TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSITION ACT 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2413 

A BILL TO TRANSFER THE TONGASS NATIONAL 

FOREST TO THE STATE OF ALASKA 

2EH>68cc 

JULY 3, 1996--SITKA, AK 

JULY 5, 1996--THORNE BAY, AK 

Serial No. 104-91 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-053780-0 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi!l 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: July 3, 1996, Sitka, AK ........ .... ... .... ....... .... ...... .. .. . .. .... ...... ...... ... .... .. ... .... ...... ... 1 

July 5, 1996, Thorne Bay, AK ........... ..................... :... .. ............. ............. ......... 45 

Statement of Members: Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources .............................................................. ................ 1, 45 

Statement of Witnesses: . Borbridge, Theodore C., Vice Chair, Sitka Tribal Council ........ .................... 15 

Bristol, Tim, Juneau, AK ................................................................................. 69 

Prepared. statement .......... .... . .. .... . .... ... ........ ... .... . .. . ... . .. .. .... .... ... .... .. .. ...... .. 105 

DeTemple, John J. ....... ........... .... ............... ....................................................... 12 

Edwards, Larry ... ..... .. .. .... .... ..... .. ... ........ ............ ............................................... 29 

Filler, Stan .. .... ......... .... .... .. ... .... .... .... ....... ......... ...... ........ .................................. 10 

Gefre, Nick, Thorne Bay, AK .................. .... ..................................................... 61 

Gerrits, Kelly L., Thorne Bay, AK ............ .............. ,........................... ............ 56 

Hallgren, Pete, Mayor, City and Borough of Sitka, AK ................................ 3 

LeCornu, Vicki, Haida Tribe, Hydaburg, AK ...... .... .... .................. .... ........ ..... 71 

Lindekugel, Robert E., Conservation Director, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . 28 

Prepared statement ... ... ... ........ ....... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .. .... ...... ... .... .... .... .. 87 

Mackie, Jerry, a State Representative in Alaska .............. .... ........................ 49 

McGraw, Cindy ................................................................................................. 21 

Mitchell, Ben, Tongass Hunting and Fishing Coalition ................................ 26 

Morrison, Gary, Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service ............................... 35 

Prepared statement ......... ...... .. .... ............... ... .. .. ... . .. . . . . ... .. .... .... ... .... .... ... . . . 106 

Morrison, Wes, Hydaburg, AK .................. .... .. ............................ .................... 74 

Perkins, Keith ..... ... . . .... .... .. .. .. ... .... .... ... . ... .... ........... ........ ..... .......... ... ................ 5 

Powell, Brad, Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service ................................... 78 

Prepared statement .. .... . .... .... .... ... ...... .. .. .. ... .... .... .... ...... ... .... ..... ...... .... ...... 106 

Preston, Carlyle, Naukati, AK ............ ....................... ...................... ................ 58 

Price, Elaine, Mayor, Coffman Cove, AK .. .... ... ............ ... ...... .... ..... ...... ........... 49 

Quick, Ron, Naukati, AK .............................................. ................................... 58 

Scott, Paula M. . ... .... ...... ... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .... .... .......... ... .... .. ... ...... .... ..... .... . 22 

Shafer, Mike, Vice Mayor, Thorne Bay, AK ................................................... 47 

Trani, Larry, Friends of Southeast's Future .................... ............................ .. 31 

Wheeler, Marc, Tokeen, AK, for Sylvia Geraghty .......................................... 73 

Williams, Ben, Klawock, AK .................................. ........... ............................... 62 

Willis, Judy, Coffman Cove, AK ........................................................... ........... 63 

Wright, Russell . ...... ....... ...... .... . .... ......... ............ ....... ........................................ 17 

Additional material supplied: Halgren, Pete: Personal view .................. .... .... .... .................... .... ...... .. ...... ...... 86 

Young, Hon. Don, Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, dated 

July 18, 1996 . .... ..... .... ...... ... .... .. ..... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .. . .. .... .... ..... ...... ...... ... ... 136 

Communications submitted: Phil, Janik, Letter dated February 14, 1996, to Hon. Duane Gibson ......... : 120 

Phil, Janik, Letter dated March 20, 1995, to Hon. Don Young .................... 124 

Memo from Alaska Forest Association dated August 9, 1995, to Governor 

Tony Knowles .. .. .. . . ... . . .. .. . ... ... .... .... .... . .. . ... .... .... ... .... .... ... . . . . .. . ... ... ... ... .. . ... .... .. 128 

(Ill) 

TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSITION ACT 

WEDNESDAY,JULY3, 1~6 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Sitka, AK. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in the Centennial Building, Sitka, Alaska, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the 

Committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome to the third hearing of the House Committee on Resources about the Tongass Transfer and Transition 

Act. I want to thank all of you for coming, especially the witnesses. 

Summer is a tough time for people to spare an hour to contribute 

in Congressional field hearings like this. I really appreciate everyone's effort today. Most of you must feel as though we have been 

through this wringer on the Tongass issue many, many times. You 

have been asked again to come and talk about the future of the forest that you and 75,000 other Alaskans call home. But this hearing 

about the Tongass is different. 

This is a hearing not about how the Federal Government should 

manage the Tongass. This hearing is about whether Alaskans, 

through our State government, want the option-! want to stress 

the option-to own and manage the Tongass. This hearing is about 

whether our State might do a better job managing the Tongass 

without the Federal Government calling the shots from Washington, D.C. 

Do Alaskans want to control their future in Southeast or should 

our future be left to political appointees who reside thousands of 

miles from the results of their decisions? That is the question. 

I stress: This hearing is not about the level of recreation, tourism, fishing, or timber harvesting that should occur in the Tongass 

or around Sitka; this hearing is about where control of the Tongass 

should rest and whether you want the option to put control in 

State hands. 

We are not here to discuss whether Sitkans agree on the Poison 

Cove timber sale or any other timber sale. We are not here to discuss whether Sitkans want clearcutting on the Tongass or whether 

Sitkans want any timber industry at all. Do not get me wrong. These issues are important. In my view, 

they are too important for the Federal Government to tackle. 

(1) 
2 

Under my bill, Alaskans would have a chance to resolve them right 

here in Southeast-without the shadow of Federal Government. Too many times the hand of the Federal Government in Washington, D.C., has interfered with the lives of the people in the 

Tongass. 

The Alaska Pulp contract cancellation is a prime example. We 

know now that three letters were drafted on the APC contract 

issue. One granted an extension, another gave more time to get the 

mill converted, and a third canceled the contract. Washington, 

D.C., political appointees gave the order to sign the third letter 

that canceled the contract. The Forest Service in Alaska was not 

involved. That decision cost Alaskans 42 percent of our timber jobs 

and Federal taxpayers a billion dollars to compensate for damages. Washington, D.C., also made the decision to pass the Tongass 

Reform Act of 1990. I opposed that bill because I knew that it 

would hurt Alaskans. Not only did that Act add 1 million acres of 

wilderness, but it forced changes of the APC and KPC timber contracts. That arrogant political decision will cost taxpayers 1 billion 

dollars. Just yesterday, or day before yesterday, the U.S. Supreme 

Court said the government cannot go around changing contracts 

willy-nilly, then claim a defense of sovereign immunity, which was 

precisely the government's defense on the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act contract changes. The court said if the Federal Government 

changes contracts, then the Federal Government-you, the taxpayer-must pay for the taking under the 5th Amendment. 

Those are some of the big Federal decisions that cloud the lives 

of people that live in Southeast Alaska. But some of the small decisions hurt the most. Take the brilliant decision of the Forest Service to require outfitter-guide special-use permits for commercial 

taxicabs visiting the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau. I do not know 

whose idea that was. Or imagine the Forest Service gun-toting law 

enforcement officer who reports directly to Washington, D.C.-not 

even the local Forest Service-arresting four Alaskans for using a 

cabin during the Federal shutdown, not even reporting to the local 

boss. 

Now, some of you-and I know I look outside-and I may disagree on TTRA or APC or other Federal Forest Service issues, but 

as Alaskans we should agree on the bill we are here to discuss 

today. It puts more power and control over the Tongass decisions 

in the hands of Alaskans. Whether you are an environmentalist, 

conservationist, biologist, or timber worker, you all get more control. I introduced my bill because I trust Alaskans to make decisions about the Tongass without Federal help. Federal decisions 

have crushed people and changed lives in communities like Sitka. 

Southeast Alaska needs family-wage jobs, but the Federal system 

is paralyzed over wildlife questions that seem to have no answer, 

nor are they really seeking answers. I want to talk about the archipelago wolf going extinct 150 years from now due to the habitat 

shortages caused by timber harvests when less than 10 percent of 

the Tongass will ever be harvested. Think about it: Less that 10 

percent of the total Tongass. The State bag limit on wolves is five, 

and yet they are saying you cannot harvest trees. Do we, as Alaskans, want the choice to control our future in Congress? Do we 

really want the Federal Government to control our lands? In fact, 
3 

whoever gave, in our Constitution, the right for the Federal Government to own land? I asked these questions in my legislation. I 

have read through the testimony of those that will testify saying 

this bill has not got a chance. I ask this question: When is it wrong 

to discuss a different concept? When should we always be stuck 

with what we have today? Is it right that the Federal Government 

can tell us what to do? Not under my interpretation of the Constitution, nor my interpretation of what America is about. I believe 

we have the right, as a State, to control our own destiny, not somebody from Washington, D.C.-especially not a political appointee. 

As I walked in today, I noticed people outside with picket signs, 

and all I can say is they spelled my name correctly, and for that 

I am proud. 

With that, we will open the first witnesses. The first witness is 

the Honorable Pete Hallgren, Mayor of the City and Borough of 

Sitka; Mr. Keith, Perkins, son of my good friend Ray Perkins, and 

may he be resting well; Mr. Stan Filler, Sitka, Alaska. 

Gentlemen, I know this is the day before the 4th of July, but we 

are and will limit the time, but it is at my discretion. The lights 

will be green, and you will have approximately five minutes to 

make your oral testimony, and then at that time if I see, in discretion, you are doing a great job, I may not rap the gavel, but ordinarily we keep this to a short period of time. 

At the end of everybody's testimony in one panel, there will be 

questions asked each individual, and we will go in the order which 

I identified the witnesses. The Mayor, Mr. Pete Hallgren, you are 

up first. 

STATEMENT OF PETE HALLGREN, MAYOR, CITY AND 

BOROUGH OF SITKA, ALASKA 

Mr. HALLGREN. Thank you. As Mayor of the City and Borough 

of Sitka, I wish to officially welcome Congressman Don Young and 

the Committee on Resources to Sitka, and I hope that you will join 

me tomorrow in our 4th of July festivities to celebrate the 220th 

anniversary of our nation's independence from unresponsive, absentee government. 

I appreciate this opportunity to comment on H.R. 2413. Since our 

Municipal Assembly has not yet discussed this bill, the following 

thoughts are my personal ideas. It is my belief that Sitka public 

opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of the reestablishment of a 

much smaller forest products industry in Sitka. Of course, the devil 

is in the details, such as what type of industry, employment numbers, amount of timber to be used annually, and also where and 

how it is cut. Inherent in these timber questions are Sitka's desire 

to maintain its rural lifestyle, including subsistence gathering, protection of the ecology, protection of the commercial and sport fishing, sport hunting, and questions concerning tourism. 

The timber issues are thus items of great importance to Sitkans, 

and yet Sitkans have no decisional say in any of them. Therefore, I applaud your bill as an attempt to bring power back to those 

most concerned and affected by the decision. 

These are questions that are best answered on the most local 

level attainable. I have witnessed the power struggle between the 

various factions of big timber and big ecology as they duke it out 
4 

in the halls of Congress 3,000 miles away. That conduct consist- ently serves only the best interests of the airlines and the Wash- ington, D.C., hotels. Passing H.R. 2413 will not solve the disputes 

within Sitka and within Southeast, but would have a singularly 

important and ultimately useful impact: When people are truly 

given some form of decisional voice, rather than just being advisory, they will then come to the table and use their best efforts to 

reach a solution, rather than continue to posture, as in the past, 

when they knew their efforts were ultimately meaningless. 

I particularly congratulate you on drafting a bill that addresses 

all the tough issues inherent in transfer of the Tongass, and I applaud your interest in openly discussing these issues so that the 

bill can be improved. I have included in my written testimony some 

of my thoughts concerning specific provisions of H.R. 2413, and I 

would like to use my remaining time to suggest exploration of a 

slightly less revolutionary idea. Sitka earlier obtained a $300,000 Federal grant to study "Feasibility Analysis of Alternative Wood-Based Industries." From the 

draft report, it appears that without some sort of long-term (10 or 

more years) timber base tied to processing in Sitka, a timber-processing industry is unlikely to locate in our community. This model 

might also apply to Wrangell. 

Sitka is investigating the potential utility of a land-based community stewardship program with the Forest Service, whereby a 

certain specific area of the Tongass would be reserved to a specific 

community (Sitka or Wrangell) with much greater community 

input, including some decisional powers (possibly in partnership 

with the Forest Service) in such questions as how much cutting, 

where the cuts would be, and the type of logging desired. Inherent 

in this concept is also greater community involvement in matters 

such as subsistence, tourism, fishing, and the other interrelationships we have with the forest. We first initiated exploration of this 

concept in January when we asked the TLMP process include consideration of a demonstration project tying a timber base to processing in Sitka. 

At a meeting last week with the Forest Service, we were unfortunately informed that the current Federal law will not allow allocating Sitka a timber land base nor require that timber be processed 

in a specific community. Current Federal law allows for no commu- nity-based decisional powers concerning the amount of annual cut, 

where it is to be cut, or how it is to be cut. When speaking of a 

smaller timber industry than we had with APC, the figures that I 

tentatively used were 30 to 60 million board feet per year coming 

to Sitka, supporting a job base of 50 or so people. That employment 

could go up based on value added, but a sustainable annual cut 

would need to be available. 

A smaller wood-products industry provides a real opportunity for 

Sitka and has a real chance of attainment. There are problems 

with this idea. Some would reach that goal by fighting to increase 

the cut above the preferred alternative in TLMP, feeling that Sitka 

is in competition with Ketchikan and that there is no wood for us 

until after Ketchikan's desires. I am convinced that Sitkans will 

not have much sympathy for Ketchikan until some wood-product 

industry is re-established here. 
5 

My personal hope is that Ketchikan would learn to live with less 

so that some timber could be shared with Sitka and Wrangell, and 

that in return Ketchikan would move to a more value-added process and receive a long-term contract extension. 

Continuation of a vastly modernized KPC Southeast-wide, loggrade wood-processing facility in Ketchikan, combined with specific 

land-based community stewardship areas with timber facilities located in traditional timber communities such as Sitka and 

Wrangell, might form a useful concept with which to try to craft 

a new long-term Tongass policy. . While H.R. 2413 attempts to address this total lack of local decision making power by giving the Tongass to the State of Alaska, 

my feeling is that, in the near-term, it would be easier to amend 

current Federal law to give the necessary decisional powers to 

Southeast communities to reach a Tongass-wide, long-term stewardship policy, and would allow for continued recognition of the national interest in the national forest, keep the Forest Service intact 

and allow the reinstitution of forest products jobs in Sitka and 

Wrangell, modernize and extend Ketchikan, and meet and protect 

the multiple needs and desires of Southeasterners. 

If the Federal Government would finally realize that the local 

people are at least as responsible and capable as bureaucrats on 

the other side of the continent, if the people of Southeast could be 

empowered, we can settle our differences and build a future for our 

children the entire country can be proud of. 

Thank you. 

[Personal views of Mr. Hallgren may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I will be asking you 

some questions. Thank you for your testimony, and I hope you have 

set the agenda about the decision about the decisionmaking process, and that is what this bill is about. I do appreciate your testimony. 

The next witness I have is Mr. Perkins, Keith Perkins. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH PERKINS 

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Young, thank you for coming to Sitka to hear 

Sitkans' input and concerns on your proposed legislation affecting 

the Tongass National Forest. Too often we are left to read newspapers to understand impacts of proposed Federal legislation on 

our home. I submit my testimony as a lifetime Sitkan and an Alaskan Native. As I have grown up here, I have been fortunate enough 

to gain enough respect among citizens of this community to serve 

as one of the elected officials. However, today I submit this with 

the perspective of a lifetime Sitkan. 

A part of your request for testimony is to the issue of how Forest 

Service policy has affected my life. I would say it has greatly affected this community. There is an untold story in this community 

of the suffering that some Sitkans are going through right now. With underemployment situations or not jobs at all, there are 

Sitkans who are hurting. For anyone to state that Sitka is healthy 

needs to visit some friends of mine and discuss the impact of the 

mill closure with them. I go past the picture that people would 

paint of APC being the intimidating big business. I would rather 

look at the Sitkan who is my neighbor who is hurting. Their story 
6 

is untold because they are proud people. They have never had a 

handout, and they are not about to begin. One young Native person, who is a former mill worker, explained it this way: The last 

time he checked, the City and Borough would not take ten pounds 

of deer meat for payment of his utility bill. He needed cash. He 

wanted a job. He just wanted to have a job so he could pay for his 

share of the bills of living in today's world and have the self-esteem 

accorded with that ability. He stated that he did not mean any 

stern remarks toward his elders, but that today he lives in a cash 

society and he needs the ability to live within its structure and he 

did not want welfare handouts. That means jobs. The baseline unemployment in the Native community is 35 percent, based on the 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska Socio-Economic Health Survey completed in 

1993. It has probably gone up since the mill closure. 

We have grown to have an inordinate amount of public employment here in Sitka, as well. As the State legislature, Congress, and 

their respective administrations work to balance budgets, it will 

also diminish jobs here in Sitka, as well. 

Sitka has received an extremely soft landing in the post-mill era. 

We have received a steady flow of economic recovery moneys from 

the State, from the Forest Service, and from congressional action, 

up to and including the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund. It has kept us moving and, thus, the real impact on Sitkans who 

have lost their jobs has not yet been told. 

The thought of your proposal to transfer the Tongass National 

Forest to Alaskans and asking us as Sitkans and Alaskans for our 

thoughts and guidance brings to mind two relevant stories. 

One is about the proposed amendment in separate legislation as 

I saw it reported in your weekly show this last week. The proposed 

amendment would allow states to tax tribal governments for commerce on tribal lands. You fought this amendment based on the 

constitutional rights of tribes. You argued that Congress had a constitutional obligation to uphold the treaty rights that were about 

to be broken by this amendment. You pointed out that the biggest 

flaw in the amendment was that there was no public testimony allowed on the issue, there was no tribal representative allowed to 

provide any guidance. Democracy did not work in this case. Tribes 

were not allowed to give testimony, so there was no public process. 

Today, we are being allowed to give testimony on this proposed legislation which directly impacts us, and I thank you for that. This 

legislation that proposes to give the Tongass to Alaskans gives control of the future use of this land back to its people, the people that 

live here and care about what happens to our homes, and I appreciate that. Too often Sitkans have been affected by congressional 

legislation wherein we have no way of making our case for what 

is best for us, those that live here. I ran into a visitor from New 

York right outside this very room last week. She was inquiring 

about a local meeting regarding Tongass funds that was taking 

place, and I explained to her about the appropriation of funds to 

offset the disaster of the timber industry for this region. I further 

explained the reason the business community was invited to brainstorm was to provide the elected body of this community some additional thoughts on how to best spend this money, this Southeast 

Alaska Economic Disaster Fund, to help generate economic and 
7 

business development. Her response to that: She was glad the logging was diminishing, as the Tongass forest was being torn by 

overharvesting. Her bottom line was that she understood that trees 

are not a renewable resource and that trees do not grow back. I 

was amazed, and I asked her where she got her information. She 

stated that friends of hers told her that is why she needed to oppose logging of the Tongass, and she lives in New York. She complied with this thought and had built up a firm belief that the tim- ber industry is destroying the Tongass forest. 

She further stated that she advocates to her representatives in 

Congress to stop the raping of the Tongass. 

I asked her to step outside this back door and take a look at the 

surrounding scenery, and I asked her what she saw. She stated 

that this is why we should get rid of the logging, to keep Sitka in 

its pristine state. She was shocked when I explained that this very 

mountain that she was looking at, Mount Verstovia, had been 

logged and potentially void of trees during the mid-1930's, that 

this was actually a second growth that was approximately 60 years 

old. I also told her that the U.S. Forest Service is mandated by law 

to have a sustainable plan to ensure that the forest maintains its 

health forever. I also related that an estimated 87 percent of the 

Tongass is off limits to any timber cutting whatsoever and that of 

the remaining estimated 13 percent, it is managed as multiple use, 

meaning other activities are taken into consideration with timber 

harvesting. 

I further related that if the U.S. Forest Service is allowed to 

practice their silviculture science, that the second growth will provide approximately 50 percent additional harvestable timber within 

the same land base. I explained, in layman's terms, what 

precommercial thinning and commercial thinning does for the vibrant health of the second growth. I also related the experience 

that I had last fall when I flew out to the False Island Logging 

Camp and was looking at 25-year-old stands of trees that were over 

60 feet tall and they were so thick that you could not walk through them. I further related that I saw a stand of trees that had been 

precommercial thinned and were shooting up faster than the other 

stands. She did not realize that, as a rain forest, we have an extremely fertile ground for the ability of the forest to reproduce itself. She was slightly embarrassed over her discoveries and was 

also slightly disappointed as she felt she had been misinformed by 

her friends from New York. 

I provide these two stories as the basis for the statement that I 

believe decisions about this forest and the ability for input to those 

who would manage this forest needs to be here in Alaska. Alaskans 

need to decide their own future, not some misinformed person from 

the East Coast or from outside interest who now dictate to us what 

we can and cannot do here in our home. I also brought the issue 

of the amendment on the taxation issue for tribal lands regarding 

taxation because there are those who seem to think that they can 

do a better job of managing the resource without ever having been 

here and discovering firsthand what happens here on the Tongass. 

Too often the Native Americans and Alaska Natives are not recognized as sovereign governments as stated in congressional legislation and Federal Government policy. 
8 

You are providing the opportunity for Alaskans to control their 

own destiny. I believe you have heard this from our elected State 

officials, both from the governor's office and from the State legislature leadership, as well. I concur with the concept of greater selfdetermination for Alaskans by Alaskans that these two bodies had 

previously stated. 

I also appreciate the proposed legislation providing security for 

subsistence rights to our Alaska Natives as a part of the equation 

of the transfer and the security of subsistence rights under Federal 

laws until such time that Alaska State laws and Federal laws are 

revised to be consistent. This ensures that Alaska Native rights are 

in place in this issue and have a place at the table. 

You have as~ed for sotne input and guidance regarding your proposed legislation, and I would state that I am concerned for 

Sitkans and thus I would be concerned about jobs for Sitkans. This 

includes our private sector industries of timber, tourism, and fishing. By having this forest in State hands, it takes away one layer 

of political science at the national level and provides a forum for 

Alaskans to decide what is best for Alaskans. 

I would also include that my concern is also for the employment 

of the U.S. Forest Service detailed here in Sitka. My concern is 

that these Sitkans be allowed the fullest opportunity to remain employed within this proposed legislation as the managers of the forest. The Forest Service employment under Mr. Gary Morrison, the 

Chatham District Supervisor, and Mr. Jim Franzel, Sitka Ranger, 

are a credit to the service of the public. In the face of diverse opinions, they have continued to strive for sustainable and sensible forest management practices for all users that include timber harvesting as a part of that management equation. 

I would also state that I am concerned that the State needs to 

have the capabilities for managing the Tongass in place as transient discussions continue. This community needs stability. The 

fishing industry is in the midst of turmoil with the Canadian salmon dispute. It is frustrating to see our fishers' abilities further diminished by outside interests. Our visitor industry is also constantly tied up in access issues regarding public lands. The timber 

industry continues to fight for stability. These issues have constantly been tossed around by the political rhetoric of Washington, 

D.C., and those influences from a national level. While you have 

done a good job for Alaskans, you are still only one voice of 435 

voices in the House. I would State that Alaskans have a better, 

more sensible and rational approach to managing our access to our 

lands, our fisheries, or the forest. 

This community has had a great history of being a steady, consistent, and well-balanced community over the years with a healthy 

fishing industry, a healthy timber industry, and a healthy visitor 

industry. The health of any community can be measured by the 

health of its private-sector economy. A vibrant economy means 

there is disposable income to support the things that make a community healthy in the sense that there is money for business to 

support school programs and extra-curricular activities for kids, 

non-profit organizations like the Teen Center or the SAFV Shelter 

or adult recreational supports, cultural events like the Sitka Sum-
9 

mer Music Festival or the Fine Arts Camp. These are the kinds of 

aspects that makes this community so attractive and unique. 

We have lost that economic stability and we are beginning to lose 

the ability for the business community to help fund those kinds of 

activities. Sitka has been a well-rounded community over the years, 

but with the fishing industry suffering global market problems and 

a dispute with Canada, and the timber industry and visitor industry constantly battling the access issues, this is an opportunity for 

a part of those problems to be resolved. We cannot resolve the Canada issue with this legislation, but there is a possibility to bring 

the decisionmaking process for the timber issues and the access issues for tourism back to Alaska, where they belong. We may want 

to lock it up and make it a park, for all I know, but at least that 

decision would be made by Alaskans. 

I support the concept that this legislation proposes. You have put 

some hard issues into this bill for Alaskans to comment on, and 

that is appreciated. 

In conclusion, I would state that you have answered one of my 

primary concerns, and that is the paramount issue of the Native 

subsistence rights that you included in this legislation. I commend 

you for that. My two major concerns, for the record, would be concluding the State of Alaska have a management ability in place for 

this transfer and that the employment issue of Sitkans who work 

for the Forest Service be addressed in more detail with an emphasis on job retention. 

I would also conclude my testimony stating that, regardless of 

Forest Service policy, I personally appreciate the work of Gary 

Morrison, Chatham District Supervisor, and Jim Franzel, Sitka 

Ranger, and their staff here at the local level here in Sitka. Too 

often their work goes unappreciated in this community. I appreciate the thought of giving Alaskans the ability to control their own 

destiny by the concept of this proposed legislation. I hope that you 

will address the concerns that I have presented. I believe this proposed legislation is worth taking to the next step to take a more 

detailed view of how it might work. As a lifetime Sitkan who intends to live here for the rest of his life with his family, thank you 

for allowing me to testify today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Keith, and I can assure you that 

your thoughts will be considered. That is what hearings are all 

about. 

If I can, I know three times you complimented the local Forest 

Service people, and I want to back up what you said. 

There was a time when their decisions were the decisions that 

the people of Alaska lived with. That is no longer true. Those decisions are now made in Washington, D.C., and that is why this bill 

is a necessity, and why anybody would oppose local input and local 

control, I cannot for the life understand. Why they support big government and centralized government, I cannot understand, unless 

they have a different concept of America than I have. I think their 

input is so important, and also the decisionmaking thoughts so important. So I thank you for your comments. I know I let you go 

overtime, and I apologize to Stan, but, Stan, you are on now. 
10 

STATEMENT OF STAN FILLER 

Mr. FILLER. Thank you, and thank you for coming. 

My message will be brief because I know Keith said, basically, 

what I feel, but when I look out in this room, it gives me more reason to support your concept. 

A little over three years ago, we were given the Northwest Baranof Timber Plan and told to make comments, send them back to 

Washington, D.C., and for the last three years, I have seen the 

same people in the room, and nobody seems to be satisfied, whether your control of the timber industry is going to be timber or it 

is going to the environmental community, however you want to do 

this, but the same people. And the same people carry the same 

signs, and they are not satisfied, and I would submit to you that 

with State ownership of this, we would make closure on some of 

these issues. When you have a State as small as the State of Alaska is in population, we know all our legislators, and we do have 

input. We see this in State government every day, and when I look 

out in this room, I see very dissatisfied people for one reason or another, and from a standpoint of giving us our own ownership and 

being able to make our own decisions, we can do it much better 

here in the State of Alaska than they can do it in Washington, D.C. 

Some of the issues that Keith spoke of, I hear that every day 

from people as we see visitors coming to our community and looking at this pristine wilderness. They go out here to Camp Coogan, 

which is pristine wilderness, which was clearcut twenty years ago, 

and our trees do grow back. We have a renewable resource, and I 

think we need to take advantage of that. 

I will close with that and thank you for coming. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Stan, and each one of you witnesses, 

here, really reestablish what I have been saying all along, that you 

do have some deep, deep interest, and there is no way the issues 

are going to be closed if they are continually decisions made in 

Washington, D.C., and I will have some questions, but I would like 

to say one thing. 

For those that I noticed who were carrying placards outside and 

some in this room, what is the fear of Alaskans' participating in 

the decisionmaking policy? If I were one of those people that, very 

frankly, wanted to have the so-called pristine area of Alaska, I 

would support the local control because some day along the line 

there will be a different time, and back in Washington, D.C., they 

will make a decision that will be contrary to any preservationist's 

concept, and that will happen without any local input, and, again, 

the people who live here will be constantly put under that stress, 

and I think Keith put it very well: If it had not been for Senator 

Stevens' million dollars in Federal moneys for training programsthe mayor will have to realize this-the economy of this area is 

going to be very, very bleak next year, and the economy of Southeast is going to be a lot more bleak if we do not try to solve these 

problems. Mr. Mayor, you mentioned a ten-year supply of timber. 

The Forest Service turned down Sealaska's request for a ten-year 

contract. 

What was their comment when you went to the Forest Service 

with your pilot program? Why could not they meet your suggestion? 
11 

Mr. HALLGREN. Last week when we meet with the Forest Service, we were told that Federal-! specifically asked about ten-year 

contracts, and I am told that Federal law does allow ten-year contracts, but they also informed me that none have ever been granted. So I would--

The CHAIRMAN. Did they say it could not be granted because of 

the law? 

Mr. HALLGREN. No. The law allows a ten-year contract to be 

granted. The law does not allow contracts to be granted which re- quire processing a certain spot, such as Sitka, but they did say that 

even though the law allows ten-year contracts be granted, their understanding was that none had ever been given. 

My personal opinion is that that is a political decision that has 

been made in D.C. rather than on the local level. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is your opinion, now. Let me ask if-they 

think that they do not have within the parameter of issuing a tenyear contract. Under your pilot program, would you envision timber 

coming to Sitka or to-you included Wrangell in this equation, did 

you not? 

Mr. HALLGREN. Yes. The basic concept of the idea is have a certain land-based area, probably a little larger than the City and 

Borough of Sitka, which would be under some form of local 

decisional control, not just for cutting-that would be major to itbut also for other ideas, such as where the cutting would be, how 

much, and recreational uses, basically bringing those major ideasquestions back to Sitka. 

Any cut in that area would be required to be processed primarily 

in the-within the region: Sitka or Wrangell. It is my understanding that there is such a high percentage of low-grade fiber in the 

forest, that in order for our economy to work, to process high-grade 

timber, you need to have a place to also process the low grade, and 

that is-my thought was that Ketchikan would make an absolutely 

excellent spot for Southeast to handle the 45 to 50 percent of the 

cut that is low grade. 

The CHAIRMAN. That could be done under the present ownership 

of the forest, under the Federal Government, if they would agree 

with that? 

Mr. HALLGREN. It could be done if the Federal statute were 

changed to require processing in specific areas. I am told that that 

is not allowed by Federal statute at this time, and also not allowed 

by Federal statute at this time is local decisional-decisionmaking 

as to the amount of cutting in the area and methods. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, and I am glad you are looking 

at the present situation because some people say this bill has not 

got a chance, and I will challenge them to that because I happen 

to believe that this concept of local decisionmaking goes beyond Alaska. 

And for those in the audience, this bill was introduced by myself, 

and because the Tongass is such a controversial area, that I have 

already had inquiries from the State of Oregon, inquiries from the 

State of Wyoming, Montana, Arizona. They are very interested in 

this concept, especially as we are looking at the loss of stumpage 

fees that would go to the communities. If there is no timber harvest 

you have no stumpage fees. And the big thing is TLMP. As 
12 

TLMP-not TLMP, but in lieu of taxes. As budget moneys get tighter, the chances of taxes being paid in the community becomes 

less. So there is more interest outside on this concept of State management of Federal lands than just this Tongass, and I just wanted 

people to know that. 

Keith, you made some comments about suggestions for the bill. 

I can assure you that under the bill-it is just a skeleton ideathat the State will be prepared-in the first place, the State has 

to act. We are not insisting upon it. The State has to act, first on 

the positive side, requesting the transfer of lands, and that is something for the legislative body and the governor, but there is a transition. The title of the bill is a transition period. 

As far as the other issues you brought up, I think any advice we 

can get from you-! think you covered it pretty well-is deeply appreciated. I want to thank this panel, and, Stan, I think you put 

it very well. I have been in this building before and while it was 

being built. We have had hearings in that room over there, hearings here on this issue and fishing issues, and this constant indecision is evident. This goes on and on and on, and I would like to 

see these things come full circle, and then, like Keith says, maybe 

the people of Sitka will decide the whole area will be a park. At 

least it will be the decision of you, not the Federal Government, because the Federal Government can make decisions that are contrary to beliefs of even the preservationist. That is democracy, and 

that has been my concept of our government, is democracy and the 

people locally involved in the decisionmaking, not some centralized, 

Federalized, socialist form of government in Washington, D.C., and 

why anybody would oppose that, for the life of me I cannot understand. 

I want to thank you, and I hope you get a chance to see the parade tomorrow. It is not going to rain: I am in town. And we will 

look forward to Sitka as one of the areas. I missed it last year. I 

do not know whether it rained or not, but I missed the parade, and 

that is one reason I am back here this year. 

Thank you for being on the panel. Thank you very much. 

The next panel is John DeTemple, Sitka, Alaska; Theodore 

Borbridge, Vice Chair of the Sitka Tribal Council, Sitka, Alaska; 

and Russell Wright of Sitka, Alaska. 

I want to welcome the panel and appreciate your being here. You 

saw the last panel, and we will follow along the same lines. 

I would at this time especially like to welcome each one of you, 

but, John, you are up first. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. DETEMPLE 

Mr. DETEMPLE. Thank you, Congressman. Glad you came to 

Sitka. I hope we can keep the green light on. 

Most folks know my name is John DeTemple of KIFW Radio. I 

have been a 34-year resident of Sitka~r of the State of Alaska, 

a 15-year resident of Sitka. I have been employed by Alaska Broadcast Communications for the past 15 years. I manage KIFW and 

KSBZ Radio. My wife was born and raised in Ketchikan. I have a 

ten-year-old daughter, a nine-year-old son, and legal custody of my 

great-nephew, who is an Alaska Native. So I have a vested interest 

in the future of not only Sitka but the State, as well. 
13 

I have lived here through the good times, when money and the 

economy were at the peak back in the good-and-old days, and now 

through the times when most Sitkans are hanging on to what they 

have just to survive and try to maintain a home here in Sitka. 

Being employed in commercial radio, I now see what the impact of 

the closed Alaska Pulp Mill has meant not only to my business as 

far as advertising revenues, but also what it has done to some of 

the other businesses here in Sitka. The first year after the mill was 

closed, people had severance pay and money in savings. Now that 

it has been almost four years since that devastating event, things 

are not quite as rosy. The price of real estate has gone up since 

the closure due to the fact that most homes sold on today's market 

are going to people from out of town. Some of the sky-high prices 

are getting pretty crazy. My own home is a good example. I bought 

a duplex five years ago for $130,000. It was assessed two months 

ago at $176,500. My house is not worth the pilings it is built on. 

It seems to me that that is quite a jump in value. My home is not 

the only one. Ask anybody who has a recent assessment of their 

house, and they will tell you the same thing: Theirs went up quite 

a bit. 

Sitka cannot just rely on what is going on today. It is nice that 

we have tourists that come to Sitka and come to spend their money 

in our stores and stuff, but we cannot rely on just that. 

We have had a cutback in commercial fishing just to pacify the 

neighbors over in Canada. Well, we are going to have to rectify 

that problem, also. No logging whatsoever for Sitka or for 

Wrangell. That means the loss of a lot of jobs. We are approaching 

some very hard times. A lot of folks say that it is going to get harder. 

It already is, for my business, as well. Most of my business clients still advertise in some form or another but not on the scale 

that they used to. Just as an average, my company has lost an average of $10,000 a month of revenue since the pulp mill closed. Put 

that all together, we are talking close to a half a million dollars. 

Take 15 percent of that half a million dollars, and that came out 

of my personal pocket. My income relies on advertising revenues, 

and if I am not out there hustling every day, day in and day out, 

you do not make a whole lot of money in this town. A lot of families 

have also left town. We have a show everybody knows called "Problem Corner." Take a listen and see what is for sale: Houses, cars, 

boats, furniture, moving sales. Every day seems to be an added list. 

A lot of businesses have been sold. Had a lot of new people come 

to town and buy a new business to try to make it work. The school 

enrollment has stayed pretty close but, still, a lot of long-time Sitka 

residents have moved south just to survive. 

After the closure of the A.L.P. Mill, the Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, came to town and had a public meeting. 

He decided to have a media meeting over at the Sitka Airport. It 

was supposed to be a private meeting. Anybody know a place in the 

airport where you can have a private meeting? Pretty wide-open. 

Well, I got to borrow the Avis office, and we had a closed-door 

meeting. It seemed that every question I asked Mr. Thomas, every 

time I asked him a question, the comment I got was "No comment." 

He would not answer my straightforward questions. It was kind of 
14 

ironic, though, that every time I asked the Chief that, he had the 

same comment that some of the folks back in D.C. have, "No comment." 

Now, it seems to me that when it comes to issues pertaining to 

Alaska and its people, our congressional delegation has gone above 

and beyond the call of duty in trying to get the rest of our great 

nation to realize the vast resources and what this House bill can 

mean for us and what we are told this forest can do for us. We are 

at a stage now where the old growth is not letting new growth in. 

There are plenty of trees to be cut. I am not for clearcutting. I am 

for good forest management, and it can be done if it is put into the 

right hands. 

And the things this town was founded on was timber and fishing. 

It is sad for me to see that multi-million-dollar operation out there 

just sit quiet. A lot of people do not miss the smoke and pollution. 

I lied. There went the yellow light. . For me, it is imperative that we develop some type of wood-products industry in Sitka. We are never going to have a mill along the 

scale we used to have, but we need to have some type of wood-products industry. 

Some cruise lines have already begun to cancel their Sitka stops 

in a couple of years, if not next year. Each year enough fishing gets 

cut back that it almost does not pay to buy gas for your boat anymore. We need to develop a dependable year-round, wood-products 

industry to sustain the local economy. When the pulp mill closed 

its doors in September 1993, $18 million was taken away from the 

local economy. That is a chunk of change when you think about it, 

and it affected all of us. A lot of people do not think it affected 

them. Take a look at it real close. Electrical rates have gone up, 

taxes have gone up. As I said, my business has lost quite a bit of 

money. 

Yes, you all hear from the conservationists-the greenies and the 

like-that Sitka is so much nicer when there is no more pollution 

in the air, but you never heard those people complain when the 

mill employees were in their stores spending their hard-earned 

money on their wares, not once. You know, you have to ask yourself where is this all leading. Are 

we telling our children, the future leaders of Sitka and Alaska, that 

they will have to fend for themselves, or are we going to knuckle 

down and stand up for what we believe in? I think it is time for 

all Alaskans to stand up for what they believe in. Alaska is a true marvel of God's creation: Vast oil and mineral 

deposits, the best· fishing in the entire world, breath-taking scenery, spruce, hemlock, cedar, cottonwood, birch trees that can be 

cut and replenished for the future. Alaska is my home, and it is 

yours, too. It is time that we take control of our destiny and make 

a continuous resource for centuries to come. 

I thank you for your time and all of your efforts in making Alaska the great land that it truly is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, John. You bring out some points I 

think are going to become more evident down the road, and my biggest concern, as I said before, is Alaskans, under my bill, could 

make the decisions, and if they make the decision that they want 

to make a park out of it, that is their decision, and even this gen-
15 

tleman right here, his decisions are not listened to anymore, and 

that is unfortunate, and it is not this administration or any other 

administration. It is just a concept and philosophy. It started coming from Washington, D.C., about thirty years ago that the states 

and people really do not have any rights. We have to look on the 

so-called national side of it. I do not think that is the way our country should be run. 

Ted, you are up next. 

STATEMENT OF THEODORE C. BORBRIDGE, VICE CHAIR, 

SITKA TRIBAL COUNCIL 

Mr. BORBRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

First off, I would like to correct, my last name is Borbridge. The CHAIRMAN. I thought I said--

Mr. BORBRIDGE. You mispronounced it, but that is neither here 

nor there. 

Mr. Congressman, the Sitka Tribe of Alaska appreciates your invitation and the opportunity to testify on the Tongass transition, 

whether the State should even be given the opportunity to take 

over the operation of the forest. 

The Sitka Tribe of Alaska, as a federally recognized government 

for over 3,000 tribal citizens, respectfully but firmly opposes any attempt to transfer ownership of the Tongass National Forest from 

the Federal Government to the State government, and I will explain that a little later. 

The Tlingit people, including those of the Sitka Tribe, have a cultural history in Southeast Alaska which spans 10,000 years. Historically, the traditional territory of the Sitka Tribe extended the 

full length of the Pacific Coast of Chichagof and Baranof Island 

from Point Urey in the north to Cape Ommaney in the south; it 

extended up Peril Strait between Chichagof and Baranof Islands 

into Hoonah Sound as far as Patterson Bay. Further, there has 

been virtual unanimity in agreement in reports made by scholars, 

travelers, traders, and missionaries, from Veniaminov in 1835 to 

the present, that similarities in names, geographical data and 

other evidence point to the fact that the Sitka Tribe has occupied 

roughly the same territory since the beginning of time. 

The traditional territory of the Sitka Tribe is heavily populated 

with the sites of ancestral smokehouses, cabins, villages, forts, fish 

traps, gardens, hunting and gathering territories, and other sites 

of cultural significance. Over 50 of these same clan smokehouses 

and hunting sites and gathering territories are either held in restricted fee status by citizens of the Sitka Tribe or are subject to 

their claims by applications filed under the Alaska Native Allotment of 1906. 

Historically, this distant territory was not only recognized by 

Sitka tribal members themselves but also by neighboring communities; that these lands and waters were held under a recognized 

tenure system by the clans of the Sitka Tribe; that the ownership 

of the land was recorded in tradition by means of the potlatch and 

totem pole; that the lands, beaches, and waters were used intensively by the ancestors of the people of the Sitka Tribe, according 

to matrilineal succession; that the use of these lands, beaches, and 
16 

waters were and continue to be significant in the daily life of the 

people of the Sitka Tribe. 

As a matter of law, the Sitka Tribal Council, as the governing 

body of the Sitka Tribe, is bound by the constitution of the tribe 

to protect the natural and cultural resources within the customary 

and traditional territory for its tribal citizens. These natural and 

cultural resources include subsistence foods and wildlife, sites of 

historic and cultural significance, and Native land allotments within the Tongass National Forest. 

The Sitka Tribe opposes H.R. 2413 because the State of Alaska 

has, as a general practice, historically and continuously demonstrated disregard-and at times outright contempt-for these 

cultural and natural resources interests of the Native community. 

The Sitka Tribe opposes H.R. 2413 because of the governmental 

hostility, disrespect, and uncertainty that State ownership would 

bring to Native interest in the Tongass National Forest. Governmental hostility of the State of Alaska has demonstrated 

a historic and continuous hostility toward Native interests in the 

Tongass National Forest. This hostility stems from the fact that 

the governmental power exercised by the State of Alaska over natural and cultural resources is within the same sphere of governmental interest exercised by the Sitka Tribe. One absolutely necessary role of the Federal Government in the Tongass is to ensure 

that the relatively stronger government of the State of Alaska does 

not entirely swallow the relatively weaker government of the Sitka 

Tribe. 

Disrespect: The State of Alaska has demonstrated an historic and 

continuous disrespect for Native values associated with use and occupancy of the Tongass National Forest. Under the law of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the State's own 

subsistence laws customary and traditional use of resources by the 

people of Sitke have a priority use above all others. However, Alaska has unjustifiably and repeatedly failed to find that species such 

as king, coho and other species of salmon are customary and traditional foods in Sitka. 

Uncertainty: The State of Alaska has demonstrated a historic 

and continuous pattern of uncertain dealings with Native interest 

in the Tongass National Forest. The recognition of the tribal governments and subsistence rights of tribal citizens by the State of 

Alaska fluctuates with the election returns. It would be a gross injustice to subject Native rights from year to year to the political 

whims of a newly elected administration and legislature. It is true 

that Governor Knowles has demonstrated respect and concern for 

Native rights and interests, but it is far from certain that the next 

administration will carry out and enforce such enlightened policies. 

Although management of the Tongass by the Federal Government under the U.S. Forest Service has been far from perfect, in 

recent times this Federal Government agency has for the most part 

shown a high degree of government respect and certainty in dealing with Native governments and interests. Indeed, the Federal 

Government is under a legal and Constitutional trust obligation to 

protect Native rights and interests. The State government is under 

no such obligation. 
17 

The Tongass Transfer and Transition Act repeatedly stresses the 

need and wisdom for the policy of local control and management of 

the Tongass. This policy of local control and management is the 

strongest portion of H.R. 2413. In Section 2 of the Findings of H.R. 

2413, this policy states an important thought: That the government 

that is the closest both in physical and cultural proximity to the 

Tongass will be the most sensitive to the ecologic and economic 

needs of the people of the Tongass. . The Sitka Tribe respectfully submits that the governments with 

the closest physical and cultural ties to the Tongass National Forest are, in fact, the federally recognized tribes of Southeast Alaska, 

one of which is the Sitka Tribe of Alaska. Further, if it is the intention of Congress to return ownership of the Tongass to the governments that will be the most sensitive to the ecologic, cultural, and 

economic needs of the people of the Tongass, then let Congress return ownership of this portion of the Tongass to the governments 

that have managed these lands and waters since a time before 

written history or living memory, the federally recognized tribes of 

Southeast Alaska. This could also include representation of the 

communities involved as determined by the elected. 

Again, the Sitka Tribe appreciates your invitation and opportunity to testify regarding this bill, and we welcome you to visit 

with Sitka Tribe Council to discuss our concerns for local ownership and management of the Tongass National Forest. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ted, and if I did mispronounce 

Borbridge, I am sorry, but I thought I pronounced it correctly. 

Russ, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL WRIGHT 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you for the opportunity, Congressman. 

As I was leaving the house, my wife said keep it short, so I came 

with a new list. 

I left Angoon in 1949 to go to attend Sheldon Jackson, and coming to Sitka, it was a big town, big city. At the end of the road was 

a cottage. It had a bridge going to the dairy farm, and that was 

pretty much the end of-the reason I am saying this is because a 

lot of people-a lot of new people live here, and they do not know 

the history of Sitka, and if you do not know your history, you are 

going to be amiss. 

With that thought, there is a few homes down toward the dairy 

farm, but not many, and going out the Halibut Point Road, Marine 

Street is pretty much the end of downtown there. There was a few 

homes going out to Halibut Point, like the Toothacher (ph)-people 

remember that-and during Christmas I came home from the navy, 

after I had left Sheldon Jackson, and we used to go across Marine 

Street to get a Christmas tree, which now is pretty well developed, 

and downtown was, I do not know, two or three thousand people. 

I could be incorrect on minor details, but to me it was a big city. 

It was a nice city, friendly. I remember the Hames' business and 

Wrens (ph), and they really catered to the students, you might say. 

They had nice shops. 

I left Sheldon Jackson and after three years joined the navy during the Korean conflict, came back, got my high school diploma, 
18 

went on to college, taking a course I liked, but when I came off the 

plane, we got off at the turn-around. That is end of Marine Street 

a little ways, and that was the end of the town. That was our air- port. · 

After the fishing season there was no-the town closed up for the 

winter. And we had Mt. Edgecumbe High School and we had Sheldon Jackson and we had Sitka High. Sitka High was just this side 

of Market, I believe it is. That was the high school, and I believe 

that is where Gary Paxon (ph) graduated from. I do not know. But 

you look at the growth of this town, I think the people, a lot of new 

people in this town do not realize what has happened. They got the 

mill for a reason. They got the mill for year-round jobs. I used to fish for a living. I used to work in the cannery, but the 

canneries are no longer in Alaska. All the Native villages used to 

be empty because they went to the fish canneries, and that is 

where my dad worked and that is where I worked. Now those are 

gone, and now the timber is gone and mining is gone, and if they 

move the State capital and Ketchikan closes down like ALP, we 

have nothing. We are right back to ground zero, and I do not see 

people here in Alaska anymore with the vision to make things 

move and grow. I am concerned for my grand-kids. I can retire. To 

me, it is not an issue. So I think the best move, and I am not going to say my point 

until at the end whether I agree with you or not, but we had no 

airport as we know it. We had no bridge as we can see. We had 

no library. We had no Centennial Building. 

We did not have Crescent Harbor or the park. We did not have 

Shee Atika. We did not have the Sheffield House that Shee Atika 

bought. We did not have the Potlatch Motel, the Super 8. No Al's 

Credit Union, no Sea Mart out the road. We had very little of 

any-and you did not need it. The town was very small. 

Now we have water treatment, sewer treatment, well-controlled 

dump. We have a port development. We have Texaco. But I would 

like to have the people drive by the mill. I hear these horror stories 

all the time. I do not believe it, but a lot of people do. 

Get back to one person that spoke from New York. We had a person that went to high school with my wife, and also 

nursing schools, that were here last week, and he is from rural 

New York, and he says, "God, look at all these trees." He could not 

believe it. He was taken aback by all the trees we had. He said, 

"From what I heard, it was all denuded. There was no trees in 

Alaska." So this is perpetuated as a lie to the American people, and 

I have also heard a person from New Hampshire speaking at a 

round-table in Oregon saying, "The Tongass is mine, and it is 

denuded right now," and if you folks want to get that tape, it is 

still available, I imagine. Drive by the mill, most of you, the new people. That place was 

logged by Nelson Logging not too long ago, and you can count every 

stump in that area, and there is 15, 20 new trees by each stump. They will have to thin it out; otherwise, it is going to be covered 

over with new trees. And, let us face it, it is perpetuated as a lie. 

I will say we have so much emphysema and lung problems because 

the national old growth is depleting our oxygen. New growth, we 

need it. That is questionable. But people like to do stuff like that. 
19 

I, for one, dispute the logging problem. At my age, I cannot run 

around old growth, and the mountains around here are at least 

3,000 feet high. So I hunt the logged-off areas. That is where all 

the deer is at, and I get my share. Once in a while I feel brave and 

I go out into a old-growth logging road and hunt, and they have 

upped the deer bag limit. It is not less. It is more. And so I do not 

see any problem there, and I wish they would quit perpetuating 

that lie. It is amazing: The people that should know better do not, 

and that is the sad part, including long-time people. And I am 

proud to be an Indian and I am proud of my heritage. I was an 

environmentalist long before people. I did not go to college to be an 

environmentalist. I was brought up like that. My dad-that was 

part of my culture. So 1-the reason I said this about Sitka, all the stuff, the building, the infrastructure here, was put in by a lot of elected officials. 

I agreed with most of them. I disagree wholeheartedly with a lot 

of them, and I still do. And I talked to Stan and I talked to Ann 

and I talked to Perkins. I disagree with what they are doing, but 

look at the result over the years. Is Sitka worse off or better? Look 

at the Centennial Building. Is it worse or better than before, before 

logging, before the wood industry? 

I've seen a lot of changes since the mill came. When I got out 

of the navy, they did not give me my muster-out pay. When I was 

discharged, they waited three months, but in the meantime I lived 

with my dad. I went with a girl locally. I could not buy her a cup 

of coffee. There was absolutely no work in town. That was before 

the mill. I do not call that quality of life or living, but you look at 

the-you say, well, did the wood products fulfill their contract? 

Well, look at Sitka. Did it fulfill its contract? We have got two 

dams, we have got a beautiful city, we have got a water treatment. 

Did they fulfill their contract? 

That is my point on this whole story about Sitka. I believe that 

the Tongass should be transferred over to the State. At least I can 

call Robin Taylor or Ben Grussendorf if I disagree with what they 

are doing. I talk to Mary McDowell. She is an aide to the governor. 

I cannot call-I have talked to the Lieutenant Governor, Fran 

Ulmer, before the election, and can I do that with Al Gore? I cannot. I think we would have better control. 

At least if we do not like what the people are doing, we can kick 

them out locally. We cannot do that today. 

Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Russ, and I want to stress two 

things. I am glad you brought back the history, and just for your 

information, the lady from New York that has been mentioned, the 

annual harvest in the Tongass prior to 1990 was 364 million board 

feet. That is from the Tongass. That is with both mills operating, 

the Wrangell mill and the Metlakatla mill. That is average. New 

York's average, the State of New York, is 1.8 billion board feet a 

year, but it is all on private land, and those New York legislators 

do not even realize it, and it is a renewable timber industry. 

Arkansas has 750 million board feet, the President's State. Texas 

is 4 billion board feet, Texas, and yet we talk about harvesting less 

than 364 million board feet annually, and what is being proposed 

now is very minimal. Somehow this message has got to be gotten 
20 

across, the dishonesty that has disseminated from the Tongass and 

how it is the last rain forest being denuded is wrong, and we all 

know that. Mr. WRIGHT. Just to show you how-my conception of the Congress is today, they made a big issue out of the-it slipped my 

mind. They are talking about increasing the minimum wage. It was 

a big issue. It was all on our front pages of all the major magazines, how the mean-spirited-one part of the Congress is trying to 

keep it down to where it should be. I did not see those same people 

talking about people here in this town making $60,000 top, to 

$40,000, that they just eliminated. 

Now, to compensate us, they want to give me a little minimum 

wage, ten cents an hour. It is perverted, and I think it is time to 

get the control back to the states where it should be. The CHAIRMAN. Again, that is the idea of it. 

I have never seen in the Constitution where it says the Federal 

Government should own property. Ted, I would like to suggest, although I deeply respect your idea, 

that the Sitka Tribe read the bill very carefully because I believe 

there are two provisions in there that hopefully will take care of 

most of your interests: Subsistence, historical, cultural, and the 

whole gamut. I do know this: The Federal Government does not 

necessarily, if you check the record of the Federal Government, 

keep their word very well, either. 

Mr. BORBRIDGE. But, Congressman, our main issues seem to be 

with the State, and we are subject to the political whims of this 

State. 

The CHAIRMAN. Under my bill, you would not be. You would not 

be, under my bill. I just wanted to stress that, because we wrote 

this very carefully with a lot of input, and if it needs some improvement, look at the section-! believe it is on page five-and look 

what might improve that, where you would not have to-and I 

agree with you on what you are saying, but look at that very carefully, and I am going to ask the question later on about whether 

anybody was for turning it all over to the tribes, too. I am interested in that, but I am looking for input. So read the bill for me 

and see if you can give me some good suggestions. Mr. BORBRIDGE: I have got your bill here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Read that one section. 

John, your comments about the economy, what else are-let me 

ask the mayor. Is there a tracking process? Has the city, itself, set 

up a tracking process of what happens to schools, taxes, to really 

study the economics? Do you have any economists involved? Do you 

have any economists? 

Mr. HALLGREN. The McDowell Group does studies for Sitka. We 

do not have anybody under contract yet at this time, but we generally do an annual update through our Economic Development 

Committee. The city has upgraded its finance department in the 

last three years, and they track very closely the income on the 

sales tax and the property tax levels. The CHAIRMAN. What about your infrastructure, about the cost 

of replacement, has that been cranked in and where will the income come from to do that, or are you pretty well up to speed, now, 
21 

on the age factor, on your water and sewer and fire and police and 

that type of thing? 

Mr. HALLGREN. The city has traditionally been behind the curve 

in preparing its infrastructure. We just a few months ago voted to 

increase the sales tax from four percent to five percent to come up 

with the money to rebuild our high school and one of our other 

schools and also to build a new city shop, which dates back to 

World War II, but it is a matter of increasing taxes to take care 

of things. We are definitely behind the curve on our taking care of 

our general fund buildings. 

The CHAIRMAN. How was the State revenue this year, was it cut, 

the revenue sharing? 

Mr. HALLGREN. The revenue sharing has been cut, and I think 

for the last several years no question about. that, and I think this 

year we took a seven or eight percent cut, and we have been taking 

larger percentages of cuts than other State areas. 

One of the things that has actually helped us has been that the 

stumpage has gone up the last several years beyond what we estimated. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that stumpage will not occur when president-well, in fact, if all the mills shut down, there will not be any 

stumpage, will there? 

Mr. HALLGREN. If there is no cutting, there is no stumpage. The CHAIRMAN. Any other comments from the panel? 

I want to thank you, and, again, this is-the testimony is open, 

and if you can think of some other suggestions or ideas, I would 

deeply appreciate it. 

Thanks to the ranel. I appreciate it very much. 

The next pane will be Ms. Cindy McGraw and Ms. Paula Scott. 

Ladies, welcome. I see we have one scratched. 

Cindy, you are up first. 

STATEMENT OF CINDY MCGRAW 

Ms. McGRAW. My name is Cindy McGraw. I have lived in Alaska 

all of my life. My parents were born here and their parents before 

them and so on and so on and so on. 

I think Alaskans need to take control of the National Tongass 

Forest because so far the national government has not been doing 

a very good or fair job of it. Nobody is happy. Neither side of the 

Tongass issue is happy. 

I believe that given the opportunity, maybe the State government 

could do a better job of management. At the present time, getting 

anything approved through the national-run Forest Service, as it 

stands, is impossible. 

There is so much red tape, a person would drown before anyone 

would even notice that they were drowning, and then they would 

have to hold hearings to see if maybe someone should throw that 

person a ring, then someone would protest that maybe the life ring 

would hurt the fish or the surrounding waters, and then they 

would have to go to court to get approval to throw the life ring. 

Meanwhile, we have already held the memorial service and buried the person who drowned in all that red tape. 

My personal experience with the federally controlled Forest Service is not a good one. My husband, myself, and our three children 
22 

have a construction business which used to employ approximately 

25 people on a seasonal basis, building log roads for APC, for ten 

years. When the Federal Government canceled APC's contract, this 

literally destroyed our business. Although I wrote to my congressmen, they are only a few in a 

large group of people, the majority who really do not give a hoot 

about what canceling that contract did to people like me. 

I think it is time for someone a little closer to home to be making 

the decision on what affects my life and those around me. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I like that. Straight to the point. Paula? 

'STATEMENT OF PAULA M. SCOTT 

Ms. Sco-rr. Thank you for the opportunity to express my 

thoughts on the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act. I have lived 

in Sitka for 18 years. My husband and I are small business owners. He is a building contractor and I am an insurance broker, and I 

am very concerned about the future of Sitka. 

I am in support of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska. 

Thousands of Alaskans depend upon the Tongass for their livelihoods, and we all know that thousands used to depend upon the 

Tongass for their livelihoods. I do believe the Tongass can provide 

for a sound and viable timber industry, and at the same time support subsistence hunting, fishing, recreation and other uses. Sitka 

needs a sustainable year-round industry. Fishing and tourism are 

important to our economy, but provide seasonal jobs. 

A viable timber industry is dependent upon a consistent timber 

supply. If the historical trends in the management of the Tongass 

by the Federal Government continue, then the timber supply will 

continue to decline. I have confidence in the U.S. Forest Service 

and their ability to manage the Tongass if, and if, they are left to 

manage based on sound principles and science. 

Present management appears to be based on politics. The concept 

of the State of Alaska having control over the Tongass National 

Forest rather than the Federal Government is exciting. Those of us 

that live in Southeast Alaska are very aware of the decisions that 

have been made by the Federal Government and how they have affected us. 

Policy is generated in Washington, D.C., by folks that have never 

seen the Tongass. They have never lived in Southeast Alaska. They 

have never had to make a living off the natural resources and probably never met a logger. I believe the Tongass National Forest has 

become a sacred cow for politicians and contributions to their campaign. The present Federal Government management of the 

Tongass appears to be insensitive to the economic needs of the people living in Southeast Alaska. 

The State of Alaska is a level of government that Southeast Alaskans have access to. The State of Alaska understands the enormous size of the Tongass. This forest is home to 75,000 Alaskans 

who rely on it for jobs, fishing, hunting, subsistence, tourism, timber, and recreation. Under the present management system, the 

voice of those living and working in the Tongass is overpowered by 

a well-funded environmental lobby. 
23 

Our message is not heard in Washington, D.C. If the State of 

Alaska was the decisionmaker, we would have the opportunity to 

discuss the management of the Tongass with people we know and 

that have a direct tie to the Forest. The State of Alaska would 

work toward a sustainable timber industry. 

Alaskans understand the difference between the National Park 

Service and the Forest Service, and I am not certain, with all due 

respect, that the Members of Congress understand the difference. 

The Tongass National Forest is the largest and probably the most 

talked about forest in the nation, and people from all over the 

United States feel they have a say in the management. 

Unfortunately, Congress seems to listen to the uninformed voices 

over and above the residents of the Tongass. Alaskans understand 

that we are not the owners of the Tongass, but we are the residents and our future is being sacrificed for the interest of others. 

Management by the State could reduce the lobbyist influence; 

perhaps not the presence of the special-interest groups, but the influence. Our legislators would have the ability to visit the Tongass, 

do on-site inspections, and with their knowledge of the forest they 

would not be misled by inaccurate statements. If the State of Alaska had taken over management of the Tongass several years ago, 

Alaskans would have made the decisions on the Alaska Pulp contract, and Alaskans now would be making the decision on the 

Ketchikan Pulp contract extension. 

I support the concept of Alaska managing the Tongass National 

Forest. I believe the State could contract with the U.S. Forest Service and manage the forest through the present system. It appear_s 

to me that the present management by the Federal Government is 

not working, and if it is broke, I think we need to fix it. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and I will tell you both 

of you bring up a valid point. Louisiana Pacific, Georgia Pacific, 

Weyerhaeuser, all the private-held timberlands with one-eighth of 

the land mass are producing two-thirds of our nation's fiber today, and I have talked to scientists that are not involved with the timber industry at all who will tell you that the State of our national 

forest is in dire shape, not because of harvesting but because of 

lack of management, and that is just for your information. 

I think if any of you watch the news, we have already lost more 

timber this year in forest fires in the southwest-2. 7 million acres 

of timber already. We will probably lose around 16 million acres of 

our national forest lands. The optimum yield on an acre of land is 

twenty units per acre, and now a lot of our national forests have 

a thousand to 1500 units per acre. What you have got is you have 

got brush, and we have forest fires. 

Now, some will say that is natural. In Southeast, you have a 

problem, here, that many of you may not be aware of because of 

lack of management. Now, we have a beetle in Southeast. Fortunately or unfortunately, it is on private land and they have been 

able to control it somewhat, but if it gets into national land, under 

the present system, you will not be able to control it, and you will 

have a totally dead forest. 

This is what we call management. I do think, and this is the reason I introduced this bill, we have to look at the science and the 
24 

management, and I think it can be done, as you said, on a closer 

level. 

Cindy, you said you were in the business of building roads. What 

are you doing now? 

Ms. MCGRAW. Well, we still have a construction business, though 

smaller. For the last two years, we did not work at all. We are just 

trying to find work around here, which is almost impossible. We 

have had to go out of town, into Wrangell, Craig. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you still in road building? 

Ms. MCGRAW. Well, road construction or water and sewer lines, 

stuff like that. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many people do you employ now? 

Ms. McGRAW. Now we employ, permanently, three-my husband 

and my two sons. One son-they have had to leave town. The oldest son had to go to Craig to work, the middle one had to go to 

Wrangell to work and live, which is not a preferable alternative, 

but we do not have much choice. We are working but--

The CHAIRMAN. Just hanging on? 

Ms. McGRAW. Just hanging on. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your insurance business, do you find any friction claims? 

Ms. SCOTT. Well, I have been mostly in employee benefits now, 

so I have seen lots of layoffs in my clients, my clientele. I insure 

a lot of clients in Southeast Alaska. And my husband has a construction business and--

The CHAIRMAN. What is he constructing now? 

Ms. ScoTT. Homes, just a lot of homes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there new homes being built in town? What 

is the ratio? 

Ms. SCOTT. A lot of new homes. 

Mr. HALLGREN. There are a lot of new homes that-probably the 

same level as the mid-1970's when we were at our peak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the purchaser? 

Mr. HALLGREN. We are not completely positive, but there are an 

awful lot of people from out of town buying. 

However, SEAHC Hospital has also increased its employment in 

the last year and a half. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which is a government hospital? 

Mr. HALLGREN. Yes. 

Ms. SCOTT. I would say, based on our business, the majority of 

homes are being purchased by people that live here. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about the economy? Both of you are involved in it. Do you se~r have you been involved-what is your 

enrollment in the schools? Are the young people increasing or decreasing? Anybody know? 

Ms. SCOTT. I would say decreasing. 

Mr. HALLGREN. School enrollment has decreased, and we have 

had a problem with that definitely since the mill shut down. With 

this school year-and the school budget is based upon the estimate 

for the next year, and the city contribution, as it is called, to the 

local school district is our largest single expenditure on an annual 

basis. This year's school census is down approximately 45, I think, 

from what they estimated, and for next year they are estimating 
25 

a loss of another approximately 45. So they are expecting to be 

down about 90 from what they were hoping for two years ago. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in the elementary classes or is that in the 

high school classes? 

Mr. HALLGREN. That is through the-high school down through 

elementary. The CHAIRMAN. The reason I ask that, this is a barometer of the 

strength of your community, is when you start losing your kids, 

you become an older community. You become infested with people 

my age, and that is not necessarily a healthy situation. I just bring 

that-that is economics. If you study the economic picture, it does 

affect it. 

Mr. HALLGREN. The school has dropped every year, and it is estimated to drop again next year. The CHAIRMAN. Ladies, do you have anything else you want to 

add? 

Ms. McGRAW. No. As far as employment-we talked earlier-the 

job we do have in Wrangell, we are employing, temporarily, six employees, and three of those used to work for us as loggers, and this 

is the only work they have been able to find the last two years, and 

they are working for us for like two months, and it is Davis-Bacon, so they will probably be able to make as much in two or three 

months and then they will be off again. At the end of this month, 

they will be done working and they will be back on-not working 

again. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have had the privilege of visiting Wrangell a 

couple times recently, and it is not a happy situation down there. 

These people are very desperate, and somehow along the line-! 

guess one of the things-! go back to Keith's testimony about the 

Tongass and the image it has back east, and the problem that Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens and myself have is: The message that is conveyed and the dishonesty that is portrayed upon 

the constituency is awesome. I think you-we run into the constant 

idea that every hill in Southeast has been cut. I try to explain to 

them there are nine million acres set aside. When we addressed 

the last Tongass Reform Act, we added a million acres of wilderness prior to the 1980 Act-I mean, after the 1980 Act. People that 

testified later on even said at that time there would be no mills 

closed, there would be no loss of jobs. That is not what has happened, and yet people that ride these ferry boats and these ships 

out here are being told-and I think one of the good things, as we 

get some information, is they are shocked at how many trees are 

in Southeast, because most of them have the idea they are going 

to see nothing but destroyed area. . I go back to the other states, just for your information. The logging is occurring, like I say, in New York and Arkansas and Georgia, Florida, Texas. 

Now this all rings a bell with you. They are all federally managed forests-! mean, privately managed forests, and, by the way, 

they are managed for fish and wildlife. I happen to be an individual turkey hunter, and where they practice proper forestry, they 

have the finest turkey hunting. You do not find that in the national 

forest. This is something that I just make for the record, that it is 
26 

the management that we are talking about: Who is managing, are 

they managing. 

I thank you ladies for being here, thank you for your testimony. 

We are going to go to panel four, and prior to that, I am going 

to go to the little rest room, so panel four can take their seats, and 

when I come back, we will begin. 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We have Mr. Larry Edwards, Sitka, Alaska; Mr. 

Larry Trani; Mr. Ben Mitchell; and Mr. Robert E. Lindekugel. I 

have Mr. Mitchell first. 

STATEMENT OF BEN MITCHELL, TONGASS HUNTING AND 

FISHING COALITION 

Mr. MITCHELL. Good morning, Congressman Young and members 

of the Committee. My name is Ben Mitchell. I live in Sitka, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. 

I am co-director of the Tongass Hunting and Fishing Coalition, 

a newly formed, non-profit corporation dedicated to bringing the 

voice of subsistence, sportsmen, commercial guides and wildlife 

viewers to the Tongass debate. 

I have lived, worked, traveled, and fished extensively throughout 

the entire Tongass National Forest for the last 31 years. I am a 

professional civil engineer, logging engineer, and forester by virtue 

of academic training and experience. 

Let me state right here and now that I am a firm believer in the 

consumptive use by humans of all renewable natural resources on 

a sustained yield basis. 

However, the Tongass forest timber cannot continue to be overharvested as it has been in the past. The timber industry, operating under the provisions of the long-term contracts awarded in the 

1950's, has already removed the highest value and most accessible 

timber. 

The Forest Service, now that it has been unshackled from one of 

the two long-term contracts, is finally able to move forward toward 

a balanced management. Protecting and maintaining habitat and 

access is especially important to our membership. The populations of Sitka black-tailed deer are being and will be 

in the future adversely affected by the large-scale conversion of 

high-value old growth to second-growth forests. It has been my observation in the field that after the second growth canopy closes 

over and shades out the browse that springs up after initial cutting, the second growth areas become a biological desert for deer 

brouse-until approximately the year 180. Perfunctory thinning for 

wildlife forage is basically a ruse and too short-lived to be of much 

value in my experience of observations. The State of Alaska has demonstrated that it lacks the commitment, funding, personnel, and legislation to protect habitat and access. 

This legislation is being promoted under the guise of obtaining 

local control when, in reality, nothing could be further from the 

truth. The State of Alaska is with a budget crunch that extends 

over the horizon and a demonstrated lack of commitment for ethical management on its present State owned and private 

timberlands. A particular glaring example of this is the destructive 
27 

and wasteful logging practices that have occurred on the Alaska 

Native Corporations land grants on Prince of Wales Island and at 

other locations. These operations were subject to the toothless and 

ineffective Alaska State Forest Practices Act. Alaska Senator Robin Taylor's agenda is to pass a large portion 

of these public lands into the hands of private owners once the 

State has title. Provisions also to transfer a quarter of a million 

acres to new Native corporations will complete the ultimate lockup of public-owned lands and resources and to lock out the public. 

These communities failed to qualify as bona fide Native communities under the 1971 ANCSA even after appeal. This re-emergence 

of consciousness and interest in the landless Native issue by the 

delegation after cancellation of the APC contract is suspicious, seeing that there was no interest whatsoever during the 20 years prior 

to contract cancellation. The Coalition does firmly support equitable compensation for legitimate claims by the landless Native 

group. The Forest Service must be allowed to complete the revision 

of the Tongass Land Management Plan without political interference. This is the first plan that uses the best science available, 

recognizes previously suppressed scientific studies and contains a 

legitimate public process. For the first time, there is a serious attempt to address resources other than timber, along with timber. To extend the KPC contract beyond the 2002 and the reinstatement of the cancelled APC contract is a bad idea and is not in the 

long-term interest of the land nor the public. The two 50-year contracts encouraged initial industrialization of Southeast Alaska. 

Both have served their purpose well. However, times change, values change, conditions change, and people change. The change is 

now. It is time to bring economic and biological sustainability to 

the Tongass Forest and to the people of Southeast Alaska. The 

Tongass plan is the best hope to accomplish this. 

Sitka is a model community trying to accomplish this balancing 

act. Stika's recent referendum vote that would urge a clear-cut logging "pause" to the Forest Service on National Forest lands in the 

local Sitka Use Areas made a strong message. Although after a 

questionable recount by city election officials, it was disclosed that 

the referendum had failed by four votes, with a record voter turnout of 62 percent in this community of 8500. Our Coalition membership has clearly stated that we do not believe that the Alaska delegation is fairly representing our interests 

nor the long-term interests of the public owners of the Tongass National Forest. The proposed legislation is a clear signal that the 

past practices of timber production at all costs until it runs out 

will, if passed, be our future. Industry is really not interested in 

timber that is less than 20,000 board feet per acre. If that is allowed, then you can bet they will fold their tents and go home, and 

then we will arrive back at this same crossroads again, only with 

far less than we have today. The Tongass forest must remain national. It belongs to all of the people of the United States, and they 

seem to be coming to Southeast Alaska in droves to visit their 

property holdings and critique its management. 

This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ben, for your testimony. 

Robert, you are next. 
28 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. LINDEKUGEL, CONSERVATION 

DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If ever passed, H.R. 

2413 would be the end of our hundred-year tradition of public ownership and management of forest land. Thanks to Senator Robin 

Taylor, we have confirmed the real intent of your bill. It is not 

about a simple transfer to the State of Alaska. The real goal of this 

bill is to turn these public lands over to private hands. In a letter written to the Montana State senator, Taylor declared 

his goal for State management of the Tongass. He wrote, "Hopefully, a large portion of this acreage will eventually be conveyed to 

the private sector." This sentence tells us exactly where you want 

to head with this bill. 

H.R. 2413 would hand over more than 200,000 acres of prime 

public forest lands to five new, for-profit Native corporations. It is 

beyond belief that at the same time you are holding these hearings, 

you are trying to ram this public land giveaway through Congress 

in an amendment to the Presidio Bill currently in Conference Committee. On top of this outlandish giveaway of public forest resources, your Presidio amendment uses these Native claims to 

achieve a primary legislative objective of the Alaska delegationto delay the completion of the Tongass Land management Plan 

until1997. 

According to two letters, the experts at the Institute of Social 

and Economic Research at the University of Alaska who wrote the 

report on the communities being studies, found-well, concluded 

that they did not make a finding that Congress had inadvertently 

left these villages off the list, did not recommend that Congress 

now award them land. This provision in your transfer bill has less to do with Native 

claims than it does with guaranteeing that vast areas of the 

Tongass presently off limits to clearcutting will be taken from public ownership and clearcut without public scrutiny. 

You claim that this bill is about control and stability. We strongly disagree. Your bill ends up cutting 15 years of conservation work 

in Alaska. 

On the last page of your bill, second-to-the-last page of your bill, 

you take your double-barreled shotgun, load it up with buckshot, 

and blast away at every single protected acre on this forest: the 

wilderness, the legislated LUD lis, and salmon buffer strips. This single provision wrecks any sense of stability for people, 

communities and industries that depend upon the Tongass. 

You have also stated that no one could construe this bill as a 

Federal mandate. Your bill is loaded with Federal mandates and 

conditions, including restatement of Alaska Pulp's contract and 

special treatment for Ketchikan Pulp. Your bill would only benefit 

the corporate robber barons who have and will continue to put 

shortsighted profits ahead of the long-term interests of local communities here on the Tongass. You recently introduced a bill to 

give Ketchikan Pulp a new 15-year monopoly contract that would 

force all other users to sacrifice their interests in this great forest 

so that Ketchikan Pulp could be guaranteed a profit. In effect, you 

are asking the American public to take billions of dollars to stop 
29 

this major corporate polluter from disobeying the laws and polluting. You have heard earlier today that-you claim that only 10 percent of the Tongass will be logged. The truth is that that 10 percent of the Tongass is the biological heart of this forest. It is the 

trees and the valleys and along-the-beach fringe that the animals, 

the fish, and the users who depend on those species rely upon. It 

is like a doctor telling you that "I am only going to cut out your 

heart, but that is only 10 percent of your body. You will be OK." 

For the record, fully 75 percent of the forest's original prime highvalue old growth has never been protected by law. Only 11 percent 

of the high volume commercial timber land is protected. In conclusion, your bill is a very serious threat to our public forest lands and to the way of life for Southeast Alaskans. Your business is not a transfer. It is a travesty. It is outrageous, flat-out 

dangerous, and we strongly urge you to stop this bill right here and 

right now. 

This is the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman. 

[Statement of Mr. Lindekugel may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Robert. You did that very eloquently. 

Mr. Edwards? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY EDWARDS 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Larry Edwards. I am within a few months of being 

a 20-year resident both of Sitka and Alaska. I came here originally 

as an engineer with Alaska Pulp Corporation, and I am now a 

downtown businessman. I would like to thank you for keeping the promise you made on 

public radio back in February to hold a hearing in Sitka. Mr. Young, you are in the majority party in Congress, and you 

are the Chairman of the House Resources Committee from whose 

name you have removed the word natural. 

Alaska's senators are in similarly powerful positions. Nonetheless, the three of you have been unable to stampede the 

Congress into allowing the destruction, by chain saw, of the 

Tongass National Forest. Your many attempts over the past year 

or two have failed. 

The transparent intent of this bill, H.R. 2413, is to move the 

power play into a forum where you know a stampede will happen 

sooner or later. You want to move it into the Alaska State Legislature and under the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, government bodies that have demonstrated their ability to throw resources away for completely short-term gains. These government 

bodies have demonstrated their inability to provide for long-term 

multiple use and for future generations. You know that sooner or 

later the State would privatize this forest. It would only take a momentary lapse of sanity by the legislature for that to happen. 

I would just like to mention here, going back to the testimony 

that Keith Perkins gave earlier. He was talking about the hillside 

back here, and I would just like to say that Mr. Perkins is misinformed, as are a lot of our local leaders, both in Sitka and the 

State legislature. This hillside was not logged sixty years ago. It 

was not logged in 1930. It was logged 160 years ago. We are talk-
30 

ing-actually, it was before that, I think. 160 is the number I have 

heard, but it was actually logged by the Russians. You can go up 

there today and walk in it, and it is still not back to old growth. 

You have got probably another hundred years to go, there, before 

that. 

And that woman who has been mentioned from New York, she 

may well have been more informed than our own local leaders 

here. In talking with Keith about these issues a year or so ago, 

Keith has hardly been beyond the end of the road. He does not 

know the forest in our own borough. This is the largest borough of 

the United States, with 3 million acres, yet our own leaders do not 

have enough knowledge of the borough to manage it wisely. But 

back to the bill. 

The bill is a transparent attempt to do away with the hundredfoot Federal stream-side buffers, which should be and I think eventually will be set at a wider minimum. It is an attempt to reduce 

them to the State of Alaska's inadequate 66-foot buffers, which are 

commonly pillaged by means of easily obtained waivers for logging. 

This bill is a transparent attempt to give away lands that protect 

multiple uses of the forest from the single-use logging that has the 

capacity to destroy most of these other uses, and this bill is an attempt to resurrect a dinosaur that is better left dead, the Alaska 

Pulp contract. 

The saddest thing, I think, though, about this bill is that the 

premise it is based on is completely faulty. Mr. Young, for 20 years, 

now, you and Senator Stevens and the industry and now the junior 

senator from Alaska, who has not been there quite that long, have 

been saying, "We are only going to log 10 percent of the Tongass 

National Forest." 

You ignore that this word, forest, when applied to this land area, 

is a misnomer. 41 percent of the Tongass is not forested. Another 

25 percent is scrub timber that has no commercial value or little 

wildlife value. You have never addressed this, and you have never 

allowed this to become a real debate even when it is raised by 

those on our side of the issue. 

Of the remaining one-third of the Tongass, you stated in the public radio interview on Alaska Coast-to-Coast on Valentine's Day 

that those who know the high-board-feet areas have set them aside 

already. In fact, though, of the highest-volume forest, only 15 percent has been protected, while half has been logged. The practice 

of logging the best and then the best of the rest continues to this 

day. And you would like it to continue in even a bigger way, I 

think, by making this transfer happen. 

On the Floor of the House last December, you said "15 million 

acres of the Tongass is off limits to logging'' ... "15 million acres 

of rain forest" . . . 15 million acres of those great old trees." If you 

truly believe that this 15 million acres, the bulk of the Tongass, is 

rain forest, when 40 percent is not even forested, then we need a 

new Chairman of the House "Natural" Resources Committee. 

If you believe that this 15 million acres is "great old trees," when 

25 percent of it is scrub timber, which is little more than 

shrubbery, in addition to the nonforested 40 percent-we are talking, here, two-thirds of the whole Tongass-then Alaska needs a 

new congressman. 
31 

This bill is bad for Southeast Alaska and it is bad for Sitka. 

There is no economic disaster in Sitka. Sitka, though, is Alaska's 

largest subsistence community, and this bill would be devastating 

to this part of our economy that a significant majority of families 

engage in, and is at the foundation of our community's culture and 

way of life. 

88 percent of Sitka's high-volume forest has already been logged. 

Your timber program is now poised to do further serious damage. 

The situation is the same in communities throughout Southeast. 

Please withdraw this bill and please stop supporting the timber 

industry's agenda of short-term plunder. And, as has already been 

mentioned, of how well Sitka's economy is doing in many respects. 

I have got some handouts here to put in for the record and some 

for the press, as well, graphing unemployment, comparing Sitka 

and Ketchikan. I think the differences are very dramatic, and our 

situation is better than theirs. You have heard about the housing 

starts. Our sales tax revenues have been up. Every indicator that 

I have seen looks really good to me, and I have also got, for the 

record, from last Wednesday and last Friday, "Sitka Sentinel," a 

page from the want ads, the help wanted ads. These are the two 

days when we have the most want ads in the paper, help wanted 

as well as other kinds. Winter, summer, there are generally quite 

a few jobs available, ranging all the way from cab drivers to doctors, the full spectrum. Anyone that wants a job in this town can 

have one. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. In addition, for the record, Mr. Young, I have a 

transcript of our exchange on Alaska Coast-to-Coast on Valentine's 

Day and, also, a copy of the Congressional Record where you were 

speaking about the "15 million acres of rain forest" and "15 million 

acres of great old trees," and I do not know if you have or not, but 

you had said on the Alaska Coast-to-Coast show that you would go 

back and check the record, because I think your words were, "Well, 

you have got your record, and I have got my record," but this is 

the record, and I am introducing this into the record of this hearing. 

[Due to size, the submissions were placed in Committee files. 

The CHAIRMAN. I love hostility. I thrive on it, by the way. 

I believe you are next, Larry. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY TRANI, FRIENDS OF SOUTHEAST'S 

FUTURE 

Mr. TRANI. Yes. Thank you, Representative Young. 

My name is Larry Trani, and I have lived in Sitka since 1969. 

Originally, I came to Sitka as an educator and retired after 22 

years in the primary grades. Now I commercial fish, commercial 

dive, work in the home construction trades, and currently run 

Outercoast Guest House and family charters for my suppfemental 

income. One of my current charges is being the chair of the Friends 

of Southeast's Future, a grassroots group of Sitkans that are opposed to the clearcutting of the Tongass within the Sitka local use 

area. I am speaking to you in this multiple capacity regarding H.R. 

2413. 
32 

With regards to the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act, I feel 

it necessary to agree with you that there are problems with the 

way the Tongass currently is being managed. These problems, however, are not agreed on by you and I. You contend that the problem 

with the management of the Tongass lies with the Forest Service 

and that the State of Alaska could do a better job; hence, your bill. 

I, on the other hand, believe that the For~t Service has three 

major problems with the management of the · Tonga.s, th•t being 

Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski, and you, Representative 

Young. I firmly believe that if the three of you, alona- with your 

special interests, would simply allow the Forest Service to use the 

good science and public input available to them, that they could 

manage the Tongass in a very responsible manner. 

If your bill were passed, it would represent the beiinning of the 

end of the 100-year tradition of public ownership of national forest 

lands. The Tongass falls under the principle of public landownership, whereby it will be managed for the greatest good for the 

greatest number in the long run. Your bill contradicts everything 

that President Teddy ·Roosevelt stood for when he e•tablished the 

national forest system. 

If your bill is passed, how would the management of this new 

Tongass be paid for? An example. Over the past three years, the 

Federal treasury has subsidized the timber program for KPC to the 

tune of $102 million. The only way Alaska could continue a program like this, in light of the fact that the State has less revenues 

each year, would be to sell off portions of the Tonga~ to the highest bidder in order to generate revenues to pay the current subsidies. This bill assures that the Tongass would be col)verted to private ownership. Along with this private ownership cotnes the guarantee that logging would be accelerated, turning the new Tongass 

into nothing more than a gigantic tree farm. 

This bill also repeals 16 years of protection enacted by various 

acts. For example, your bill repeals the 100-foot minimum no-logging buffer zones on salmon streams. Your bill also repeals permanent protection for legislated LUD II areas, and for Sitkans that 

means Upper Hoonah Sound, Lisianski River and Inlet would no 

longer be protected. Your bill also repeals wilderness and national 

monument designations. Here, again, for Sitkans, that means the 

elimination of West Chichagof/Yacobi Wilderness Area, as well as 

the South Baranof Wilderness Area. The purpose in repealing these 

provisions is to create an even larger timber base. 

Your bill would also parcel out over 200,000 acres of the Tongass 

for the five new, for-profit Native corporations. For-profit translates 

to timber extraction. These allocations would further draw down 

the best of the rest of what is left in the Tongass. I think it ironic that it has taken some 25 years for this landless 

Natives' issue to surface. You and Senator Murkowski are only trying to assist KPC and APC with another source of cheap fiber and 

ignoring what people in Southeast and Sitka, in particular, are telling you. The message you need to hear is: We need to mandate 

that Southeast Alaska have a value-added woods industry, thereby 

cutting less trees, not more. The forest robber barons, KPC and 

APC, make out really well in your bill. Under H.R. 2413, Ketchikan 

Pulp Company, a convicted felon on probation for intentionally 
33 

dumping toxic sludge fro:in its mill into Ward Cove, would see provisions requiring it to pay timber prices comparable to independent 

operators eliminated. Alaska Pulp Corporation would see its 50-

year contract reinstated. That is not a bad deal for a company that 

breached its last timber contract and ended up displacing 400 employees in Sitka because of the corporation's business decision to 

close shop. Your special interests, sir, are really apparent when you 

cater to KPC and APC like this. 

The bill you have proposed is nothing more than election-year 

politics and grandstanding on your part as the chair of the House 

Resources Committee. Your bill seriously threatens lifestyles of 

Sitkans and fellow Americans alike. Your transfer bill only transfers the wealth of the Tongass out of the control of the American 

public. · I strongly urge you to drop this bill immediately and start listening to the people of Southeast Alaska. 

One final comment, Congressman Young. You see all the people 

that are here this morning? I think every one of the people sitting 

here came to listen this morning but probably, more importantly, 

many of them wanted to give testimony but were not on the invited 

list. Why not turn this closed hearing into a true public hearing 

and allow the people that are here today to give you testimony? 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, this amazes me, and I hope you all 

feel real good. You love to attack me and question me, hit me and 

say what a dastardly soul Don Young is and this is a democracy. 

We have these people in the audience cheering. It is fun. At least 

you are discussing something. At least you are bringing out your 

points of view, and why the hostility, for the life of me, I cannot 

understand. 

Are you threatened? My God, I am 63 years old. Do you feel inadequate? You have won-! am not through yet. 

You have won every battle you have had on the Tongass. Larry, I 

get a kick out of you. You are a pistol. 

Let me read something from 1989. "First, let me say that we are 

concerned, as everyone in this room, with a need to maintain a 

healthy economy and stable industry in Southeast Alaska." Who 

said that? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I guess you are saying that I said that. 

The CHAIRMAN. What happens in Sitka if the mill shuts down? 

"By this act, we are not going to affect the timber base at all," and 

this is SEACC supporting the Tongass Reform Act, comments made 

by yourself at this table. No mill shutdown, no loss of timber, no 

loss of jobs, a sound economy. Those are all statements made by 

you. · 

I want to ask you: If the mill is not shut down, what is this 

empty building out there? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I think the question, really, is why did the 

mill shut down. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you say that? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I think the question is why did the mill shut 

down, and if you go back and you read all the newspaper articles, 

they did not say Larry Edwards in there once. They did not say the 
34 

word environmentalist once. They did not say timber base. It was 

the markets. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is the statement in the record before the 

committee by Mr. Moran back in Washington, D.C. I remember the 

first.Act, and some of you in the audience are too young to remember this. You said it is like selling a million acres of land. The same 

argument, and you said-if my figures are wrong, I will trade you. 

You give me the 9 million acres and I will give you what-you can 

have what is left. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Here is all I can say, is that I am not threatened 

by you. I would just like to debate this issue, once in these twenty 

years, on the facts, on the relevant facts. 

The CHAIRMAN. What your trouble is, Larry, is your facts do not 

always jive. You know that. The fact is we have a renewable resource here, and you are not recognizing that. You are saying that 

KPC and the accusations by all of you about the big timber barons. 

Where are our little independent people? What are they going to 

do? Would you support a sawmill? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yeah, I would support a timber industry here. The CHAIRMAN. What kind? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to see a very different industry than 

we have. 

The CHAIRMAN. What kind? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to see something that makes a large 

number of jobs out of small amount of timber. 

The CHAIRMAN. Like what? Name it. Is it a sawmill? 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is for an entrepreneur to determine that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh. Entrepreneurs do not pay the pay checks. 

Now, the thing I am stressing, here, is why is the fear of the 

State running it? You keep saying this is a sham. Do you have 

some fear? You believe the Federal Government is much better 

able to take and control land? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Because I have seen how the Alaska Forest Practices Act has worked. I have seen what has happened on Native 

corporation lands. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is not just-Native corp. lands are private 

lands. This is State land. 

What is the buffer zone under State law? 

Mr. EDWARDS. State law is a hundred feet for State land. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you say you might be able to repeal it? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Because I feel that if this-if the Tongass goes to 

the State, I feel it is going to get privatized. 

The CHAIRMAN. Who says it is going to be different? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Pardon me? 

The CHAIRMAN. Who says it is going to be cut? 

Are you so afraid of your position that, in fact, people might cut 

it? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I feel, as I said in my testimony, that the reason 

you would like to transfer this to the State is because the State can 

be stampeded much more easily than Congress. Tongass--

The CHAIRMAN. Congress cannot be stampeded. We were stampeded when we built the oil line. You know that. The Congress can 

make just as adverse conditions to you in your position that far 
35 

away because people do not recognize the effect upon the community. Mr. EDWARDS. Let me put it this way. Congress is much less 

likely to get stampeded than the State. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have got a great deal more faith in the 

Congress than I do. I have watched them. 

I do thank the panel. Again, I welcome the hostility. It is amazing that you can feel so threatened by one poor person who is 63 

years old. It is amazing. 

Last, but not least, my good Forest Service individual, who I 

have the highest respect for. Gary, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF GARY MORRISON. FOREST SUPERVISOR. U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE 

Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish I had been 

first instead of last. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming to Sitka for these hearings 

today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you 

to discuss the management of the Tongass National Forest and 

present the administration's view on H.R. 2413, a bill to transfer 

the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska. 

The full text of the administration's testimony is submitted for 

the record. I would like to summarize it here today. As in earlier hearings held in Wrangell and Ketchikan, the Department of Agriculture strongly opposed enactment of H.R. 2413. 

Our opposition rests on both philosophical and pragmatic grounds. 

Let me outline our position. 

The national forests belong to all Americans. For over 100 years, 

during good economic times and bad, public lands have been a 

source of goods and services that help assure local and regional 

economic growth and diversity. Public resources have helped provide our nation with affordable recreation, wood, fish, wildlife, energy, and water. They have been the basis for environmental 

health, yielding clean air and water for generations. The national forest system, covering more than 191 million acres, is a important part of our public lands. Gifford Pinchot, the first 

chief of the Forest Service, set down an operating philosophy that 

is as appropriate today as it was when the agency was established. 

The national forests are managed for the greatest good for the 

greatest number in the long run. By and large, Forest Service stewardship of this priceless resource has been a resounding success. Through multiple-use management, a concept that balances environmental health and human 

needs, the national forests have provided substantial economic ben- efits to surrounding communities. By basing management on the 

best available science, we have been able to refine land management practices to better protect and produce a full range of re- sources. The full range of resources here in Alaska includes wildlife, fish, recreation opportunities, timber, and, for us, subsistence. We recognize that some people disagree with certain aspects of 

current management efforts. Some believe that we cut too much 

timber, or, conversely, that we place too little emphasis on timber 

products. We are dealing with these perceptions through improved 
36 

science and more effective public involvement in the decisionmaking process. We strongly urge you not to pursue a policy that would 

lead to the dismemberment of the national Forest Service system, 

but, instead, recognize that conflict and controversy are inherent 

parts of natural resource management which cannot be fixed by 

shifting responsibility from Federal to State management. The 

economies of Southeast Alaska are in transition. The communities 

and the increasingly diverse businesses of the region need assurances of a stable supply of all goods and services produced on the 

Tongass. The administration recognizes the vital role that natural 

resources play in the economy of the region and is committed to the 

economy of Southeast Alaska and to providing a sustainable and 

dependable supply of timber and other resources from the Tongass. 

The proposed legislation, however, would have adverse effects toward accomplishing economic stability and create additional economic uncertainties. H.R. 2413 would undo the long-established working relationships 

the Forest Service has developed with the State of Alaska, local 

governments, and Alaska Natives. The Tongass is an ecological 

treasure, a vast expanse of temperate rain forest. Recognizing its 

value, the American public has invested major financial resources 

in the Tongass to ensure the wise and judicious use of all its natural resources. This, in turn, has greatly contributed directly and indirectly to the growth of the Southeast Alaska economy and the 

health of our nation. The Forest Service has worked hard to assure 

sustained growth in all sectors of the economy. The investment of programs and infrastructure the taxpayers of 

this country have made to the resources of the Tongass and the 

economy of Alaska since the Tongass was established in 1907 is 

substantial. Even if transfer of the Tongass makes sense from a 

management standpoint, the administration would object to relinquishing 17 million acres of valuable Federal property and improvements without adequate compensation to the Federal treasury. 

H.R. 2413 would also change the flow of economic benefits that 

Forest Service programs have created for the 33 communities and 

local governments within the Tongass. The Forest Service shares 

25 percent of all revenues from timber and other activities in the 

national forest. For the Tongass in 1995, this amounts to $7.6 million. Of this total, the city of Sitka alone received $820,000. As it 

is for other communities in Southeast Alaska, these revenues are 

a key component of Sitka's government finances. If they were diminished or lost, the alternatives might be to raise taxes, cut back 

on services, or both. The economy of Alaska would be further affected by the loss of 

the estimated sixty to eighty million dollars per year of Federal 

Government spending to operate programs on the Tongass at current levels. The cost of managing the Tongass would remain relatively unchanged if H.R. 2413 were enacted, yet the loss of this 

influx of Federal money, coupled with the additional burden to the 

State budget, is certain to prove detrimental to the stability of the 

Alaska economy. Additionally, the revenue generated by the 565 permanent employees on the Tongass whose salaries are spent and re-spent in 
37 

local economies, supporting additional jobs and incomes for the private sector of Alaska, would be forgone. 

Historically, issues surrounding the Tongass have been contentious. While the Forest Service is proud of all that we have accomplished over the past 90 years, we do not pretend for a moment 

that everything is perfect. We acknowledge that competing uses, 

desires by our neighbors, partners, and owners have dramatically 

increased the debates surrounding how Federal lands should be 

managed. These conflicting needs and philosophies are perhaps 

more keenly felt here in Alaska than elsewhere in the country, and, 

I would add, more here in Sitka than many parts of Alaska. We 

believe, however, there are many things we can do to improve our 

relationship with the public and the management of the resources 

in the coming years. Because the red light is on, I will try to summarize very quickly, 

Number one, a better job of reconciling fish and wildlife protection needs. Two, a commitment to a sustainable timber supply. 

Three, better relations with Alaska Natives. Four, better service to 

those who seek permits for tourism and other activities on the 

Tongass. Five, strengthening relationships with the State of Alaska. Six, greater efficiency with fewer employees in light of Federal 

budgets being reduced. Number seven, expanding the economic 

base of Southeast communities. If you will give me a little time in 

the end, I will come back to that particular item. I think there is 

a lot to be said there. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not hitting the gavel, Gary. Mr. MORRISON. I will go ahead with that right now, then. 

I would like to go into a bit more detail on the expanding economic base. 

The Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture possess 

many tools for assisting resource development in dependent communities and allowing them to diversify and expand their economic 

base. Both financial and technical assistance provided by the department and the Forest Service have been utilized extensively in 

Southeast Alaska. Over the last three years, a total of $1.8 million 

in Forest Service rural community assistance funds have been distributed to 20 communities in Southeast Alaska. Sitka received 

$199,000 of those funds. In fiscal year 1995, $500,000 of rural community assistance funds were dedicated to the communities of 

Sitka and Wrangell to help them respond to the impacts of mill closures. Those funds were provided through the delegation, by the 

way, and we really appreciate that. 

Sitka used its half of the money to expand and enhance the 

Thompsen Boat Harbor. Also in fiscal year 1995, a one-time appropriation of $300,000 was made to the Forest Service to fund a 

study of alternative wood products for manufacture in Sitka. Sitka 

residents are playing an important role in this effort and have 

worked with the Forest Service to design the study and have continued to be involved as the work has progressed. The first phase 

of the study was completed in March. 

This commitment to the communities of Southeast will continue 

in the future. In fact, the Forest Service, through its rural community assistance program, intends to provide more than $750,000 in 
38 

grant moneys to resource-dependent communities in Alaska in 

1996. The Forest Service has also recently been charged with the distribution of the $110 million Southeast Alaska Economic Funds 

that have been spoken to earlier today. I am pleased to say we are 

working hard to quickly make these funds available to the communities. We have notified all eligible communities how they can 

begin receiving their portion of the grants and payments. All but 

one of the communities have already received payment checks. Grants to the communities of Sitka, Wrangell, and Ketchikan are 

being prepared at this time. And, number eight, my last point 

where we can improve what we are doing, is a better job of listening to the people, and the best example I can use is the Tongass 

Forest Plan Revision. 

We have been working intensely to revise the Tongass Land 

Management Plan and continue to involve the public, the State 

government, and other Federal agencies to assure that the needs 

of the people of the Tongass and the United States are met in our 

plan. 

Over the past month, public meetings have been held in 32 communities in Southeast Alaska. Meetings were also held in Anchorage and Washington, D.C. Over 400 individuals have given oral 

testimony and some 1,000 comments have been received for the 

record. These comments are in addition to over 10,000 comments 

already on file from previous public reviews. I would also like to 

note that the regional forester just extended the public comment 

period for the draft forest plan for a month, to August 26. 

In closing, let me reiterate that we are proud of the 130 years 

of public ownership of these lands by the people of the United 

States and the more than 90 years of resource stewardship by the 

Forest Service and the relationships that we have built with our 

neighbors, our partners, our customers, and our owners. We within 

the Tongass are proud of our accomplishments for the people of 

Alaska and the resources of the nation. The Forest Service has 

managed and will continue to manage the Tongass with public 

input, scientific and economic analysis, and sustainable natural resource practices, while complying with the law. We recognize that 

improvements can be made in our management practices, but, as 

I believe I have shown in my testimony, we are working diligently 

to maximize the value of the Tongass National Forest to the residents of Southeast Alaska, as well as other owners of the Tongass 

and the rest of the United States. 

I appreciated hearing from all the other panel witnesses today 

and look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to enhance 

the uses and management of the resources of the Tongass National 

Forest. 

That concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you might have. 

[Statement of Mr. Morrison may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Gary. 

This really is about decisionmaking. How has the decisionmaking 

process changed as you became in charge of this region? 

Has it changed a great deal? 
39 

Mr. MORRISON. I think we have more advice being given to us 

from higher levels than we had in the past, but I think, overall, 

the local decisions are still being made by the local district rangers, 

and the area decisions are being made by myself and my three 

other colleagues here in Alaska. Mr. CHAIRMAN. What I am saying is we had the decision for extension of the contract, and my information is that the Alaskan position was not even considered, and it was considered in Washington, D.C. Is that true? 

Mr. MORRISON. I do not know if our recommendations carried 

any weight in Washington, but that decision was definitely not 

made locally. The CHAIRMAN. It was made in Washington, D.C., but recommendations from the Alaska delegation, Alaska supervisors, was 

not one that was signed in or agreed to back in Washington, D.C.; 

is that true? 

Mr. MORRISON. That is true. Mr. CHAIRMAN. What about TLMP? Where are we with TLMP? 

What is happening there? What are the proposals on that, timeframes? Can you give us any information on the plan? 

Mr. MORRISON. Well, the public comment period for the revised 

supplemental draft is ongoing, and, as I said in the testimony, has 

been extended for a month, so it will go on until August 29th. At that time, we will look at all of the input that we received 

from the public, from the State, from other Federal agencies, and 

also from our employees locally and regionally as far as how we 

want to revise this draft to come out with a final approximately the 

end of the fiscal year. The CHAIRMAN. Gary, what I am concerned-again, it goes back 

to the first question-Mr. Glickman, Jack Ward Thomas, all the 

public input means nothing if, in fact, your recommendations are 

not considered. 

Are you going to be, or Janik going to be able to sit down at the 

table and defend the position of Alaskan foresters in your position 

at all, or are you-because I am going to find out, and the next 

hearing I have, if they, in fact, have not listened to you and listened to Mr. Janik, we are going to have Mr. Jack Ward Thomas 

and Mr. Glickman before us. 

This is the point I have been trying to get across to my friends, 

here. If you like the Federal Government, you like the socialist 

form of government, that is great. But when this man is a professional and he is being ignored or Mr. Janke, I do not think that 

is correct. Why are we having the hearing? I am hoping that Mr. 

Janke-he is not here today. He chose not to show up again, which 

shows me something-that he at least will have the decency to defend the position of the Alaskan forester. That is very important. 

Otherwise, we have lost this concept of public input. It is a joke. 

What about the mayor's idea of a ten-year supply of timber? Why 

would not that work? Were you involved in that discussion? 

Mr. MORRISON. I was not involved in the discussions that were 

held to explore the possibilities, but I do know the law and I do 

know what is possible. 
40 

It is possible to have a ten-year contract. We do have the legal 

authority to do that, and like what was said earlier, I do not believe that that has ever been exercised within the Forest Service. 

Likewise, though, we do not have any law or any authority to 

specify the location at which timber might be processed, so we 

could not guarantee that it would be processed in Sitka. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand, but you did deny a ten-year lease 

to Sealaska; is that correct? 

Mr. MORRISON. I am not familiar with that. The CHAIRMAN. Ten-year contract? 

Mr. MORRISON. I am not familiar with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will check that out. This is not your problem, 

Gary. I know you have been told to say this, the administration 

would object to the transfer of Federal assets at taxpayers' expense. 

It is funny the administration is supporting the Presidio for a 

large, large sum of money, taxpayers' money. Could not be a little 

politics there, could there be? I would not think that would happen. 

Huge taxpayers' expense to transfer some land over to the State of 

California and the park service, about $50 million a year. 

Mr. MORRISON. I am not familiar with the Presidio. I have driven 

across the Golden Gate Bridge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Inconsistency always amazes me. 

The Awardo lawsuit, how much timber, what are the issues addressed, what are the expenses, how expensive is the environmental work, how many times did the sale undergo a NEPA, and 

what was the settlement? 

Mr. MORRISON. That is a lot of questions at once. 

The Awardo lawsuit came about as a result of an objection that 

we took the timber offerings that had been made to APC and put 

them up as independent timber sales after the cancellation of the 

APC contract. 

I believed and signed documents suggesting that all environmental conditions were the same and there was no need to do any 

additional environmental analysis to do that. It went to court. Out 

of that settlement it was decided that about 105 million of the 290 

millio::1 board feet that had been originally available to APC could 

move forward as independent timber sales. 

We are in the process right now of redesigning some of those 

sales that were agreed to in the settlement, and we hope to be able 

to offer those as quickly as possible, and those that had already 

been sold, we hope that activity could begin on them as soon as 

possible. We believe and have submitted requests for funding for 

slightly more than $1 million to make the modifications, and that 

would not include the additional environmental analyses that will 

have to be done for the difference between 105 million and 290 

million that was not released. We have to go back and supplement 

the environmental impact statements for those, and that would be 

an additional cost. 

The CHAIRMAN. What environmental concerns were actually addressed with that additional money? What was the problem? I 

thought we had already done a NEPA before. Mr. MORRISON. Actually, environmental concerns were very few 

in the modifications that we made and the things we have to go 

back and change. Closing roads-in fact, in some cases obliterating 
41 

roads that we had not intended to do previously-dropping some 

units, which required us to go back and re-cruise and re-layout 

units is a cost. Some units were modified for visual concerns that 

required us to go back and re-layout those units. Those are the 

kinds of things that add up to the costs for these 105 million. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is why you need a million dollars, an additional million bucks? 

Mr. MORRISON. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. You stated and talked about all the good that 

comes from the Forest Service, the moneys contributed to the community and the stumpage rates. What happens if Ketchikan Pulp 

mill shuts down, this mill is shut down, Wrangell is shut down, all 

the mills are shut down? Where are your sales going to be and 

where is your stumpage going to come from? 

Mr. MORRISON. Well, I am only speculating now, but if we do not 

have a source for disposing of the low-grade materials, the pulpgrade wood, here in Alaska, that means that it is going to have to 

be shipped south or maybe shipped overseas. So it is going to be 

much more difficult for operators to sell the 50 or 60 percent of the 

timber that is low grade and cannot be cut into lumber. 

So that will make a very different economic situation for those 

independent operators that would remain. It likely would go down. 

If the timber harvest goes down-timber is the major contributor 

to the receipts, and, therefore, a major contributor to the 25 percent fund. So it is highly likely that those receipts would go down, 

so the distributions to the boroughs would drop. 

The CHAIRMAN. So your personnel goes down? You have 525 

workers now, I believe, down here in Southeast. 

Mr. MORRISON. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. How could you, Gary, put up a sale? How can 

Mr. Janke put up a sale if, in fact, it is not economic? When we 

talk about other businesses down here, the only way it could be economical is if they cut nothing but the premium and the best of 

trees; is that correct? It would have to be high grading like we used 

to do during World War II. 

Mr. MORRISON. It would be very difficult to have any timber 

sales that could make money if they could not reasonably dispose 

of the pulp wood; that is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which leads me to, I guess, the premise of my 

line of questions, is the communities receiving these moneys now 

at the largess of the taxpayer-Senator Stevens' program and my- sel( · 

That is going to be gone this year, right, the 110 million? That 

is not an ongoing thing, is it? It is over four years. It was 110 million. 

Mr. MORRISON. That is right, the 110 million is fixed, but it will 

be distributed over four years, except for the grants to Sitka, 

Wrangell, and Ketchikan, which are-ean be distributed anytime 

the program is properly set up and the requests made. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let us take your hat off for a moment and just 

think as a forester. 

Again, I go back. Can you envision these sales coming up if we 

lose all these facilities? What would you sell? The only thing I can 
42 

think of is if somebody put a chip mill in and sell the chips to Canada, who took our salmon. 

I do not know. I am asking these questions not in an adversary 

position, but I am concerned, because there is an image being portrayed around here that there are going to be all these little jobs, 

these other added values, but you have got to have a sale. You are 

not going to sell one tree at a time. . Mr. MORRISON. That is correct. I will do my best. I am a geologist, rather than a forester, but I will try to act like a forester, 

here. . 

I believe that it would be very difficult on a small scale to do 

other than take the very best timber that could be easily accessed 

either from the beaches or from existing road systems. Taking timber from existing road systems would only be possible as long as 

those roads are maintained. So it would require that there be road 

maintenance, and that is very expensive and a very small operation likely would not be able to do that. So picking and plucking 

individual trees that could be easily accessed from the water or the 

existing road system would likely be the only kind of harvest that 

would be occurring. Roads are very expensive to construct. It is 

costing us in excess of $150,000 a mile to build logging roads, and 

a very small operator wanting a few trees would not be in a position to construct those kinds of roads. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, I go back. I hear this term "value-added," 

which I happen to support, but if you do not have a pulp mill, there 

is very little chance for a value-added operation, is there? You have 

got 15 trees, you have got one-value added tree, the rest are pulp 

trees. You have to sell that sixteenth tree. 

Mr. MORRISON. It would only be possible to do value-added with 

the pulp if you continue the pulp mill or MDF or oriented strand 

or some other sort of a process that could use that wood; otherwise, 

you would only want to be taking out the highest quality trees that 

could be used for other kinds of value-added businesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. If, in fact, my bill does not become law, like a 

lot of people are hoping, and we do not have the pulp mills and we 

do not have the saw mills, what opportunity will your employees 

have for employment in the State of Alaska? 

Mr. MORRISON. I would estimate that either directly or indirectly 

approximately half of our employees are associated with the timber 

program in one way or another. So without a timber industry, we 

would continue with fisheries, wildlife, recreation, our interpretive 

programs, visitor center in Juneau, and so forth. So we would probably be approximately half the size we are now. So here in Sitka 

we would be looking at about 60 people. 

The CHAIRMAN. And most of that would be in the relation of 

recreation, parks, et cetera? It would not be in the timber area at 

all? 

Mr. MORRISON. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. You would lose how many people out of Sitka? 

Mr. MORRISON. About 65. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gary, I was listening to you talk about what 

would happen, and you are right, but it reminded me of the comments of Art Bomquist, who passed away-bless his soul. He 

logged the Ketchikan area in the 1930's and 1940's and 1950's. His 
43 

logging was beach logging, A-frames, high-grading for airplanes, 

which, by the way, you cannot hardly find that area in which he 

logged in. 

But, getting back to dispel this myth that there is a great opportunity for the small entrepreneur out there. If the Forest Service 

manages this timber, you have to put up the sale, and the way you 

have to put up the sales, if there are no mills, is the high-grading 

system, and I do not know how you can do it. I do not see how you 

can physically put up that type sale with all the restrictions, which 

reminds me. 

As the heroes of this movement, how many times have you been 

sued by the environmental community in Southeast Alaska? 

Mr. MORRISON. Total or just this week? 

The CHAIRMAN. Total, and this week. 

Mr. MORRISON. Many times total. Definitely once this week and 

likely twice this week. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any estimates as to the costs that 

it takes out of your budget for legal fees? 

Mr. MORRISON. We do not keep track of those costs specifically. 

They are absorbed in all of the programs. When we need wildlife 

assistance to deal with a lawsuit, it comes out of wildlife. If we 

need timber, foresters' assistance, it comes out of there. Funds that 

are fairly specific are those that we pay through the Office of General Counsel, which is our attorney branch. There are millions of 

dollars annually tied up in lawsuits. 

The CHAIRMAN. What has been your success ratio? 

Mr. MORRISON. I guess it depends on how you might define success. We have been successful in that we have either won where 

our position has been correct or we have come to good compromises 

with appellants where there were questions raised and issues that 

were valid. I guess I feel pretty good about our success ratio. I do 

not feel very good about how long it takes the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you do me a favor, and I am going to ask 

Janke and I am going to ask Mr. Jack Ward Thomas, what effect 

that will have on the Alaska forestry and the changing of the contract, because if that Supreme Court contract stands, it is very, 

very damaging to the taxpayer, big time, in the billions of dollars. 

You are not a lawyer or a geologist, but you might want to have 

them start looking at this because this has far ramifications in the 

Supreme Court. 

Anything else you want to add, Gary? 

Mr. MORRISON. No, I think that is it. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are not out of here yet. 

Gary, anything else you would like to add? 

If not, I again want to compliment your professionalism, and, 

overall, the professionals of the Forest Service, because you are 

caught in betwixt and between. I would feel much more comfortable if you could make the decisions. I have said this many, 

many years. We would not even have this discussion if we could 

make the decisions on the local level by the agencies. It used to be 

done, and, unfortunately, that is changed and the centralized gurus 

want to centralize the government is the reason I have introduced 

this bill, to try to get decisions made back with public input and 

decisionmakers from a local level. People may object to that, but 
44 

eventually if I can at least accomplish my goals in this legislation, 

I think the administrations-and I say, collectively, administrations-are going to see the wisdom and cannot make decisions that 

far-reaching from Washington, D.C., that affects people's lives. It is 

just not the Tongass. It is other areas that have the same ramifications. And the idea that somebody in New York can say, "This is 

my land and I do not care what you do, but you cannot destroy my 

land," is wrong. You have to have some idea about how you live. 

You people have always been professional, all the way from John 

Sandor, Mike Barton, and other than Phil Janik, who decides not 

to show up. One time he had a stroke, and I wished him all the 

luck in the world, but you have had the decency to appear. 

Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Congressman. 

Just a quick comment. The real key to local involvement and 

input into the way we manage the forest is through the forest plan, 

and that is the document that I manage the Chatham area by legally, and however the forest plan tells me to manage the forest, 

I will do that, and if folks can provide their input and influence one 

way or another, the forest plan, that is the document that I follow 

in local issues and deal with local projects. 

We have lots of controversy over local timber sales here in Sitka. I am following the forest plan in putting up those timber sales. If 

people do not like how they are, where they are, when they are, 

how big they are, how small they are, the place to influence that 

is in the forest plan because I obey the law, and the forest plan is 

the law that I am following for management of the forest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gary, unfortunately, there are those who still 

use the courts to impede and oppose once the plan is reached, and 

I think that is a disservice to the plan. There are those that love 

to use the court system and those that believe-by the way, the Sierra Club, did you notice that they do not want any more trees cut, 

period? That is their national policy, no cutting of trees on any national forest land. Let her burn, let her fall down, let her rot. That 

is natural, and, in the meantime, lost a lot of opportunity. 

I want to thank you, and this meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and 

the submitted material for the record may be found at end of hearings.] 
TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSITION ACT 

FRIDAY, JULY 5, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Thorne Bay, AK. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m. in the 

Thorne Bay School, Thorne Bay, Alaska, Hon. Don Young (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RE· 

SOURCES 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing of the Resources Committee will 

begin. I will have an opening statement and then we will draw the 

first panel to the table. First, I want to say I am glad to be here in Thorne Bay. It is 

the heart of Southeast Alaska and the productive area of Alaska. This is where the production and the progress begins because Alaskans from Thorne Bay have an understanding of the Tongass For- est. You are the heart and soul of the Tongass because you understand the Tongass. You have built a quality of life that is among 

the best. Your hard work shows, as does your understanding of the 

land, but your views are often largely shut out of the decisionmaking progress in the Tongass. That is because the Federal decisions 

and policies override what the people in Thorne Bay know that is 

best for the people in the land. That includes our Forest Service 

employees. Many of their decisions are overridden by people in 

Washington, D.C. I want to stress: Today's hearing is about a bill to give Alaskans 

a better voice in the management of the Tongass. The bill would 

allow our State to accept transfer of the Tongass from the Federal 

Government. Once that happens, State policies, State managers, would make the decisions that affect your lives. Imagine if State 

decisionmakers were considering extending the KPC contract. That 

contract would already be extended. Both our legislative body and 

our governor agreed to support the 15-year extension, but now a 

contract extension must be cleared through the Washington, D.C. political maze, a maze created by Mr. Gore and those that follow 

him. That is not right nor fair. It is too far away to make the right 

decisions. Imagine the real consensus that could be achieved on the 

Tongass Land Management Plan if decisionmaking was really done 

here in Alaska, by Alaskans, under State policies. 

(45) 
46 

Now again, I want to stress it is Washington, D.C. that is the 

problem. It is not our Forest Service, nor is it you. It is someone 

back in Washington, D.C. Even after all the input and all the public comment which has been extended for a period of time, that 

comment will not be listened to. It will be made by people within 

the agencies back in Washington, D.C., under Mr. Gore. 

Frankly, I do not believe those policies work in Alaska. Today I 

do want to hear your views and ideas. There will be some differences of opinion and this is what the hearing process is all 

about. For those who may disagree with my legislation, understand 

one thing. This is a sincere effort to bring up a discussion about 

who should manage land. Should it be the Federal Government, 

should it be the State? Should it be the local community? Who 

should have Federal land? In fact, who should own Federal land? 

Will the State ownership help you keep the lifestyle you love? 

Will State ownership mean better management? There will be 

those that agree and those that disagree. Will State ownership 

mean more intelligent decisions for people who live in Thorne Bay, 

not someone who lives down on Pennsylvania Avenue? 

These are some of the questions that I hope today's hearing will 

address. I do need to know your advice because it is your quality 

of life that is most threatened by the current Federal decisions 

being made back east. Some may agree that those decisions are 

correct for their quality of life. I know some will not agree. 

My goal is to bring forth the discussion about who should own, 

who should manage, and who should be making decisions on the 

so-called land of the people: Those that live close by in the proximity, or those that live far away. 

I have read some of the testimony that said: Why do you not 

drop this bill? It has not got a chance. I would suggest that anybody that suggests that, they do not know me. It is not a new idea. 

It is not something I just came up with recently. 

Under the Constitution, nowhere does it say the government 

should own land. What has happened in the past 35, 40 years, has 

been acquisition of land. 650 million acres are owned by the United 

States Government. Very little of it is revenue generating. Most of 

it inhibits those people that live upon it or near it. We have a thing called payments in lieu of taxes, which is being 

cut through the United States Congress today. We have, also, 

stumpage fees, which if there are no trees cut, there are no stumpage fees. No stumpage fees, no in lieu of taxes, no brand-new high 

school, no new students, no new future, just the status quo. I do 

not believe inthe status quo. Very frankly, this is a bill of options. 

It is a bill for discussion. 

On the personal side about Thorne Bay, I had the distinct pleasure of being weathered in here in 1973, February. I spent one of 

the best days and evenings of my life with people who are no 

longer with us. This town was totally a lumber town but optimistic, 

exciting, people that looked to the future and raised their children. 

I have never forgotten that. That is one reason when we made the 

decision to have a series of hearings we decided to come to those 

areas which are directly affected by the decisions that are made 

back in D.C. 
47 

I hope this hearing today is not only a period of time in which 

you can express your point of views, but I hope, also, you understand it is a time to discuss where we are going, what chances 

those people that are going to this school are going to have in the 

future, whether they are going to have the opportunity or will they 

have to leave the State. Are they going to have the opportunity to 

be Alaskans, or do they have to go somewhere else? Are we just 

going to think of today and not tomorrow? Are we going to look at 

the facts or are we going to talk about rhetoric? Are we going to 

listen to the inflammatory comments by certain large organizations 

without looking to facts, to the scientific background of what is 

going on in our national forest is around the nation, not just the 

Tongass? 

We will have our first panel. I hope they are all here. Panel one, 

the Honorable Shafer, Vice Mayor of Thorne Bay, Thorne Bay, 

Alaska; the Honorable Elaine Price, Mayor of Coffman Cove, 

Coffman Cove, Alaska; Mr. Don Hayes, Southeast Alaska: Island 

School Board, Ketchikan, Alaska; and the Honorable Jerry Mackie, 

the Alaska State House, Craig, Alaska. 

Will each one of you please take the witness stand? 

I notice we are missing one. We will probably put Mr. Hayes on 

when he appears later. 

Ladies and gentlemen-or lady and gentlemen, the way we operate this, you do have five minutes. The light goes, when you see 

the orange light, and then the red light. I am usually pretty lenient, though I would prefer not to go for half an hour, and I say 

this not in disrespect for anyone, because I know you want to say 

everything you want to say, but everything you have written will 

be in the record, and when the panel is finished, there will be some 

questions, probably not a great deal but some questions from myself to you, and that is how we will proceed. 

I would also like to remind anybody in the audience that we prefer not to have any displays either for or against. This is a period 

of time which we hope to, for the record, find out the interests and 

beliefs of what should and should not be done in the Tongass National Forest, and I believe, Mr. Shafer, you are the first one up, 

Mr. Mayor, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE SHAFER, VICE MAYOR, THORNE BAY 

Mr. SHAFER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The mayor is not here, so we will call you mayor 

today. OK? 

Mr. SHAFER. OK. I would like to begin by thanking you for this 

opportunity to speak about this important issue today. 

For several years, now, we have been living and working with an 

uncertain future here in Southeast Alaska and particularly, it 

seems, here in Thorne Bay. That such an uncertainty exists is 

somewhat laughable in that we have no shortage of timber or lack 

of those people willing to work as a livelihood in that timber. We 

do, however, have a lack of faith in the ability of the United States 

Forest Service to provide a stable timber supply to the communities 

of Southeast Alaska. 

This lack of faith is also joined by a perception that the U.S. Government thinks that they know better how to manage this forest 
48 

than we do. I would like to point out that this should not be considered a slam against those employees who work for that agency. Most are hard-working, conscientious; they are friends, neighbors. 

The problem, rather, lies with the agency, itself, in it is an agency 

whose vision and mission has been quite vague for the better part 

of 20 years. It is an agency that strives to please everyone and succeeds in pleasing no one. It is an agency that was directed back in 

1960 to practice multiple use, sustained yield on public lands but 

also was forced, through congressional mandates, to set aside millions of acres, much of it in Alaska, as wilderness; roadless areas 

that reduce multiple use to a singular term. It makes sustained 

yield a meaningless concept. 

Currently we have 10 percent of our national forest that could 

be considered multiple use, and we are locked in a death grip with 

various groups over our ability to harvest timber on that remaining 

10 percent. We have just about got ourselves compromised out of 

a job. We are continually ·compromising. Pretty soon we will not 

have any timber left to harvest, if they have their way. 

But the Forest Service, with that in mind, is an agency led from 

outside, within, by those whose personal agenda speaks to an elite 

minority who feels that timber harvesting must be eliminated by 

all costs and whatever means. It is an agency that listens more 

closely to the misinformed and elected to cancel one long-term contract, closing down the other one. It is an agency whose preferred 

alternative to the current Tongass Land Management Plan reveals 

a harvest limit that cannot sustain what industry we have left or 

will not provide for future expansion. It is an agency that year by 

year and bit by bit has instituted policies and regulations that have 

eroded our ability to provide meaningful jobs for our people and 

provide a stable future for our children. 

Here in Thorne Bay it is zoned to approximately 650 people. Ac- tually, that was the estimate done last year by a group that was 

doing an economic study and since that time I believe we have lost 

about a dozen families out of Thorne Bay, and most of those left 

because of that uncertainty that I spoke about earlier. 

This community is heavily dependent upon the timber industry. 

Approximately 80 percent are directly employed by the industry. 

Losing it in Thorne Bay would be the same as Detroit losing the 

auto industry or Honolulu losing its tourist industry. We would not 

survive if it is gone. We just will not. We do not want welfare. We do not want blood money. We want 

jobs. We want the future that was promised to Southeast when the 

pulp mill first opened in 1954. It has become clear to me that the 

U.S. Government and the Forest Service cannot uphold that promise, and I, therefore, support H.R. 2413. 

I am not suggesting that the State of Alaska can do a better job 

in managing this forest than the Forest Service has. I am suggesting they cannot do any worse. And we want the chance that management by the State of Alaska would give us, and if we have a 

problem, we would not have to bother Washington with it. We can 

take it right to Juneau. 

That is all I have. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 
49 

I would suggest one thing. The comment "cannot do any better, 

cannot do any worse"-and I agree with your comment-that this 

is nothing personal to the local forestry people. Unfortunately, as 

I have talked to Mr. Janik and Gary, a lot of their decisions are 

ignored back east, and I think that is a very sad way to manage 

a forest that does affect people. Elaine, you are up next. I want to thank you for coming. Mayor 

of Coffman Cove. 

STATEMENT OF ELAINE PRICE, MAYOR, COFFMAN CO~ 

Ms. PRICE. I would like to say that I am Elaine Price of Coffman 

Cove, and I am the mayor of Coffman Cove, but the city council of 

Coffman Cove has not had any dialog on this subject at all, so I 

am not representing the city. The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. 

Ms. PRICE. Just my own personal opinions. · And, second, I believe that all Federal land should be turned over 

to the states west of the Mississippi. I do not feel I have the right 

to tell people how to live and manage their land in Florida, Georgia, New York, or Massachusetts, and they do not have a right to 

tell us how to manage or live on our land in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. I feel if there was a land transfer in Alaska, it should be all Federal land, not just the Tongass, but at the same time I feel our 

State government is loaded with preservationists. The DNR and 

the DOT, in general, are very difficult to deal with. If a land transfer were to take place, things would have to change drastically on 

a State level. 

I also feel that the Forest Service personnel gets blamed for a lot 

that is not their fault. I think the Forest Service people who are 

actually in Thorne Bay, Craig, Ketchikan, and Wrangell could do 

a good job of managing the forest if they were left alone to do their 

job and not constantly hog-tied by mandates from Washington, 

D.C., passed on by people who have never been here and get their 

information from special interest groups and the Discover channel. 

So, in closing, I guess I have to admit I have mixed feelings. I 

support the transfer in concept, but I feel there is a lot of groundwork that needs to be done. I think Alaskans are better able to 

manage Alaska if we can set up a sensible resources development 

plan, and I stress "sensible." 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are you through? 

Ms. PRICE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I love elected officials that 

do not talk very long. I think it is great. 

Now, Jerry, you are in the hot seat. We have Representative 

Jerry Mackie. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY MACKIE, A STATE REPRESENTATIVE 

IN ALASKA 

Mr. MACKIE. Thank you, Congressman. I do not know if that is 

a direct message there or not. The CHAIRMAN. You are doing fine. 

Mr. MACKIE. For the record, I apologize. I do not have written 

testimony because I do not write speeches. I usually just talk. 
50 

But I would like to, for the record, introduce myself. I am Jerry 

Mackie. I am a State representative. I represent 37 communities 

from Prince of Wales to Metlakatla to Yakutat in the State House 

and have done so for the last six years. I currently also serve as 

the Democrat leader of the House of Representatives. 

90 percent of the Tongass, Congressman, is in my district, and 

I also feel frustration a lot of times at the State level by Federal 

policies and mandates that come down. 

The district I represent is very diverse. We have a timber industry. We have a fishing industry, which has been there forever. We 

have got different Native tribes and subsistence issues. We have 

got some tourism, and my district is very, very diverse and does 

not have any other jobs other than natural resource jobs. 

I strongly believe that we are a natural resource State and that 

we should manage our resources and we should manage them here 

at home. I do not know all of the details in terms of your legislation, Congressman, and I am interested in seeing some of the financial information that would take place in terms of the State 

having to manage the Tongass and so forth. l have not had an opportunity to review that, but in terms of the concept of what you 

are trying to accomplish, here, I support it, and I will tell you why. 

The people that I represent throughout the Tongass a lot of times 

have very little to say about what happens with their jobs and 

what happens with the economics. A lot of those decisions are 

made in Congress and in Washington, D.C., through heavy lobbying efforts and influence from organizations outside of the State of 

Alaska by people that do not live here, and that comes in the form 

of management decisions to court injunctions and so on and so 

forth. That has me greatly concerned. The reason I know that-I think that we could do the job here 

in Alaska-and I do not necessarily have a bone to pick with the 

Forest Service or the personnel that are locally trying to manage 

the forest. I do have a problem with what comes out of D.C., as you 

indicated earlier on, but the reason that I think that it could be 

done is-we will use the KPC contract for an example. I strongly 

advocated for that contract extension and worked in the legislature 

to try to build consensus and find language and address some of 

the issues that we believed addressed all the concerns here at 

home, and we talked about the need to protect habitat, and I do 

not know of anyone that wants to clearcut the Tongass from one 

end to the other, but we do need to have the jobs in the timber industry, as well as fishing and others, and I think that when that 

final vote came down-and there was all but three people in the 

legislature, including Governor Knowles, that supported that-that 

was an example of how we can work together here at home and 

have people's views being dealt with by people that are elected locally here at home. So I do believe that will work. 

There are many issues certainly in the Tongass that go unresolved. A lot of the subsistence issues remain unresolved. There are 

lots of concerns, concerns even that I have about habitat areas and 

other things, that we protect our environment at the same time 

that we manage our timber industry and provide the jobs for our 

families to survive. 
51 

So I can tell you just in my six years' experience in Juneau that 

there are many, not only in the timber industry or in the oil industry as we have advocated for opening ANWR and other things, 

there are many things that come down from the Federal Government that do not work in Alaska. They are designed for big cities 

in the Lower 48 and they do not work in Alaska, wetlands issues 

and other things. So I think the more opportunity that we have here in Alaska to 

control our own destiny and to have input from our local people, 

the better off we will be in the future, and I thank you, Congressman, for bringing a hearing to my district and to allow for views, 

different views, as you stated, either for or against. I think it is important to allow people that opportunity, as it is very expensive to 

travel to D.C. 

So, again, thank you for coming home to Alaska to have these 

hearings, and I appreciate your efforts. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Representative. 

I would suggest one thing, and you are absolutely correct. This 

bill is a bill that we drew up to start conversations. That is why 

we have the hearings. If you have any suggestions that-! have 

heard, and all I hear is "The State cannot afford it. We do not have 

the personnel. How could we do it? We are not prepared." 

This is not a rapid process, and the State will have the option 

to review all the requirements on what should be done, whether 

they want to take it over, do they want the whole thing. 

The mayor from Thorne Bay mentioned we are fighting for 10 

percent of it. Now, it may end up that maybe the State is only interested in that 10 percent, because I know I have worked on this 

issue for 25 years. We have set aside, I believe, the finest and best 

of the old-growth timber available, the 1.4 million acres, and I hear 

that this is the best spot. Maybe this is the only area that maybe 

the State should manage. I do not know, but this is what hearings 

are about, so before anything was to happen-and, by the way, this 

bill has a better chance than what those people may try to say it 

does, not because there are other states interested in this. 

By the way, Elaine, you are right. This is just the beginning. 

This happened to be the most controversial area that has the most 

discussion going on in the State of Alaska but also in the Lower 

48. Oregon has come to me, and they want 2. 7 million acres transferred over to them. Wyoming has got some interest now. Montana 

has got some interest. 

So this is an issue that is going to be discussed far beyond the 

Tongass. We just picked the Tongass because this is where I have 

not found anybody happy, including the Forest Service, with how 

it is being managed. 

I just talked to Gary yesterday. He was sued twice this week by 

those who say he is doing a good job, if you follow what I am saying. No one is really too happy, so this is why it was introduced 

with the Tongass to bring the point home. 

Jerry, what have you seen or heard since Sitka shut down and 

Wrangell shut down and the threat of the extension around these 

communities? I know you travel around the communities. What are 

you hearing in the bars and the churches? And I included both of 

them. 
52 

Mr. MACKIE. People are very concerned. They are concerned for 

their families. They are concerned about their ability to make a living. We are a natural resources State. We do not have Boeing and 

General Motors and Bechtel and other corporations. We have timber and fishing jobs in Southeast, primarily, with some tourism in 

the larger areas, and people cannot survive without having an opportunity to work, and when you lose 40 to 50 percent of your jobs 

over the last five years, people have a reason to be very, very concerned. · 

So, in terms of this particular bill, some of the concerns that 

have been-questions I have been asked are: What is it going to 

cost? Can the State actually do it, or is the State going to be assuming new financial obligations at a time when we are having to 

down-size our own State government, and can we handle that? 

And, as I mentioned in my testimony, I do not have the answers 

to that. I am interested in seeing what those numbers are, but in 

terms of whether or not we should control our own destiny here in 

Alaska, I have had very few people tell me that they did not believe 

that Alaskans should have the opportunity to make the decisions 

for ourselves and not have outside interference. 

Of course, there are many issues that remain unresolved in 

terms of subsistence and some of the other things that may fall in 

the opposite view of timber harvesting, but there are courts and 

other avenues that those things are being dealt with right now. 

This is a philosophical thing with me as to whether or not we 

should control our own destiny. 

The CHAIRMAN. Both of you mayors, have you seen decline in 

your population or has it stabilized or what are you finding? 

Mr. SHAFER. Thorne Bay is losing people. The CHAIRMAN. Are they families or singles? 

Mr. SHAFER. Well, it is both. You have both the temporary, 

maybe the transient type of workers, but we are losing families 

that are leaving here because of the uncertainty. They have to basi- cally get out while they can to find work elsewhere. 

The CHAIRMAN. I was just curious. I was talking to the superintendent of schools, here. I was just wondering what the enrollment here was and how it is affecting the school. This is an awful 

big plan--

Mr. SHAFER. I do not have the numbers on how much the enrollment has dropped. 

The CHAIRMAN. How about you, Elaine? 

Ms. PRICE. With Coffman Cove, I got some numbers from KPC 

about a month ago, and last year they had 71 hourly employees 

employed at Coffman Cove, and this year is it is 29. 

The CHAIRMAN. 71? 

Ms. PRICE. 71 versus 29. And this is a community that has 85 

families, approximately, about 250 people. So it has made a big impact on our community. We have families that are leaving. It hurts 

the community because the school will have less enrollment. It is 

the possibility of one less teacher. The way the grades are broken 

up, this year we are going to have sixth through twelfth grade in 

one classroom, which is not really a good situation, and it hurts the 

community because there are not people to help with the community activities. The uncertainty of the logging industry right now, 
53 

people are being very conservative. It hurts the local businesses because people are not spending money. I know it has hurt Craig 

quite a bit because people in Coffman Cove do a lot of their shopping in Craig and Klawock, and they are just not doing it this year. 

Things are very strained in Coffman Cove with uncertainty, and 

they keep talking about shutting down the logging until next 

spring, and since they did not start logging until April, that is not 

enough for people to survive, and the people in Coffman Cove do 

not want handouts. They want to work. It has always been a community of people that worked. 

The CHAIRMAN. I cannot agree with you more. I was supportive 

of and proud of what Senator Stevens was able to do, but the $110 

million in four years' time that would be transferred to communities, especially any community with a handout, that is still not 

a job. 

The question was asked me the other day: ''Why are you not supporting other jobs", and I said, "I do. Just tell me what kinds of 

jobs they are going to be." And that concerns me. 

Jerry, you are right. It is a resource-oriented State. I saw the 

governor signed-it was the added-value bill the other day. It is 

supported, but 10 million board feet is not a great deal, either, and 

that does not employ a whole lot of people, and I think the most 

interesting thing to me is: Let us say KPC went down, which the 

State and the government did support, but the Federal Government now does not want to do scr-although the local forest people 

did make a recommendation the contract be extended. They chose 

to cancel it back east. If it goes down, there probably would not be 

any sales, period, and if you do not have any sales, you do not have 

any stumpage fees. You do not have any stumpage fees, you do not 

have any schools. You do not have any infrastructure. 

That is the part that really concerns me the most becausemainly a concept by certain individuals saying, "We will start these 

smaller jobs, these smaller added-value jobs." That sounds good 

and looks good but, in reality, it is going to be an awful tough task 

to occur. 

Have you talked to people-! know you are both elected-all 

three of you are elected. Are they interested in a different concept 

of management? 

Ms. PRICE. I think everybody would like to see something dif- ferent. What we have is not working. It is like what Mike said a 

few minutes ago. We have compromised and compromised, and I 

know years ago when they did the D-2 legislation, a lot of Alaskans breathed a sigh of relief and thought, "Well, something a lot 

worse. I guess it is OK. We compromised. That is it." And then 

they come along and there is another compromise, and the ink is 

not even dry and they want another compromise. Every time we 

give up more and more and we do not get anything back, and it 

has gotten to the point where-when I came to Alaska years ago, 

there were loggers-there were 40 outfits working out of Ketchikan 

alone, and then there were Wrangell and Petersburg and Sitka and 

Juneau that had logging companies working out of them, and it 

has just come to the point where there are only a few major employers, and the economy, we need the logging, and we do not need 

200 million board feet. We need more. 
54 

The CHAIRMAN. I can tell you, you are right about the compromise. I worked on the D-2 land legislation, voted against it, got 

beat. It was a great battle. Beat them in the committee, lost it on 

the Floor, Udahl and John Anderson, signed into law by Mr. Carter, and we thought this may be the end of it. I did not like 

it then, and I said it would probably be just the beginning. 

Ms. PRICE. It has been. 

The CHAIRMAN. Like you said, six years later, we had the 

Tongass Reform Act. We had comments from SEACC saying, "We 

are not looking to eliminate jobs. We want a sound timber base." 

In reality, they are back at it again with 1,400,000 acres. The 10 

percent of the forest-and I have always said that they say this is 

the better part. Let us trade. I will trade. You give me the 90 percent and you take the 10 percent. Nobody wants to do that. And 

the truth of the matter is that there is a concentrated effort to 

eliminate any type of timber activity in Southeast Alaska, and my 

goal in this bill is not just for timber. 

If the people decide that is not what is right, if they want to 

make a park out of it, that is the people's choice, but at least the 

decision ought to be made somewhere in the local area. 

I am reminiscing, now-I have the gavel, so I can do that-but 

I remember where the Forest Service, right here, the regional director out of Juneau and the area director, made the decision, and 

that is what was lived by. That was up until about 15 years ago, and then all of a sudden, right now-like our enforcement officers 

for the Forest Service do not even report to Mr. Janik. They report 

to somebody back in Washington, D.C. They do not even have to 

go through him. They make a recommendation; it has to go back 

to Washington, D.C., so it is not correct. 

I do appreciate you, panel, and, Jerry, good luck to you, all of you that were here, and we are going to be listening to the rest of the 

witnesses today and hope you are able to hang around, and if you 

have anything else to add to it, the record is open. Your written 

testimony or any testimony you would like to get from your councils we would be glad to accept at a later date. Mr. SHAFER. The only thing I wanted to add-I did get some information-we did lose, as of this year's school, 18 children from 

enrollment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Eighteen? 

Mr. SHAFER. Out of those people that have left. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we have what type of enrollment, now, in the 

school district? 

Mr. SHAFER. Under 120. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mike, my interest in this, I came out of Sitka, 

and I have always loved Sitka-it is a great town-and everybody 

says, "Look at the building going on." Most of those houses being 

built are by retired people or outsiders that have the money to buy 

the land and put up the houses. It becomes an old community. And 

one of my fears in our society is-and I am there, so I can say that 

without some criticism-a community must have the youth. They 

must have the vigor, they must have the upcoming young kids in 

the community to make it alive and viable. 

Now, Sitka may be able to survive with a retired system, but it 

is not going to be a system that really provides a whole lot in the 
55 

long run for the well-being of Southeast. Now, Thome Bay does not 

have the advantage of Sitka. Let us face it. You do have timber. 

They have all the ingrown infrastructure, and they might be able 

to survive on SEAHC and a few other things, but it is not necessarily a healthy-type society. A retirement society is not always 

the healthiest. You have to have that young mixture to make it 

work, and Thorne Bay has always had that young mixture. 

I want to thank you. Jerry, you had something else? 

Mr. MACKIE. Just in terms of what people feel-at least, I believe 

some of the people that would support your approach to this legislation feel that there is an organized effort on a national level with 

preservationist groups-! think everybody in Alaska are environmentalists. I believe that we care about our environment, but the 

preservationists that want to lock it up and eliminate the timber 

jobs have a war going with Louisiana Pacific and other corporations throughout the country for past records of pollution or other 

types of things, but what they do not realize is that LP, for example, LP is under new management, that they have-Governor 

Knowles has traveled to meet with Mark Soon on several occasions 

and talked about the need for environmental upgrades to the plant. LP is spending $200 million to upgrade the facilities and so forth, 

and they have no answer-the people that would like to continue 

this battle with LP on a national level have no answer to the families or the people in terms of the jobs that they have lost. So there 

is a huge vacuum taking place of jobs going out with nobody having 

anything to say about it here in the State, and it is because of a 

national debate. 

So that is the things that I think people find most offensive, and 

I think, depending on who you talk to throughout Southeast Alaska, Congressman, as you well know, we are extremely diverse in 

terms of people's opinions and their livelihoods and so forth. You 

are going to get different opinions and different feelings about 

things, but that is healthy, and that kind of debate is healthy. That 

is why this hearing is healthy, to have that kind of diversity and 

debate, but it should take place here in Alaska and not in Washington, D.C. That is the whole issue. And the particulars of the 

management or the board feet and those kinds of things, those will 

come, and I do not have the answers to that, but it should be made 

by people in Alaska because it affects Alaskans. 

The CHAIRMAN. For you in the audience, we are having a hearing 

on the extension of the contract on the 11th of this month back in 

Washington, D.C. I am probably now nationwide famous by those 

editorial pages. They do not explain it is $257,000,000 to be invested. 

Now, some would say, "Why did we wait so long? Why did not 

we follow British Columbia?" British Columbia, ITT Rayonier, 

dumped pollutions into our water-into the fishing areas of our fish 

for years, hundreds of years, and they are finally coming around 

with a new plan. So I never looked at British Columbia as one of 

those great examples of how it should be done. So the decision, I think, goes back to where we should-and before you leave, and this is just for something-! would like to quote 

something because later on they will talk about Theodore Roosevelt. I always get a kick out of how great Theodore Roosevelt was 
56 

and how he preserved the land and everything else, but it says, 

"Now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment: What is the object of our forest policy? That is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good 

unto itself, nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of 

the wilderness, though that, too, is good unto itself, but the primary object of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United 

States, is to build more prosperous homes.", Theodore Roosevelt, 

1903. And I always get a kick when they say Theodore Roosevelt 

said he wanted a preserve. He did not say preserve; he said use. 

He did not say preserve; he said conserve. There is a great deal of 

difference. By the way, Roosevelt created this forest in 1907, and they keep 

referring to that, but the truth of the matter is he said the primary 

purpose was for building homes, and that is something, I think, we 

ought to keep in mind. 

I want to thank the panel. I appreciate you being here, and you 

are excused. 

The next panel-Panel II is Mr. Seley from Ketchikan; Les Looney from Craig, Alaska; Kelly Gerrits, Thorne Bay; Carlyle Preston 

from-and I apologize-N-A-U-K-A-T-1, how do you pronounce 

that? 

Mr. PRESTON. Naukati. 

The CHAIRMAN. Naukati. OK, Naukati. And Ron Quick from 

N aukati. Will all of you please take the witness stand, if you are 

here, please? 

Check your signs to make sure you are sitting at the right place, 

and I see we have Kelly and Mr. Preston--

Mr. PRESTON. Carlyle. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Preston, Carl Preston, and Ron. 

Kelly, this time you are up first. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY L. GERRITS, THORNE BAY 

Ms. GERRITS. Congressman Young and fellow Alaskans, my name 

is Kelly Gerrits. My family and I live on Prince of Wales Island, 

the largest island of the Tongass National Forest. I truly believe 

in the transfer of the Tongass National Forest from the Federal 

Government. Right now our lives and policies are being dictated by 

a government located on the East Coast with a very extreme way 

of thinking. 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is time to empower all 

people of Alaska to manage their own land and · their own lives. 

People of Alaska directly or indirectly make their livelihood from 

the natural resources of the land. These people were the first environmentalists of Alaska. They know the true meaning of conservation: Wise usage. Who best to be responsible caretakers of our natural resources than the people who know and love this land? To 

what advantage would we benefit by overfishing our waters or 

overharvesting our forests? We want to live our lives here and prepare a life for our children and their children's children, and I am 

going to requote Teddy. 

Theodore Roosevelt said in 1903 to the Society of American Foresters: And now and foremost you can never afford to forget for a 

moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to pre-
57 

serve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in 

itself. To sit on the rocky beach of Southeast and look out at mystic 

scenery, to enjoy the Alaska blues and to know our natural resources will always be there to provide us with homes and jobs, 

this too. This used to be a true source of security to Alaskans, not 

because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, 

though that, too, is good in itself. No one enjoys the sight of a newborn fawn or a stream or spawning fish like a logger who is at 

home in the forest, but the primary object of our forest policy as 

a land policy of the United States is the making of prosperous 

homes. 

So that is what we did, myself and my sisters and brother, our 

fourth generation logging families. My daughter, nephews, and 

nieces have now proudly entered the work force of the fifth generation. My family has continued this way of life in the timber industry because it is a renewable resource. With proper management, 

it provides an economic basis to support many American families. 

Under the current structure of our Forest Service, we are no longer 

allowed to manage these forests; therefore, we are watching our 

crops becoming diseased, overripe, and dying. If this is allowed to 

continue, our entire nation will suffer. Valuable timber products 

and byproducts are provided from the harvests of these forests. 

I have watched for the last 15 years families and homes pulled 

up by their roots and destroyed. If the Forest Service is allowed to 

overload us with ever-changing policies which constrict our ability 

to harvest and manage our forest, the devastation and hardships 

on the people and their families will ultimately lead to domestic violence, higher crime rates, and overloading of an already failing 

welfare system. 

We have the best leadership in the Nation right here in our great 

State of Alaska: Congressman Young and our senators, Murkowski 

and Stevens. It has been said we are getting our act together. We 

are in a forward and positive motion. I ask that you please support 

these men in their efforts. 1'hey are fighting for our jobs and our 

families. Please support bill H.R. 2413, the transfer of the Tongass, 

to its rightful owners, the people of Alaska. We, the people of the 

Tongass, need to keep our families in their homes. 

My statement to you was completed, then late Wednesday afternoon I received an important fax explaining how Agriculture Secretary Glickman wants to impose a new dangerous policy directive 

on the timber salvage law. This new policy of absurdities is exactly 

why we, the people of Alaska, must get control of our Tongass to 

properly manage it or it will be destroyed by our Federal Government. The Clinton Administration would like for us to turn our 

backs on the health and well-being of our Tongass, to stand by and 

watch it self-destruct. I, for one, cannot stand by and watch this 

happen to something which is so dear to my heart. We must unite 

and push forward to save our natural resources, which means our 

homes and jobs. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Kelly. 

Carl? 
58 

STATEMENT OF CARLYLE PRESTON, NAUKATI 

Mr. PRESTON. My name is Carlyle Preston. I live in Naukati, 

Alaska. I have been an Alaskan resident for the past 26 years, the 

last 23 of these years of which I have lived and work in the 

Tongass. I support Congressman Young's Tongass Transfer and 

Transition Act, H.R. 2413. 

In my 23 years working in the Tongass, I have seen many 

changes. I have seen a number of logging companies working in the 

Tongass cut more than in half and the number of men working cut 

by more than 60 percent. Never have I seen the work force for logging in the Tongass increase. I have seen units released by the For- est Service ready to be cut be put on hold for months, years, and 

some forever due to injunctions started by environmentalists, usually from out of State. It does not seem right to me to have someone from New York, California, Florida, or Arkansas, who has 

probably never been to Alaska, never seen the Tongass, to dictate 

policy how this forest is to be run. The policy should be dictated 

by Alaskans, people who live and work in the Tongass, not by 

someone who has never been off concrete and cannot tell the difference between an Alaskan yellow cedar tree and a Sitka spruce 

tree. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And Ron, you are the last one. 

STATEMENT OF RON QUICK, NAUKATI 

Mr. QUICK. Congressman Young, my name is Ron Quick. I live 

in Naukati on Prince of Wales Island. I have been in the industry 

40 years. In fact, I worked with Ms. Gerrits' father in the late 

1950's. 

I am in favor of the Tongass Transfer Bill, H.R. 2413, you have 

introduced into the House of Representatives. Over the past three 

years, it has been so frustrating to me as a timber worker, it is unbelievable. It is hard to understand how the Forest Service can say 

there is not enough timber for a sustainable timber supply when 

you can fly around in this country all •day and all you see is trees. All the timber workers in Southeast are beginning to understand, 

now, that the Forest Service does not consist of timber people. They 

are nothing but a bunch of ecospecialists who call themselves timber people. 

These so-called ecospecialists have been taught that all logging 

is bad for the environment. As Forest Service employees, they have 

no interest as far as developing a permanent timber supply in 

Southeast Alaska. 

Under the current Democratic Administration, there is little hope 

for timber workers in Southeast as long as the Forest Service is 

under Bill Clinton's and Al Gore's thumb. 

It is time to give Southeast back to the people who developed this 

country, like the fishermen, and the loggers. We want our forest 

back so we can run it responsibly and economically. Let us put the 

Forest Service watching all the parks the government has created 

and hope they can do that responsibly. Give us back our forests so 

we can go to work logging timber that is economically feasible. Give 

us back our forests so we can go to work not wondering if we are 

going to have a job the next day. Give us back our forests so we 
59 

can go to work and make a decent living, have health-care benefits, 

and give our children a college education so they can become responsible citizens. Congressmany Young, we do not want welfare. 

We want jobs. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I appreciate your testimony. I 

think most of you hit it on the head. I have made this statement 

before, and I will make it again. The health of the forest-you 

brought up the idea of Mr. Glickman, now. This came right out of 

Al Gore's office-that we cannot, under the congressional mandate, 

salvage trees if there is any green trees amongst the beetle-killed 

trees, blow-down trees, and any of you who have been in the blowdown areas around here, there are always going to be one or two 

trees standing. Under that provision, you cannot go in and salvage 

it. The Forest Service says we cannot do it. Turn around, and it 

stops the mandate of Congress, and I think that is going to be 

questioned very closely by Congress, when it stops the mandate, 

primarily for political reasons, because certain groups did not support the salvage legislation. Eighteen billion board feet of national 

forest last year that could have been salvaged, 18 billion. Now, you 

know what the average yield is-the average cut up to 1990 was 

about 375 million board feet in the Tongass, and we are talking 

about 18 billion board feet that are standing there rotting now. It is always interesting because you mention New York. Mr. 

Morazic, for instance, Mr. Morazic, they cut a little over a billion-

! think 800 million board feet a year in New York State. Think 

about that. They had 57 pulp mills in New York State. We have 

got one pulp mill. One pulp mill is all we have. 57 pulp mills. And 

on top of that, what I am leading up to-most of you, again, are 

dealing with a national forest-the national forest is not healthy. 

One eighth of the total land mass produces two-thirds of our fiber 

today, and it is on private forest lands, and, by the way, they manage it for fish and wildlife, and their national forest is not. And I 

think that is the real issue here: Who can best manage? 

We have a report from Dr. Needle that says in Montana-! think 

in Minnesota that-comparison, national versus State versus private, the national forest is the worst managed, and I am not blaming the managers, necessarily. I am just saying it is required to do 

nothing, and it gives us great problem. 

By the way, you talk about the logger enjoying fish. I understand 

you were out busy today; is that true? Are you catching fish yesterday and today? 

Ms. GERRITS. Yes. We came in to see you, and then we are going 

to go back and fillet some more sockeye. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anything else you would like to add while you 

are sitting there? You have the chance toMs. GERRITS. I am not really sure where the Forest Service people came from that were on the TLMP panel, but I wrote-! went 

to, I think, five different hearings and each hearing I would write 

something different, and I kind of got to know these people, and 

I guess I am going to say that I disagree with the first panel a little bit by saying that maybe at one time the Forest Service people 

on the local level were even in our favor in this and that. 
60 

After I got to talking to some of these Forest Service people, they 

are being infiltrated drastically. It seems like our good people are 

being transferred out. I have seen a lot of people that were on our 

side, they are gone, and they bring in others, and, I mean, we have 

good Forest Service people, but what I am saying is they are on the 

decline, even at the local level. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are 564 Forest Service employees in 

Southeast Alaska today, and I can assure you that if we do not extend the contract and, in fact, the pulp mill in Ketchikan was to 

close, not only will we lose the jobs, there will only be about, 

maybe, 124 Forest Service employees--

Ms. GERRITS. They need to think about that, because they might 

not be one of the 120. 

The CHAIRMAN. [continuing]--because it is going to be drastically cut back, because there would not be any sales. Everybody 

knows-you went back to the old days when I first came up here 

before the pulp mill went in, we would have A-frame, beach-type 

operations, high-grading of timber, and the reason the high-grading 

stopped and the pulp mills went in is because there were so many 

old dead trees and unsalvageable logs left in the woods that could 

not be acceptable, and the pulp mill came in-very frankly, we 

gave them a tax break. Governor Egan gave them a tax break to 

let the pulp mills in. 

Originally, there were five mills in Southeast Alaska, five pulp 

mills, and how many sawmills we do not know. The estimate at 

that time was a sustainable yield forever. Now we are down to one 

pulp mill, I think one sawmill, if we have that, and yet we are arguing over that 10 percent. That is the difference. 

I go back to, very frankly, what we are doing here today. I do 

not think Alaskans would tolerate that. Jerry Mackie put it very succinctly. State legislative body is backing my bill. The governor 

is saying we have got to extend the contract. He does not back my 

bill, but there is a definite interest on the State level, including 

people from Anchorage and Fairbanks, understanding that there 

has got to be some support from you, too, not just for those people 

up far north. 

And, by the way, the beetle kill far north far exceeds what you 

have down here, but you do have beetle kills. You may not get the 

forest fires, but you will lose trees. We had the big fire at Big Lake, 

and now we have the potential on the Kenai Peninsula to really 

having a holocaust. They are not the big trees you have here, but 

they are pretty good-sized trees. 

If you do not have anything else, I just would like to say one 

thing. I heard from the last panel about the State not-----concern 

whether the State could do it. Do you have that problem? 

Ms. GERRITS. No. Like I said, we have good leadership. We are 

going to be OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the State-and I will be honest with youyou will hear testimony later on that they do not think the State 

can do it. Of course, this is a slow process. I want you to know this 

hearing is-like I say, we will have these hearings. When it comes 

out of the House, when it is signed into law, then the State has 

to take its time, and that is where your input comes, too, before 

they ever say, ''Yes, we want it." We are not making anybody do 
61 

anything. I think that is the safeguard to this whole package, and 

if someone can make up the argument maybe it would be better 

leaving it with the Federal Government, that is going to be their 

job. This discussion has to go forward. I want to thank you very much and appreciate you inviting me 

here to Thorne Bay, and we will look forward to visiting you after 

the hearing. Thank you. By the way, where is your community? 

Mr. PRESTON. Naukati is on the west side of Prince of Wales. 

The CHAIRMAN. West side? 

Mr. PRESTON. Yes. It is probably 44 miles from Thorne Bay 

north. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you go, I remember when we did not have 

roads. Do we have a circle of roads, now, where everybody is con- nected? 

Mr. PRESTON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned tourism. Are we getting any tourism in here at all? 

Ms. GERRITS. What is there to see? 

Mr. PRESTON. Maybe you can get the State to grade the road. The CHAIRMAN. Get the State to grade the road? Maybe we ought 

to make the roads private; that will really get somebody's interest. It is something you want to think about because when I was 

here, we flew everywhere, and I guess we pretty much do so now, but there was no connection between Thorne Bay-where does the 

road go now, from Thorne bay to---

Mr. PRESTON. Labouchere Bay. The CHAIRMAN. Labouchere Bay connects to? 

Mr. PRESTON. That is it. The CHAIRMAN. What about the rest of Prince of Wales Island? 

Mr. PRESTON. Well, you go from over to-up to Whale Pass, and 

you can go on over to Coffman Cove. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here 

today. The next panel is Panel III. Nick Gefre, Thorne Bay; Rocky Collins from Klawock, given by Ben Williams, I understand; Dennis 

Kuntz from Craig, Alaska; Ms. Judy Willis from Coffman Cove, 

Alaska. She has been invited. I do not know whether she is here 

or not. 

Thank you, panel, for being here. I think you have watched the 

panels. It is pretty painless. Give your point of view, and then we 

will go. Nick, you are first up. 

STATEMENT OF NICK GEFRE, THORNE BAY 

Mr. GEFRE. My name is Nick Gefre, Thorne Bay. I support H.R. 

2413, and I appreciate the opportunity to address you on my views 

as they relate to the Tongass National Forest. 

I have worked and lived in the Tongass for almost 20 years. My 

three daughters were all born in the Tongass, as well as my business. I will spend the rest of my life in the Tongass. 

Needless to say, I have a vested interest in how the Tongass is 

managed. Decisions that concern the Tongass should be made on 

the local level by the people who have chosen the Tongass as their 
62 

home. Who else can better understand the effects the issues have 

than someone who can see them out their living room window? 

The people that live here in the Tongass are blessed with a lifestyle unlike anywhere else in the world. We do not have crack 

houses. There are not any gangs, and the only thing that dies in 

a drive-by shooting is an occasional deer. This leaves us with little 

extra time on our hands, and we would be more than happy to take 

over the management of the Tongass and do our part to lessen the 

burden on the Federal Government. 

Thanks. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Nick. 

Who is next, here? Ben Williams. Ben, you are doing for Rocky, 

right? 

STATEMENT OF BEN WILLIAMS, KLAWOCK 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. Rocky had a previous commitment, since he is running for District Five representative seat, so 

I am kind of filling in. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure you will do a good job. Go ahead. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. To the people of Thorne Bay and the Honorable 

Congressman Don Young, my name is Ben Williams, and I am 

president of the Alaska and Proud chain of grocery stores located 

in Southeast Alaska. 

I am appearing here today because Rocky cannot attend due to 

other commitments. We have six stores located from Haines to Juneau to Ketchikan and two here on Prince of Wales, one here in 

Thorne Bay and one in Klawock, and we employ approximately 450 

people, and it is those people and their families who I am representing here today. There are several factors which brought me to favor the return 

of the Tongass back to the people of Alaska and to support H.R. 

2413. I feel the State of Alaska has been responsible and a responsible steward of our natural resources for over half a century. It is 

our opinion that the Alaskans are more likely to achieve a balance 

between development and responsible stewardship of our natural 

resources, thus providing a viable economic base, as well as a lifelong commitment toward renewable resources. 

Having witnessed the impact of loss of reliable timber sales and 

supplies in our wood products industry, we know firsthand of the 

devastation resulting from mill and support company shutdowns, 

the loss of these jobs, and the effects and hurt every community 

and business has felt, but, most importantly, the people and families of Southeast Alaska. Wherever there are loss of jobs, quality 

of life quickly deteriorates and you experience a rise in social problems. Today, as business people in Southeast Alaska, we are faced with 

many hard choices, including whether or not to close a store or 

mill, to lay off people, or continue to lose money and perhaps lose 

a whole company. 

Due to the policies of our Federal Government and the specialinterest groups it caters to, we currently have a formula for failure 

and disaster for Southeast Alaska, in our opinion. 

We are convinced if there is to be a future for the people of the 

Tongass and their children, we must find a more compassionate, 
63 

equitable, and viable solution to the management of these resources and this great land. There must be a balance. We must be 

able to provide responsible stewardship for our people, as well as 

our land. One cannot exist without the other, and we as Alaskans 

know that the key word is "responsible." 

Although there will always be a few to abuse, we feel that, as 

Alaskans, we can and will implement laws with teeth in them to 

protect our environment and perhaps even incentives can be provided to those companies and people who go out of their way to 

abide and even go beyond what is required of them in the protection of our environment. 

We believe that not only are we better equipped geographically 

but emotionally to handle the Tongass. Remember that unless we 

promote the development of our resources and do it shortly, we will 

find ourselves in the position of having a State fiscal shortfall and 

an area shortfall that someone will have to make up the difference, 

and you know who that is. That is you and me and the rest of the 

taxpayers. And even with those taxpayers being used as a resource 

for revenue in the form of taxation, we could not provide enough 

money to run this great State. 

For us, this is not only an area of great beauty and one of concern for the environment, but it is our home. 

I would just like to say something, after reading this statement 

from Rocky, on behalf of the rest of the employees that work for 

our company, we feel the hurt and the need and the social problems that the communities where the logging shutdowns and the 

layoffs have occurred because we see those people in the grocery 

stores. We see the people that have lost their cars and lost their 

homes and cannot make the rent payments, had to go on welfare 

and use food stamps and stuff like that. We see the social problems 

that result in the breakups and the hurts in families on a daily 

basis because of these social problems when a man that was used 

to-or a woman~has been used to providing for his family can no 

longer do so, and it is beyond his and his employer's-it is beyond 

their power to change that. It is being mandated down to us by 

people who just do not see the hurt and the problems that it is creating for people that really love this country and want to live here 

and make their homes and they want to provide homes for their 

children and jobs for their children in the future. It might be all 

right for some of our children to go to Los Angeles or New York 

or Seattle or wherever and make their lives and homes, but we 

would like to at least have them have a choice of staying here and 

making this their home, and I feel we are going to lose a generation of Alaskans, especially Southeast Alaskans, if something does 

not change and we do not get control of this Tongass. 

Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot put it more eloquently than you just 

did, and I deeply appreciate that. 

Judy, you are up next. 

STATEMENT OF JUDY WILLIS, COFFMAN COVE 

Ms. WILLIS. I would like to start off by thanking you people for 

this opportunity to testify on House Bill 2413. 
64 

My name is Judy Willis. I live up the road a bit at Coffman Cove. 

I have lived there for 20 years. I have owned a little general there 

for the last 16. My store, everything in it, would fit in half this gym 

and you could park four rigs beside it. I started the store because 

I ended up divorced with three kids, and I have raised them out 

of it. I have been self-supporting. My kids went completely through 

school at Coffman. They would probably like to stay there. They 

cannot. There are not any jobs. 

I have a son that is a fisherman that lives in Petersburg. I have 

a son that is a heli-logger that is working in Valdez this year-his 

house is in Coffman-and I have a daughter in college in Juneau 

studying constitutional business law. We have some real interesting holiday dinners at our house. 

This is not one of the easiest places to make a living even in the 

good years, and it does not matter how you make it. You still have 

to fight the weather. You have to fight lack of support systems, 

breakdowns, anything that can go wrong, and bugs. There have not 

been too many good years lately and many of us are still here, so 

we must either like it or we are not quite as smart as we thought 

we were. 

Having gone through the battle of the Tongass with you for the 

past 18 or 20 years, I have no problem telling you that I no longer 

believe much of what the Federal Government tells me, even when 

they sign on the dotted line. Nothing is ever really settled. The battle is never-ending. It is frustrating. It is tiring and stressful. It is 

a no-win situation, and we have lost more now than we could ever 

hope to regain. 

I support House Bill 2413 in the hope that it will give us a 

chance for a future. We are not too sure we have a future right 

now. No one seems to be able to tell us anything for sure. We know 

better than to make plans. We know better than to take out loans, 

anything of that sort. 

I support transferring the Tongass to the State of Alaska in 

hopes that it will be managed in a way that will help stabilize our 

economy somewhat. Making people more familiar with our forests 

and the talents and people in it will do a better job of managing 

it. 

I am not here to tell you I have a lot of faith in State management, but, if nothing else, Juneau is closer. We can afford the airfare, and it is a little bit more direct, and I really am hard-pressed 

to think of anything the State could do to us that the Federal Government has not already thought of. 

Whether the Tongass is owned by the State or the Federal Government, I do not think things are going to improve until management of public lands, all public lands, are done by people that have 

been hired or appointed for what they know, not who they know. 

No one is ever going to please everyone, nor should they try, but 

they should not be swinging in the wind with every public opinion 

poll that is published, either. There is no real management of anything except someone's career when everything changes with every 

election or every new political appointee or every newspaper story. 

The Forest Service that I have worked with here are good. They 

know their jobs. They are hired because they know their jobs. They 
65 

are not allowed to do their jobs, and they are not allowed to defend 

when they are attacked. That is not right. 

I am not sure if anything like that would change under State 

ownership, but we know for proof the Federal system does not 

work. You cannot log without trees. You cannot build roads without 

rock. I cannot run a store without customers. We need a long-term 

plan we can stick with for stability in the area. Maybe if we all 

knew what the bottom line was for once and stuck with it, we could 

pick up the pieces that are left in our lives and go forward. Not 

knowing is the hardest part for everyone. It has taken too much 

of a toll. 

At this point, I am not sure how much longer some of us can 

keep going. My business is doing less than 50 percent of normal, 

and I have lost 90 percent of my mail-out business. Most of it went 

to the Sitka or Wrangell mills. Most of the loggers have known me 

at one time or the other. My operating expenses are still at a hundred percent of normal. There is nothing left to fall back on. 

The tourists that were going to save us are some really nice people, but I do not think they are going to save my business. People 

with jobs will save my business. We would rather work and pay 

taxes and buy the things we need. 

What happens to people like me? Do we disappear? What happened to the little store-keeps in the camps around Sitka or 

Wrangell? Did they fall through a crack somewhere? I am not a 

logger. I do not get unemployment. I will not be retrained, and I 

will not be rehabilitated. The only thing I know how to do is be a 

store keeper and a mom, and I al}l too old to have more kids. I 

have worked 361 days a year for the past 16 years. Not many of 

them were eight-hour days. I have no other means of support. 

There are not any jobs in Coffman. Do I lose my business? Do I 

lose my home? I paid the Federal Government taxes for 16 years 

because I worked. Now the same government is about to put me 

out of business. Can I get a refund for default? 

Maybe it is more politically correct today to be homeless than to 

be a logger in the Tongass. I hear there is some help for the homeless. 

Again, I would like to thank you for coming to the island to try 

to help us, Don. It is a holiday weekend, so we are all impressed. 

I would like you to-I know I am on a red light, but for working 

so hard for us for so many years, we know you have tried your 

best. We know that you understood. Maybe we should have thought 

of this years ago. Maybe it would be better now, but at least you 

have given us hope once again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Judy, and thanks for that. I know 

you wrote that yourself and it is from the heart. All of you, I deeply 

appreciate. 

By the way, I do believe there is still a future. That is one thing 

I am good at. I am very much of an optimist. I am one that has 

great perseverance, and as I said to George Miller and Moe U dahl 

and all those people that wanted to lock up the Tongass, I will outlive you or I will outlast you, and I have done both, and I am going 

to continue to do that because I am resource oriented and I really 

strongly suggest that anybody that says that there is not resources 
66 

in this State that should be developed are from New York or they 

are hired guns from outside. In reality, there is room for all of us, but right now there seems 

to be sort of a feeling there is not room for all of us, that there is 

only room for those that are retired, if they are getting a State paycheck, or those that are hired by interest groups, or those that have 

an outside income, and, as you said, Judy, I do not know. You do 

not fall in any of those categories, but they do not have sympathy 

for you. The same with the other people, 450 people. What happened to them when you lose your customers, Ben, and, Nick, you 

have a fuel distributing system. Did you start that yourself? 

Mr. GEFRE. Yes, I started it in Thorne Bay. 

The CHAIRMAN. You started it in Thorne Bay, and if you lose 

your customers, you are gone. You may not leave here because you 

apparently have got your feet to the ground and you are going to 

stay regardless, but what are your kids going to do? 

Mr. GEFRE. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question keeps coming up: What has happened? Why did this all occur? 

All of you have been here a long period of time. Can you just generally give me a rundown and say the change in the last 25 years, 

what happened prior to that, and what do you think the reasons 

may be in your own minds or the most-what I would say the most 

telling things you see today versus when you first started? Just a 

general question, so you can answer it generally. 

Ben? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that when I first came up here, and I have 

not been here quite as long as· some of these people, but I have 

been here 23 years, and when I first came up here, there was a 

real sense between the Forest Service and the industry and everything to consider the people and the impacts and jobs, and I think 

people were more inclined to do a good job, and most of the decisions were based locally. There is room in Southeast Alaska for the timber industry, the 

woods products industry-really good, if we can get the prices up 

and some economic things-the commercial fishing industry. There 

is room for mining, there is room for tourism, sport fishing, recreation. I think we are more capable of defining those areas and 

working together to provide all those areas and identifying those 

areas that are viable for all these different industries ourselves and 

with the help of good professionals in the Federal Government or 

the State government or wherever that make decisions based on 

good management decisions that take into consideration people and 

jobs, and I think the biggest thing-! agree with Judy-the biggest 

thing is we have people making decisions that do not know what 

they are talking about and they are making them from an extremist point of view. 

I think we are all environmentalists that live up here, and I 

think we can make it work and have this land survive, but we cannot do it with all the outside influences. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the things that the TLMP-the Tongass 

national plan that they extended the comment period on for a period of time-I do not have any confidence in it at all, and eventu- ally, when that is done, the decisions made will be held back in 
67 

Washington. That is why we go back to-if we set up a plan on the 

State level with local input, at least there would be some knowledge of what was accumulated. Right now, I doubt it will ever be 

considered. In fact, I have asked the Forest Service to give me the 

plans that come from here, and I would like to see one plan and 

see what they say back east. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think the people here are way more capable of 

making the proper decisions. We know where the best subsistence 

areas are. We know where the best tourist areas are. We know 

where the best timber areas are, and, sure, there has got to be 

some compromise, but they cannot do it. The CHAIRMAN. The problem we have, there, is one problem. I 

think the mayor of Thorne Bay said, "No more compromise," because what has happened, we have compromised, and now we are 

arguing over the 1,400,000. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We need to compromise amongst ourselves, but 

not with them. The CHAIRMAN. But I am saying 1,400,000. Now, I would suggest 

respectfully that if the State had management of the Tongass-and 

that is what my bill says-we could reconsider some of those areas 

that were outside of the 1,400,000 about how it would best be managed, and maybe it would not be in the park, but there is no consideration. 

By the way, we did not have a hearing in 1986, regardless of 

what they say. They had a trip. They went fishing. They did not 

have a hearing. They did not listen to any testimony. I know who 

it was. It was George Miller, Incorporated, who now is the ranking 

member and I am the Chairman and I do have the gavel, but that 

is what happened. There was no hearing. They did not hear from 

you, and they made a decision to take an .additional million acres 

from the original and put it into a nonrestricted classification. No 

one can really use it. That is the unfairness, and that decision is 

followed up by, in fact, the Forest Service. 

Now, we keep defending the Forest Service, but I talked to Gary yesterday, and he was sued, like I say, twice this week because 

they do not want logging in Poison Cove. I talked to the fishermen 

over there and they said, "Frankly, it is not a very attractive area," 

yet they are being sued. They are caught in between and betwixt, 

too. Every time they put something up, they get sued. 

Ms. WILLIS. I have a couple things. Even if we compromise 

amongst ourselves, we need something back to compromise with, 

which reminds me-my boys are twins, and they fought their whole 

lives. One time there was a pie for a bake sale, and one son ate 

three-quarters of the pie and then offered to share the last piece 

with the other boy, and he said, "But you have had it all," and he 

said, "No, this is all we have left, so you get half. This is the way it works." 

Well, this is about where we are at: There is one little piece left. 

Do not give them half. 

And there is something-! am from Washington, D.C., by the 

way, born and raised there, and I see lots of different sides of this, 

and one thing I do not see mentioned anymore is years ago, perhaps-! think of myself more as a conservationist than an environmentalist. I have lived in the woods every day of my life. I do not 
68 

want to live anywhere else. I do not want towns. I do not want 

pavements. 

The environmental movement has gone from a cause to a business. I think it is one of the most biggest, powerful businesses in 

this country. A cause-! have worked for school organizations. I 

bake pies for pie sales. Nobody gives me any money. I would not 

take it if they did. That is not the idea. 

If I were making the salary that some of these people are making, I would do everything I could to get as much I could, too. The 

problem is, once they get it, they do not have to do anything with 

it because you do not manage wilderness areas. There is no price 

put upon them. They are just there. You are going to have to go 

get more. 

I get a little nervous when I wonder when they have gone 

through the loggers and they have gone through the fishermen and 

they have gone through the miners and they have gone through the 

farmers, who are they going to come after next, concrete workers? 

Where does it end? There is no common sense to this anymore. 

It is so extreme. There is no middle of the road. You cannot have 

all of anything, and yet there is no place they can stop because 

they are not going to put themselves out of business. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are right, Judy. Jerry Hair made $350,000 

a year. 

Ms. WILLIS. My biggest year in 16 years, my little store, $21,000, 

and I was dang proud of it. 

The CHAIRMAN. We can get into the philosophies and the direction of what the groups are. I think everybody knows my position 

on that. They agree with me. They put me on the dirty dozen a 

thousand times and also have, very frankly-! am the poster child 

of the groups, and I say that with pride, because I believe in the 

conservation but not the preservation. I believe in jobs, and I believe jobs create good environment. You put people-Nick, you say 

there are no gangs here, no drugs here. You may be right, but you 

start getting people under stress and poverty, you start going on 

welfare and losing pride-just a little sideline-one of the most balancing factors we had in Sitka, I believe, bringing people together 

was the pulp mill. We had people working the pulp mill with ethnic 

backgrounds that had not had an opportunity before, came in got 

good jobs, paying jobs, bought homes, had a nice car, and came up 

the ladder, were able to buy groceries without food stamps. Now 

they have lost those jobs. They lost them. Guess where they are 

right now. They are on welfare. They are using food stamps. Already you are starting to see a high violence rate. You have already 

seen the breaking up of families. You have seen kids that are running away from home, and I happen to agree with you, Judy. 

Somewhere along the line there has got to be a balance where we 

are going. This is not an environmental battle. This is about control, and most of those that are advocating their position have income from that movement and they could care less, but I am very 

concerned about people like yourselves, those people who are trying 

to maintain a high-paying job. 

I watched the President on television today who was talking 

about all the great high-paying jobs he created. Statistically, most 

were minimum-wage jobs. Sometimes two or three jobs a person 
69 

has to hold to maintain their home, minimum-wage homes, and I 

know these jobs are pretty decent-paying jobs. You work on your 

own, but; again, it goes back to the State. The State, I think, would 

have a better understanding of what has to be done to keep the 

community alive. 

We are fighting over that 1,400,000 acres. If we lose that, we 

have got nothing, and, unfortunately, I do think there are those 

who would like to see that done so there is no infrastructure in 

place so people would have to leave. The young people that would 

like to stay here cannot. I watched a drain in the early 1960's in 

the State. A lot of people had to go outside. Fortunately, we were 

able to discover oil and kept a lot of our kids in the State, and I 

would like to see that continue. 

I want to thank you all for being here, and I know that you have 

great faith in this, and just on the private level, the beard may be 

gray, but the heart is young, and I am going to help you win this 

battle, and it is going to be a long, drawn-out process, but I hope 

that when we finally get this thing settled, you will have a lot more 

comfort margin to think there will be a future in the Southeast 

area, because I am confident there will be. 

Thank you very much. 

The next panel will be Tim Bristol from Juneau, Vicki LeCornu 

from Hydaburg, Sylvia Geraghty from Tokeen, and Wes Morrison. 

Take your seats, and I am going to go see a little man about maybe 

buying an airplane ticket. 

[Recess] 

The Chairman. This is Panel Number IV. We have Tim Bristol, 

Vicki, Sylvia, and Wes Morrison. 

Tim, you are up first. 

STATEMENT OF TIM BRISTOL, JUNEAU 

Mr. BRISTOL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Tim Bristol. I work as 

the grassroots organizer for the Southeast Alaska Conservation 

Council, a coalition of 15 grassroots groups based in 12 communities throughout Southeast. 

SEACC strongly opposes your bill. This is possibly the worst 

piece of anti-conservation legislation yet introduced by the Alaska 

congressional delegation. This bill, which you have tried to disguise 

as a State's rights bill, is actually a corporate wish list which 

hands over public resources to a powerful few at the expense of 

many. This bill does not allow Alaskans a larger role in the decisionmaking process, as you claim, but will, in reality, completely 

insulate the public from decisions affecting their forest home. 

As State Senator Robin Taylor has made so clear in his written 

statements, the real nature of this bill is to turn over large portions 

of the Tongass to private hands. This is a terrible idea. Why? Just 

take a look across Clarence Strait. Many in Ketchikan allowed one 

man, Louisiana Pacific's CEO, Mark Suyen, to engage in what I 

would characterize as extortion. Suyen only cares about one 

thing-his rich company's bottom line. He says it will pull the plug 

on KPC's hard-working employees if it does not receive billions 

more board feet of Tongass timber and millions of dollars of additional taxpayer subsidies. Too much power is already concentrated 
70 

in the hands of one man, and now you want to give him more. So 

much for Alaskan independence. Privatizing the Tongass also means no trespassing signs in 

places where we once visited to hunt and fish. How would folks in 

Thorne Bay like to be denied access to the banks of the Thorne 

River? That could happen here with the passage of this bill. 

Another dangerous portion of this bill is it calls for the creation 

of five new Native corporations, which would then be allowed to select at least 200,000 acres of our forest. This solution to the landless Native issue is a disaster waiting to happen. At this time, 

there is no official determination whether the landless Native 

claims are valid. A full public review must be completed, and if the 

claims prove legitimate, then the public must work to find a solution acceptable to all Tongass users. 

Mr. Chairman, I suggest you take a drive from here to Craig, 

paying close attention to the devastation in the Big Salt area before 

pushing any Native claims bill which would do the same to other 

parts of the Tongass. Also, it is beyond belief that at the same time you are holding 

these hearings, you are trying to ram this through Congress as an 

amendment to the Presidio Parks Bill presently in conference committee. 

I also wanted to point out there appears to be a ridiculous double 

standard at work here today. In championing this radical proposal, 

you have relentlessly attacked what is described as distant decisionmaking by Forest Service bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. In 

all fairness to the Forest Service, they recently held 32 public hearings on the proposed provisions to the Tongass Land Management 

Plan. You, by comparison, have held a mere four invitation-only 

hearings, two of which were scheduled at the worst possible time 

of year for working folk. 

If anyone has short-circuited the public process, Mr. Chairman, 

it is you. As a matter of fact, at your February 15 hearing in 

Wrangell, I was actually ordered to take down a small video camera in a blatant display of censorship. While the concept of State 

rights may sound appealing to many, closer examination of this bill 

reveals it to be a radical proposal that guts 15 years of conservation law in Alaska. From a Prince of Wales Island standard prospective, protection for Kartar Rivers, Calder-Holbrook, Salmon 

Bay, Outside Islands, South Prince of Wales Wilderness, and 

Nutkwa would be eliminated. The bill would also certainly seal the 

fate of Honker Divide, the treasure I had the privilege of dragging 

my canoe through a couple of weeks ago. 

And, for all you Ketchikaners, kiss Misty Fjords and Naha goodbye. Fishermen, you stand to lose, as well. Not only will Noyes, 

Baker and Lulu Islands, as well as Salmon Bay, Kartar River, and 

Nutkwa be stripped of their protections guaranteed as part of the 

Tongass Reform Law, but you would lose your hard-won, 100-foot, 

no-logging buffers around salmon streams, as well. This is just a 

small sampling of the rash irresponsible proposals laid out in H.R. 

2413. The bill also resurrects the Alaska Pulp Company's long-term 

contract, even though the people of Sitka do not want it. The fact 

is, the APC mill never stood on its own two feet. Its survival was 
71 

dependent upon huge Soviet-style price supports. In these times of 

declining oil revenues, how can we possibly expect to pay the millions necessary to keep this mill operating-the Permanent Fund 

maybe? 

And what about the KPC mill? What is it going to be, Mr. Chairman, do you want the feds out of Southeast or not? While pushing 

this State's rights bill, you are also pushing the KPC contract extension bill, which would guarantee at least 23 more years of joint 

Federal/corporate dominance over the Tongass. I guess, to coin a 

phrase, it is easier to complain than it is to lead. Unfortunately, 

you and other members of the Alaska delegation seem content to 

practice the politics of division. The harsh truth is: None of your 

proposals do much for the people of Thorne Bay or Prince of Wales 

over the long haul. Instead of holding field hearings with highminded concepts which stand little chance of becoming law, let us 

focus our time, money, energy, on what will and what will not work 

here on the island. How about financial assistance for Steve Seley's 

proposed facility at Tolstoi Bay or low-interest loans and marketing 

assistance so we get every dollar and employ as many POW residents as possible from island-based facilities like the Viking mill in 

Klawock, and how about more help for Alaska fishermen searching 

for new ways to sell their salmon? 

These are just a few quick ideas I have gathered from talking to 

folks on POW. You have it backwards, Mr. Chairman. You introduced an atrocious bill, then went to work manufacturing consent 

for it. If you truly believe in State rights, I suggest the next time 

you visit Southeast, leave your political agenda and your bad bills 

back home in Washington, D.C. 

Thanks. 

[Statement of Mr. Bristol may be found at end of hearing.] 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. That is the biggest crock of BS--

The CHAIRMAN. I always enjoy it because it is the same testimony I have heard at every hearing, the exact same thing by somebody who has been writing back in Juneau, and it would have felt 

better if you had done it yourself. 

Mr. BRISTOL. Well, to be perfectly honest--

The CHAIRMAN. Vicki, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF VICKI LECORNU, HAIDA TRIBE 

Ms. LECORNU. Thank you, Congressman Young. 

My name is Vicki LeCornu. I am from the Haida Tribe. Thank 

you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I hope you enjoy your 

stay on Haida Gwaii. 

Today the Native people merely subsist on the Tongass. No 

longer can we make a living in our own country. The non-Native 

economy is built upon what was but 24 years ago our tribal heritage. We are no longer participants in the fisheries in our area but 

must sit on the sidelines as our fishing rights are outlawed by the 

State of Alaska or more of our traditional lands are withdrawn for 

other purposes. 

The Federal protections in ANILCA derive from the trust responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain the tribe's continued freedom to use and occupy lands important to the lives and 

welfare of the Haida people. Through ANILCA, Congress sought to 
72 

provide for conservation and subsistence. To us, ANCSA, ANILCA 

promised to provide economic life for our villages by assuring access to the resources necessary to drive their economies. The establishment of corporate institutions to act as the initiators of the economic life in our villages was wrong. The activities of the corporation do not always positively affect the economic health of the villages. The individual prosperity that comes as a result of ANCSA 

will not assure that the community grows and/or prospers, nor does 

it assure the growth and development of our Native culture. Only 

with the healthy, active, credible tribal government can we hope to 

maintain the tribal heritage and assets left by our ancestors. As 

Thomas R. Berger wrote: All that I have written in preceding chapters reveals the chaos that will result if shares in the villages are 

to be sold. To accept that as if it was simply a case of exercising 

personal choice in an ordinary matter of private law is to use the 

vocabulary of corporate law to obscure the cultural consequences 

that will ensue in the villages. 

With the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

and subsequently ANILCA, the Alaska Natives exchanged the 

lion's share of the land and resource wealth of aboriginal Alaska 

and kept for themselves only a minute residue with which to maintain themselves in the risk-filled currents of the contemporary 

Alaska economy. The land and resource wealth traded away has allowed the non-Native population not only to subsist but to prosper. 

If ANCSA was not intended to be a termination act, the State of 

Alaska and the Federal Government ought to be prepared to meet 

the special needs of our struggling cultures and to accord them the 

right of access and use of the land and resources necessary to prosper as members of the Haida tribe. 

The Haida tribe does not agree with the findings of H.R. 2413, 

that this bill is in the public interest to transfer ownership of the 

Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska to be managed and 

operated under the laws of the State of Alaska. Section 6 is entitled "Transition Provisions Outside the Transition Period," and section 

(c) addresses subsistence use after the patent date. ANILCA has 

been the Federal law of the land for 16 years and the State of Alaska has yet to comply with the letter of the law. 

Granting them authority over subsistence uses would be error 

and detrimental to tribal groups. Subsection (e) addresses land 

grants of Native people and beings by authorizing the State of 

Alaska to negotiate in good faith with the Native people of Haines, 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. The Native people 

in those communities should take a look at the history of relations 

between Alaska Natives and the State of Alaska. They should know 

that the State has never sought to benefit or assist tribal governments or what is good for Native.s. We do not think this part of the 

legislation is well-thought-out or researched. 

We also cannot support the passage of Senate Bill 1877, a bill 

to give KPC a 15-year extension. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Vicki. 

One thing I want you to be assured-! thought we wrote it well 

enough in the bill, but you have an opportunity to make sure that 

when this bill becomes law, your interests are well-listened-to. 
73 

We tried our best. We had a lot of input on it, and, by the way, 

we had no input from the timber industry on this bill, contrary to 

what is being said. This was my idea of trying to get the states and 

the people in the states to have more say-so on Federal laws. 

835,000,000 acres of land owned by the United States of America, 

and it produces very little, if anything, and it is-actually, we have 

accumulated about 20 million acres of land in the last 20 years. 

The taxpayers bought it. And it goes back to Kelly's testimony: 

When does it stop? 

For those that might think the Federal Government can run the 

land, I wish they would take the time to go to Russia. The worst 

environmental damage in the world was done by government ownership, not by tribes, not by states, not by private industry, but by 

the government. So I really do not want anybody to get caught in 

that trap the government can do a good job. I do not believe that. 

Marc, you are going to give it for Sylvia? 

Mr. WHEELER. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are up, Marc. 

Mr. WHEELER. Sylvia could not make it. She had an emergency 

in Tokeen. She really spent a lot of time putting this testimony together. I will just read it. 

STATEMENT OF MARC WHEELER FOR SYLVIA GERAGHTY 

Mr. WHEELER. "My name is Sylvia Geraghty. I live at Tokeen, on 

the northwest coast of Prince of Wales Island, and I am a lifelong 

Alaskan. 

"I am opposed to H.R. 2413 for several reasons, but primarily because the State of Alaska is clearly incapable of managing the 

Tongass. We simply do not have the money, personnel, expertise, 

nor in the time of declining revenues can we reasonably expect to 

acquire them. As Congressman Young has stated, large amounts of 

Southeast Alaska would have to be sold off to private corporations 

or leased with few restrictions. This land would then no longer be 

open to the vast majority of Alaskans. Under the terms of the bill, 

we would stand to lose vitally important protective regulations, 

such as buffer zones on salmon streams. The health of our top industry, commercial and sport fishing, cannot be forfeited for the 

sake of an expanded timber industry, which is exactly what this 

bill is all about: Big corporations, big money, big power, and big 

greed. It has nothing to do with the wishes of real Alaskans. ''While I agree that the Forest Service has not always made wise 

decisions in the past, I do think they are doing a much better job 

of recognizing and acknowledging fact, to listening to public input, 

and trying to fulfill their mandate. A number of people have said 

all along that the present timber industry is not sustainable, and 

they are now being proven correct. I believe that the inefficiency 

of the Forest Service has been greatly aggravated in recent years 

by the meddling of our own congressional delegation. 

"Were the people who lived here before the 50-year contracts 

ever asked how they felt about having their lives changed forever, 

our homes surrounded by clearcuts; prime anchorages turned into 

blowholes; favorite hunting, fishing, trapping and recreational 

areas devastated; roads everywhere, much of Southeast Alaska 

turned into a giant logging camp? The boom-and-bust money 
74 

brought by the timber industry has not been an unmixed blessing. 

The notion that somehow Alaskans instinctively know how to manage the land without making the same mistakes that were made 

in the Lower 48 is ludicrous. I have heard a hundred stories of how 

bad it is down there, along with a general belief that it cannot happen here. Well, it can happen, and it will, if we do not take the 

steps now to preserve and protect those values that drew these people here to Alaska in the first place. Money is not the only value 

here. "I am also totally opposed to the proposed 15-year contract extension of KPC. We have been held hostage by this multinational 

giant for too long now. Not only are they convicted felons for their 

pollution violations, they were found guilty in the past for causing 

untold grief and suffering to families and individuals when they, along with APC, callously put over 100 small operators out of business. These fine corporations have not changed their goals; they 

have only changed their methods. 

"If LPK employees want to see their future, look what LP did to 

their employees in their headquarters' town of Scotia, California, when they closed down their own mills and began shipping logs in 

the round to Mexico for milling. Or look at their huge new stateof-the-art pulp mill in British Columbia. No chlorine or other toxic 

chemicals, fully utilized logs-why was not the mill here upgraded 

instead? We all know why. It is just a matter of time until LP 

shuts this operation down permanently and continues with their 

move to foreign countries. 

"We need to move ahead with plans to provide for a smooth transition to a smaller, locally owned and operated value-added industry. We need to forget about rewarding LPK with a contract extension, cancel the existing contract, work with the Forest Service toward a truly balanced plan for the Tongass, heal the wounds, and 

end the warfare." 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Marc. 

The next one is Wes Morrison, Hydaburg. 

STATEMENT OF WES MORRISON, HYDABURG 

Mr. MORRISON. Yes. Wes Morrison, Hydaburg. 

I was asked to testify day before yesterday. I have made a few 

small notes. A couple points I would like to make. On Monday, my 83-year-old aunt brought me a copy of a document signed by her father, Mike Shanaw, and several other people 

in the village of Hydaburg. It was not dated, and I showed it to 

several people in the town and-whose ancestors also signed this 

document. Hydaburg was founded in 1911, and because of when somebody 

had died that had signed the document, we figured it was signed 

somewhere between 1911 and 1924. 

Indians back then were nonpeople. The petition was to Congress 

requesting citizenship, and part of that request was concessions 

that they were going to make for the honor-! will not enumerate 

the concessions, but one of them that it was not, they did not agree 

to turn Prince of Wales Island over to the Ketchikan Pulp Company. That was not one of the concessions. 
75 

Mter I got asked to testify here, I got a copy of the cutting schedule for the devastation that they want to do to this island. The map 

calls it Tongass National Forest. My grandfather called it Haida 

country. They do not call it that anymore. It implies ownership. 

Nobody came to Hydaburg and said, "We are going to devastate 

our country because we need to employ 600 people in Ketchikan." 

Nobody came and asked, "What do you think?" These 600 people 

in Ketchikan are going to go to Bernie's and buy furniture. Bernie 

is going to buy advertising from the "Daily News." The "Daily 

News" is going to run editorials on its front page calling it news, 

so we have a little loop here, but the whole start of it is the devastation of my ancestors' land. 

Nobody came to Hydaburg and said, "What do you think?" Perhaps we still are nonpeople. Perhaps that petition did not do any 

good. Perhaps. 

When I got asked to testify, I asked for a bit of information about 

Don Young, so I got faxed an article, and part of this process-after 

you immigrated to Alaska and became a political person-you 

started out your career as a loser--

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you do not have to get personal. What do 

you mean a loser? You are a loser if you say that. 

Mr. MORRISON. You lost your original election, is what I meant, 

sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me make it clear. I did not lose my original 

election, so do not talk about that. I won all the rest of them. 

Mr. MORRISON. Incredible, and nothing has changed. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is right, and it will not change. 

Mr. MORRISON. My ancestors, when they thought they wanted to 

become citizens, they were certain the government would be fair. 

They were certain of it. As a matter of fact, most people in 

Hydaburg think the government is going to be fair, even as they 

see what is happening around them, but they have not seen what 

is coming. 

This map shows what is coming, and it is not going to hit many 

of them between the eyes until all those trees are gone. They are 

never going to know what hit them. Right to the end, they are 

going to be trusting, right to the end. They will look at the map, 

and it has nothing to do with the reality of what you are doing. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your presentation. 

I would make one suggestion, that SEACC asked you to testify; 

is that true? 

Mr. MORRISON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In fact, that is the reason you were not notified, 

because you were their choice, and we did not know that until yesterday, day before yesterday. 

Mr. MORRISON. That is when I knew about it. 

The CHAIRMAN. If anything, it is politics from SEACC. They 

asked you to testify. We did not know about it until yesterday. 

Mr. MORRISON. OK. Is that of any significance? . The CHAIRMAN. It is, yes. It was sort of alluded to the fact that 

we had not informed you in time so you could prepare testimony. 

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Bristol, does SEACC support the Forest 

Service TLMP alternative? 
76 

Mr. BRISTOL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. They do not? 

Mr. BRISTOL. The preferred alternative? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BRISTOL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many appeals or lawsuits has SEACC filed 

against the Forest Service? 

Mr. BRISTOL. In total? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. BRISTOL. I could not tell you right now, but from the Prince 

of Wales standpoint, there is not anything tied up right now, and 

I guess that was what I was trying to get at when you are talking 

about your proposals. 

The reason there is fewer jobs in Coffman Cove right now, there 

is just not that much left to log on the northern part of the island. 

Lab. Bay is closed right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just out of curiosity, how many independent 

sales have been made on Prince of Wales? 

Mr. BRISTOL. I do not know. You have to ask the Forest Service. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many lawsuits does SEACC have now 

against the Forest Service, right now? 

Mr. BRISTOL. Well, there was the Poison Cove part of that timber 

sale the other day. 

The CHAIRMAN. How about AWRTA? 

Mr. BRISTOL. That settled, but it also releases another 120 million board feet from the CPOW sale for harvest. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much is the original level? 

Mr. BRISTOL. How much was originally supposed to be sold? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BRISTOL. I am not sure of the original. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was about three times that much, twice as 

much. 

Mr. BRISTOL. That was not just SEACC that was part of that. 

That was also the Alaska Wilderness Recreation--

The CHAIRMAN. You are all together. 

Mr. BRISTOL. It is not the same thing. They are business owners, 

and they depend on those anchorages to stay intact to make 

money, and it was also the organized Village of Kake was trying 

to protect subsistence resources. The CHAIRMAN. You made the statement about the landless bill. 

I heard that yesterday. I have been involved in the landless issue 

for about 12 years, and you oppose the Natives receiving some 

land? 

Mr. BRISTOL. No. We do not want to see the same thing that has 

happened with the for-profit corporations as we have right now. 

There is nothing left--

The CHAIRMAN. You want to dictate to Native people how they 

should manage their land? 

Mr. BRISTOL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. But, then, you object to the bill that I have introduced to make sure they get their land. Mr. BRISTOL. First of all, there has not been any determination 

as to whether the claims are valid or not. 
77 

The CHAIRMAN. You have to remember one thing. There is areport to Congress that says they are. Mr. BRISTOL. No. The report does not say that. It does not meet 

the three-part criteria. 

The CHAIRMAN. Remember where ANILCA came from. Remember where ANCSA came from. Where did it come from? 

Mr. BRISTOL. It came from Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens has 

not admitted the five villages were left out. 

The CHAIRMAN. What Congress did before they can do again. Is 

that true? 

Mr. BRISTOL. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if the Congress decides that these villages 

are, in fact, entitled to that land, they will get that land. Mr. BRISTOL. And all we are saying is before you go and you 

hand over 200,000 of the Tongass to these for-profit corporations 

that do the same things that Klawock Heenya has done and 

Sealaska has done and Huna Totem has done, it has to be a full 

public process, because everyone that lives there gets impacted by 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you do not like the for-profit Native corporations? You do not want the Natives to make a profit? 

Mr. BRISTOL. That is not necessarily the point, but we want to 

make sure all options are--

The CHAIRMAN. It is a point--

Mr. BRISTOL. First of all, you would not find consensus among 

Native people-- The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, and I worked through this 

very carefully. This is not-by the way, the reason I bring this up 

is because your group has accused me of doing this because of the 

pulp mill. The truth of the matter is I have been working this landless bill for about 10 years, and I have worked very closely with 

the landless people, trying to talk to them and encourage them to 

make the correct selection. I, very frankly, worked very closely with 

these groups, and if they decide not to choose the land on the 

Tongass, under my bill they can choose elsewhere. 

Mr. BRISTOL. But have you given the option of choosing what 

kind of government they want? Do they want to be a corporation? 

Do they want to have tribes that control these? 

The CHAIRMAN. Now you are deciding what they want. 

Mr. BRISTOL. No, but there are a lot of people in the community--

The CHAIRMAN. Let us let Vicki speak. 

Ms. LECORNU. I belong to a Native corporation, and I always 

speak about the devisiveness it caused. It was not a choice to us. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. Ms. LECORNU. That is probably the difficulty that Tim is talking 

about. We do not want to drive it down their throat. We want to 

give them a choice. Well, what do they want? Do they want a corporation? Well, we know the corporations were a mistake for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Vicki, under my bill it says the boundary of the 

land for purpose of historical, cultural, economic, including timber, 

tourism, recreation, development, and subsistence. That will be the 

decision you have to make. 

Ms. LECORNU. Can I make a comment on that? 
78 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. LECORNU. As far as the first land claims, ANILCA was remedial legislation for the subsistence, and I have stated that we 

have not had any compliance from the State of Alaska. We are still 

looking for that promise that was made to us. 

The CHAIRMAN. By the state. 

Ms. LECORNU. By the Federal Government for our land claims. 

What I am talking about is termination. Are we going to have a 

termination act like the first land claims? Is it going to be termination? My daughter is not a shareholder. The CHAIRMAN. She could be. You can vote for that now. 

Ms. LECORNU. Right, but she should have been entitled to it before I had to vote on it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was she born when it was passed? 

Ms. LECORNU. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is what it said, at that time. Now it was 

amended, and I helped put that amendment in, where now she can 

become a shareholder if you decide she can be. Ms. LECORNU. I still do not still agree that is a very fortunate 

situation to be put in. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, but that is, like I say, yesteryear, and that was 1971, when Mr. Morrison-very frankly, I was 

not elected in 1971. I was elected in 1973. And that was after that 

act, but I have worked very closely with that act, trying to implement what is correct because you have asked me-none of these 

ideas are mine. I did not think up the landless bill. That came 

right from the landless groups. It came to my office about ten years 

ago and said this was not fair. We were defranchised. Not only did 

we not receive the money, we did not receive, in fact, land B. 

I want to thank you for testifying. I appreciate your input. I understand we do not agree. I do thank you very much. 

Next panel, Panel V, Brad Powell. 

Mr. Powell has had the privilege and the honor and the opportunity to be cleanup batter, I believe, twice, and I have asked him 

respectfully to submit his testimony orally and written and both 

times I think he has done an excellent job. Mr. Powell you are up. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD POWELL, FOREST SUPERVISOR, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, KETCH~ 

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, and I will be very brief today as I know 

you have heard many of these comments in previous testimony 

from the Forest Service. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the management 

of the Tongass National Forest and present the Administration's 

views on H.R. 2413. The Department of Agriculture opposes enactment of this bill. 

For over a hundred years, during good economic times and bad, 

public lands have been a source of goods and services that supply 

local and regional economic growth and diversity. The national forest system, covering more than 191 million acres, is an important 

part of these public lands. 

By and large, Forest Service stewardship has been a success. Through multiple-use management, a concept that balances envi-
79 

ronmental health with human needs, the national forest has provided substantial economic benefits to surrounding communities. 

We recognize that some people disagree with certain aspects of 

our current management efforts. Some believe that we cut too 

much timber and some believe that we do not cut enough. We urge 

you not to pursue a policy that would lead to the dismemberment 

of the national forest system but instead recognize that conflict and 

controversy are inherent parts of natural resource management 

which cannot be fixed by shifting responsible from Federal to State 

management. This proposed legislation would adversely affect efforts toward 

accomplishing economic stability and, conversely, could create additional economic uncertainty. It would undo the long-established relationship the Forest Service has developed with the State of Alaska, local governments, and Alaska Natives. It would also change 

the flow of economic benefits that Forest Service programs have 

created for the 33 communities and local governments within the 

Tongass. 

The Forest Service shares 25 percent of all revenues from timber 

sales and other activities on the National Forest. In 1995, this 

amounted to $7.6 million. The economy of Alaska would further be 

affected by the loss of an estimated 60 to 80 million dollars per 

year the Federal Government spends to operate programs on the 

Tongass at the current level. 

Historically, issues surrounding the Tongass have been contentious. While the Forest Service is proud of all we have accomplished over the last 90 years, we do not pretend that everything 

is perfect. We have acknowledged that the competing uses desired 

by our neighbors, partners, and owners has dramatically increased 

the debate surrounding how Federal lands should be managed. These conflicting needs and philosophies are perhaps more keenly 

felt here in Alaska than anywhere else in the country. 

We believe that there are many things that we can do to improve 

our relationship with the public and the management of the resources in the coming years. We have been working to revise the 

Tongass Land Management Plan and continue to involve the public, our partners in State government, and Federal agencies to as- sure that the needs of the people of the Tongass and the United 

States are met in our plan. 

In closing, let me reiterate that we are proud of the 130 years 

of public ownership of these lands by the people of the United 

States and the more than 90 years of resource stewardship by the 

Forest Service and the relationships we have built with our neighbors, our partners, our customers, and our owners. 

We are proud, too, of our accomplishments for the people of Alaska and the resources of the nation. The Forest Service has managed and will continue to manage the Tongass with public input, 

scientific and economic analysis, and sustainable natural resource 

practices while complying with the law. We recognize that improvements can be made in our management practices. We are working 

diligently to maximize the value of the Tongass National Forest to 

the residents of Southeast Alaska, as well as to the other owners 

of the Tongass and the rest of the United States. We look forward 

to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and our neighbors and owners 
80 

to enhance the uses and management of the resources of the 

Tongass. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Brad. One thing. Yesterday, when 

Gary gave his testimony, if we have no sales, you have got no 

stumpage; is that correct? 

Mr. POWELL. That is accurate. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we have no sales, we have no Forest Service 

employees? 

Mr. POWELL. You would have less Forest Service employees. We 

have some other responsibilities other than timber sales, but you 

would certainly have a reduced work force. 

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I am saying this, the testimony we 

had from the Forest Service says look how much money we are putting in-of taxpayers' money we are putting in the community, but 

if you are not there, that does not occur. You do not have stumpage 

fees-which goes to the schools. You do not have people buying 

things and that type of thing. It is just not there. So that means 

it is an additional hit upon the communities if there is no participation by the Forest Service. 

Mr. POWELL. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many less employees would you say, if KPC 

was to close and there would be no pulp mill-by the way, they 

could walk away today. The company could walk away today and 

the company would not be hurt. What would be hurt is everybody 

that is employed is dependent upon that mill to cut the trees. Now, how many employees do you think you would have less if 

KPC were to shut down? 

Mr. POWELL. This is pure speculation, but we have a couple hundred employees in the Ketchikan area, and I would say somewhere 

around half of those employees are associated with the timber program, something in that neighborhood. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we lose half of that so-called economic base 

right there. 

Mr. PoWELL. That is just an estimate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, this bill is not about your management. 

This is about if it could be managed better. 

Now where did the concept-in your mind, did the conservation 

areas come from? 

Mr. POWELL. The HCAs? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, where did they come from? 

Mr. POWELL. I am not sure how to answer you, Congressman 

Young. I am not sure if you mean--

The CHAIRMAN. Did they originate here, or did they originate 

someplace back in Washington, D.C.? Where did the idea come 

from? 

Mr. POWELL. The concept of HCAs or habitat conservation areas 

I believe was actually started in the Northwest as they dealt 

with--

The CHAIRMAN. Jack Ward Thomas. 

Mr. POWELL. [continuing]--the spotted owl. That same biological concept is what we are using. 

The CHAIRMAN. Outside of Alaska? 

Mr. PoWELL. The HCA concept--
81 

The CHAIRMAN. Which reminds me, one of my pet peeves that I 

use from time to time, the goshawk, where did that come from, the 

circle for the goshawk? 

Mr. POWELL. Again, a lot of these biological concepts have been 

developed in other parts of the country. The management for goshawks, a lot of that has been researched in the Southwest and the 

Northwest. 

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I say, it goes back to my bill, again. 

If that was under State management, there would be no concept of 

that hawk, even under the Endangered Species Act, because, if I 

am not correct, Fish and Wildlife says it never existed. 

Mr. POWELL. I am not sure that is accurate, but unless it were 

a listed species, then the Endangered Species Act would not apply, 

and then--

The CHAIRMAN. How much timber was not offered up for sale because of that so-called goshawk? 

Mr. POWELL. I cannot tell you because I do not think we have 

really offset, at least on the Ketchikan area, many of our sales just 

for the goshawks. 

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, it is about 300 miles square, 

which is an awful lot of timber, each circle. What I am saying isI am not picking on you. I am just saying this, again, goes back 

to what I said before. This came from somebody outside. 

Mr. POWELL. I think the key thing, and I do not want to get too 

much in depth on it, but the HCAs are done for more than the goshawks. If you look at just the HCAs, that has had more impact on 

the timber availability. Just the goshawks themselves, in the current draft of TLMP, only have a hundred acres of habitat set aside. 

So the goshawks, themselves, set aside much less habitat in the 

RCAThe CHAIRMAN. I have asked you this before and I am going to 

ask you again because we are establishing the record. Were any of 

the other nine million areas studied for HCAs? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes, they were. 

The CHAIRMAN. To the extent that the remaining 1,400,000 

were? 

Mr. POWELL. Let me answer it to you this way. There are actually in the current plan three million acres that are in HCAs. Two 

million of those acres are on nonsuitable timber lands; actually, 

two-and-a-half million of those. · So we looked at all the lands. The acreage you often hear about 

is the half-a-million acres that came from the suitable land base, 

but they are actually established in wilderness and in the LUD lis. 

The CHAIRMAN. But it is about a million acres, if I am not mistaken, of the timber base that Congress allocated under the Refonn 

Act of 1986 to put in HCAs. 

Mr. POWELL. About a million acres that is the timber baseabout a half million acres of that was suitable lands, lands that 

were actually available for harvest. So it is about a reduction-if 

it were in the preferred alternative-a reduction of about half a 

million acres. 

The CHAIRMAN. As a forester-you can go as far as you want on 

this-what makes any conservationist or any forester say that they 
82 

are not compatible, the goshawk or something else, that cannot be 

compatible? 

Mr. POWELL. Again, let me ask, sir. I am not sure what you 

mean by "compatible." 

The CHAIRMAN. If we stop logging because-suppose it was not 

compatible, but you are a manager of logging-and I go back to my 

private-sector logging industry, which is now providing two-thirds 

of the fiber in the Nation today, not the national forest, which has 

over-remember, they only have one-eighth of the land mass-they 

also manage it for conservation. They also manage it for Fish and 

Wildlife. Are we doing any of that? 

Mr. POWELL. We certainly are. 

The CHAIRMAN. Where? 

Mr. POWELL. The issues are HCAs, though, that you bring up 

and the reason that they are in the preferred alternative at this 

point really deals with trying to apply what we see is the regulation to deal with viability of wildlife species, and that deals with 

both the distribution and persistence of wildlife species, and it is 

a concern not about the loss of those species; it is a concern about 

the amount being distributed in a similar manner as they are 

today. 

To be more specific, that would mean that, for instance, wolves 

or goshawks might not be found on north Prince of Wales Island 

anymore, not that we would not have wolves anymore, and that is 

the real issue that HCAs are designed to try and address. 

The CHAIRMAN. Use of HCAs in the Tongass, was there any data 

from Alaska put into these programs? 

Mr. POWELL. There is some data. 

The CHAIRMAN. Some. Most is coming from outside, by outside 

forests, by outside heads above you? . Mr. POWELL. The majority of work on HCAs has been done in 

other parts of the country. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the frustration I face and people 

in this room face, other than those that want to have no logging 

at all. Again, it goes back: Why are not you making the decision? 

Why is not Mr. Janik making them or Gary making the decisions? 

Why does it have to come from outside? 

Mr. POWELL. We do not-as you well know, we have been harvesting timber here in Southeast Alaska primarily only for the last 

40 years. We do not have the research base here that they have 

in other parts of the country. 

The CHAIRMAN. How can they research from abroad and make 

decisions for Tongass? 

Mr. POWELL. A lot of the research, we think, is applicable, but 

we would certainly like to have more research locally, and we are 

in the process of trying to develop that. 

The CHAIRMAN. One thing about it, Brad, this meeting would 

never have been held if, in fact, the Forest Service was managed 

as it was before by the local control. I remember Sanders and Mike 

Barton, they made decisions, you made decisions. Decisions were 

made with the community, and there was the same controversy 

then, but it was made in the community and you had to live with 

it. 
83 

I get a little frustrated when decisions are now made by the 

White House, by Jack Ward Thomas, who truly believes no tree 

should be cut. I argued with him for hours and hours and he says 

he does not, but every case he has been in, he has shut down any 

harvesting, and it makes it very difficult to manage the trees. 

I go back, now. The health of the national forest, according to 

every scientist I have talked to outside of the timber industry, says 

it is very unhealthy. Now, as a forester, I think you have to agree. 

Mr. POWELL. We certainly have an old forest here in Southeast 

Alaska, other than where we have harvested, and in terms of just 

the tree health and vigor, there is no doubt that we have a lot of 

decline in those older stands. Some of those older stands are, of 

course, important for wildlife and other needs, but certainly the 

health of our trees, we have many of them that are in poor shape. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that causes other health problems, is what 

I am trying to say. You have seen what has happened in the Southwest. We have lost a million-six this year, a million-seven, 2.7 million acres in fires this year, and we lost 18 billion board feet last 

year. The estimates, now, we are going to lose the eastern side of 

the Sierras. It becomes a desert because of lack of management. 

Somewhere along the line this whole philosophy about how the 

forest should be protected has to include the word management. As 

a forester, I hope you agree with that, because there is no management in preservation. There is no management in wilderness. That 

is an absolute misnomer. A wilderness is never managed, not even 

for fish. For the fishermen, I want you to keep that in mind. There 

is no management for fish. 

Mr. POWELL. I only agree with you that we believe the forest 

should be managed. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are seeking. As I said, this hearing would never be necessary if we had management on the local 

level instead of from AI Gore and his moonbeams, and that is our 

big problem right now. I know where it is coming from. I aim that 

right at him, direct access. I have known him when he was in the 

House, but my goal is for you to do what you said in your statement, and I told Gary this and Mr. Janik. 

I will defend you if you make a decision and stay by it. That is 

a broad scope. It is when you got short-changed-the decision on 

that extension of the contract, there were three proposals made. 

Mr. Gore took the last one, canceled the extension of the contract. 

He had other alternatives. KPC-he had other alternatives, fiveyear, ten-year, 15-year alternatives, with all the stipulations, and 

I heard talk about the corporate dream and everything else. 

And I want to tell you something else. That mill could shut down 

and Mr. Soon could walk away and you will not have a pulp mill 

in Southeast Alaska, and if you do not have a pulp mill, you will 

not have any other sales because you cannot offer a sale unless we 

go back to high-grading. 

Mr. POWELL. It is my opinion as a manager and a forester that 

we need a mill, some way, to utilize that low-value wood. Whether 

it is a pulp mill or some other type of a mill, that is what the market will decide. 

The CHAIRMAN. Here is my problem. If you have another mill, it 

has to meet all the environmental qualities. No one is going to in-
84 

vest in that type of an investment if they do not have a guarantee 

of timber, and that means they have got to have a long-term contract because they are not going to invest $250 million, and I do 

not blame them, but what I am worried about is the people in this 

room that have jobs, the people that have small businesses, et 

cetera-because, as I say, that mill could shut down, close the 

doors, just like they did the Sitka mill. That did not hurt George 

at all. He walked away with no headache, but it has affected that 

town, and if that happens in Ketchikan-again, I do not think any 

of this would have happened if it was under State control because 

the governor supports it, finally, all the legislative bodies, both 

sides of the aisle support it, and I do believe-you cannot say itI think the Forest Service supports, but back east they do not. 

Mr. POWELL. Just to comment on that, and I know there is lots 

of disagreement in the current draft preferred alternative, but it is 

certainly the intent of the forest supervisors that made that decision that there would be adequate timber to supply the needs of 

the industry, including meeting the contractual obligations of KPC. Now, as we go through this and further refine with public comment, we will see if that assessment that we have made and if that 

is what the public still wants, but that was one of the parameters 

of that preferred alternative. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are sincere. You probably failed the 

contract because, if not, you will go to court. As you know, the Supreme Court the other day ruled that government cannot go 

around changing contracts, and that is going to have far ramifications for Sitka and Ketchikan and probably going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, but, again, it goes back, if we have an 

environmentally sound mill, it is going to take a huge investment. 

If they do not have that guarantee, they are not going to make the 

investment. They will run until the end of five years, and then we 

have got a serious problem all over Southeast, and those that do 

not want any logging will be happy. I understand that. They will 

be the first to say we are going to have added-value entrepreneurship. You still have to sell a sale of timber, and you cannot sell one 

tree, to my knowledge. Under the Forest Services practices, you 

have to take, in Southeast, the nonsalvagable tree, because otherwise we are high-grading, which we did in the 1930's and 1940's 

and actually during the war. We did quite a bit of that. A lot of 

the best timber stands we have today are where we did some logging in the 1940's and they left the old trash on the ground and 

everything else. 

Mr. POWELL. Just another comment on the KPC extension, and 

I know you know this-I am not sure some of the folks may understand that, thought-<>ur position on that, the Forest Service position, is, really, we do not have the authority to issue that permit, 

so we are not-<>r that contract extension, so you are not hearing 

from us yes or no. It is an appropriate issue for Congress to deal 

with, and I think the hearings next week will start to kick that off, 

but that has not been our position for or against. It is just outside 

our authority to extend that--

The CHAIRMAN. And I do believe you will fulfill the remaining 

years of the contract, and I agree with you. Congress originally 

granted those contracts. It was a congressional action. It was not 
85 

the Forest Service. And that is our responsibility to do it or not do 

it, and we will be addressing that next week. 

Again, Brad, I want to thank you, and I would feel much better 

if Phil Janik-although, like I say, he is still in my doghouse. A 

heart attack is an excuse once. The second time it is not. But Gary 

showed up and you showed up both times, and I would feel much 

better if that responsibility of making decisions-because you live 

with the peoplt>r-was made here. I do not feel comfortable with it 

being made in Washington, D.C. That is the intent of my belief. I happen to believe so strongly that local people should have the 

input, should have the power, and should have the ability to make 

the decision how it affects their lives. It should never be done by 

centralized government. That is just my own philosophy and has 

been for years. Our strength and our Constitution, very franklyand I sort of get a little concerned when someone says I said "sell 

land." I said nothing about selling anything. My concept is the closer to government the people are, the better the government you 

have. If you do not have it close to the people, eventually the people will turn against the government, and that has begun across 

this nation and it is not healthy, and it puts you in a terrible position, including myself, and if you believe in this great America, you 

have got to have a relationship of partners and people, people with 

the government, not the government doing it to the people. 

So I do thank you for your time and effort and good luck to you 

and hope you have a nice 4th. With that, I do thank everybody for being here today, and this 

meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and 

the following was submited for the record:] 
Mayor Hallgren 's Testimony on HR2413 

July 3, 1996 

Page 3 

My personal view is: 

86 

A. The Bill presently requires the APC contract to be reinstated with the 

requirement that it be sold to a third party who would agree to construct a 

manufacturing facility in Southeast. Such a re-instatement would likely increase 

competition for available timber to Sitka's further detriment. Rather, if, as I suspect, 

the APC contract was improperly canceled, the Federal Government should bite the 

bullet and pay APC proper damages. 

B. The Bill presently mandates a Tongass land grant to the Native people of 

Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell totaling between 115,200 

acres and 230,400 acres. This idea has been kicking around for 25 years and carries 

little support in Sitka. It is highly divisive and should be separated from the Bill and 

stand or die on its own merits. 

C. Major issues not solved by your Bill are the Endangered Species Act and 

the Wetlands Protection Act. Improperly wielded, they can be used as federal clubs 

to impose national ideological mandates that don't fit the circumstances of Southeast. 
87 

S"utheast Alaska Co- ~ervation Council 

SEACC -119 6th S1ree1. Sui!e 328. Jun<au, AK 9980 1 

( 90'7) 586-69~:! phon< (9071 ~63 3312 fax 

email: seacc@alaska.net 

STATEME!'o'TOF 

ROBERT E. LINOEKUGEL, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

HEARING ON H.R. 2413, 

. THE TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSITION ACT 

Mr. Chairman, 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. HOUSE RESOURCE COMMITTEE 

IN SITKA, ALASKA, JULY 3, 1996 

My name is Roben E. Liadekugel, conservation director for the Southeast AJaska 

Conservation Council. For the record, SEACC has already submiued more than 24 

pages of written testimony to this Commillee on your wrong-headed bill. 

Our guiding principles of free speech and informed decision-making by members of 

Congress, have not been served by your hearing schedules and formal. The totally 

stacked deck at February's hearings in Wrangell and Ketchikan represented one of the 

most outrageous attemplS to build a record in your favor that we have ever seen. These 

hearings look like more of the same. 

One of the most outrageous things about your effons is this: You yourself have stated 

several times that this bill stands no chance of becoming law. We both know that you 

can't get this bill passed in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. Even Senator 

Craig Thomas, who has inlroduced a bill to transfer Bureau of Land Management public 

~~~~~=h~~~~~~~-~~=~ 

wasting the taxpayers time and money by holding these hearings. These hearings 

represent election year politics at their very worst. 

One other note on hearings. We've heard you and others slate that the House of 

Representatives didn't hold hearings in AJaska prior to passage of the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act. In August of 1987, members from the House Committee on Interior and 

Insular affairs held an extensive fact-finding trip prior to taking action; a trip which was 

aimed at listening 10 people from all walks of life and from communities, including 

Pelican, Juneau, and Sitka. You failed lo join the Committee on that trip. Furthermore, 

the Senate held two hearings in Sitka and Ketchikan prior to taking action on the TIRA. 

LYNN CANAL COl'ISERV 1\ TIOH. 1-w- • AU ENDS OF GLACIER 8A Y, Q,..q.._ • FlUEt-"OS OF BEIU'IERS 8A Y, Jwft.ll~t 

\1r'RA1'«3EU. RESOURCE COUNCIL • ALASKA SOCIElY OF AMEJUCit.Jol FOREST DWEULR$. Poia1 Bater • PEUCAN FORESTRY COUNCIL 

AlASKANS FOR.ItJNEAU • N'A.R.AOV.'SCONSERVA·noNCOAUllON. PumbutJ • TONGASS CONSEJlVAMN SCK:IETY. Klditn 

CHICHAGOFCONSERVATION'COUt«:''L. Tud.or • Jl..INE.AU GROUPSIERAACLUB •STTXA CONSERVATION SOCIETY 

TAKL: CONSERVATION SOCJETY.I-n • PRINCE Of WAUS CONSERVATION LEAGUE. Crail • YAX\ITAT RESOURCE COfolSERVATlON' COUNCIL 
Sf..ACC"•Huriot ~IIo•H.R.~41l 

no,_ S.J, AlNU Jary ' · 1996 

88 

Ninety-four (9~) persons testified at the April24, 1989 hearing in Ketchikan, and another 

ninety-six (96) testified at the April 25, 1989 hearing in Sitka. Unlike your hearings on 

H.R. 2413, the TfRA hearings were open and fair .. 

SEACC strongly opposes your bill, and here are some reasons why: 

If Ever Passed. H.R. 2413 Would Spell The Beginning Of The End 

For Our 100 Year Tradition Of Public Ownership Of National 

Forest Lands. 

This extremist bill really represents a radical reversal and re-write of almost 100 years of 

national forest policy in Alaska and across the U.S.A. 

Republican President Teddy Roosevelt established the Toneass National Forest In 

1907 --99 years ago. Pnslden"t Roosevelt's Idea for our national forests was that 

they were to be managed for "the greatesteood for the greatest number In the long 

t!!n· " 

H.R. 2413 directly contradicts this principle of public land stewardship because the long 

term goal of your bill represents the ultimate "lock-up" of formerly public lands and the 

"lock-out" of the public when these lands end up in private hands. The former Tongass 

would be reduced to ridge to ridge clearcuts and tons of no-trespassing signs--- across 

lands which were ooce open for public hunting and fishing. 

Teddy Roosevoltoncesald ..... "l'm opposed to theland-sklnnerevery time". Your 

bill fully embodies the artitudes and arrogance oftheland-sklnners and robber 

barons, who would love to own their own private chunk or the Ton~:ass. 

One of the worst parts of your bill is that there is no prohibition or limitation against the 

sale of lands in the Tongass to the highest bidder. Thanks to State Senator Robin 

Taylor, we've confirmed the real intent of your bill. This bill is not about a simple 

trans.fer of the Tongass to the Stale of Alaska --- the real goal is to tum these public 

lands over to private hands. In a letter written to a Montana State Senator, Senator 

Taylor declared his goal for state management of the Toogass. He wrote, "Hopefully, a 

large portion of this acreage will eventually be conveyed to the private sector. • This one 

sentence makes the goal of your legislation perfectly clear. Senator Taylor will be a 

leading player on how the State of Alaska makes decisions about these public lands if the 

State= gets them. If you and Senator Taylor get your way, these lands which have 

always been open for public hunting and fishing will be sold off, covered with "no 

trespassing" signs, clearcut, dug-up, and locked away from the public. 

We hope all of America is watching this bill because it would set an unbelievable 

precedent which would destroy our public lands system, from sea to shining sea. 

2 
SEACC't!Yari•tSuu~nto. K.ll. Hll 

-no.- 81)'. Al.aU.a 1•1}' ' · 1996 

89 

H.R. 2413 Guts 15 Years OC Conseryatjon Law In Alaska 

Your bill totally removes over IS years of hard-fought conseJVation protections (and 

compromises) adopted by Congress. It removes the protection of watenheds and 

salmon stream buffer zones supported by commercial fishing groups, Native interests, 

recreation and tourism businesses, more than IS Alasbo communities, and the Governor 

of Alaska. ~Attachment 1. Congressm;.., Young, you even voted lo prolecl many of 

these areas when you voted for the Agriculture Committee's venion of the TI'RA in 

1989. 

The bill repeals !!.lthe Tongass protections enacted by Congress in the Alaska Lands Act 

of 1980 and the Tongass Timber Reform Acl of 1990. 

The bill repeals Wilderness and National Monument designations for places like 

Misty Fjords, Admiralty Island, Petersburg Creek, Olichagof·Yakobi, and the 

Stikine, Chuck, and Kana Rivers. 

The bill repeals permanent protection, as legislated LUD II areas, for key commercial 

fishing, subsistence, wildlife, tourism, and recreation watersheds, including Naha, 

Kadashan, Anan, Bernen Bay, Point Adolphus, Mud Bay, I..lsianski River and Inlet, 

Upper Hoonah Sound, Calder-Holbrook, Salmon Bay, Nutkwa, Yakutat Forelands, 

Trap Bay, and Outside Islands. 

The bill repeals minimum 100 foot no-logging buffers IIOW required on salmon and 

resident fish streams. 

H.R. 2413 Would Hand Over More Than 200.000 Acres Of Prime· 

Public Forest Land To Five NEW For-Profit Native Corporations. 

This bill grants recognition to these five~ Native corporations even though a careful 

public review has never taken place that concluded that any of these comorations deserye 

~· 

It is beyond belief that at the same time you are holding these bearinp, you are trying to 

ram this public land giveaway through Congress without a public bearing or debate in an 

amendment to the Presidio Bill currently in Confereoce Committee. On top of this 

outlandish giveaway of public forest resources, your Presidio amendment uses these 

Native claims to achieve a primary legislative objective of the Alaska delegation •• to 

delay the completion of the Tongass Land Management Plan ('It.MP) Revision. 

According to the Presidio amendment, the Forest SeJVice would be required to consult 

with the NEW corporations, fully consider and analyze all their recommendations for 

land selections, report to Congress within nine (9) months an analysis of the impacl from 

these selections on the TLMP, and "incorporate all appropriate recommendations from 

the Southeast Native Corporations" into the final TUdP. ~Attachment 2 (Landless/ 

Presidio Parks Bill Amendment, June 18, 1996). 

In a synopsis for the Landless/Parks Bill amendment, Sealaska points out that the 

University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) prepared a 

3 
SEACC1 Huri•• s~., ... lUl 241J 

T'aoiM a.,. Alub JU, ), 1996 

90 

report looking at the question of why the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee and Wrangell had been denied eligibility to form village or urban corporations 

under the .A,Jaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANSCA). This synopsis 

wrongly claims that the report concluded these communities met the eligibility 

requirements for villaees eligible to fonn Native corporations. It also claims that the 

ISER Report found no justification for omitting these five communities from those 

communities eligible to fonn urban or village corporations under ANSCA. However, a 

December 7, 19931eUer from ISER Oirec:lor Lee Gorsuch (AUachment3, emphasis 

added) corrected these falsehoods in a news story 011 the draft report: 

"The study villages were not ... denied all benefits under ANSCA. Qualified 

residents of those villages received cash payments, and they are at-large members of 

Sealaska regional corporation. 

We did not ... make a finding that Congress had inadvertently omitted the study 

villages from land benefits, nor did we recommend that Congress should now award 

them land. We did not ... say that the study villages were entitled to the same 

economic benefits as Southeast communities with village or urban corporations have 

received .... • 

In a May 29, 1996letter from ISER to SEACC (Attachment4), ISER confirmed thai 

"[t)he report content did not change substantively between the draft and the final 

versioo.• 

This bill has less to do with Native claims than it docs with guaranteeing that vast areas 

of the Tongass presently off limits to large scale logging will be taken from public 

ownership and clearcut without public scrutiny. We must note that lands threaten by 

the Land Grnts to Native Corporations provision In fLit 2413, and the New 

Native Corporation Amendment In the Presidio Bll~ will surely Include areas 

permanently sd aside from lolll!ln& by Congress In the Toneass Timber Reform 

Act. 

Your bill would reopen fundamental decisioos regarding land entitlements made by 

Congress when it approved ANSCA. It will almost certaillly open a Pandora's box of 

additional land claims io Alaska. a never-ending flood of potential public land and timber 

grabs. 

None of the lands selected by these five NEW Native corporatioos will be subject to the 

sustained yield and multiple use requirements applicable to Tongass National Forest 

Lands. Most of the Southeast Alaska village corporations created by ANSCA have . 

already clearcut hundreds of thousands of acres of their merchantable timber since 1983. 

The effects of this unsustainable logging rate can be seen by the 53 percent drop in 

cutting levels on Native corporation lands between 1991 and 1994.' 

lSource: Forest Service's dnft St:crion 706(•) Report for Fiscal Yeu 1994, 22·24. 
Sf.ACC"• He.an.1 s~r- o• H.JL ~·u 

Tllot"'e S.y. Alub hlly 5. 1996 

91 

Private corporate land owners do not have to provide acuss to, or across, privately 

owned land. This "lock-out" will dramatically effect use by commercial, spon, and 

subsistence hunters, who used to enjoy their former public lands. 

H.R. 2413 Would Cause Devastating Economic lmoacfs, · 

Local officials have raised concer111 about the substantial financial loss to 

communities. The Forest Service has a payroll of $44 million dollars aod employs 

roughly 1000 people io Southeast. H.R. 2413 would have devastatio& ecooomic 

impacts for our region. 

The State Does Not Have The Money Or The Capac!tv To 

Adequately Manage The Tongass For Multlole Use And Would 

Sell OtT Public Lands. 

The State Forest Practices Act, which regulates logging on state and private 

lands, requires only ll)lnlmal protection ror fish and wlldll£e habitat. 

Commercial fishing, tourism, huntiog, subsistence, and other multiple uses would 

suffer. 

The Tongass costs U.S. Taxpayen over $90 million each year to run. In these 

tough budget times, the State lacks the mooey to ruo the Tongass adequately. 

The logical result of H.R. 2413 would be for the State of Alaska to tell oiT 

large chunks or the Tonpss to the hlehest bidder, which in most cases would be 

timber companies inte!Uied in shott-term profits, not the long-term health of the 

Tongass' unique ecosystems or rural communities. The Tongass would most likely 

become a series of huge private tree farms, and former public hunting areas would 

become private hunting clubs. This prediction is consistent with Senator Robin 

Taylor's letter. 

Management Of The Tongass By Tbe State Of Alaska Will Not 

Result In Efficient Production Of More Timber With LesS 

Controversy. 

In response to a May 1996 repon from the U.S. General Acrounting Office prepared at 

your request, PUBUC TIMBER: Federal and State Programs Differ Significantly in 

Pacific Notthwest, you stated your intention to use this repo!t in reviewing proposals to 

transfer control of some national forests to the states. This reoort however. does not 

supoon the conclusion that the State of Alaska could more efficiently manage the 

Tongass than the Forest Servjce. Unlike state forests in Oregon and Washington, which 

the GAO report reviewed, state lands in Alaska are not managed to emphasize logging 

and maximize revenues. Miele VIII of the Constitution of the State of Alaska requires 

natural resources on state lands to be managed as a public trust and requires that 

sustained yield management be the management objective rather than maximum short· 
SEACC'• Hun.c S'-lcmnl,.• H.R.. :"1) 

T~n·-.c Ba)' , AlMU. Jw11 ' · 1996 

92 

term economic gain. Article VIII further emphasizes the right of citizens to get to and 

use the state's resources. 

The GAO report's conclusion that Pacific Northwest states, because of significant 

differences between federal and state timber sale programs, can operate their timber sale 

programs at less cost does not mean that the same will occur if the Tongass is transferred 

to the State of Alaska: 

Yakalaill-ln a January 1991, an audit report from the Le&islllive Budaet and Audit 

Committee on the Department of Natural Resources administfllion oftbe Icy Cape No.2 

timber sale on state lands along the Yakataga coast2 found that: 

'Receipt of less than S1 Million jn 19!al stumpaoe fees. on a bid that ori&inally 

promised that the State would collect almost $6 million .... we estimaie that the State 

spent almost as much in dealing with various aspects of the sale as it collected in 

stumpage receipts.• (emphasis in original) . 

... Without improvement, the State faces the continued prospect of receiving less than 

full value for its resources aud exposure to repeated litigation by logging operatolll. 

Haines Stale Forest·· A 1994 briefing paper on long-term timber sales on the Haines 

State Forest showed that the State lost more than eight million dollalll in road credits, 

subsidies, infrastructure, and management costs between 1979 and 1985 in a Haines long 

term contract.3 

Given the differences between how the Stale or Alaska and Washington and Oregon 

manage state lands, as well as the record or money-losing timber sales on Alaska 

state lands, the GAO report un not be relied upon to justll'y transren-lng the 

Tongoss to the Stale or Alaska. 

Adequacy or Fish Prolectioa OD Stale and Private La~d• Ia Alaska ··Ia a statement 

before the House of Representatives on May 21, 1996, you proclaimed that a new study 

prepared by Pentec Environmental for Sealaska Corporation, the Southeast regional 

Native corporation, and the Alaska Forest Association, 'shows that logging on state and 

private lands in Alaska is compatible with fisheries protection. • We disagree. As noted 

in the April 9, 1996 comments by the Alaska Department of F'ISh and Game following its 

multi-divisional review of the April18, 1995 Pentec Review Oral\ Report: 

"Because of declining budgets, it is unlikely that the [state] agencies would have the 

consistent funding over time to accomplish [the) difficult task [of conducting 

effectiveness monitoring). Analyzing this project h.S once again brought home the 

extreme difficulty of designing and implementing a study which successfully copes 

with the wide range of natural variables at work in uplands, streams and biota. 

2Anacbmenl S(citcd pigcs). 

lAtuchmut 6(Alub Environmental Lobby press n:le•.sc, Apri12S, 1994). 

6 
SEACC'• HuriCII S1aUDMCI· _, . H.R. ~41J 

'Oior.e &y, AWb J•l)' ~- 1996 

93 

... our comments include both the larger questions of srudy design and 

implemeJ;'tation .... • 

Because the negative impacts from logging do not become' appan:nt for S-10 yeam al!er 

togging, and will not be fully expressed until a major storm event occurs, no definitive 

coi>clusions can be interpreted from only three years of data collected for this study. 11le 

fact that the magnitude of habitat changes can not be detected now from applying State 

stalldards does not support the conclusion that State SUDdatds do DOl have an advoae 

impact on fish habitat and stream conditions. In fact, the receDI completed Anadromous 

Fish Habitat Assessment (AFHA), which was preputd by more lhan SO acientisU, 

resource specialists, and managers at the direction of Coagress, found that 'procedwea 

similar to those currently used to protect fish habitat on the Tongass ... failed to prevent 

declines in fish habitat capability, and resulted in increasing and now significant risk to 

the viability of salmon and steel head stocks .... • Givea that the AFHA report took a 

comprehensive look at the adequacy of existing fish habitat protection measures 

Tongass-wide, it far more authoritative an assessment than a selected sampling by a 

consultant hired by timber companies. If APHA found that the tougher Forest Service 

standards were not adequate, how could anyone say tlw the State's standards for riparian 

management on state and private lands are OK? 

H.R. 2413 Turns Back The Clock And Revives The Tongass 

Timber Barons. 

The bill requires the Stale to relostale the 50 y.-r monopoly Umber oontncl 

with the Alaska Pulp Company. 11le Forest Service canceled this contract, 

which gave Alaska Pulp a guaranteed supply of timber at bargain basement prices, 

in 1994 because Alaska Pulp materially breached its contract by closing its pulp 

mill in Sitka. 

Coupled with the bill your rec:enlly Introduced, H.R. 365!1, thai would p-aal 

Ketchikan Pulp Company a IW!,l3-year monopoly contract, this bill would 

elrecllvely gut the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990. Section 7(f) of H.l!.. 

2413 repeals all statutory land protections contaiocd in ANILCA and the TI1lA. 

H.R. 3659 eliminates the requirement that K<:tchibn Pulp pay timber pri<* 

comparable to those that independent operators on tbe Tongass have to pay aod 

guarantee a huge amount of timber to keep Ketchikan Pulp in business, at a profit.' 

Freedom. Rights. ControL And The Future; 

Lets talk about Freedom. Congressman Young, you and your bill are striking at the very 

heart of the century-old, all-American concept of public forest lands. To many Alaskans 

and to many Americans across this great country of ows, the concept of being an owner 

of our public forest lands is one of our most strongly beld freedoms. This is a freedom, 

where Alaskans can pick a spot on the Tongass map, climb into a float plane or skiff and 

go there. They can hunt, fish , hike, pick berries, watch wildlife, gather firewood. When 

4Attacbmt:nt 7(SEACC Ftct Sbc:el on H.R. 3659). 

7 
SEACC"• Hunor Sutcmc ... .>o HJl !41) 

"Thonw B.ay. Alub l~tly j _ 19'96 

94 

they leave, they leave with the knowledge that they can return to the same spo< on their 

public land, again and again and again. This is a freedom that is held dear ..... and you 

want to rip it away. 

Lets talk. about rights. You make a big deal about attempting to protect valid, existing 

rights in this bill. What about our rights ··the rights of the public to own and benefit 

from their public forestlands? Aren~ these rights valid and existing? 

In your January 25, 1996, press release, you claim that 'This bill is about control· 

Alaskan control of the forat • and stabilization for the people who depend on forest 

resources to survive .... • We strongly disagree with your characterization. On the second 

to l!'5f page of your bill (Section 7 (f)), you take your double-barreled shotgun, load It 

up with buckshot and blast away at~ single protected acre on this ereat rorest 

by repealing all statutory land protections ror wlldern ... and legislated LUD II 

areas, and salmon stream buiTer zones. What stability will this bill provide 

commercial fishennen who depend upon these 'million-dollar" salmon watersheds. 

What stability will this bill provi de to recreation and tourism businesses whose customers 

come to see wild and beautiful country? Have you considered the impaCI of your bill on 

Tongass-dependenl communities, such as Pelican, Elfin Cove, Yakutat, Point Baker, Pon 

Protection, Kupreanof, Tenakee, Gustavus, Hydaburg, Edna Bay, Craig, Klawock, 

Angoon, Whale Pass, Petersburg, Juneau, and Sitka •• seven~n communities have 

publicly suppcned protection of areas which are near and "dear to them. If this bill is 

your answer, then your answer must be "no." 

From vinually every community in our region ··where ever you loot, you see the 

Tongass. These public lands are where Alaskans hunt, and fish, and walk in the woods. 

This is where people who work in the timber industry find the trees to cut and send to the 

mills. The watersheds of the Tongass produce over 80% of the salmon harvested in our 

. region; salmon that our commercial fishermen depend upcn. The bounty of the Tongass 

has been an incredible sustainable renewable public resource for Alaskans and all 

Americans. Our way of life depends on the Tongass. Your bill will not promote 

"stabilization,' but destabilization, and destruction of a way of life. 

In a January press release, you state that 'Because assuming control of the Tongass is 

voluntary and conditions are minimized, no one could construe this bill as a federal 

mandate. II is the oppcsite of a mandate, because it gives up control, .... ' . Who are your 

trying to fool? Your bill Is loaded with tederal mandates and conditions, including 

the repeal of all statutory land proteelions, Section 7(1); re-instatement of the Alaska Pulp 

Corporation contract, Section 5( c); the State's compliance with Title VIII of ANILCA, 

Section 6(c); the' handing over of more than 200,000 acres of prime forestland to five (5) 

new, for·profil Native corporations, Section 6(e); payment of25 percent of the net 

receipts for all timber sold on the Tongass to the United States for 10 years after the State 

receives patent to lands in the Tongass, Section 6(g); and, the assumption of all 

obligations of the United States under the Ketchikan Pulp's SO-year pulp contraCI, 

Section 6(h). Your bill does not give up control to the State of Alaska but merely shifts 

federal obligations to the State, in a most irrespcnsible way. 

8 
SEACC"1 tkariat SLICciDCII 01 H.R. 241] 

T\or.c Bey, Alub J~aly ~. 1996 

95 

I'm sure that some time today we'll hear your mantra of misleading myths that chant ' 

only 10 percent of the Tongass will ever be logged' and '90 percent will never be 

logged.' The truth is that the 10 percent that will be logged is the 'biological heart' of 

the Tongass. Saying 'not to worry' about this 10 percent is flkethe doctors telling you 

that they will cut your heart out-- but the rest of your body will be just fine! 

Over the past years you've argued that Alaska needs your leadership and seniority in 

Congress to protect Alaska's interests. Instead of showing leadership, you are abusing 

your power as Chairman of the House Resource Commillee to trash a hundred year old 

American tradition of liberty and freedom in, and public ownership of, our public fo~ 

lands. Your actions will not benefit Alaskans or American citizens but will ooly benefit 

the corporate robber barons who have, and will continue to put short-sighted profits 

ahead of the long term health and welfare of Alaskans, and Americans. 

Your bill is a very serious threat to our public forestlands, and to the way of life for 

Southeast Alaskans. Your bill is not a transfer, it is a travesty. Many people do not take 

your bill seriously, but we view it as a terrible threat to our public lands heritage. Your 

bill is outrageous, flat out dangerous, and we strongly urge you to stop this bill dead in 

its tracks, right here, right now. 

9 
~ ;f' 

' ~ 

~ 

"\-

" 

Alaskans support leaislated lands pro

in the T onaass National Fores

Alukau atroaaiY aupport prolec:tioe O( key fiJb ucl wildlife habita

tempoi'V)' deferrala. Alukau have -bliahed u impreaaive record 

protectioa over the put 4 yeua, iDCiudiaa Seaate field heariap held 

Ketchiku. 

Southeast Aiulwla aupportiaa lqislated protectioa or key areu iacl

" Tha IS commuaitiea ot Hyclabura, Cnia. Ju-u, Elfia Cove

Petenbura, Poiat Baker, Sitka, Teaakee Spriap, Yakutat. Po

Guatavua, Kupreaaof, ud Edaa Bay; 

- Go"WW!!r or Alaska (orf"lcial poaitioa of the State or Alalka)

•• Toepa Touriam ud Recreatioa Busiaeaa Alloc:iate (repreae

totari!AII aad outdoor buai- opentiaa ia lhe Toea-), A

Reapouible Reaource Muaae-at, aDd the Southeast Reaio

ud Game Advisory Committee~ (from every COIDIIIUility ill 

" UDic.d l'aperworkera IDteraatioaal Uaioa Local 962 ot Sitka

" Native orpaizatiou -- C...tnJ Couacil of Tlioait-Haida ID

R...._. Nati"W Corpontioa, Cape Foa Native Corpontiola. 

Aaoc:iatioD, ud Alukll Native Brotberbood; 

•• AU lhe reaioa'a co-rcial f"11bermea'1 orpaiJatiolll •• Ala

M8ociatioa, Petenbura v-1 Owaen, UDic.d Sou~ Gii

SoatiMiut SeiDe Boat OwMra ud ()peraton, Soatbe1111 Soudl

AQUCUltan Aaoc:iatioa, ud Nortbe1111 Soutbeut Reaioaal A

AIIOciatioG; plua the atatewide UDited Fiabermea of Aluka; 

" eo-rvatioD IJOUPI •• Sitka CoaMrvatioe Society, PelicaD F

Lyu Cual Couervetioa, frielldl or Beraen Bay, Aluba S

fONII Dwellen, Juaeau Silrra Club, Narrowa Co-tio• C

Gllcilr Bay, Toapa C~tioo Society, Faile lalaDd·Koo

W,....U Rllowce Coual, Taltu Colllenacioll Society, Alu

J .... A.claboll Society, Ylhtat a.ovc. Coalenatioa Co
97 

Arnclldmenl No. -----

Pllrpote: To amend H.R. 1296, a bW 10 provide for the a4ministnlion of cenaill Pmid1o 

propcnia II minimal COil ID die Fcdetllcupayer, ID provide recital (or die Omillion Of li\1 

Southcall A1uD commllllilia fnnn cli&lbiliry under Ill• Alub Native Claims Seuiemcnt AC1 

by a.ulllorizinllhc NIIM people enrolled 10 diose c:ommuniiia 10 form Urball « Oroup 

Corporations u appropriale, llld for ocbcr purpotel. 

I In 1be ba.di"l of Tille XV, dclele "TTTLE XV·ALASU PENINSULA Sli'BSURFACE 

2 CONSOLIDATION- and intcn lD lilu dlereof the followiq: 

3 "111l.E XV·A.LASKA NAmE COUOilATlON PaOVJSIONS 

4 SVBrm.E A. ALASKA JIDIJNSVLA st11SUDACECONSOLIDATt0N" 

' AI lhe end of -- 150., m.t I 11ft Subcitlc a u follows: 

6 SVBTITLE I, tMECOGNIZED COMMVNlTIES IN SOV'I1IE.UT ALASKA 

1 SECnOS 1. EST.UUSRMINT OF ADDmONALNATIVI CORPORATIONS IN 

I SOV'Tli'EAST ALASKA 

9 Section 14(11) of the Alaska Native Claims Senlemenc Act, u IIM!Ided (43 U .S.C. 

10 I 1601, 1613(11), bcteltlatlcr in lllis Sulnille rcfcmd 10 u "llle Act") il amended by addin& 

II 11 1111 end dlc:reof the follow!JIInew JIII'IITIPII: 

12 "(12)(A) The Nali.,_ J'ellde:nll of IICII of die NlliYI VUJaaes of Raines, 

13 Xelcllikan, PelcnbllrJ aNI WnnccD, Alub. 1111)1 orpAilc u 111 Urtu Corporalion. 

14 "(I) 'tlJC Nali.,_ raidcnU of die Nllirc VUlqe ofTIIIIDe, Alub, ny 

15 orpnizc u • GIOUp CotporlliOII. 

16 "(C) Nolllin& in dWi pu~~raptl sh&ll alfcct exiJtin& entitlement 10 and of any 

17 RcJional Corporation JMIIUIIO Mctlon 12(b) or tee:tioa 14(11)(1) of this Ace. • 

II SEC. 2. DISTJUJtmON IUGRTS 

1 !l Section 7 of the Aluia Nlllw Claims Scrt1emcn1 Act is amended by addina 11 the 

20 end of aubaection (.j) die foUowina new tenta~ce: "N&Iiw IIICIIIben of die 

21 coma~unitia of Hainea, Kcu:lllbft, ,_,bura. Ten&laee aNI Wraapll who ant 

22 lharcliOidcn of Sealub ~ aNI who become llwellolden in an U111an or 

23 Group Corpotllion fw IUdl I c:ommullll)' 111111 COIUiaue 10 be cl.illbliiO receive 

24 di.llributiolu under dliJIUbJDCtlon U ll·larJe JhareiiOJdcn of Sealuka CorpoJ'IIiOD. • 

2$ SEC. 3. PUNNING CJlANTS 

26 The Native Colporallo111 for !be commWiilie& of H&illcs, Xelchikan, Petc:nbura, 

27 Tcnabc and WnnaeU are authorized 10 receive JT111tl In llle amount of WO,OOO co 

Paae 1 
98 

1 each sucll corporation, 10 be used only for pllnllin&, development and od\er purposes 

2 for which Native Corpcntions are OrJ&nized under thiJ Sliltitle. 

3 SEC. 4. CONSmEJlATION OF U:COMMENDATIOSS 

4 (a) In developiiiJ die Toapss ~d Manqemet~t Pial!, the Sec:Maty o1 Apiculllllt 

S 111&11, aftlr COIIJIIIlllion wi* die Soutlleul Alulla Landlea Coelltion, s.JW:a 

6 Corporalion, lho Urban Colponlion1 for lbe Naci~ commllllldel ot RaiMs, 

' Xctchlbn, PelenbUIJ and W1111pll, and tile Group Corpcalion for the Native 

I commllllity of Ten&DI {llcn:illallcr cdlectiYely retemd ID u "Sou!tlwl Nalivs 

9 Cotporatiolll"), IW into IIXIIIQIIt tile atlblitluuau of lddlllana1 Nltiw ~ 

10 under IOCdall 1 or tlliJ Slltlddl. 

II (b) Jn meetin& lhl nq~ • fonll in IUb~ (1), 1111 Secrewy lhalll\dl7 

12 consider and analyze an t=~~~~mcndadollt by dll 5oullleut Mldve Corporatiou. 

13 (c) Wltllla nine (P) monilia followilll lhe mKIIIItllt of diU hbdde, tile Secreluy 

I • Wl1 tub mit a repon t.o Conps.a lettill& forth an lllllysb ol tile impact that 

1 S esllblUiunau of the Native Corpont10111 under section I or litis SubdUe will have co 

16 the Tonaua UDd Manap!MIII Pllft. 

17 (d) The final Tonaw Land Mwcancnt P1111 shall illcorporue all appropriaee 

11 ncommcndadollt frora lbe Soutlleut NIDvt Corpolllioal. 

19 SEC. I. MJSCil.LANEOliS 1110\'ISIOS 

20 No provilioa of dill Swbtillllhall akt die mio for decermlnalioD of diatributioa o1 

21 rtYCDIICI amqlllc Jteaioa1 Corporllions Ullder sectioa 7(i) or die Act and the 1912 

22 Sa:tioft 7(1) Scaleman Apemen~ &mOftl the Jtcaional Corpomions or 1m0111 Vlllap 

2l Corporations lllldet tecticll7(j) or the . Act. 
1\ 

> U !' ~~~~ ftrtnt ifl "

§ 

; ~~~ 1!r ~~1 11 l1t (il' ll 1 l! 

~ 

i lit ~~ !Ni af l l rJsi 8

~ 

5 

;i 1 ti nt~t :Jrltt; 1 r ~~ j

!il 

!;J iU mu IliliPl i~i . 

@ 

~ 

I 

~ .~. I ~•t' It'· 'rii 

lil 

~ g i!! . ii !IU i~if ttl! JH~ 

>--. 

1 

~ ~ ~·1 •f th( tlfl

1

§t[ itlE ~

l 

1.-v ~ .f! J~: i· Q!i jt~ftitt . ffi 

{t .J 1 l • e ~·· 

, t .. r· t ... I 

"If I I. ;t 

t * 
100 

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 

SCHOOl Of PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

May 29,1996 

Buck Lindekugel 

3111 Prov td<ncc 01- cvc 

And-.one<. Al .. u 99~ 61s.:J 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

419 Sixlh Street, Suite 328 

Juneau, Alaska 9980 I 

Dear Mr. Lindekugel: 

INSTin.Jn Of SOCIAL AND 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH 

(901) 186·1710 FAX 1901) 786.71l9 rn~cl : ayi$Cr0onon.abslc.u<k. 

In December 1993, Lee Gorsucll-who wu at lhat time the director of ISER- wrOle a letter to Amy Miller of Alaska Public Radio in Petersburg about a story she had 

done on ISER's draft report, "A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Comunities." The letter 

corrected some inaccuracies in the public radio story. You asked ISER to let you know wbelher the Slal.ements Mr. Gorsuch made in tbat 

letter COncerning the COOICOIS of the draft report also accunlely reflec:t tbe COOICDIS of the 

fowl report, issued in February 1994. Yes, !hey do. The report cooteot did 1101 chaoge 

substantively berween lhe draft and lhe flllal version. 

Please let us know if you need a copy of the final report. 

Linda Leask 

Editor 

~ 01\'I;;IOS Of THE L'SI\'ER;;In Of .A.LASK ~ .~ TE\'I IDE SYSTEM Of HIGHER EDL'C.A. TIOS 
I 

- . ' 

.. , .. - I : :: 

j, : j 

101 

i 

I 

.. I...:-~ - .: . .' ~ I

I AUDIT DIVISION 

P<l BOX W 

niE LEGJSLAt\JRE 

/ JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811·3300 

BUDGfT AND AUDIT COAJIAirTEE 

January 31, 1991 

Members of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee: 

In accordance with a Legislative Budget and Audit Committee 

special request and Title 24 of the Alaaka Statutes, the 

attached report is submitted for your review. 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

ADMINISTRATION OF ICY CAPE NO. 2 TIMBER SALE 

January 31, 1991 

Audit Control Number 

10-4339-91 

The report reviews the history and adminiltration of the Icy Cape No. 2 timber sale. The audit re:rortl on the stumpage 

payment revenues owed to, and receive by, the State. The 

report compares these revenues to eatimated coats incurred 

by the various state agencies who participated in 

administering the sale. The Divhion of Forestry's administration and enforcement of contract conditions, litigation involved, and the coordination between various 

state resource agencies are also addressed. 

The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted governmental performance auditing standards. A 

further statement of our audit approach is included in the 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section of this report. 

l.vdl .fkilz_ Randy ~Welker, CPA 

Legislative Auditor 
102 

REPORT CONCLUSIONS 

The Icy Cape No. 2 timber sale was plagued by litigation, widespread noncompliance with contract conditions, unpaid stUIIIpage fees, and recently, a lack of cooperative effort 

between two of the S'tate' s major resource agencies. · 

Faced with a collapsing timber market and an operator who 

owed the State more than $600,000 in stumpage fees and 

interest, the State reached a legal settlement. Rather than 

suspending the sale and seizing the operator's $500,000 

payment bond, the settlement allowed the operator, who was often unresponsive to meeting the conditions of the sales 

contract, to continue. As a result, the State sold its 

timber resources relatively cheaply, at a greatly reduced 

economic return to the treasury. 

The most glaring aspects of the history of the Icy Cape No. 

2 timber sale involve: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

that was contrarv to good ractice. Former Governor ~~~~~~~~~~~~-r.~~~~commissioner of the 

Department of Natural Resources to settle with the 

logging operator rather than suspend operations for 

nonpayment of stumpage debt. This direction was given after the Division of Forestry (DOF) had already began 

taking steps to suspend operations. 

A settlement agreement that permitted the logger to 

continue operations While paying significantly less for 

the timber harvested and promising more state timber to 

the operator. After the settlement, the operator repeatedly failed to comply with conditions and speci- fications of the timber sales contract and habitat 

protection permits. 

Not considering the value of road improvements in the 

area, the State essentially has had to settle for less 

than 20 cents on the dollar for the more than $600,000 

stumpage debt and interest owed at the time of the 1986 

settlement. 

Receibt of less than $1 million in total stumpage fees, on a id that originally prom1sed that the State would 

collect almost $6 million. As set out in the Revenues 

and Expenditures section of this report, we estimate 

that the State spent almost as much in dealing with 

various aspects of the sale as it collected in stumpage 

receipts. 

As discussed further in the Findings and Recommendation 

section of this report, DOF must reevaluate the way in which 

f,TATK 0,. ALASKA -5- DIVISION 0, I..C.WIS\.ATIYI: AUOIT 
103 

Alaska Environmental Lobby, Inc. 

P.O. lo• lliSI ~··· . Alooka "OOZ . 

Tbe Haines Long Term Timber Sale 

Lost Millions of Dollars 

PIIOM: 907-tU-lJU 

fu: 907-<16J.JIU 

1be State lost more tlwa elpt IDIIlloa dollln betwna 1979 ad 

1985 Ia a JWDet toaa ten. c.etract. 1bii111011Cy wu lost in road tredit&. 

wbs.idie&, illfruttudate, aod 1111111gemeot cott1. After die mi1l closed sewral 

dmea,lbc stale caooelcd the QOIItl'aCt in 1985. 

DNR's brief111g paper 011 loog·term timber ula claims !hat the DNR 

Division of Forestry made a profit on d!is sale. However. !be attached 

documents show that the Division of Forestry clearly lost money 

ou the Halu" loll& tera dmber ~~ale. 

•DNR speat more tlwl $1 lllillloa dollan for the HalDU 

Foresti'J Ollke related to IJie ·sa1e of dmber dur1D1 ftn 

1ean til that ale. Beton ballkrupcy, DNJl owed lbc contracter 

more IbiD $388,000 Ill purcbuet aedill ciYe to road coOSbuc:tion. 

Ill ocber wordl. die c:osu of road ClOIItruc:tiOD exc:eded tbe timber 

stumpage due 10 tbe state by $388,000. 

•In addltloa, the state spent ud lost aboat S7 million dollaN 

more in mill·rdaled investment&. via lbe Alasb Resoun:e Corporation, 

which is almilar to AIDEA. 

4(Zl,94 
104 

The Tongau Timber Dynasty Bills: A Deal Loulslana·PaciOc Can't Refuse 

Louisiana-Pacific Carpontion (L-P) has tllreatened to shul dowo its Ktlchikaa Pulp Company (KPC) 

mill unlesa it aets major OOIICt.SSioaa &om Canp.ss. The Alas lea Deleptioa hu responded io spades. 

s. l8n aod H.R. 36S9 10 fat be·yond a •cootract extension. • These Identical blllt replace the 

current KPC timber contract, aet to expire In %004, with a aew, 23·year monopol7 contract 

•tartlne rleht now and contlnulne throueh 201,, with the Intention to continue In perpetult7. 

They Jive unprecedented ~mmeot concessioaa to ooe of the richest f<Xesl products compaaies io 

the wortd-aod a duooic pollillioa lawbreaker:·wbile auttioJ the 1990 Toopss Timber Reform Act 

(ITRA), eodan&erioa tbe future of the TOIIJISI Natiooal Focat aod aU those who depeod 011 it. 

Tbey would JDake the Amerk11 public pay to •top a ~or corporate poUueer l'rom polluUn1. 

n-e bUll are aot the Governor of Alaska'• bllll, and the7 do eot contain the 1pecUic 

condltloo.t be laid dowa for 1upportloe a KPC contract exteaalon. 

The Bills; 

• Mandat1 incrtGud cltarcuaint, ruarrll1ss o(imeacts ro anr oth1r Tongass rnouru. Tbe 

b61s force lllc FCR&t ~ 10 provide an avera&e oC 192.5 mDiioll boud feel (mmbl) yearly 10 

KPC, &Dd Rqllire KPC 10 CUI it, f'llanll• af imptlell to ~a-.ni41 CNI spoff jis1Nn1, lwlllin1, 

svbsisWICI, IOtuiswl, r«I'Nliott,fisll •114 wiiiJJif• /tdi~M. na 1140 mmbt bilber lhao KPCs 

15-year averaJe &nDual CUI of 159 mmbf. Tills ••IU c -NIIIJ1 for c 1014/ of"«<rl, ISO,()()O 

«rl6 af ~IHI'tlla-ll,,IIJf footWJWM of~~-. ., S,lOIJ footlJGJI Ji•l4s of ~llucllb t 

~ tit• ,._,of til• IU '-t-1' Nbcforat. 

• Gprantee buce amovnl1 oC timber 10 kup KPC In bll!lnep.ata proOl ptnnamdt. 

• Allow L-P 10 lq)lace lllc pulp mill wilh a dilfeRnl facilily usia& pulp lop u a oompooen~evea if it 

providc:s fewer jobl-&lld J114rvlllu tllal M 1!!!J1tU wlrgt killllqfmj/1 KlC d«illq tb 11111, tilt 

Forqt Strvicl IIIII# ero¥id1 KlC tim&,. fl «!'!!If rfult dgq 1!91 pfgu tbt £9"'""' Ill 1 

•romettitivt llistldwznt.llc•• f9 • similar 111UI l!! til! f•cllk N91fltwpt. 11als coolcl torce the 

Forest Stnb 14 aU Tooa .. old-srowtll ~for die prtce eC PNW nw materials sucb as 

IW)'ded newspapen or .. _II waste-«- tvta lfve refllndl Co keep KPC competiUve. 11als 

8Dpncecleated, opeo•aded aovtnlmtalsubsldy wiD cost America a taxpaytn blllloDS. 

• Exteod lbe curreol conblCilenu by 15 years &Dd RqUIR lbe contract 10 iDclude a :U.year m.as1er 

plan, scllcdulin& KPC loggill&lhroucb 2n19. Ooce ill place, lbe Fon:s1 Service cannot chance Ill is 

plan unless L-P tJRCS. 1bc Forest Service must prepan; this bind in& 23-xear sd!edule wjlhin <CS 

days. wilhoul pybllc !nYO!vement 1be Tongass Land Manaaemcnl Plan must conform wilh lbe 

KPC plan. This means lhe KPC ronlract w61 ronlrol all furure Fon:sl Service Toneass plannine. 

• ElimiMie the Forcsl Service's ri&btiO ltrminale the contract foe environmental damage, or modify 

the ronlrat! !0 teDett new eovironmenlal tegulallons, unless L-P agrees. But, if lhc Fon:sl Service 

and L-P agru,lhey can change (or worsen) the rontractlerrns wilhoul Congressional approval. 

• Elimioalt the T11tA RqUiRmeot for KPC !0 pay rates comparable to lOOse paid by independent 

Tongass limber purchasers and give KPC quality and price advanlages over all olhcr purchasers. 

for furtlser information, contact the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) 

Juneau, AX: 907-586·6942 Washington, DC: 202·54UJ475 
Mr. Chairman, 

105 

Suutheast Alaska Couservation Council 

SEACC 419 6th Street, Suite 328, Juneau, AK 99801 

(907) 586-6942 phone (907) 463·3312 fax 

OF 

TIM BRISTOL, GRASSROOTS ORGANIZER 

SOUfHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

HEARING ON H.R. Z413, 

THE TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSmON ACT 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. HOUSE RESOURCE COMMITTEE 

IN THORNE BAY, ALASKA, JULYS, 1996 

email: seacc@alaska.nel 

My name is Tim Bristol, grassroots organizer for the Southeast Alaska Conservation 

Council. For the record, SEACC has already submiued more than 24 pages ofwriuen 

testimony to this Commiuee on your wrong-headed bill. 

[Remainder of statement was the same as Robert E. Lindekugel.] 
FINAL 

106 

STATEMENT OF 

GARY MORRISON, FOREST SUPERVISOR 

BRAD POWELL, FOREST SUPERVISOR 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

House Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

concerning H.R. 2413, a bill, 

"To Transfer the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska" 

Sitka, Alaska - July 3, 1996 

Thorne Bay, Alaska - July 5, 1996 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss the management of the Tongass National Forest and 

present the Administration's views on H.R. 2413, a bill, "to 

transfer the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska." 

The Department of Agriculture strongly opposes enactment of 

H.R. 2413. 

Our opposition rests on both philosophical and pragmatic 

grounds. Let me outline our position. 
107 

National F~-ests Belong to All Americans 

For over 100 years, during good economic times and bad, public 

lands have been a source of the goods and services that supply 

local and regional economic growth and diversity. Public 

resources have helped build a nation with affordable recreation, 

wood, fish and wildlife, energy and water. They have been the 

basis for environmental health, yielding clean air and water for 

generations. 

The National Forest System, covering more than 191 million acres, 

is an important part of the these public lands. Gifford Pinchot, 

first Chief of the Forest Service, set down an operating 

philosophy that is as appropriate today as it was when the agency 

was established. The National Forests are managed "for the 

greatest good for the greatest number in the long run." Be it 

the Shasta National Forest in California, the White Mountain 

National Forest in New Hampshire or the Tongass National Forest 

in Alaska, each is managed for the benefit of all Americans. 

By and large, Forest Service stewardship of this priceless 

resource has been a resounding success. Through multiple use 

management, a concept that balances environmental health with 

human needs, the National Forests have provided substantial 

economic benefits to surrounding communities. By basing 

management on the best available science, we have been able to 

refine land management practices to better protect and produce a 

2 
108 

full range vf resources wildlife and fish, recreation 

opportunities, and timber. 

We recognize that some people disagree with certain aspects of 

current management efforts. Some believe that we cut too much 

timber or, conversely, that we place too little emphasis on 

timber products. We are dealing with these perceptions through 

improved science and more effective public involvement in the 

decision-making process. We strongly urge you not to pursue a 

policy that would lead to the dismemberment of the National 

Forest System but, instead, recognize that conflict and 

controversy are inherent parts of natural resource management 

which cannot be "fixed" by shifting responsibility form Federal 

to state management. 

Effects of H.R. 2413 to the Economy of Southeast Alaska 

The economies of Southeast Alaska are in transition. The 

communities and the increasingly diverse businesses of the region 

need assurance of a stable supply of all the goods and services 

produced by the Tongass. The Clinton Administration recognizes 

the vital role that natural resources play in the economy of the 

region and is committed to the economy of southeast Alaska and to 

providing a sustainable and dependable supply of timber and other 

resources from the Tongass to the communities and businesses of 

Southeast Alaska. The proposed legislation, however, would 

adversely effect efforts toward accomplishing economic stability 

3 
109 

and, conveL-~ly, create additional economic uncertainty. 

H.R. 2413 would undo the long established working relationship 

the Forest Service has developed with the State of Alaska, local 

governments, and Alaska natives. From management of cultural 

resources to road maintenance, the Forest Service works with a 

variety of local interests to ensure the natural and cultural 

resources of Alaska are well maintained. Discontinuing these 

relationships will hamper the technical and financial ability of 

partners to manage certain resources and activities ranging from 

municipal watershed management to cooperative recreation 

planning. 

The Tongass is an ecological treasure--a vast expanse of 

temperate rain forest. Recognizing its value, the American 

public has invested major financial resources in the Tongass to 

ensure the wise and judicious use of all its natural resources. 

This in turn has greatly contributed directly and indirectly to 

the growth of the Southeast Alaskan economy and the health of our 

nation. For instance, the Forest Service, in cooperation with 

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the fishing industry, 

has invested more than $8 million of Federal money in fish passes 

and other habitat improvement structures in the last 15 years. 

We estimate that this is creating more than $17 million worth of 

additional salmon each year for commercial, sport and subsistence 

fishing activities. The Forest Service has worked hard to assure 

sustained growth in all sectors of the economy. The investment 

4 
110 

in programs and infrastructure the taxpayers of this country have 

made to the resources of the Tongass and the economy of Alaska 

since the Tongass was established in 1907 is substantial. Even 

if transfer of the Tongass made sense from a management 

standpoint, the Administration would object to relinquishing 17 

million acres of valuable federal property and improvements 

without adequate compensation to the federal treasury. 

H.R. 2413 would also change the flow of economic benefits that 

Forest Service programs have created for the 33 communities and 

local governments within the Tongass. The Forest Service shares 

25% of all revenues from timber sales and other activities on the 

national forests . In 1995 this amounted to $7.6 million. Of 

this total, the city of Wrangell alone received $536,000 and 

Ketchikan received $337,000. For both these cities, as for the 

other communities in Southeast Alaska, these revenues are a key 

component of local government finances. If they were diminished 

or lost, the alternative for most communities might be to raise 

taxes, cut back on services, or both. 

The economy of Alaska would further be affected by the loss of an 

estimated $60 to $80 million per year the federal government 

spends to operate programs on the Tongass at the current level. 

The cost of managing the Tongass will remain relatively unchanged 

if H.R. 2413 is enacted. Yet the loss of this influx of federal 

money coupled with the additional burden to the State budget is 

certain to prove detrimental to the stability of the Alaskan 

5 
111 

economy. , __ .Jitionally, the revenue generated by the 565 

permanent employees on the Tongass, whose salaries are spent and 

respent in local economies, supporting additional jobs and income 

for the private sector of Alaska, would be foregone. 

The Future 

Historically, issues surrounding the Tongass have been 

contentious. While the Forest Service is proud of all we have 

accomplished over the past 90 years, we don't pretend for a 

moment that everything is perfect. We acknowledge that the 

competing uses desired by our neighbors, partners, and owners has 

dramatically increased the debate surrounding how Federal lands 

should be managed. These conflicting needs and philosophies are, 

perhaps, more keenly felt here in Alaska than anywhere in the 

country. 

We believe, however, that there are many things that we can do to 

improve our relationships with the public and the management.of 

the resources in the coming years: 

1. A better job of reconciling wildlife protection with 

stability in timber supplies. 

There have been proposals from many groups that we should adopt 

additional measures to protect wildlife habitat on the Tongass. 

There have also been petitions to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

6 
112 

to list spc~Les as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act. Responding to these proposals and associated 

litigation, actual or threatened, has made it difficult to 

provide the level of timber supply that the local timber industry 

has wanted and cast doubt in many people's minds about the future 

timber supplies. 

We want to do a better job of reconciling this tension and 

balancing our stewardship obligations. for wildlife habitat with 

the human needs for a healthy and growing economy. We think the 

best way to do this is to complete the Tongass plan revision, 

where this balancing can be considered in the broadest context, 

with the most comprehensive information base, and through the 

widest public participation. The Tongass Forest Supervisors 

released their preferred alternate in April and we expect to make 

a final decision on the Tongass Forest Plan Revision in september 

of this year. 

2. A commitment to a sustainable timber supply . 

Of utmost concern to the Forest Service is establishing a 

sustainable timber supply upon which industry can rely. The 

Forest Service has been working aggressively to expand the 

independent timber sale program. We intend to offer 116 million 

board feet under the independent timber supply program for FY 

1996. 

7 
113 

Additionali., the Forest Service is committea to continuing to 

meet the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) obligation. In FY 1996, 

the Forest Service intends to offer 205 million board feet under 

the terms of the long-term contract. 

With 8 years remaining on KPC's contract, I believe it would be 

valuable to KPC, the Forest Service, and the communities of 

southeast Alaska to work together to assess KPC's future timber 

needs and to attempt to determine from where on the Tongass the 

timber will come . At the same time, the Forest Service intends 

to work with the communities of Southeast Alaska and all of the 

economy to attempt to reduce conflict over timber harvesting and 

thus assure a more predictable and stable timber supply. 

3. Better relationships with Alaska natives. 

We have recently negotiated a memorandum of understanding with 

the Sitka Tribe of Alaska and the Hoonah Indian Association to 

formalize a government-to-government relationship with them. We 

hope we can similarly formalize our relationships with other 

Federally recognized tribes in Alaska. Tongass management 

affects a broad spectrum of the legitimate interests of Alaska 

natives, ranging from subsistence use of forest resources to 

access to the land held by Alaska Native corporations. We have 

worked hard at these relationships but we think we can do better. 

4. Better service to those who seek permits for tourism and 

8 
114 

related act.vities on the Tongass. 

As the tourist industry has grown, we have experienced explosive 

growth in the number of persons seeking permission to carry out 

tourist related business activities on the Tongass. Frankly, the 

growth in requests has far outrun our expectations and far outrun 

the appropriations we receive to evaluate and manage the 

permits. We intend to do better. We have established a task 

team to review the entire permit process to identify 

administrative efficiencies, to speed it up, and to make it more 

convenient for the public--in short, to re-engineer the entire 

permit process. 

Also, we have committed to an improved interagency partnership so 

that the public will be subjected to less bureaucracy and 

improved response to their applications. 

5. Greater efficiency with fewer people and tight·er budgets. 

We are just completing a process to reorganize and downsize the 

Regional Office in Juneau in order to reduce administrative costs 

and get more money to on-the-ground programs throughout Southeast 

Alaska. In the coming years we expect to ·· reexamine work 

processes at all levels of our organization to ensure that we are 

properly configured for the workload and budgetary challenges 

that we think are coming in the balance of this century and the 

opening of the next. We have appointed a special task team to 

9 
115 

chart the ~-~rae for this reexamination, ana we will be sharing 

the results with the public along the way. 

6. Expanding the economic base of Southeast Alaska communities. 

The Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture possess many 

tools for assisting resource dependent communities to diversify 

and expand their economic base. Both financial and technical 

assistance provided by the Department and the Forest Service have 

been utilized extensively in Southeast Alaska. In 1994, the 

Department offered direct assistance to the city of Sitka through 

the creation of a Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) 

area. A coordinator was located in Sitka to work directly with 

community leaders and local industries to help identify means for 

expanding local economic opportunities for the communities. 

Over the last three years, a total of $1.8 million in Forest 

Service rural community assistance (RCA) funds have been 

distributed to twenty communities in Southeast Alaska. In FY 

1995, $500,000 of RCA funds were dedicated to the communities of 

Sitka and Wrangell to help them respond to the impacts of recent 

mill closures. Sitka residents plan to use their half of the 

money to expand and enhance the Thompsen boat harbor. Wrangell 

intends to complete the infrastructure necessary for residential 

development and provide port fill for water-dependent 

development. Also in FY 1995, a one-time appropriation of 

$300,000 was made to the Forest Service to fund a study of 

10 
116 

alternativ~ wood products for manufacture in Sitka. Sitka 

residents are playing an important role in this effort and have 

worked with the Forest Service to design the study and will 

continue to be involved as the work progresses. The first phase 

of the study is scheduled to be completed in March 1996. 

This commitment to the communities of Southeast Alaska will 

continue into the future. In fact, the Forest Service, through 

its RCA program, intends to provide more than $750,000 in grant 

money to resource dependent communities in Alaska in FY 1996. 

The Forest Service was also charged with the distribution of the 

Southeast Alaska Economic Funds through out Southeast Alaska. I 

am pleased to say we are working hard to make these funds 

available to the communities. We have notified eligible 

communites how they can begin receiving their portion of the $110 

million in grants and payments and some communities have already 

received checks. 

7. Strengthening relationships with the State of Alaska. 

Our relationship with the agencies of the State of Alaska have 

never been better, but we will continue to work to enhance them. 

Last summer, the Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, 

met with the Governor, Tony Knowles, and reached an agreement on 

14 points critical to both the State and the Forest Service. I 

ask that a copy of that agreement be made part of the record of 

11 
117 

this heari. _. As we carry out that agreement, we think we will 

raise our relationship to an even higher level of understanding 

and cooperation. 

Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman's visit to Alaska last 

summer also emphasized the importance of this Federal and State 

partnership. 

8. A better job of listening to the people. 

Our first Chief, Gifford Pinchot, gave us the following advice: 

"There are many great interests on the National Forests 

which sometimes conflict a little. They must all be made to 

fit into one another so that the machine runs smoothly as a 

whole. It is often necessary for one man to give way a 

little here, another a little there. But by giving way a 

little at present they both profit by it a great deal in the 

end." 

"National Forests exist today because the people want them. 

To make them accomplish the most good the people themselves 

must make clear how they want them run." 

We still think that is good advice. We intend to redouble our 

efforts at listening to people to make sure we understand how the 

people want the Tongass run. 

12 
118 

In fact, we have been working intensely to revise the Tongass 

Land Management Plan and continue to involve the public, our 

partners in State Government, and Federal agencies to assure that 

the needs of the people of the Tongass and the United States are 

met in our plan. Public meetings in 32 communities in Southeast 

Alaska, which began May 20, have been completed. Meetings were 

also held in Anchorage, Ak, (June 11) and Washington, D.C. (June 

13). over 400 individuals have given oral testimony and some 

1,000 comments have been received in recent months. These 

comments are in addition to over 10,000 comments already on file 

from previous public reviews. 

Closing 

In closing, let me reiterate that we are proud of the 130 years 

of public ownership of these lands by the people of the United 

States and more than 90 years of resource stewardship by the 

Forest Service and the relationships that we have built with our 

neighbors and our partners, our customers, and our owners. We 

are proud, too, of our accomplishments for the people of· Alaska 

and the resources of the nation. 

The Forest Service has managed and will continue to manage the 

Tongass with public input, scientific and economic analysis, and 

sustainable natural resource practices, while complying with the 

law. We recognize that improvements can be made in our 

13 
119 

management ~ractices, but, as we have shown in our testimony, we 

are working diligently to maximize the value of Tongass National 

Forest to the residents of Southeast Alaska, as well as the other 

owners of the Tongass in the rest of the United States. 

We look forward to hearing from all of the panels of witnesses 

here today and in working with you, Mr. Chairman, and our 

neighbors and owners to enhance the uses and management of the 

resources of the Tongass National Forest. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We would be happy to 

answer any questions you might have. 

14 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Mr. Duane Gibson . 

Fores t 

Service 

U. S . House of Representati vee 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

De ar Mr . Gibson : 

120 

Alaska Region . P . 0.. .Box 2J..6.2.8 ... 

Juneau, AK 99802 -1628 

File Code : 1510 

Date : February 14, 1996 

I n response to your FAX t r ansmittal of February 10, we have updated the 

following informati on . 

Question 1: •Please list the total number of private iridiVidu8J:a ~roye -· 

directly and indirectly in the timber industry on the Tongass at 

the date of enactment of 'rrRA and now. • 

Response : 

199 0 

1995 

Southeast Alaska Timber Industry Employment 

~ 

3 , 543 

2,002 

Indirect 

2, 570 

1,461 

Total 

6,113 

3, 463 

Source : FY 1995 Timber Supply and Demand Report , Alaska Department of Labor 

1990 

1995 

Tongass National Forest related Timber Employment 

~ 

2 , 442 

1 , 385 

Indirect 

1, 783 

1, 011 

I2lli 

4' 225 

2,396 

Source: FY 1995 Timber Supply and Demand Report, Alaska Depa rtme nt of Labor 

Question 2 : •Please detail the status of mills dependent upon public timber 

at the time of enactment and oow. Please include the mill 

capacity and actual operation levels. • 

Caring for the Land and Serving People 

PriMed on Recycled Paper A Fs.62Q0..28b (1m3) ,., 
121 

Mr. Duane Gibson 

Response: 

1990 Timber Processing Faeilit;ies in Southeast Alo.Pk:a 

Log Processing Capacity CMMSF/yrl 

Chilkoot Mill 1 Haines 

Klawock Mill, Klawock 

APC Pulp Mill 

APC Wrangell Sawmill 

KPC Pulp Mill 

KPC Ketchikan Sawmill 

KPC Annette Island Sa~ill 

Seley Sawmill 

50 

70 

170 

110 

190 

40 

70 

10 

TOTAL 

Mise. Small Mills ~ 

730 

Level of OOeration 

"' 63\ 

86\ 

45\ 

91\ 

82\ 

sot 

90\ 

Sporadic 

Source : Draft discussion pape r entitled "Structure of the Wood Products 

Industry 1989-1990 " 1 R10 EPB . 

1995 Timber Processing Facilities in Southeast Alaska 

Log Processing Capacity (MMBF / yrl 

Viking Lumber, Klawock 

KPC Pulp Mill 

KPC Ketchikan Sawmill 

KPC Annette Island Sawmill 

Seley Sawmill 

30* 

190 

50 

60 

35 

Level of OOeration 

60t 

76t 

GOt 

83t 

86t 

Misc . Small Mills _u 

427 

Sporadic 

TOTAL 

Source : FY 1995 Timber Supply and Demand Report 

• C&pacity of sawmill only . Viking lumber also operates a whole-log c h ipping 

facility. 

Question 3&: •Please list the number of Forest Service eaployeea on the 

Tongaas Rational Forest at TrRA enactD.e.at and now. 

Add.itiooally,. please specify the number of biologists, 

engineers, and timber staff then and now •.• • 

Response: The information provided below was taken from the Region l.O FY 1996 

Briefing Book.. "nle listings do not include Jnany of our seasonal 

personnel . Our numbers may grow by 200 or more when peak season 

requires more campground maintenance, visitor information 

specialists, or timber support. The numbers reported are Region 10 

permanent employees Q!!ly and do not include FSL. 'I'hese are numbers 

of employees and !lQ.t. FTEa . 

1990 

t2tA!_ 

812 

~i2l29:i§ts ~ ~ ~ 

121 132 206 353 

1993 978 195 144 241 398 

1995 881 184 129 223 345 

1996 879 192 122 208 357 
122 

Mr. Duane Gibson 

Questioa 3b: • • and the values per MHBF by species. • 

Response: values are usually expressed in $/MBF 

Average harvest value from CUt and Sold Report comparing CY 1990 with CY 1995: 

Species Calendar Year 1990 Calendar Year 1995 

$/I'IBF MMBF $/I'IBF MMBF 

Sawlgg :iAllla 

Alaska Cedar $515.90 25.1 $685.38 13.9 

Sitka Spruce $337 . 81 109.3 $244.06 40.3 

Western Redcedar $129.59 36.8 $214.75 13.4 

Western Hemlock $83 . 55 230 . 3 $13.44 91.5 

Utilj.~ lQg ~1~ 

Sitka Spruce $1.20 12.9 $247 . 43 7 . 5 

Western Hemlock $1.30 58.2 $15.08 57.5 

Total Average Value $156.52 472.6 $116.88 224 . 1 

Value includes cost of roads. 

Question 4a: •Please provide the annual expenditures of the Forest Service 

(Al.aska Region) at the time of enactment and now. • 

Response: 1990 

199• 

$ 88,079,393 

$113.325.866 

1995 $107,549,100 

Source: Year-end financial report . 

Question 4b: •Also, the volumes of timber offered and sold. • 

Response: 

Timber 

~ 

Offered and Sold on the Tongass <MMBF Sawloa + Utility} 

~ Total Offer Sold/Releo.ae 

19~0 385 22 407 313 

1995 327 327 261 

Source: Tongo.aa Timber Synopaia 1980-1994, RO-TM, FY 1995 Timber Supply and 

Demand Report 

Questicm. S: •Please provide a breakdown of the Forest Service workforce, 

specifically, the numbers of employees in the field versus the 

of.&i.Qe•. 

.u..u Regional Office 195 

Chugach National Forest 119 

Tongass National Forest ~ 

Total Alaska Region 879 

Source: FY 1996 Briefing Book, Admin 9B 
123 

Mr. Duane Gibson 

Xt ia difficult to separate field employees from office employ ees. All of our 

field personnel at one time or another perform tasks in the office , and. many 

of our office personnel travel to the field for various tasks connected to 

their jobs. What we have provided is a breakdown of employee• who work out of 

or are supervised from the Regional Office, and the remainder of the total, 

who work under the Tongass National Forest and/or the Chugach Nati onal Forest. 

Again, these figures are 1) number of employees, J12t F'l"Ba; 2) RlO p e xmanent 

employees only, excluding PSL; and 3) exclusive of temporary employees . 

We hope we have been of assistance in providing these facts and figures . 

Should you need more information, we shall be happy to accouutodate . 

Since rely, 

cc : 

wo (1510 , 192 0, 2400) 

RO CS 
-~-

124 

Alaska Region P . O. Box 21628 

·r··r. '( .. ) I 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service Juneau, AK 99802-1628 

Honorable Don Young 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congre ssman Young: 

File Code: 1510 

Date' IMR 2 0 1995 

In response to your letter of March 5, 1995 , we have compi led the foll owing 

information using your question format as a guideline. 

Question 1: "Please list the total nwnber of private individuals employed 

dire ctly and indirectly in the timber industry on the Tongass at 

the date of enactment of TrRA and now. 11 

Response: 

1990 

1994 

Southeast Alaska Timbe r Industry Employment 

Direct 

31543 

2, 000 

~ 

2, 570 

1,460 

I2!M 

6,113 

3,460 {after wrangell mill closure) 

Source: FY 1994 Timber Supply and Demand Report, Alaska Department of Labor 

lSSV 

1994 

Tonga.ss National Forest related Timber Emp loyment 

ll.i= 

~. 44:t: 

1, 434 

~ 

1, 783 

1, 047 

I2!M 

4, 225 

2,481 

Source: FY 1994 Timher Supply and Demand Report, Alaska De partment of Labor 

Question 2: •Please detail the status of mills dependent upon public timber 

at the time of enactment and now. Please include the mill 

capacity and actual operation levels. • 

Caring for the Land and Serving People 
125 

Response: 

1990 Timber Processing Facilities in Southeast Alaska 

Loa Processing Capacity fMMBF/yr) 

Chilkoot Mill, Haines 

Klawock Mill, Klawock 

APC Pulp Mill 

APC wrangell Sawmill 

KPC Pulp Mill 

KPC Ketchikan Sawmill 

50 

70 

170 

uo 

190 

40 

KPC Annette Island Sawmill 70 

Seley Sawmill 

~ 

10 

730 

Mise. Small Mills 

TOTAL 

Leyel of OOeration 

66t 

63\ 

86\ 

45\ 

91\ 

82\ 

80\ 

90\ 

Sporadic 

source: Draft discussion paper entitled "Structure of the Wood Products 

Industry 1989-1990 " , RlO EPB. 

1994 Timber Processing Facilities in Southeast Alaska 

Log Processing Capacity (MMBF/yr) Level of Ooeration 

Viking Lumber, Klawock 

APC wrangell Sawmill 

Metlakatla Indian Tribe 

Saxman Wood Products 

KPC Pulp Mill 

KPC Ketchikan Sawmill 

KPC Annette Island Sawmill 

Seley Sawmill 

Pacific Rim Cedar 

Misc. Small Mills 

TOTAL 

70 

110 

10 

10 

190 

40 

70 

30 

10 

...ll 

589 

New ownership-under construction 

FY94 

64t in FY94, closed as of Nov 1994 

Under construction in FY94 

Closed most of FY94 SO\ 

1in 

lOOt 

89\ 

83\ 

60\ 

Sporadic 

Source: FY 1994 Timber Supply and Demand Report 

Question 3a: "Please list the number of Forest Service employees on the 

Tongass National Forest at Tl'RA enactment and now . 

Additionally, please specify the number of biologists, 

engineers, and timber staff then and now . . . • 

Response: The in! ormation provided below was taken from Forest Service 

position organization listing as of February, 1990 ami 1994, 

respectively. The listings do not include many of our seasonal 

personnel who would show Up in the summer months. 

1990 

1994 

~ 

759 

762 

Biologists 

157 

140 

~ 

109 

94 

~ 

226 

205 
126 

Question 3b: . . aod the values per MHBF by species. • 

Response: Values are usually expressed in $/MBF 

Average harvest value from Cut and Sold Report comparing CY 1990 with CY 1994: 

Species Calendar Year 1990 Calendar Year 1994 

$/MBF MMBF $/MBF MMBF 

SawlQg Vill!.!:~ 

Alaska Cedar $515 . 90 25.1 $723.91 23 .s Sitka Spruce $337 . 81 109.3 $346.11 45.1 

western Redcedar $129 . 59 36.8 $473.98 20 .5 

Western Hemlock $83 . 55 230.3 $20.65 112.0 

Ytilit~ 1&!9 V~:t!!e 

Sitka Spruce $1.20 12.9 $287.30 9. 0 

Western Hemlock $1.30 58.2 $23.71 39.0 

Total Average Value $156 . 52 472.6 $193.33 249.1 

Value includes cost of roads . 

Question 4a: "Please provide the annual expenditures of the Forest Service 

(Alaska Region) at the time of enactment and now. " 

Response: 1990 $ sa, 079,393 

1994 $113,325,866 

Question 4b: "Also, the volumes of timber offered and sold." 

Response : 

Timber Offered and Sold on the Tongass IMMBF sawloa + Utility} 

New Offer ~ Total Offer Sold/Release 

1990 385 22 407 313 

1994 307 30 337 268 

Source: Tong ass Timber Synopsis 1980-1994, RO-TM 

Question 5: "Please provide a breakdown of the Forest Service workforce, 

specifically, the numbers of eqlloyees in the field versus the 

office•. 

Regional Office 

Chugach National Forest 

Tongasa National Forest 

Total Alaska Region 

196 

172 

--2.ll 

1, 130 
127 

1& is difficult to separate field employees from office employees. All of our 

field personnel at one time or another perfono. tasks in the offic~. and many 

of our office personnel travel to the field for various tasks connected to 

their jobs. Wbat we have provided is a breakdown of employees who work out of 

or are supervised from the Regional Office, and the remainder of the total , 

who work unde r the Tongass National Forest and/or the Chugach National Fore st . 

We hope we have been of assistance in providing these facts and figures . 

Should you need more information, we shall be happy to accomnodate . 

Sincerely, 
128 

MEMO 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Governor Tony Knowles 

Alaska Forest Association 

TTRA Legislative History: Promises Made Regarding Jobs 

August 9, 1995 

• 136 Cong. Rec. H\2, 832-840 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990). 

"I am very proud of the fact that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller) and others in 

the House and Senate worked together to do some things that are going to allow the timber industry 

to coexist with the fishing industry and tourism ... " Hl2, 839 (statement of Rep. Mrazek). 

H.R. 987 is a "compromise that I think recognizes the diverse constituency around the 

Tongass and the multiple uses necessary in the Tongass so that all Alaskans may benefit from this 

legislation,' from those who enjoy it to those who must make their living within the Tongass." H12, 

833 (statement of Rep. Miller). 

• 136 Cong. Rec. Sl7, 995-999 (daily ed. June 12,1990). 

The conference agreement on H.R. 987 "protects key fisheries and wildlife habitat. And, 

importantly, the conference agreement retains a ~iable, healthy timber industry." S 17,996 

(statement of Sen. Johnston). 

• 136 Cong. Rec. S7729-S7819 (daily ed. June 12, 1990). 

"On March 7, Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources came to a 

compromise solution for this, which I believe is fair to all interests, and serves well both the 

environment and the jobs left in Alaska." S7730 (statement of Sen. Johnston). 

"This proposal sought to provide for a better balance between the commodity and 

noncommodity resources of the forest while protecting the local economy from economic 

disruption." S7730 (statement of Sen. Johnston). 

"I think we reached a very reasonable compromise on this piece oflegislation .... One would 

not want it to appear that somehow this legislation runs counter to the economic needs or desires of 

southeast Alaska." S7735 (statement of Sen. Wirth). 
129 

Governor Tony Knowles Page2 August 9, 1995 

"I believe this is a balanced bill that will adequately protect this majestic national forest in 

Alaska while assuring a sustainable supply of timber for current and future needs." 87754 

(statement of Sen. Bingaman). 

This legislation "recognizes that some areas should be protected while others should be 

managed for a sustainable supply of timber." S7754 (statement of Sen. Bingaman). 

• Actio Amend the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, to Designate Certain 

Lands in the Tongass National Forest as Wilderness, and for Other Purposes: Hearings on 

HR. 987 Before the Subcomm. on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests of the Senate 

Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources (pt. 3), lOis! Cong., 2d Sess. (1990). 

"I think it is important to state that H.R. 987 does not mean loss ofTongass timber jobs." 

M. at 119 (statement ofK.J. Metcalf, SEACC) .. 

"[Nlo existing Tongass-dependent timber jobs would be lost by comprehensive legislation." 

J.Q. at 123 (statement ofK.J. Metcalf, SEACC). ' 

. ' 

"We do not feel that"'.; ~sition is anti-logging, that logging is bad. What we are trying to 

get is the prudent management." ·Ill. at 162 (statement of K. Troh, Southeast Alaska S.elners 

Association). ·' 

"It has never been our intention to close the pulp mills !hrough H.R. 987, and I do not think 

that they would be closed." IQ. at 309 (statement ofK.J. Metcalf, SEACC). 

Based on Forest Service figures, "SEACC believes H.R. 987 would have no impact on l 

existing Tongass-dependent timber jobs." IQ. at 348 (statement of Bart Koehler, SEACC). _J 

• 135 Cong. Rec. H3689-H3705 (daily ed. July 13, 1989). 

"The new wilderness areas will not affect the ability to meet industry demand in the 

Tongass." H3684 (statement of Rep. Miller). 

" ... certainly it is not the intention, my intention as the original sponsor of the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act, to drive the timber industry out of southeast Alaska." H3684 

(statement of Rep. Mrazek). 

• House Rules Committee Transcript (undated exerpt) 

f 
130 

Governor Tony Knowles Page 3 August 9, 1995 

"The timber will still be available." ld. at 42 (statement of Rep. Miller). 

"I am very much aware i~is very easy to roll over the Rep~sentativ~ from-Alaska, because +-

it is a throwaway vote for everybody else in the lower 48. This i"sn 't aqout closihg the mills. This 

isn't about l~g up the timber so-they ~·t have it. This is.simply sayinf we ought-mngag2 in · 

modem practices.'~. ld. at 50 (s~terpent of_ Rep. ~iller). 1 1

· 

"The timber will be there. It will be there in almost double the amounts they have ever cut. 

They will have to compete for it on the open market like everybody else and take into consideration 

other economic things.'' ld. at 50 (statement of Rep. Miller). 

• Senate Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, Tongass Timber Reform Act, S. Rep. No. 

261, lOJst Cong., 2d Sess. (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6232. 

" ... the Committee has adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 987, 

which seeks to improve management of the Tongass by balancing the commodity and 

noncommodity resources of the forest in a manner which will not harm nor destabilize the local 

economy." S. Rep. No. 261, at 9. 

"The designation of 23 additional areas would have a minimal impact on the local timber 

industry." S. Rep. No. 261 , at 31 (additional views of Senators Metzenbaum and Bradley). 

• Acts to Reform the Tongass Timber Supply Fund, and to Amend the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act and for Other Purposes: Hearings on S.237 and S. 346 Before the 

Subcomm. on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests of the &nate Comm. on Energy and 

Natural Resources (pt. 2), 101 st Cong. I st Sess. ( 1989). 

"It is not my intent to stop timber harvest on the Tongass National Forest, or to close the 

mills in Ketchikan and Sitka, nor do I think that will happen." ld. at 3 (statement of Sen. Wirth). 

"I was struck by a number of panelists saying that if the Wirth bill passes the mills are going 

to close down. Is there a position in the legislation that says that the mills are going to be closed 

down? The answer to that is no.'' ld. at 66 (statement of Sen. Wirth). 

"I think also it is unfortunate that some people in the timber industry said they were going 

to have 30 percent unemployment or 40 or 50 percent unemployment if this legislation passes." 

ld- at 66 (statement of Sen. Wirth). 
131 

Governor Tony Knowles Page4 August 9, 1995 

"I just wanted for the record to point that out so everybody understands it, that there is no 

provision in the legislation that says that mills are going to be closed down. They will compete like 

other mills but there is nothing that says that they will be closed down." Ill. at 66 (statement of Sen. 

Wirth). 

"The timber industry is also an important source of renewable resource income in southeast 

Alaska and always will be. Our interest is not to put our fiiends and neighbors out of work but rather 

we want the Forest Service to provide adequate protection of fish rearing and spawning habitat 

which is critical to the survival of the fishing industry." Ill. at 112 (statement of Kate Graham, 

UFA). 

"We are not asking that the timber industry be done away with as we feel it is also important 

and vital to the economy of southeast Alaska but we want multiple-use protection." Ill. at 115 

(statement of Kay Andrew, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association). 

"Senate Bill346 would not weaken the timber industry, but rather provides the best for all. 

The legislation provides protection for areas valuable to the wilderness recreation and visitor 

industry but it still provides latitude for increased timber harvest." Ill. at 131 (statement of Dale 

Pihlman, ADFG). 

"I can say that the Tongass Timber Reform Act will not effect Tongass timber dependent 

employment." Ill. at 208 (statement of Joseph R. Mehrkens, Southeast Alaska Natural Resources 

Center). · 

"Under the Tongass Timber Reform Act there will be a sufficient timber supply to meet 

timber demands into the foreseeable future." Ill. at 213 (statement of Joseph R. Mehrkens, 

Southeast Alaska Natural Resources Center). 

"Senator Wirth's bill would remove fifty million board feet a year from the Tongass timber 

base for the protection of other forest values such as tourism, commercial fishing, and subsistence. 

The bill would also leave the forest products industry with 400 million board feet a year to harvest --

enough to preserve all current logging-related jobs based on past cutting levels." Ill. at 410 

(statement of Mark Kirchhoff, Port Alexander). 

"Let me set the record straight. Yesterday, we had a number of comments saying that 

people's livelihood was going to be destroyed, jobs were going to be taken away, the whole 

economic fabric of Southeast Alaska was going to fall apart. If the mills were forced to close down, 

all this would tum into wilderness, and the timber industry would stop. There is no provision in the 

bill that says we are going to shut down the timber industry." Ill. at 423 (statement of Sen. Wirth). 
132 

Governor Tony Knowles August 9, 1995 

• Act to Amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, to Designate Certain 

Lands in the Tongass National Forest as Wilderness, and for Other Purposes: Hearin son 

!f.R. 987 Before the Subcomm. on Water, Power, and Offshore Energy Resources o e 

House.Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, !Olst Cong., 1st Sess. (1989). 

"One of the questions that has been raised relates to whether the cancellation of the long-term 

contracts with Alaska Pulp and Louisiana Pacific would put the pulp mills out of business. I think 

it is important to understand that that is certainly not my intent as primary sponsor of the legislation. 

Certainly there would be plenty of available timber, regardless of whether this legislation passes --

if this legislation were to pass-- available timber for use by the pulp mills." ld. at 12 (statement 

of Rep. Mrazek). 

"Finally, I want to suggest that the questions that have been raised by the Alaska delegation, 

as to whether this legislation is intended to drive the timber industry out of business inside Alaska, 

I would like to state for the record and for the people who live in southeast Alaska that I think there 

can be a harmonious relationship between commercial fishing, tourism and the timber industry." 

!d. at 12 (statement of Rep. Mrazek). 

"First let me say that we're as concerned as anyone ilj,lhis room with the need to maintainJ 

a healthy economy and a stable timber industry in southeast Alaska." lli. at 22 (statement of Larry 

Edwards, SEACC). --

'·If all 22 areas in H.R. 987 are permanently protected, the legislation would reduce the] 

scheduled timber harvest by only II percent. That still provides enough timber for the Tongassdependent timber industry to continue at current levels and even to expand." ld. at 23 (statement 

of Larry Edwards, SEACC). 

------ "H R 987 IS JOB NE!!TRA!.. Passage of H.R. 987 will have no effect on the number of 

jobs in the Tongass-dependent timber industry of southeast Alaska." ld. at 56 (statement of Larry 

Edwards, SEACC). 

Rep. Young: "What happens if[the Sitka] mill shuts down? 

Larry Edwards: "It's not going to. I mean, we're not going to affect the timber base." ld. 

at 77. 

"The timber industry is also an important source of renewable resource income in southeast 

Alaska. Many of our friends and even commercial fishermen are involved in the forest products 

industry and we want them to be provided the opportunity to make a living." ld. at 607 (statement 

of Earl E. Krygier, Alaska Trollers Association). 
133 

Governor Tony Knowles Page6 August 9, 1995 

• Acts to Reform the Tongass Timber Supply Fund, and to Amend the Alaslw National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act and for Other Purposes: Hearings on S. 237 and S. 346 Before the 

Subcomm. On Public Lands, National Parks and Forests of the Senate Comm. on Energy and 

Natural Resources(pt.l ), 10 I st Cong., I st Sess. (1989). 

Adoption of S. 346 "would not limit the ability of timber operators to purchase ample 

volumes of timber, to operate wood processing facilities, or to employ Alaskans." !l1. at 128 

(statement of Larry Edwards, SEACC). 

"S 346 IS JOB NE!!JRAL. Passage of S. 346 will have no effect on the number of jobs in 

the Tongass-dependent timber industry in southeast Alaska." !l1. at !50 (statement of Larry 

Edwards, SEACC). 

• Act to Require Annual Appropriations of Funds Necessary to Support Timber Management 

and Resource Conservation on the Tongass National Forest: Hearings on H.R. I 5 I 6 Before 

the Subcomm. on Energy and the Environment of the House Comm. on Interior and Insular 

Affairs, IOOth Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). 

"I think it is fair to say that all of us are concerned about southeast Alaska and we are 

concerned about jobs. I certainly don't have any antitimber feelings or attitudes." Il1. at 10 

(statement of Rep. Mrazek). 

"Personally, I am not opposed to logging. !.can agree with meeting on the marketplace." 

Il1. at 75 (statement of Ms. Kaden, Alaska Discovery Tours). 

The TTRA (H.R. 1516) "would not limit the ability of timber operators to purchase amp j volumes of timber, to operate wood processing facilities, or to employ Alaskans." Il1. at 23 

(statement of K.J. Metcalf, SEACC). 

"I want to clearly emphasize that the Territorial Sportsmen are not opposed to logging an~ that we support sound development which enhances the economy of Alaska." !l1. at 365 (statement 

ofJack Lentfer, Territorial Sportsmen). . . 

"UF A believes that it is important to Southeast Alaska to have a vital timber industry there. 

Not only does it support the general economy of the region, but it also helps provide necessary jobs 

and support services." !l1. at 614 (statement of Kate Graham, UFA). 

"We believe that a reasonable timber harvest program on the Tongass, coupled with adequate 

investments in fish, wildlife and scenic resources, will build and support business ventures in 
134 

Governor Tony Knowles Page? August9, 1995 

Southeast Alaska that can maintain regional employment at current levels." l!i. at 675 (statement 

of Lonnie L. Williamson, Wildlife Management Institute). 
135 

TQNGASS FACT SHEET 

ForcUcd Land 

~~~i~"cf !~:: ~~~~~1 ~~e~:-~u=~Xl~~t in the United States. At 16.99 million acres it is three times the size 

10 million acres of the Tongass are forested with Sitka spruce, westem hemlock and cedar. The remaining 6.9 million acres are covered by rocks, ice and muskeg. 

Of the 10 million foi'C!Icd acres on the Tongass, 6.4 million qualify as commercial forest land, capable of growing at least twenty cubic feet of wood per acre per year. 

The biological ~lial yield of the Tongass,. the amount oftimber that could be harvested annually without exceeding the forest's annual growth rate, is milch higher- avcragtng 1.295 billion board feet per year. 

Since 1909, only !500,000 acres of the Tongass have ever been harvested. 93%ofall Tongass old growth remains standing today. 

ro~m~~~~~~~7~W~~~o~r~~r=~£ct~ L\ ~cm~t-~~~=~~::1~f,tn~~~ ~~~~f~~~~~;eJKctu= to be harvested over the next 100 to 150 years. 

The remaining 86% of the forest is reserved for non-timber purposes, including 6.3 million acres of wilderness. 

Iong111 Tjmbcr Reform Ac:c 

Congress added I million acres of wilderness as recently as 1990 with the Tongass Timber Refonn Act (TIRA). 

Even with TfRA however, CongreU left 1.7 million acres in the timber base to suQP.Ort Southeast Alaska's limber industry. an industry 

=~~~~~~ ~~l~~~~rmbe~~~"'i~Y!!~~~~fJ~1 1i~~ ~~ ~o:;:g\T.t. ~u&~yroll, personal and corporate income 

~~=~~~:h~~~ ~ ~~ ~=~:do~~~~~!~~the~ri;:'s~~27omf ~s~~~i~ber~~~e'~ofl .? "reserved" for habitat conservation areas where no timber harvesting is allowed. 

Timber Contucb 

~o1~~a:sc!!~~n::e"ro~: ~n~~~~r~~s~~P~~~i~~ ~8;£iff J::~~l~~i!p~si;;vv~~~~J~~~~Tt~~~YJi~~g 1~\me mAlaska. 

od for harvesting timber on the Tongass. Clearcuttinfit'poses soil to the sun, 

~~\~~ :;~i~~i~n~\R~~d~C:\~e r;~fur,:~o!gii~a spruce 

amage to res1 trees. 

!s~~A:s~~~ftfg:~~iW,~o~~J7~~ffi~~~nf~~hi~W~.i ~}f,:~or 20 are experiencing n:duc:ed fish runs. Four of these streams are in areas where logging has 

Wildlife populalions are also on the rise. In 1993 Alaskans.took 13,000 deer from the Tongass- an increase of3,700 over 1991. 

400 

imber Refonn Act. years. The draft vision over. ·The rest's sustainable 

EmNiloyment in the Alaska timber ind~has dro~ from 4,22S in 1990 to 2.396 in 1995, and the number of timber processing 

~~~~~ ~ fri=i~3g~ !~~ ~~ ssW.Jf:.3 fi~t~~~~ fmCft !'l~~~Wfn ~1c:-e has added 69 new permanent employees to the 

~';~fn!:'isnff3lf~eb~~'me ~~xlt9 oy:r~l~~Sfra)~h';•~;-a:d'fg~!:l!is~~ ~j~Je~~1~~ ~ ~~-BF). In 1995 it 

Analysts J?redict that recreation, fishing and tourism employment levels will remain constant-· even if timber harvesting were to be mcreased beyond cum:nt levels. 
136 

July 18, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- Extensions of Remarks E1321 

ALASKANS ARE THE BEST 

STEWARDS OF ALASKA 

LANDS AND RESOURCES 

HON. DON YOUNG OF ALASKA 

IN THE HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Thursday, July 18, 1996 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. 

Speaker, I want to bring the 

attention of my colleagues to a 

guest opinion that appeared in the 

June issue of Resource Review. It 

is by Jake Adams, an lnupiat 

Eskimo who is both a whaling 

captain and president or the Arctic 

Slope Regional Corp. He makes 

the important point that Alaskans 

are the best stewards of Alaska 

lands and resources , not the 

political leaders and activists who 

live here In Washington, DC. The 

text of his opinion follows my 

remarks . Just a~; Eskimo selfregulation under the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission has 

sucxeeded in protecting both the 

Bowhead Whale and the 

communittes that depend on the 

whale for subsistence, I believe 

that the resources of the Tongass 

National Forest will be best 

managed by the State of Alaska, 

as I propose in H.R. 2413. Time 

and time again Alaskans have 

proven their ability to manage their 

resources responsibly, an 

accomplishment, as Mr. Adams 

points out. that Washington, DC, 

cannot claim. I hope that my 

colleagues will read the wise 

words of Mr. Adams. {From the 

Resource Review, June 1g96] 

ALASKA-A PLACE THAT 

WORKS (By Jacob Adams) 

Compared to the rest of the nation, 

Alaskans enjoy a relatively 

untouched, pristine environment. 

This fact has led some people who 

have mismanaged their own 

environment and communities to 

view Alaska as a public museum; 

a place they want to control and 

preserve, untouched and 

suspended in time. This, of 

course, does not woM< well for 

those of us who live in Alaska, 

have ;amilies to support, 

communities to nurture and 

shareholders' economic interests 

to protect and advance. Yet, many 

Alaskans often find that they are 

forced to be major actors in 

contentious national debates over 

the use of public lands and 

resources and, in some cases, 

even their own private lands and 

resources. 

It is a shame that many political 

leaders and activists who live and 

wort< in the middle of the poverty. 

crime and hopelessness of 

Washington, D.C.,-a city that 

does not woM<-are determined to 

second-guess so much of what we Alaskans do and aspire for. 

Alaska, after all, is a place that 

works. We educate our children. 

We meet our people's needs. We 

protect our fish and wildlife. We 

believe in the work ethic. And we 

take care of our poor and 

disadvantaged. Profit is not a dirty 

word in Alaska. Free enterpMse 

works here. It is part of a proud 

American tradition that produces 

income, jobs and tax revenue. It 

improves the quality of people's 

lives. But. it can also be a hard 

task master. Those of us who IWe 

on the North Slope have seen 

some successes and a fair share 

of failures. One success story that 

continues today is the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC). In the late t 970s. the 

lntemattonal Whaling Commission, 

elements of the federal 

government and animal rights ac- tivists pushed hard to terminate 

my people's traditional subsistence 

hunts for the Bowhead Whale. We 

fought those efforts. We proposed 

a system of Eskimo "self-regulation" through AEWC. Who better 

to protect the species and regulate 

the hunt than the people whose 

subsistence and culture is at 

stake? We were successful. 

Today, the whales, our people and 

our cutture are thriving. And we did 

it by ourselves. Self-regulation by 

the parties who stand to lose or 

gain is a concept which should be 

used more by the state and federal 

governments. But. we have also 

seen some failures. ASRC and its 

shareholders-working with the 

State, ROC, Ardic Power and our 

Congressional Delegation, have 

tried very hard since 1987 to open 

the small, oil rtch Coastal Plain 

area of ANWR to oil and gas 

leasing. We own 92,160 acres of 

Coastal Plain land in the huge 19 

million acre Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge. But we are denied the 

benefits of our resources. We are 

prohiMed by federal law from 

producing and using oil or natural 

gas on our privately-owned lands 

in ANWR at the village of Kaktovik. 

Instead, the federal government's 

action means that we must import 

fuel oil to heat village homes and 

generate electricity. Yet. Kaktovik 

sits on the nation's best prospect 

for major new oil and gas 

reserves. We have been fighting 

this issue for nine years. We may 

have to fight for nine or ten more. 

Lifting the Alaska oil export ban 

took 22 years. We will continue to 

push to open the Coastal Plain 

because it is the right thing to do. 

Alaskans are the best stewards of 

our land, our environment and our 

fish and wildlife resources. We 

should be major participants in 

discussions about our future. We 

do not need the failed landlords of 

Washington to dictate their policies 

of failure to us and our children. 

My people have seen ups and we 

have seen downs. But we do not 

dwell on short-term reverses or 

disappointments. In the long run, 

rational thought and the la"ws of 

economics will prevail. The 

fundamental changes taking place 

in Russia, our neighbors to the 

west. were not conceivable ten 

years ago. Alaskans need to have 

staying power. We are in this for 

the long run. 

Jacob Adams is the President of 

the Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation, a member of the 

North Slope BorO<Jgh Assembly 

and a whaling captain in BarllJW". 

Jake also serves on the Board of 

Directors for ROC. 
N 

'I' 

0\ 

~ 

t 

0 

Alaska 

Southeast AK 

1990 

$156,314,686 

$138,921,271 

Timber Industry Wages 

1991 

$139,963,076 

$121 ,001 ,302 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 

Post-ir Fax Note 

1

$136,451 ,

$120,753,


ISBN 0-16-053780-0 

90000 

9 780160 537806