank 

you for your consideration of our concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew Thoms 

Executive Director 

Sitka Conservation Society 

Æ