TONGASS NATIONAL 

FOREST 

HEARING 

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 

24--018 .. 

FEBRUARY 15, 1996-WRANGELL, AK 

FEBRUARY 16, 1996-KETCHIKAN, AK 

Serial No. 104-57 

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 0-16-052592-6 
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~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL KlSH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

(Il) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearings held: 

February 15, 1996, Wrangell, AK .... ...... ... .... .... .... ... . ..... .... ..... .... .... .... .. ... . . .. ... 1 

February 16, 1996, Ketchikan, AK ..................... ............................................ 51 

Text ofH.R. 2413 ........................................ .. ........................................................... 121 

Statement of Members: 

Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources .................................... .................. ........................ 1, 51 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baker, Bruce, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council ........ ........................ 32 

Boot~eJ':c~<i~tst:,~Ma.;~~: ·c~~~~ii .. A~:;;~tt~- i~i~;;d~-R~~~~-~:· M~ti;,k~ti~: 143 

AK .................... .. ............................................................ ................................ 106 

Prepared statement .. .... ..... .... .. ... . .... . .... . ... ... .... .. .... .... . .... .... .... ... .... .... .. .... .. 222 

Carlton, Hon. Jim, Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK ...................... 61 

Conley, J.C., Stand Up .. ................................................................................... 76 

Elkins, Jim, Borough Assembly, Ketchikan, AK ........................................... 56, 61 

Fisher, Ed, for Ernesta Ballard, Chamber of Commerce, Ketchikan, AK ... 94 

Hanson, Joel, Wrangell Resource Council ...................................................... 30 

Haughton, Lonnie, troller, Ketchikan, AK ........................... .......................... 92 

Kimbel, Abigail, Tongass National Supervisor, Forest Service .................. 37, 109 

Janik, Phil, Regional Forester, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture 

(prepared statement) .. .... ...... ... ...... .... .... . .... .... .... ... ...... .. .. .. ... ... . .... .... ..... . . .. ... 155 

Leal, Dr. Donald, Political Economy Research Center .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .............. 68 

Prepared statement ......... ............ .................... ......... ................. ................ 170 

Lee, Marilyn, Tongass Sportfishing Association .... .......... .... .... .... .......... ...... .. 86 

Leslie, Jim, Leslie Cutting & Alaska Wafers, Inc. ........................................ 14 

Lewis, Ralph, President, Ketchikan Pulp Corporation .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .... .... .... 7 4 

Prepared statement ...................... ......................... .. ................... ............... 174 

Lietz, Kathi, Thorne Bay, AK ........................................... ......... ...... .... ............ 90 

Lindekugel, Buck, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council ..... .................... 81 

Prepared statement .. . ... . .. .. .... .. .... ... ...... .... ....... ...... .... ... . . .... .... ... .. . . ...... .... .. 185 

Loescher, Bob, Sealaska .. ... .... ...... ... .. .... .... .. ... .... .... .... ..... .... . ........ .... ... ... . .. .... ... 104 

Martin, Roy, Alaskans and Wrangell Workers Coalition .............................. 11 

Martinez, Thomas "Cisco", Chairman, Cape Fox Corporation ..................... 106 

Maynard, Bob, Office of General Counsel, USDA .. .................. .... .... ......... .... . 109 

Mill, Brent, United Paperworkers International Union ................... .... ......... 12 

Miller, Berne C. , Executive Director, Southeast Conference ........................ 65 

Morrison, Gary, Tongass National Supervisor, Forest Service ................... 37, 109 

Muench, Eric, Ketchikan, AK ..................... ..................................................... 96 

Prepared statement .. . . .. . .... ...... ..... .. .. .... .... ... .... ...... .... ... .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .... .. 200 

Phelps, Jack, Alaska Forest Association ........................................................ 26, 77 

Prepared statement ... ................................................................................ 182 

Phillips, Gail, Speaker of the House, Alaska State Legislature ................... 57 

Powell, Brad, Tongass National Forest Supervisor, Forest Service ........... 37, 109 

Privett, Bill, Wrangell Oil .. .... ...... ... ..... ........ .... .... .... ... ...... .... .... ..... .. .... ....... ... .. 20 

Ranniger, Royce, for Geoff Bullock, United Southeast Alaska Gilnetters ... 67 

Roberts, Hon. Doug, Mayor, City of Wrangell, Alaska .................................. 4 

Roberts, Ray, Southeast Alaska ANCSA Lands Acquisition Coalition ........ 102 

Rosier, Carl, Board Member, Territorial Sportsmen (prepared statement). ............................................................................................................. 140 

Sharrard, Jerry, Prince of Wales Citizens' Coalition ..................................... 85 

Skillings, Cliff, Alaska Lumbermen's Association ......................................... 24 

Stanton, Ms., Mayor, Ketchikan, AK .................. ............................................ 51 

(III) 
IV 

Statement of Witnesses--Continued 

Taro, Cliff, Wran~tell Stevedoring Company .................................................. . Taylor, Hon. Robm, an Alaska State senator .............................................. .. Supplemental information and summary .............................................. .. Walk, Fred, Director of Timber Management, Forest Service .................... .. Weihing, Wayne, Tongass Conservation Society ...................................... .... . Williams, Bill, Alaska State Lef' slature ....................................................... . Williams, Lew, III, City Counci Member, Ketchikan, AK .......................... .. Wright, Syd, Petersburg City Council, Representative to the Southeast 

Conference (prepared statement) ....................... ....................... , ................. . 

Additional material supplied: 

Executive Summary: A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Villages .............. .. Forest Service chief calls stable timber supply a myth ................................ . List of individuals who submitted material .................................................. . Newspaper article from the Anchorage Times: N.Y. hypocrites .................. . Tongass Timber Job Losses-Don't Blame the Reform Act ........................ .. 

Communications submitted: 

Alexakos, I.: Letter of February 28, 1996, to Rep. Don Young .................... . Lindekugel, Buck: Letter with attachments of February 29, 1996, to 

Hon. Don Young ........................................................................................... . Withering, J.: Memorandum of May 14, 1995, on National Forests Under 

Attack ........................................................................................................... .. 

Page 

19 

5 

136 

109 

83 

59 

55 

147 

209 

236 

237 

138 

235 

225 

227 

139 
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Wrangell, A.K. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in the 

Wrangell Elks Lodge, Wrangell, 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. Thank you, and you will find out as Chairman 

I try to start things on time and try to finish them on time, as we 

go through the process of hearings. I do this in Washington, D.C., 

and we are operating under the same rules we have been working 

with in D.C. concerning hearings. 

I want to thank all of you for coming, the audience, and the witnesses, especially. Welcome to the first hearing about the Tongass 

held in Alaska by this Committee in 19 years. The Committee met 

here last in July 1977. 

This hearing is on H.R. 2413, the bill I introduced that gives our 

state an option to own the Tongass. My bill unlocks the Tongass 

from its Federal shackles. It gives Alaskans freedom, and it gives 

us control and responsibility. I am proposing the ultimate form of what some call 

empowerment. The bill gives up Federal power. It moves power 

closer to the people. It lets us, as Alaskans, take responsibility for 

what goes on in our own backyard. 

This is not a new idea. We fought the statehood act itself. One 

of the main issues in that battle was taking control of our fisheries 

from the Federal Government and putting it under state control. 

I made this Tongass proposal because I trust Alaskans to make 

decisions about the Tongass without Federal help. Federal decisions have crushed people in communities like Wrangell. Wrangell 

needs family wage jobs now, but the Federal system prefers to dither over whether the Tongass will have three more or three less 

birds 150 years from now in a 17 million acre forest with six plus 

million acres of wilderness. On issues like that, I think Alaskans 

can do a better job. 

My bill comes down to whether Alaskans want choices. Do we, 

as Alaskans, want the choice to control our future in the Tongass, 

or are we happy with the choices made for us by the Federal system? Do we want a continuation of the policies handed down from 

(1) 
2 

Washington, D.C., or can we as Alaskans make better policies? 

These are the basic questions. 

When my bill is enacted and we have the chance to own the 

Tongass, can we be better conservationists? Can we do a better job 

environmentally? Are we capable? Can we manage the Tongass 

more efficiently than the Federal Forest Service? Can we bring free 

market principles to our state-managed Tongass Forest? Will market principles allow Alaskans to develop revenues from tourism, 

recreation, mining, and timber that can help offset declining oil 

revenues? Can we create a system that frees the Tongass of the 

conflict brought about by Federal laws? Can we manage without 

the high Federal costs? I think that the answers to all these questions is yes, and that is why I made my proposal. 

So that Alaskans can address questions like these, my bill gives 

us a clean ·slate. It allows Alaskans to reexamine land allocation 

questions. It allows us to meet Alaskan standards for land management. It proposes a transition to ease the transfer into state ownership. It proposes ways to resolve current Federal issues like landless Native claims. It addresses other Federal issues like what to 

do with Federal mining claims, Federal contracts, and a whole series of Federal issues. The bill gets the feds out of the game and 

brings Alaskans to the table to resolve these problems. 

I realize contracts, permits, and other sensitive relationships 

with the Forest Service need to be protected. My intent is to fully 

protect those relationships so the state would stand in the shoes of 

the old Federal relationships, if Alaska elects to own the Tongass. 

I would like to stress again that my bill is a proposal. It may not 

be perfect, it may not be complete. That is why we are having these 

hearings, and that is why we will have more hearings. I hope to 

learn what you think about the proposal and how I might make the 

proposal better. 

When I introduced the bill on September 28th, I acknowledged 

that transferring the Tongass is a huge task. I realize that hundreds of questions will be thought about. In my 23 years in Congress, I have always counted on the wisdom of Alaskans to help me 

with questions like these. From day one, I said I wanted the benefit of that wisdom. I said we should hold hearings in Alaska to get 

your advice on whether Alaskans was up to the idea of taking control of their own future in the Tongass. 

The indication before I introduced the bill was that Alaskans in 

Southeast were ready to dump the Federal system and favor state 

ownership. Everyone is mad about what goes on in the Tongass: 

Environmentalists sue, timber companies cannot get logs, Federal 

law enforcement harasses people in their cabins, helicopter permits 

are denied. Alaskans are just plain sick over the Federal decisions 

in the Tongass. 

The September 1995 poll of Southeastern confirmed my thoughts: 

55 percent favored transferring the Tongass to the State of Alaska, 

while only 34 percent opposed the idea. In Wrangell, 76 percent favored transfer to the state. Today I am here to test my initial thoughts. Tomorrow I go to 

Ketchikan and get their advice. As I have said, eventually I will 

hold hearings in Southeast in the major communities of Southeast, 
3 

such as Wrangell and Ketchikan, before taking this bill through 

the Committee process. 

I mention this so that Alaskans in other communities in Southeast will not fall for the diversion playing in the media. Where anyone gets the idea I did not intend to hold other hearings in Southeast is beyond me. Those who oppose Alaskan control in Southeast 

promote that game to distract you from the question at hand, 

which is do Alaskans want ownership or control of the Tongass. 

Rest assured, I want plenty of hearings on this bill. 

Perhaps some of the special interests responsible for the diversion should have spoken up when this Committee failed to hold 

hearings in the Tongass on the 1990 Tongass Act, which was supposed to be the final act. Perhaps those interests were more comfortable with Tongass laws being made in Washington, D.C., where 

their big-money headquarters pull the strings. Maybe those groups 

feel threatened by my bill because they fear that if Tongass laws 

are made in Juneau, their cozy Washington, D.C~ leverage vanishes. Perhaps they have no argument on the merits of why Alaskans should not have the option to control their own future using 

Alaskan laws and policies, so they divert attention. 

Enough said about the diversion. 

One final introductory point. I always get questioned about this 

bill: "Can Alaska really have the chance to own the Tongass?" For 

the record, the answer to that question is, in fact, yes, we can. 

Since I have been in Congress, we have been forced to think inside a box. The box was built by the narrow-minded, command control approach of the special interest environmental lobby in Washington, D.C. We have, in fact, been thinking inside the box so long 

we could not imagine that the lid would come off. Fifteen months 

ago, the lid came off the box. For the first time we are looking over 

the edge of the box and imagining the possibilities. My bill is outside the box. 

It is a long-term bill. It will not be enacted overnight. I am here 

today to get your thoughts and build the record that increases the 

chances of this bill becoming law in the long-term. 

The topic today is do Alaskans want Federal control, Federal permits, Federal law enforcement, Federal policies, and the amazing 

Federal results that come from Federal systems or do the Alaskans 

want to own arid control the Tongass? 

I would at this time like to acknowledge-! believe she is in the 

audience-Diane Meyer, are you here? Unfortunately, she is not 

here. She is representing the Governor today. And I would suggest 

respectively, and I will talk to Diane, I asked the Governor to be 

the first witness here today concerning this issue. I hope he understands this is an important issue in the state of Alaska. I have 

talked with him about my bill. He was informed before I introduced 

the bill what we were going to do. As we have these hearings in 

other parts of the state of Alaska, I would urge the Chief Executive 

of this state to appear before this Committee to decide which direction this Governor and this Administration would like to see in 

terms of control of the Tongass National Forest. 

With that opening statement, at this time, I will call the first 

panel, which consists of the Honorable Robin Taylor. Are you here, 
4 

my good Senator friend? And the Honorable Doug Roberts, Mayor 

of the city of Wrangell, Wrangell, Alaska. 

And Mr. Taylor, Senator, sir, if you would take your seat. Mr. 

Mayor, sir, if you would take your seat. 

I am going to try to follow the rules as close as I can, but I know 

you have written testimony to submit to the Committee, and you. 

have done so or will do so. And I also will have a time limitation 

of five minutes, but, in many cases, I can be a little more lenient. But keep in mind that this is a hearing process. We will have all 

your written statements and other statements in the record. 

I would, if I could, Mr. Senator, because he is the Mayor of the 

town, and with your permission, I would like to call the Mayor of 

the city of Wrangell first to make his opening statement for the 

Committee. And, Doug, I do welcome you to the committee hearing 

and thank you for allowing me to come to your great city. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DOUG ROBERTS, MAYOR, CITY 

OF WRANGELL, WRANGELL, ALASKA 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, it is nice to have you back, Congressman. 

The state of Alaska is to anyone that is a true Alaskan a home 

we are all proud of. I support the transfer of the Tongass to the 

State of Alaska. I love the idea of ownership. My mother and father 

were both born and raised in Alaska and my wife's heritage going 

a hell of a lot further back than that. 

Everything that has made this state great is under attack. This 

city, this state is under attack. I have said that before, I will say 

it again. 

The seal of the state represents mining, agriculture, fisheries, 

and oil explorations. Show me one example of that group that is 

not in trouble at this moment. This state is under attack daily by 

outside interests. I have watched my community get pulled in 

every direction imaginable over the last year. They all claim to 

know more than we know. They all claim they know how to manage the Tongass better than we do. And it is just more than timber. The Federal Government has affected every waking moment of our 

lives. 

If you think that transferring the 'rongass is attainable and will 

begin to rebuild this state, then go for it. But on a different note, w~ are in trouble in this community, and we need your help. Some- thin~ ,,; 11 b<>""' to happen "eru 800"' in nr .. ongall 0"' WP. are aoi'"'a ...... .. ... , a . ~ .... ~~ ...__ .,...... .~ ~ .J .. ..._ J.._ ~....._..._ V\ ... c.... ... .... ... .~.., ... ...... ·. C? ....... _o 

t c· ne 1:: 112.rd-.. -Ne are go1ng to !Je up fc:- ve::y hard. ecoa Jmlc t1~nes. 

'·Ne cann0t 2.fford a single wasted :rr:crcte:J.t. v~: !-lave worked. ti:-~

less!y as a. community to begin to pick up the pieces and rebuild. Ar1d to r:J.Y amazement, in the pro<:ess there is resistance from 

Washington that is ever present. Most in Wrangell, if true Alaskans. will refuse to leave Wrangell 

under any circumstances and have literally had their world jerked 

out from underneath their feet on other occasions. But the time for 

accountability is here, and we will be all judged by our actions from 

this moment on. And I suggest that we all get to the point of rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. What affects this community is going to affect this state. 

That is all I have. Thank you. 
5 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I have great interest and sympathy for what you are saying. They are issues, which, 

hQpefully, I will be successful in beihg able to help you pick up 

some of the pieces. Unfortunately, as you know, that even those 

pieces are being objected to by certain groups and certain (cfgencies, 

even to help you pick those pieces up. ~ 

Mr. ROBERTS. I understand. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much cognizant of that. And with 

your help and leadership, I am confident we will address some of 

those immediate issues so we can have the city of Wrangell like 

has been here for many, many, many years. Mr. Senator, good to have you, sir. Nice to have you with us. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ROBIN TAYLOR, ALASKA STATE 

SENATE, JUNEAU, ALASKA 

Mr. TAYLOR. Welcome, Congressman Young. It is wonderful to 

have you back in our community. And I think the most wonderful 

part of all, aside from the bill, is that for the first time in 19 years 

the Resource Committee out of the House of the United States has 

appeared in Alaska to hold hearings. 

I remember flying to Washington, D.C., to have the privilege to 

talk to people from New York about Alaskan issues for the last 19 

years, with nobody willing to bring a hearing, at least to this community or this state. And I share your frustration when I pick up 

the newspaper and I find people with a different political agenda 

conveniently forgetting the. fact that throughout Congressman Miller's reign, of California, this Commit.tee did not show up up here, 

it did not want to hear fr9m Alaskans. But not one single newspaper protested that, and I see your name taken in vain repeatedly 

over the last couple of weeks because you deemed to only hold 

hearings in two communities. They never held a hearing in a single 

one. 

God bless you for coming up, and thank you for doing that. 

Mr. Chairman, my testimony to you and the Members of this 

Committee, I have submitted copies of sufficient number, but for 

the record, my name is Robin Taylor. I am a member of the Alaska 

State Senate, and I was elected to represent the 28,500 people who 

live in Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka, Ketchikan, Saxman, Hyder, 

and Meyers Chuck. My constituency is made up of the people of the 

Tongass. 

I am here today in the town I call home to speak in favor of H.R. 

2413, the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act. 

Last year I sponsored Senate Joint Resolution 6, calling on the 

Congress to turn over to the states all of the federally controlled 

land within their respective borders. SJR 6 passed the 19th Alaska 

State Legislature with only seven dissenting votes. A similar resolution was approved last year by the Western Legislative Timber 

Task Force, an organization of legislators representing six Western 

states. The same call has been issued by the Western States Coalition, a bipartisan group which includes elected officials who represent more than 20 million people in the Western United States. 

We believe the Founding Fathers recognized that land was power 

and that a centralized Federal Government with a substantial land 

base would eventually overwhelm the states. That is why the origi-
6 

nal13 colonies and the next five states admitted to the Union were 

granted fee title to all the land within their borders. 

Contrary to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, all but two of the states admitted since 1802 were denied the 

same rights to landownership. The result was what Senate Joint 

Resolution 6 refers to as "land-poor" states, admitted as unequal, 

federally dominated entities. 

Alaska is such a state, as you know, with 66 percent of our land 

mass dominated and controlled by the Federal Government. We 

are, in essence, one third state, two thirds territory. 

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced the people of the land-poor states 

want control of the land and resources within their borders. H.R. 

2413 addresses that desire on the part of the people of Alaska and 

especially the people of the Tongass. 

We want to be able to control our own destiny and believe we are 

capable of better managing the resources of the Tongass than the 

Federal overseers, who have done a very expensive job of mismanagement. 

To that end, I have introduced legislation in the Alaska State 

Senate accepting the transfer of the Tongass. I must say, however, 

that I have serious concerns about some of the provisions in H.R. 

2413 as it stands today, and I would recommend a couple of 

amendments for you. I see no problem with the provision requiring the State of Alaska 

to interview employees of the U.S. Forest Service for possible job placement. I can assure you, however, that Alaska will not need 

the nearly 1,000 employees it takes the Federal Government to 

manage the forest. Our neighbors in British Columbia get along 

perfectly well with less than 500 employees to manage forest lands 

which are eight times more productive than the Tongass has been 

under Federal management. 

I have major concerns, however, with the provisions of Section 

6(g) of the bill as written. To require us to pay to the Federal Government 25 percent of the net receipts for all timber sold is simply 

not viable. It significantly reduces the revenue stream we will need 

in the start-up years of Alaskan management. This is money we 

will need for roads, docks, and commercial thinning. Why should 

Alaskans pay the Federal Government a 25 percent return on resources the state would own? New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were never asked to make a similar payment when they sell 

timber off their state lands. 

While I am certain that the State of Alaska can do a more efficient and less expensive job of managing the forest, diverting 25 

percent of the revenue in the start-up years could doom us to failure. 

There are those that contend that the Federal Government manages the Tongass at a deficit. We are willing to accept that liability 

and, in the process, help you to reduce the Federal budget. That 

should be payment enough. I urge you to reconsider that provision. 

My most serious concern is over Section 6(c), the provision addressing subsistence use after the patent date. While I have included the required language in the bill accepting the transfer, our 

legal services division has already advised me that such a provision 

would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of Alaska. And I 
7 

am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues in the majorities of 

both Houses of the legislature would view this provision as a poison pill. You are aware of our position on this issue. We are unwilling to trade our sovereignty for the Tongass. 

In conclusion, I support the intent of H.R. 2413. I trust Alaskans, 

and I have faith that we can do a better job of managing this resource. I believe we can make good decisions and be accountable 

to our friends, families, and communities. 

I really wonder, Mr. Chairman, where our fish stocks would be 

today had we Alaskans refused to assume management of that resource at statehood. Many of us are convinced that history is repeating itself in the Federal management of the Tongass and that 

continued Federal control will result in the same near-devastation 

we experienced with the Federal mismanagement of our fisheries. 

Our handling of fisheries management serves as proof of our capabilities as resource managers and as a state. 

Thank you, Congressman. . [Mr. Taylor's supplemental information and summary may be 

found at end of hearing. ] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, and thank both of you. 

Mr. Mayor, I mentioned in my opening statement that there was 

a poll taken and it said 76 percent of the people in Wrangell favored this form of legislation. Would you say that is accurate? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I would say that is close. I think some of the experiences our community has had in other areas like cabin use and 

use of Federal lands, I think that it would be even higher than 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which reminds me, I know that we have been accused that this is a timber bill. What other actions by Federal mandate or edict has affected the community? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Water filtration, solid waste management, garbage, just about all aspects of our lives, have been disrupted by 

mandates that are going to cost this city dearly. And I think that 

some of the areas that I am talking about need addressing, but 

sometimes they are a little overzealous. And sometimes I am reluctant in public testimony to point out some of these areas because 

they have not probably found out exactly what we have and what 

we are planning on doing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mayor, one thing you can do for me is provide it for the record. You do not have to be in public. It is for my 

eyes, and I will look at it very closely. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well--

The CHAIRMAN. Because this is something that terribly disturbs 

me, because here is a community hurt financially by some decisions 

concerning an industry, but that goes far beyond, and now we are 

required by other agencies to, in fact-you have to-you do not 

have other revenue base, do you? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we are trying to work on that. But, you 

know, one of the problems we have as a result of a trip to Juneau 

and trying to come up with solutions for the possibility of transferring ownership and conveying ownership from the Seary Corp. to 

the city of Wrangell on some property in town, and, of course, the 

state has no problem with our plan for downloading the buildings, but then Federal law steps in, EPA steps in and scares the heck 
8 

out of them, and then all of a sudden you are finding yourself in 

over your head trying to figure out a way to get around it. 

Well, I would be willing to go to jail for X amount of time, and 

I would be willing to pay a fine for $100,000. Would it be worth 

it? Well, hell, yeah, it would be worth it. You know, I would be willing to take that risk. But these are the things we are continually 

weighing in a community like this, you know. I mean, the state is 

willing to work with you. We can come up with ways and solutions 

for doing just about anything and working with these people. But 

then the other big guy steps in, and we have to count on maybe 

spending some money and going to jail for a period of time, you 

know, for actions that we might take. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you are singing to the choir. One of the 

things I have always been concerned, the state has not been the 

aggressor in protecting the communities at all. They have always 

gone along with the Federal Government, and you do not have the 

wherewithal or the money to fight that great big battle. 

Just one question. What has been your relationship with the Forest Service itself, as the Mayor? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I have been Mayor since October, November, 

somewhere in that time. I would have to say, honestly, with the 

guys that work in the field, that have lived here in this community 

for a period of time, we have had good relationships with them, and 

they have always been reasonable, they have always been-you 

have been able to approach them on ideas. But the problem is, it 

seems to me that when it goes from the guys working in the field, 

doing some good, we get stonewalled. And I feel like there is always-they are always willing to work with us. They are always 

willing to listen and work on new ideas. And I have got to believe 

those guys in the field are doing a fair enough job. It is just a problem that it goes from point A, then it goes to point B, and then it 

ends up in Washington, D.C., or something, and that is when we 

have a difficult time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess, one comment. I think you hit it 

right on the head. You have been here long enough, and the Senator has been here long enough, and many in the audience remember when there was a total working relationship between the community and the agencies. It is not because the agencies in here, or 

in Juneau even, are unwilling to work. It is because their work is 

being directed from Washington, D.C. And that is why I have introduced this bill. 

If we could even reverse what is happening and say the decision 

will be made on the ground with the working relationship with the 

community, we would not have this problem. 

It is just not the Forest Service, by the way. The conduct and the 

attitude of now all wisdom comes from Washington, D.C., is what 

caused us the greatest problems. 

Senator, one of the questions I was going to ask you is, I have 

heard this question asked about cost of management of the Tongass 

under state ownership. What would be your thoughts about whether this can be done? How we can afford it? I had a lady call me 

the other day on a call-in show and say it is going to cost about 

$400 million to manage the forest, where are we going to get the 
9 

money. You are a Senator, and you have been over the numbers. 

Why would someone say something like that? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, primarily because the only numbers they have 

had an opportunity to ever really see are Federal numbers, how 

much is the Federal Government spending to manage \it in the 

manner it is being managed today. And that is really an' inappropriate economic gauge. 

Probably a better gauge today, and one that I think is quite exciting, is we resolved and settled the Mental Health Land Claims 

issue in the state by transferring lands to the Mental Health Trust 

and then we gave them responsibility for managing those lands. They have only been managing those lands, Congressman Young, 

for eight months. They already are in the black. They already are 

receiving a net return and a significant net return over and above 

their management costs. 

I submit to you that the Federal Government has lost millions 

of dollars in their mismanagement on the Tongass. And I cannot 

imagine that the people down here who live in the Tongass would 

tolerate anyone who would manage the Tongass in such a way that 

they would lose money in the process. The CHAIRMAN. One of the things that I noticed that I read in 

the Forest Service testimony, it says: "The Administration would 

object to relinquishing 17 million acres of valuable Federal property and improvements without some adequate compensation to the 

Federal Treasury." And that goes back to that 25 percent that you 

were speaking of. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, this is a three-branch government, 

and we do have to get this past the Executive branch. Hopefully, 

by the time this bill reaches the floor and gets to the President, we 

will have a President who will sign such legislation. You know, 

hope springs eternal, but I hope that is what will happen. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Actually, I believe that the Congress and United 

States Government have been paid many times over. The Tongass 

alone has paid back to the Federal Government way more than the 

entire cost of the Federal Government to buy Alaska, as an example. So, in consequence, I do not think there is anything owing or 

due. And, in fact, had they only transferred those lands at statehood, as they did with every other state, the Congress would have 

been saving over $200 million a year that has been going into our 

Federal deficit. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the things, Senator, in your role as the 

organizer of the Western states on these issues, are you finding 

support for this concept of transfer of Federal lands to states? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Overwhelming. The CHAIRMAN. Overwhelming? 

Mr. TAYLOR. In fact, the cover of Time Magazine, the October 

issue, had a full picture of the Commissioner, County Commissioner, from Nye County, Nevada, who took one of their county diesel tractors out and opened up a road that the Federal Government 

had said was going to be closed. It was quite a confrontational 

thing. He had 400 of his neighbors out there standing with him 

with shotguns to make sure that road got open. 
10 

There is a lot of concern across the West about Federal mismanagement. This is the single biggest growing tide, to try and return that management to the state. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the things, Senator, that I mentioned earlier on in a news conference, that this is not just a Tongass issue. 

This is an issue of whether they will have a centralized government holding property, deciding people's lives, a centralized Federal ownership, instead of being within the states. And this is an 

issue that will go far beyond Alaska itself. It just happens to be 

this is the most controversial issue, with all the parties involved, 

that affect a community. 

As the Chairman of the Resources Committee, Senator, do you 

think that Alaska State laws provide adequate level of conservation 

leading for the Tongass? 

Mr. TAYLOR. We have the strongest Forest Practices Act we have 

enacted of any state in the United States. In fact, our Forest Practices Act is considered a model, and other states try to enact as 

much of it as they can, because ours provides maximum protection. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would it apply to the Tongass, though, if we took 

it over? Those laws would apply? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. There would be no repealing of state laws, and 

the laws that are now on the state's books would apply to the forest? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Absolutely, Congressman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both of you for your testimony. 

Mr. Mayor, I will be communicating with you, and, of course, the 

Senator and I are always in contact. And, again, I want to thank 

you for keeping track and listening to what is going on. It helps 

us out as we go through this process. 

Thank you both for your testimony. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Do not think, Congressman, that this is a timber 

bill, either. Do not let them tell you that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have been accused of that. This is a--

Mr. TAYLOR. This will allow the people, if they want to, say, over 

in Pelican or out at Edna Bay, to--

The CHAIRMAN. Or residing in cabins. 

Mr. TAYLOR. It will allow them to go and talk to somebody locally 

and say: "We do not want harvesting here. We want this entire 

area saved. Let us concentrate harvesting someplace else." 

The CHAIRMAN. I have been accused of this. For some reason, 

there is a-this is the scare tactics, the diversion tactics from trying to be implemented. 

This is really a breakthrough as far as where we are going in the 

direction of this country in ownership of lands. 

Thank you both for your testimony. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the audience for being so attentive, too. This is very, very important to me. 

I will bring up Panel Two: Roy Martin from Wrangell, Alaska; 

Brent Mill, United Paperworkers International Union, Wrangell, 

Alaska; Jim Leslie, Leslie Cutting & Alaska Wafers, Incorporated, 

Wrangell, Alaska. 
11 

Thank you, gentlemen. There are always new glasses there, so 

you do not have to drink water out of the glasses that have been 

used. 

I understand, Mr. Leslie, you will be testifying on behalf of yourself and the Visitors Association. Is that true? 

Mr. LESLIE. Yes, Congressman. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be--

Mr. LESLIE. I will be testifying on behalf of my family personally 

and then, also, the Alaska Visitors Association. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I probably will not give you ten minutes for that, but we will work it out. 

Any preference on who goes first here? Mr. Martin? 

STATEMENT OF ROY MARTIN, ALAS~S & WRANGELL 

WORKERS COALITION, WRANGELL, ALASKA 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I might just as well get it over with. 

Honorable Don Young, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to 

thank you for this opportunity to speak here today, and we truly 

appreciate your bringing these hearings to Wrangell. I also am 

speaking for myself and, hopefully, other unemployed sawmill 

workers and the Workers Coalition of Wrangell. 

I have been a resident of Wrangell and the Tongass for the past 

50 years. For the past 25 years, I have written letters, signed petitions, attended all kinds of hearings and meetings regarding the 

Tongass. I have done this in an effort to save jobs and the economy 

of Southeast. But I must admit, as I sit here today, unemployed 

again-! have got to admit the system is not working. 

Continually, we the people of the Tongass are overlooked for 

birds, wolves, sea lions, and all kinds of things. And people do not 

seem to count. 

I am a Native of Alaska, and my ancestors have lived here thousands of years before me. They have hunted, and trapped, and 

fished throughout the Tongass, and we are proud of the efforts we 

have made to maintain our resources. Although I have worked in the industry for the past 25 years, I 

consider myself an environmentalist, but I am not a preservationist. And there is a big difference. 

It is my feeling that the management of the Tongass under the 

Federal Government is just not working. Many of the environmental constraints and regulations developed for the Lower 48 simply make the Tongass impossible to use. 

We have witnessed many battles right here in Wrangell over the 

simple cabin permit, as you pointed out. I have seen my neighbors 

cited for such things as enlarging their outhouse, leaving their 

canoe tied to the bank too long, or maybe even using a power tool 

in the wilderness. 

Regarding timber, we have seen thousands of board feet of timber downed in blow-downs, beetle kills, left in the forest for years 

as the process goes on. Timber sales that have been released for 

bid languish in the courts for years while we go unemployed. 

I have been directly affected by the lack of timber and timber 

cancellations. Both in 1984 and now again in 1994, hundreds of 

workers were out of work. And, again, the city of Wrangell has the 

distinction of leading the Nation in unemployment. 
12 

How can this happen when we live here in the largest National 

Forest in America, 17 million acres? This simply cannot continue. 

With decline of oil revenues, closure of the timber industry, and 

ever increasing reductions in our fishing industry, the State of 

Alaska is facing economic disaster. Tourism will not escape these 

Federal regulations, either, as already limits are being put on tour 

ships and other visitation. We have been continually advised by our 

Governor to diversify our economy. And when we try, every time 

we do, w~ run into regulations that prohibit this diversification. 

A couple of examples, Congressman, of some of the misinformation that is being distributed about the Congress and the Tongass. 

A recent article in the Anchorage Times-you may have seen itcalled the New York Hypocrites, where a Republican Congressman 

from New York opposes logging in the Tongass. The politician says 

he is concerned about protecting the environment and that Alaska 

representatives in Congress are not. 

I find it ironic that there is one pulp mill operating in the 

Tongass and 34 pulp mills operating in New York. There are approximately 1,250 jobs in the Alaska timber industry and 62,000 in 

the New York timber industry. Total timber harvest in the Tongass 

is around 300 million, depending what year it is. In New York, the 

annual tree cutting exceeds 1.1 billion feet. We are just not getting 

a fair shake on this. 

Chairman Young, our future is in your hands. I sincerely hope 

you will not let this just become another battle between special interest groups like the timber industry and the environmentalists. 

We need solutions. I think we all must rise above our individual 

wants and work for a common good, what is best for the state and 

the people. We are all in this together. 

I would leave you with this thought. We in Alaska have designated more than six million acres of our land for parks and wildlife areas. This is more than the combined total of all other states. 

We Alaskans are the true environmentalists. 

Thank you. [The attachments to statement of Mr. Martin may be found at 

end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Martin. And thanks for your 

comments. 

Mr. Mill, Brent? 

STATEMENT OF BRENT MILL, UNITED PAPERWORKERS 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, WRANGELL, .ALASK.it 

Mr. !viiLL. My name is Brent Mill, and I am th<:: Pre.:;iient of th::: 

United Paperworkers International, Union Local 1341. I appea~· 

today in support of the improved 'I'ongass Forest management 

practices on behalf of my union brothers, sisters, and pulp and paperworkers throughout the United States. 

Mr. Cha'rman, I would like to get right to the point. Wrangell 

needs your support. As you well know, due to a lack of timber supply resulting from harvest restrictions on the Tongass National 

Forest, the local mill was forced to close in November of 1994. 

When it shut down, the mill employed over 300 hardworking men 

and women like me. They held steady jobs with good benefits and 

a secure future. As the Union President, I can say that employee 
13 

morale was high. Then disaster struck our community, our jobs, 

and our way of life. 

I wish more forest products workers could be here today to attend this hearing, or even to testify. But almost all unemployed 

timber workers in Wrangell have packed up and moved to other 

areas or, in some cases, other states. A couple of years ago, I could 

pick up the phone and call over a hundred members of my local 

union and urge them to attend today. However, counting myself, 

there are just two officers and two dues-paying members left. A lot 

has changed in the last 15 months. 

I have lived in Wrangell for almost 26 years. When I lost my job, 

I had a hard time finding local employment, so I took a job in 

Ketchikan. This required me to relocate away from my family temporarily. After ten months and only three trips back home, I was 

laid off again. I moved back home and was unemployed for the next 

two-and-a-half months. I now have a temporary job working as a 

steel fabricator for a local towing company, but the job will be over 

in about two weeks. Once again, I will be searching for employment. 

It seems to me that decisions concerning Tongass resources are 

generally made without considering the men and women who work 

in the Tongass-dependent industries and the communities in which 

we live. Once the local mill closed, former workers tried to sell 

their homes and move to areas in which they could find employment. Some of them could not find anyone to buy their homes. 

Local businesses also have felt the mill closure due to decline of 

timber-dependent customers. But as a long-time resident, I can 

safely say that it is not the town it once was. 

The Tongass National Forest is truly a national treasure for all 

to share. I enjoy the fact that my three children are growing up 

among America's only rain forest. My wife is a Wrangell native, 

and we both want to stay in the area. However, if I must continue 

to search for steady employment, I might have no choice but to relocate again. Some people try to say that there are plenty of opportunities in the local travel and tourist industry. But the peak tourist season is between April and September, and while most of the 

tourism jobs pay an adequate wage while they last, these jobs offer 

little or no benefits or paid vacation. After the season is over, the 

job is gone until next season. 

When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990, 

forest producL workers throughout Southeast Alaska breathed a 

sigh of relief. Thi::; act stated tha~ the employment level of 2,500 

timbec-depeEdbJ.t jobs in the Tongas~:, w0uld be maintained. Unfo.c-

~unately, these promises have been broker1. Since 1990, the timber 

supply levels and timber employment have both declined by almost 

40 percent. If this reduction continues, the economic stability of the 

entire Southeast region could be affected. 

The residents of this town need your help. We need you to go 

back to Washington, D.C., and convince your colleagues that the 

forest products industry is vital to Southeast Akaska communities 

and residents. We have had balance in the Tongass timber industry 

before and, with your help, it's possible to have it again. Let forest 

products workers manage the Tongass to the best of our abilities 

while we maintain a stable way of life for ourselves and our chil-
14 

dren. We need Congress to listen to the Southeast Alaska men and 

women who lost their jobs because social and economic needs of 

Tongass communities were forgotten in the debate. 

I urge you to support Tongass legislation and the people who rely 

on Tongass resources for their future. Without it, our future is limited. Please work with us to provide a balance. We know it is possible. We know it is right. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHAJRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mill. I can tell you this. The Congress has listened to myself and your Senators. We have passed 

bills that they can promote to continue the 1990 Act. This President vetoed it, and it is his big issue to veto it again. This Administration is breaking the law. 

You are right about the 1990 Act. That was an act that was 

agreed to by yourselves, agreed to by the pulp mill, agreed to by 

the two Senators. I did not sign that bill. I urged the President to 

veto at that time. We had letters from the SEACC group that said 

this is a great solution, everybody is at peace, there is peace in the 

valley. This President got elected, and they changed overnight. 

Our Congress has listened. I just wish the President would listen. 

Mr. Leslie? 

STATEMENT OF JIM LESLIE, LESLIE CUTTING & ALASKA 

WAFERS, INC., WRANGELL, ALASKA 

Mr. LESLIE. Congressman Young, I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify at these hearings. I am speaking on behalf of my family, 

the late Leslie Cutting, Incorporated, which was one of the larger 

timber-cutting companies in the Pacific Northwest, and my new 

company, Alaska Waters, which is a tourism company. So I have 

kind of been on both sides of the fence, and I am really proud to 

be able to represent both the A.V.A. and the timber industry. I think it is important to note that these two, which were once 

viewed as opposing industries, are not. I have spoken with the 

Board of Directors of Alaska Visitors Association at length, and it 

has really warmed my heart to recognize that we are all on the 

same side. 

We are all Alaskans. Everybody recognizes that our neighbors 

are not just in the tourism industry or the timber industry, but 

they are also fishermen , and miners, and school teachers. And to 

that end, we have a united front and we would like to see ownership retained by the State of Alaska for these Federal lands. My name is Jim Leslie, and I have lived in Alaska since 1973. 

I have worked as a logger on the Tongass since my arrival in the 

state. My wife, Wilma, an Alaska Native of Tlinget and Haida descent, and I owned one of the largest timber falling companies in 

the Pacific Northwest, Leslie Cutting, Incorporated. We employed 

75 people, including timber fallers, cooks, housekeeping personnel, 

and office personnel. We have beEn contracting on the Tongass for 

13 years. I served on the Board of Directors of Alaska Forest Association for five years, and I currently serve on the Board of Governors of Alaska Timber Insurance Exchange. 

We provided full-time employment for our employees, excluding 

a Christmas shutdown and brief closures due to weather. Our em-
15 

ployees had full medical, dental, and optical insurance coverage. 

We also provided a retirement program through Alaska Forest Association. Our safety program and safety records were standards 

for the industry. I have worked in the timber industry most of my 

adult life. My goal for my chosen profession was to make the woods 

a safer place for timber fallers to work, and to bring their compensation and benefits to the standards of comparable industries in 

America. We endeavored to establish long-term employer/employee 

relationships. We attempted to establish security for these men and 

women and their families with our benefit packages and safety programs. In short, we tried to give loggers in Alaska the same shot 

at the American dream as the auto industry worker in Detroit or 

the computer technologists that work for IBM have attained. 

I am proud to say that, in fact, we did accomplish these goals; 

not through the skill and wisdom of me, but through a team effort 

by a lot of people within the organization who had a dream. A 

dream to own a home, to send their kids to college, to retire with 

the security to be able to care for themselves. 

Then came the Tongass Timber Reform Act. "The final legislation 

to put an end once and for all to the strife over management of the 

Tongass." We lobbied hard to protect what little of the Tongass was 

left for resource development. My wife and other wives in our organization went to Washington, D.C., to try to get the truth to the 

people who would have to make the decisions on our future. This 

was the point where the naivete of our youth met with the reality 

of American politics. We learned that Truth, Justice and the American Way have no role in Washington, D.C., that hardworking people's lives are played as pawns in the game of politics, that natural 

resources and resource development are used as bargaining chits in 

the game of politics played by extremist special interest groups, 

that there is a new religion out there that has mistakenly placed 

the object of their worship on the creation rather than the Creator. 

We lost a lot of our future with the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. We decided that we could and would live with the 

outcome, if it would put an end to the constant attack on our industry and livelihood. 

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act did not put an end to the onslaught of litigation and obstructionist tactics placed upon our industry. In fact, it appears that the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act was merely a smoke screen to give 

those within the United States Forest Service and others who were 

opposed to timber harvest the opportunity to kill the industry with 

the blessing of the Administration in Washington, D.C. 

To that end, they have been successful. The amount of timber 

available to be harvested on the Tongass has declined to such a 

level that there is a loss of jobs in this industry in excess of 40 percent since the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. 

One casualty of the reduced harvest was Leslie Cutting, Incorporated. All the years we worked to improve the industry came to 

nothing as we had to lay off our employees. These men and women 

who chose to remain in the industry are now spread all over the 

Pacific Northwest. Many have been forced to leave Alaska. Most 

are now working with no medical or retirement benefits. Some are 

working without even the security of Workers' Compensation In-
surance. It broke my heart to lay those people off who had made 

a commitment to the dream. I felt as if I had cheated them. 

We are now pursuing a future in the tourism industry. A very 

poor substitute, I must add, for the kind of jobs we created in the 

timber industry. There is very little opportunity left to us in Southeast Alaska to support our families. It is almost as if there is a concerted effort on the part of the Federal Government to force us out 

of our state. The tourism industry is not a panacea of opportunity, 

as there are increasing regulatory restrictions being imposed on us 

by the Federal Government. It is a constant struggle to maintain 

access to guiding opportunities in our area. We are faced with competing for access with guides from other areas, other states, and I 

want to note we are even competing with guides from Canada for 

access to our own areas. 

Congressman Young, I applaud your effort to return the management of the Tongass to the people of Alaska whose lives are so intrinsically tied to this resource. We are an undeveloped state. If we 

are to have opportunity to survive and flourish as a people, then 

it will necessarily be through the 'Nise and resourceful development 

of and access to the Tongass. There can be no doubt that the only 

people justifiably qualified to manage their own destiny in this 

area are the people who live hen' and have made investment and 

personal commitment to this statE and its communities. It can only 

lead to hardship and failure to have our destiny managed by people 

who have never seen this land or who are only here until their next 

promotion or reassignment. 

Please give us the same opportunity to develop our state that 

every other state in the Union has enjoyed. The people who live in 

Southeast Alaska do not share the same values for family, community, and resource development that urbanites in the major populated areas of the United States have come to. It is a sad day that 

these self-same urbanites have forgotten from whence they came. 

Alaskans are not bent on raping and pillaging our lands, as is 

a commonly held belief. We live here because we love the beauty 

and the untouched environment that abounds in this land. That 

goes for fisherman, logger, or merchant alike. Our state is very capable of managing these lands with the best science available and 

the best interests of all Alaskan~ in mind. To have another layer 

of bureaucracy over these lands is not only inefficient and cumbersome, but also very expensive to the American taxpayer and unnecessary. Give us the opportunity to create our own destiny, and 

you will see an example of balanced development with the nE~eds 

of all user groups addressed. 

In a democracy everybody does not get everything that they want 

all the time. There is room for the development of the Tongass 

without destroying fisheries, communities, or the serene beauty of 

the land. There is room for logging, fishing, tourism, and community development and growth. No one knows better how to exeeute 

this dream than the people who live the dream. This is not a National Park. People live here, we live here. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Leslie. 

Brent, in your testimony, would you think that your brothers and 

sisters would have an opportunity under my legislation to make de-
17 

c1s10ns on what would occur as far as the logging industry in 

Southeast? 

Mr. MILL. The ones that are left, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you think that some of them might come 

back? I mean, this is very important--

Mr. MILL. If they had a job opportunity, I am sure they would. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which reminds me, both you and Roy, what happens now? Axe you covered-do you have any health insurance at 

all now, or is it all gone? 

Mr. MILL. No insurance at all. 

Mr. MARTIN. No, Congressman. And our COBRA is running out, 

too. I think we have been into a closure situation here for about 

15 months. And the COBRA kicked in, and now that will run out 

here in about three or four months. So all chances of insurance are 

going away. 

The CHAIRMAN. There was much said about, well, we are going 

to retrain. Was there any programs for retraining or anything that 

took place, and what did they try to train you for and what were 

you offered? Anything at all? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I would like to thank the efforts of the Governor regarding the transition center. We have a transition center 

here set up under the NAFTA Free Trade Act. Unfortunately, most 

of the training, Congressman, is designed where you have to leave 

to be receiving it. You can get training, but there is not a job to 

come back to, so you have to leave. 

Congressman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARTIN. I would like to also add, as a representative of the 

Wrangell Landless, we would like to see justice served in settling 

the landless issue, and we applaud you for bringing that to the 

forefront. Our landless chairman will give testimony for the record 

in Ketchikan. But thank you for your efforts in that area. 

The CHAIRMAN. By the way, those that oppose this legislation 

also oppose the landless legislation. 

Just-! will not go through them all, but there are some tremendous statements made about the 1990 Act, Mr. Leslie. "No existing 

Tongass dependent-timber jobs will be lost by the signing of this 

legislation," K.J. Metcalf. "SEACC believes H.R. 987 will have no 

impact on the existing Tongass-dependent timber jobs," Bart 

Koehler, SEACC. "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," Robert Mrazek, New 

York City, Congressman. And I can go on, and on, and on about 

the falsehoods that were stated in that act. No honor amongst fellow man. 

Mr. LESLIE. We knew it at the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. And that is why I wrote that President asking him to veto it, and he did not do it. 

A lot of statements made that were just totally-"It is a compromise, I think, to recognize the diverse constituency around the 

Tongass, the multiple use necessary in the Tongass, so all Alaskans 

may benefit from this legislation, from those who enjoy it to those 

who must make their living," Congressman George Miller. 

I know your frustration. I am very frustrated. 
18 

Just to go back to the intent of the legislation, if the state was 

taking it over, you would have an opportunity in your business, 

new tour business, to try to, in fact, go to the legislative body and 

set up a tourist program for those lands, would you not? 

Mr. LESLIE. Yes, sir, I would. 

I would like to point out that right now we are experiencing very 

serious difficulty at gaining access to the public lands. The regulatory restrictions placed upon Federal lands for the tourism industry is surprisingly, to me, almost as bad as it was in the timber 

industry. For some reason, nobody is supposed to go on those lands. I do not understand what they are going to be saved for, but we 

are not supposed to use them. 

The CHAIRMAN. And let me stress, we will have the Forest Service up here later on, but one of the things I would stress, regulatory laws, someone sitting back in Washington, D.C., writing regulatory law, legislative law, now they have decided the tourist business is not compatible with the intent of the Tongass Reform Act. 

It goes back to the-what is happening on the Wrangell River right 

now, on the Stikine River? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think it is an ongoing battle. As I mentioned, 

there were citations issued for enlarging your outhouse without a 

permit. 

Also, Congressman, there is conflicting hunting regulations between state and Federal up on the Stikine at certain places. And 

I cannot even speak to them accurately because in certain places 

the high tide mark or something is regulated by the state, and the 

upland is Federal, so the regulations can be different and simply 

by crossing over this line. 

The CHAIRMAN. At least, under my legislation, there would only 

be one person you would have to argue with, is not that correct? 

Mr. MARTIN. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. As I offered the other panel, let us continue this open conversation with myself and with the Committee, and they are always welcome to submit ideas and suggestions to the legislation. 

In my opening statement, I also mentioned this is the beginning, 

this is a platform. This is the beginning of a debate, and it will go 

on a long ways, and I want your participation. I deeply appreciate 

it. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Mr. MILL. Thank you. 

Mr. LESLIE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call Panel Three: Cliff Taro, Wrangell Stevedoring, Ketchikan, Alaska; Bill Privett, Wrangell Oil, Wrangell, 

Alaska; Carl Rosier, Territorial Sportsman, Juneau, Alaska. Gentlemen, would you please take yow~ seats, start your engines. 

Did Carl make it in, does anybody know? If not, he has testimony 

for the record. 

[The statement of Mr. Rosier rr"ay be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Taro, it is a pleasure to see you. Welcome 

to Wrangell, hope to see you tomorrow. 

Mr. TARO. It is nice to be back in Wrangell. I used to spend two 

weeks at a time here in early days. 
19 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that because the planes were not flying or because the boats were slow? Which one? 

Mr. TARO. Because we were loading ships. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, loading ships? All right. 

Mr. Privett, good to see you here, too. Fine-looking family and a 

great-looking son, who is working hard. Keep it up. 

Mr. PRIVETT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Taro, if you would like to, you may go forth 

with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CLIFF TARO, WRANGELL STEVEDORING 

COMPANY, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. TARO. Thank you, Congressman. 

I am Cliff Taro, President of Wrangell Stevedoring Company. My 

company, Wrangell Stevedoring Company, was formed in 1955, 40 

years ago, for the purpose of contracting to load timber products 

aboard ships for export from Wrangell. 

In so doing, we hired and trained local longshoremen to expertly 

load the vessels; that is, operate the ship's equipment, our gear and 

equipment, and stow the timber products as efficiently as possible. 

Over the years, the Wrangell longshoremen excelled in their ability, efficiency, mobility, and cooperation to the point that they were 

classified as the best longshoremen on the Pacific Coast, in our estimation. 

Shipping companies and trading companies often made extra efforts to have their vessels call to the Port of Wrangell due to their 

understanding that their cargo would be loaded with dispatch. 

Fortunately, due to the primary manufacturing of our renewable 

resource, timber, from the Tongass National Forest, some of these 

longshoremen have worked enough years and hours to qualify for 

retirement, for pensions, but their sons and daughters and their 

families became involved and were taught the same efficiencies. 

But what has happened? The timber has been taken away, locked 

up in many categories, but not for harvest. 

I was a director in the nineteen eighties of the Citizens for the 

Management of Alaska Lands (CMAL). We attempted to make an 

honest effort to sensibly allocate the future of Alaska lands. But 

what happened in what we thought was a fair solution, we compromised with the preservationists, which we realize now was a 

mistake, because they were not sincere and honest, as we were. As 

a result, we have been compromising ever since; not with their portion, but ours. We have seen the timber allotments being reduced 

and reduced, until now we are out of work. 

I have participated in and testified in many Congressional hearings, both in Alaska and Washington, D.C., before people like Senator Udall, Senator Wirth, Congressman Siberling, Congressman 

Mrazek, as well as Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the Forest Service, 

and others, only to realize that the hearings were only eyewash. 

They represented the outside preservationists and a few of the 

vocal locals whose agenda is, and was, to stop all development in 

the Tongass. 

I, and the people I represent, as well as our Wrangell employees, 

and I can say our former Sitka employees, who are also out of 

work, certainly realize the only possible future for us and the tim-
20 

her-dependent communities is for the State of Alaska to have ownership and control of the Tongass National Forest. We can work with our state agencies to protect our environment 

and wisely harvest a portion of this outstanding renewable resource, timber. 

Alaska is still a resource state, despite the "outside" interference 

to prevent it from continuing to be so. 

Alaskans make the best judgment about Alaska. We do not need 

distant, either officials or others, who know nothing or very little 

about our assets, to make our decisions. The Tongass National Forest is interwoven with national politics 

and should not be when it becomes a tool to deal with employment 

and future of Alaska communities, its schools, and its people. 

Unfortunately, the good Forest Service people who are stationed 

here have their hands tied. They do not have the authority to do 

what they think is right. 

We support Congressman Don Young's H.R. 2413 and sincerely 

look forward to its passage through the Congress and signed into 

law by a President and to become effective as soon as possible. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Taro. 

Mr. Privett? 

STATEMENT OF BILL PRIVETT, WRANGELL OIL, WRANGELL, 

ALASKA 

Mr. PRIVETT. Honorable Don Young, thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act, H.R. 2413. As a lifelong Alaskan, I support your attempt 

to allow Alaskans the right to decide how best to manage the 

Tongass in a true multiple-use fashion. 

It concerns me that our government supports the breakup of the 

U.S.S.R. and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe but somehow is concerned that in our country the folks who live here are 

not capable of administrating and managing our own land free of 

outside influences. 

This will be, at least for Southeast Alaska, one step closer to true 

statehood without the infringement of the Federal Government 

basing decisions for us through the powerful environmental lobbyists such as the Sierra Club or their subsidiaries. 

I have all the faith in the world that our present and future Governor and legislature can manage the Tongass in a fair and environmentally sound manner. 

I have watched and tried unsuccessfully to do all I could to stop 

the decline of a major industry in Southeast Alaska, specifically the 

timber industry. Many people have said this is not intentional, but 

history does not lie. For the life of me, I do not understand why 

a once healthy and important part of our economic well-being is 

being allowed and helped to be destroyed by lack of action of our 

elected leaders. 

Contrary to some, even the U.S. Forest Service employees are conc~rned about the escalation of preservation since the Clinton/ 

Gore Administration declared war on the timber industry. Fortunately, the fishing industry has been spared for awhile. I wonder 
21 

with the fate of the Chinook Salmon Treaty still in question, how 

well Alaskans will fare through that battle. 

It is inconceivable to me that a resident of Southeast Alaska 

could be opposed to legislation such as this. It allows for more say 

and more control of the land we all love. 

Unfortunately, you have chosen to highlight the timber contracts 

in the outline of this bill and, by doing so, have received a lot of 

criticism. But it would seem to me to be reasonable that Alaskans 

would honor all present contracts with the Federal Government 

that presently exist and negotiate in good faith for their extension, 

if Alaskans so desire. 

I am submitting a copy of a map that was published by the U.S. 

Forest Service concerning the Shamrock timber sale on Kupreanof 

Island. This map more closely illustrates the concept of multiple 

use of the Tongass Forest. Timber harvesting is clearly not a major 

player in this multiple-use concept. 

I will not go into detail of how the mill closure has affected our 

community, as others can better describe unemployment figures 

and social problems. However, I will say losing 225 industrial jobs 

in a town of 2, 700 people is certainly far more severe than laying 

off 20 or even 30,000 jobs in communities the size of Seattle or Detroit, who are far more diverse and able to absorb the changes. 

Alaska, it seems, is being treated like an unwanted stepchild. 

Every facet of our natural resources are under attack by the Lower 

48 from fishing to oil development. Hopefully, this bill and its concept will send a message to Congress to allow Alaskans the right 

to decide how best to manage Alaska. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts concerning the future of the Tongass. 

The map that I have, Congressman, is right here. And if I may, 

I would like to show it to you, because I believe the old saying a 

picture is worth a thousand words may well adequately describe 

my point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. PRIVETT. This is the Shamrock timber sale on Kupreanof Island. These little green areas are slated to be cut. These little 

brown areas were already cut. These areas have been pulled out of 

the cutting picture completely for the life of the project. And I highlighted these areas, which are proposed eligible wild and scenic 

river corridors. 

So wC,e~ you start looking at 2.E of these ar88.s versus these little 

greA'"' ?,.."?S and the little brown ones already done, I start questionins; :rr>'Jltiple use. It looks like the little green areas are kind of 

taking it in the shorts. 

Actually, in all honesty, I am probably not opposed to these type 

of corridors, but I would really believe that the folks that live here 

should have an opportunity to decids, not the Federal Government, 

what is scenic, what is beautiful, et cetera. And so that is why this 

legislation is extremely important. 

[The map was placed in the hearing record files of the Committee.] · 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Privett, for the map, too. We will 

take that and put it in the record. 
22 

Cliff, you have been in this business a long time, and you 

brought it up in your testimony, the relationship between the Forest Service today and the relationship, say, 15, 20 years ago. 

Can you give me your feelings about what has happened? Because we go back to the content of this bill. It is not about the timber industry, it is not about the fishing industry, it is not about the 

tourist industry, it is not about the recreational industry, it is not 

about the mining industry. It is about who shall manage the land 

best. 

The question, Cliff, is, if this was 20 years ago, would we be having these hearings? 

Mr. TARO. I certainly do not think so, Congressman. 

I think at that time the Forest Service people-as I mentioned 

in my testimony, now they have their hands tied. In those days, 

the people made their own decisions, and most of them lived here 

and stayed here for a long time and knew what timber was all 

about,./ 

The CHAIRMAN. So what is happening is, that this is really being 

controlled from Washington, D.C., whether they know what is right 

or wrong. Like, we had one gentleman was asked to leave his job 

a few years ago because it went against the Carter Administration. 

It came and began right there about who was controlling the management for this area from Washington, D.C. 

That is really the problem. And what this bill is intending to do 

is to take that ownership and management concept back from there 

and bring it back and put it into the State of Alaska, which I have 

been criticized by people saying the state cannot do it. Why cannot 

they do it, either one of you? In your own minds, why cannot they 

do it? 

Mr. PRIVETT. I do not have an answer to that, because I think 

the state can do it. 

The CHAIRMAN. You think the state can do it? 

Cliff? 

Mr. TARO. I certainly think the state can. We will have to make 

some changes within the state government, Fish and Game and 

some of those people. But we are dose to those people, and we can 

control the elections, and I think we can straighten it out. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. In talking about Wrangell, you had a diversified 

economy here, even with the timber industry, did not you? Because 

the timber industry now is shut down, what has happened to that 

diversification? 

Mr. PRIVETT. Well, it is pretty well eliminated. Now we are mainly relying solely on our fishing industry. 

I serve on the Wrangell Port Commission. We are doing our best 

to try to stimulate and create a new harbor. We want to add stalls 

to the present existing harbors that we have. We are trying everything in our power to move as rapidly as possible so that we can 

increase the ability to try to attract a larger fishing fleet into the 

community, maybe even make mm~e opportunities for processing facilities, as a way to keep the economy alive and moving. The CHAIRMAN. I go back to, again, the management. Are you 

running into obstacles of management from the same agencies that 

are not offering a tree for sale? 

Mr. PRIVETT. Not from the port level, no. 
The CHAIRMAN. Outside that area? 

I should have asked the Mayor, probably, that. 

Mr. PRIVETT. Probably should have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other diversification, do you see, 

Bill, in the area? Skiing? Is there any such thing as skiing in this 

area? 

Mr. PRIVETT. Well, no, but there are folks that are looking at 

doing something like that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would that be on Federal land? 

Mr. PRIVETT. That would be on Federal land. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are they having a problem getting their permitting? 

Mr. PRIVETT. I do not believe that they have. I do not believe-

! do not know for sure how far the permitting has gone and, you 

know, if these folks who were interested in trying to develop a ski 

resort, how far they are in that process. 

Just recently, a bunch of interested people in the community 

have put together a golf course proposal. They got some property 

from the state, and they are, in fact, building a golf course. And 

I think that when it is completed, it will help economic development in this community, because there is a lot of folks out there. 

It may sound foolish compared to what we are used to, but it is 

not. It is a viable economic opportunity for this town to take advantage of. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you would do better off if the state was able 

to issue those permits, would you not? 

Mr. PRIVETT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Taro, what happened to those longshoremen 

who were here? I mean, they were great. I watched them load the 

ship. 

Mr. TARO. Some of them are still here. Some have retired. Some 

have transferred to other ports. 

Fortunately, we do get some transferred that come down to 

Ketchikan when we have ships. But the Ketchikan economy is 

down, the timber economy, and we do not have as many ships. So 

it is-they are like the rest of the people, they are unemployed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anything else you would like to add before I--

Mr. TARO. Yes, I would like to comment. 

We have a company called Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska. We 

are agents for a lot of cruise ships. I have always maintained that 

the timber industry subsidized the cruise ships. It is a short season, probably four or five months, for the cruise ships. And we are 

here on account of the timber industry. We have agents in every 

port, port managers. We have got tugboats. We have all these people here year-round on account of the timber industry. So if the 

cruise ships had to put all its people and equipment in place for 

a short season, somebody is going to have to pay a much higher 

bill to bring those tourists to Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that is-the gentleman, Mr. Leslie, was 

talking about that working relationship with the tourist industry 

and the timber industry. 

Mr. TARO. Yes. And I am a member of the Alaska Visitors Association, also. 
24 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, again, I think we want to stay on the target. I think you brought it out. But, you know, most of these decisions would be better made by people that live in Alaska and by 

Alaska. And I was interested in your multiple-use map. If that is 

just an example of a multiple-use concept from those that are supposed to be professional foresters, that really bothers me a great 

deal. It means that maybe they are not looking at the Forest Practice Act itself. 

I thank both of you for testifying. I deeply appreciate it. I hope 

to see you in the near future. Glad to have you aboard. 

Mr. TARO. Thank you. 

Mr. PRIVETT. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. The CHAIRMAN. We are going to take about a three-minute recess 

and then we will call up Panel Four. It will be Cliff Skillings and 

Jack Phelps-Cliff Skillings from the Alaska Lumbermen's Association and Jack Phelps from Alaska Forest Association. 

(Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. If we will take our seats, please, and we will go 

on with our Panel Four. 

I think both of you gentlemen have been watching the previous 

witnesses. They have done an excellent job. 

Cliff and Jack-Cliff, would you like to be first? 

Mr. SKILLINGS. Sure. 

The CHAIRMA..N'. OK. I appreciate your coming before us and testifying. 

STATEMENT OF CLIFF SKILLINGS, ALASKA LUMBERMEN'S 

ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. SKILLINGS. Thank you, Congressman Young, for allowing us 

the opportunity to testify today. And welcome back to Southeast 

Alaska, although the weather could be a little better. 

The CHAIRMAN. Listen, after being back in Washington, with 34 

inches of snow, for awhile this is great. You have heard about 

being up to you know what, I suspect. 

Mr. SKILLINGS. Yeah, I know. 

Anyway, sir, I would like to thank you for taking the time to 

gather testimony here on your House Resolution today. My name 

is Cliff Skillings, and I am here today representing the Alaska 

Lumbermen's Association. ALA represents the independent Small 

Business Administration sawmills on the region, supporting businesses and other individuals who have a vested interest in a productive timber sale program and industry. 

As you are aware, Congressman, from consistent correspondence 

from this industry to your office, the timber industry is being crucified by Forest Service appraisal overstatements, environmental 

appeals, and Washington, D.C./East Coast intervention in how our 

forest should be managed. Each of these issues add up and equal 

one drastic sum: Elimination of an industry through either delay 

action or no action. All of these entities state the underlying need 

for ecosystem management and sustainable forest management, 

but none seem to include timber harvest in the equation either for 

proper forest management or regional socioeconomic gain. As a 

matter of fact, the timber industry witnessed its worst year yet in 
25 

1995, when only 220 million board feet was offered. Of that, 40 million was independent SBA. 

.A1; it currently stands, with the volumes sold in Federal Fiscal 

Year 1995 and the proposed low volumes slated for Federal Fiscal 

Year 1996, three of the five larger SBA production mills are facing 

permanent closures in the next six months with one more on borrowed time. This equates to 75 people being placed out of work permanently in six months, unless something is done. 

The bottom line is that the Forest Service will not be able to 

make a sufficient volume of timber available in 1996 to sustain the 

industry. This will make two years in which timber supply has 

been curtailed by both Forest Service inadequacies in timber sale 

scheduling, Administration policies, and special intervention 

through litigation and administrative appeals. The timber supply 

crisis equates to one industry fact: Hardship for one facet of the industry dictating imminent destruction to the other. 

For this reason, I would like to say that we support your efforts 

to seek out proper forest management on the Tongass National 

Forest by Alaskans, for Alaskans. We have already seen a similar 

action work for the fishing industry when Federal management for 

fisheries was returned to the State of Alaska. 

We further support the committed efforts of the Delegation, as a 

whole, for recognizing the multiple-use management involving a 

managed timber harvest program which is not being attained on 

the Tongass. 

My only concerns, Congressman, with this legislation lie with the 

potential manager of the Tongass, the State of Alaska . .A1; currently 

stands, our Administration is constantly being swayed in their timber opinions by other state agencies and regional environmental 

factions. Furthermore, it seems as though it would be difficult to 

administer a productive timber sale program when the state agency dealing with habitat and wildlife is already dead set against 

timber harvest and implements habitat strategies using scare tactics, which are both unwarranted and unjustified. 

For this reason, Congressman, I would ask that you add a section in your bill which states all state agencies must concur with 

a multiple-use management ideal involving timber harvest at a 

level equal to local processor demand. This way, all state agencies 

would see the positive effects of multiple-use forest management 

involving a productive timber industry and implement strategies accordingly. 

This bill has many positive merits in Alaska in Alaskans managing their own Tongass rather than intense East Coast intervention 

in the planning process. It also offers Alaskans closer proximity to 

policymakers who will make the final decision. But as witnessed by 

their historic land management actions, I am not sure the State of 

Alaska is ready for such a large parcel to manage. I would just ask 

that we please be sure the State of Alaska can handle such an obligation so that Southeast economies do not take further steps backwards in the process. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today, Congressman Young. I would also, once again, like to state that we applaud your legislative efforts to maintain forest utilization and 

proper forest management; a balanced concept which recognizes 
26 

both the needs of regional citizens for their recreational use, but 

also recognizing the socioeconomic effect to harvesting a renewable 

resource. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Cliff. You timed that just well, you 

done well. 

Mr. SKILLINGS. I am looking at that yellow light. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and I will take your suggestion to heart to rewrite this legislation. We will always be in 

contact. I know your concerns. 

I happen to strongly believe, though, that this state's wisdom of 

Administration, while working for the passage of this act, will be 

under a great deal more, let us say, citizen participation than occurs now, because we can always say, well, it is not our fault, it 

was the Forest Service's fault. If you only have one manager here, 

it is much easier to put your finger on his forehead and say that 

is not right. When you have two managers, it is always the other 

guy's fault. And I just wanted to remind you. 

Jack, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF JACK PHELPS, ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION, 

KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Congressman. It is good to see you back 

in Alaska. I am sorry I missed you last time. I was in Washington. 

But I did, as usual--

The CHAIRMAN. I was probably up here. Go ahead. 

Mr. PHELPS. I did, as usual, though, benefit from talking to your 

fine staff. So I appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Jack Phelps. I am the 

Executive Director of the Alaska Forest Association. The association was established in 1957 and now has more than 250 regular 

and associate member companies statewide. 

The Alaska Forest Association would like to express a strong appreciation to you, and to Senators Stevens and Murkowski, for your 

efforts in maintaining the jobs of timber industry workers in Southeast Alaska. Since the Tongass Timber Reform Act was passed in 

1990, more than 40 percent of the jobs in the timber industry have 

disappeared. We have lost a major sawmill and a pulp mill due to 

reduced economics and the unavailability of timber. And as Cliff 

mentioned, three out of five small production mills are foreseeing 

potential closure within the next six months. 

The TTRA, as you well recall, was one of the many attempts to 

forge a compromise with the environmental community by reducing 

the ASQ, the allowable sale quantity, so that more areas could be 

put into wilderness and other legislative land withdrawals. Today 

we have way over six million acres of land withdrawn into permanent reserves and only one tenth of the entire Tongass available 

for harvest. Now the Clinton Administration is pressuring the Forest Service to reduce the commercial forest land base even farther 

by establishing habitat conservation areas on more than 600,000 

acres of the remaining 1.7. This will further reduce the ASQ so 

that an industry will not be sustainable on the Tongass National 

Forest. 

Now, Congressman Young, you have introduced this bill, which 

would permit the State of Alaska to decide whether or not the 
27 

Tongass should be transferred to the state. While that is seen as 

a dramatic measure by some, we believe it is time to begin consideration of some drastic measures. We simply cannot afford to sit 

idly by and watch the current regime destroy the livelihoods of so 

many fine people in Southeast Alaska. We call upon the Governor 

to work with the Congressional Delegation on this bill and on all 

the Delegation's efforts to solve the timber-supply problem on the 

Tongass. 

As you will recall, one key reason that Alaskans wanted statehood was to get control of the territory's fish and game resources. 

Alaskans knew as a state we could manage those resources better 

than a Federal Government clear on the other side .of the continent. The same holds true, we believe, with respect to management of the Tongass. 

Can you imagine the Governor and the Alaska Legislature allowing employment in the timber industry to drop 40 percent in five 

years without doing something about it, as has happened under 

Federal management? I cannot. Can you imagine the Governor and 

the State of Alaska agreeing to a TLMP revision process which 

would reduce by 60 percent the ASQ which sustains jobs for our 

remaining timber workers without first doing a socioeconomic 

study to look at the consequences of that action on the timber-dependent communities, as the Forest Service is now doing? I cannot. 

Can you imagine the Governor and the State of Alaska requiring 

two environmental impact statements on the same timber before 

that timber can be transferred from one company's mill to another, 

as the Ninth Circuit is now requiring under Federal NEPA? I cannot. Can you imagine the Governor and the Alaska Legislature becoming so bureaucratically ensnarled that they cannot make timber 

available from a huge resource while mills are closed and workers 

are put out ofwork in timber-dependent communities? I cannot. 

Those are just a few of the things that we think would be different if the State of Alaska were charged with the management 

of the Tongass instead of the Federal Government. 

Now, having said that, we remain concerned about Alaska's lack 

of a comprehensive and coherent timber policy. We do not have 

one. Unlike our excellent track record in oil development and minerals development, the state does not have a historic pattern of full 

utilization of our vast timber resources. That is a great concern to 

us. And we would urge you to address that issue, particularly in 

the findings sections of your bill, which presently do not accurately 

reflect past and present state agency actions. 

In short, Congressman Young, we congratulate you on the concept of this bill. We look forward to working with you as it moves 

through the legislative process. 

I would be happy to answer questions. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jack. 

You mentioned, and you have all the figures there, you mentioned about the administration of the present Forest Service activities concerning the remaining lands after 1990. To your knowledge, have they looked at the other acreages of land for habitat, for 

wildlife, et cetera, or are they only concentrating those lands available for multiple use? 
28 

Mr. PHELPS. The one area along those lines, Congressman, that 

concerned me particularly was when the goshawk circle approach 

was taken. It was our understanding that due to limited funds, or 

whatever, the goshawk study was done on lands available for timber rather than across the entire landscape. And that, in my opinion, is an example of the way that things are looked at piecemeal 

instead of over the entire scale. 

The CHAIRMAN. The other thing you mentioned about setting up 

a track record for forest management practice for the state, I will 

look at that very closely. I am not sure I want to dictate to the 

state what they should and should not do. They will be the owners 

of the land. And I know your interest, too, Cliff, in this question. 

I agree with you both that I do not think any of this disaster 

would have happened if the st8.te had been managing these lands, 

because I do not think you would have a governor sitting in t he 

chair today, for instance, or even the legislators. 

This is why we are bringing the government back to the people 

and the ownership back to the people, not peing run from way back 

in Washington, D.C., as it has been. 

I just haveMr. PHELPS. Congressman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. PHELPS. If I can make a comment to that. 

I appreciate what you are saying. My particular concern is in the 

findings section, if I may quote from it briefly.\ Paragraph three 

says: ''The State of Alaska is committed to poliCies in connection 

with the Tongass that include informed decisionm~king, prudent 

management of the Tongass resource with sound science, multiple 

balanced and sustainable use of Tongass resources, and inclusive 

planning process for the diverse interests associated with the 

Tongass in planning a consensus." 

I am not convinced that that is true across the board of state 

agencies today. I am concerned with that kind of statement being, 

you know, enacted into Federal law, when it may or may not, in 

my opinion, at this point, does not reflect accurately particularly 

the Fish and Game Department. 

The CHAIRMAN. Cliff, I have had criticism by certain media 

groups and other interest groups saying this is just a timber bill, 

and it is not. Then they say it is just a bill for the big timber companies. 

Under state management, would it not, in fact, give you a greater opportunity for small businesses and smaller operators to actively be involved? 

Mr. SKILLINGS. Yeah. Should the state put up the small sales, 

there is a few bills that Jack Hill passed through last year that 

could benefit us. We cannot really-we do not really have a say on 

those here south of Anchorage, but, yeah, they plan it here. I think 

there is definitely, like I said, quite a bit of legislation that would 

benefit us currently if it is enacted and is proposed. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the things that we were advised of-we 

were told by certain interest groups back in Washington, D.C., and 

led by those even from Alaska, that the 1990 Act was going to be 

a great thing for the small logging companies. 
29 

Now, have we increased the small logging companies since 1990 

or have we decreased the small logging companies? 

Mr. SKILLINGS. No. Those are the same people that are putting 

us out of business. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is why he talked about the-Mr. Leslie was 

talking about the word of those that purport to be helping the 

small companies, the small businessmen, against the big business, 

really were putting you out of business, too? 

Mr. SKILLINGS. Right, absolutely. We are going out right and left. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, I happened to be here a long time 

ago, when we had lots, and lots, and lots of small businesses, too, 

by the way, and it is healthy. It also has to have-like I say, I do 

not think this would have ever happened, Jack, like you mentioned, 

if, in fact, we had a state management. I feel confident it would not 

have happened. 

I want both of you to understand that this bill is just beginning. 

I want you to understand that as we go through, there will be additions and subtractions and pluses and minuses. I will be sending 

you copies. Where you have suggestions, we will gladly try to see 

whether we can apply them for management of the area by the 

state, and with suggestions, because you are both interested in the 

timber industry, with your understanding that you have an interest. And I will also have an interest on reading it, too. This is just 

a beginning, and I hope to have your help. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. SKILLINGS. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. PHELPS. You are more than welcome. 

The CHAIRMAN. It has been brought up to me by staff that the 

findings in Section 3 were really submitted to this bill by the Governor's testimony. That is where it came from. Mr. Hensley presented that to Senator Murkowski. 

Mr. PHELPS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will have, I believe, Panel Five: Bruce 

Baker, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Juneau, Alaska; 

Syd Wright, Petersburg, Alaska; Joel Hanson, Wrangell Resource 

Council, Wrangell, Alaska. 

And Syd is not here. He is having a hard time getting in from 

Petersburg. 

That is only 12 minutes away, is it not? He should have taken 

that boat that Wrangell went over and attacked Petersburg with 

during the Norwegian Days, got the Mayor and kidnapped him. 

That was great fun, by the way. It was also one of the greater five 

days of my life I spent. One of the few times I was glad to see an 

airplane come, though, after five days. 

So we have Bruce Baker and Joel Hanson. And with your permission, Joel, I will go ahead-and, by the way, Syd Wright's testimony, and I want it perfectly clear, will be part of the hearing 

record. He was invited, he did say he would attend. And we will 

be having his testimony submitted for the record, if he is unable 

to make it. 

[The statement of Mr. Wright may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Joel, do you want to go first? 

24-018 - 96 - 2 
30 

STATEMENT OF JOEL HANSON, WRANGELL RESOURCE 

COUNCIL, WRANGELL, ALASKA 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

I would like to start out by offering my sincere thanks to you as 

Chairman and to your Committee for coming to Wrangell. It is, obviously, way overdue. It has been 19 years. It is long overdue, and 

I appreciate your presence here. 

My name is Joel Hanson. I am a 15-year resident here in the 

Wrangell area. I am a commercial salmon fisherman, and I am 

President of the Wrangell Resource Council, whose members I represent in this testimony. On their behalf, I offer my strongest objection and opposition to Congressman Don Young's H.R. 2413. 

We feel that the idea of granting the good citizens of the state 

of Alaska ownership of all the Federal lands which surround us 

and from which many of us earn our livings is a beguiling, but totally unrealistic, concept that may perhaps have a certain appeal 

to some independent-minded folks, but it just is not going to happen. 

H.R. 2413 uses the populist concept of ownership and local control as a slick pitch to sell an awesome lemon of legislation to the 

public. Mr. Young's bill wears a double knit polyester suit and pencil-thin mustache. It sells tower and romance, and my organization 

members warn me that i we end up buying something from this 

man, it is going to leak oil all over the driveway. The whole thing 

is empty foolishness. 

For instance, the bill assumes, as a fundamental thesis, that the 

public good could not possibly be met through Federal management 

of public land or natural resources, that, in fact, the entire concept 

of lands being managed in the national interest, rather than for 

strictly private, local, or regional benefit, is absurd, unconstitutional, and it is basically a 20th Century sacred cow that ought to 

be butchered quick. It argues, in effect, that the Federal Government really should 

not be in the business of seeking to serve the common good. This 

kind of thinking is regressive and wrong. 

In reality, the concept of National Interest Lands is the product 

of an evolutionary development that has taken years to form, and 

it should not be abandoned lightly. It sprung up during the first 

decade of the century, when the American public started showing 

a growing environmental awareness and concern, and when leaders 

such as a proponent named Teddy Roosevelt, who, along with the 

U.S. Congress in 1907, saw fit to serve the public by passing legislation by creating our National Parks system. 

During subsequent years, the people of this country, through 

their elected representatives, have created painstakingly, one afte~r 

another, further laws which govern the use and disposition of public lands and that protect the environment, all with an emphasi.s 

on serving the national interest. 

There is no doubt that bureaucracies can and do sometimes 

screw up their priorities and fail to meet the needs of the people 

they serve and that existing Federal laws will need to be changed 

and tightened up from time to time. But this bill literally obliterates, or badly smudges, a big portion of nearly a hundred years of 

environmental legislation. It is a land manager's nightmare, a law-
31 

yer's dream, and it would not provide any measure whatsoever of 

stability or security for the people or communities in Southeast 

Alaska. It would simply create chaos, temporarily reestablish the 

dominance of a few favorite resource barons of your or somebody 

else's choice, and postpone the badly needed progress toward economic and environmental sustainability that is increasingly every 

American's hope. 

There is a fundamental fallacy in the premise that the state ownership of the Tongass would be better than Federal. Witness that 

just a few years ago, Governor Hickel would have directed state 

foresters, had it been in his power, to harvest Tongass trees at a 

rate of 680 million board feet a year. A few years before that, Governor Cooper was happy with a harvest rate of 360. Our current 

Governor promotes the approach of combining good science plus 

community needs, which is what the Forest Service's Tongass Land 

Management Plan Revision promises, and which might well result 

in a recommended harvest level of close to, or even less than, 300 

million board feet per year. 

What kind of stability does state control really promise in Southeast if the State Administration can change its mind and its harvest goals every four years? Not much. 

House Resolution 2413's fundamental purpose is, or should be, to 

meet the needs of communities like Wrangell and to serve the people who live here who have been hurt by the wildly fluctuating and 

uncertain prospects of the timber industry in this region. This is 

a noble purpose, and I applaud it in concept. 

Wrangell Resource Council members join the other Wrangell 

community members in support of a broadly based community 

economy that will include a stable forest products industry. But 

this bill is not a route to such stability. 

I believe we can achieve a stable forest products industry in this 

region. We can do so by recognizing that this country's so-called 

National Interest Lands are likely to continue to include the 

Tongass and that much of the forest will continue to be managed 

for the greatest common good in spite of the efforts of off-withtheir-heads kind of legislation such as this. 

What we need is to reach consensus, at least for the time being, 

on what the American public thinks is a suitable rate of harvest 

for forests on public lands using as a guide the nearly 100 years 

of environmental legislation we have built. We need to follow 

through with the upcoming ten-year forest plan that the Forest 

Service is undertaking. And if the national interest seems to be at 

odds with our own private interest, we Alaskans need to present 

our case, get the best deal possible, and then move ahead with the 

work at hand. 

We have to listen to our managers, our land managers, our foresters, our economists, our community leaders, our environmental 

groups, industry specialists, biologists, and each other, not just in 

the state, but across the nation. Where, in God's name, is the sense 

of patriotism and common purpose in this bill, I ask you? 

In summary, Wrangell Resource Council members denounce this 

legislation. Furthermore, we feel that Mr. Young's constant demagoguery and finger pointing and his preference for burning rather 

than building bridges of understanding are a liability to this com-
32 

munity's goal of a healthy economy at work and a healthy environment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Joel. Thank God for democracy. 

Bruce Baker? 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE BAKER, SOUTHEAST ALASKA 

CONSERVATION COUNCIL, JUNEAU, ALASKA 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Representative Young. 

My name is Bruce Baker, and I am testifying as a Southeast 

Alaska Conservation Council Board Member today. SEACC opposes 

H.R. 2413, and our staff will present our full testimony tomorrow. 

Today what I would like to do is mention fish, wildlife, and tourism 

problems with the bill. 

I am a graduate forester. I have worked in Southeast Alaska for 

25 years. I began my career here with the Forest Service. I later 

worked with the State of Alaska, first in the Office of the Governor 

and then the Department of Fish and Game. 

I have listened with interest to a lot of the concerns that have 

been registered here this morning. The reality is, of course, that 

the Tongass National Forest belongs to the people of the United 

States and not just to those of us Alaskans who are fortunate 

enough to live here. Although the state has matured considerably 

in its ability to manage public trust resources, the state's constitution, laws, regulations, and budget allocations are simply inadequate to ensure the balance of national, state, and regional interests that the Forest Service is able to manage. 

For example, the state has no law that requires as public and 

comprehensive evaluation of land management decision options as 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Southeast Alaska's commercial salmon fishery provides over 

5,000 local jobs. Sportfishing provides over 1,200 jobs. Subsistence 

salmon harvest is more than 1.2 million pounds a year. Long-term 

protection of salmon habitat is critical for ensuring the sustainability of this important segment of the region's economy. 

To protect salmon habitat, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

biologists recommend at least 100-foot-wide no-harvest zones along 

each side of the salmon streams. In the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act, Congress adopted this recommendation and established mini- mum 100 foot buffers along salmon streams and many tributary 

streams that directly affect the water quality in salmon streams. 

This bill would repeal this provision. On state land, the state Forest Practices Act precludes timber harvest within 100 feet of a 

salmon stream. Between 100 and 300 feet timber harvest can 

occur, but it has to be consistent with the maintenance of important fish habitat. This bill would allow the transfer of over 200,000 

acres of Tongass Forest to private corporations, and on private 

land, state law requires that partial uncut buffers be left within 

only 66 feet of only certain salmon streams. 

Although fish habitat protection requirements are somewhat 

similar for the Tongass and for state lands, the Tongass has 19 

fisheries biologists to work on timber sales, yet the state has only 

three biologists to work on timber sales throughout the state, regardless of landownership. 
33 

Last month, Fish and Game reported to the state Board of Forestry that its funding to implement the state's Forest Practices Act 

has been slashed by the legislature to 65 percent of what it was 

before the Forest Practices Act was passed in 1990. Fish and Game 

concludes that, I quote, "We can anticipate a continued degradation 

in the abundance, quality, and availability to humans of nontimber 

resources." 

The Forest Service's January 1995 Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment Report to Congress indicates the current practices on the 

Tongass still do not achieve the long-term goal of avoiding the need 

to list salmon stocks under the Federal Endangered Species Act. 

The report concludes that, "Current practices"-that is, the 100-

foot no-cut buffers and the best ·management practices-"Current 

practices for timber harvest planning and application are not fully 

effective in protecting anadromous fish habitats on the Tongass." 

The Forest Service identified more than a dozen recommendations that it can implement to meet these goals. Neither the state 

nor the private sector has conducted such a comprehensive analysis 

of the effectiveness of fish habitat protection measures. 

The greatest degree of fish habitat protection on the Tongass is 

that afforded by the Congressionally designated wilderness areas 

and by the 12 Congressionally protected Land Use Designation or 

LUD II areas. This bill would repeal all these areas. 

Tonge.ss wildlife depend on sound forest management decisions, 

and the Forest Service has a far more comprehensive body of laws 

and regulations than the state has for protecting wildlife habitat. Like fish habitat, wildlife habitat receives the greatest protection 

in the Congressionally designated wilderness and the LUD II 

areas. Their repeal under this bill would be harmful to people who 

depend on wildlife for their monetary and nonmonetary economic 

well-being. 

On the land transferred from the Tongass to private corporations 

under this bill, there would be absolutely no protection of wildlife 

that would be-habitat that would be required under the state Forest Practices Act. 

And, finally, tourism is Southeast Alaska's fastest-growing industry, and in a 1995 study approximately 70 percent of those interviewed indicated that wildlife viewing in remote wilderness were 

very important or important considerations in their decision to visit 

the region. 

Wildlife and wilderness have become major contributors to 

Southeast Alaska's economy. And, here again, the repeal of wilderness and LUD II areas threatens serious long-term economic damage to those in Alaskan communities dependent upon these industries. Despite its problems, the Forest Service is clearly in the best position to balance the many national, state, and regional concerns 

and interests here. And we recommend that you stop emphasizing 

this bill and provide support to the ongoing public process for revising the Tongass Land Management Plan. 

I appreciate the time that you have given us here. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Baker may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You are quite welcome. 

Were both of you involved in the 1990 Act, Tongass Reform Act? 
34 

Mr. BAKER. In a way, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you support it? 

Mr. HANSON. Yeah, I supported it. 

Mr. BAKER. Yes, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You supported it? 

The reason I am saying that, all these-! go back to all these 

statements here from SEACC. "First let me say that we are concerned in the need for maintaining a healthy economic and stable 

timber industry in Southeast Alaska," Larry Edwards, SEACC. I go 

on with all these statements myself. ''What happens if the Sitka 

mill closed down, Larry?" "It is not going to. I mean, we are not 

going to affect the timber base." 

I mean, reality, Bruce, is what bothers me the most. 

You say, Joel, I should abandon my efforts. You know, you talk 

about fish. And you are a fishennan, and you know you have got 

your little economic base. 

It is like one of you Forest Service people the other day stopped 

me in the airport and said there have been so many streams ruined 

by the logging industry. It is strange to me that, you know, the 

record in 1990, 66 million, 69 in 1991, 46 in 1992, 72-I mean, 

these are salmon-1995, 55 million, record levels, thousand55,000, record levels of fish--

Mr. BAKER. Representative Young, one of the things--

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, Bruce. Let me finish this. 

I want to know where you are getting your figures, because the 

figures do not add up. What has happened to the fishing industry 

in Southeast? 

Mr. BAKER. One of the things that needs to be pointed out, and 

is right out of the forest report to the Congress, is that there are 

about 15- to 20-year cycles of favorable currents coming up the 

coast our way versus currents that head farther south. Right now, 

we are at the end of, apparently, of a 15- to 20-year-or 15-year 

period in which we have enjoyed wanner currents and greater fisheries productivity. And the message is that as we move into what 

is expected to be a 15-year trend of lower productivity, it is all the 

more important that the historic levels of fisheries productionhabitat protection--

The CHAIRMAN. What happened to our land that we set aside in 

1980 and 1990? Was those not the best streams? They are not 

being touched, are they? 

Mr. BAKER. There is a combination of things that helps fish habitat, of course, and one is the areas for which total protection is provided--

The CHAIRMAN. Including clearing those streams up? You--

Mr. BAKER. The other--

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. 

Mr. BAKER. I will finish the question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you rehabilitate a stream in a wilderness 

area? 

Mr. BAKER. And the other, in answer to your question, Representative Young, is the protection of habitats through best management practices and 100 foot buffers. The Forest Service has reported to your body, the Congress, that those are-as good as they 
35 

are and as great the advances habe been in habitat protectionthey are still inadequate to protect historic production. 

The CHAIRMAN. You do not have much confidence in the state at 

all, do you? 

Mr. BAKER. I have a lot of confidence in the state. I have worked 

for both the Forest Service and the state, and I feel like I have a 

real good feeling for both of them. 

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think the state can manage these 

lands? 

Mr. BAKER. I think that the Forest Service is in a far better position to balance national, regional, and state interests than the 

State of Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are saying national and regional and not 

local? 

Mr. BAKER. I think that--

The CHAIRMAN. That means the local people are not really considered? 

Mr. BAKER. It is essential that-no, I did not say that. I said that 

national, regional, and local-national, state, and regional interests-need to be balanced, and the Tongass Land Management 

Planning process has provided, and does continue to provide, one 

of the best forums that this Democratic nation can come up with 

for doing that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Constitution of the United States allow 

the Congress to dispose of lands? 

Mr. BAKER. It is my understanding that it can. 

The CHAIRMAN. It can, can it not? 

Mr. BAKER. That is my understanding. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what is wrong with my bill? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I tried to outline five minutes' worth of reasons. 

The CHAIRMAN. That reminds me, Joel, you are a fisherman. You know, it goes backs to statehood. Do you know who was the 

biggest promoter of statehood because they wanted to manage their 

fish for the state of Alaska and the people of Alaska? What is different in that land? Where would you be today if the Federal Government was still managing the fisheries? 

Mr. HANSON. Well, there is no doubt that the state has benefited 

from the state management of its fisheries resources. They have 

done a far better job than the Federal Government did during 

statehood. 

The difference is, at this point in time, there is a-there is a consensus of opinion among Americans and a direction that they are 

taking and that is looking toward a greater benefit than that that 

is provided to the Nation as a whole through resource development, 

extraction, and improvements. There is a different concept behind Federal management of the 

lands here than there would be if those lands were turned over to 

private enterprise. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, again, we are turning it over to the state. 

The one thing that bothers me, Joel, you and I have a definite 

difference of opinion of where this nation should be going. You 

would like to see the direction going as total centralization controlled by the Federal Government, where I would like to see the 
36 

states control and the communities. And that is a legitimate debate. You cannot deny that. I mean, you believe in the national 

good and the Federalization of lands. I believe in the private ownership of lands, and they can best take care of the lands, versus 

the national interest. 

And it has always bothered me when I hear people suggest that 

the government can do a better job. If you believe that, then go to 

Russia. You have seen what has happened over there. Look at their 

dead sea. I mean, dead sea. Look at the oil spill, which you referred 

to in your opening testimony about me, which I thought was 

uncalled for. I mean--

Mr. HANSON. It was referenced--

The CHAIRMAN. In reference to the oil. 

Again, it is a matter of philosophy, and this is not just Alaska, 

I want you both to understand. This battle is not just about the 

Tongass. This is about who shall control lands. Is it the centralized 

government, a socialized form of government? It is not a new idea. 

It came under Eisenhower. Walker thought it was the best idea, no 

one should own private land. Private land should be, in fact, only 

used temporarily and then transferred back to the government to 

be redisbursed to somebody else at a later date. No one came up 

with a new idea. 

Mr. BAKER. Representative? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BAKER. May I make a comment, please? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. BAKER. We hear frequent reference to returning the Tongass 

to the people. Ever since the United States of America has been the 

United States of America, ever since Europeans imposed themselves on this continent, this Tongass Forest has not been state 

land. This has been in the Federal domain. 

The CHAIRMAN. And at one time, it was properly run from th•~ 

local federally controlled agency, not from Washington, D.C. 

This bill would never have been introduced, in fact, if we had followed through with the 1980 Act or if we followed through with the 

1990 Act, which was an agreement by your group. Your grass roots 

group agreed to that, and Bart Koehler agreed to it. In fact, he left 

this state to go off and do other things in other areas and then 

came back after Mr. Clinton was eleeted to undo the 1990 Act and, 

in fact, drive out all timber industry and all management of this 

area and leave it in the hands of one agency. You know that, Bruce. 

Mr. BAKER. No, I do not. The Tongass Timber Reform Act was 

obviously a political compromise that nobody embraced a hundred 

percent, but which people accepted as a compromise. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr.-Bart h:_mself says: "There is peace in 

the valley. There will be no more activity in the Tongass. We have 

reached a consensus. There is now room for all to, in fact, enjoy the 

great Tongass Forest." 

Mr. BAKER. And there is. And there is when the Tongass Land 

Management Plan process provides a forum for reconciling differing 

views and values. The CHAIRMAN. Since 1990, we have lost 43 percent of the tim- ber-related jobs in this area, mostly because of lawsuits and be-
37 

cause of the inactivity of the agencies directed from Washington, D.C. 

Mr. BAKER. There is disagreement on that set of reasons. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there may be disagreement. Talk to the 

people themselves, the people working in Wrangell, who no longer 

work. Talk to the people in Sitka that no longer work. 

Mr. BAKER. There are economic reasons. The CHAIRMAN. Let us go back to the fisheries. Joel, if you think you are isolated, think again. You are about to 

come into some very serious challenges in the fishing industry, unfortunately, by the Federal Government, where your profession 

may not exist. You know, that is unfortunate, too. 

I just happen to believe, and I know I am editorializing, and I 

should avoid this-I believe in states' rights, states' people's involvement, not someone from abroad directing their regional director, in fact, to do something he knows basically is wrong. And that 

has happened. I do not think that is the way our government was 

meant to run. 

Now, that can be a legitimate difference of opinion. You may like 

that. I just think it is wrong. That decision-this is one thing I love about a democracy. Every- body has an opportunity to voice their views, such as I do even myself, but I am going to pursue this policy nationwide to try to get 

the debate open of where we are going. If, in fact, the people want 

what you want, then that is how it shall be. But if, in fact, the people decide, and this is not a-you know, a horoscope, this is reality-if they decide I am right, then we will go in that direction 

regardless of that. Thank you, gentlemen, for testifying. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have-the last panel, I believe, is the Forest 

Service. You have been talked about, maligned, criticized collectively, patted on the back, but welcome. Actually, I have been very kind. I want you to know that. I may 

need a cabin permit some day. You never know. 

Do we have-Abigail, you are going to testify, and they will--

Ms. KIMBEL. I will introduce them. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, fine. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBEL, GARY MORRISON. AND 

BRAD POWELL. TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST SUPERVISORS. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE. ALASKA 

Ms. KIMBEL. OK. Mr. Chairman, 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." 

With me are Brad Powell and Gary Morrison. Brad is the Forest 

Supervisor on the Ketchikan area. Gary Morrison is the Forest Supervisor on the Chatham area. I am the Forest Supervisor on the 

Stikine area. 
38 

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. 

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 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 success. Through multiple-use management, balancing 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 continue to refine land management practices to better protect 

and produce a full range of resources. 

We recognize that some people disagree with certain aspects of 

current management efforts. Some believe we place too little emphasis on timber products; others believe that there is too much 

emphasis on timber. 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 

the natural resource management which cannot be "fixed" by shifting responsibility from Federal to state government. 

The economies of Southeast Alaska are in a 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 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. 

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 over the last 15 years. This 

has, in tum, created millions of pounds of salmon contributing to 

the commercial fishing industry. The Forest Service has worked 

hard to facilitate growth in other sectors of the economy. The investment in programs and infrastructure 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 
39 

property and improvements without adequate compensation to the 

Federal Treasury. 

H.R. 2413 would also change the flow of economic benefits that 

the Forest Service programs currently provide to the 33 communities within the Tongass National Forest. The Forest Service 

shares 25 percent of gross timber receipts from the National Forest. In 1995, this amounted to $7.6 million. Of this total, the city 

of Wrangell alone received $536,000. For Wrangell, as for 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 that the Federal Government spends to operate programs on the Tongass at the current 

level. The cost of managing the Tongass would 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 a burden to the stability of the Alaskan 

economy. Additionally, 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. 

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 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. 

First, we need to do 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 to list species 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. 

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. And we plan to offer 116 million board feet under 

the independent timber supply program for fiscal year 1996. 

Additionally, the Forest Service is committed to continuing to 

meet the KPC, the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation, obligation. In fis-
40 

cal year 1996, the Forest Service intends to offer 205 million board 

feet under the terms of the long-term contract. 

Would you like me to continue through the rest of.--

The CHAIRMAN. How much more do you have? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Just a couple more pages. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Ms. KIMBEL. Thank you. 

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 government-to-government relationships. We hope w<e 

can similarly formalize relationships with other federally recognized tribes in the Southeast. Tongass management affects a broad 

spectrum of the legitimate interests of those 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, and we think we can do better. 

Better service to those who seek permits for tourism and related 

activities 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. 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 are reviewing the entire permit process to 

identify administrative efficiencies, to speed it up, and to make it 

more convenient for the public-in short, to reengineer the entirt~ 

permit process. 

We have committed to an improved interagency partnership so 

that the public will be subjected to less bureaucracy and improved 

responses to their applications. 

Greater efficiency with fewer people and tighter budgets. 

We are just completing a process to reorganize and downsize the 

Regional Office in Juneau in order to reduce administrative costs. 

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 into the next. We have appointed a special task team to chart the course for this reexamination, and we will be sharing the results with the public along the 

way. 

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. And just recently, 

Senator Stevens was able to allocate additional moneys for those 

programed, and we have been very grateful for that opportunity to 

work with the communities with that money. 

This commitment to the communities of Southeast Alaska will 

continue into the future. In fact, the Forest Service, through its 

Rural Community Assistance program, intends to provide, or chan-
41 

nel, more than $750,000 in grant money to resource-dependent 

communities in Alaska in fiscal year 1996. 

Strengthening relationships with the State of Alaska. Our relationship with the agencies of the State of Alaska have 

never been better, but still we continue to work to enhance them. 

Last summer, the Chief of the Forest Service met with the Governor and agreed 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 for this hearing. As we carry out that agreement, we 

think we will raise our relationship to an even higher level of understanding and cooperation. 

Our first chief, Gifford Pinchot, recognized at the time of the establishment of the National Forest that there would be conflicting 

goals and compromises. He said: "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." 

Nearly a century later, we know that still to be true, and we intend to redouble our efforts at listening to the people as we go 

around Southeast Alaska with the Tongass Land Management 

Plan revisions. 

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. We expect that the draft revision of the land man- agement plan will be available for full public review and comment 

by the end of March of this year. And we are looking forward to 

extensive and productive reviews and discussion of the range of alternatives for uses on the Tongass. 

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 U.S. 

Forest Service. 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, but, as we have shown in our testimony, we are 

working diligently to maximize the value of the Tongass National 

Forest to people across Southeast Alaska, as well as to the other 

owners of the Tongass across the United States. 

We look forward to hearing from all of the panels of witnesseswe enjoyed hearing from all 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 Tongass. That concludes our statement. We would be happy to answer any 

questions you might have. [The statement of Phil Janik may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I do appreciate your testimony. 

How long have you been in your job? 

Ms. KIMBEL. I have been in my job just over four years. 

The CHAIRMAN. How long do you intend to be in your job? 
42 

Ms. KIMBEL. I hope to be in my job until I am at retirement. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is one of our problems, by the way. We 

have people transfer out, temporary work. There is no institutional 

memory about the role of the Forest Service. I have said before, 20 years ago, this hearing would have never 

taken place. 

Ms. KIMBEL. Actually, in the community of Wrangell, we have 

enjoyed having a District Ranger in place here for 16 years. 

The CHAIRMAN. The other thing is, did you write your own testimony? I say that as a friendly question. 

Ms. KIMBEL. This testimony was prepared for Phil Janik, and I 

am presenting it in his absence. 

The CHAIRMAN. By whom? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Phil had a great deal-Phil was writing on this real 

hard last week before he was put in the hospital. 

The CHAIRMAN. I notice that-and I do offer him my condolences. 

I heard that he had had that problem. I hope I was not a cause 

of it. 

Ms. KIMBEL. There are a lot of things going on. 

The CHAIRMAN. I feel a little better because one of his cohorts 

said he had had this problem before, and that made me feel a little 

better. 

You said in your testimony that you are looking for a predictable, 

stable timber supply in the Tongass, is that correct? 

Ms. KIMBEL. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is why I introduced my bill. 

"Forest Service Chief calls stable timber supply a myth," Washington, D.C. [Article on page 236.] And I am not saying this disrespectfully to you. This is our problem. What you do, you are trying to work within a system that, frankly, is not working. It is not 

your fault. You have to do what you have to do. You are a Federal 

agency. But here is a guy, who I have very little respect for, now 

contradicting what you are saying and what Phil Janik is saying. 

And it just drives me absolutely to the point of very serious frustration. I am being very calm. 

I heard this in 1990, that we were going to have a supply of timber. That even came from the Forest Service. It was not this Administration. But, apparently, we do not have it. 

I just-you know, l-and another question and then I will go on 

to my prepared questions. I appreciate the Forest Service personnel 

that works in Alaska. I sometimes question why we have so many 

and cut so few trees. Apparently, there is other activities, such as 

looking for permits and that type thing. I am glad to hear you are 

going to expedite that process. I hope you have a reconsideration 

where a permit was not issued you do not issue citations against 

somebody using a cabin. Not good relationships. May have to do it, 

but I doubt that. And one of the things, wherever you have an enclave of Forest Service employees, make sure that they are also 

part of the community and they have not set up their own co-ops 

and, in fact, are not paying taxes to the community. And I will 

refer to that a little later on in a little while. But I am just saying 

this is part of the partners and relationship with Federal agencies. 

It is very, very important. 
43 

Your testimony is excellent, because it says everything that everybody wants to hear. I want to make sure that whatever you do 

can be followed through and someone does not undo what you want 

to do back in Washington, D.C., and that way we work together. 

How many people worked in the timber industry in 1990 in the 

Tongass? 

Ms. KIMBEL. The numbers range around 2,700. 

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-seven? 

How many people working today? 

Ms. KIMBEL. I do not have the latest figure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you supply that to the Committee? 

Ms. KIMBEL. We can supply that to the Committee. The CHAIRMAN. OK. How many worked in the timber industry itself, instead of just the Forest Service? I want the Forest Service 

numbers of people who worked--

Ms. KIMBEL. I am sorry. Maybe I misunderstood your first question. 

The CHAIRMAN. You probably did. 

Timber industry, total numbers. You must have them somewhere. 

Ms. KIMBEL. Yes, we do. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I will put them in the record when youonce you submit them. 

Ms. KIMBEL. The approximate-in the timber industry, there are 

approximately 2,900 jobs. 

The CHAIRMAN. What were they in 1990? 

Ms. KIMBEL. In nineteen-! am sorry. I do not have that number. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think we do. I want you to read them from 

there. Ms. KIMBEL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many were working in 1990? 

Ms. KIMBEL. In direct jobs, in 1990, in the timber industry in 

Southeast Alaska, there were approximately 3,500 jobs. The CHAIRMAN. How many are there today? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Direct jobs, approximately 2,000. The CHAIRMAN. A drop of about 1,500 or 1,700? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Correct. The CHAIRMAN. What was installed mill capacity in 1990? Do we 

have the mill capacity? 

Ms. KIMBEL. I do not have the-in 1990, the installed mill capacity was 730 million board feet. The CHAIRMAN. What is it today? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Today it is approximately 427 million board feet. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many biologists worked on the Tongass in 

1990? 

Ms. KIMBEL. You have good numbers. 

Approximately 184. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many worked in nineteen--

Ms. KIMBEL. In 1990-1 am sorry, 121. 

The CHAIRMAN. 121? How many today? 

Ms. KIMBEL. 184. 

The CHAIRMAN. Biologists? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Yes. 
44 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. What was the annual budget of the Forest 

Service in Alaska in 1990? 

Ms. KIMBEL. The annual expenditures of the Forest Service in 

1990 were approximately $88 million. 

The CHAIRMAN. What are they in 1995? 

Ms. KIMBEL. $107 million. The CHAIRMAN. How much of that budget is spent providing tim--

ber for long- and short-term contracts? How much of that money 

is spent on actually timber activity? 

Ms. KIMBEL. If I am recalling that figure, it is approximately $30 

million. 

The CHAIRMAN. Of the 107 million? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. OK, 30 million. 

How much was spent in 1990? 

Ms. KIMBEL. I do not carry around all those numbers in my head. The CHAIRMAN. We will-! thought you had your file there. Maybe I am going too fast for you, too. 

Ms. KIMBEL. We had 1991 and beyond. I am sorry. But--

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us go-how much timber was sold and 

released in 1990? 

I will give you time to look that up. 

Ms. KIMBEL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then go to 1995. 

What I am doing is balancing after the so-called great Tongass 

Reform Act what happened and then what is happening now. 

Ms. KIMBEL. Let me ask a question of one of our staff who is 

here in the audience. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Ms. KIMBEL. Fred Walk, do you have that information, please? 

Mr. WALK. The question is how much was sold and released in 

1990? 

The CHAIRMAN. And then versus 1995. 

Mr. WALK. Well, our records indicate 313 million in 1990 and 261 

in 1995. 

The CHAIRMAN. Approximately 40 million less? 

Mr. WALK. Approximately, yes. The CHAIRMAN. When you have-and everybody here, Mr. Leslie, and Mr. Baker, and everybody, and yourselves, talk about manag- ing the Tongass. In the management, do you consider the Tongass 

as a whole or only the remaining multiple-use lands? 

Ms. KIMBEL. We consider the Tongass as a whole. 

I believe the question was raised as to whether or not difference 

of wildlife species protection was considered for the different wilderness areas and LUD II areas, and they are very absolutely considered. 

The CHAIRMAN. The areas set aside? 

Ms. KIMB~L. The areas set aside do count for providing--

The CHAIHMAN. You actually made the biological studies in those 

areas with the goshawk and the archipelago wolf, that type thing, the area!" ware set aside? 

Ms. KIMEEL. The actual field studies for goshawk were conducted 

on proposed timber sale areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. But not the other areas? 
45 

Ms. KIMBEL. No, they have not yet been conducted on the other 

areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are they going to be conducted on other areas? 

Ms. KIMBEL. We certainly hope. 

The CHAIRMAN. Even after the Fish and Wildlife says there is no 

such thing? 

Ms. KIMBEL. No such thing as? 

The CHAIRMAN. As the hawk. 

Ms. KIMBEL. We fully expect there are goshawks in other areas, 

and we hope that when the nineteen--

The CHAIRMAN. The problem is between agencies managing the 

land. You have got two Federal agencies under the same commander in chief at odds. 

Is that not true? 

Ms. KIMBEL. I do not understand how you mean that we are at 

odds. 

The CHAIRMAN. They said there was no such thing as a scarce 

kind of habitat for the goshawk. They did not list it. They did not 

list it. 

Ms. KIMBEL. No, they did not list it. And from what I have read, 

that we fully expect that there are goshawks in protected areas as 

well as in those areas identified for--

The CHAIRMAN. But, in the meantime, you set aside the remaining multiple-use acreage-or proposed to set aside the multiple-use 

acreage so there was less timber out of the timber base than was 

required. 

Ms. KIMBEL. That is part of a comprehensive look at the viability 

of species across the Tongass, and that was that all lands on the 

Tongass, not just on lands that are available for consideration in 

timber harvest. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about the-what is the role of the Forest 

Supervisor in the Tongass land planning process? Are each of you 

making decisions that you are supposed to be making under the 

law and regulations? What is the role of the Forest Supervisor, 

your roles? 

Ms. KIMBEL. The role of the Forest Supervisor in the Tongass 

land management process has been changing over the last several 

years, and I would say we have a greater role today than we did 

a year ago and probably not as great a role as we did two years 

ago. 

The CHAIRMAN. The other two, the same answer for you? 

Mr. MORRISON. Our responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is to prepare 

the forest plan and to provide to the Regional Forester our recommendations as to how the forests ought to be managed in the 

form of a preferred alternative in the draft and then that moves 

forward into a final. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Now, when you make your recommendations 

they are to the regional forester. You make it to Phil Janik, your 

recommendation? 

Mr. MORRISON. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then what happens? 

Mr. MORRISON. He considers our recommenda:tions, and he may 

or may not agree with that recommendation. And his preferred alternative will appear in the draft. That will then go through public 
46 

involvement and additional analysis and then a final selected alternative would be made. The CHAIRMAN. But it is made in Washington, D.C., not here? 

Mr. MORRISON. TheThe CHAIRMAN. What I am saying is, whatever Phil Janik does 

after you make your recommendation, it goes back to Jack Ward 

Thomas in Washington, D.C., and Jim Lyons, and eventually to the 

Secretary of Agriculture, is that not correct? 

Mr. MORRISON. I am sure that the Regional Forester consults 

with his boss in the final alternative that goes forward as theThe CHAIRMAN. The recommendations you have made, how much 

have you seen them altered from your recommendations over the 

years? 

Ms. KIMBEL. We have not actually had the opportunity to make 

a recommendation on a preferred alternative for TLMP yet until 

these next few weeks, when we will be doing that. We will be doing 

just that. 

Mr. MORRISON. In the previous drafts that came out, !--

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what I am leading up to is, tell me-the 

chart that Senator Murkowski found on the TLMP alternatives, 

one of the impacts on the jobs in the Tongass is the chart arrangement. This is potential recommendations from you or Stikine, 

somewhere. 

Ms. KIMBEL. That impact the chart? 

It bears some similarities to some other charts that we have 

seen. I have not seen this particular chart until we got a copy in 

Senator Murkowski's letter. 

Those numbers have been-this is why we have not yet been able 

to release-yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. This came from somebody in your shop. 

Ms. KIMBEL. And it is one of a series. This chart has been continually updated as the analysis has progressed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what I am understanding now is some 

scuttlebutt, may be scuttlebutt, that Alternative 4 is the one that 

is being chosen by the Forest Service. 

Ms. KIMBEL. WeThe CHAIRMAN. Have any of you recommended Alternative 4? 

Ms. KIMBEL. We have not made a recommendation yet for a pre- ferred alternative. And we have been very curious about that, too. 

We learned that from Senator Murkowski's letter. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK Well, he is not the only one that has that 

information. And what I am suggesting, and I hope you do not take 

this in the form of hostility, I am suggesting that your rec--

ommendations do not mean a hill of beans, that this is being done 

from Washington, D.C. And if that is the case, that is more merit 

for my bill. 

If, in fact, Alternative 4 is, in fact, chosen and I do not find out 

you recommended it, then my position is very clear why this bill 

is necessary. It goes back to what I call unsound management by 

a philosophy that emanates from so-called gurus in Washington, 

D.C. 

Now, you may recommend four, but if you are in the field, I do 

not think you honestly can do so unless you are directed to do so. 
47 

What about habitat conservation areas? They are associated in 

Alternatives 3, 5, 6, and 8. What was the theory of land management development, and will any of these alternatives provide the 

current level of timber jobs in the Tongass? If you follow that recommendation that supposedly is coming out, then the effect upon 

the timber base is devastating on the remaining multiple-use 

lands. 

I am going-! will tell you what I am going to do, because I know 

you cannot answer all these questions. But I am going to submit 

these questions to each one of you individually. And as an old 

school teacher, they may not be all the same answers, they better 

not be. That causes me great concern. 

Ms. KIMBEL. We do not agree on everything. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, because, what I am seeing and what 

I am hearing here, and I hope everybody understands this, I am 

so convinced that we have lost the intent and the integrity of the 

Forest Service agency because it is being- and regardless of what 

administration-run from Washington. And I think that is basically what is wrong with our total government system right now, 

is we are-we have got the Executive Branch far beyond the Legislative Branch. In doing so, they think that they know best what is 

best for everybody. And some people like it. I do not. 

Old growth habitat. Under the Act of 1990, 1980, how many 

acres did we approve in old growth habitat? 

Ms. KIMBEL. The old growth habitat is identified as retention 

under our current land management plan, and it is identified 

project by project for protection for the length of that-length of 

that project. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. Let us say-let us put it another way. 

1994 old growth habitat that is left in the Tongass. How much 

was left from 1954 to 1990? How much was still left in the 

Tongass, old growth habitat? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Oh, golly. A tremendous amount. 

The CHAIRMAN. About 93 percent. And those are figures you can 

check out. That is how much is still left. 

It reminds me-what I am saying is-again, I met one of your 

friends in Juneau, your Forest Service people, a young lady that 

apparently just came up here from California, San Francisco, all 

enthused about the Tongass. I mean, she and I had a discussion. 

She said, "You have ruined all the salmon streams." That struck 

a chord real quick. And then she said, "There are no more good 

timber areas left. You have cut it all down." 

I am suggesting respectfully there ought to be what you call a 

training period for people who come up here in this vast forest to 

understand really what they are working with, because that is 

what hurts the agency itself, that type of narrow-minded 

envisionary concept of what is in the Tcmgass. At least they ought 

to know that. 

We will go back to one other question I want to ask you about. 

I heard-what is the habitat capability today compared to a 1954 

baseline as far as salmon-the salmon, coho? 

Ms. KIMBEL. I do know that most of the fish-enhancement 

projects that we have completed on the Stikine area have been spe-
48 

cifically for coho salmon. And I do not have exact numbers for you, 

but I know that that has been the focus working with ADF&G. 

The CHAIRMAN. My information from the ADF&G is a hundred 

percent baseline, and it goes back to the wilderness areas. My understanding, areas set aside by the 1980 Act and 1990 Act itself 

preclude you from actually working with the streams that might 

have a natural slide or a logjaming capacity impact killing the 

stream. You cannot go in there, can you? 

Ms. KIMBEL. In fact, ANILCA permits us to go in. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have you gone in? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Not on the Stikine. I do not know if--

The CHAIRMAN. Not just the Stikine. I am talking any area. Any 

of you gone into those areas? 

In fact, naturally a stream can be killed, can it not? 

Ms. KIMBEL. Naturally a stream can be blocked, yes, and prevent 

access--

The CHAIRMAN. The same question about brown bears, compared 

to 1954 to-1954 is probably the logging time, and now the brown 

bears' capability is approximately what? 

Mr. MORRISON. A good share of the brown bear population is on 

the Chatham area, on the ABC Islands, Admiral, Baranof, and 

Chichagof. And the best information I get from Fish and Game is 

that brown bear populations are at an all-time high. The CHAIRMAN. I want to-you know, just a little bit of advice. 

Stick by your guns. This is not going to go away. 

Again, 20 years ago, this hearing would have never taken place. There would have been no need for it. And sometime some of you 

are going to have to step up to the block and say this is not correct, 

we are doing what is right, this is how it should be managed, and 

do not let it be directed from Washington, D.C. And that takes a 

lot of courage, and I know that. 

I know the pressures you are under, which you were not under 

before, because of certain interest groups on both sides of the aisle. 

My main goal here is really, very frankly, to express a strong belief that this nation has a decision to make about where we are 

going and the philosophy of ownership of land. And I know because 

it is your domain you object to that. I understand that. I just want 

you to understand that the feeling across this nation, especially 

west of the Mississippi, is very strong. 

As Robin Taylor mentioned, under the Constitution, all those 

other states got their land in fee title. We were foolish enough not 

to. How did that happen? 

The Tongass was set up by Theodore Roosevelt. But the Tongass 

also, when we became a state, was being used in comradeship with 

the Federal Government and the state and local communities. It 

was not an adversarial position. 

That happened in the last 40 years. It is not your fault. But you 

are going to have a responsibility far beyond your imagination in 

trying to make sure that the public understands that you made the 

right decision and you were turned down by somebody back in 

Washington, D.C. That is going to be hard for you, and I understand that. 

Do you have anything else you want to add? 
49 

I want to thank all of you for being here, and we will continue 

this process down in Ketchikan. I hope to see you on the plane 

today, and we will be done. 

I want to thank the audience. You have been very attentive and 

very informative. This is just a beginning of a great period of time 

of discussion about the management of land, be it you or be it the 

Federal Government. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned; and 

the submitted material for the record may be found at end of hearing.] 

TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Ketchikan, AK. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in the Ted 

Ferry Civic Center, Ketchikan, Alaska, Hon. Don Young (Chairman 

of the Committee) presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Mayor. 

STATEMENT OF MS. STANTON, MAYOR, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Ms. STANTON. Congressman, on behalf of the community of 

Ketchikan, I just wanted to welcome you and your hearing to our 

community. Those of us who live here in Ketchikan and work in 

the Tongass National Forest are really hopeful that this will be the 

beginning of some changes that will really help to stabilize the jobs 

that we feel are so important in the forest, and we wish you well 

in your hearing and really appreciate you bringing the hearing to 

Ketchikan as one of the initial steps. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. For the information of the audience, this Committee hearing will 

be held as Committee Rules in the House. The witnesses will have 

approximately five minutes to present their testimony. Their written testimony will be submitted for the record. The panels will each 

give their testimony. Following the end of the testimony, I will 

probably be asking questions. Maybe not of everyone, but of some 

of the panel members. I would at this time like to also inform you I will give my opening statement and then there will be a call-in from Gail Phillips 

and Bill Williams, from the Alaska State Legislature, because they 

do not have the beautiful sunshine you have here in Ketchikan. 

They have informed me that they were unable to arrive here, so 

that is how we will handle it. I ask you to keep very quiet, as the 

modern technology kicks into effect. They are now listening to this 

hearing in Juneau. They will know about when I am going to finish 

my opening statement. And then they will, of course, call in. With that, I do thank you. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you for coming here today. Welcome to the second hearing about the Tongass held in Alaska by 

(51) 
52 

this Committee in the past two days. Before yesterday, it was 19 

years since our Committee held a hearing in Southeast Alaska. 

This hearing is on H.R. 2413, the bill I introduced that gives our 

state an option to own the Tongass. Our hearing yesterday in 

Wrangell was on the same subject. 

My Tongass bill unlocks the Southeasterners from their Federal 

shackles. It gives Alaskans freedom and responsibility. It gives 

Alaskans control. Where better to place control than with the people of a state that spend more money per capita to protect the environment and manage its resources? 

Alaska spends $546 per person each year to protect the environment in our state. Compare that to California, which spends only 

$211 per person, or Massachusetts, which spends only $176 per 

person, or even Arkansas, which spends just $104 per person. 

It is not just dollars which make Alaskans good conservationists. 

It is the knowledge of the land and the condition of our forest, our 

tundra, and our coastal regions that gives me confidence that Alaskans can make the right choices for the Tongass. 

My bill is the ultimate form of empowerment, a word you have 

heard much in the last 15 months, empowerment for Alaskans hecause power over important decisions in the Tongass can be closer 

to the people if Alaskans want the option. It lets us as Alaskans 

take responsibility for what goes on in our own backyard. 

I made this proposal because I trust Alaskans to make decisions 

about the Tongass without Federal help. Yesterday we heard how 

Federal decisions have crushed the people of Wrangell. I do not 

want Ketchikan to be next. There are still family wage jobs here, 

but I want this forest in the hands of our state legislators, our Governor, and our state agencies. All we will get from the Federal system is process, process, process. That is the present system. Or 

questions that cannot be answered. 

It saddens me to see communities gutted by a President that said 

he would put people first, while his political appointees try to fiJ?-

ure out whether the Tongass will have ten or more or less bims 

three generations from now in a 17 million acre forest with six plus 

million acres already in wilderness. On issues like that, I think, 

and I know, Alaskans can do better. 

My bill comes down to whether Alaskans want choices. Do we, 

as Alaskans, want the choice to control our future in the Tongass, 

or are we happy with the choices made for us by the Federal system? Do we want policies handed down from Washington, D.C., or 

can we, as Alaskans, make better policies? Those are the basic 

questions. 

When my bill is enacted and we have the chance to own the 

Tongass, can we be better conservationists? Can we do a better job 

environmentally? Are we capable? Can we manage the Tongass 

more efficiently than the Federal Forest Service? Can we bring free 

market principles to our state management of the Tongass Forest? 

Will market principles allow Alaskans to develop revenue from 

tourism, recreation, mining, and timber that can help offset the declining oil revenues? Can we create a system that frees the Tongass 

of the conflict brought about by Federal laws? Can we manage 

without the high Federal costs? I think the answer to all those 

questions is yes, and that is why I have made this proposal. 
53 

My bill gives us a clean slate of questions like these. It allows 

Alaskans to reexamine land allocation questions. It allows us to set 

Alaskan standards for land management. It proposes a transition 

to ease the transfer into state ownership. It proposes ways to resolve current Federal issues like landless Native claims. It eases 

the Federal Government out and gives the state power. It protects 

valid existing rights. The bill brings Alaskans to the table to resolve issues. 

I realize contracts, permits, and other relationships with the Forest Service need to be protected. My intent is to fully protect those 

relationships so the state would stand in the shoes of the old Federal relationships if Alaska elects to own the Tongass. 

I stress that my bill is just a proposal. It may not be perfect and 

may not be complete. But that is why I went to Wrangell yesterday 

and why I am here in Ketchikan today. I hope to learn what you 

think about the proposal and how I might make the bill better. 

When I introduced the bill on September 28th, I acknowledged 

that transferring the Tongass is a huge task. Hundreds of questions must be thought throuj"h. In my nearly-in fact, in my 23 

years as your Congressman, I have always counted on the wisdom 

of Alaskans to help with questions like these. From day one, I said 

I wanted the benefit of the wisdom of Alaskans. I said I wanted 

hearings in Alaska to get your advice. My question to you is whether Alaskans are up to the idea of taking control of our own future 

in the Tongass. 

Before I introduced the bill, was that Alaskans in Southeast were 

ready to dump the Federal system in favor of state ownership. Unlike 20 years ago, there were good working relationships. People 

are mad about what goes on in the Tongass today. Now, think 

about this a moment. 

The environmentalists sue, the timber companies cannot get logs, 

the Federal law enforcement harasses people, the tourist business 

cannot get permits. The Federal system is paralyzed in its response. 

A September 1995 poll of Southeasterners confirmed my 

thoughts: 55 percent favored transferring the Tongass to the State 

of Alaska, while only 34 percent opposed the idea. In Ketchikan, 

65 percent favored the transfer to the state. I am in Ketchikan today to test my initial thoughts. Yesterday, 

in Wrangell, I learned that people were so worn out by Federal decisions they were willing to take control of their own future. 

Eventually, I will hold more hearings in Southeast before this 

bill goes through the Committee process. I mention this so Alaskans in other communities in Southeast will not fall for the diversion playing in the media now. Where anyone got the idea that I 

did not intend to hold hearings in Southeast is beyond me. Those 

who oppose Alaskan control in Southeast promote that game to distract you from the question at hand. The question is which: Do 

Alaskans want ownership and control of the Tongass? Rest assured, I want plenty of hearings on this bill so that Alaskans get 

the chance to discuss this project to the fullest extent. 

Perhaps some of the special interests responsible for the diversion should have spoken up when this Committee failed to hold 

hearings on the Tongass, or in the Tongass, or in the Southeast on 
54 

the 1990 Act. Perhaps these interests were very comfortable with 

the Tongass laws being written in Washington, D.C., where their 

big-money headquarters pulled the strings. Maybe those groups 

feel threatened by my bill because they fear that if Tongass laws 

are made in Juneau, the cozy Washington, D.C., leverage vanishes. 

Perhaps they have no argument on the merits of why Alaskans 

should not have the option to control their own future using Alaskan laws and policies, so they divert the attention. 

One final introductory point. I always get one question about this 

bill: "Can Alaskans really'' or "Do Alaskans really have the chanc'e 

to own the Tongass?" For the record, the answer is yes, we do have 

a chance to take control of the Tongass. Alaska and other Western 

states can be part of shifting power and control back to the states. 

Power and control of states and to the people is not just for the 

Medicare and welfare programs. It is for federally owned states as 

well. 

I am telling those at the hearing today we all better start thinking outside the box. Ever since I have been in Congress, we hav'e 

been forced to think inside the box. The box was built by the narrow-minded, command control approach of the special interest lobbies in Washington, D.C. We have been thinking inside the box so 

long that we could not imagine that the lid would come off. Fifteen 

months ago, the lid came off the box. For the first time we are looking over the edge of the box and imagining true possibilities. My 

bill is outside the box. 

It is a long-term bill. It will not be enacted today or tomorrow. 

I am here today to get your thoughts and build the record that increases the chance of this bill becoming law in the long-term. 

The topic today is do Alaskans want Federal control, Federal permits, Federal law enforcement, Federal policies, and the amazing 

Federal results that come from a Federal system, or do they want 

Alaskans to own and control the Tongass? 

That is my opening statement. And, hopefully, we will have a 

call now from Gail Phillips. If she is listening very closely, Gail, 

push those buttons. 

Gail, can you hear me? Modern technology. We will give her 

about 30 more seconds. 

I am going to call Panel Two to come to the witness stand. And 

if we are interrupted, then we will go to Gail Phillips and Mr. Bill 

Williams. 

Panel Two is Mr. Lew Williams, III, City Council Member, 

Ketchikan, Alaska; The Honorable Jim Elkins, Borough Assembly, 

Ketchikan, Alaska; and The Honorable Jim Carlton, Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Ketchikan, Alaska. Please take the witnesses' chairs. 

And as I mentioned, gentlemen, we will go forth. And if we ar'e 

interrupted, just please bear with me. This is one of those difficult 

times that was unexpected. 

I would suggest we will go right down the way I called them, The 

Honorable Lew Williams, III, the City Council Member, being the 

first witness. And then we will work right down the line the way 

we called off the order. 
55 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LEW WILLIAMS, III, CITY 

COUNCIL MEMBER, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. LEW WILLIAMS. Thank you. I am happy to be the first one 

to speak at the hearing, and I thank you for coming and letting us 

talk. 

Let me introduce myself. I am Lew Williams, III. My family runs 

the Ketchikan Daily News and local TV station now. And we have 

been-this is a third-generation operation. I have also been on the City Council for seven years, two terms 

of three years each, and now I am on my third term. And I have 

always run for City Council, not for the title, but for the future of 

Ketchikan. And on the City Council, I have worked to support all 

industries, and timber is one of them. 

I am really concerned about the future of the timber industry, 

and I think your bill, H.R. 2413, is heading in the right direction. I look at the Federal Government and all the frustrations this area 

has gone through, and I know there is other areas throughout the 

country that have their own concerns, from farmers to coal miners. 

But ours is timber, and we see what the Federal Government's 

policies are doing. 

You set a policy from Washington, D.C., it cannot fix or change 

everybody's situation. They look and see something that is going 

wrong in one area, and they think one overall policy or law is going 

to do that. It does not. It just causes more frustration. 

Today's world, you know, is fast-paced, fast food, everybody 

wants it now, decisions now, decisionmaking has to be done more 

quickly. And here we have a dinosaur, a strong centralized Federal 

Government that takes forever. The decisions are debated in court 

forever, and you cannot get any efficiency out of it. And so I see laws like H.R. 2413 cominf about for other areas, 

also, to let a localized centralized-the loca governments deal with 

the problem of states. The Federal Government system is too slow, 

and · it is going to cause more frustration. I think that frustration 

was shown in 1994 in elections. And it is a dinosaur the way government is going to work in the future. 

I have a lot of frustrations. I have-! think the people in this 

area have a lot of stress over what is our future. They are insecure 

about their future, and they feel alienated. 

I mean, you listen to the media, which I am a part of, and I 

cringe when I watch reports on the television or over the Associated Press talking about the Tongass and their facts or their 

sources are saying things that are totally different than what I am 

living here in. It scares me, it makes me fearful, when I listen to 

a Congressman from New York talk about what he thinks should 

happen in the Tongass. And I get angry when I hear environmental 

groups from Washington, D.C., or wherever they are located, 

using-! guess, justifying-the end justifies the means, is the way 

they operate, I feel. And it really makes me uneasy. 

It goes back to before we talked about timber volume. It goes 

back to EPA hearings, because that is where we tirst-I first heard 

it. Everybody came up here, and it was clean water, and especially 

our mill had to go through hearings back in 1975, I believe. And 

they made changes, and they are working together. But then comes 

along ANILCA, and we thought we had it settled. And then comes 
56 

Tongass Reform Act, you know, and now that is settled. Now we 

are going to fight over the Tongass land management. 

In all this, the timber industry has lost every time. And we have 

already gone three strikes. Now we are trying for four. 

I feel that a centralized Federal Government with the Forest 

Service-! feel the Forest Service is too large. I feel now it has become a political tool. And even within the Forest Service itself, it 

is infighting. 

I would love to see the Tongass put into the state control. It is 

more-it will be in our backyard, I guess you can call it, where we 

can work together. But what is good for a farmer in Kansas may 

not be good for people in the Tongass. And you cannot lump it 

under one centralized control. I feel it is outdated, and we are 

going to have to make the change. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Lew. I appreciate that. 

The Honorable Jim Elkins, you are up next. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM ELKINS, BOROUGH 

ASSEMBLY, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. ELKINS. Thank you, Congressman. I thought maybe I would 

go after the Mayor, but he is probably going to be longer-winded 

than I am. 

The CHAIRMAN. He has only got five minutes, just like you. Mr. ELKINS. I am probably not going to take five minutes. I just 

wanted to just give you a little history on Jim Elkins. 

I am a 30-year resident of Ketchikan. I was born in a logging 

camp in Oregon. I have never logged, but I wear these suspenders 

because I support the timber industry. And I want to say, like Lew 

and everybody else here today, I think, I have watched for the last 

30 years a cancer grow in Alaska., and that cancer has been the 

U.S. Forest Service and is being fed by a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. And I support your bill because it cuts that cancer out, 

it gives the State of Alaska a chance to revitalize the major industry to the State of Alaska. And we need to start that chemotherapy. The Forest Service, over the years-this has no bearing on anybody locally in particular. But, you know, how many people realize 

today we have people in the Forest Service carrying guns? God, 

that is frightening, you know, when Forest Service personnel have 

to carry guns. I think there is something wrong. And that is part 

of the cancer that is feeding this bureaucracy. It is all right for us 

to use this forest and enjoy it, but you citizens, you know, we are 

going to pack guns and make sure you do everything exactly the 

way we tell you. 

It is not just the control over logging, but it is every aspect of 

what goes on in the Tongass. And I think we need to cut that cancer out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jim, and you can continue. 

Gail, are you there? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes, we are. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I am sorry you are a little late. I have 

got the first panel on. We just interrupted a very great piece of testimony. We can finish that up a little later. 

All right. Gail, you are on. 
57 

Ms. PHILLIPS. OK. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Speak up, now. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GAIL PHILLIPS, SPEAKER 

OF THE HOUSE, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE, JUNEAU, 

ALASKA 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I apologize for us not being able to come in this 

morning. We were very, very much looking forward to it. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Committee on Resources, we appreciate this opportunity to testify on an issue of 

great importance to Alaska. We particularly wish to express our 

appreciation for holding hearings in Alaska. 

For the record, my name is Gail Phillips, Speaker of the House 

of Representatives. I am testifying today in support of H.R. 2413 

on behalf of the Alaska State House and for Senate President Drue 

Pearce and the Alaska State Senate. Because our time is limited, 

I will be brief, but I would ask that our testimony be entered into 

the record in its entirety. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a sad commentary that we are here today 

holding a hearing regarding the potential transfer of the Tongass 

National Forest to the State of Alaska. We feel that this hearing 

would not have been necessary if the dynamic partnership arrangement institutionalized with the Federal Government at the time of 

statehood were still intact. After only 36 years of statehood, Alaskans have become totally frustrated with the Federal Government's 

bureaucratic approach to resource management and development. 

Since statehood, the largest National Forest in the country has 

undergone a transformation from a Federal enclave dedicated to 

the concepts of multiple use and economic cooperation with the 

State of Alaska to one dedicated almost exclusively to meeting the 

fantasies of the extreme environmental community in our country. 

Gone is the dedication of balancing economic opportunities with environmental needs of Alaska and as a nation. Although the numbers are dated and timber volume demands are contested, the proof 

of the pudding lies with the visible impact on our beleaguered timber industry here in Southeast Alaska. 

Mr. Chairman, Alaskans have lost their jobs. Pulp and timber 

mills have closed. And whether the Federal Government likes to 

admit it or not, the economic stability of this region has been severely damaged. 

Statistics compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor clearly 

show that the timber industry employment, both direct and indirect, in Southeast Alaska has declined by 50 percent from 1990 to 

1994. Although this amount of job losses may be no big deal in the 

state of New York, it is a significant proportion of this region's 

work force. A lost job represents a father or a mother, a husband 

or a wife, who is not working. That, to me, is unacceptable. 

The present timber shortage is not a figment of this industry's 

imagination. We are advised that Seaborne Lumber of Ketchikan 

has cut its operations drastically and is faced with an indefinite 

shutdown if a viable timber sale plan is not implemented. Viking 

Lumber is operating at about 50 percent of capacity. Pacific Rim 

Timber in Wrangell has not operated in over three months and 
58 

faces pennanent layoffs if additional timber is not made available 

immediately. 

We are sure the grandfathers of this legislation will be chastised 

for appearing to concoct a scheme to make the State of Alaska richer and avoid the environmental protective cloak of the Federal 

agency. 

Mr. Chairman, we can honestly say that if this was the objective 

of this legislation, the leadership of the State House and Senate 

would be opposed to this proposal. Although we are convinced that 

the forest can be managed to produce a profit and maintain a viable timber industry in this region, we are also committed to balancing the legitimate needs of all user groups. 

The key is the term balancing, which, quite frankly, is missing 

from the present equation. We assure you that the Alaska legislature is totally committed to balancing the economic and environmental needs of our citizens. 

There are numerous examples across our country where forests 

managed by the state and state agencies economically outperform 

those managed by the Federal agencies. Most Alaskans support 

this concept because we know we can do a better job by avoiding 

the administrative and legally unstable processes which have hampered the proper management of this resource treasure. Alaskans 

can implement an effective program which is fiscally more efficient 

than the Federal Government, is more responsive to the needs of 

those who live in the region, is more environmentally defensible 

and is less controversial. 

Mr. Chainnan, we may be somewhat old-fashioned· when it 

comes to these kinds of exciting challenges. Quite frankly, we also 

understand why some people would be a little skeptical of the motives behind this type of a proposal and the chances that they could 

make good on our claim. Maybe we should adopt the philosophy 

promoted by President Truman when he said, "I am from Missouri, 

so you will have to show me." 

Give Alaskans the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment 

and capability. If we fail to perform equal to or greater than 

present standards of the Federal Government, then Congress can 

opt to cancel the transfer. 

In closing, we would also like to request that Congress minimize 

the strings attached to this concept. The Alaska Legislature has 

long maintained that Alaskans' sovereign rights must be respect1ed 

and protected. Management of Alaska's land must be exclusively 

under the jurisdiction of the state, including the management of its 

fish and wildlife resources. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Alaska State Senate and the 

Alaska House of Representatives, we thank you and the Committee 

for this opportunity to testify. As you can readily see, Alaskans are 

supportive of this legislation, and we commend you for taking such 

a bold step toward better resource management and better government. We stand ready to assist you in any way that we can. 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and you came 

through loud and clear. And I want to thank the audience for being 

so attentive. 

Is The Honorable Bill Williams there? 
59 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you can keep within the five minutes, like the 

Speaker did, we would appreciate it, Bill, but you are on. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL WILLIAMS, ALASKA 

STATE LEGISLATURE, JUNEAU, ALASKA 

Mr. BILL WILLIAMS. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am 

sorry I cannot be there at home with you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Representative Bill Williams, and I am in the Alaska 

State Legislature. I represent the hardworking people of House 

District One. 

For the past three years, I have served either as the Chairman 

or the Cochairman of the House Resources Committee. As Chairman, I have overseen the debate of all resources issues across the 

state. And, in particular, timber issues in Southeast Alaska .. I have been, and still am, committed to policies which include informed decisionmaking resulting in prudent management of all 

Tongass resources. These decisions are reached through deliberations of sound science and include balance and substantiation. 

I am a member of the Tlingit Tribe of the Tongass and a shareholder in the Cape Fox Corporation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporation. I have lived in Saxman, Alaska, just three 

miles south from Ketchikan, for more than half a century. The 

Tongass National Forest is my home. 

The Tongass is very important to me and the people I represent. 

As you know, there has been very much public debate over the uses 

within the Tongass. 

One reason is the sustainable timber resources to provide to 

independent timber operators, long-term contract holders, loggers, 

and businesses related in my district. A continuation of a strong 

timber industry in Southeast Alaska is critical to the financial 

health of the region and its people. At the same time, other uses 

of the Tongass are both legitimate and important to my constituents. I believe there is enough room in the Tongass for all uses. 

The compromise that was reached in 1991, Mr. Chairman, on the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act was directed toward protecting jobs in 

the Southeast timber industry. However, in spite of this, we have 

suffered a disastrous loss of employment in the past couple years. 

Under the tenure of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service has failed its obligation to meet market demand of timber and 

to provide for a sustained industry. This has just-this has been 

just as true for the small business mills as it has been for the longterm contract holders. This is why all of us in Southeast Alaska are 

very thankful for the efforts of our Congressional Delegations. 

Congressman Young, you, together with Senators Stevens and 

Murkowski, have given us renewed hope. You have shown us that 

some in Washington still are members who care about the timber 

workers in Southeast Alaska. 

Senator Stevens has worked hard on the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill to bring balance to the TLMP revision process by 

making the Forest Service accountable for timber workers and timber-dependent communities. Senator Stevens' amendment would 

also resolve the AWRTA lawsuit, which has tied up some 300 mil-
60 

lion board feet of desperately needed timber. The industry has suffered a great loss because of this. 

Senator Murkowski has introduced Senate Bill 1054, which 

would ensure the balance of Tongass by the TTRA's relay. 

Now Congressman Young, here, has introduced this bill which 

would permit the State of Alaska to decide whether the Tongass 

should be transferred to the state. I call upon the Governor and my 

colleagues in the legislature to work with the Congressional Delegation on this. It is desperately needed. 

I know there are questions about whether the state can afford to 

accept management of this vast National Forest. These are reasonable questions that we should investigate together. I am convinced 

the answers and solutions can be found. I am also convinced that 

if the leadership of this great state, both in the administration and 

the legislature, will commit to working together with you and your 

Committee, we can find a way to transfer management of Alaska 

lands into the hands of Alaskans. This will require cooperation and 

mutual rolling up our sleeves. 

When this happens, I believe the people of the Tongass will benefit, because they will have a greater voice in what happens in their 

backyard. 

Thank you for making time to come to Alaska and receive testimony on this very important issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bill, for your testimony. I only have 

one question that you covered pretty well, both of you, in your testimony. 

What is the feeling of the Senate and the House as far as support 

of my legislation and the concept at this time? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Congressman, I think there is strong support in 

the House. I cannot speak for the Senate. But just in casual conversations with the others, there is strong support for this concept. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have you talked to the Governor at all about this 

concept? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I have not yet. 

Representative? 

Mr. BILL WILLIAMS. No, I have not. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest--

Mr. BILL WILLIAMS. We have Senator Taylor's resolution that we 

passed. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest you do talk to him. I have asked 

him to testify. And as I said, we will have other hearings in the 

Southeast area, and, hopefully, he would proceed to testify before 

those Committees. 

I say this with hope that we have the strong support of not only 

both Houses of the state legislative body but, of course, the administration, because this is an option. It is not a mandate. It is an 

option that will take time, and it would sure help us out if we have 

a united team. 

I want to thank both of you. We have a large audience here and 

another panel on board. I want to thank you for taking the time. 

I am sorry you could not be here. I know you were looking forward 

to being here today. And we will see you back in Juneau. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Congressman. 
61 

The CHAIRMAN. My pleasure. 

Mr. BILL WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elkins, you can finish your great presentation, and you have whatever time you would like to take. 

STATEMENT OF JIM ELKINS 

Mr. ELKINS. I have lost some of my steam, but that is all right. 

I wanted to make it short, anyway. 

You know, I think it is a sad state of affairs when the Federal 

Government has so little honor that it will not honor contracts with 

the people. As you know, we have made contracts with Washington 

and they choose not to honor them. I think that is real sad. 

Recently, in Forbes Magazine, there was an article with a subtitle that says that it is not cheap labor that drives U.S. paper and 

lumber companies to investment dropping, but the government. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Elkins. 

Now, Mr. Carlton, Mayor? Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM CARLTON, KETCHIKAN 

GATEWAY BOROUGH, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. CARLTON. Chairman Young and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for letting me testify on H.R. 2413 here in Ketchikan. 

My name is Jim Carlton. I am the Mayor of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, and I represent 15,078 people. We have three major 

industries that supply our jobs: Fishing, tourism, and timber. Timber is the most year-round industry, and it supplies the most jobs 

and income here locally. 

We, as Alaskans, are sick and tired of letting people from the 

lower 49 states make decisions about our forests and how they are 

to be used, when those people have never been here and know 

nothing about the Tongass National Forest. Too often, decisions are 

made as a result of studies using questionable material. 

The pine martin, an animal not native to the area, was studied 

for no apparent reason. In an attempt to determine what environmental impact cutting timber has on Alaskan Southeast island 

communities, comparisons were made using data collected from remote South Pacific Islands. Differences in climate, distances from 

the Mainland, and growing conditions, and plant and animal life 

make this a debatable comparison. 

The U.S. Forest Service has also done many very professional 

studies, such as the Tongass Land Management Plan, where Alternative P, the preferred alternative, was chosen. This study was ignored by President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Thomas because 

of political pressure from preservationists and misinformed people 

of the lower 49 states. 

The annual average timber harvest before the current administration took office was 420 million board feet. In 1995, only 224 

million board feet were harvested. Between 1990 and 1995, the 

timber industry here in Southeast lost 1,400 jobs. Four out of five 

of the largest independent sawmills shut down, and we were left 

with one pulp mill in the entire state. 

24-018 - 96 - 3 
62 

Under the U.S. Forest Service control of the Tongass, Southeast 

Alaskan communities continue to economically decline, and we 

seem to be powerless. The record of the Forest Service in this state does not seem to 

reflect favorable responses to local and state timber needs as much 

as we would wish. The bottom line is that we have a better opportunity to present our case to those who have a working knowledge 

of our environment. At the state level we are more likely to get a 

professional decision rather than a political one. 

We, as Alaskans, have a can-do attitude. In the state of Alaskaif the State of Alaska is given control of the Tongass National Forest, we will do the same thing we did when we took over our fishing responsibilities. 

When the Federal Government was in charge of the salmon catch 

in 1958, we caught 14,914,000 salmon in Southeast Alaska. In 

1995, when the State of Alaska was in charge, we caught 

64,150,000 in Southeast Alaska, a record high. That dramatic increase in available salmon was the result of appropriate stock management. We did it ourselves. 

Properly used, our forests can not only provide us with recreation 

and beautiful surroundings, but also with a renewable source of 

continued economic prosperity. 

As Mayor of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, I support H.R. 

2413, and thank you for allowing my testimony. If you have any 

questions, I am--

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask all of you, you have been born and 

raised here-how long have you been here? 

Mr. CARLTON. Fifteen. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you? 

Mr. ELKINS. Thirty. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question I asked yesterday in Wrangell, ~!0 

years ago, do you think this hearing would need to be taking place? 

What I am saying is, the intent of my bill is the Forest Service, 

in fact, if it was to be operated as it was 20 years ago, there would 

be no frustration. You did not have the permit system, I do not believe. There was trees being worked out and worked together. And 

what has happened, even with the Forest Service here in town, 

what they say counts very little, because the decisions are being 

made in Washington, D.C. 

That is a statement as well as a comment. 

Both of you were here before. You did not have this problem, I 

do not think, did you? 

Mr. ELKINS. Ninteen years ago, we started the first hearings that 

resulted in the first contract with the Federal Government-the 

second contract. 

The CHAIRMAN. The second contract. 

Is that correct, Lew? You have been here. There was not this 

problem, was there? 

Mr. LEW WILLIAMS. It seems like 20 years ago I knew a lot of 

the people that were down at the Forest Service Office who were 

in charge of the timber operations, and it was a different kind of 

working relationship. They worked-the timber industry and the 
63 

Forest Service worked together to, you know, have a viable timber 

industry. It feels like-and you can see it from, you know, reading in the 

newspapers alone. You know, there is conflicts within the Forest 

Service now and what they should be doing. There is groups that 

have-members that are in groups in the Forest Service that are 

antitimber, and they are fighting among themselves on what they 

should be doing, protecting it or managing it. And I think if you 

look back, it was formed because they were supposed to manage 

timber and grazing land as such. 

Yes, the philosophy has changed a lot. The CHAIRMAN. One of the things, we had a poll that was run 

here that said 65 percent of the Ketchikan residents supported the 

transfer of the Tongass from the Federal Government to the state. 

Is that pretty accurate, or do you think it is higher or lower, or 

what would be-you are all elected officials. Mr. CARLTON. I can comment on that. 

The Southeast Conference has a resolution, and we supported 

your basic concept for this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Jim, what do you--

Mr. ELKINS. I am also on the Visitor Board of Directors, and I 

think they support the basic concept of getting control back of all 

these resources back to the State of Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, all of you--

Mr. ELKINS. Closer to the people. The CHAIRMAN. All of you referred to timber, but what other decisions have occurred that affect your constituents that have been 

contrary to what you think as elected officials should occur? What 

decisions? I mean, permits--

Mr. CARLTON. Permits on the project that we have just on the 

north end of the airport. We have been trying, basically, for eight 

years, some private people tried to do it. The borough has been trying to do it for the last two years. 

We had a meeting yesterday. We talked to some people at the 

Federal level, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and so forth, and even 

though it is on the airport, they talked about things preserving animals and their rights, and so forth, even though a few months ago 

we had an airplane that hit a deer, in Anchorage, killed 24 people, 

ducks or geese that ran into the airplane. 

That is exactly what we are trying to do. And part of the pitch 

that I gave was that on that airport we do not care about anything 

that walks or flies. We do not want them there, because they are 

a hazard to that area. A.'ld yet these people at the Federal level are 

saying just the opposite. 

And I think the bottom line and the punch to that thing is that 

we are trying to protect us, the people. Basically, we do not care 

about those animals on the airport. There is millions of miles of 

other places that they can survive, and we want to push them out. The CHAIRMAN. They are still opposing--

Mr. CARLTON. And they are still opposing the thing. 

The CHAIRMAN. All agencies or just specific ones? 

Mr. CARLTON. The two that I mentioned, EPA and Fish and--

The CHAIRMAN. The state or Federal? 

Mr. CARLTON. The Federal. 
64 

The CHAIRMAN. We can look into it. 

Mr. CARLTON. We are just in the initial stages, and I do not want 

to tick them off by making a posture, but--

The CHAIRMAN. Lew, what have you seen in that arena? 

Mr. LEW WILLIAMS. One of the things is, being on the City Council, we have dealt with water policies and regulations. And, you 

know, one of the ones that really bothers me is our outfall at one 

time met standards, but then they came across and said, well, you 

are a Second Class City, or whatever, so you need primary treatment or secondary treatment. And so I think we invested $2.3 million to upgrade our plant, and our water was good enough anyway 

to meet the standards. But just because the type of city we were, 

we still had to put it in. 

Those kind of things irritate me throughout the council, plus 

mandated policies and regulations wh~re you do not have the 

money, but it is a trickle-down thing. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the things that goes beyond this-and I 

do think we can control it better with state management, but there 

is a real movement in Congress now that these unfunded mandates 

are going to stop, because it breaks small communities such as this 

and it does not really accomplish the goals that we are seeking to 

do. 

Jim, you talked about the Tongass-the Act of 1990, I believe it 

was, 1991, in your testimony. That was the intent of Senator Steivens' amendment. It was to make them follow the law. They are 

basically breaking the law. This Administration is breaking the 

law, this President is breaking the law. And we hope to be successful over the period of the next ten months in making sure they do 

follow through on what has happened, because that was the solution of the 1990 Act. 

Later on, when we get other panels up here-the comments that 

were made, the suggestions that were made in 1990, we were trying to achieve goals. We thought there was-! did not. I urged my 

President to veto the bill. He signed it. And as soon as this President got elected, all those that supported the bill "in the past came 

back and are trying to renew it today. Just a little editorializing. 

I want to thank the panel and thank you very much for being 

here. Sorry about the interruption and hope it will not happen 

again. 

Who do we have on the phone now? 

We have Panel Three: Dr. Leal, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Bullock. 

Would you please take the witness stand, please? 

Berne Miller, is he-where is he? 

Mr. MILLER. Here on the phone, if you can hear me, Congressman. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. I apologize. 

Berne, you are on, and you have five minutes. He also could not 

get out. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. I am another one that got fogged in in Juneau this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, that could not happen in Juneau. 
65 

STATEMENT OF BERNE C. MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SOUTHEASTCONFERENCE,JUNEAU,ALASKA 

Mr. MILLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Berne Miller, 

the Executive Director of the Southeast Conference, speaking to 

you from our offices in Juneau. And on behalf of our members, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

even if somewhat invisibly. 

I am going to be fairly brief and touch on just a couple of topics. 

First of all, Southeast Conference will celebrate its fortieth birthday this year. And while the Conference's focus has changed many 

times over those years to keep pace with the growth, development, 

and change that have occurred in the region, the Conference's fundamental interest remains in promoting strong economies, healthy 

communities, and a quality environment in Southeast Alaska. As 

an Alaska Regional Development Organization, our mandate is to 

help create jobs in the private sector. And we include in that mandate preserving jobs that exist today and resurrecting jobs that disappeared unnecessarily in the past. Also, as a new USDA Resource 

Conservation and Development Council, we are gearing up to help 

local groups and communities accelerate utilization and conservation of our region's natural resources. The Conference's presence 

here today is a direct result of our members' collective commitment 

to improving economic, social, and environmental cor.ditions 

throughout Southeast Alaska. 

Approximately 80 percent of the land in Southeast Alaska is encompassed by the boundaries of the Tongass National Forest. All 

of our communities are located either on or adjacent to land managed by the Forest Service. It does not matter whether one of our 

residents takes visitors to view the landscape of the Tongass, or 

catches fish that spawn in the waters in the Tongass, or searches 

for minerals that lie beneath the earth of the Tongass, or harvests 

trees that grow abundantly on the land of the Tongass, or whether 

one of our people sells supplies to our hosts, to fishers, miners, or 

loggers, or groceries to their families, or one who relies on the 

Tongass for subsistence, or even one of our residents who works for 

local, state, or Federal Government. It does not matter what kind 

of work our people do to provide for their families. The economic 

and social welfare of every person in Southeast Alaska, from Yakutat to Metlakatla, is affected by the decisions the Regional Forester 

makes about how the values and resources of the Tongass will be 

used. For that reason, the Southeast Conference thinks every person who lives and works in Southeast Alaska has a vital stake in 

understanding, evaluating, and speaking out on the Regional Forester's decisions before those decisions are made. 

That is why the Conference has been, and will continue to be, an 

active participant in the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 

process now underway and why we urge every person in Southeast 

Alaska to do the same. And that is why, beginning next month, we 

will release the record of our correspondence with the Forest Service and our documented analysis of the science and supposition 

that undergird the TLMP alternatives the Forest Service will release for public comment. We will provide that information to anyone who asks for it. 
66 

Over the last few years, the Conference has either cosponsored 

or participated in several consensus-building efforts focused on the 

contribution the Tongass makes to the economic and social wellbeing of the people and communities of Southeast, the most recent 

being the Seventh American Forest Congress Roundtables held in 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Prince of Wales Island, and Juneau last 

year. These and similar efforts have endeavored to find common 

ground, to identify interests held in common by people and organizations who are usually antagonists. 

One concern that shows up again and again relates to local control. Very simply put, residents of Southeast Alaska say they would 

like to have more input into and control over decisions about what 

happens to them in their communities, around their cities and villages, in the region, and in the state. They believe that outsiders, 

people who neither live here nor are affected by what happens 

here, have too much say in decisions about what will or will not 

be allowed here. While it is undoubtedly true that if they had more 

local control, some locals would shut the timber industry down and 

others would ramp it up, people who live here seem reasonably 

close to united in their desire to be allowed to work things out locally. 

During their annual meeting last September, members of South- east Conference considered the concept of transferring the Tongass 

from the Federal Government to the state. Some members were ardently in favor of immediate transfer. Quite honestly, others were 

adamantly opposed. Some felt transfer would increase the ability of 

people who live here to control their destiny through decisions 

made close to home; others were not so sure. Many felt they did 

not have enough information. And while the words did not make 

it into the Resolution finally adopted, the sense of the Conference 

members was that a whole host of questions would have to be answered before the Conference could consider either advocating 

transfer or endorsing specific mechanics or timing for its accomplishment. 

And that is where Southeast Conference stands today. Transfer 

of the Tongass National Forest from the Federal Government to 

the State of Alaska would undoubtedly give the people who live 

here more control over decisions about what happens in their communities, around their cities and villages, in the region, and in the 

state. For that reason, a majority of Conference members believe 

the concept deserves investigation. But Conference members are 

not yet ready to endorse transfer because they think a good deal 

of time should be first devoted to discussion of the mechanics and 

timing and to the consequent economic and social impacts on the 

people and communities of Southeast. We heard you say in Juneau 

that you intend such a lengthy and. wide-ranging discussion take 

place before moving the legislation forward, and we hope that everyone in Southeast will have the bterest and the opportunity to 

participate. 

Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Berne. I am going to ask a couple 

questions and then I will go to the other panel, because you are on 

the phone. 
67 

I understand what you are saying. I just hope that you do not 

turn off the concept. If I understand you correctly, you are not saying no; you are just not ready to say yes. You are playing, you 

know, very coy at this time. Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. We think that a thorough discussion ought 

to go forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. A thorough discussion will go forward, and I 

hope you look at it. We do know what has happened in the past. 

We know that an amount of jobs have been lost since 1990 to now. 

We do know there is an economic impact upon these communities. 

We do know communities are, in fact, collapsing. And I hope that 

is all taken into consideration. But you really-you are yes to the 

concept; you are really talking about the fine-tuning. And I do need 

your help. I need the help of everybody in this arena, because there 

are some questions that have been asked that I think are legitimate. Especially, is the money available, is it not available, can we 

do it, et cetera. 

So this whole concept, Berne, by the way, goes far beyond Alaska. I have said this before. There are other people interested from 

all the Western states about who should control Federal lands, the 

United States Government from Washington, D.C., or the people 

that reside in that area. 

I thank you for calling in, Berne. Appreciate it very much. 

Mr. MILLER. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. I appreciate 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. And I understand Mr. Royce Ranniger 

is sitting in for Geoff Bullock. You are up, if you would like to be 

first up, if you want to. 

STATEMENT OF ROYCE RANNIGER FOR GEOFF BULLOCK, 

UNITED SOUTHEAST ALASKA GILNETTERS, JUNEAU, ALASKA 

Mr. RANNIGER. Thank you, Congressman Young, for being here 

and having these hearings. My name is Royce Ranniger, a 41-year 

resident of Ketchikan, Alaska. I would like to-1 am here representing the Southeast Alaska Gillnet Association. And I have a 

brief statement here, and I would like to say a few other things on 

my own behalf with my knowledge and things I know about the 

area. 

United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters would like to go on record 

in support of H.R. 2413. Alaska needs more control over its lands. 

We feel decisions affecting Alaskans are better made in Juneau 

rather than in Washington, D.C. I would like to expound on that 

a little bit. 

I started out when I first came here-during the Territorial days, 

I worked on fish packers and seine boats in high school. And under 

the Federal leadership, so to speak, quote-unquote, for what little 

it was, fishing was on its way out. So when I got out of high school, 

I turned to the timber industry for employment and never regretted it, a very good opportunity for me, and I did quite well at it. 

But after about 18 years of that, I had to move about a little bit, 

so I went into my own bottle business here in town. So I have 

worked in retail, I have worked in the tourism industry, and still 

own and operate a business that relies on fishing, tourism, and the 
68 

timber industry. And recently I have gone back into fishing because 

that was my first love. 

And under the state leadership, fishing has done real well. In 

fact, we are-if you read the paper, there is quite a glut of fish on 

the market. Fortunately, we have the best fish in the world. We 

can compete with them. It is a little tough right now, but I think 

we are going to survive the battle. 

I think if the Tongass was put back-or put into the direction of 

the State of Alaska, where we have some control, I think it will-

! think that the timber industry, as well as fishing, will continue 

to stay strong and get strong and be able to provide the needed: 

products for the world, for the community of Ketchikan and. 

Wrangell, and all the other communities around. 

I think that is really about all I have to say. I was kind of put 

into this kind of at the last minute. Geoff could not come down 

from Juneau. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it, too. 

Mr. RANNIGER. I do not do too well talking in front of lots of people. 

The CHAIRMAN. You did perfectly well. I appreciate it. 

You were the second one that has brought up the fact that the 

fishing industry was on the way out when the feds were running 

it. 

Mr. RANNIGER. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. And the state was able to turn that around, and 

you say now we have a lot of fish. 

And, by the way, the areas that were logged, it is very interesting, there are compatibility if you have the right to rehabilitate and 

take precautions prior to, and we have said that. So I deeply appreciate you being here, and I have a couple questions I will ask you in a moment. 

But if I can, Dr. Leal, you are up. This gentleman is from Bozeman, Montana. Some of you already met him. He has a thesis and 

a concept that I think are very interesting testimony. 

Doctor, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD LEAL, POLITICAL ECONOMY 

RESEARCH CENTER, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 

Mr. LEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the record, my name is Donald R Leal, and I a':T: 8. senio:" 

associate at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, 

Montana. My organization is frequently described as a free market 

think tank that applies market solutions to naturai resou:o:-ce and 

environmental issues. 

M:r. \jhairman, I think the Tongas:; Transfer and Transition Act 

is a !!lomentous bill. I think at long last there is a serious challenge 

to the very notion that multiple-use public forestry has to be under 

control of the great Leviathan. For too long, we have failed to consider state, or even local, options as a serious contender for management of these resources. Instead, we have accepted the conventional wisdom that such options lack the resources or, quote, the 

expertise, unquote, to do the job. Well, that conventional wisdom 

is under serious challenge today, not just in Alaska but in other 

states as well, including Oregon, and Idaho, and Montana. 
69 

Federal management has always operated under the understanding that decisions emanate from Washington, the benefits accrue to 

all, and the brunt of the cost inevitably falls on the local residents 

who live around the Federal holdings. In the past, it has been assumed that outfits such as timber, minerals, and recreation would 

continue to flow and payments in lieu of taxes would continue to 

be paid to the locals. Unfortunately, when gridlock sets in, as it has 

on the Tongass, the payback formula no longer works. Economic 

outputs have been disrupted and local communities have suffered 

as a result. 

The Tongass is caught in a quagmire of conflicting and costly requirements with no single defining economic objective to navigate 

its way out. Lacking a clear objective, the Tongass has become a 

political football in which special interests can easily block all but 

the most radical options. 

Fortunately, there is a way out, and state and local governments 

have shown us the way. 

The information I would like to present today is from a recent 

study I have conducted comparing national and state forest management in my home state of Montana. Other studies I have conducted in Idaho and Minnesota also show similar results. 

In Montana, over the 1988 through 1992 period, ten national forests had combined losses of $42 million from Federal timber sales, 

according to the Forest Service's own accounting data. Over that 

same period, the State of Montana made nearly $14 million in net 

revenues from the sale of timber on state forests. Remarkably, the 

state harvested one twelfth the timber that the Forest Service did 

on their national forest. 

Now, Forest Service surveys show that these national forests and 

state forests are very similar in timber-growing potential. Also, 

state foresters carry out many of the same duties that the Forest 

Service does. That includes environmental assessments and forest 

plans. But the state manages to carry out its duties while spending 

less than half of what the Forest Service spends for a given volume 

of timber to move a timber sale. 

Another study I conducted included a comparison of county and 

national forests in Northeast Minnesota. Here again, the Forest 

Service lost nearly $3 million on Superior National Forest. Meanwhile, nearby, county forests of St. Louis County made $3 million. 

Again, they spent-the county spent nearly a third of what the 

Forest Service spent to move a given volume of timber. 

Now, given the Forest Service's high costs, some may argue, well, 

that is because they spend more to achieve higher environmental 

quality. But ground truth tells otherwise. 

Performance audits spent examining different harvested sites in 

the last three years indicate that both the state forest of Montana 

and the county forest in St. Louis County, Minnesota have higherare rated higher in terms of protecting their own watersheds. 

These audits were conducted by independent teams of experts in 

hydrology, forestry, biology and include representatives of environmental groups. 

Similar lands and similar duties. How could state and local agencies achieve such drastically different results? 
70 

I believe the answer lies in the fact that both the state and the 

county are required to generate income from the sale of their timber. The Forest Service is not required to generate any income. 

Hence, there is little economic incentive for Forest Service personnel to keep the cost as low as the state or the county. State foresters, also, and county foresters, do not have to carry out the same 

burdensome environmental paperwork that the Forest Service does. 

The implications for the Tongass are clear. H.R. 2413 would give 

Alaskans the opportunity to achieve the same results as Montana 

and Minnesota. 

If the opportunity presents itself, the State of Alaska should consider the following: Management of the Tongass must have an 

overriding purpose of generating income from some or all of the 

most appropriate areas for economically viable opportunities in 

minerals, and timber, and recreation. The state should act as a 

trustee with a fiduciary duty to generate income for a designated 

beneficiary. This should be a beneficiary that appeals to all Alaskans, such as public schools or, in part, the Alaska Permanent 

Fund. Other areas that are high in environmental value but low 

in timber and minerals should be designated as reserves. This 

should not preclude generating income. Fees from tours, photographic safaris, hiking, or other options considered. And, finally, 

allow state managers the flexibility to market other options such 

as outfitter leases and conservation easements. 

I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak on 

this important bill. 

[The statement of Mr. Leal may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, for coming up. I am going to 

ask, actually, Royce a couple short questions. 

Does the state law, to your knowledge, provide at least the same 

degree in stream protection for logging as the Federal law? Are you 

aware what that--

Mr. RANNIGER. I do not know, but one of our-the question that 

does pop up in transferring this to the state is that we do want to 

be sure that our streams are protected. And I think that-the conversations I have with the timber officials and stuff around the 

country, they are easy to work with. You know, you just have to 

watch where you are at. 

We have a 100-I am not sure-! think the state is less. I think 

the feds have a 100 foot buffer zone. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that-this bill would not preclude the state. 

I think the state is 60 feet to a 100 feet or above. It can be up to 

200 feet. 

Mr. RANNIGER. We would like to-we are most concerned about 

our buffer zones. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. The state-! think the state law is 100 feElt 

right now on state land. And I just want peofle to understand that 

that question has come up where there wil not be protection for 

streams. In fact, in reality, the state has a very stringent state timbering practice now, and it could be by state legislative body increased, in fact, if that were shown to protect the streams. That is 

why I am very excited about it. 

Yesterday, the Forest Service-we got into the TLMP process. Do 

you have any knowledge, Royce-! am putting you on the spot-
71 

the TLMP process, what scientific information went into that 

study? Do you have any knowledge on that? 

Mr. R.ANNIGER. No. I am sorry. The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it. Do not worry about that. I am 

glad you were able to stand in. 

Doctor, why do you suppose the state and county land managers 

that you said in Montana and Minnesota do such a better job environmentally? I noticed that in your testimony. 

Mr. LEAL. I guess from personal conversations with some of the 

state foresters-for example, a friend of mine, Kirk Tessmer, who 

manages the state forest lands outside of Bozeman, where I live, 

they are located right next to Gallatin National Forest, he seems 

to feel that they are less bogged down with the paperwork. I mean, 

if you try to call them, you get the--you usually get, well, he is out 

in the field. I mean, you can call the Forest Service and always find 

somebody at a desk. I think they spend more time out in the field1 mean, it is not to disparage the expertise of the Forest Service. 

They are locked into this kind of mode where, without a performance objective of income, the only way to measure their performance is how many environmental assessments or impact statements do you produce, how many forest plans do you review. It is 

not, well, what is on the ground, what did you accomplish in protecting the watershed, and that, did you locate skid trails away 

from highly erosive areas. If you are not putting your resources into protecting resources on 

the ground, but, instead, are putting your resources into producing 

paperwork, it is not a surprise to me that you see the performance 

being manifested in the field by the state and county foresters and 

not being manifested on the ground by the Forest Service. It is just 

a shift of resources to these other activities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, back to what you said-later on, the Forest Service will be here. I asked the question yesterday, the 

amount of personnel now that is established here and the lack of 

actual productivity is just phenomenal from 1990 to 1995. So probably you are absolutely correct. They are more interested in producing results that the interest groups can see instead of actually 

protecting the environment. 

Along the same line, if your testimony is correct, there were more 

moneys generated with basically the same amount of timber being 

harvested. What-is that paperwork, too, or how does that crank 

out? 

Mr. LEAL. Just-OK. For Montana it manifested itself both in 

terms of higher revenues per unit of volume cut and lower cost per 

unit of volume cut. On the cost side, the state, you know, will 

maybe employ one- to two-men teams to cruise an area, mark 

trees, bring a biologist down to give them an assessment, what are 

the impacts here, are you making sure that the buffer zones are 

correctly laid out, you are not going to have logging within 50 or 

100 feet buffer zones, whatever. They write up a timber plan that 

is two pages long. They say, OK, go cut it, and they probably expended, you know, two to three people in terms of resources. 

You get the Forest Service, which, by the way, will have-sometimes they have these huge timber sales, big ones, maybe three 

times the size as the state, and they have a whole cadre of different 
72 

people. Maybe a ten-man team in that. And, you know, the ques·· tion is, do you really need that many people to carry out a timber 

sale. Probably, under the restrictions imposed on the Forest Service, yes, because they have got to do all this paperwork. They have 

got to do more extensive environmental planning, more extensive 

timber planning. They are really bogged down. 

The CHAIRMAN. Along those lines, in your studies, did you fincl 

any parallel in lawsuits filed against the state and the Federal 

Government? 

Mr. LEAL. There is-I do not want to leave the impression that 

as soon as you transfer the Tongass to the state that you have immunity from the tension that exists between the public's perceived 

benefits of different goods like watersheds, streams, and this kind 

of thing. People are still going to be concerned with that, and they 

are going to have the view that, hey, you may be bringing money 

into, say, a beneficiary like public schools or the Alaska Permanent 

Fund, but you are going to hurt our stteam for fishery, or something like this. 

The state, for example-there was a timber sale outside of Boze·· 

man where it was going to be located on a mountainside. I have 

a copy of the article. It is really interesting. And the local residents 

who had bought property on the valley floor said, hey, you are 

going to ruin our view, you are going to degrade our property val- ues by selling this timber. And the state, their only objective was 

to generate income. They say, OK, we will not do the timber sale,, 

we will sell you a conservation easement, and it is going to be 

$430,000, we will not cut the one million board feet that we said 

we would cut. The $430,000 represents the foregone future-or 

present and future income streams from timber. And they said, this is your first option, we will not cut it at all forever and ever 

for $430,000, or we are going to-we lay out a sensitive designed 

sale that will mimic the natural opening of the hillside. We think: 

we will still get the same amount of board feet out of it, but it will 

not look like a regular timber sale. And this one-we will give you 

that as an option, and it will not cost you anything. And so the 

residents decided, well, let us try the second option, naturally. 

And they did, and the school-they spent $50,000 preparing and 

harvesting the timber. The schools-they generated $102,000 in 

revenue. So the schools made $52,000 from the sale. 

The guy who designed it got an award because he actually dideven when there is snow on the ground, you cannot tell that this 

timber sale happened. I mean, given-you know, this is a unique 

case because it is Doug fir, and the way he cut it there was natural 

openings in the hillside. It looks just like natural openings. 

The CHAIRMAN. You do not see that kind of activity with the Forest Service. 

Mr. LEAL. You do not yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. They do not have the latitude? 

Mr. LEAL. It is, basically, a zero sum game. You either do not 

cut-you know, you either-your measure of success is protest the 

sale, and the people who are protesting the sale do not face the full 

opportunity cost of-they are not going to lose any revenue by protesting the sale. So, you know, their objective rationally is to go out 

and say end it, let us kill the sale. It is not going to affect their 
73 

pocketbook. It is going to affect maybe the timber mill operators or 

somebody else. So they are going to go for all or nothing, whereas 

with the state, and that, they are going to look. They do not care 

what the outcome is in terms of if they do not cut at all, as long 

as they compensate the beneficiary, the public schools. 

With that kind of objective, it seems like you work into these 

more balanced outcomes. 

The CHAIRMAN. That brings me to probably my next-to-the-last 

question. 

The trust fund you are talking about, what you are suggesting, 

if the state follows through and opts for my position, the state control, they have to have a-to make it supportive politically and 

communitywise, a reason for it? 

Mr. LEAL. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are s<tying like a school trust fund or 

even Permanent Fund? 

Mr. LEAL. Right. 

I think-! mean, the number one objective is to devolve management to the state level for the purposes of balancing out the current inordinate situation of cost. 

Now, the local communities have f~ced an inordinate amount of 

costs from decisions made by Federal authorities, all the way back 

to Washington, and that arrangement is just not working anymore. 

I mean, the Federal management admitted as such, because that 

is why they used to have-that is why they have payment in lieu 

of taxes, that is why they promised a certain continuous stream of 

outputs, and that, to pacify the communities, because they know 

that decisions are going to really impact the people living next to 

the forest, not the people outside of Tysons Corner or Washington, 

D.C., and that. It is impacting the local communities. 

It used to work. You know, as long as the Tongass and other national forests are producing outputs, you know, reasonably well, 

the payback works. But we are seeing more and more gridlock in 

that. And as soon as gridlock sets in, you get this inordinate 

amount of cost imposed on local communities. 

The CHAIRMAl~. I am very sensitive to the term gridlock. 

What you are suggesting is that the use of the courts and the 

lawsuits create a lack of productivity, and that means the local 

communities-the argument is, the communities are going to lose 

the revenues because you are giving the land to the states that will 

no longer be available. In fact, there will be more revenue, will 

there not? 

Mr. LEAL. Yes. 

I did a-recently, Senator Burns, from Montana, had-I think he 

coauthored a bill for transference of BLM lands in Montana, eight 

million acres to the state. And right away the red flags went up. 

People were saying, well, if we do that, number one, the state cannot afford it, number two, the state is going to lose all that money 

they used to get from the feds in terms of mineral payments and 

all this. I went through and I calculated. 

First of all, the state of Montana, the total land base of state 

trust lands is five million acres. It was allocated at the time of 

entry into the Union. All these Western states got huge amounts 

of state assets as a way to fund public schools. That was the entice-
74 

ment to come into the Union. And a lot of states have kept those 

as trust lands, and that is how they used to fund the public school 

system, and that. · Anyway, the bottom line was that under the old arrangement, 

under the BLM land arrangement, the state was getting something 

on the order of $31 million in total revenue right off the gross of 

what was sold in terms of forest permits, minerals, et cetera, et 

cetera. OK. But once I calculated using the unit cost efficiencies 

that the state expends in terms of managing their range land, their 

timber, and everything else that they sell, and you apply it to the 

BLM lands with comparable assets-because, keep in mind, if you 

look at a map, they are intermingled. I mean, you have to have a 

map to tell the difference. And once you apply that, the state would 

have gotten $45 million with the cost savings. So the state would 

have came out ahead, almost $15, $16 million ahead. And I think we are currently trying to do that now for all these 

different propositions. Will the state come out ahead in that? 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, we will be calling on you, because this is 

one of the arguments we constantly hear, that we will not have the 

money as our budget decreases. I think we can show we will actually have a lot more moneys for the communities, especially in this 

state. I want to thank both of you for being on the panel. I deeply appreciate it. Hope you will be able to hang around awhile and be 

able to discuss this issue with the members of the audience. 

Thank you, Doctor. 

We are going to take a three-minute recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We now call up Panel Four: Rob Lewis, President, Ketchikan Pulp Corporation, Ketchikan, Alaska; J.C. Conley, Stand Up, Ketchikan, Alaska; and Jack Phelps, Alaska Forest As--

sociation, Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Gentlemen, welcome to the program hearings. I guess we will go with the order we have. Ralph, you are up 

first. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH LEWIS, PRESIDENT, KETCHIKAN PULP 

CORPORATION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman and Mem·· 

bers of the Committee to have this opportunity to testify. 

We certainly are at a point in the industry, everybody knows 

that, that is critical and needs some change. I think the direction 

that you are taking is one that KPC and I fully support. We need 

to be trying to move closer to the areas where the management of 

those resources need to be made. And I think that results of a lot 

of things that we heard earlier and some of the failures on the part 

of being managed in Washington, D.C., are just not working. 

I know there is a lot of concerns in the bill. You can hear that 

on the street. I think that those concerns are going to be-as this 

process goes through, they are going to prove out that they are 

minor. I think that once most of those that have concerns are going 

to realize that it is going to be worked out by those of us in Alaska. 

and all of us that are neighbors and that live here, we are going 

to find that we are going to come out with the correct solutions. 
75 

I know there is a lot of fear that goes with the state. It is going 

to open up to 100 percent logging and we are going to log the 

Tongass National Forest. I think those people need to realize that 

back when the wilderness was put in, and everything else, that we 

had meetings throughout the state, everybody agreed, and there 

was a consensus by a lot of those that, yes, we did feel that some 

of the land needed to be protected and should be protected. And I 

think those are the same people that are still here and those are 

the people that are going to be managing those resources in the future. 

You know, I got a lot about the history of KPC. I just did not 

think that was-I do not need to go through that. Most of us that 

are here realize and know what the history is, know that we have 

been here for over 40 years. You know, they know that-certainly, 

all those in Ketchikan understand we have eight years left on the 

contract. And every time we have one of these hearings, there 

seems to be one less year on it. That there is a lot of expenditures 

that need to be made, a lot of improvements that need to be made 

out at the mill, because it is over 40 years old. And we need to turn 

into the 21st Century with a very positive attitude and, hopefully, 

somehow the knowledge that the timber base is going to be there. 

Because right now, looking at it, I do not think there is anybody 

in this room that does not fear that the way things are going that 

there will not be a timber base. And I think this is the first move 

to be able to straighten that out. 

You know, you have to look at those that are being offered the 

opportunity to manage the resources and manage it by ourselves. 

I mean, we are the ones that have the children. We are the ones 

that want them to live here. We are the ones that want to have 

a future. Not the ones in New York, not the ones in Connecticut. 

They do not have a future. It is not their children that are here 

in this state; it is our children. And those of us that have that, and 

have that caring, want the resource to go on forever, we want sustainability, we want a future for our children. Both of my older girls, living in the house, heard the fears and 

have gone through every TLMP process, every change, every cutback, every reduction that has gone through. They are both in Seattle. They are under 00, so God knows where they will live. Nobody knows yet. Hopefully, they will come back here. 

Being in Ketchikan, you really do not have the opportunity for 

the rest of the state. You do not really learn much about Anchorage 

and Fairbanks, mainly, because the plane kind of goes one way. 

That is south. It even goes that way from Anchorage and Fairbanks. You know, it does not keep going north. And for that reason, they really look at Ketchikan as their home and Southeast 

Alaska as their home. And they are, you know, looking to see what 

will happen and if there is going to continue to be an industry up 

here. They do not want to be one of the last ones in the job force, 

which means in a reduction they are the first ones out. I think we 

all understand that. 

You know, aside from that, I just kind of wanted to give my feeling of what I feel and how important that this step is. And I will 

tell you, I have been saying this, and, of course, half of them think 

I am crazy, but I will tell you, I would love nothing more than to 
76 

take the states west of the Mississippi and take four million of usif they think a million people were a lot in Washington, D.C.-and 

go back there on July 4th and ask for our lands back and ask for 

the opportunity to manage ourselves and to quit being managed by 

other states that do not have the same problems that we have. 

That is what happened in 1776. 

I am not saying that we should go to war. I am not saying we 

should split from the United States. I am just saying we should use 

this process to continue to grow in the United States and continue 

to have strong states, so that we have a very strong United States. 

And that is about all I want to say. 

[The statement of Mr. Lewis may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. You may have heard the first Tea 

Party in Alaska. 

Mr. Conley, you are up next. 

STATEMENT OF J.C. CONLEY, STAND UP, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. CONLEY. Good morning, Mr. Young. 

I am President of Stand Up. It is a local grass roots organization 

that came about in response to what we feel are Federal actions 

that threaten jobs and the economic stability of our community in 

Southeast Alaska. Since the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act in 1990, Southeast Alaska has experienced a 40 percent reduction in the timber industry. 

Mr. Chairman, I am also an elected member of the Ketchikan 

Gateway Borough Assembly. And as an Assembly member, I am 

deeply concerned about the future of our resource base economy. 

The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 was sold to the people of 

Alaska as the final compromise. It was a bill that would bring 

peace to the Tongass National Forest, a bill that would assure jobs while protecting the interest of environmental groups. 

Mr. Chairman, it is now 1996, and the few remaining timber operations are still looking for that stable timber supply of 420 million board feet per year, as promised in the Tongass Timber Reform Act. 

Mr. Chairman, the environmental groups such as SEACC have 

made statements to the effect that the people of Alaska are incapable of managing the forest in a beneficial way for its people. What 

I really think is that your bill will end one of the most successful 

fund-raising campaigns that these environmental groups have been 

using to raise money. The result of your bill might be the layoff of 

their highly compensated staff. 

Your bill, Mr. Young, wili go a long way to fulfill some of the 

promises that were made to the people of our great state during 

statehood. The people of ."Jaska were promised access to the abundant resources that have become the economic backbone of communities like Ketchikan. I personally want to thank you for truly 

being the C 0ngressman for all Alaska. 

In closing, I would like to point out that in a true democracy the 

people have a right to govern. It is my belief that the resources on 

the public l mds in Alaska were given to the people of Alaska. The 

process vf .rtccess to those resources should be a public one, not political, bureaucratic, or legal. Your bill, Mr. Young, will reinstate 

that process and get Alaska's people back to work. 
77 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Conley. Later on, you will hear 

some statements, and I will refer to statements that were made, 

about the 1990 Act and what we were told would happen and how 

it was supposed to be implemented and how that has been turned 

completely upside down after 1992, where the word was no longer 

valid. 

I know many times the Forest Service is criticized, but many 

times that is because of the political activities within the higher regions of our so-called democracy. I deeply appreciate your conversation. 

Jack, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF JACK PHELPS, ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION, 

KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Congressman. 

For the record, my name Jack Phelps. I am the Executive Director of the Alaska Forest Association, an association establlshed in 

1957 and now has more than 250 regular and associate member 

companies statewide. 

The AF A would like to express its strong appreciation to you, 

Congressman Young, along with Senators Stevens and Murkowski, 

for your efforts to maintain the jobs of timber industry workers in 

Southeast Alaska. 

As you yourself have mentioned a number of times, the TTRA, 

the Tongass Timber Reform Act, was one of many attempts to forge 

a compromise with the environmental community by reducing the 

ASQ's so that more areas could be put into wilderness and other 

legislative land withdrawals but contain provisions that promise to 

sustain industry in this state. 

All we have seen since 1990 is a continued erosion of the available timber base and erosion that we all expect to continue under 

the TLMP revision process. 

So none of those things, in our opinion, are working to sustain 

the timber industry in Southeast Alaska. So now that you have introduced this bill, which would permit the State of Alaska to decide 

whether or not the Tongass should be transferred to state control, 

we appreciate it. We believe it is part of that continuing effort. 

As dramatic as that kind of measure may seem to some people, 

we believe it is time for drastic measures to be considered. We just 

cannot afford to sit idly b:->' and watch the current regime destroy 

the livelihoods of ao many fine people in Southeast Alaska. And we 

do call upon the Governor of this state and upon the legislature to 

work with the Congressional Delegation on this bill and all of the 

Delegation's efforts to solve the timber supply problems. 

You yourself will recall, Congressman Young, one key reason 

that Alaskans wanted statehood was to get state control over the 

territory's fish and game resources. That was good reasoning then. 

It worked well in those areas, because Alaskans knew as a state 

we could manage those resources better than a remote Federal 

Government clear across the continent. We believe the same thing 

holds true with respect to management of the Tongass. 

Can you imagine the Governor and the State of Alaska allowing 

the timber industry employment to drop 40 percent in five years 

without doing something about it, as has occurred under Federal 
78 

management? I cannot. Can you imagine the Governor and the 

State of Alaska agreeing to a TLMP process that would reduce by 

60 percent the ASQ which sustain our jobs without first considering the socioeconomic impacts on the communities that would be 

affected? I cannot. Can you imagine the Governor and the State of 

Alaska requiring two environmental impact statements on the 

same timber before the timber could be transferred from one company's mill to another, as the Federal Ninth Circuit Court is requiring under NEPA? I cannot. Can you imagine the Governor and 

the Alaska Legislature becoming so bureaucratically ensnarled that 

they cannot make timber available from a huge resource while 

mills closed and workers go out of work in timber-dependent communities? I cannot imagine that. 

Those are some of the things that we think would be different 

under state management. 

Having said that, I do want to express to you our concern about 

Alaska's lack of a comprehensive timber policy in this state. We 

have an excellent track record in oil and minerals development, but 

we do not have a historic pattern of full development of our timber 

resources. And, instead, we have agencies that seem to have as 

their sole purpose blocking timber harvest within our state. And 

that concerns us, in light of some of the findings that are stated 

in your bill. It also concerns us, in light of the need for appropriate 

legislation to address that from the state's side, if, in deed, your 

bill were passed. 

We urge you to work with our legislature and with our Governor 

to make sure that those kinds of concerns are addressed in any 

transfer legislation that emanates from the State of Alaska. 

In short, we congratulate you, sir, on the concept of this bill. We 

look folivard to working with you as it moves through the legisla- tive process. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Jack Phelps may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jack. I can suggest to you that I understand your frustration about not having a state policy on timber, because it goes beyond Congress. 

Mr. PHELPS. It does. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have many areas in this state now that are 

highly timberized, that could be utilized on state lands, that are 

being objected to by Fish and Wildlife, or DEC, or someplace else. 

But that is something I believe the state legislative body would 

have the opportunity to work out. 

Gladly, as time goes through this process, we will be working 

with them, that still allows the state to do-l do not want to dietate to the state. The idea of this is that the state will have the 

authority to go forth and manage the property which they receive. 

Ralph, you bring up a point that is very dear to me in the sense 

that this is not just the Tongass. This is a-as you listen to the 

Doctor, this is going all over the Western states now from west of 

the Mississippi, this concept that a centralized government can 

control, may have all the wisdom, all the gurus. And it is a very 

cumbersome system, and is not working, and is a terrible frustration, just not in Ketchikan, or Wrangell, or Petersburg, or even Juneau. There is frustration in every community that is relying upon 

Federal lands. 
79 

Ralph, KPC is the last big mill. Do you think that state control 

would increase or decrease the chances of its survival? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think it would increase it, a lot by just what was 

said. 

I think that under state control, there is the responsibility to 

look at the people and have a long-range plan for us. And it is not 

going to be swayed by-I guess the best way to say that is, that 

we can look at the timber industry and say that we have 3,500 

jobs. To those of us in Southeast Alaska, that is key, that is very 

important, that is our year-round jobs. Tell somebody in New York 

about 3,500 jobs, and they will tell you they just lost 10,000 or 

50,000. They do not understand the importance of what is going on. 

Those of us that live in this state do. We understand the infrastructure. We know how important it is. 

Therefore, the management of that, and seeing to it that there 

is a long-range sustainable job, is very important and will happen. 

And it will be in that planning process. 

The CHAIRMAN. J.C., are you not afraid the state would make the 

Tongass into a park? 

Mr. CONLEY. If we do not get a new Governor soon, none of us 

are going to be able to worry about that. 

Congressman, I am not, because Alaska is what it is today because of its natural resources, and I do not believe we are going 

to stray too far. 

We have had-we are coming down off of a great period of wealth 

in this state. The problem with the great wealth that the state experienced off the oil revenue was that most of the residents of the 

state and most of the folks that are filling the slots in government 

positions came from somewhere else, and they are still trying to 

create that perfect world to live in that exists only in their mind. 

They do not understand that it was the hardworking people that 

founded this state. And now that the money is gone and we are 

looking at big cutbacks in government, those folks will be moving 

on. And people that live here and want to raise their families are 

going to understand that the money comes from resources in this 

state. So, no, I am not concerned. 

But, Mr. Young, there is-I do want to relay a couple of comments that were made to me after I prepared my testimony. There 

is concern that maybe your bill does not go far enough, that your 

bill should include all national forests within the state. There is 

some fear in the community that not taking control of all forests 

will create some sort of a conflict and a tug of war, and I wanted 

to relay that. 

And numerous people wanted me to relay to you their frustration 

with the regulatory agencies. And, while we speak of timber here 

today, let us not forget about mining. Forty-five miles south of 

Ketchikan, U.S. Borox invested a hundred million dollars and 

walked away from it. If that plant-or if that mine was in operation today, this community would have 400 direct mill jobs out 

there. 

You know, I want to live here forever. And I am like Ralph, I 

want my kids to live here forever. And, you know, it is the resources. And that is the beauty of your bill, it brings those re-
80 

sources back to state control. I think we are better off to debate it 

internally. 

You know what scares me is, we can have a timber sale appeal 

to a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And we all know that it does 

not matter what it is, if it is timber related, they will rule against 

us. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am very sympathetic to what you are saying. 

One of the problems we have is the same people that oppose timber activity also oppose the core sale buying, as you know. I can 

go back and get them by verse. 

You know, the interesting thing is that some part of our society 

happens to suggest that, well, we will not be touched, but for those 

interested in the fisheries and tourist industry, they are going to 

be next. Then we lose our economic base. This has been a playground for too many people. 

Which reminds me, Jack, did your association ask for this legislation? 

Mr. PHELPS. This legislation? No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to make that clear for the record. 

This is the brain child of my staff and myself in frustration. No 

one asked us for this. No one even suggested it. It finally got to 

a point, as the Congressman for Alaska, to understand that the 

people of Alaska, not only with the Forest Service, but the central 

control of the Forest Service, and the Park Service, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, it is being run from Washington, D.C. And, 

again, for the fishing people, there are people within the fishing 

elements of our Federal Government that want it all run from 

Washington, D.C., and not by the North Pacific Council. 

This is an infection that has been created, as somebody suggested a moment ago-an infection is being created by centralized 

control. And I am lecturing now, but my philosophy has been from 

the day I first heard my father talk, control is best kept with the 

people that live in the vicinity and by the states in which those 

people reside, not by Washington, D.C. 

I say that, even talking about the Forest Service people who are 

in this room, much of what they do they have little to do with because what they do they think is correct is overturned by people 

in Washington, D.C. I want to thank you for being on this panel and being with us 

today. Hopefully, we will continue this conversation. And, hopefully, we will be able to solve these problems. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. CONLEY. Thank you. Mr. PHELPS. Thank you. Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next is Panel Five: Buck Lindekugel, Southeast 

Alaska Conservation Council, Juneau, Alaska; Marilyn Lee, 

Tongass Sportfishing Association, Ketchikan, Alaska; Jerry 

Sharrard, Prince of Wales Citizens' Coalition, Craig, Alaska; 

Wayne Weihing, Tongass Conservation Society, Ward Cove, Alaska. And if you will please take your seats. 

The first person up will be Buck. And, Buck, you are on the 

phone? Is he on the phone? 

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. Yes, I am. Can you hear me? 
81 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, just a minute. We will have to turn it up 

a little bit. 

Buck, you will be up first. And then because of the communication system, if there is a question to be asked, I will ask it, and 

then we will go to the rest of the panel. So, Buck, you are up now. 

STATEMENT OF BUCK LINDEKUGEL, SOUTHEAST ALASKA 

CONSERVATION COUNCIL, JUNEAU, ALASKA 

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Speak up. 

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. For the record, SEACC strongly opposes your 

bill and protests the limited nature of these hearings. There are 

many more Tongass-dependent communities than Wrangell and 

Ketchikan. You could have scheduled more hearings this week. You 

also said that you wanted to hold hearings in timber-dependent 

towns. What about Sitka? Informed decisionmaking by members of 

Congress is not served by your hearing schedule and format. The 

totally stacked deck at today's hearing represents one of the most 

outrageous attempts to build a record in your favor that we have 

ever seen and is little more than a political pep rally for trashing 

the nearly 100-year tradition of public ownership of public forest 

lands. 

You have publicly stated several times that this bill stands no 

chance of becoming law, and, therefore, these hearings, sir, are a 

waste of taxpayers' time and money. This bill should be stopped 

dead in its track right here and right now. 

Thanks to Senator Robin Taylor, we confirmed the real intent of 

your bill. This bill is not about a simple transfer of the Tongass to 

the State of Alaska. The real goal is to turn these public lands over 

to private hands. 

In a letter written to a Montana State Senator, Senator Taylor 

declared his goals for state management of the Tongass. 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 makes 

decisions about these public lands, if the state ever 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 and 

covered with no trespassing signs. 

Let us talk about freedom. Your bill strikes at the very heart of 

the all-American concept of publicly owned forest lands, one of our 

most strongly held freedoms. This is a freedom where Alaskans can 

pick a spot on a Tongass map, climb aboard a floatplane or skiff 

and go there. They can hunt and fish. And when they leave, they 

leave with the knowledge that they can return to the same spot on 

their public lands again, and again, and again. Your bill would rip 

this dearly-held freedom away. 

You claim that this bill is about control and stability. We strongly disagree. 

On the second to the last page of your bill you take your doublebarreled shotgun, load it up with buckshot and blast away at every 

single protected acre on this great forest by repealing all statutory 
82 

land protections for wilderness, and legislative LUD II areas, and 

salmon stream buffer zones. 

What stability will this bill provide commercial fishermen, who 

depend upon these million dollar salmon watersheds? What stability will this bill provide to recreation and tourist businesses, whose 

customers come to see a wild and beautiful country? 

Have you considered the impact of your bill on Tongass-dependent communities such as Pelican, Yakutat, Tenakee, Craig, Petersburg, Juneau, and Sitka? In all, 17 communities have publicly supported protection of areas which are near and dear to them. If this 

bill is your answer, then your answer must be a big fat no. 

You have also stated that no one could construe this bill as a 

Federal mandate. Who are you trying to fool? Your bill is loaded 

with Federal mandates and conditions. Your bill would only benefit 

the corporate robber barons, who have, and will continue, to put 

short-sighted profits ahead of the long-term health and welfare of 

local communities. In the case of Ketchikan Pulp Company, this 

robber baron is also a convicted felon currently on probation for intentionally dumping toxic sludge into the waters of Ward Cove. 

Your bill is a very serious threat to our public forest lands and 

to the way of life for many Southeast Alaskans. Your bill is not a 

transfer. It is a travesty. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, outrageous, and 

if ever taken seriously, flat-out dangerous. 

This is the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Lindekugel may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Buck, as I told the gentleman yesterday, 

thank God for democracy and freedom of speech. I hope you appreciate that. 

It is ironic to me that there were no hearings held at all in Alaska on the Tongass Act of 1990, which you strongly supported, or 

at least your group did, and no--

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. Well--

The CHAIRMAN. I am not through. You made your statement. I 

will ask you a question in a moment. 

But one of the things that is true, if, in fact, you say this bill has 

no chance, and I have always said this bill will become law, I do 

not know why you are so deeply concerned about it. This is an a.ttempt to, in fact, let Alaskans-and I hope you consider yourself an 

Alaskan. I would have a little more faith in Alaskans than some 

far-away, dedicated centralized government. 

You are an Alaskan, are you not? 

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. Yes, I am, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK You have no confidence in yourself? 

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. Yes. 

Just with regard to the facts that your statement that there were 

no hearings held by the House on the Tongass Timber Reform Aet, 

there was a trip in 1987, August 1987, by the Committee, the 

House Committee, and they came to Alaska Southeast, and they 

traveled to Pelican, Sitka, Juneau--

The CHAIRMAN. In all due respect, there were no hearings, and 

I have the documentation of that. So do not tell me there were any 

hearings. There may be traveling by some of those people, but--

Mr. LINDEKUGEL. They came on a fact-finding trip. 
83 

The CHAIRMAN. A fact-finding trip? They went fishing. And I 

have confidence in them, I hope they caught some fish. 

Anyway, Buck, thank you. We have got the rest of the panel 

here. And it is a little bit better to talk individually to the panel 

than it is on the phone. We will see you around. 

By the way, there will be hearings. You will have other opportunities with your group to testify. This is a process that will happen. 

And I am very complimented that everybody is so concerned 

about not allowing Alaskans to have a say in how they should manage the lands of Alaska. I still believe it is a difference of philosophy that a big centralized socialist government cannot properly 

serve the people in the communities or the state that they represent. 

I thank you, Buck. All right. Goodbye. 

Wayne, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE WEIHING, TONGASS CONSERVATION 

SOCIETY, WARD COVE, ALASKA 

Mr. WEIHING. Thank you. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this hearing. My 

name is Wayne Weihing. I represent the Tongass Conservation Society. It is a local grass roots organization of approximately 185 

members. These people share a concern for the future of the 

Tongass National Forest. 

Following are the issues that we are concerned about: 

Number one, the State of Alaska has limited resources and people to manage the fish and wildlife. The Tongass is our nation's 

largest forest, which makes it difficult to manage for various interests, such as fishing, tourism, subsistence, and recreation. Our 

present system of managing the Tongass may not be perfect, but 

we have had record fish runs, a strong tourism industry, and many 

of us still depend on hunting and fishing for subsistence. 

Two, H.R. 2413 would take away the fish and wildlife protections. It would repeal 100 foot buffer strips around our salmon 

streams and would eliminate the LUD II areas, such as the Naha, 

Karta River, Misty Fjords, and Anan Creek. The Tongass Conservation Society is dedicated to the protection of fish and wildlife. 

Number three, reading from H.R. 2413, referring to Section (c), 

Alaska Pulp Corporation contract-this is taken out of the bill-

"The State of Alaska shall enter into discussions with the Alaska 

Pulp Corporation during the transfer-transition/transfer period 

and will conclude with an agreement which reinstates the Alaska 

Pulp Corporation contract." 

When APC shut down and left Sitka, what remained was a 

Superfund site. Ketchikan Pulp Company has been found guilty in 

court of water pollution. In addition, KPC is already crying about 

a shortage of timber, so why would we consider another facility on 

the Tongass? 

I would like to offer some personal comments on jobs. I believe 

there is more than just jobs. It is the quality of jobs and what conditions people work under. 

As a former Ketchikan Pulp Company employee from 1968 until 

1989, I have an insight as to what jobs mean and what a quality 

job is. I was elected president of the union representing the pulp 
84 

workers. In 1984, after a failed employee stock ownership buyout, 

the company terminated the labor agreement and implemented an 

offer that included huge cuts in wages, benefits, and working conditions. The company was no longer concerned with the safety of its 

workers, with the number of hours worked. Many people were 

forced to work 16-hour shifts at the threat of losing their jobs. The 

jobs lost their dignity because management exercised raw power 

and workers had no avenue to voice their complaints. There was 

no grievance or arbitration procedure, although workers had had 

those when the labor agreement had been in force. I left my employment with Ketchikan Pulp Company in October 1989 because 

of unsafe work conditions concerning asbestos exposure, sulphur dioxide, and others. I valued my health more than my paycheck. 

As of February 1996, the pulp workers still do not have a labor 

agreement and are working for less wages than they were making 

in the spring of 1984. The community of Ketchikan lost those dollars that should have been paid to the working people, and the reduced paychecks had a detrimental effect on our region. 

When the last high-value tree is cut, when the last natural run 

king salmon is caught, then we can ask the long-term residents of 

Alaska "Who wants to look at the stumps or the fish farms?" and 

ask "Was the large scale industrial logging worth it?" When the 

fish habitat has been destroyed by siltation, will the residents be 

satisfied with: "Oops, we made a mistake"? Now is the time to 

make the right decisions, so we do not have to say "Oops, we made 

a mistake in the 1996 Republican Congress." 

When my grandchildren ask me why our national forest is being 

clear-cut, I can only tell them that our Congressman Young does 

not believe in the future for you, he believes that now is the time 

for the fast dollar for the corporations. 

I find it very difficult to tell my grandchildren to have faith in 

the American way and the democracy as written in the Constitution of this great United States. 

I challenge you, Congressman Young, to stand on honest grounds 

and tell the public who are you really representing. I believe your 

proposed legislation is for the special interest of the large timber 

corporations. And if not, why are you getting so much support from 

the industry? 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. 

To answer your question, I get support from all Alaskans. I am 

the Cobgressman for all of Alaska. Apparently, not you. But I understand that. 

I would just ask you one question before we go on. When you talk 

about fisheries, we had a record year last year, and the year before 

that, and the year before that, and the year before that. What happened? 

Mr. WEIHING. My concern is for-is in the future. I know fishing 

is real good now, from what I am hearing from commercial--

The CHAIRMAN. To your knowledge, are there any of the streams 

that were logged upon not productive today? 

Mr. WEIHING. I cannot-! do not know. I could not say it is not. 
85 

The CHAIRMAN. In fact, the ones that are actually dead are areas 

that cannot be rehabilitated because they are in wilderness areas 

and the Forest Service chose not to rehabilitate those streams? 

Mr. WEIHING. I cannot speak to that. I am sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest that you look into that, because 

it is a very interesting study. And I have. 

Jerry, you are up next. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY SHARRARD, PRINCE OF WALES 

CITIZENS' COALITION, CRAIG, ALASKA 

Mr. SHARRARD. Thank you, sir. 

My name is Jerry Sharrard. I am a member of the Control Lake 

Citizens Coalition on Prince of Wales Island. I would like to thank 

the Committee on Resources for giving us this opportunity to speak 

on the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act. 

The Control Lake Citizens Coalition was formed from a group of 

small timber operators, conservationists, fishermen, biologists, and 

concerned citizens. We are advocates of a different kind of timber 

industry. We formed this group to promote timber sales on Prince 

of Wales Island that confonn to the following standards: 

It must be truly sustainable. As mature adults, we have the obligation to leave our children a home that has been cared for. We 

have an obligation to allow them the same uses of the forest that 

we have had; be it for recreation, subsistence, cutting wood for our 

houses, building boats, or value-added businesses. A good timber 

sale must provide timber jobs to local residents. Currently, according to state labor figures, 39 percent of the timber industry jobs are 

currently held by out-of-state workers. A good timber sale must 

promote value-added products. It must protect the biological diversity of the forest, it must protect culturally important areas. Wildlife, subsistence rights, and fisheries must be protected. All users 

of the forest must be considered, including recreation, scenic, and 

tourist uses. As a result of forming this group, we wrote our own 

timber sale plan for the Control Lake Timber sale on Prince of 

Wales Island. It is now known as Alternative 10 in the draft DEIS. 

Prince of Wales has been the heart of the timber sales since the 

beginning of the long-term contract at KPC. It is clear to many of 

us who live there that the rate of logging that has been going on 

cannot continue without severely affecting the biological heart of 

the island. Under the 50-year contract demands, the Forest Service 

has either been forced to ignore or chosen to ignore the issue of 

timber sustainability on Prince of Wales Island. Small operators 

and people trying to establish value-added businesses require the 

better-quality wood to do business. 

I myself am a boat builder. I use volume class six and seven. Vol- ume class six and seven is 12 percent of the commercial forests. 

Half of that is already gone. 

Unfortunately, the vast majority of this wood has already been 

taken off the island by KPC or by Native cutting on their own land. 

Small timber operators return much more money to the local community. For example, in 1994, in the Ketchikan area, independent 

operators paid on the average $373 per thousand board feet. $407 

include the road credits. Most importantly, they contribute as citizens to the local communities. 
86 

We have many disagreements with the Forest Service, and I find 

myself in the strange position between bad choices, supporting the 

Forest Service or supporting what we perceive as a poorly designed 

bill. Careful reading of this bill shows it to be nothing more than 

a thinly veiled attempt to open the Tongass National Forest to the 

carpet-bagging money mongers who want to get in on a good deal. 

The state is not in the financial position, nor does it have the expertise, to be able to do a proper job at protecting the forest. Just 

last week, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game announced 

that due to budget cuts the Habitat Division no longer has the ability to do its job of monitoring the timber sales going on now. The 

state has no track record of large timber sales. 

The current fiscal position of the State of Alaska would force, if 

this bill were to pass, the massive selling off of the resources of the 

Tongass. The large timber companies, the large corporations would 

end up with all the marbles. Of course, it must be noted that these 

same companies also have the ability to provide the most reelection 

money to the Congressional Delegation. 

The Forest Service has managed the Tongass for over 90 years. 

Besides developing public-use facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor centers, trails, totem parks, cabins, cultural sites, 

cave access, special-use permitted facilities such as lodges, community grants, and fish passes, they also contribute 25 percent of all 

receipts to the local governments for schools and roads. 

On the whole, we have found that the local Forest Service line 

officers and employees are trying to do a reasonable job of balancing the multiple interests on the Tongass. If the Congressional 

Delegates would leave them alone to do their job, I believe they 

could do a credible job. But under the burden of the highly taxpayer-subsidized, special interest, 50-year contract, the chances of 

them doing a professional job that balances all uses is impossible. 

Congressman Young claims that this is not a timber bill but 

more of a question of states' rights. Anyone with a third grade education can see by reading this bill its real intent is to eliminate wilderness areas, LUD II's, national monuments like Misty Fjords, 

and a way to eliminate or weaken stream buffers. I would liken the 

passage of this bill to what went on after the Civil War during reconstruction-wholesale rape and plunder. And I would suggest 

that this bill has little chance of going anywhere and is a waste of 

taxpayers' time and money. 

I would like to close by stating one thing I have not heard mentioned at all in the last few days. The population of Southeast Alaska is somewhere in the neighborhood of 75,000. The great voting 

block in Alaska is in the Anchorage valley. Are you willing to let 

those folks decide what happens to your local area? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Who is next? Marilyn, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF MARILYN LEE, TONGASS SPORTFISHING 

ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Ms. LEE. Congressman Young, my name is Marilyn Lee, and I 

am a member of the Tongass Sportfishing Association, Chapter 573 

of Trout Unlimited. Our membership consists of sportfishers, charter operators, resort and related sportfishing businesses. We have 
87 

a long history of involvement in issues surrounding the Tongass because the Tongass is both the breeding ground of salmon, 

steelhead, and trout, and the ideal setting in which to fish for 

them. 

Our main objection to your bill is that it takes years of research, 

planning, and public testimony and throws it out the window by 

doing away with existing land use designations. Those designations 

were not arbitrarily pulled from a hat. They were arrived at 

through many long, arduous, and often contentious hearings attended by Alaskans who gave up countless hours of their free time 

to study the research and attend the meetings in an attempt to 

reach a compromise on how the Tongass should be managed. Millions of dollars and untold hours went into research to develop land 

use plans. Your bill chucks it all in the trash with no regard for 

the time, money, or personal sacrifice it took to get to where we 

are today. 

At this critical time in the life of the Tongass, we must not start 

from ground zero. Your efforts would be far more productive if you 

were to put your support behind the next phase of the Tongass 

Land Use Management Plan. The TLMP process offers Alaskans 

the best opportunity to participate in shaping the future of the 

Tongass and assuring that the needs of all Tongass users are addressed. 

Alaskans do not need a bill that gives the state six months to 

settle the Federal Government's lawsuit with Alaska Pulp, nor do 

we have anywhere near adequate state moneys or resources to administer the rest of the Ketchikan Pulp 50-year contract. What we 

do need is a Federal Government that takes responsibility for addressing some serious habitat problems looming iu the future of the 

Tongass. 

The U.S. Forest Service Report to Congress, Anadromous Fish 

Habitat Assessment, states that current management practices in 

the Tongass may doom us to the same fate as the forests of the Pacific Northwest. This bill, which will effectively end current habitat 

protection and replace it with much more lax state forestry practices, may well seal that fate. 

In conclusion, Congressman Young, we oppo:i!e virtually every intent of this bill and challenge you, in your duties as Chairman of 

the House Resource Committee, to assure that the Tongass National Forest is managed as the national treasure that it is, assure 

that the Tongass is managed for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans and all citizens of the United States, and remains a treasure 

for generations to come. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Marilyn, do you speak for yourself or your association? 

Ms. LEE. I speak for our association. 

The CHAIRMAN. You speak for your association? Sportfishing or 

Trout Unlimited? 

Ms. LEE. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. One question, Jerry. 

How much money did I receive from the timber industry? 

Mr. SHARRARD. I do not know, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then why did you say that? 
88 

Mr. SHARRARD. Well, I know that--I know that--

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, if you are going to make a statement , have the figures before you. It is public information. 

Mr. SHARRARD. Well, I did hear this morning on the radio that 

over two thirds of the money you raised last year came from PACs. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. That is the way the system works. 

The people contribute, the little person contributes. It is not big 

business. 

Each of you, do you have a good relationship with the present 

State Administration on the Tongass? You do? You are working 

with this Administration on this issue? 

Mr. WEIHING. You are talking about the Knowles Administration? 

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon? 

Mr. WEIHING. The Knowles Administration? 

The CHAIRMAN. This Administration. Yes, the Knowles. 

Do you have a good working relationship? 

Mr. WEIHING. I would say we did. 

The CHAIRMAN. In fact, have they indicated they are supporting 

your position against this bill? 

Mr. WEIHING. I do not know if they-I cannot speak if they have 

taken a position. I know we have contact with them, but I cannot 

say it is--

The CHAIRMAN. Who did you contact? 

Mr. WEIHING. That would be the people in the natural resources-the people-! cannot remember their names right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like, for the record, to have you submit 

who you contacted in the State Administration. 

Mr. WEIHING. I can supply that. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Any of the rest of you, if you have a chance. 

Do you work well with the organization? Do you work with your 

legislators? A good working relation with your legislators, state legislators? 

Ms. LEE. I have no relations. 

The CHAIRMAN. No relations at all? 

You heard the local Representative say he was supportive of the 

bill and the Speaker of the House. And they indicated they have 

the ability to, in fact, implement this legislation, if, in fact, they decide to do so. 

I hope you heard that. That is what I heard. 

Ms. LEE. Yes, I did. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Do you find any objections-Jerry, you made 

a statement in support of the Forest Service. Do you not think if 

the state owned the lands, that you would have a better chance for 

the small business operators than the big ones? 

Mr. SHARRARD. No, sir, I do not. The reason I do is, given this 

current fiscal position of the state, I feel that what would happen 

is they would be forced, just because of the fiscal constraints, to sell 

it off in large blocks, and that generally would go to large corporations. And the small person, I think, would just get crushed. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much of the state land grants have been 

sold so far? 

Mr. SHARRARD. Excuse me, sir? 
89 

The CHAIRMAN. How much of the state land grants have been 

sold? 

Mr. SHARRARD. State what? 

The CHAIRMAN. State land grants, timber. 

Mr. SHARRARD. I have no idea. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is 104 million acres of statehood land. 

How many acres has the state sold today to generate moneys? 

Mr. SHARRARD. I do not know that answer, sir. 

I do know that they have no large credible history of large timber 

sales. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am just saying-because you are thinking 

the state does not have the wisdom, is what you are saying. Yet, 

they have not done any of the things you said they were going to 

do with state lands they have. 

Mr. SHARRARD. I have seen no large sales that the timber-that 

the state has put up that have worked at all, and I am saying they 

do not have the expertise to do it well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I mean, they have not put it up, number 

one. 

And you made another statement that sort of concerns me. You 

talked about timber has been sold by the Native corporations or cut 

by the Native corporations. You do not object to that, do you? 

Mr. SHARRARD. I do not object to that. What I do object to is 

when it is shipped to Japan instead of all the value-added businesses and jobs that could have been created here in the communities on that same timber. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you-that is only Federal timber. The Native timber itself, you know-would you object to-are they not 

shipping grain across the world from Kansas? If you want added 

value, you know they ship grain, do you not? 

Mr. SHARRARD. We have a tremendous amount of excess of grain. 

I am sure you are well-aware we pay farmers to grow-not to grow 

grain. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are talking about privately. 

If you own something privately, you should have a right to sell 

it where you want to sell it, should you not? 

Mr. SHARRARD. I would agree with that. 

I would just point out to the Native corporations that so many 

more jobs could have been created by not selling that wood to the 

Orient. It could have been--

The CHAIRMAN. Just likeMr. SHARRARD. Those jobs could have existed right here in 

Southeast Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many-the state has 22 million acres of forest land, 22 million. How many acres do you think the state harvests per year? 

Mr. SHARRARD. I do not know the answer to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I do thank the paneL I understand you 

are not terribly excited. I wish you had a little more faith in Alaskans and yourself, because I think that it will work, it is going to 

work. This nation is going to have a change in the direction we are 

headed. You may not agree with it, but it is going to happen. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHARRARD. Thank you. 
90 

The CHAIRMAN. It is my intention not to break for lunch. Any of 

you that would like to go to lunch, you are perfectly welcome. I am going to now call Panel Six: Kathi Lietz, Thorne Bay; Lonnie Haughton, Troller, Ketchikan; Ernesta Ballard, I understand 

that Mr. Fisher will be giving that testimony; and Eric Muench, 

Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Before we continue, it is great to be Chairman. You know, it reminds me of the squirrels that I used to hunt when I was a young 

boy. I never shot at the ones at the bottom of the pile. I only shot 

at the ones at the top of the pile. I am on top of the pile, and I 

love to get shot at. So far they have not been able to hit me, so 

we are having fun. 

We will go through the way I called out. Kathi, you are first. 

STATEMENT OF KATHI LIETZ, THORNE BAY, ALASKA 

Ms. LIETZ. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I would just like to say 

in response to a letter that ran in the Ketchikan Daily News this 

week about this being a circus and you coming to town, where do 

I sign on to join the circus? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And I appreciate that, because, 

again, those that are saying those type of things did not complain 

a bit when all the hearings in the 1990 Act were held and it was 

held and no Alaskans, unless they were special interest, had an opportunity to go back to Washington, D.C. So I made a commitment 

when I became Chairman I am taking these hearings to 25 different hearings around the United States on different issues and 

will continue to do that as long as I am Chairman, and with the 

willingness of Alaska, it is going to be a long time, because I am 

one persevering legislator. 

Go ahead. 

Ms. LIETZ. Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the Committee, it is an honor to be here today. My name is Kathi Lietz. I am 

the bookkeeper and office manager for Black Bear Cedar Products, 

a red cedar shingle mill located near Thorne Bay on Prince of 

Wales Island. My husband is a proud ten-year employee of KPC at 

Thorne Bay. We have three beautiful children who were born in 

Ketchikan. We have made Thorne Bay our home and have established strong ties to our community and the timber industry on the 

Tongass. 

I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to share my views with 

you on H.R. 2413. 

Speaking as someone who has firsthand knowledge of the political entanglements of the Tongass National Forest, I can think of 

many reasons why H.R. 2413 is legislation that is both necessary 

and important to the Tongass National Forest. 

First and foremost on my mind is the fact that no other National 

Forest is as closely watched or controversial in this nation. We are 

the sole focus of many environmental groups, who seek to impose 

their own misguided views upon us. In the process, the very souls 

whose livelihoods are derived from this forest are the ones being 

used as pawns in a game of political chess. 

No one in this entire country stands to gain or lose as much by 

the outcome of this legislation than the citizens who live within the 

Tongass National Forest. Yet we are constantly outspoken or out-
91 

maneuvered by the vocal majority of folks living in the urban 

sprawl of the lower 48 states, who wish to see Alaska remain their 

own private playground. There are more people living in one suburb of New York City than living within the entire 17 million acres 

of the Tongass. While we may be better educated on the inner 

workings of this forest, we simply do not stand a chance when outnumbered ten to one. 

The USDA Forest Service, and the Federal Government as a 

whole, have a history of false promises and poor decisionmaking 

skills in regards to this forest. The timber industry was promised, 

when we fought against the Tongass Reform Act, that it would be 

the last great compromise and little would change for us. Yet a 

mere five years later, our industry has suffered a 42 percent job 

loss and the number is growing as we speak. 

It is with great irony that I recall sitting in this very room one 

year ago and listening to Regional Forester Phil Janik promise that 

his agency would release 320 million board feet of timber for harvest in fiscal 1995. I said at that time it would not happen, and 

it did not. 

One of the worst decisions yet to date was the cancellation of the 

APC contract. That one decision left hundreds of people unemployed and devastated two communities. Frankly, a natural disaster would have done less damage to Sitka and Wrangell than that 

one politically motivated decision did. Why did not the Federal 

Government use simple reason and compromise to avert the crisis 

that ultimately occurred? 

Although, at this juncture, I cannot say that our current State 

Administration would have handled the situation any better. Our 

Governor seems comfortably resigned in writing off the people and 

communities of Sitka and Wrangell. 

The USFS's boneheaded plan to implement hundreds of thousands of acres to goshawk reservation areas, when there was absolutely no indication of the birds' impending peril, is yet another 

classic . example of political persuasion at its best. The Forest Service chose to listen to the Chicken Little cries of the environmentalists and set about locking up the remaining 10 percent of the forest 

in which timber harvest is allowed. To say that the Federal Government has failed the people of the Tongass miserably is, quite 

simply put, the understatement of the century. 

Most assuredly, the state government is closer to the issues and 

needs of the people here. The State of Alaska has considerably 

more motivation to manage this forest wisely and properly for generations of Alaskans yet to come. 

Accessibility of key decisionmakers is a central issue in my mind. 

jt is much more likely that we could speak to our local representatives, or even the Governor, than Bill Clinton or Jack Ward Thomas. Yet the President and Dr. Thomas are the very men who are 

making decisions for or about us at this time. Is it not time we 

were afforded some self-determination in our own lives? 

Economic diversification is the big catch phrase the environmentalists are using these days. They keep saying we need to get 

away from a one-industry forest and diversify. One of the great 

components of diversification is land in which to build businesses 

on. 
92 

At this point in time, the Forest Service is trying to eliminate 

special use permits on the Tongass for timber-related businesses. 

They are still allowing eco-tourism permits. These permits allow 

business people to lease land from the Federal Government in 

which to operate their businesses. 

In the meantime, the State of Alaska set a precedent by auctioning off 17 parcels of land for industrial purposes on Prince of Wales 

Island last spring. There were twice as many potential buyers as 

there was land available. All of the lots went for more than the 

minimum price, with most selling for at least double the minimum. 

This indicates a strong desire for industrial land in Southeast. Unfortunately, there is no land available for businesses at this time. 

Gentlemen, more than anything else, this boils down to a simple 

Constitutional right. Our forefathers certainly never intended for 

the citizens of this great nation to be ruled by an ironfisted government. As I recall, they held a Tea Party in Boston to show their 

feelings of being ruled by an unfair and oppressive government, 

and the Revolutionary War ensued. The members of the Constitutional Congress made not one, but two, provisions in the Constitution to assure the right of self-determination to the states. However, the Federal Government has seen fit to discriminate against 

most of the states who have entered the Union since 1802, by withholding vast tracts of land from them. Surely, our forefathers, who 

fought and died so that we might live in a less tyrannical nation, 

must be rolling over in their graves at the sight of what this nation 

has become. 

I strongly urge you to release the people of the Tongass from the 

stranglehold we are under. Give us a chance to do something with 

our lives besides drawing welfare or making minimum wage as a 

tour guide. Pass this legislation and put the power back into the 

hands of the people, as our Founding Fathers wished. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. As we go through these series of hearings, we 

will eventually take them back to Washington, D.C. We are keeping track of those who testify, and we will definitely be seeing some 

of you. 

Lonnie, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF LONNIE HAUGHTON, TROLLER, KETCHIKAN, 

ALASKA 

Mr. HAUGHTON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee 

on Resources, my name is Lonnie Haughton. I have resided in 

Ketchikan, Alaska since 1973. I am a commercial salmon fisherman and currently own and operate the fishing vessel China Cove. 

I have fulfilled leadership positions in various sport and commercial fishing organizations and currently serve as secretary/treasurer for the 200-member Ketchikan Trollers Committee. 

In past years, I have been a member of several environmental organizations and have strongly supported efforts to instill an environmental ethos into the timber harvesting practices in the 

Tongass National Forest. I clearly remember the pillage and plunder attitudes of many of the local loggers in the early nineteen seventies. 
93 

It is now the mid nineteen nineties, though. There has been a 

surge of ecological awareness throughout Alaska and the nation. And like most Americans, I support a balance between the extremists on both sides of the environmental battles. Specifically, I believe that the responsible extraction of the natural resources of 

Southeast Alaska, whether by mining, logging, or fishing, is legitimate and appropriate. 

In regards to the multiple uses of the Tongass National Forest, 

I support the basic compromises of the Tongass Land Use Management Plan, and I oppose those who profess support for the responsible middle ground but who then work through other avenues to 

subvert such agreements to further their own extreme agendas. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if the primary intent of this legislation 

is to work an end run around the TLMP provisions, then I would 

oppose it. 

Section 6(b) makes me very nervous. I could not support this bill 

in its current form because it appears to sweep aside those TLMP 

land use restrictions that all parties, including the timber industry, 

have agreed were necessary to protect areas of critical salmon-producing habitat. 

And it does not seem appropriate to use Section 6(e) of this bill 

to dump the landless Native issue into the state's lap. I agree that 

those Natives who did not receive land under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act were treated unfairly. Unfortunately, there 

now may not be enough unreserved land to resolve this situation. 

Without available land, it is clear that equity for these Native Alaskans probably will require a large cash settlement from the U.S. 

Treasury. This legislation appears to short-circuit a proper Congressional review of the complex situation in order to saddle the 

state with this Federal obligation. 

On the other hand, I hope that President Clinton was sincere 

when he recently proclaimed, "The era of big government is over." 

It is long past time to pull the Federal Government off our backs. 

It is no more legitimate in the nineteen nineties for the great spider web of ultraliberals to force upon us their moral and social 

agendas than it was in past eras when it was the ultraconservatives who sought to impose their reactionary dogma on all Americans. 

Future management of the Tongass Forests should be done within Alaska, by Alaskans, and for the benefit of all Alaskan residents. 

It is from this perspective that the trustees of the Ketchikan 

Trollers Committee support the basic concept of your legislation. 

We would also urge the members of this Committee to oppose the 

reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. It has become an 

insatiable monster, destroying lives and livelihoods throughout the 

country. The tremendous havoc wreaked by the futile efforts to preserve the already extinct Snake River sockeye .salmon subspecies 

demonstrates the need to totally rewrite ESA. God, not the National Marine Fisheries Service, is the only agency that can reverse 

time and evolution. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I again applaud your efforts to 

transfer federally-controlled natural resources, such as the Tongass 

National Forest, to the individual states, but I have specific concerns about portions of this legislation that could be used to de24-018 - 96 - 4 
94 

stroy the compromises that were reached by loggers, fishermen, and environmentalists within the Tongass Land Use Management 

Plan. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Lonnie, for a very well-thought out--

and, by the way, this is just a beginning. That is what I want peo- ple to understand. It amazes me the outcry of rage about this bill. 

This is the beginning of the legislative process that goes over a long 

period of time. I am committed to Alaskans and this nation to do 

it correctly, and that is what we will do. 

I will have some questions and some comments a little later, 

when all the panel is through. Ed, you are going to read"? 

Mr. FISHER. I am. The CHAIRMAN. Did you write it or did she? 

Mr. FISHER. Well, we cooperated. 

STATEMENT OF ED FISHER FOR ERNESTA BALLARD, 

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. FISHER. Chairman Young and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for taking testimony on H.R. 2413 here in Ketchikan. 

My name is Ed Fisher. I am here today on behalf of my wife and 

business partner, Ernesta Ballard. Ernesta is President of the 

Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce, and it is in that capac- ity that we appear today. 

The Chamber has approximately 400 business and individual 

members, representing over 2,000 jobs. Our members represent the 

three primary industries that sustain our community: Timber, fishing, and tourism. Our goal is to advocate for our members' interests. We sponsor community events and support active committees 

through which we address issues which are important to economic 

development. 

There is no single issue of greater importance to our members · than a strong economy. There is no greater threat to our economy 

than the reduction in timber harvest on the Tongass National Forest. Each year we poll our members to determine where to focus 

our efforts. Each year our members affirm our commitment to stay 

at the table and stay with the debate over timber supply. The Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce is in favor of any initiative 

which results in continued multiple use of the Tongass Forest, including the commercial harvest of timber at the full rate it can be 

sustained. 

We believe that management of the forest over the last 40 years 

has achieved a success of which the government should be proud. 

Salmon streams are healthy; harvested ~reage sports vigorous 

new growth; logging roads, bridges, and log watering sites support 

new permanent communities; beaches, stream beds, view corridors, and important habitat are protected from development; and reC·· reational use of the forest is high. 

You would never know these things if you listened to or watched 

the actions of the United States Forest Service, the very agency 

that has overseen four decades of development in Southeastern 

Alaska. Rather than express pride and confidence in their own 

management practices, they demur in the face of the present con-
95 

troversy. Since they do not choose to defend the results of their efforts, they leave the field open to debate by parties much less familiar with the facts. Into this void come partisan spokesmen, 

given more to verbal extravagance, some of which we heard today, 

than accuracy. Out of this void come demands for change such as 

your bill. 

It is clear that the intent of your bill is to restore the opportunity 

for continued success in the management of the Tongass. We support your intent and applaud your initiative. We appreciate the 

chance to add our voice to the chorus of support for something 

more than another round of forest plans. We are tantalized by the 

action verbs in your bill. We urge you to proceed with all possible 

speed and see your bill through to successful passage. 

We know that superior economic and environmental results have 

been accomplished by states with responsibility for forest management. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that similar results could be achieved here. 

Notwithstanding our enthusiasm for your effort, our reaction to 

your bill as it is presently written, and especially to your introductory findings, is similar to the reaction of the fish which is moved 

from the frying pan into the fire. We are not confident that we will 

be better off. We are not confident that your bill assures multiple 

use of the forest including the commercial harvest of timber. 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer what we hope will be 

viewed as constructive criticism. In supporting your bill, we want 

to be sure that it accomplishes the outcome you intend. 

For your record, here are our concerns: Your bill asserts that the 

State of Alaska is committed to policies which include multiple, 

balanced, and sustainable use of Tongass resources. We do not believe that the state has developed such policies. Your bill asserts 

that the State of Alaska is committed to forest management, which 

includes sound science. We do not believe that the state properly 

distinguishes between risk assessment and risk management, and, therefore, confuses biology with policy. Your bill asserts that the 

State of Alaska is committed to an intensive and inclusive planning 

process for the diverse interests associated with the Tongass. We 

do not believe that the interests of our members and the jobs and 

the families they support are represented at the state's planning 

table. 

It is a painful irony that the State of Alaska speaks more about 

timber harvest as habitat loss than about timber harvest as economic opportunity. Harvest is generally associated with gathering 

and measuring, and is accompanied by a celebration of success. The 

harvest of wheat has become a symbol of our national pride. The 

habitat modifications that result from any harvest are generally ac- cepted as reasonable collateral for the related economic benefits. 

In the State of Alaska, there is no such celebration at the falling 

of a tree. This is not a partisan problem. No state administration 

has developed a coherent program for commercial timber harvest. 

We do not believe that the state is ready for the Tongass. The 

state needs a timber strategy that begins with the premise that 

timber harvest is good for the economy and has a rightful place in 

Alaska. The state needs a timber strategy that is based on the 

strengths and weaknesses of the Alaskan resource. The state needs 
96 

a timber strategy that acknowledges the specific economics of the 

high-cost production of a mixed-quality resource. 

We urge you to add a section to your bill that requires the state 

to make a commitment to timber harvest and to develop procedures 

for forest management before the transfer is accomplished. Multiple use management by the state without commercial harvest will 

be of no more use to our economy than is the present multiple use 

management by the Forest Service. 

In asking for a commitment to timber harvest, we do not intend 

that all the trees in each forest will be candidates for harvest. 

However, we do expect that some of the trees will be cut down. It 

is evident from both field research and economic result that timber 

harvest is compatible with other forest uses. This does not mean 

that each use can be attained on each acre of forest. It does mean 

that uses can exist side by side in the same forest. 

The National Forests are intended for multiple use. Only in re·· cent years have we had to fight for the recognition of commercial 

timber harvest as one of those uses. If the state is to take title to 

a former National Forest, it must do so only with an explicit com·· mitment to multiple use. In these contentious times, we believe 

that multiple use will have to be spelled out clearly to include the 

commercial harvest of trees. This commitment must be for full, sus- tainable yield, rather than token harvests which give the impres- sion of development without sustaining the industry. 

Finally, we are concerned that other Federal agencies will still 

have stifling influence over the management of these forest lands. The Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management, and wet· 

lands regulations are but a few of the barriers to the timely development of timber sales. Federal agencies need to become partners 

in achieving the multiple use forest goals. We urge you to seek changes to legislation and coordination of 

regulation so that the management of public lands can continue to 

contribute to the health, welfare, and economy of our communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and tell Ernesta that I allowed you 

to go overtime. 

Mr. FISHER. I will tell her. 

The CHAIRMAN. Eric, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC MUENCH, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. MUENCH. Thank you, Congressman Young. Bill Williams said awhile ago that Federal management of the 

Tongass is a dinosaur. I think he was right on. 

The local control of resources is important to democratic government, because if you cannot govern the things that your life depends on, there is very little point in the idea of the government 

itself. The Federal control was natural when there was no government, but now we have governments in place that can take care 

of the resources on our surrounding lands. 

When Alaska became a state, 104 million acres went to the state, 

but almost none of it was in Southeast. In the state, the percentage 

of land owned by the. Federal Government went from something 

like 97 percent to 67 percent, but in Southeast, because of the ex-
97 

istence of the National Forest and National Parks, we are still 95 

percent owned by the Federal Government. 

Now, the problem is that those National Forests were resenTed 

from any transfer to the state at that time. And what we need to 

do now is fix that problem. And I believe that your bill is on the 

right track to doing that. It is part of a natural process. It is not 

a radical idea. 

A large part of the problem that we see with the Federal Government's management of timber is that there is a great loss of land, 

of revenue, whenever they put up a timber sale. A lot of this has 

to do with the way the Federal Government operates their timber 

sales. · Number one, a lot of their procedures for sale preparation are 

not logical in that they require more work to be done in terms of 

the people that are thrown onto the project and in terms of the 

work that they require the loggers to do than is necessary to 

achieve the result of a harvest of timber in an environmentally 

sound way. There are far more people involved in the layout of the 

timber sale than what is necessary. And this is done mostly to conform to a lot of conflicting laws and regulations that the Federal 

Government has put in place. 

Then, too, it is very common for the Federal-for the Forest 

Service-to require excessive road building into timber areas. They 

do this with what they call specified roles. 

Now, in order to put up a timber sale, it may cost a half a million 

dollars to put a road in to access the timber. In many cases, the 

Forest Service will require a million dollar road. Well, that half a 

million dollars would normally be subtracted from the value of the 

selling product to achieve a stumpage value. But when you have 

to double that and take a million dollars off of it, you might be taking off most of the value of the trees, and the government ends up 

with a very low stumpage value, that a half a million dollars in excess is charged up to the timber sale program even though some 

other program benefits. 

In the case that I have stated in my written testimony here, we 

had a road that was built for about $350,000 a mile and could have 

been built for about $130, $140,000 a mile. And it was not for timber purposes. That excess was for recreational purposes. The difference was charged up to timber. 

The other-that leads to the conclusion that the Federal Government is losing money. The state would not have to lose that money, 

if the state were not tied to these illogical ways of putting up timber for sale. 

And, of course, the other thing is, the great cost of the Environmental Impact Statements and the excessive paperwork that goes 

into them in order to produce a document that, hopefully, will pass 

muster, and yet it never does as far as the environmentalists are 

concerned. It is always challenged. And if the state took over the 

system, it could handle it a whole lot more efficiently by cutting out 

some of the means of-the legal means of simply stall and delay. The state is very qualified to handle this program. The state now 

oversees about 400 million board feet of private harvest per year 

in Southeast with a staff of seven foresters and, I think, maybe 

three part-time people and two clerical people. Compare that with 
98 

what the Forest Service is able to do as far as their personnel and 

the amount of timber they put up. The state can do it, the state 

can make money, and the state does not have to be involved in any 

environmental degradation to do it. 

I have one suggestion. I echo Lonnie Haughton's concern about 

item 6(b), which has to do with the land use designations ending 

automatically after a year. I would suggest that those land use designations stay in place indefinitely after the transfer to the state 

until such time as the state takes positive action to address the individual land use designation, either adopts them, changes them 

altogether, modifies them, whatever the state feels like doing, so 

that in that period there will not be an uncertainty as to what that 

land should be doing. 

The process of creating that vast network of land use designation 

areas was too complex to try to redo, or even review, in one year. 

I think that you could do that transition more smoothly with that 

change. 

[The statement of Mr. Muench may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Eric. And, again, this is what you 

call constructive testimony. It is a good idea. We started out with the bill with an idea about a philosophy 

about where we are going as a nation, about centralization and 

control of land, and we are going to pursue that. I naturally picked 

the Tongass as the most controversial area in the whole United 

States, though there are other states with the same problem. 

You brought out something, Eric, that a lot of even Alaskans do 

not understand. Yes, we have 104 million acres of land, and when 

we finally get title to it, we will have about-S8 percent will be 

controlled by the Federal Government. But down here, if anything, 

you have got less land, but it is still 98 percent federally controlled. 

The reason why is under the Constitution ratified by this Congress 

and by the state of Alaska's people as they voted, was, in fact, 

lands that were held in reserve at the time of the passage of the 

act could not be selected. 

What we are really doing, this is a new statehood act for those 

in Southeast Alaska. And the intent at that time was we did not, in fact, have the opportunity, nor the moneys, to take lands in 

Southeast and manage them correctly. In fact, we were told when 

we became a state that we would have access to and multiple-use 

concept would be in place. So there really was no need. But times 

have changed, so I deeply appreciate that comment about the history of this total program in Alaska in the land selection process. One of the things that I am interested in that all of you-these 

are multiple questions. You, in your own mind, with additions, 

think that you can best-the state coald better manage these lands 

than what is occurring right now? 

Ms. LIETZ. Definitely. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection to that? 

Have you seen-I have asked this question before, Lonnie, but 

the effect of the decisions made by agencies, because you mentioned 

ESA singing to the choir, the ESA and the actions of the Forest 

Service as they are directed from Washington, D.C., is going to 

hurt all aspects of the economy in Southeast Alaska. You can refer 

back-why did you think the ESA should be changed? 
99 

Mr. HAUGHTON. Well, sir, it is clear that-it is clear to me it is 

unflxable. We would all be far better off just killing it dead and 

just starting over again. 

I believe we need something like it for various situations across 

the United States, but the-once a system like this is in place, you 

build up these vast bureaucracies that have their own agendas that 

then can use this weapon to further those agendas. And there is 

no way that you can argue back when the National Marine Fisheries Service down in Seattle, to solve an allocation dispute around 

the Pacific Salmon Treaty, uses the Endangered Species Act as the 

weapon to force through their allocation solution. You find that you 

cannot fight it because they say, oh, this is the environment, this 

is ESA, this is not an allocation thing, this is an environmental 

thing. 

The Endangered Species Act has achieved a religious aspect 

about it, where you do not dare stand up and question it without 

being seen as a Attila the Hun, perhaps, a pillaging heretic. 

With the Endangered Species Act, to recapitulate, I urge, and Icertainly, there is plenty of fishing organizations that do not agree 

with the Ketchikan Trollers Committee, but the leader of the 

Trollers Committee would say kill it and start over. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, because the idea of state management-this is one of my second priorities, is the Endangered 

Species Act, because it has been so badly misused. You are classically right about the poor remaining sockeye salmon on the Columbia River and the effect on the Alaskan flshery, which does not 

make sense, and yet that is what they are going to try to implement. 

Just out of-I will ask a couple more questions. Just to give you 

an idea, if, in fact, we had followed through-you were all here for 

1990, were you not, the Tongass Reform Act? You all thought that 

that was the end of this battle, right, or did you? You did not think 

so, Kathi, did you? 

Ms. LIETZ. No, I did not. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. I did not, either. I urged the President to 

veto that bill, and he signed it. 

To give you an idea where I fit in, I get very frustrated, and let 

me go back to a statement we heard from the gentleman from Juneau for SEACC. Let me read some statements that were made at 

the end of that. 

"I think it is important to state that H.R. 987 does not mean a 

loss of Tongass timber jobs," K.J. Metcalf, SEACC. "No existing 

Tongass-dependent timber jobs will be lost under this comprehensive legislation," K.J. Metcalf, SEACC. "I do not feel that our position is antilogging, that logging is bad. We are trying to get a prudent management system," Southeast Seiners Association. I always 

loved this one over here. It says, "The timber will still be available 

for jobs." That was Representative Miller, former Chairman. "I am 

very much aware it is very easy to roll over the Representative of 

Alaska because it is a throw-away vote for everybody else in the 

Lower 48. This is not about closing the mills. This is not about 

locking up the timber so they cannot have it. This is simply saying 

we ought to engage in modern practices." That was, again, George 

Miller. 
100 

God, I love being Chairman. 

"The timber will be there. There will almost be double the 

amounts to be cut," etcetera, etcetera. 

It was my feeling at that time, although I was very suspicious-

! thought we had reached a solution to this problem. In fact, if the 

Administration and the Forest Service had implemented the laws 

passed in the Tongass Reform Act, we probably would not be having this hearing. 

I mean, do you agree or disagree with that opening statement? 

I mean, to me, what is happening is, that the interest groups that 

go beyond what was intended in 1990 have now tried to undo 

through the Endangered Species Act with the goshawk and the 

wolf just being applied to the areas that are multiple use areas. 

They did not apply that same principle to the areas that we set 

aside in two acts, in 1980 and 1990. They have not applied that. 

And I can go on and talk all day long. I am just-1 want you to 

work with us on this legislation. I am sure you will. 

And contrary to what some people have said, I plan on pursuing 

this bill. It has given me another cause. I had one cause, and we 

hope to accomplish that very nearly, and that is the opening of 

ANWR. The second cause is, we are going to get stability back into 

the management and, in fact, the ownership of the Tongass, where 

it should reside, and that is with the people of this state and not 

with somebody back in Washington, D.C. This is bigger than Alaska, by the way. There is much of what 

you say that applies to all the other Western states. And, Ed, I will 

have a suggestion in telling you that I still have a little more faith 

in the state legislative body and, yes, in the Governor, too. As Jack 

Phelps said, I do not believe this sort of, well, we will just let it 

slide attitude would continue if there was a direct result. Right 

now, the state can blame the Forest Service. 

Mr. FISHER. No question about it. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I do not think--when you finally cut out the 

middleman and you have to be responsible, there is a better result. 

Any other comments before I ask you to be dismissed? Yes, Eric. 

Mr. MUENCH. It is real pleasant being able to talk with the 

House Resources Committee, and I thank you for being here, but 

I also have to comment that it is very rare. As you pointed out, the Committee has not been here in 19 years. 

And just down the hill here, on Front Street, we have a Legislative 

Information Office, and they tele.::onferei1ce committee meetings of 

the State Legislature. And we can go down there 19 times a year, 

if we want to. 

I think that is an illustration of the greater influence we have 

at the state level than at the Washington level. 

The CHAIRMAN. And without throwing stones, but there has been 

a disproportional amount of power in Washington, D.C. againstand, again, it was a throw-away vote. A..t1d, unfortunately, that has 

affected all Alaskans. It is no longer a throw-away vote. We have the ability as the 

Alaskan Delegation now to change the direction. It is hard for us 

to undo, I would say, many years of malfeasance. 

Which reminds me, after we get through a lot of legislation, we 

are going to have many oversight hearings of all the agencies and 
101 

the regulatory reforms they put in place, regulatory laws, that 

went beyond the intent of the law. But Congress, because they 

were doing it and they liked what they were doing, never even had 

oversight. And I think we ought to, and we shall, have an accounting of every agency we are dealing with to make sure that the laws 

of the land are being followed, not just the laws of the philosophies 

of an agency that is not elected. And this is something I am very 

excited about. 

You had something to say, Kathi. 

Ms. LIETZ. Yes. I was just going to say that I really wholeheartedly support this bill, but I really fear, particularly after the 

events of the past week or so, that it may be too little, too late. 

Mr. Seley is now in an indefinite shutdown, Frank Age of 

Wrangell has shut down, Dahlstroms only have a certain amount 

of wood ahead of them. And we discovered, through a series of 

processes at my employment, we have about two weeks' worth of 

logs ahead of us. One of the other mills out there has about four 

weeks'. Beyond that point, there is nothing in sight because of the 

tie-up of the lawsuit, we have constant appeals. And it is just boggling in my mind that all it takes to hold up a timber sale is a pencil, a piece of paper, and a 32 cent stamp. And regardless of whether that appeal is frivolous or unnecessary, it is going to hold it up 

for 60 days. And at that point, how many people are going to be 

out of work? 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, Kathi, let me inform you that the 

Commission on the goshawk came from New Mexico, did not come 

from Alaska, two people, and the Forest Service followed through 

with it. And by law they said they had to. That law should be 

change. That is the Endangered Species Act itself. 

Ms. LIETZ. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest another thing. 

Senator Stevens has been working very hard to get the appropriation bill. As you know, this President has vetoed it. And all we 

are doing is implementing the 1990 Act, which was supported by 

George Miller and all the other conservation groups. And he vetoed 

it, saying, well, we are going to cut down the last remaining rain 

forest. I doubt if the President would know a rain forest from a 

street corner. But the truth of the matter is, that is what we are 

up against. And the Senator is going to try to do it again, and they 

are going to try to vote it down again, and eYentually we will make 

it so uncomfortable he will sign that bill. That is the only quick solution we have. 

One of the things that-I am talking too much here, but one of 

the intents of certain groups is to break down the infrastructure so 

no more investment can be made. Once you lose-I just went 

through Northern California. Forty-seven mills have been shut 

down there in three years. They will never come back, because no 

one-because they do not have a steady supply of timber, they will 

not reinvest. 

And this is why the intent here is to balance out the multipleuse concept, the multiple use, and let the people of Alaska make 

that decision. And I hope that will occur. 

I want to thank the panel for their testimony, and thank you for 

allowing me to bring you here today. And we have two more pan-
102 

els, and I am going to have a three-minute recess, and we will be 

finished up here. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. If we can, if you want to take your seats, please, do so. As an old ex-school teacher, I am keeping an account of who remains and then who is eating lunch. I will find out who is the dedicated souls on both sides. We have Panel Seven: Mr. Loescher from Sealaska, accompanied 

by Ray Roberts; Mr. Martinez, "Cisco", from Cape Fox, and Jack 

Booth, the Mayor, Council of Annette Islands. 

It is my inclination I am going to let Mr. Roberts, I believe, go 

first, if that is in agreement with everybody. Mr. Roberts, you are 

up. 

STATEMENT OF RAY ROBERTS, SOUfBEAST ALASKA ANCSA 

LANDS ACQUISITION COALITION 

Mr. ROBERTS. Congressman Young, welcome to Ketchikan. Good 

day to you. 

My name is Ray Roberts. I am Chairman of the Board of Southeast Alaska ANCSA Lands Acquisition Coalition, better known as 

SAALAC, the Alaska Native organization formed to redress the 

wrong that resulted from the failure to permit five communities to 

form local corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act. The landless appreciate the Committee's having scheduled this 

important hearing on H.R. 2413 and having invited us to testify. 

Particularly, we want to thank Congressman Young for addressing 

landless issues in this bill. 

I have brought with me today a copy of a 1994 study of the land- less issues that were directed by Congress and commissioned by 

the United States Department of Agriculture and Interior. The 

study is aimed, in part, at figuring out why the five landless communities, Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell, 

were treated differently by ANCSA. The study found that the five 

communities do not differ significantly from the communities that 

were permitted to form village and urban corporations under 

ANCSA. The study supports recognition. 

The authors found that the five communities are substantially 

similar to the villages that were able to form local corporations 

under ANCSA. For example, they have similarly sized Native populations and approximately the same percentages of enrolled shareholders that lived in the five communities in 1971. All of the land- less communities were involved in advocating settlement of the ab·· original claims. Further, the study found that nothing in the law 

or legislative history stands in the way of Congress' exercising its 

broad settlement authority by recognizing these communities. 

I ask this Committee to enter the executive summary of this 

study, entitled "A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Communities," 

in the record of this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. ROBERTS. I submit a copy of the full study for the Commit·· tee's reference as well. 

When ANCSA was enacted in 1971, Alaska Natives enrolled 

through the Bureau of Indian Affairs in regions and communities 
103 

where they had historical family ties. The Natives of Southeast 

Alaska, as a rule, enrolled to Sealaska Corporation as their regional corporation. Approximately 22 percent, or 3,422 Natives, enrolled to communities in Southeast Alaska that were inadvertently 

prevented from incorporating as village or urban corporations. The 

landless included 1,862 Natives from Ketchikan, 321 from Haines, 

428 from Petersburg, 64 from Tenakee, and 7 4 7 from Wrangell. 

These numbers include only the original landless; they do not include Natives who did not enroll to any Native corporation or the 

descendants of original landless. 

To turn my attention to the specifics of H.R. 2413, I do have a 

few comments on Section 6(e), the portion of the bill that primarily 

concerns the landless. This section contemplates that the five landless communities will each receive up to 46,080 acres of land. So 

SAALAC appreciates this guidance for addressing settlement of the 

landless claims. This figure is also in line with the acreage the 

landless have in mind, but we are not yet prepared to nominate 

specific land areas. Each landless community has been working to 

identify the acreage and will offer its recommendation both to the 

Tongass Land Management Plan team and to Congress in the near 

future. We ask that the Committee keep the record of this hearing 

open for some time to permit the landless the opportunity to advance some legislative concepts and to identify land for conveyance. While we certainly appreciate the recognition given to landless 

by including them in this bill, it may be that all concerned will 

eventually determine that the landless issue is best dealt with 

through a separate bill. 

Redressing the injustice of the inadvertent exclusion of these five 

communities is an Alaska Native claims matter and unfinished 

business of ANCSA. The land claims settlement came about and remains under Congress' plenary authority; it is not an area for state 

government or even the Federal administration. Alaska Natives' relationship is with Congress, and the landless communities wish to 

preserve that relationship. Therefore, the bill's requirement that 

the State of Alaska negotiate with the landless is, in our mind, inappropriate. 

The Section 6(e) list of purposes for the land to be conveyed to 

the landless satisfies SAALAC's interests in the land claims settlement. 

This bill imposes on landless communities a ban on exporting unprocessed timber. This restriction has never applied to any other 

Alaska Native corporation and causes SAALAC some concern. Because the landless communities will receive their land 25 years 

after all the other Native corporations have taken their selections, 

and due to Federal land withdrawals in the Tongass Forest for conservation purposes, the amount of land available for nomination 

and conveyance is greatly reduced. As the amount of available timber diminishes over time, a requirement of primary manufacture in 

the state could reduce the economic value of the settlement to these 

new Native corporations and their shareholders. We will want to 

discuss a proposal either to delete or to significantly modify this requirement as specific legislation is developed. 

H.R. 2413 provides that the transfer of land to the landless communities will follow the model of the ANCSA land transfers; with-
104 

drawal, selection, and conveyance. The landless communities intend to advance their land nominations for conveyance by Congress directly through legislation. To this end, as I mentioned earlier, the 

landless are now preparing to pinpoint the acreage to be conveyed. 

The process of land selection set out in the current bill is not in 

the best interest of the landless, and we will ask for modification 

of the approach to provide for statutory conveyance. In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to address the Com-· mittee about the concerns of the landless Natives, particularly as 

they relate to H.R. 2413. I thank you for your attention to this 

matter that is so important to so many of us in Southeastern Alas .. ka and reiterate my request that the hearing record remain open for some period to permit the landless communities to identify land 

selections and to advance proposals for amending the legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The Executive Summary of study mentioned may be found at 

end of hearing.] · The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ray. 

Mr. Loescher, do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. LoESCHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF BOB LOESCHER, SEALASKA, JUNEAU, ALASKA 

Mr. LOESCHER. My name is Robert Loescher. I am the Executive 

Vice President for Natural Resources of Sealaska Corporation, the 

Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska. We would like 

to thank you, Congressman Young, for holding this hearing to discuss the Tongass Forest and specifically H.R. 2413, a bill that could 

have tremendous impact not only on the timber industry but on all 

users of the forest, including Native interests. We applaud Congressman Young's effort to devise a creative solution to the problems of Tongass management. If this effort is to 

give Alaskans who live in the forest a greater opportunity for a say 

in the future management and use of the forest, as opposed to the 

larger say we have experienced to date by people far away in 

Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and elsewhere, I say it is long 

overdue and much appreciated. But we do wonder, rhetorically, is 

a transfer of a Federal asset, the Tongass Forest, to the State of 

Alaska realistic; is this a longer-term initiative, several years out, 

if at all; is the State of Alaska capable or committed to assuming the ownership and management of the Tongass Forest? 

Sealaska is quite concerned about the direction that the manage- ment of the Tongass has been taking. Its interests lie more in current issues in the Tongass than in the longer-term questions addressed here. It is critical that the Tongass Land Management Plan be completed. The delay has created hardship for all users of the forest. 

TLMP is the business management plan for the Tongass Forest. 

Until the Forest Service has an agreement with the public and 

Congress on TLMP, the Forest Service probably has incomplete authority to manage the Tongass and to allocate its resources. Once 

the Forest Service has finally completed its process and a final- final report, Sealaska urges that this Committee hold an oversight 

hearing on TLMP. 
105 

A key concern for Sealaska is timber supply. We are quite concerned about the supply for current operations, because we believe 

that there is not enough timber for the SBA operators and for 

Ketchikan Pulp Corporation under its long-term contract. In the 

short-term, over the next several months, we expect that the public 

forest will not produce enough timber. This shortage will cause mill 

closures, with the resulting loss of jobs, and will be a further blow 

to the economy of Southeast Alaska. 

Sealaska is also vitally concerned about pending issues of management, litigation, and planning that relate to the Tongass. These 

include such matters as habitat conservation areas to sustain viable populations, riparian management, and endangered species concerns. Our opinion is that most of these issues have been politicized, even to some degree within the technical and scientific community. Although these matters are of real concern, we do not support conclusions affecting management and the use of the forest resources that are not based on science and that have not been subject to an open process that allows diverse scrutiny and provides 

perspective to the relative importance of these issues. Through 

rank speculation, various constituencies elevate each of these otherwise marginal issues to critical status and demand radical management actions to sustain viable populations. The consequence of 

this failure to discriminate appropriately is an overreaching and reactive management of the forest. 

The bill addresses the issue of the long-term Federal timber contracts in the Tongass, particularly the Alaska Pulp Corporation 

contract. The Ketchikan Pulp Corporation contract, of course, is 

similar to APC's. We question whether it is realistic to revive the 

APC contract as contemplated by Section 5(c). APC has not been 

a going concern for some time. Sealaska does not support reinstatement of APC's contract, nor does it support an extension of that or 

any other long-term contract in the forest. It is our belief that the 

timber industry in Southeast Alaska must be continued and redeveloped from this point on a free-market and competitive basis. 

Capital investment and timber supply issues should be driven by 

private sector initiatives. 

As a Native corporation, Sealaska is concerned about two issues 

that may well get caught up in the proposed transfer of the 

Tongass to the state. One is subsistence, a matter that remains unresolved. Although the bill requires the state's compliance with 

Title 8 of ANILCA, we worry that this legislation could, in time, 

abbreviate the commitment to compliance. 

We ask for a modification of this legislation to exclude subsistence, keeping it a matter of Federal concern until the state is fully 

in compliance. 

Second, Sealaska is concerned about the bill's plan for one-fifth 

of its shareholders who are landless Natives. The Alaska Land 

Claims Settlement Act is an outgrowth of the Natives' relationship 

with Congress, not with the state, and not even with the Federal 

administration. Redressing the injustice done to the five communities of landless Natives is unfinished business of ANCSA and a 

matter for Congress to resolve. 

Sealaska endorses recognition of these five landless communities 

and asks Congress to certify their right to a land settlement. Their 
106 

recognition of these communities is vital. We urge Congress to continue to · use its flexibility and creativity in fashioning the appro·· priate consideration for this settlement, as it has done in other settlements under ANCSA. We would support a move to separate the 

landless legislative remedy from this bill, and we would like to see~ 

a land settlement for the communities of Ketchikan, Wrangell, Pe·· 

tersburg, Tenakee, and Haines make it through this session of Con-· 

gress. 

That said, Congressman, we are heartened to have the landless 

issue before Congress and are pleased to have this opportunity to 

discuss it here. And we welcome you, again, back to Southeast 

Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bob, and we will discuss this a little 

later on. But we have been communicating with you constantly on 

the issues that you brought up. 

Cisco? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS "CISCO" MARTINEZ, CHAIRMAN, 

CAPE FOX CORPORATION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

Mr. MARTINEZ. My name is Thomas Martinez, Cisco. I am with 

the Cape Fox Corporation. I want to thank Don Young for his longterm support of Native corporations and Alaska Natives. 

Cape Fox Corporation is a local Village corporation. Cape Fox is 

completely invested in the local community: Cape Fox Hotel, Cape 

Fox Tours, Ketchikan Title, and our timber operation. 

Cape Fox Corporation is directly tied and affected by the local 

economy. Cape Fox Corporation supports all efforts to stabilize the 

local economy, especially with the timber industry, and believe that 

H.R. 2413 will accomplish this and, therefore, support it. 

Cape Fox has a corporate resolution in support of the landless 

Natives and, therefore, supports the section of H.R. 2413 addressing this issue. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Young, for coming. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Mayor? 

STATEMENT OF JACK L. BOOTH, SR., MAYOR, COUNCIL 

ANNETTE ISLANDS RESERVE, METLAKATLA, ALASKA 

Mr. BOOTH. Congressman Young, Members of the Committee, my 

name is Jack Booth, Sr., Mayor of Metlakatla. 

On behalf of the Metlakatla Native Community, I am here to express support for H.R. 2413 and to thank the Congressman for recognizing that something must be done for the timber-dependent 

communities in Southeast Alaska. We are for sound environmental 

policy, and, also, we are for jobs, people, and families as well. We 

applaud this effort to seek a new avenue of stability for our economy. 

Our community is a federally recognized Indian Tribe of about 

2,000 people, with an unemployment rate over 50 percent. Our 

economy was based primarily on Federal programs, fishing, and 

the sale of tribal timber. Due to Federal budget cuts and problems 

in the fishing industry, we are now a timber-dependent community. 

We successfully established the Small Business Administration 

timber sale purchase program and started a small sawmill to pro-
107 

vide jobs and revenue. It provides between 20 and 40 jobs. We also 

depend on the lease of our big mill to KPC for additional jobs and 

revenue. So we have become timber dependent, but our new economic program is now threatened by lack of timber. To survive, we 

know we must become a greater participant in development of the 

policies that shape how the forest is managed. That is why we support H.R. 2413. 

We believe Alaskans can solve the timber-supply problem without permanent harm to the environment. This is a chance for Alaskans to let the Nation know that we believe Alaskans can take 

charge to solve its problems. 

We have only one suggestion to the language of the bill at this 

time. We note the provision that will require distribution of 25 percent of the timber receipts to municipalities and local governments 

does not make clear that the term includes the Metlakatla Indian 

Community. We will suggest specific language to clarify this. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say, again, how much the 

people of Metlakatla appreciate your efforts on their behalf. 

[The statement of Mr. Booth may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jack. I want to thank the panel. You 

offered some good suggestions. 

I guess, in short, we are talking about the landless issue. We 

have been working on it a long time. I am basically waiting for 

some recommendations so we can move forward and solve that 

problem. If that takes place, that will be in the finalization of this 

bill. We had to recognize that thought in the legislation. 

I can assure all of you that we are very much aware of those issues. We communicate regularly as we draw this legislation closer 

to finalization. And we will need your input. 

It was an oversight. Metlakatla is part of it. I appreciate your 

stand, Mr. Mayor. That is one community I usually go to during 

the period of time of every two years, and I will try to be there 

sometime this year. 

I want to thank the panel and thank you for your presentation. 

Bob, I tried to talk to the Governor on this bill. Have you talked 

to the Governor at all? 

Mr. LOESCHER. Mr. Chairman, yes. 

When your bill was announced in November, the Governor did 

ask me about the bill. And at that time, I suggested to him that 

he ought to keep an open mind and see how it goes as the bill develops in public hearing. 

I have had a chance, you know, to work with the Governor this 

last year on his Natural Resources Transition Team and the LongRange Financial Planning Commission and then his Market Alaska 

Initiatives, which include timber, and just recently, he appointed 

me to the Alaska Industrial Development Export Authority Board. 

And I find the Governor very sensitive to jobs and family. It is 

not just rhetoric. It is a true initiative on his part. In a meeting with the Alaska Forestry Association in the Governor's conference room about three weeks ago, he did express to 

the industry his frustration, and he is perplexed by the lack of a 

solution to Tongass issues, and somewhat as you have in your 

opening remarks to the hearing this morning. 
108 

I believe that the Governor will give a thoughtful response, but, 

you know, realizing revenues of the state, the expenses, the structure of the state being incapable of taking on this task, and the underlying philosophy of why the state would assume such a vast undertaking of the Tongass Forest, I think he will come back with a 

thoughtful response. And we have counseled-! have counseled, at 

least from what little access I have, this kind of a direction. The CHAIRMAN. The second thing, Bob, if I can ask you, you have 

heard about the APC contract, long-term contract, how would you 

envision, though, without some long-term contracts being in place, a steady supply of timber so we can keep the infrastructure in 

place? 

One of the problems-the gentleman from the pulp mill mentioned the fact that only eight years are left on one contract, and 

the decision to make investments of considerable amount to the 

mill are a real question when there is no guarantee of supply. How 

can we address that issue? How can I address it in this bill? 

Mr. LOESCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am personally aware of the environmental investments and initiatives that KPC must make, and 

there is an initiative that they want to link that to an extension 

in their contract. And it is understandable. 

There are some of us, though, in the industry who believe that 

we are in a transition point in the industry and that issues regarding timber supply and future capital investment in the forest 

should be driven by private industry, not the government. And the 

issue of determination of the Ketchikan Pulp contract in the year 

2004, and if it goes forward, we believe that KPC can go forward 

on the independent forest management basis that the Forest Service operates across the country and with the SBA timber initiatives. Along with the state's wood basket and private industry wood 

basket, I think that they will be able to continue. 

But we really would like to believe that the franchise that they 

have is not healthy, the terms of the contract they have, the fact 

that they have to be restricted to just the dissolving pulp and 

sawmilling, it could be that the contract needs to be changed. And 

whether the contract expires or is renegotiated to be extended with 

changes, and whatnot, we think it might be better public policy to 

take a harder look at some of this. The CHAIRMAN. Bob, do not you believe, though, if the state man- aged the Tongass, they could set up long-term contracts and apply 

them to whoever would like to do so? Do you think that could be 

done? Do you not think there has to be a long-term contract if you 

are going to have a pulp mill? 

Mr. LOESCHER. Mr. Chairman, there are two ways to look at it. One is through TLMP. 

This lengthy debat e about the level of timber supply is difficult. 

If the public, through TLMP and through Congressional oversight, can find a l' umber of volume of timber that they are willing to put 

up on a cor.sistent basis over time, the industry will build itself 

around that volume and volume from other sources. 

The CHA1aMAN. The trouble is, we found that number 15 times. 

Mr. LOEfCHER. Yes, sir. That is a problem. 

The CHtJRMAN. And every time we find it, someone says, well, that is not enough, it is too much. And it is a constant battle. 
109 

My interest, too, in this legislation, and I know some of you will 

say I told you so, is the fact no one reconsiders the amounts of timber, and old growth habitat, and wildlife habitat that has been set 

aside already. That is never put in the equation. We are not managing the Tongass anymore. We are managing 

about a million hundred thousand acres. The rest of it is not managed. There is no management in the acreage we set aside in 1980 

and 1990. I go back to it, 1,822,000 acres was set aside in 1990, 22 areas, 

but there is no management in those areas. So when we talk about 

managing the Tongass, we are talking about a very small body of 

land. I think if the state controlled it, it would be a different concept. 

I know there are some objections with the suggestion about LUD 

II's and that area. There is a possibility that the state could come 

back with a plan. Somewhere along the line, we have got to look 

at this total package for management. We just cannot talk about 

what little remaining timber we have left. 

I want to thank the panel, and appreciate you being here, and 

Bob Loescher for flying down, and the Mayor from Metlakatla. 

Thank you. 

I would like to bring up the last panel, the Forest Service supervisors. I can suggest we have-I know about what they are going 

to say and they know everything I am going to say. Brad Powell, 

you are going to say it. Yesterday you did not. 

Mr. POWELL. That is right. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will go through the same system, if it is all 

right. 

Mr. POWELL. All right. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think you fared better today than you did yesterday. So welcome again to the panel, glad to have you here. 

Mr. POWELL. I am glad to be here. And I know we will be a popular panel, since we are last. That is always a good place to be. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know you have dedicated people. 

Mr. Powell, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD POWELL, ABIGAIL KIMBEL, AND GARY 

MORRISON, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST SUPERVISORS; 

FRED WALK, DIRECTOR OF TIMBER lVf ... ANAGEl\i!ENT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, ALASKA; AND BOB 1\'LI\YN.A..RD, USDA, OFF!CE 

OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, 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 views on 

H.R. 2413. Our testimony was presented in Wrangell yesterday, 

and I will summarize it today. 

With me are Abigail Kimbel, Forest Supervisor of the Stikine 

area, and Gary Morrison, Supervisor of the Chatham. 

The Department of Agriculture strongly opposes enactment of 

H.R. 2413. 

For over 100 years, public lands have been a source of the goods 

and services that supply local and regional economic growth and diversity. 
110 

The National Forest System, covering more than 191 million 

acres, is an important part of these public lands. 

By and large, Forest Service stewardship of this resource has 

been a 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. 

We recognize that some people disagree with certain aspects of 

current management efforts. For example, some people believe that 

we cut too much timber and some not enough. We are dealing with 

these perceptions. 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. 

The communities of the region need assurance of stable supplies 

of all the goods and services produced by the Tongass. 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. 

This bill 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 Forests. In 1995, this amounted to 7.6 million dollars. 

Of this total, Ketchikan received $337,000. These revenues are a 

key component of local government finances. 

While the Forest Service is proud of all we have accomplished 

over the past 90 years, we do not pretend for a moment that everything is perfect. We acknowledge that competing uses have dramatically increased the debate surrounding Federal lands. These 

conflicting needs and philosophies are perhaps more keenly felt 

here in Alaska than anywhere in the country. 

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. 

A few key examples are: First, a commitment to a sustainable 

timber supply. Of utmost concern to the Forest Service is establishing a sustai~ nable timber supply upon which industry can rely. We intend to 

offer 116 million board feet under the independent timber supply 

program in 1996. The Forest Service is committed to meet the Ketchikan Pulp 

Company obligation. In fiscal year 1996, the Forest Service intends 

to offer 205 million board feet under the terms of the long-term 

contract. 

Secondly, the better relationships with Alaska Natives. Tongass management affects a broad spectrum of interests of 

Alaska Natives, ranging from subsistence uses of forest resources 

to access_ to the land held by Alaska Native corporations. 

And, finally, a better job of listening to the people. 

Our first Chief, Gifford Pinchot, gave us the following adviee: 

"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." 
111 

We still think that is good advice. We intend to increase our efforts at listening to people to make sure we understand how the 

people want the Tongass run. 

We have been working to revise the Tongass Land Management 

Plan. We expect that the draft revision of the land management 

plan will be available for full public review and comment by the 

end of March of this year. 

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. 

The Forest Service has managed the Tongass with public input. 

We recognize that improvements can be made in our management 

practices. We are working diligently to make those improvements. 

We have enjoyed hearing from all the panels of witnesses here 

today, and in working with you, Mr. Chairman, to enhance the 

uses and management of the resources of the Tongass National 

Forest. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We would be 

ha_Epy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The statement of Phil Janik may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I want to-you made the comment you are going to put 116 million board feet up this year for small business and 205 million 

board feet up for the mill. That is 321 million board feet. 

How many feet did you put up this year? 

Mr. POWELL. Last year? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. POWELL. I believe last year's--

Mr. WALK. Two twenty-four. 

Mr. POWELL. Two twenty-four? 

Let me ask Fred Walk, if I might, of our staff, what the number 

was for last year. 

Mr. WALK. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I heard the question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the question was-there was a comment 

made, 321 million board feet. We heard this, I think, last year, the 

same figure. 

We put up how much last year? 224? 

Mr. WALK. We offered 327 million last year, as part of our program. 

The CHAIRMAN. But what I am saying, when you offered-the 

sales, were they actually offered, or was that on paper? 

Mr. WALK. They were offered. And then some became enjoined, 

and they were not--

The CHAIRMAN. You mean, suits against them? 

Mr. WALK. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have anything in your plan? 

You see, what happens is, you are caught in between, you know, 

the ones that do not want any timbering at all and, of course, those 

that believe they have to maintain a steady sustainable yield. Have 

you got any alternative plans when you put up sales and there are 

lawsuits against those sales to have immediate sales in other areas 

to make up for the total footage? 
112 

If you tell me 321 million board feet, if I have 321 million board 

feet, that would be very, very, very attractive. But if you do not 

have 321 million board feet and Mr. Seley's mill is being shut 

down, and the Ketchikan mill is being shut down, and the 

Wrangell mill is shut down, paper does not mean much. 

Mr. POWELL. The 321 million is the total that we have got prepared to put up this year. If any are litigated, or enjoined, or appealed in any way, that will be reduced. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you come up with an alternative plan to 

reach the 321 million? 

Mr. POWELL. We do not have the: ability this year to supplement 

with any additional volume for that 321 because of the time that 

it takes to prepare those offerings and those sales. The CHAIRMAN. What happened to Stevens' pipeline deal timber 

pull-through? · 

Mr. POWEI;L. If you do not mind, again, I would ask Fred Walk, who has had extensive experience dealing with those kind of 

things. The CHAIRMAN. Fred, why do not you just get up here. I mean, 

you flew down on the airplane with me. Why do not you get up 

here, seriously. There is a chair over here. Because if they are 

going to keep referring to you, it gets kind of embarrassing for my 

neck. Ms. KIMBEL. This is Fred Walk, the Director of Timber Management for the Alaska Region. The CHAIRMAN. What happend to the timber pipeline we were 

talking about so there would be a flow of timber going through the 

process? 

Mr. WALK. Mr. Chairman, some of that timber is being prepared, 

as we speak, through the environmental process, and those Environmental Impact Statements are supporting some of the planned 

timber sale program that we are offering this fiscal year as well as 

some last fiscal year. There were approximately one billion board feet of timber sales 

that were originally identified and going through the environmental processes. And those timber sales are coming on line now 

and will be offered and go through the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I am asking, there is supposed to be 

a three-year supply of timber available. We are never supposed to 

be caught in the position we are right now. I do not want to-just for the record, again, I want to go back 

to what I said before. How many Forest Service employees did we 

have in 1990? 

Mr. POWELL. Let me get that information for you. 

You are speaking just on the Tongass, right? 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. POWELL. In 1990, I show 812 employees. The CHAIRMAN. How many board feet did we have put up for sale 

that year that were sold? 

Mr. POWELL. I show in 1990 that we sold and released 313. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many employees do we have today? 

Mr. POWELL. Today we have-in 1996, I show 879 employees. The CHAIRMAN. And how much timber did we sell last year? 
113 

Mr. POWELL. The 261 is the figure. I think that was the 1994 figure we had in the chart. 

The figure you just gave, Fred, for 1995 was what? 

Mr. WALK. A total of 327 million. 

The CHAIRMAN. What I am leading up to here is that, hopefullyagain, I told you this yesterday, I know you are caught in a box. 

You have got-Jack Ward Thomas does not want to cut another 

tree. He is your boss. But, hopefully, that we are able to come up 

with an alternative proposal, so that we do not have-again, we 

shut down much more, there will not be any investment availability. You can have 200 million board feet up, and there will not be 

anyplace for it to go. Even 116 million board feet, I am hearing 

from the small business timbermen, they are not getting it through 

the pipeline, too. 

Where is the logjam occurring. Is it, like Dr. Leal said, just pure 

paperwork? 

Mr. POWELL. What is called NEPA, the Environmental Impact 

Statements, is a very complex process. That has taken approximately two years to complete on most of our timber sales. And then 

some of those sales are either appealed or litigated, which can extend that timeframe. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we ought to be maybe addressing those issues, and streamline the NEPA process, and precluding frivolous 

lawsuits that occur over, and over, and over? 

Mr. PoWELL. I would not suggest that to you, but I would tell 

you that is where a lot of the time is expended. 

The CHAIRMAN. One thing, Brad, in your testimony you talk 

about a working relationship, better relationship, good relationship. 

Twenty years ago, this hearing would not be taking place. , Just out of curiosity, what about the enforcement citation for 

cabin usage that was issued a couple weeks, three weeks ago? Does 

the law enforcement officer report directly to you, or who does he 

report to? 

Mr. PoWELL. He does not report directly to me. He reports to our 

special agent in Juneau. 

The CHAIRMAN. In Juneau? And does-and then they report to 

the Regional Forester? 

Mr. POWELL. That agent reports to a special agent in Washington. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you do not have a whole lot to do with it? I 

mean, you or Phil Janik do not? It goes from a separate branch of 

the agency that enforces all the way through? You really were out 

of the loop? 

Mr. PoWELL. I would not say I am out of the loop. 

Supervision is clearly as I just described it. The policies and the 

regulations that they enforce are developed by the Forest Supervisors and the Regional Forester. 

The CHAIRMAN. You do not have anything to do with those cabins? 

Mr. PoWELL. We manage the cabins. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yet they are the ones that enforce the--

Mr. POWELL. They enforce the policies that we enact. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you know he was in the field? 
114 

Mr. POWELL. I did not know that that particular law enforcement 

officer was out that day. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was he with you or your agency flying or chartering or using another agency's airplane? 

Mr. POWELL. The day of the cabin that you describe, he was actually-he was on a boat, as I recollect, that day with the Coast 

Guard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, the Coast Guard? Now, is the Coast Guard 

part of your team, or is· that something separate? 

Mr. PoWELL. Again, that just was a cooperative Federal agency. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Coast Guard is also under my Committee, and I will have an oversight hearing on the Coast Guard. 

At least they can identify me-or notify me what they were 

doing. I was unaware of what they had been doing, and they go 

through my Committee. 

What is your land planning timeframe? What is the accuracy for 

scientific prediction for population of wildlife beyond the ten- or 15-

year timeframe? What is your confidence in a 100-year timefrarne? 

Because other people testified before the Committee we are talking 

about, including myself, three birds, ten birds, five birds, 16 birds, 

or--

Mr. POWELL. Let me answer that separately. 

The first question was timeframe. In my testimony, I mentioned 

we expect to have a draft available for public review by the end of 

March. We are expecting a final decision to be made this summer, 

in the late summer. 

Relative to the degree of accuracy of the scientific information-

! think that is how you phrased the second question-! am not sure 

I can give that to you in a quantified sentence. The scientists are 

providing information to the team and to the Forest Supervisors. 

It is our job to look at that information, assess its reliability, assess 

the foundation of that information, and make a decision. 

The CHAIRMAN. Scientific information. You have how many biologists now working for the Forest Service? 

Mr. POWELL. Let me get you that information. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have got it, because we gave it to you. 

Mr. POWELL. 192 today. 

The CHAIRMAN. And 1990 we had? 

Mr. POWELL. 121. 

The CHAIRMAN. 121? 

How many timber engineers do we have? 

Mr. POWELL. I show-if you combine both foresters and engineers, in 1990, we had 132. And let me change these, because I 

think I have given you both the regional numbers. I think we had 

109 engineers in 1990, 122 in 1996. Foresters or forestry related, 

we had 226 in 1990, 208 in 1996. 

The CHAIRMAN. In all do respect, you have more biologists, then, 

do you not? 

Mr. POWELL. We have-at least currently today, we have nearly 

the same in biologists as we have in foresters. 

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I ask that, when you say scientific information on the study to the first part of my question, do you have 

just total in-house scientific research, or do you joint this with Fish 

and Wildlife, or do you have peer pressure from outside? 
115 

Mr. POWELL. We have both in tenns of we are using scientists 

that work for PNW, which is the Pacific Northwest Station, which 

are internal scientists, we have panels that were used of scientists 

that involve other agencies, other Federal agencies. And we are 

currently working with other Federal agencies that have concerns 

about the Tongass and the development of the plan. The CHAIRMAN. And the state is involved in this? 

Mr. POWELL. And the state is involved in it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, has it been your agency's desire to havewe are working on peer pressure review, because within agencies 

science is sometimes questionable. 

You do not really have any objection to outside pressure or what 

I call review? 

Mr. PoWELL. Are you asking have we had peer review of the 

panel reports? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. POWELL. At this time, the panel reports and the assessments 

have not been peer reviewed. It is our intent to have them peer reviewed, but it has not occurred yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. As you know, we have got in our possession, and 

you do, too, these nine alternatives under the Tongass plan. Without putting you all in jail, how many of you-what do you support 

of the nine different alternatives? 

Mr. POWELL. I will speak first to say we have not made a decision yet. You know, it is our job as supervisors to recoinmerid a 

preferred alternative, and we have not done that yet. We are in the 

process of developing that recommended alternative at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. When do you think you will have a-remember, 

I told you yesterday, as a school teacher, I do not. want you to all 

have the same answer. But when do you think th~te is a possibility 

of this so-called recommendation being made? "-

Mr. POWELL. That recommendation will be made sometime in 

early to mid March to go to the printer to have the document available by late March. 

The CHAIRMAN. The reason this legislation is introduced is the 

interference and the second-guessing on the D.C. level. 

Now, will we have privy of your recommendations prior to the 

time you send it to D.C., or is it going to be sent to D.C. and then 

sent back to you and say that is your recommendation when it is 

really not your recommendation? 

Mr. POWELL. I am not sure I can answer you directly on that. 

What I would tell you is, you will be able to see what the recommendation, the recommended preferred alternative, of the supervisors is. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to see it before it gets to D.C., between you and I. And you may not feel free to do that, but as a 

Congressman, I think I can ask that, and, in fact, I request that. 

And I just want to make sure that, again, be able to show that the 

recommendations are legitimately applied and all the infonnation 

you have cannot, in fact, be misinterpreted or reinterpreted by 

someone sitting in Washington, D.C., that, very frankly, does not 

listen to you. 

This has been going on for a long time. This has been a process, 

but it really means a great deal to me. 
/ 116 

Mr. POWELL. Well, I understand your request. 

The CHAIRMAN. The status of litigation of the APC contract, how 

much is that claim in for? 

Mr. POWELL. Let me refer-! hate to refer again, but we happen 

to have an expert on the status of that litigation with us, Bob Maynard. Bob is an attorney with OGC. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think it might be easier. I might go out in the 

audience and--

Mr. POWELL. We want to give you the best information. 

The CHAIRMAN. What is the status? 

Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Chairman, let me introduce myself for the 

record. Bob Maynard, with USDA Office of General Counsel. 

The CHAIRMAN. For the Forest Service or--

Mr. MAYNARD. We are a separate agency, but I serve as legal 

counsel for the Forest Service in Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does that come out of the Forest Service budget? 

Mr. MAYNARD. No. It is a separate budget. The CHAIRMAN. Which budget is it? 

Mr. MAYNARD. It is the Department of Agriculture budget. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. MAYNARD. It is a separate appropriations item. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am watching all appropriations. 

Mr. MAYNARD. But I have been in Juneau, Alaska since 1983 

providing local legal counsel to the Forest Service. And the Department of Justice, as well as USDA, does have a 

particular concern about questions that come up in hearings like 

this that relate to matters in litigation. We are very constrained 

about what we can say in terms of avoiding-impairing the judicial 

process and the government's position in--

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the only point I am asking you is, how 

much is the claim for? That is public knowledge. 

Mr. MAYNARD. The claim that is public knowledge is for over one 

billion dollars. 

The CHAIRMAN. And who made the decision to terminate the contract? 

Mr. MAYNARD. That is a contracting officer's decision, signed by 

Mike Barton, dated April 14th, 1994. 

The CHAIRMAN. To your knowledge, did anyone in D.C. indicate 

that is the best way to go? 

Mr. MAYNARD. I cannot comment further upon the issues that 

are in that litigation without running afoul of some very longstanding policy. 

I can tell you that with respect to questions like this, we have 

had an understanding in prior hearings, and in particular with 

Senator Murkowski's Committee, when they had hearings last 

year, that if you do have questions like that that you want answers 

to, if you can provide in writing, we will provide a written response. The CHAIRMAN. That is fair, and that is what we will do. 

Really, what J am looking for, is where the indication came from 

to cancel the contract, because it eliminated the fiberboard possibility, which the city of Sitka was looking for and is still looking for, 

and my interest is to find out where this all originated. Was it philosophy, ·or was it really based upon sound legal terms, was it 
117 

based upon, you know, use of taxpayers' dollars? That always has 

bothered me. 

Mr. MAYNARD. Yes, sir. 

I will just tell you, that matter is specifically in litigation and at 

issue in that litigation. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. 

On each of your areas in the Tongass this year, what is your timber volume target for the budget process? 

Mr. POWELL. On the Ketchikan area, and I am going to just give 

it to you approximately, I think it is 187 million on the Ketchikan 

area this year. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much long-term, how much short-term? 

Mr. POWELL. I think there is about-and I can get you the exact 

numbers. I am doing this from memory. But I think there is less 

than 20 of that is independent, and the remainder of that is all 

long-term. 

The CHAIRMAN. This question may be-l am sorry. Mr. POWELL. Would you like to hear--

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. MORRISON. For the Chatham area, the volume that is my 

target for this year is 62 million. Of that, 32 million is independent 

and 30 million is KPC. 

Ms. KIMBEL. And on the Stikine area, my 1996 target is 63.8 million. That is only independent. 20 million of that is enjoined with 

the AWRTA lawsuit. 

The CHAIRMAN. What do you think you will actually accomplish? 

Mr. MORRISON. For the Chatham area, the 62 million of our target, I suspect that 40 million is going to be an administrative appeal throughout the fiscal year, I predict that 20 million is going 

to be in litigation throughout the year. So that part that I am assured of is about two million board feet. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is my problem. There has got to be-you 

have got to give me some idea how we can get around this. What 

we have is, different interest groups killing the intent of the Forest 

Service and how the so-called supply of timber is just on paper, it 

is not there. I told Phil Janik that, it is not there. People are not 

receiving the logs, and jobs are being lost. 

It does not do me any good to sit here and listen that the government is going to put up 321 million board feet, when in reality it 

is not going to get there. That is just-I mean, I can say I am going 

to put up 700 million board feet. But if the log is not cut, it is not 

available. 

It is just very frustrating, which-anybody else want to comment? I am getting excited. Mr. POWELL. I can just tell you, the Ketchikan area, out of that 

187, we expect-it is called the CPOW supplement, Central Prince 

of Wales. That is close to 100 million. It was recently appealed. Depending on whether that is litigated or not, that is probably the 

only volume that is-potentially would not be offered this year. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it will be litigated? 

Mr. POWELL. I really do not know at this point. I would say there 

was a 50/50 chance that it will be. 
118 

The CHAIRMAN. About this time, I am ready to become Shakespeare. You know, the role I am referring to is the litigative process. 

Go ahead. 

Ms. KIMBEL. Of the 63.8 million on the Stikine area, I expect to 

be able to-I am not anticipating legal challenge to any of the others other than that that is already enjoined. So 43.8 million is what 

I am expecting to be able to offer. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, Mr. Powell had a point here, now. I 

had comments yesterday about the permitting process on the 

Stikine. Cabins, use permits, et cetera. 

Does that same patrol branch apply to you? Do they consult you 

when they go to the Stikine and say your canoe has been tied up 

too long, or is that part of your obligation? 

Ms. KIMBEL. I am not really sure where some of those comments 

came from, because they sure have not been incidents that have 

happened in my tenure here. 

The law enforcement personnel that serve the Ketchikan area 

serve the Stikine area as well. And we have a pretty good relationship, so that I do know when they are on the Stikine area and 

when they are patrolling. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is important to me, because this image is 

very, very-it is bad, and it was not that way, and I think that is 

where the emphasis comes with state management. Probably some 

of the state enforcement people are not much better. But there has 

got to be some responsibility locally with the head forester about 

what is occurring, or you are going to constantly have this problem. 

It is just not the timber industry. It is a regular issue in this 

country. People deeply resent the United States Government, a guy 

wearing a gun-it is just not the Forest Service, the Park Service 

is doing it, too-going out and just "I am Mr. Government, I am 

big time." And that causes great concern and great agitation on the 

citizens in the park, and rightly so. It is just not the way to do 

business. The PR job-and I mentioned yesterday to all of you-one of the 

best things you can do is you hire this group of people, both-professional foresters, who are really park rangers-they ought to at 

least have a training period of time where they understand the 

people they are dealing with and the philosophy of at least the constituents they are dealing with, because this idea that they can 

walk around in their uniform, like the Park Service does now, and 

say that "We are the government, you better do as we tell you to 

do or you are going to be in trouble," it is not going to fly. 

It is just not this agency. I am talking about the whole government concept is really very difficult. 

What is the AWRTA legislation? What is the status of that litigation? Is that--

Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a briefing 

schedule in the District Court that concerns the issue of how much 

of that currently enjoined timber will remain enjoined while the 

Forest Service would proceed with supplemental NEPA and 

ANILCA 810 work. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much timber? 

Mr. MAYNARD. About 282 million board feet is currently enjoined. 
119 

The CHAIRMAN. Was the Forest Service position in the litigation 

supported by the Alaska Delegation, as reflected in the fiscal year 

1995 recisions law and the vetoed Interior appropriation bill? 

Mr. MAYNARD. I honestly did not follow you on that question. The CHAIRMAN. Was the Forest Service position on the litigation 

supported by the Alaska Delegation as reflected in the fiscal year 

1995 recisions law and the vetoed Interior appropriation bill? So 

were you on the same side in this issue? 

Mr. MAYNARD. The Forest Service has been seeking relief from 

that injunction. So to the extent the legislation was directed at 

that, they went to the same issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. The answer is yes, then? Yes. 

Again, what was the-you already mentioned how much timber 

was tied up, but what was the nature of the lawsuit? 

Mr. MAYNARD. The AWRTA lawsuit, without characterizing any 

of the pleadings, just my thumbnail sketch is the issues are compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and Section 810 

of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, 

subsistence procedures. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was there any-again, I am asking for what sort 

of environmental problems are at the issues of the suit. Are there 

any specific problems at the issue of the suit, or is it just the issuance of a new statement, EPA statement? 

Mr. MAYNARD. It would be difficult for me to get into specific concerns. 

The general issue is the plaintiffs allegation that supplemental 

NEPA/ANILCA work is needed. The CHAIRMAN. Procedurally? 

Mr. MAYNARD. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much money do you think we are going to 

have to spend on that suit? . Mr. MAYNARD. I have no idea. 

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe we can find that information as it goes 

through the process. I think that is important. 

The taxpayers have to understand that this type of frivolous lawsuits are costing big dollars, not just the effect upon the directly 

impacted people, but the big dollars we are relinquishing, because 

once the suit is filed you have to respond, and it is just one of those 

issues I do not think even Alaskans are aware of how much money 

is being wasted of their tax dollars through the agencies because 

of suits that are filed by individual groups that have only one thing 

in mind, to stop the process. Is the socioeconomic analysis complete for the TLMP process? 

Mr. POWELL. I do not believe it is complete yet. And, in particular, it is at the draft stage. 

We have completed the initial work through the draft plan. 

There will be follow-up work involving all 33 or 32 different communities between draft and final. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will not be in the draft final? 

Mr. POWELL. There will be a socioeconomic analysis in the draft 

plan, but between draft and final there needs to be additional work 

completed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will it be including the effects upon the existing 

contracts and existing mill operations? 
120 

Mr. POWELL. It will be. 

The CHAIRMA.lll. And the amount of timber maintained? We are 

not going to have 104 million board feet? 

Mr. POWELL. I think it will clearly show how many acres are involved, how many jobs are related to that, what volumes of timber 

we project on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, though, I want to stress the fact that we 

talk about board feet and how it is going to solve the problem, but 

if it does not get into the funnel, it does not work. And that means 

there is tremendous uncertainty in this community and other communities that makes it very difficult. 

I know we have strayed away from the intent of the bill, but this 

is very important, and you do represent the Forest Service. And I 

did not think you would support my bill. I would be terribly surprised. But I am going to pursue this issue as we go through the 

process, and I hope we are able to keep the lines of communication 

open and be able to look for solutions and try to avoid the pitfalls 

I think that have occurred in the past piece of legislation. 

I know most of you are aware that I have worked on this type 

of legislation since 1973. As was mentioned, I had the first hearing 

here at the high school, when we had the EPA water quality standards. And the only bright thing that came out of those hearings 

was I hooked the largest king salmon that ever swam in the waters 

of Ketchikan. And as each year goes by, that fish gets bigger. Ed 

Elkins and myself went out there, and that fish now is up to 400 

pounds. 

I want to thank the panel, and we will be in communications. 

And, hopefully, we will be able to get something together in the 

near future. I want to thank the panel for participating. 

Mr. POWELL. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. And as of now, this second Committee hearing 

is over. And we will, in fact, now pursue other hearings across the 

state. And I will probably see some of you again, I will probably 

see some of you in the audience again. And I look forward to be 

able to continue this correspondence. Thank you very much. Adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned; and the 

following was submitted for the record:] 
121 

104TH CONGRESS H R 2413 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To transfer the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To transfer the Tongass National Forest to the State of 

Alaska. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Tongass Transfer and 

5 Transition Act". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that8 ( 1) It IS in the public interest to provide a 

9 mechanism to transfer ownership of the Tongass 
122 

2 

National Forest to the State of Alaska to be man2 aged and operated under the laws of the State of 

3 Alaska. 

4 (2) The State of Alaska is the level of govern5 ment that is most sensitive to the ecologic and eco6 nomic needs of the people of the Tong-ass and other 

7 Alaskans. 

8 (3) The State of Alaska is committed to policies 

9 m connection with the Tongass that include IIIlO formed decisionmaking, prudent management of 

11 Tongass resources with sound science, multiple, bal12 anced, and sustainable use of 'rongass resources, an 

13 inclusive planning process for the diverse interests 

14 associated with the Tongass, and planning that 

15 fosters consensus. 

16 (4) It is appropriate for the State level of gov17 ernment to own and manage the land area now com18 prising Tongass National Forest and to provide the 

19 best ecologic and economic balance in the Southeast 

20 Alaska ar ea that comprises the Tongass National 

21 l<'orest. 

22 ( 5) Without I<'ederal constraints and costs, the 

23 State of Alaska is in a better position to balance the 

24 diverse needs and interests of those concerned with 

25 the future of the Tong·ass. 

•HR 2413 IH 
123 

3 

1 (6) It is necessary to provide a smooth transi2 tion between Federal and State ownership and con3 trol and to resolve as many issues as possible prior 

4 to State ownership and control. 

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

6 For purposes of this Act: 

7 (1) The term "Secretary'' means the Secretary 

8 of Agriculture. 

9 (2) The term "Tongass National Forest" 

10 means the Tongass National Forest, as depicted on 

11 the map numbered __ and dated __ . 

12 (3) The term "Federal obligation" means any 

13 obligation or duty of the United States Forest Serv14 ice arising out of any lease, permit, license, contract, 

15 and other legal instruments issued by or with the 

16 Forest Service relating to the Tongass National For17 est. The term "Federal obligation" does not include 

18 any obligation with respect to a Federal law, regula19 tion, or policy. 

20 ( 4) The term "Tongass National Forest lands" 

21 includes all right, title, and interest of the United 

22 States in and to all real property located in the 

23 Tongass National Forest, and all structures (perma24 nent and temporary) owned by the United States 

25 Forest Service located on such land. 

•HR 2413 m 
124 

4 

(5) The term "transfer-transition period" 

2 means the period beginning when the State of Alas3 ka elects to receive the lands pursuant to this Act 

4 and ending one year thereafter. 

5 (6) The term "transfer date" means the date 

6 on which the State of Alaska elects to receive the 

7 lands pursuant to this Act and notifies the Secretary 

8 of such election. 

9 (7) The term "patent date" means the last day 

10 of the transfer-transition period. 

11 (8) Terms used in section 6(c) shall be accorded 

12 the meaning g1ven to such terms under the Alaska 

13 National Interest I.Jands Conservation Act. 

14 SEC. 4. TRANSFER OF TONGASS LANDS AND PROPERTY TO 

15 THE STATE OF ALASKA. 

16 (a) AVl'OMATIC TRA:\!Sf'f:m OF LA:'\DS.-If, within 10 

17 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the State 

18 of Alaska elects to receive all Tongass National Forest 

19 lands in conformance with subsection (b), and so notifies 

20 the Secretary, all Tongass National Forest lands shall be 

21 conveyed, by operation of law, to the State of Alaska, sub22 ject only to valid existing rights. Such transfer shall occur 

23 in accordance with this Act. 

24 (b) Fom'! OF ELECTIO:--<.-The election by the State 

25 of Alaska to receive lands pursuant to subsection (a) shall 

•HR 2413 m 
125 

5 

be in the form of a bill approved by the House and Senate 

2 of the Alaska State Legislature and signed by the Gov3 ernor of the State of Alaska. Such law shall state that4 ( 1) the State of Alaska elects to receive all 

5 Tongass National Forest lands; 

6 (2) the Tongass National Forest lands received 

7 shall be received subject to valid existing rights; 

8 (3) the procedures specified in this Act and the 

9 transition provisions of this Act shall apply to the 

10 transfer; and 

11 ( 4) the rights and obligations of the United 

12 States under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

13 Act with respect to lands, rights in lands, and use 

14 of lands transferred by the Tongass Transfer and 

15 Transition Act shall not be infringed by the State of 

16 Alaska. 

17 (c) PROCEDURE.-Upon receipt by the Secretary of 

18 Agriculture of a copy of the law specified under subsection 

19 (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall prepare a patent 

20 conveying all Tongass National Forest lands to the State 

21 of Alaska and shall deliver such patent to the State of 

22 Alaska on the patent date. The duty of the Secretary to 

23 prepare and deliver such patent pursuant to this Act shall 

24 be purely ministerial and delivery of the patent on the pat25 ent date shall not be withheld or conditioned. The United 

•BRU13 m 

24-018 - 96 - 5 
126 

6 

1 States Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to 

2 issue such writs and compel such actions as may be nec3 essary to accomplish the conveyance made under this Act. 

4 (d) OTHER PROPERTY.-Upon the election pursuant 

5 to subsection (a) and concurrent with the transfer of lands 

6 pursuant to this Act, the Secretary shall also transfer the 

7 right and title to and interest in all other types of property 

8 (including real and personal property) used for purposes 

9 of operating, administering, and managing the Tongass 

10 National Forest. Such property shall be transferred on the 

11 patent date and include only that which is owned by the 

12 United States and used by the United States Forest Serv13 ice within the Tongass National Forest and that which 

14 is directly associated with the management of such Forest. 

15 All vehicles transferred shall be painted the official colors 

16 of State of Alaska vehicles prior to transfer. 

17 SEC. 5. TRANSITION PROVISIONS DURING THE TRANSITION 

18 PERIOD. 

19 (a) EXISTING 0BLIGATIO~S OF THE UNITED 

20 STATES.-The United States shall remain obligated for 

21 Federal obligations during the transfer-transition period. 

22 (b) EMPLOYEES.-During the transfer-transition pe23 riod, to the extent practicable, the State of Alaska shall 

24 interview each person employed on the date of the enact25 ment of this Act in the Tongass National Forest by the 

•DR s.ta m 
127 

7 

1 United States Forest Service for purposes of reemploy2 ment by the State of Alaska for a comparable function 

3 within the new State administrative system for the 

4 Tongass Forest. Employees who do not secure employ5 ment with the State of Alaska shall be given preferential 

6 treatment for purposes of other available positions with 

7 the United States Government. 

8 (c) ALASKA PULP CORPORATION CONTRACT.-The 

9 State of Alaska shall enter into discussions with the Alas10 ka Pulp Corporation during the transition-transfer period 

11 and conclude an agreement which reinstates the Alaska 

12 Pulp Corporation Contract (Contract No. 12-11-010-

13 1545) within six months of the patent date. Such agree14 ment shall provide for dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit 

15 styled as Alaska Pulp Corporation against the United 

16 States of America, No. 95-153C. Such reinstatement shall 

17 include an additional provision which requires sale or as18 signment of such contract to a third party who agrees to 

19 construct a manufacturing facility in Southeast Alaska 

20 that utilizes pulp-grade logs. The State of Alaska shall as21 sume the obligations of the Forest Service under such re22 instated contract, except that the State of Alaska shall as23 sume no obligation for any claim relating to such contract 

24 which arose from an occurrence before the transfer date. 

•HR 2413 m 
128 

8 

1 (d) TIMBER RoAD PROGRAM FUND.-From amounts 

2 remaining after making payments for the benefit of public 

3 schools and roads under the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 

4 U.S.C. 500), the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any 

5 other provision of law, provide the gross receipts from the 

6 Tongass National Forest derived from timber sale stump7 age fees due during the transfer-transition period to the 

8 State of Alaska as seed money for purposes of establishing 

9 a timber roads revolving fund. 

10 SEC. 6. TRANSITION PROVISIONS OUTSIDE THE TRA.NSI11 TION PERIOD. 

12 (a) MANAGEMENT OF TRANSFERRED LANDS.-(1) 

13 Beginning on the patent date, the lands transferred pursu14 ant to this Act shall be administered and managed under 

15 applicable State of Alaska law, except as otherwise pro16 vided in this Act for the period provided by this Act. 

17 (2) During the transfer-transition period and until 

18 the patent date, the lands subject to transfer pursuant to 

19 this Act shall be administered and managed under Federal 

20 law and the Tongass Land Management Plan. 

21 (b) LAND DESIGNATIONS.-Land use designations in 

22 effect on the date of the enactment of this Act under the 

23 Tongass Land Management Plan shall continue in effect 

24 for a period of up to one year after the patent date, but 

25 shall cease to be applicable when the State of Alaska 

•HR 1413 IB 
129 

9 

adopts a land use designation system for the transferred 

2 lands during such one-year period. 

3 (c) SuBSISTE~ E USE M'TER THE PATENT DATE.-

4 The Secretary of the Interior shall retain continuing au5 thority to manage subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on 

6 lands transferred under this Act until such time as the 

7 State of Alaska law is in compliance with title VIII of the 

8 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 

9 (d) Ml:'·iiNG CLADTS.-(1) For a period of 15 years 

10 after the patent date, Federal mining claims located before 

11 the patent date pursuant to the General Mining Law of 

12 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 and following) in the Tongass Na13 tiona! Forest shall remain subject to the laws, rules, regu14 lations, and policies of the United States, but such laws, 

15 rules, regulations, and policies shall be administered by 

16 the State of Alaska. During such period, the right and 

17 ability of a claimholder to patent such a mining claim shall 

18 not be infringed. An application to patent a Federal min19 ing claim located in the area comprising the Tongass Na20 tiona! Forest may be made by the claimholder with the 

21 State of Alaska and shall constitute an election by the 

22 claim holder to be subject to Federal mining claim patent 

23 procedures administered by the State of Alaska. 

24 (2) At any time during the 15-year period referred 

25 to in paragraph (1), the holder of a Federal mining claim 

•HR 2413 m 
130 

10 

1 may elect to convert the claim into a mining claim to be 

2 administered under the laws of the State of Alaska. An 

3 election to convert such a claim must be in writing, include 

4 such information as the Commissioner may request, and 

5 be sent to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural 

6 Resources of the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska 

7 shall convert each Federal claim into one or more State 

8 claims covering the area of the Federal claim. 

9 (3) Upon the expiration of the 15-year period re10 ferred to in paragraph (1), each Federal mining claim for 

11 which a mining patent application has not been filed and 

12 which is located within the Tongass National Forest shall 

13 be converted by operation of law into a mining claim or 

14 claims to be administered under the laws of the State of 

15 Alaska. 

16 ( 4) During the transfer-transition period the Federal 

17 Government shall maintain the right to receive fees and 

18 revenues, if any, due on Federal mining claims. After the 

19 patent date, the State of Alaska shall have the right to 

20 receive any fees or revenues due on Federal claims that 

21 are not converted under paragraph (2) or (3). 

22 (e) LAND GRANTS TO NATIVE PEOPLE.-The State 

23 of Alaska shall negotiate in good faith to obtain an agree24 ment with the native people of the communities of Haines, 

25 Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell, Alaska 

•RR 24ts m 
131 

11 

who did not receive a land claim settlement under the 

2 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Under such agree3 ment, the State of Alaska shall convey not less than 

4 23,040 acres of smface estate and not more than 46,080 

5 acres of surface estate to each community within the 

6 boundary of the land transferred for purposes of histori7 cal, cultural, economic (including timber, tourism, and 

8 recreation) development and subsistence use in settlement 

9 of such claims. Upon the conveyance of such surface es1 0 tate, the State of Alaska shall convey the subsurface estate 

11 of such lands to Sealaska Corporation. Unprocessed tim12 ber (as defined in section 493 of Public Law 101-382) 

13 may not be exported from Alaska. Negotiations shall con14 elude as soon as practicable after the patent date, but in 

15 no case later than two years after the transfer date. If 

16 an agreement is not reached, then the matter shall be sub17 mitted to binding arbitration. 

18 (f) TIMBER RECEIPTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.-

19 In each year, beginning with the fiscal year of the State 

20 of Alaska beginning after the transfer date and ending 

21 with the tenth fiscal year thereafter, the State of Alaska 

22 shall allocate 25 percent of the net timber stumpage re23 ceipts for all timber sold on the lands transferred under 

24 authority of this Act directly to boroughs, municipalities, 

•HR 2413 IH 
132 

12 

and local governments for purposes of schools, educational 

2 materials, and community roads. 

3 (g) TI:VIBER RECEIPTS TO THE U~ITED STATES.-

4 For a period of 10 calendar years, beginning with the fis5 cal year of the State of Alaska beginning after the patent 

6 date, the State of Alaska shall pay to the United States, 

7 25 percent of the net receipts for all timber sold on the 

8 lands transferred under authority of this Act. 

9 (h) KETCHIKA~ Pt:LP Co~TRACT.-On the patent 

10 date, the State of Alaska shall assume all the obligations 

11 of the United States and be entitled to all the benefits 

12 due to the United States under Contract No. A10fs-1042 

13 with the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation beginning on the 

14 patent date. 

15 (i) TIMBER EXPORTS.-The State of Alaska shall 

16 prohibit by law e}..-port of unprocessed saw, utility, and 

17 pulp logs originating from lands transferred under this 

18 Act for a minimum period of ten years. 

19 (j) ExiS'l'I~G Om_,JGATIONS AFTim PATE~T DATE.-

20 On the patent date, the State of Alaska shall assume all 

21 Federal obligations and duties and receive all rights of the 

22 United States Forest Service, except that the State of 

23 Alaska shall assume no obligation for any claim for dam24 ages or specific performance relating to a contract if such 

•HR 2413 IH 
133 

13 

1 claim arose before the patent date, unless the State of 

2 Alaska receives the benefit from such an obligation. 

3 SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS DUTIES OF THE PARTIES AND 

4 OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE 

5 TRANSFER. 

6 (a) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.-The Secretary 

7 shall provide the State of Alaska with a map and other 

8 legal descriptions of the land to be transferred under sec9 tion 4. The map and the legal descriptions provided under 

10 this subsection shall be on file and available for public in11 spection in the Office of the Secretary in Washington, Dis12 trict of Columbia, and in two readily accessible locations 

13 in Alaska, at least one of which is in Southeast AlRska. 

14 (b) HAzARDOUS MATERIALS.-As promptly as prac15 ticable after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 

16 make available to the State of Alaska for review and in17 spection, all pertinent records relating to hazardous mate18 rials, if any, on lands to be transferred under this section. 

19 The responsibility for costs of remedial action related to 

20 such materials shall be borne by those entities responsible 

21 under existing law. 

22 (c) JUDICIAL REVIEW.-Transfer of land pursuant to 

23 this Act shall not be subject to judicial review in any court 

24 of the United States, except-

•DR 2413 m 
134 

14 

1 ( 1) to the extent a right of judicial review is 

2 conferred specifically by the United States Constitu3 tion; 

4 (2) otherwise conferred by this Act; or 

5 (3) when sought by the State of Alaska on mat6 ters pertaining to rights conferred by this Act. 

7 (d) RlJLE?IIAKIXG.-No formal rules under section 

8 553 of title 5, United States Code, are required to imple-

. 9 ment this Act. 

10 (e) SlJRVEY.-The patent for lands conveyed pursu11 ant to this Act shall not be subject to completion of a field 

12 survey and may be issued based on a protraction survey. 

13 (f) REPEAL.-Sections 503, 508, 703, 704, 705, and 

14 706 of the Alaska National Lands Interest Conservation 

15 Act are repealed on the patent date. Title III of the 

16 Tongass Timber Reform Act is repealed on the transfer 

17 date. 

18 (g) E:\'CUMBRA:\'CES.-For purposes of an orderly 

19 transfer of the Tongass National Forest to State owner20 ship and transition to State management, the Secretary 

21 shall provide a list of encumbrances of record and other22 wise known in the Tongass National Forest to the Com23 missioner of the Department of Natural Resources of the 

24 State of Alaska during the transfer-transition period. The 

•HR :uta m 
135 

15 

1 transfer under this Act shall be subject to all existing en2 cumbrances. 

0 

•HR 2-lts m 
136 

Supplemental Information apd Summary 

Senator Robin L. Taylor 

State Capitol 

Juneau, AK. 99801-1182 

phone (907) 465-3873 

fax (907) 465-3922 

I must say, however, that I have serious concerns about 

some of the provisions of H.R. 2413 as it stands today. 

I see no problem with the provision requiring the State of 

Alaska to interview employees of the U.S. Forest Service for 

possible job placement. I can assure you, however, that 

Alaska will not need the nearly one thousand employees it 

takes the federal government to manage the forest. Our 

neighbors in British Columbia get along perfectly well with 

less than 500 employees to manage forest lands which are 

eight times more productive than the Tongass has been 

under federal management. 

I have major concerns, however, with the provisions of 

Section 6 (g) of the bill as written. To require us to pay to 

the federal government 25 percent of the net receipts for 

all timber sold is simply not viable. It significantly 

reduces the revenue stream we will need in the start-up 

years of Alaskan management. This is money we will need 

for roads, docks and commercial thinning. Why should 

Alaska pay the federal government a 25 percent return on 

resources the state would own? Are New York, 

Pennsylvania or Virginia asked to make a similar payment 

when they sell timber from state land? 
Senator Taylor 

Supplemtnal Information 

Page Two 

137 

While I am certain that the State of Alaska can do a more 

efficient and less expensive job of managing the forest, 

diverting 25 percent of the revenue in the start-up years 

could doom us to failure. 

There are those who contend that the federal government 

manages the Tongass at a deficit. We are willing to accept 

that liability and in the process help you to reduce the 

federal budget. That should be payment enough. I urge you 

to reconsider this provision. 

My most serious concern is over Section 6 (c), the provision 

addressing subsistence use after the patent date. While I 

have included the required language in the bill accepting 

the transfer, our legal services division has already advised 

me that such a provision would be unconstitutional under 

the Constitution of the State of Alaska. I am afraid, Mr. 

Chairman, that my colleagues in the majorities of both 

houses of the legislature will view this provision as a 

poison pill. You are aware of our position on this issue. We 

are unwilling to trade our sovereignty for the Tongass. 
138 

The Anc}:lorage Times l'ublishor: BILL J. Al.l.t:f\1 

"Bnlltwinl in Alaskans. puttinR A laRk a firs'" 

F.rlJtor:f: DF.NNIS F'Rt\f.li.~Y . PAUl. jt;NKINS, WILI.I."M /. TOOIN 

~~~~ i~:~\.'!'(:,';'fi': /~·,~ 'ft.~':t~'hn:~~~.·~~~:j~:r;~d'~~:_~~:u~i:/~~~.,~:i'~~:~7h'i -;,~~· ~:!;;~~·::: 1'/.,. Ti111N0. in lht! inlf>f'~S uf flrnYrVh'R:. di\·tor.:irv of vit!wpuh•lll in the llllllfntudty. 

N.Y. hypocrites 

ANCHORAGE newspaper readers the other morning may 

have been surprised by a front page story lauding the pro~nvi

ronmental initiatives of a Republican congressman from New York. 

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert opposes logging in the Thngass National 

Forest, and he's against opening the ooasta\ plain of the Antic National Wildlife Refuge. The politician says he is concerned ahout protecting the environment and that Alaska's representatives in 

Congress are not. 

A siririlar criticism was made the other day by a different Nrw 

Yorker writing an opinion colwnn in the New York Times. Eric .J. 

Siy, Pi'!:l.iOCt director of a New York-based organization called gnvironmental Advticates, lambasted Alaska's congressional delegation 

for seeking federal subsidies to assist resource industries in Alaska. 

"Drilling for oil in the Arctic refuge, clear<Utting ancient tn~s in 

forests owned by all Americans, selling off public resources at liresale prices - 'all of these schemes will make some people rich. Uut. 

they will make the rest of us poorer ... ." wrote Mr. Siy. 

In the face of such stories, Alaskans may want to ask: Arc we l'eally the evil monsters destroying the environment for personal gain 

that these New Yorkers claim? · 

. Th answer'that, let's compare the two states, and t.'Onsider jtL~t one 

of the industries we have in oommon: timber. 

Do you think Alaskans are dear-rutting their forests, while New 

Yorkers revere theirs?· Think again. There's one pulp mill operating 

in Alaska's Thngass National Forest. There are 34 pulp mills pulverizing trees in New York. Alaska has about 30 Mwmills, New York 

has 231. There are 1,250 timber industry jobs in Alaska. There are 

62,295 in New York. The Alaska timber payroll is $500 million. New 

York's is $1.9 billion. 

The total timber harve!<t in the Thngass is less than 250 million 

board feet a year. In New York, the annual tree cutting exceeds 1.1 

billion feet. 

The kicker is this: Less than 1 percent of New York. or a mere 

290,000 acres, is owned by the federal government and prot.ectt.>d 

from development. Most of the other 99 percent is privately owned 

and open to development. 

In Alaska, the opposite is true. Less than one-twentieth of 1 percent of the land in Alaska has been been developed. About 60 percent, more than 220 million acres, is owned by the federal govemment- much of it designated parks, refuges and wilderne~s areas 

that are off limits to development. The state, itself, has designated 

more tltan 6 million acres of its land aR parks and wildlife areas. 

The bottom line: New York has exploited almost all of the reSOW'CCS within its borders. Alaska has carefully protected vast areas 

for wildlife habitat. 

And the New Yorkers have to gall to criticize us. 

11tE ANOIORAGE TIMES, P.O. Box tOUCMO, Ancho""'''!, AK 99!110 
Subj: Re:National Forests Und"" Attack 

Date: 95-05·14 22:01:03 ED. 

From: JWithering 

WATCH OUT!!!!!! HERE THEY COMEI!!!I!I 

139 

RICH TIMBER COMPANIES AND THEIR BUDDIES IN CONGRESS ARE GOING AFTER 

AMERICA'S LARGEST AND WILDEST NATIONAL FOREST. ALASKAS "TONGASS" -

YOURS WILL BE NEXT!! 

ROBIN HOOD MUST BE ROLLING OVER IN HIS GRAVE! Lui November Alaskaa Senator Frank 

Murkowski and Representative Don Young. took over chairmanships of the committees eontrOIIin!! our 

national forests. They have plans to take the national forests away from the American people and give them 

to rich multinational timber companies Not just the trees, but the land itself! This is how they intend to do 

it 

FIRST ATTACK THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST IN ALASKA-This vast coastal rainforest is a 

17 miUion acre national treasure lwboring Nonh Americas largest remaining populations of aalmon. bald 

eagle, and grizzly bear and a healthy, growing, regional economy based upon renewable resources They 

plan to dismantle the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, a law that guarantees that the Tongass is 

managed for balanced multiple use, providing hunting. fishing. tourism, and recreation. as weU as a 

sustainable timber industry 

FIRST, SENATORMURKOWSKI SAYS TIIAT HE wn..L USE THE TONGASS AS A TEST CASE. In 

the IICKI few weeks, Senator Murkowski will hold hearinal ukina hia Euqy and Natural Resources 

committee to: 

*MANDATE AS MUCH CLEARCUTTING AS ITT AKES TO SATISFY TIMBER. INDUSTRY 

"DEMAND", NO MATTER WHAT. 

"SUSPEND ALL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS SO TIIA T THE FOREST SERVICE CANNOT LISTEN 

TO THEIR OWN FISH AND WILDLIFE SCIENTISTS; AND 

*TAKE AWAY 1000 SQUARE MILES OF THE BEST TONGASS NATIONAL FORESTS LANDS, 

SUPPOSEDLY PROTECTED FOREVER IN THE TONG ASS TIMBER. REFORM ACT, AND TURN 

THEM OVER TO PRIVATE TIMBER. CORPORATIONS FOR CLEARCUTTING. 

The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 was a bipanisan compromise supponed by the entire Senate and 

four fifths of the House of Representatives. If this reasonable, widely supponed legislation can be undone, 

then no national forest, national park. wildlife refuge, or other public land is aafe. 

SECOND, MANDATE CLEARCUTTING·AT-ALL-COSTS IN ALL OTHER. NATIONAL 

FORESTS .. .Just like the mandate in the recent "salvage logging" rider. According to Rep. Young, they even 

plan to give the national forests away to the counties, states, and timber companies ..... if it works on the 

Tongass ... 

AND AS IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH, WE STill SUBSIDIZE THEIR CLEARCUTTING WITH OUR 

TAX DOLLARS I ! I! Most Tongass timber is sold below fair market value to one company under a 50 year 

monopoly. This corpo1111e welfare costs the American people $40 million every year. Congress should 

STOP, not INCREASE this subsidy This only benefits some congreasmana rich timber industry friends who 

contribute heavily to their campaign funding, while destroying our natural heritage and the quality oflife of 

the people. WHAT WOULD ROBIN HOOD SAY ABOUT SUBSIDIZED CLEARCUTTING? 

YOU CAN HELP SAVE OUR NATIONAL FORESTS STARTING WITH THE TONGASS!! 

Please call, fax or write, and ask senator (especially if on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee) to 

protect the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 and to vote against any other attempts to mandate logging 

or give away our remaining great American forests and other national treasures. This is serious' I I and reaUy 

happening!!! I 
140 

Testimony of the Territorial 

Sportsmen on H.R. 2413 

before the House Committee 

on Resources 

Wrangell, Alaska 

February IS, 1996 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee on Resources. 

My name is Carl Rosier and 1 am a Board Member testifying on behalf of the 

Territorial Sportsmen. The 2,000 plus members of the Territorial Sportsmen are 

celebrating our 50th anniversary this year. As a conservation group we have been 

speaking out on fish and wildlife issues since 194S. Our membership lives primarily in the 

Juneau-Douglas area however, we have members in a number of other communities 

throughout Alaska. We are also an active member of the Alaska Outdoor Council. 

We understand that hearings on H.R. 2413 have been scheduled only for Wrangell and 

Ketchikan at this time. This proposed legislation, because of the potential financial 

impacts to the State budget demands that the public be heard throughout Southeast 

Alaska communities as well as other areas. of the State. WrangeD is a good point to 

begin hearings, due to the impacts of industry's decision to tenniDate sawmill operations 

here. It must be remembered however, that the changing economic picture and multiple 

use nature of business and recreation on the Tongass today causes every Southeast 

Community to have a stake in how and by whom the forest is managed. The Territorial 

Sportsmen thank you for this opportunity to participate at this hearing, and urge you to 

expand the opportunity for all communities to be heard on such an important issue as 

State ownership oftheTongass National Forest. 

Upon initial reading, any states-right believer would consider H.R. 2413 to be desirable 

legislation. After all who in this day and age wouldn't be excited about obtaining title 

to approximately 17.0 million acres of prime real estate. Close scrutiny of the bill, 

however raises a number of serious questions. 

Sportsmen in our organization questions whether the State has the financial capability to 

take on and do an effective job of managing the Tongass if this bill were to pass. We 

see State resource agencies being cut by over 2S% in their operational budgets. State 

Habitat protection measures such as the State Forest Practice act that cannot be fully 

implemented due to legislatively mandated budget cuts. A total absence of a research 

capability within the state to assess impacts of resource development and closure of parks 

f:;.r 'Jd; ,,!· fun:i• These are onh· a f~·s exam;:rles o:' state financial decisions that cause us 

:\·, .. jut.::;.~;"·n ~;i'-· ;.,:..::\,): 1 ;..tf:.lkin= .;.·.:-; ~- -.:.!K'i!!!"::p ar:~ n~ar:::~en1e!"!; ,,fthe Tongass. :\5 \\e 
141 

look at the projected declines in oil revenues within the state, it seems more rational from 

a fish and wildlife standpoint to continue sharing responsibilities with the federal 

government. 

Self determination and close to home decision making, would certainly benefit the people 

of the region, however Section 6 (c) provisions destroys those benefits as far as fish and 

wildlife issues are concerned. This provision relating to subsistence management 

mandates that the Secretary of Interior manage until the Alaska State law is in compliance 

with Title VIII of ANILCA. Title VIII is the federal law gun at the head of the State that 

continues to pit resident Alaskans against one another. Provisions of Section 6 (c) 

perpetuates federal management, exacerbates the subsistence issue in the Southeast 

Region and detracts substantially from the States right to manage fish and wildlife on all 

land . Continued dual management systems caused by Title VIII jeopardize fish and 

wildlife species and do nothing for personal use and recreational hunters and fishermen. 

Resolution of this issue cannot occur through the State coming into compliance with Title 

VIII of ANILCA but only through removal of this devisive federal law. 

A third area in which recreational hunters and fishermen are impacted by this legislation 

include loss of access to the land. Provisions to convey 115,000 to 230,000 acres of 

Tongass land to new native organizations in Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, Wrangell 

and Haines further limit recreational opportunities for all citizens of the region. 

These named communities failed to qualify as native communities under the 1971 

provisions of ANCSA even following appeal of their status. Hunters and fishermen 

have seen extensive closure and limited access to the approximate 500,000 acres 

conveyed to native communities under the 197llaw .. The rights of the private landowner 

to control access is supported by the Territorial Sportsmen however, further withdrawals 

of public land and coincidental loss of access to the public users is truly an injustice. 

Section S (c) mandates that the State enter into discussions and conclude an agreement 

that re-instates the Alaska Pulp C orporatioin contract within 6 months of the patent date. 

This provision appears to ignore the opportunity to modify Tongass management to 

better accomodate the demands by a diverse population for improved balance in providing 

multiple use of the forest. The evidence is pretty compelling that the industrial logging of 

the past has not had a beneficial effect on fish and wildlife. Termination of the A.P.C. 

contract provides a relief valve for potentially improving multiple use of the Forest. 

It is our view that a second long term contract for continuation of industrial logging in 

northern southeast is a badly outdated concept. 

The final provision of this bill that concerns our organization is the Sec. 7 (f) Repealer. 

We understand that if transfer were to occur that one approach to minimize federal 

strings would be to repeal all the federal protective measures upon patent. Our concern 

is with what happens then? There are many good reasons for protection of the fish 

and wildlife values by the sections being repealead. Lacking similar provisions in State 

law it appears that risks to fish and wildlife are significantly increased over a lengthy 

reri0d of time \\.hile the State once again gets its house in 0rder while starting from 

- 2-
142 

This concludes my remarks Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

the committee might have. 

-3 -
143 

Testimony Before the Conunittee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives 

on 

. H.R. 2413 : a bill to transfer the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska 

by Bruce H. Baker 

Member, Board of Directors, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

February I 5, 1996 

Wrangell, Alaska 

My name is Bruce Baker, and I am testifYing as a Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) 

board member. SEACC opposes H.R. 2413, and our Executive Director, Bart Koehler, will present 

our full testimony tomorrow in Ketchikan. Today, I will mention some of the fish, wildlife, and 

tourism problems we have with the bill. As background, I am a graduate forester and have worked 

in Southeast Alaska 25 years. I began my career here with the U.S. Forest Service and later worked 

for the State of Alaska, first as a natural resource policy specialist in the Office of the Governor and 

then as Deputy Director of the Alaska Department ofFish and Game's Habitat Division. 

The Tongass National Forest belongs to the people of the United States and not just those of 

us who are fortunate enough to live in Alaska. Although the state has matured considerably 

in its ability to manage public trust resources, the state's constitution, laws, regulations, and 

budget aDorations do not ensure the balancing of national, state, and regional interests to the 

degree that national forest management does. For example, the state has no law that requires as 

comprehensive and public a disclosure and evaluation of the beneficial and detrimental aspects ofland 

management decision options as the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Fishina lndusuy & Fish Habitat 

The Forest Service's January 1995 Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment Report to Congress notes 

tliat Southeast Alaska's quarter-billion-dollar per year commercial salmon fishery is one of the most 

productive and highly valued in the world and provides over 5,000 jobs in the region. The growing 

sport fishing industry provides over 1,200 jobs with over $28 million in earnings. Sport fishers spend 

more than $90 for each salmon caught. The subsistence salmon harvest is more than 1.2 million 

pounds annually. The long-term protection of salmon habitat is critical for ensuring the sustainability 

of this important segment of the region's economy. 

To protect salmon habitat in the coastal forest, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biologists 

recommend at least 100-foot-wide, no-harvest zones on each side of salmon streams. In the Tongass 
144 

Timber Reform Act, Congress adopted this NMFS recommendation and established a no-logging 

buffer zone of at least I 00 feet in width on each side of salmon streams and tributary resident fish 

streams which directly affect the water quality in salmon streams. H.R. 2413 would repeal this 

provision. On state-owned coastal forest land, the state Forest (Resources and) Practices Act 

requires that timber harvest may not be undertaken within I 00 feet immediately adjacent to a salmon 

stream, and that between I 00 and 300 feet of such a stream, timber harvest may occur but must be 

consistent with the maintenance of important fish habitat. This bill would allow the transfer of more 

than 200,000 acres of the Tongass to private corporations, and on private land, state law requires that 

partial uncut buffers be left within only 66 feet of only certain portions of salmon streams. 

Although fish habitat protection requirements are somewhat similar for the Tongass and for state 

lands, the number of biologists available to work with timber sale layout staff varies greatly between 

the two. The Forest Service has 19 fisheries biologists that it can assign to work on timber sales and 

associated road building on the Tongass, yet the state has only about three biologists to work on 

timber sales and roads throughout the state, regardless of land ownership. 11. 2/ In its report last 

month to the state Board of Forestry, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) indicated 

that its funding to implement the state's Forest Practices Act has been slashed by the state legislature 

to only 65 percent of what it was ~!dim: the act was passed in 1990. The ADF&G report concludts 

that under the act, "we can anticipate a continued degradation in the abundance, quality, and 

availability to humans of non-timber resources." 

The Forest Service's January 1995 Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment Report indicates that 

despite recent advances in protection of salmon habitat, current practices on the Tongass do not meet 

either the goal in the Tongass Land Management Plan" ... to protect biological productivity of every 

fish stream on the Tongass," or the long-term goal of avoiding the possible need for listing of salmon 

and steelhead stocks under the federal Endangered Species Act. To its credit, the Forest Service 

identified more than a dozen specific recommendations that it can implement to meet these two goals. 

Neither the state nor the private sector has conducted such a comprehensive analysis of the 

effectiveness of fish habitat protection measures. 

The Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment Report concludes that "current practices [I 00-foot 

minimum no-cut buffers and best management practices] for timber harvest planning and 

application are not fully effective in protecting anadromous fish habitats on the Tongass 

National Forest." 

In passing the Tongass Timber Reform Act, Congress ensured the permanent protection of 12 Land 

Use Designation (LUD) 11 areas such as Salmon Bay and the Lisianski River. Like Congressionally 

designated Wilderness, LUD II areas are important for the survival of commercial, sport, and 

subsistence fishing and would be repealed under this bill. 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Unlike national forests in the lower 48 states, the Tongass still supports the same complexes of 

wildlife species that it did before European exploration. These animals are important sources offood 

2 
145 

or wildlife viewing for Southeast Alaskans and others, and some species like the wolf and the brown 

bear have not fared well in the wake of human development world-wide. Over the millennia, most 

Tongass wildlife species have come to depend on the various characteristics of the ancient old-growth 

coastal forest, and over the last 40 years they have come to depend on sound forest management 

decisions. The Forest Service has a far more comprehensive body of laws and regulations than the 

State of Alaska has for the protection of wildlife habitat. 

The greatest degree of wildlife habitat protection on the Tongass is that afforded by the 

Congressionally designated Wilderness areas and by the 12 Congressionally established LUD II areas 

such as Berners Bay, Kadashan, and Calder-Holbrook. The repeal of all these areas by H.R. 24\3 

would be very detrimental to wildlife populations and the people who depend on them for their 

monetary or non-monetary economic well being. 

On the more than 200,000 acres of national forest land that could be conveyed to private corporations 

under this bill, the state Forest Practices Act would require llQ protection of wildlife. 

Tourism !ndustty 

Tourism is Southeast Alaska's fastest growing industry, and in 1993, over 700,000 visitors came to 

the region- a 130 percent increase over 1989. In a 1995 visitor study in southeast Alaska (conducted 

for the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association), 70 percent of those interviewed 

indicated that wildlife viewing was either a "very important" or "important" consideration in their 

decision to visit the region. In the same visitor study, 69 percent of those surveyed indicated that 

seeing remote wilderness was "very important" or "important" in their decision to visit Southeast 

Alaska. 

Wildlife and Wilderness have become major contributors to Southeast Alaska's outdoor recreation 

and tourism industry, and place names such as Admiralty Island, Misty Fjords, and Anan Creek attract 

visitors from around the world. Wildlife populations on the Tongass merit at least as much protection 

as they have been afforded under federal management, and this bill's repeal of Congressionally 

designated Wilderness and LUD II areas would result in serious long-term economic damage to 

Alaska communities dependent on the outdoor recreation and tourism sector of the region's economy. 

Conclusion 

It is clear that despite its problems, the U.S. Forest Service is in the best position to balance 

the many legitimate national, state, and regional interests here. For the general good of this 

and futqre generations, we recommend that you redirect your emphasis from this biD to 

supporting the ongoing public process for revising the Tongass Land Management Plan . 

.11 Pcnooal commllllicatioa with Cal Cupirit. Forest Servi<:c. 2/8196. 

1) PcnooalCOQ1unicatioa wilh Janet Kowalski. ADF&G, 219/96. 

3 
146 

Rc(erenccs 

Alaska Depanment ofFish and Game. January 16, 1995. 1995 Report to the Board of Forestry. 

Submitted by the Habitat and Restoration Division. ADF&G, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802 

(907-465-6141). 

Lethcoe, Nancy R. 1995. Testimony of the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association 

before the US. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee regarding the Southeast Alaska 

Jobs and Communities Protection Act of 1995. Presented by Dr. Lorin Toepper, AWRTA Board 

Member. AWRTA, P.O. Box 1353, Valdez, AK 99686 (907-835-4300). 

Milner, Alexander M. September 1991 . Timber Harvest and Water Quality in Alaska- Final Repo11. 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the University of Alaska, Arctic 

Environmental Information and Data Center. Environment and Natural Resources Institute, 

University of Alaska, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 

Schoen, John W., Matthew D. Kirchoff, and Jeffrey H. Hughes. July 1988. Wildlife and Old-Growth 

Forests in Southeastern Alaska. In Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 8, Number 3. Natural Areas 

Association, 320 South Third Street, Rockford, IL 61104. 

State of Alaska. 1990. Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (AS 41.17) Division of Forestry, 

Alaska Department ofNatural Resources, 400 Willoughby Ave., iuneau, AK 99801 (907-465-3379). 

US.D.A., Forest Service. January 1995. Report to Congress - Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment. 

RIO-MB-279. Pacific Northwest Research Station & Alaska Region. U.S.DA, Forest Service, P.O. 

Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802 (907-586-8863) 

4 
To: 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Place: 

147 

CITY OF PETERSBURG 

P.O. BOX 329 • PETERSBURG, ALASKA 99833 

TELEPHONE (907) 772-4511 

TELECOPIER (907) 772-3759 

Honorable Don Young 

United States Congress 

Syd Wright, Petenburg City Council 

Representative to the Southeast Conference 

February 15, 1996 

House Resolution No. 2413 

Wrangell, Alaska 

Thank you for this opportunity. I bring to you greetings from the City of Petersburg and an 

invitation from Mayor Jeff Meucci to hold hearings in Petersburg where your lunch will be a 

sampling of the finest seafood in the world. 

My name is Syd Wright. I am a Councilor from the City of Petersburg and serve as the 

Council's representative to the Southeast Conference. I have been a full time resident of Alaslca 

for thirty-three years, most of them in the Tongass. I have been a commercial fisherman for 

thirty-two years and an educator also for all of that time, mostly as principal of Petersburg High 

School. 

In my long time study of legislation affecting the Tongass, I am struck by the contrast between 

Representative Young's bill and the apparent intent of the originator of the notion that the 

Tongass should be a National Forest. I think that perhaps Teddy Roosevelt is turning round and 

round in his grave. 

In 1907, he designated the Tongass National Forest. In the same year, Colorado and Wyoming 

stock, mining and timber interests tried to organize anti-conservationist policy support to get 

public lands ceded to the states. But opinion was divided and the move failed partly because of 

Teddy Roosevelt's appointee, Gifford Pinchot. Teddy rejected John Muir's preservationist 

position in favor of Pinchot, who then developed the multiple use concept - which is why we still 

have a ~orest to argue about t;xlay. 

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican conservative President, one of the greatest presidents of the 

twentieth century, with Gifford Pinchot, came up with a three phase policy which still works 

today. 
148 

•Re-name the Bureau of Forest the Forest Service to emphasize its commitment to public 

service and rename the forest reserves to National Forests to emphasize their public use; 

and 

•IdentifY the goal as "the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time"; and 

•Develop an integrated program for all natural resources giving each its proper treatment 

in relation to the whole. 

With these views in mind let me report to you the City of Petersburg's position in two different 

resolutions. Support of ANILCA and lTRA as they stand and opposition to HR 1034. Two 

different resolutions passed, neither unanimously. 

Our stated reasons were: 

I. The intentions of the framers in 1907. 

2. The State of Alaska does not have the resources to manage the Tongass National 

Forest. 

3. HR 2413 specifically repeals the sections of ANILCA and lTRA which protect 

National Monuments, Legislated LUD ll Areas, Wilderness Areas (which include 

Petersburg Creek) and one hundred foot buffers, which we feel are critical to 

commercial fishing and tourism. 

4. The bills do place emphasis on the small independent timber business. 

5. The improved timber receipts to our schools as a result oflTRA. 

6. The loss of the Forest Services' social and economic impact on Petersburg ($6.5 

million payroll and over $2 million in Wrangell). 

Let me close with a story. My friend, State Senator Robin Taylor recently answered some of my 

questions about his companion bill in our State Senate. (Robin, are we still friends?) In his 

answer he asked me if I didn't trust my friends and neighbors' decisions relative to managing 

the Forest. 

I will answer this way. Twenty-five years ago there was a battle in Petersburg about logging 

Petersburg Creek. My friends and neighbors prevailed. Along came ANILCA. Many of my 

friends and neighbors helped pass it 

In 1990, along came lTRA. Many of my friends and neighbors including all the commercial 

fishing organizations supported it and still do. 
149 

The Petersburg City Council, elected by a majority of my friends and neighbors, also passed two 

relevant resolutions. So in answer to Senator Taylor's queStion, I feel enough of my friends and 

neighbors are supportive to justify my presence here to oppose HR 2413. 

The common thread that runs through all of this is Teddy Roosevelt's "the greatest good for the 

greatest number for the longest time" - the multiple use concept - re-emphasized in the words of 

lTRA, shall provide timber "to the extent consistent with providing for multiple use and 

sustained yield of all renewable forest products" . 

This was Teddy's intent and it is ours still today. 
150 

EXHIBIT Ill 

RESOLUTION NO. 1415-R 

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE 

RESOLUTION NO. 95-12. 

Whereas, at the Southeast Conference Membership and Annual Meeting held in Whitehorse, B.C., September 19 

- 21, 1995, the membership considered Resolution No. 95-12 which supports Congressman Young's House 

Resolution No. 2413; and 

Whereas Congressman Young's House Resolution No. 2413 provides for the transfer of the Tongass National 

Forest from the federal government to the State of Alaska; and 

Whereas, the designators of the Forest in 1907 intended that it belong to all the people of the United States, not 

just Alaskans; and 

Whereas, the State of Alaska does not have the fmancial or persormel resources or the necessary institutional 

memory to provide for minimal adequate management of the Tongass National Forest; and 

Whereas, the State of Alaska taking over the management of the Tongass National Forest is similar to and as 

inappropriate as the Federal government taking over the management of wildlife and fish on federal lands in Alaska; 

and 

Whereas, Petersburg has already gone on record supporting Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) as they presently stand; and 

Whereas, House Resolution 2413 calls for the repeal of several portions of ANILCA and TTRA which would 

eliminate: National Monuments, Legislated Lud II Areas, Wilderness Areas and 100ft. buffers; and 

Whereas, the above areas are critical to the continued economic success of the fiShing and tourist industry in 

Southeast Alaska; and 

Whereas, House Resolution 2413 would reinstate Alaska Pulp Company's fifty year contract, the elimination of 

which has opened the former Alaska Pulp contract area to smal~ independent timber and tourism business 

opportunities and increased the prices timber businesses arc paying for timber; and 

Whereas, these independent timber businesses have bid a fair and much improved price for valuable timber 

which has resulted in higher values and significantly improved timber receipts for support of schools and roads in 

Southeast communities; and 

Whereas, the City of Petersburg opposes House Resolution 2413; and 

Whereas, the transfer of the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska would mean the loss of 130 families 

of US Forest Service people who live in Petersburg. These families provide great economic benefits to Petersburg 

and to other Southeast communities; and 

Whereas, the US Forest Service employees and their families are a great social and educational asset to our 

community; and 

Whereas, the voting members attending the Southeast Conference did not receive any notice 

;r h•formation regardi11g Resolution No. 95-12 prior to the meeting nor were th:y givt:l'_ a;: 

:.pf>Ortunity to discus~ the ramifications of Congressman Young's House R.:sobtic::: ?'J c. 2413 

with their respective communities and sponsors. 
151 

Now Therefore Be It Resolved by tbe City of Petenburg, Aluka to encourage tbe 

membenbip of tbe Soutbeut Conferenee to eonsider tbe implications of Congressman 

Yonng's bill and reeonsider Resolution No. 95-ll. 

Tbe City of Petenburg furtber resolves to encounge tbe Soutbeut Conferenee to 

provide information to its membenbip and set aside one montb for diseussion and study 

prior to reeonsidention of Resolution No. 95-ll and furtber to provide tbe membenbip 

witb a mail-in ballot proeess for reeonsidention. 

, Al~this.IL.day of~99S. 
152 

EXHIBIT 112 

RESOLUTION NO. 1397-R 

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT AND THE 

ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS ACT. 

\fuereas, the City of Petersburg is supportive of a balanced 

multiple use of the Tongass National Forest; and 

Whereas, the stability and future growth of Petersburg's 

major economies, fishing and tourism, are dependent upon 

provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act and the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act; and 

Whereas, Petersburg ' s subsistence use of fish and game also 

depend upon the provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Act and the Tongass Timber Reform Act. 

Now Therefore Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City 

of Petersburg, Alaska to support the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Act and the Tongass Timber Reform Act as they presently 

stand. 

Passed ~;o;e~ by the Petersburg City Council 

day of , 1995. on the ..s£._ 

-..i... ..... ___ • \_... l .._ .. ______ _ 

Hayor 
153 

Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 

Petersburg

P.O. 

, 

Box 

Alaska 232 99833 

B 

Phone (907) 772-9323 Vo•ce ano Fax EXHIBIT 03 

June 1, 1995 

The Honorable Frank Murkowski 

Chairman, 

Committee on Energ y and 

Natural Resources 

United State~ Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski : 

The Petersburg Vessel Owners Association is an organization of 

commercial fishermen dedicated to the conservation and rational 

management of Alaska's fisheries. It is one of the oldest 

orianizations of its kind in Alaska and its members have been 

activ e participants in Tongass timber issues for many years. 

As an organization, we are not opposed to logging nor are we 

opposed to a self-supporting timber industry, but we believe the 

needs and interests of the commercial fishing fleet also must be 

acknowledged and addressed before any legislative revisions are 

made to land-use designations or management prac tices within the 

Tongass National Forest. 

Since this hearing may, in fact, be a precursor to the 

introduction of legislation, we would like to make some general 

c omments a t this time with a request t hat o ur industry as well as 

other So uthea~t residents be given ample oppor·tunity to 

participate in a greater c apacity in the near future. 

As you know, the commercial fishing industry is Southeast 

Alaska 's largest private employer and its continued success 

depends on the health of hundreds of salmon-producing streams 

within the Tong~ss . In order to ensure streams continue to 

produce ~~ mon and ther~fore, provide j o bs and economic 

opportunities for SouLheast residents, the safeguard measures of 

TTRA including 100-foot buffer strips, the inteirity of LUD-II 

areas and additional protection for sensitive watershed areas 

must be maintained . 

Even though some valuable watershed areas were protected by TTRA, 

pri vate c orporations have been harvesting pri va te lands 

containini several salmon-bearing streams. Of particular concern 

are rands morth of Petersburg between Port Houghton and \v ina~um · 

g~g . "[6 · &h~~a cases, TTRA measures were not r e quired; thus 

minimal buffer strips were established along streams and few 

measures were taken to protect salmon habitat . Furthermore, much 

of the timber has been left on the slopes with only logs ~emoved 

for export . We c annot afford expansion of timber harvest which do 

not require allowances for other Tongass-dependent industries; it 

is not conducive to the health of the Tongass nor to the economy 

of Southeast. 
Hon . Ted Stevens 

June l, 1995 

page 2 

154 

As you may recall, TTRA was widely accepted in Southeast; the 

reason being is that the law takes into account the needs of 

different industries which rely on the Tongass. The fact remains 

that the economy of Southe~st Alaska is based on much more than 

the total number of board feet harvested from the Tongass; we 

believe future management of the Tongass must reflect that 

reality. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to 

working with you, your staff and the residents of Southeast 

Alaska on revisions to land-use and management practices within 

the Tongass National Forest. 

Gary Slaven 

President., 

Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 

cc: 

Hon. Ted Stevens 

Hon. Don Young 

Members, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
155 

STATDIENT OF 

PHIL JANZK, REGIONAL FORBSTBR 

FOREST SBRVICB 

CNITBD STATES DEPAR'l'MBNT OF AGRICO'L'l'C'RB 

Before the 

House Committee on Resources 

OOited States Hose of Representatives 

Copseming H.R. 2413. a bill. 

"To T;anster tbe Tggqaas National Forest to the State ot A1aska• 

February 15 ~ 16, 1996 

Wrangell ~ Ketchikan, Alaaka 

MR. I CHAIRMJU'f .AND MBMBBRS OF THB StiBCOMMITTBB : 

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•• views on H.R. 2413, a bill, •to 

transfer the Tongasa National Forest to the State of Alaska.• 

The Department of Agriculture strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 

2413 I 

Our opposition rests on both philosophical and pragmatic 

grounds. Let me outline our position. 

Rational Forests Belong to A11 Amlricons 

For over 100 years, during good economic tilnes 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, 
156 

wood, fish and ·wil'dlife, energy and water. They have beenl the 

! I 

basis for environmental health, yielding clean air ahd 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 agen~ 

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 

full range of 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 

- 2 -
157 

timl:ler products.·· 'ln! 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 dismeml:lerment 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 timl:ler 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 

and, conversely, 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 

24-018 - 96 - 6 
158 

variety of ·;Local· in'terests 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 re~ources 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 passe~• 

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 the commercial fishing industry. 

The Forest Service has worked hard to assure sustained growth in 

all sectors of the economy. The investment 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 
159 

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 

2St 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 alternacive 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 

economy. Additionally, 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 
100 

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 

to list species 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. 
161 

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. We will be releasing the draft of 

that plan very soon, and expect to make a final decision this 

summer . 

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 . 

Additionally, the Forest Service is committed 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 
162 

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 

related activities 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 
1~ 

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 tighter 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 

chart the course for this reexamination, and we will be sharing 

the results with the public along the way . 
164 

6 . Expanding the ··econ0111ic base of Southeast Alaska communi ties . 

The Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture possess 11\a.Ily 

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 

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 will 
165 

continue to be involved as the work progresses. 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. 

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 

this hearing. 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: 
166 

"There are many great interests on the National ~crests 

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 ~e sure we understand how the 

people want the Tongass run. 

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 Onited States are 

met in our plan. We expect that the draft revision of the land 

management plan will be available for full public review and 

c011111ent by the end of March of this year. And we are looking 

forward to extensive and productive reviews and discussion of the 

range of alternatives for uses on the Tongass. 
167 

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 

management practices, 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 w-ith 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 . 
168 

THB tiRITKD STATBS PORBST SBRVICB 

<XMIITS TO 1101UUIIG WI'111 ALASICABS 

TOWARD THB POLLOifiiiG: 

August 25 , 1995 

1 . A strong, healthy, diversified e c onomy for Southeast Alaska that includes 

fishing, fish processing, tourism, timber, commercial guiding, subsistence, 

mining, and recreation and personal use . Affirm that all of the uses of 

the Tongass are important and acknowledge that the people and the 

management of the Tongass are inextricably linked and a consensus process 

is imperative recognizing the importance of multi ple use reflected by the 

following : 

EiJhing - The fishing industry is the single largest private employer 

in Southeast Alaska . Approximately 2,162 people are employed in 

Southeast Alaska in seafood harvesting. 

Seafood Processing -Approximate ly 1,603 people are employed in 

Southeast Alaska in the seafood processing industry . This has 

increased 14 . 1 percent since 1990. 

~ - The tourism industry employees approximately 3,637 people . 

There has been a 40\ increase in employment in the tourism industry 

since 1990 . 

~ - The timber industry employs approximately 2,180 people . 

While there has been a 37 . 2t decrease in timber jobs since 1990, it 

remains an important employer in Southeast Alaska . 

Mining · The Tongass is one of the most he avily mineralized regions of 

Alaska and is actively growing and expanding . Approximately 165 

people are employed in the mining industry in Southeast Alaska . 

Subsistence apd Personal Use - The Tongass National Forest provides, 

other than a cash economy to Alaskans, important social, personal , and 

cultural uses . 

2 . Multi ple, balanced, and sustai nable use of the Tongass National Forest that 

meets the needs of Alaskans today while preserving opportunities for future 

generations . 

3 . Alaskans will be encouraged to max1m1z e self-determination through public 

participation in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) revision process . 

Southeast Alaska communities will have a oice in the discussions and 

decisions regarding the Tongass . 

4 . National Forest fish and wildlife habitat protection, conservation, and 

management that is based on science and assures sustai nable yields of 

populations of salmon, deer, and other important fish and wildlife species. 
169 

5 . Scientific information will be an integral part of the management planning 

for the Tongass National Forest . It will not dictate the management 

decisions but will guide them. 

6 . Scientific assessments will be made available for review by the various 

industries, interest 9roups, and communities and the state as part of the 

management planning process . Several assessments and rePorts will be 

available in draft form in the next few days. 

7. A clear, discernable TLMP planning process that includes a clear 

presentation of the planning steps and a well understood schedule for 

scientific studies, public participation, and completed products . 

8 . A supply of timber for Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (KPC) that meets the 

terms of the long -term contract. 

9. In addition to the KPC contract obligations, the Forest Service is 

scheduled to provide about 100 mmbf in each of the years of 1995 and 1996 

for independent and Small Business Administration (SBA) purchasers and to 

help support Southeast mills. Projections for the independent and SBA sale 

programs will become more certain with completion of the TLMP Revision. 

10. The Forest Service will work toward developing a mutually agreed, efficient 

process for review of timber sale proposals by state regulatory agencies so 

as to establish predictable timber sale release schedules with a goal of a 

three-year timber supply and sufficient volume ready to offer or under 

contract to provide a predictable supply of timber available for 

manufacturing. 

11. A major goal of both the state and the Forest Service is to provide 

incentives to encourage high value-added processing of timber in Southeast 

Alaska that provides more jobs per board foot cut. The Forest Service will 

support incentives to encourage investment in high value-added processing. 

The Forest Service recognizes sustainability of the economy is dependent on 

our ability to transition into diverse, dispersed, value-added industries. 

12. A review by the state of the 1989 proposal for the establishment of an 

economic diversification fund to provide opportunities for communities and 

industries. 

13. Continued efforts to assist Wrangell in their economic development and 

diversification as well as providing incentives for companies interested in 

high value-added processing . 

14. The Forest Service will continue to work with various interest groups to 

implement a process that encourages consensus and reduces conflict. 
170 

TESTIMONY FOR THE 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

FEBRUARY 16, 1996, 10:00 AM 

TED FERRY CMC CENTER, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 

By 

Don Leal 

Senior Associate 

PERC (Political Economy Research Center) 

Bozeman, Montana 

Mr. Chairman, the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act ( H.R. 2413) is indeed a 

momentus bill. At long last there is a serious challenge to the very notion that mutiple-use, public 

forest management has to be under control of the great Leviathan. For too long we have assumed 

that a cadre of experts, answerable only to Washington and backed by an almost unlimited 

expense account, is the only option for allocating timber, minerals, recreation, and wilderness 

from our public lands. For too long, we have failed to consider state and local options seriously. 

Instead, we have accepted the conventional wisdom that these agencies lack the resources and 

expertise to do the job. Well, that conventional wisdom is under serious challenge today, not 

only in Alaska but in other western states as well. 

Federal management has always operated with the understanding that decisions emanate 

from Washington, the benefits accrue to all, and the brunt of costs falls on the locals. In years 

past, state residents have assumed that outputs such as timber, minerals, and motorized recreation 

would continue to flow and that payments in lieu of taxes to counties would continue to be paid 

to offset their share of the costs. Unfortunately, when gridlock sets in, as it has on the Tongass, 

this payback formula simply doesn't work and chaos is the result. Economic outputs have been 

disrupted and communities have suffered as a result. 

The Tongass is stuck in the quagmire of conflicting and costly requirements with no 

single defining economic purpose to navigate its way out. Lacking a clear objective, the Tongass 

has become a political football in which special interests can easily block all but the most radical 

options. The result has been devastating for Alaskans whose livelihoods depend on a balanced 

output of goods and services emanating from the forest. 

Fortunately, there is a way out of the quagmire and states and local governments are 

showing us the way. What I will share with the committee today is the knowledge that there is a 

better way to manage a public forest such as the Tongass, one that has been proven successful in 

states such as Montana and Minnesota, two states with substantial state and local land holdings 

and with the clear economic objective of generating income for a designated beneficiary. 
171 

The information I will present here today is from two recent studies I've conducted 

comparing national forest management with that of state and local forest management in 

Montana and Minnesota, respectively. These comparisons will show that state and local foresters 

are not only capable of managing multiple-use, public forests, but they do so with far greater 

efficiencies than federal managers. Moreover, state and local foresters carry out their duties 

without sacrificing environmental quality. Indeed it appears that the very costly attempts to 

ensure environmental protection through federal laws result in never-ending paperwork but don't 

buy us much in the way of protection. 

My fii'St study compares national and state forest management in western Montana where 

state forests are rated by government surveys as having timber-growing potential similar to that 

of neighboring national forests. And like national forests, Montana's state forests are mutipleuse, public forests. They provide outputs oftimber,livestock grazing, minerals, public recreation, 

as well as providing habitat for wildlife that includes grizzly bears. 

Of the 600,000 state forest acres in Montana, about 500,000 acres provide timber (the 

remaining acres have been set aside for economic or environmental reasons). In addition, state 

foresters must meet similar environmental standards as the Forest Service, including protecting 

streamsides, reserving habitat for endangered species, and making sure water quality standards 

are satisfied. They do these things, however, with smaller staffs and less documentation 

requirements. 

In addition, unlike the Forest Service, which has no requirement to make money from 

national forests, .state foresters are required to generate income from state lands for the funding of 

public schools. For example, while the public can and does use state forests extensively to hunt, 

hike, fish, and camp on, a recreational user fee is charged and that fee goes toward funding of 

public schools. For 1994, the state charged a fee of$5 per person for a season's recreation pass 

and generated net revenues totaling $157,555. Also, the state sold 140 special recreational 

licenses for outfitting on state lands, netting an additional $66,948. All told, the state generated 

$224,503 in income for the funding of schools from recreation. 

Without the income incentive, the Forest Service does not pay the same attention to costs 

as the state, nor does it have to try to raise revenue by exploring other potentially profitable 

options for the forest-such as charging hunting and fishing fees. Thus, we would expect the 

state to have much greater motivation to perform better economically than the Forest Service, 

and it does. 

From 1988-1992, Montana state forests, many of which lie right next to national forests, 

generated S 13.3 million in net income from timber sales, while Montana's ten national forests 

managed to lose nearly $42 million. Remarkably, the state harvested only 8 percent of the 

quantity harvested by the Forest Service in Montana over the I 988-I 992 period. 

This performance difference occurred because the state carried out its timber and 

2 
172 

environmental duties at much lower costs. On state forests in northwestern Montana, the state 

spent an average of$65 for every thousand board of harvest, while on nearby Flathead National 

Forest the Forest Service spent an average of$106 for every thousand board feet of harvest. On 

state forests in Montana's southwest region, the state spent an average of$80 for every thousand 

board feet of harvest, while on nearby Beaverhead National Forest the Forest Service spent $169 

for every thousand board feet of harvest. 

Why were the state's costs lower? One reason is that the Forest Service expended 

substantially more labor hours administering a given volume of timber through a sale than did 

the state. On the Gallatin National Forest, for example, the Forest Service expended over twoand-a-half times the labor hours expended by state foresters on nearby state lands. Another 

reason is that the state spent a lot less than the Forest Service contructing a given mile of timber 

road. The state averaged from $4,000 to $8,000 per mile, while the Forest Service averaged from 

$45,000 to $50,000 per mile. The Forest Service builds roads under the "built-to-last" philosophy 

so they will be used by recreationists long after logging has ended for a given rotation. The state 

builds timber roads under the "get-in-and-get-the-timber-out" philosophy. They are mostly for 

temporary use, and thus they are less disruptive to the environment. 

Despite lower overall costs, the state carried out its duties without sacrificing 

environmental quality. In 1992, an independent audit of harvested areas by the state and the 

Forest Service, the state ranked higher than the Forest Service in mitigating the impacts of 

logging on watersheds. The audit is now being caried out in additional states to assess how well 

forest owners are protecting forests on the ground where it counts. 

My second study compares timber sales from St. Louis County forests in Minnesota with 

nearby Superior National Forest. As in the previous comparison, these forests are rated by 

foresters to be very similar in timber-growing potential. Like the Forest Service, county foresters 

must manage their forests for multiple outputs, including timber, public recreation, and minerals, 

while adhering to strict requirements for protecting watersheds, wetlands, and wildlife habitat 

from logging impacts. 

Once again, the key difference is that county foresters are required to generate income 

from their forests while the Forest Service is not In the case of St Louis County, the income 

generated from the county's forests benefits county taxpayers by funding public services in the 

county. 

As in the previous case, county foresters had much better economic results than the 

Forest Service. Over the 1990-1993 period. St. Louis County foresters generated income totaling 

$2,340,572 from timber sales, while the Forest Service lost $5,178,362 from timber sales on 

Superior National Forest. While unit revenues from timber sales were similar for both agencies, 

the county had much lower unit costs overall. Over the 1990-1993 period, the County spent an 

average of$12.31 for every thousand board of harvest, while the Forest Service spent an average 

of $34.12 for every thousand board of harvest. 

3 
173 

My analysis shows that the Forest Service spent nearly three times as much on timber 

sale preparation as county foresters. The Forest Service's higher planning costs were driven by 

more extensive land use and environmental planning and environmental documentation. The 

county spent far less on planning and generated far less paperwork. Most of its expenses for 

environmental protection are for on-the-ground monitoring and mitigation activities to protect 

environmental assets. 

Once again, despite the lower planning costs, the county carried out its timber duties 

without sacrificing environmental quality. In an independent audit similar to the audit carried out 

in Montana, county foresters came out slightly ahead of the Forest Service in protecting areas 

from logging impacts. 

In both Montana and Minnesota, state and local foresters managed to make money 

without sacrificing environmental quality. The benefits accrue to designated local beneficiaries 

and these beneficiaries make sure that the state and local foresters carry out their duty under state 

and county law. 

The implications for H.R. 2413 are clear. With passage, Alaskans would now have the 

opportunity to manage the Tongass in a manner similar to Montana or Minnesota. If this 

opportunity comes about, the state of Alaska should consider the following: 

1. Designate the Tongass as a state land trust holding, with the state as a trustee for a 

designated beneficiary. This should be a beneficiary that appeals to all Alaskans, such as public 

schools or in part the Alaska Permanent Fund. 

2. Management of the Tongass must have the clear purpose of generating income from 

some or the most appropriate areas determined to be economically viable for timber, minerals, 

recreation, etc. 

3. Other areas that are of low economic value for timber and minerals but of high 

environmental value should be designated as reserves. (Note: Reco=endation 3 does not 

prevent these areas from producing income. Fees from nature visitors, photographers, hikers, 

etc., could provide revenues.) 

4. Allow state managers to market a variety of options for surface use, such as outfitter 

leases and conservation easements. 

I want to thank the Committee on House Resources for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this 

most important bill here today. 

4 
174 

TESTIMONY BY 

Ralph D Lewis 

President 

Ketchikan Pulp Company 

BEFORE 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Ketchikan, Alaska 

February 16, 1996 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Ralph 

D Lewis. I am President of Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) and have 

been a resident of Ketchikan, Alaska, and an employee of KPC for 30 

years. As a long-time and permanent resident of Ketchikan, I have 

a sincere concern for the continued economic viability and 

stability of the Ketchikan region of Southeast Alaska. KPC has a 

continuing commitment to Southeast Alaska communities to provide 

the employment opportunities necessary to maintain the economic 

viability and stability the region so sorely needs. 

Accompanying me today is Troy Reinhart, KPC Employee Affairs 

and Public Relations Manager, to assist in answering any question 

you might have that are not covered in my prepared remarks. 

Local Jobs Require Local Decisions 

KPC fully supports HR 2413 (the Tongass Transfer Act) as the 

first step in bringing management of the Tongass National Forest 

back to the people of Alaska, back to the people whose lives, 

families and jobs are directly impacted by the decisions made 

regarding the Tongass National Forest. 

I have no doubt we will continue to have debates on how the 

Tongass should be managed, but let them be with, and the decisions 

made by, people who have a direct stake in the debate. That is why 

the State of Alaska must become the manager of the Tongass. 

The establishment of the timber industry in Alaska was a 

grassroots effort by those living right here in Alaska, people who 

made Alaska and the communities of the Tongass their homes. Those 

who worked hard to bring a timber industry and year-round economic 

stability to the region were also looking for Statehood. Notable 

among them was B. Frank Heintzleman, who served as Regional 

Forester for Alaskan National Forests from 1937-1953 and thereafter 

was Territorial Governor. They wanted a bigger say in how the 

affairs of Alaska were managed and the right of self-determination. 
175 

Dating back as far as 1920, those in charge of managing the 

Tongass were of the opinion that the best, ultimate utilization of 

the large timber resources of the region would come mainly through 

pulp and paper production, the establishment of which would promote 

the economic development of Alaska. Therefore, they sought to 

attract pulp manufacturers to Southeast Alaska with the promise of 

long-term timber supply contracts. However, conditions in those 

years were not ripe for such a development so, to preserve the 

timber resource for the day when industry did come to Alaska, the 

primary manufacture requirement was developed in 1928, the effect 

of which was to prevent the export from Alaska of Tongass timber in 

round log form, not only to foreign countries but to the lower 48 as well. The reason for the primary manufacture requirement was explained by the Chief of the Forest Service as follows: 

These recommendations are based on the belief 

that the manufacture of Alaskan timber in 

Alaska, rather than its shipment in the raw state for manufacture elsewhere, is t ,o the 

best interests of this pioneer region. The 

establishment of new and the expansion of 

existing local wood-using plants should be 

fostered energetically as Alaska is badly in 

need of more industries. Prohibiting log 

exports is an important step in this direction. 

The primary manufacture requirement remains today as a key and 

necessary component for sustaining the economic viability of 

Southeast Alaska. 

As World War II came to an end, efforts to attract pulp 

manufacturers to Southeast Alaska were renewed and intensified. 

Long-term sales were offered once again. In 1949, Regional 

Forester Heintzleman wrote: 

The timber-management policies provide that 

the timber resources of the Tongass Forest 

shall be used for the upbuilding and the 

support of permanent, modern communities 

throughout southeastern Alaska. In line with 

this policy, the forest has been divided into 

pulp-timber allotments, that in turn have been 

tentatively grouped into four sustained-yield 

units. Each unit has sufficient timberland to 

support one or more pulp mill of economic 

operating size in perpetuity. 

A major purpose of long-term timber sales in Alaska was to 

bring stable, high-paying, year-round jobs to the communities of 

Southeast Alaska. By the 1950's, this objective was accomplished. 

Thereafter, through the 1970's, the forest industry grew and 

diversified. However, beginning in the 1980's and particularly 

since passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the viability of 

Page 2 of 8 Pages 
176 

the industry has been threatened as less and less timber is made 

available from the Tongass. Management of the Tongass has become 

disjointed and politically driven by those who do not even live' 

here. 

Some people express concern that the State of Alaska does not 

have the ability to manage the Tongass. I disagree. The people' 

who live here are singularly qualified to best protect and balance, the uses of our natural resources. The people of Alaska are, 

prepared to manage the Tongass National Forest. 

However, any transfer of the Tongass to the State of Alaska 

must protect agreements now in place. We believe this includes the 

KPC long-term contract and the independent timber sale program. 

History/Background of KPC and Its Long-Term Agreement 

Ketchikan Pulp Company, a domestic company since its 

inception, was founded in 1948. In the summer of that year, KPC was the sole bidder on and was preliminarily awarded a contract for 

the Ketchikan Pulptimber Unit. In 1951, after several years of 

studies, planning and negotiation, KPC qualified for the final 

award, and a long-term timber sale agreement with the United States 

Forest Service was executed at that time. The contract required 

KPC to construct a pulp mill as a necessary condition of its 

performance. This agreement was the culmination of 30-40 years 

effort by the federal government to entice someone to invest in 

facilities necessary to process the Southeast Alaska timber resources. Establishment of operations under the KPC agreement 

marked the first success of the Forest Service in finding a private 

party willing to invest the large sums of capital necessary to 

implement such a pioneering venture. 

This agreement was vitally important to the national interest. 

A joint resolution of the House Interior and Agriculture Committees 

adopted in 1947, the focus of which was the Tongass National 

Forest, stated quite clearly the intent, need, objectives and 

importance placed on establishing a year-round pulp manufacturing 

enterprise in Southeast Alaska: 

[I]t is believed that the prompt enactment of 

this measure is of the utmost importance to 

the Territory of Alaska and the United States as a whole. 

A large-scale development of the timber re- sources in southeast Alaska, involving the 

establishment of important business enterprises and the employment of many persons for 

extensive operations on a year-round basis, is 

essential to the maintenance of a prosperous 

and stable economy in the Territory. Heretofore, Alaska has been handicapped by the 

seasonal nature of the principal industrial 

Page 3 of 8 Pages 
177 

activities conducted within the area. A 

timber program of the sort mentioned by the 

Secretary of the Interior would be of great 

benefit in assisting the people of Alaska to 

progress from the present dependence upon seasonal business operations. Moreover, such a development within the territory would be a great value to the Nation as a whole, both 

from the standpoint of making available to the 

national economy valuable and sorely needed 

products from the great forests in southeast- ern Alaska and from the standpoint of promoting the national defense through increasing 

the population and industrial capacity of 

Alaska as our "Northern Rampart." 

Thus, a primary purpose of the government's many years of effort was to bring year-round employment to Southeast Alaska. To achieve 

this goal and to obtain full utilization of the forest resource, 

the Forest Service recognized that the existence of a pulp mill was essential--since a high percentage of the Tongass National Forest was comprised of overmature and decaying material usable only for 

pulp. A pulp mill was meant to serve as the foundation of the new timber industry, serving as an outlet for pulp grade material from 

independent loggers and for residual chips from independent 

sawmills that were envisioned by the Forest Service to come into 

existence after the pulp mill was constructed. It was recognized 

that a pulp mill operation would, by necessity, provide steady, 

year-round employment since, unlike a sawmill, a pulp mill 

generally must operate continuously throughout the year. 

This was a risky venture from the standpoint of KPC, given the 

costs associated with construction of a pulp mill in an isolated 

region with 600 miles of a foreign border between Alaska and the 

nearest state. Given the large federal government ownership in 

Southeast Alaska, it was recognized that KPC would not have an opportunity to acquire fee ownership of timberland to help meet its raw material supply needs. In order to support the necessary 

financing and construction of the pulp mill, KPC was guaranteed 8~ 

billion board feet of timber to be supplied over a SO-year period 

from a specified area of the Tongass National Forest. Recognizing 

the importance of a guaranteed and steady supply of timber to 

operate a pulp mill, the agreement called for 5-year operating 

periods during which the necessary timber would be made available 

for harvesting in a timely manner. As stated by Regional Forester 

Barton as recently as April 14, 1994: 

Historical papers and correspondence demonstrate vividly that a primary objective of the 

Forest Service in selling timber from the 

Tongass National Forest through fifty-year 

contracts was to establish a permanent pulp 

industry in Southeast Alaska that achieved 

maximum utilization of timber and provided 

Page 4 of 8 Pages 
178 

year-round employment and opportunities for 

community development. * * * The preamble to 

the contract explicitly states the parties' 

intent that the government supply timber to 

support the "permanent operation of the enterprise which maY be established under the terms 

of the contract." (emphasis supplied). 

Needless to say, the economics associated with the guaranteed 

timber supply were vitally important to a company such as KPC 

entering into such a pioneering venture. Given that KPC had to pay 

minimum rates ("base rate") for the timber even if the timber was valued below that amount ("deficit"), the agreement required that 

the Forest Service select areas that made economic sense. In 

addition, the pricing of the timber throughout the term of the 

agreement could not place KPC in a "disadvantageous position with 

respect to similar enterprises in the Puget Sound region". 

Finally, the stumpage rates were required to be equitable and 

competitive in comparison with those charged on any other long-term 

pulptimber development contracts on the Tongass National Forest. 

Construction of the pulp mill in Ketchikan began in 1952, and 

by 1954, the production of "Tongacell Pulp" was a reality. 

Throughout its history, the primary product of KPC's pulp mill has 

been dissolving sulfite pulp, which is processed into viscose for 

use in the manufacture of rayon, cellophane, munitions and other 

similar materials. The pulp mill, which currently has a maximum 

annual pulp capacity of 200,000+ tons, has the ability to produce 

90-93% pure grade chemical cellulose pulp. Our pulp is sold both 

domestically and to foreign buyers. Our foreign sales are sold to 

buyers in 32 countries throughout the world (China-25%; Taiwan-21%; 

Indonesia-19%; Europe-15%; and, Japan-12%). KPC produces high, 

value-added specialty pulp for customers requiring pulp grades with 

particular performance characteristics. The pulp is principally 

produced from hemlock fiber which yields a pulp product superior 

for the making of rayon. KPC is one of only eight stable suppliers 

of such dissolving pulp worldwide. 

In addition to the pulp mill, KPC operates two sawmills, one located on Annette Island and the other in Ketchikan adjacent to 

the pulp mill. Assuming an adequate supply of raw materials, the 

mills together have the capacity to produce 130 million board feet 

of lumber annually. Both mills have the ability to increase 

operations to a three-shift basis. Products from the Annette 

Hemlock . Sawmill (AHM), operated pursuant to a lease with the 

Metlakatla Indian Community, include large diameter, rough sawn 

spruce and hemlock cants which are sold and subsequently furthez· processed to form such items as decorative doors, window frames, 

stair parts, and piano soundboards. The Ketchikan Sawmill (KSM) 

manufactures logs in smaller diameters which are typically 

processed into high quality, metric-sized, planed lumber. 

Approximately 90% of the sawn product processed at the Ketchikan 

Sawmill is a finished product entering the structural lumber market. 

Page 5 of 8 Pages 
179 

worldwide. The balance of the sawn product from KSM is used·for 

tight grain cut stock or studs and is sold in domestic markets. 

KPC has recently instituted a program to upgrade and improve 

its pulp-making facilities to produce elemental chlorine-free pulp 

(ECF). This effort is in direct response to the world's increasing 

desire for chlorine-free products and is the first step in the 

effort by KPC to develop an entirely chlorine-free pulp process. 

KPC intends to commence production of elemental chlorine-free pulp 

in 1996 and hopes to produce totally chlorine-free pulp (TCF) as the technology becomes available. 

With the exception of temporary mill closures that have 

resulted from a shortfall in timber volume made available by the 

Forest Service under the long-term contract in recent years, KPC 

continues to provide a significant year-round employment base in 

Southeast Alaska. When provided adequate raw materials by the 

Forest Service, KPC facilities employ about 1,000 persons in its 

various operations and directly support employment of another 1,500 

persons (for example: contract loggers, road builders, longshoremen, and tug boat operators) in the Ketchikan-Metlakatla-Prince of 

Wales area of Southeast Alaska. Overall, approximately 25% of the 

region's total employment payroll is involved, in some way, with 

KPC and its activities. KPC is the largest private employer in 

Southeast Alaska, and most of the services and support industry is 

dependent upon the continued viability of KPC and its operations .• The employment provided by KPC in 1995, provided the average fulltime KPC employee approximately $45,000 in wages (not including 

benefits). During 1995, KPC paid wages to its employees totaling over $40,000,000 (not including benefits). KPC enjoys a very 

stable work force, with the average duration of an individual's 

employment being close to 10 years. Over 90% of our work force is 

hired locally, and KPC employees mirror the population diversity of 

Southeast Alaska, with Alaska Natives comprising approximately one- third of the total work force. 

KPC operations remain the foundation of the timber industry in 

Southeast Alaska, providing an assured outlet for residual chips 

and pulp grade logs from independent sawmill and logging operations--when such operations have supplies of raw materials 

themselves in sufficient quantities to operate. Through its 

operations, KPC provide economic viability so necessary for 

community stability. Through its operations, KPC puts more than 

$5,000,000 monthly into the Ketchikan-Metlakatla-Prince of Wales 

economy. KPC's manufacturing operations are as essential to the 

Southeast Alaska economy today as they were at the inception in the 

1950's--especially given the shrinking commercial timberland base 

of the Tongass National Forest and the resulting forced harvest of 

lower quality and more inaccessible timber stands. Through its 

integrated pulp and saw operations at Ketchikan and Metlakatla, KPC 

provides full utilization of the forest resource. 

Stated quite simply, KPC has met its part of the "bargain" 

reached with the Forest Service in 1951. A pulp mill was conPage 6 of 8 Pages 
180 

structed and began operation in 1954. Since 1954, KPC has invested over $325 million in its operations. In addition, KPC hae; 

developed an extensive network of roads used by various sectors of 

the public. Additional facilities have been constructed at KPC's 

expense to ensure full utilization of the timber resource. KPC is now a fully integrated forest products company starting with timber· 

harvest operations and continuing through its two sawmills and pulp 

mill facility. KPC has fully met its harvesting requirements, 

having logged more than 6.1 billion board feet of timber under the• long-term agreement during the first 40 years of its life. All of 

this activity was conducted with the expectation that the federal 

government, too, would live up to its "part of the bargain". 

A Look to the Future 

The history of the KPC long-term contract is significant, but we must look to the future. KPC is planning for the future by 

investing in its operations. Capital projects planned by KPC 

include storm drain run-off treatment systems, relocation of our out-fall to the Tongass Narrows, and development and implementation 

of chlorine-free pulping processes (ECF and TCF). We also are planning other operational upgrades to keep KPC competitive and 

efficient as we move toward the future. 

These upgrades and investments do not come without a significant price tag. Already $25 million has been spent in 1995, and we believe the investments and upgrades will mean spending an additional $130 million over the next five years. 

However, like anyone borrowing money to purchase a new home, we must show the bank we can repay the loan over a reasonable 

period of time. That leaves us with our current dilemma. There are only eight years remaining in the initial term of our contract. 

This is not a sufficient period of time to repay loans of the 

magnitude we are facing. Therefore, to fully implement our aggressive plan, we need at least a 15-year extension of our contract, at the current average annual offering level of 192.5 

million board feet per year. 

A 15-year extension is not an excessive period of time. In 

fact, a 15-year extension is within industry norms for the 

borrowing of $155 million. This request for an extension of our contract term is about jobs and the vision of those who fought for 

the establishment of a fully integrated timber industry . in 

Southeast Alaska. 

KPC finds itself at a crossroads not of its own making. To 

the left is a contract extension and the investment in our operations. To the right are the eight remaining years on our contract 

and investments only to ensure we meet out current permits and 

current responsibilities. 

The correct choice is clear. The choice must be made now; 

however, ultimately, it is not our.s to make. The choice of which 

Page 7 of 8 Pages 
181 

direction to go lies with the people of Alaska and our Congressional delegation. We know the people of Ketchikan and Southeast 

Alaska are behind us, and we look to Congress for help. This 

decision must be made and acted upon immediately. Delays in making 

these investments to ensure KPC's future will only mean increased 

difficulty in maintaining operations. 

Therefore, KPC formally requests that legislative consideration be given to a 15-year extension of the KPC long-term 

contract, at the average offering level of 192.5 mmbf/year, along 

with necessary contractual modifications to cure the breach of 

contract caused by the imposition of unilateral changes by the 

leadership of the Forest Service. Now is the time for this 

consideration to begin. It cannot be left until ownership of the 

Tongass is turned over to the State. This is a time-sensitive 

issue which must be acted upon quickly. If deferred until another 

time, there will be no Ketchikan Pulp Company or any significant 

forest products industry remaining from which the State of Alaska 

could benefit. Alaskans would be forced to leave their state in 

search of other jobs. 

Conclusion 

We applaud you for introducing HR 2413. Bringing the 

decision-making process, regarding the Tongass National Forest, 

back to the people of Alaska is the right thing to do. Alaskans are intelligent people and will make the right decisions. 

Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Page 8 of 8 Pages 
182 

41aska 

~~ 

Forest Association, Inc. 0 t-----

111 STEDtttAN sum 200 

KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901·8599 

"'one 907·225-8114 

""' 907·22!5·!5920 

IN THE COMMITIEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO TRANSFER THE TONGASS 

NATIONAL FOREST TO THE STATE OF ALASKA 

TESTIMONY OF ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION 

By Jack E. Phelps, Executive Director 

Offered February 15, 1996 

Wrangell, Alaska 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: 

My name is Jack Phelps. I am the Executive Director of the Alaska Forest Association 

(AFA). The Association was established in 1957, and now has more than 250 regular and associate 

member companies statewide. 

The AF A would like to express a strong appreciation to Congressman Young, along with 

Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski for their efforts to maintain the jobs of timber industry 

workers in Southeast Alaska. Since the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) was passed in 1990, 

over 40% of the jobs in the timber industry have disappeared. We have lost a major sawmill and a 

pulp mill due to reduced economics and the unavailability of timber. Three out of five small 

production mills are foreseeing potential closure within the next six months. 

The TTRA was one of many attempts to forge a compromise with the environmental 

community by reducing the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) so that more areas could be put into 

wilderness and other legislative land withdrawals. Today we have six and a half million acres of 

land withdrawn into permanent reserves and only one tenth of the entire Tongass available for 

harvest. Now the Clinton Administration is pressuring the Forest Service to reduce the commercial 

forest land base even farther by establishing habitat conservation areas (HCAs) on more than 

600,000 acres of the remaining I. 7 million acres. This will further reduce the ASQ so that an 

industry "'ill not be sustainable on the Tongass National Forest. 

Now Congressman Young, you have introduced this bill, which would permit the State of 

Alaska to decide whether or not the T ongass should be transferred to the state. As dramatic as such 

a measure may sound to some people, we believe that it is time to begin consideration of some 

SERVJ:'\'G .-\l:~S I\XS FORF.!iT INnUSH.Y 
183 

dramatic measures. We simply cannot afford to sit idly by and watch the current regime destroy the 

livelihoods of so many of the people of Southeast Alaska. We call upon the Governor to work with 

the Congressional Delegation on this bill and on all the Delegation's efforts to solve the timber 

supply problem on the Tongass. 

A3 you will recall, one key reason Alaskans wanted statehood was to get state control of the 

territory's fish and game resources. Alaskans knew as a state we could manage these resources 

better than a federal government sitting clear across the continent The same holds true with respect 

to management of the Tongass. 

Can you imagine the Governor and the Alaska Legislature allowing employment in the 

timber industry to drop 40% in five years without doing something about it, as has occurred under 

federal management on the Tongass? I cannot Can you imagine the Governor and the State of 

Alaska agreeing to a TLMP revision process which would reduce by 60% the ASQ which sustains 

jobs for our remaining timber workers without first considering the socio-economic consequences 

of that action as the Forest Service is now doing? I cannot Can you imagine the Governor and the 

State of Alaska requiring two environmental impact statements on the same timber before that timber 

could be transferred from one company's mill to another as the Ninth Circuit is requi.oing under 

federal law? I cannot. Can you imagine the Governor and Alaska Legislature becoming so 

bureaucratically ensnarled that they could not make timber available from a huge resource while 

mills closed and workers were put out of work in timber dependent communities? I cannot. 

These are just a few of the things we think would be different if the State of Alaska were 

charged with the management of the Tongass instead of the Federal government. 

Having said that, we remain concerned about Alaska's lack of a comprehensive and coherent 

state timber policy. Unlike our excellent track record in oil and minerals development, the state does 

not have an historic pattern of full utilization of our vast timber resources. We would urge you to 

address this issue, particularly in the findings section of your bill, which presently does not 

accurately reflect past and present state agency actions. 

In short, Congressman Young, we congratulate you on the concept of this bill. We look 

forward to working with you as it moves through the legislative process. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

2 
184 

Testimony on H.R. 2413 

Supplemental Sheet 

Alaska Forest Association 

Jack E. Phelps, Executive Director 

111 Stedman, Suite 200 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

(907) 225-6114 

(907) 225-5920 fax 

Summary: 

The Alaska Forest Association supports the concept of transfening the Tongass National 

Forest to state ownership. This is driven by the failure of the Forest Service to meet the timb€1' 

supply needs of the Southeast Alaska timber industry, by the progress of an unacceptable 

TIMP revision process, and by the refusal by Federal courts to protect the industry in litigatim 

over NEPA provisions. 

Recommendation: 

Review the findings section of the bill for accuracy regardingcurrent state policies. Ensure that 

under state management, full utilization of timber resources would occur. 

3 
185 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council SEACC '19 Sixth Street, Suite 328 .Juneau, AK 99801 

(907) 686-6942 pho~~a (907) 463-3312 Cu 

STATEMENT OF 

ROBERT E. UNDEKUGEL, CONSERVATION DIRECl'OR 

SOUI'HEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

HEARING ON H.R. 2413, 

THE TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSmON ACT 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. HOUSE RESOURCE COMMITTEE 

IN KETCHIKAN, ALASKA, FEBRUARY 16, 1!196 

Mr. Cliainnan, 

My name is Robel1 E. Lindekugel, conservati011 director for the Southeast Alaska 

COIIaervation Council. Thank you for the oppol1unity to pal1icipate on one of the panels 

testifying before you today. I respectfully request that my written testimony and 

accompanying materials be entered into the official record of this Committee hearing. 

Founded in 1970, SEACC is a coalition of fifteen local citizen, volunteer conservation 

groups in twelve Southeast Alaska communities, from Ketchikan to Yakutat. SEACCs 

individual members include commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, small timber 

operators and value-added wood manufacturers, tourism and recreation business owners, 

hunters and guides, and Alaskans from all walks of life. 

SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of Southeast Alaska's unsurpassed natural 

environment while providing for balanced, sustainable use of our region's resources. 

Southeast Alaska contains magnificent old-growth forests, outstanding fish and wildlife 

habitat, important 11 customary and traditional" or subsistence use areu, excellent water 

and air quality, unsurpassed outdoor recreation oppol1unities, world class scenery, and 

provides a unique way of life for hardy, independent people who choose to call it home. 

For the record, SEACC strongly protest the limited nature of these hearintp. You could 

have scheduled more hearinp in our home region this week. You failed to do so. You 

need to gel a beller map of our region. which shows more Tongass-dependent 

communitks th:£:1 \\'ran:;t: ll lnJ Ktt("hik Jn: Yo\!\·.: .;; :I:J th:t: :-...':.i w Jr.I\:J io..' h.:.,!J 

~~:a n;:-. in ·-timh:r ..!.:p1. r. ~: i\t \~ ns \\ h1..:il L:\ c C--:c-n ;:a j\ c~:>.:. ~ .1: · .. t~·J '~ :'-:Ja;:i 

AL~ K.\ ,::: ~ .. ; ;: :-:· ,: ;- ~-f:;::n.; :A.'-; F\JRZST C'.l.t::..u:r.s. p.),nt E-.0. ""'" • ~.:.::o;-:_,_ ;,::: r: ·: :: ~:._·" 

;-;:: :: ·~ :- ~ :;,F SE~.~H...:; I.HY. J10 ~< • ~: :: :: -;:.-'. ":;F.F. ;.\Y ~- '";""·" •: · •. ~:-~::_-'. OC:;~ :- :• .':~ ;_ i-' .. t .. ~~t ,; " j;',;";A•; i' :- ~.; •0-:-7.' ;;__,' :~.;-; 

.-, . • :':; i-~-\ ::;;,:;;:<;\A 7; :_. ; ,::: ,; :::::1·' ": . .:. ::· .': ~; •;,i·.'."A: 0 :,- ~ 

·.-:;.;..;,~ • .-;,:' ;, "'--~ :.:. (-~.:· i. .' ; .... .: ; ;__ • ., ..... ~: -: ·" ~ ,''.i ·' '.: i. : ;. 
186 

SEACC. Hurioa Sllte.,.lll oa H.R. 2413 

IC<ICIUba, Alub fe-ry 16, 1995 

timber policies. • What happened to Sitka? Our guiding principles of free speech and 

informed decision-making by members of Congress, will not be served by the proposed 

hearing schedule and format. The totally stacked deck: at today's hearing repw;ents one 

of the most outrageous attempts to build a record in your favor that we have ever seen. 

One of the most outrageous things about this bill and these political sideshow hearings is 

this: You yourself have stated several times that this bill stands no chance of be<:oming 

law. We both know that you can' get this bill passed in the House of Representatives nor 

in the Senate. Even Senator Craig Thomas, who bas introduced a bill to transfer Bureau 

of Laod Management public domain lands to Western States, has stated that your bill 

goes to far. You, sir, are wasting the taxpayers time and money by holding these 

bearings. These bearings represent election year politics at their very worst. 

One other note on hearings. We've heard you and others state that the House of 

Representatives didn't bold hearings in Alaska 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 to people from all walks of life and from communities, including 

Pelican, Juneau, and Sitka. You did not join the Committee on that trip. Funbermore, 

the Senate held two hearings in Sitlca and Ketchikan prior to taking action on the TIRA. 

Ninety-four (94) persons testified at the April 24, 1989 bearing in Ketchikan, and another 

ninety-six (96) testified at the April 25, 1989 bearing in Sitka. You seem to be 

purposefully ignoring these facts. 

Congressman Young, your January 15, 1996 press release made this bill sound like a 

moderate and benign simple transfer of lands. This extremist bill really represents a 

radical reversal and re-write of almost 100 years of national forest policy in Alaska and 

totally removes over 15 years of bard-fought conservation protections (and compromises) 

adopted by Congress. This includes the protection of watersheds and salmon stream 

buffer zones supponed by commercial fishing groups, Native interests, recreation and 

tourism businesses, more than 15 Alaskan communities, and the Governor of Alaska . 

Congressman Young, you even voted to protect many of these areas when you voted for 

the Agriculture Committee's version of the TIRA in 1989. 

SEACC strongly opposes your bill, and here are some reasons why: 

If Ever Passed. H.R. 2413 Would Spell The Beg!nnigg OfThe 

End For Our 100 Year Tradition Of Public Ownership Of 

National Forest Lands. 

In radio repons last year, you charged that public lands are some kind of communist plot. 

Given that Republican President Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system, 

<JnJ indc:cJ tht' f· r:~;.~ ss \" :.Hi·•r:a l E 1rcsl in 1907. -. ·u r \.·h:u:;c- r;'l~;:c.s th31 Prc:'iJ.:"m 

TC"dJy tlt'"~ S~vcil was a .. ·-.:' r:~: :w:1 :-.:: Prt:.-i; jcm R ... ~ .. ;.;\ t:il::. 1J.:a l-'f r.:.tlhl;"';:.i l il)fi.'Sl W:.J:-. 

2 
SEACC'a Hearing Slalem<at oo H.R. 24t3 

K.etc~kla, Alukl February t6, t99S 

187 

that they were to be managed for 'the greatest good for the greatest number in the l'<ng 

run." 

H.R. 2413 directly contradicts this principle of public land stewardship because the long 

tenn 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 an.d tons of no-trespassing signs --- across 

lands which were once open for public hunting and fishing, for almost a century. 

President Teddy Roosevelt once said ..... 'l'm opposed to the land-sldnner every iime'. 

Your bill fully embodies the altitudes and arrogance of the land-sldnners and robber 

barons, who would lo~~ Jo own their own private chunk of the Tongass. 

<'. 

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. Our fears are completely confirmed by 

statements from Alaska Senator Robin Taylor in a letter to a Montana state senator on 

March 25, 1995 (Exhibit I) which supported Congressional actions to relinquish federal 

public lands to the states. In that leiter, Senator Taylor stated that '(hJopOfully, a large 

portion of this acreage will eventually be conveyed to the private aector.• lfTongass 

lands were handed over to the State, Senator Taylor would play a lead role in decisions 

made by the state legislature. His statement clearly shows that the main goal of this bill 

is to tum public lands over to private hands. 

H.R, 2413 Guts 15 Years or Conservation LaW lp AlasJsa 

The bill repeals J!.[the Tongass protections enacted by Congress in the Alaska Lands Act 

of 1980 and the Tonaass Timber Reform Act of 1990. 

The bill repeals Wilderness and National Monument designations for places like 

Misty Fjords, Admiralty Island, Petersburg Creek, Chichagof-Yakobi, and the 

Stildne, Chuck, and Kalla 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, Bemers Bay, Point Adolphus, Mud Bay, Usianski 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 now required on salmon and 

resident fish streams. 

H.R, 2413 Would Cause Devastating Ecopom!c Impacts. Plus The 

State Does Not Have The Mopey To Adequately Manage The 

Tongass For Multiple Use Apd Would SeQ Off Public l..ands, 

Local officials have raised concerns about the substantial nnanclalloss to 

cn:nmunitk·s. h~ -.rt- 1 S.: :-"":1 .. ·;- h:t' a payr,,ll f $.! .! ti.illi0n ..!0!lars anJ c:mployi 
SEACC'a Heariaa Sllterne.t oa H.R.. 2413 

Ketchiba, Alub Februaty 16, 1995 

188 

roughly 1000 prople in Southeast. H.R. 2413 would have devastatine economic 

impacts for our region. 

The Tongass costs U.S. Taxpayen over $90 mlllloa eacb year to run. In these 

tough budget times, the State lacks the money to run the Tongass adequately. 

The State Forest Practlcea Act, which reaulatea loalne on state and private 

lando, requires only minimal protection for fish aDd wildlife habitat. 

Commercial fishing, tourism, hunting, subsistence, ODd other multiple uses would 

suffer. 

• The Jo&lc:al result or H.R. 2413 would be for the State ot Alaska to oell olr larp 

chunks of the Toneass to lhe hJaheat bidder, which il),most cases would be timber 

companies interested in short-term profits, DOl the l,oniterm health of the Tongass' 

unique ecosystems or rural communities. The Tonpss would most likely become a 

series of huge private tree farms, and former putilic huntil).i areas would become 

private hunting clubs. This prediction is consistent with Senstor Robin Taylor's 

letter. I have noted that the State of Alaska does not have the money, and is not 

equipped (either by statute or by manpower) to adequately manaee the Tongass. As 

further evidence, I have attached the following news articles, ... the Headlines read: 

Timber laws not working, agency says (Juneau Empire, February 11, 1996, Exhibit 

II), and State wants park in private hartds (Anchoraee Daily News, Feb. 6, 1996, 

Exhibitlll). 

H.R. 2413 Turns Bag The Clock And Dlmes Out Fa von To 

Special Interests. 

The bill requires the State to reinstate the SO year monopoly limber contract 

with the Alaska Pulp Company. The 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. 

It effectively repeals the Toneass Timber Reform Act of 1990, lncludlna the 

chanees made to the SO year monopoly timber contracts-- provisions that require 

Ketchikan Pulp to pay timber prices comparable to those itldependent operators have 

to pay. 

The bill would force the State to hand over more thaD 200,000 acres or prime 

forest land to aew ror-pront Native corporations, termed ' Landless Natives• In 

previous draft bills. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

Lets talk about Freedom. Coneressman Young, you and your bill are strikine at the very 

heart of the century-old, all-American concept of public forestlands. To many 

Americans, the concept of being an owner of our public forestlands is one of our most 

strongly held freedoms. This is a fre edom, where Alaskans can pick a spot on the 

T •. n~a~ :- map . .. ·iimt'l ini 1' a tl1) <J t pl:lnt' N skiff and g'-) there!' . Thc:y can hunl. fish. hike. 

pi.:: k berne ~. \• :..tdt \\ ilJ hlt". g:Jt hc r f1 rc:wuod. \\'hen the y leav(.lh«!-y leavt:: with the: 
SEACC'a Heariog Statem .. t oa H.R. 2413 

Ketchiba, Alasb February 16, 1995 

189 

knowledge that they can return to the same spot on their public land, 1gain 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 enjoy 

their public forest lands? Areo~ these rights valid and existing? 

In your January 25, 1996, press release, you claim that "This bill is about control -

Alaskan control of the forest - and stabilization for the people who depend on forest 

resources to survive .... • We strongly disagree with your characterization. You never 

seem to mention the provisions on the second to last page of your bill, which are totally 

out of control. You save the real bombs for Page 14,line 13, Section 7 (t). Here is where 

you take your teo-gauge double -barreled sawed-off shotgun, load it up with buckshot 

and then blast away at every single protected acre on this great forest. Did you ever 

consider the impact on the commercial fishing industry which depends upon these 

protected watersheds -- many of which are million dollar salmon fisheries? Did you 

consider the impact on the recreation and tourism industries which depend upon visiting 

wild and beautiful country? Did you ever consider the impact on Alaskan communities 

including Pelican, Elfin Cove, Yakutat, Point Baker, Port Protection, Kupreaoof, 

Tenakee, Gustavus, Hydaburg, Edna Bay, Craig, Klawock, Angoon, Whale Pass, 

Petersburg, Juneau, and Sitka-- all of which have been on record in support of 

protecting areas which are near and dear to them? If this bill is your answer, then your 

answer must be a big fat • no." 

From virtually all the communities in our region -- everywhere you look , 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 lind the trees to log 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 upon. 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 your January 25, 1996 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. It is the opposite of a mandate, because it gives up control, .... ' Who 

are your trying to fool? Your bill Is loaded with federal mandates and conditions, 

including the repeal of all statutory land protections, Section 7(t); 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 forest land 

to five (5) new, for-profit Native corporations, Section 6(e); payment of 25 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 

ol">ligations of the United States under the Ketchikan Pulp"s 50-year pulp contract: 

S·:~··.; . :1 r, l c..:r h:: J.~t';; n~11 ::iv:: up ... ·,,~:n:·l 1,.1 :h~ St:i:c of A ·::..;ka but rt,::r~ l~· ~h::·~-> 

:::...:~·;.;, , _ :· . .; t.: :~.c St:l:::. 111 ;t :n~·sr •~r~!>P'-'nSi~:c. wJ.:.-. 

24-018 - 96 - 7 
SEACCs Huring Sucerncnt oo H.R. 2413 

K<tcbibn, Alaska February 16, 1995 

190 

There are a couple of ironies which can not be missed. We always hear about the crisis 

caused by the Alaska Pulp being shutdown, putting hundreds of people out of work. Yet, 

I haven't heard you use the word 'crisis' when this bill, which would toss roughly 1000 

people out of work, is discussed. It is also ironic that recently Senator Stevens fought 

tooth and nail to keep lhe Regional Forester's office and its large payroll in Juneau •• and 

now you want to get rid of the Forest Service in Southeast Alaska entirely. 

One of the biggest laughers comes in comments written by your comrade, Senator Robin 

Taylor. He noted that one of the reasons to support this bill is because 'no one has told 

tbe American people of the expensive gross mismanagement currently being practiced by 

the United States Forest Service.' It is very ironic that only now are proponents of your 

bill squawking about expensive gross mismanagement of the Tongass. You are probably 

complaining about the Forest Service planning process; but we've never heard you 

complain about the eiq>ensive subsidies needed to run the timber program for KPC, cir 

the loss of $102 million dollars to the Federal Treasury from operating the Tongass 

timber program over the past3 years. You've never bothered to curb these subsidies in 

Congress •• so what gives now? 

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. • For the record, I have attached a fact sheet (Exhibit IV) which explains the 

truth about this matter. Tbe 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 like the 

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. Unfortunately, this legislation and these hearings 

are not about the future or about leadership •• - they are about political grandstanding. 

What Southeast Alaska needs is a leader who is going to step forward and work with 

Southeast Alaskans to figure out constructive ways of starting to make the transition 

necessary for assuring the development of a healthy and diverse future for all Southeast 

Alaskans. Instead of showing leadership, you are using your power as Chairman of the 

House Resource Committee to trash a hundred year old American tradition of liberty and 

freedom in, and public ownership of, our public forestlands. Your actions will not 

benefit Alaskans or American citizens but will only benefit the co1p0rate robber barons 

who have, and will continue to put short-sighted profits ahead of the long term health and 

welfare of Alaskans. 

Your bill is a very serious threat to our public forest lands, and to the way of life for 

Southeast Alaskans. Your bill is not a tnnsfer, it is a travesty. Your bill is ludicrous, 

ridiculous, outrageous -and if ever taken seriously •• fiat out dangerous. 

\\'<· ~trc• nf:! y urgt! you to \. ? t~is bill dead in itfo tracks .. 

6 
191 
192 

Alaska State Legislature 

Mardi 29. 1995 

Sen. Delwyn Gage 

Stale Capitol 

Helena MT 5~ 

Dear Sen. Gage: 

• . 

SenMoc Robin L. llaylor 

-c..p..o ,...._, AM11Y .... 111.1 

otQ1'J A6.l·)l7) 

h1 lt01l .,.,..,., 

WF..nr-. 

l'CIC.hirM. AIMU99110'1 

•tcmll$-MI ,_. '907•l»471l 

As a member of the ALEC Criminal Juatloe Taak Force, I used the 

oppottu!Wty of our recent mMtlng In Scoftldale to lobby on an lAue very 

dear to my heart. 'This letter Ia In follow-up to that lobbying effort. 

1 am enclosing a copy of Senllle Joint RMOiution No. 6, whk:h puMd the 

Aluka State Legillature wllll only aeven ..._ votes In early Marcil. 1 

hope you wtll conllder 8ponl0ring a alrnllar m-re in your atate. 

The federal govemrnent CIOiltroll vUt tnlcts of land, mUlly In IN Weat 

and makee land-uae decialont the stat.. are ton;ed to live with, 

regardless of the negative Impacts on the individual ~~~

large portion of 

sector. 

The doctrine of Public Domain Ia contrary to 1he ~le llltOI\ which 

this country was founded. It hu cirellted a aywtem of wwquaJ .tate., aome 

with control of lhe land within their bordell and othe11 · which 1 call 'land 

. 

I eek for your support In gaining COilgrllllonal action on lhla issue. 
Timber laws not working, age

• SWe biologists say 

without changes, there 

will be damage to 

habitats 

lv LORI THOMSON 

--- JIIIt "'-timber Industry omcMIIIhoup& all ... well Ia .tate 

...t private fwelts, state bioJo. 

~ droDDed a bomblheU. 

'1'111 Alilb Depu1ment or Jl'llb \ 

a Gametoid tbe AlasU Board ot 

l'oreltry Ill Jaauary the law avv· ....... tlmblr barvests 011 ltate 

a prtqle laDda wasn't WOI'IdDII. 

Alld wltbollt cbanles, that woufd 111e111 daJDa&e to wilclli(e babltat .......... filii streams. • ,_ s-'CI or Forestry met Fri-

.., &lid Salwday at the city as- ..uly cbalben to hash over 

Pill! aad ~·· January report ..... decide wbat to do nezt. . 

'nle department's report drew ......... emotional testimony 

Friday from supporters. 

"I'm here becallle or dearcutl 

In Hoonab. It's been totally devutated/' uld Frank Wright, presi- dent ol the 'ning1t and Halda ComM04EAEL PENN I Jl.INEAU (~ 

Fo

de

Ha

Du

an

Ko

fro

De

Fis

de

re

Fe

DE

munlty CouncU In Hoonah, after 

the public bearlag. "It's an issue 

c:loee to my heart because I've 

Uved there all my Ufe." 

He uld lntenaive lo!Wng was 

destroying habitat 

cal to tribal culture

The report also d

timber industry r

who said biologist
a a •-.. ••-- SUNDAY FEBAUARY 11, 1811 

- -------- • KaiiiCk iald either the qencles tio

Forest .... to be-fUnded to make the me

• • • 8d wwk • It wu intended or the tee 

C•llll•••,._ .... A1 8Ct aeedl to be nwrtt&en. an

0.. IUS the 4eputmeat CID't "I tb1ak we dellped a CadiJblc De

;;;;;;M. 111'001 of prolllema ._ a.c- In 1110 we bed the ftmd. wi

rt..-...lt bPe the ltd aad r. IDL" be ulcl. "Now we're faced 

...... to ........ ........ .... •• vw budlll" bo

Jaw II....._ eft'ectift. 111e Lepl•etgre alalbed tundlnc rep

"* 11111 Game'aiDabilltJ to do • Nill&i a.m. bas ODly three th

........ II It ·lilt belrt of Ita aDd a QUII1Ir' poattionl to do all m

....... ._._ IDIIIIlWiDI II U. wark .....,. atatewide fCII" ha

eaetiJ wW the deputmeat II atate aDd priYate Umber oper• pa

~to be .... to earTJ cu tklalllllder tbl8d, lhe aald. va

.... Pl'adka Act. . 'l1le Alalb Department of ED- re

"We're Ill a CatebG," vlnaoeutal CcmervaUon aJJo re- tiv

Kewal*laaid. ported iD J....-y It wu unable to Pr

ao.nt member Steve Kalliek. earry out Ita naponaibilities to re- 

•• mllal tiWiroamentaUala, ft8w ...... qaallty UDder the 8d w

....,._ Wilt' prtq1e IDdal1rJ ._....of a llallbli lbortage. The cq

,._.Ia not a prolllem. c1epartm111t bel 3.5 poationl to 

,.,_... • lalormaUon PP cover foreat 111uea on federal, co

llld people ..-e lleiDI wW a., atate IDd pmate laadlatatewide. th

_. to ... , clep-tlnc aa their 111e ao.rct of Foreatry decided aJ

=:, 8lld KaWc*, dlrec:t« of tbl to a.te • CIOIDIDlttee to review is- in

Ill' baled AJalta Raw.. - nlled ..., ftlb habitat and in

- Canpelp ",,, ........ regart end rec:ommeocla- de
Anchor.- Deily N.ws Tllftday, Februar

State want~ park in private hands. Anchor Point sounds a18rm 

11J TOM ICIZZIA 

c.ly .... rtpOrt.r 

ROKIR - A decade aao. LJDD Whit- more fO\IIht to add private land to the 

.tate park at the mouth of the Aachor · lUver aDd Improve publlc ~ to the 

popular aalmon lt!UDl. 

Now the state Ia propotlac to. tum the 

ADCbor R.hw State Recre&UOD -~ over 

to a private operator, who will be free to 

ebaJ'a- parkJJ2I fees and ralM campm, t... to 'W'I'Iq a proftt out of the area. WhitmaN eaicl he teela betra)'ecl. 

'"l'be whole puab wu to make lt 10 w. 

all bad .cceu to lt," aa14 Whltmora . .. Now tbe state 1a71 If )'OU want to u.e 

that JNhlJe JaneS, "JOU've Cot tO pa)' for lt." 

'lbe state wants to cet riel of park 

raqen lD Allcbor Point ancl brlDI lD 

priVate contrac:ton u a IWpODM to deCl1Dlu atate dollan. Park offlclala have 

bee lr)'lnc to make up the dJ.tfenrar:e 

with bieber UMr f .. , but now~ve r.ebed the llmJt allowed b7 the Le • ture .. So they're propo~m, to the 

Aachor Point o

f&O.OOO. 

"When· you 

MrVice. And th

, 
rt~ti~;II'''~!J'~~~·,,I~i!~J!t!t: ~; "li''l''r lr ,rb d 1;Jt 11r I ~ '1!'1 ltll ~t'•'l j!J I f fiJII' ~ lt~~: 11 r r.~.· .. ~~~:~~~ . r, ~ :i~ihr h ~'1 1 !l!it , .. 

1

;l,JJ''•! ~ .rrtf(Jt '[ tl! lf hilt( n 'J . ~ U:lut ! ·lrJi!! i!.Jll h!n ! 

Jr·dii i .. JIIrPJ !l,.U'v!lNft 1( ~~ir~l,Uf~,lli!i:j r!!ti1,.~~~~~iji~, B 

l;JII I r' 'I • J l !lt= IUrl'll ~ 

l

lsllf; i•rl!' 1jr ~~~~~· .. Jrill f sr ~ P• ih1:ta ·1 ,'!~' hf! ~ ~ Iff rh Rlrlf ~~' hftt~ lrrJti ::~ 

jifrill1tl:li1JJ1l>9l !1J!!iP[fr2~1 fi ·r•i If ~~ J• ~( i'--=r ·rl§~rlr(z It lllfl t rll' ("'rJia lliUilt g. ~ffl u rf J!r!Jal~ !ifr' '4fs :I l'l ~~.t l}••rt:V~tJ 1• lilfai{ ~ -~il N:tJ ~~fl~~lirJ~!! f

11t f( ~ hU 1111l f1JI ~~!~~~ ltlt irl ~ 1

lr1 !!I: I !. ~~1'11)1 ' i" l!il-!u l. . m 

'lilrn~, ! ~· "i ~Sf[ I s tll11 - ~ · ~Jr~n! f ,. ~ . . ~ _ ., __ -· "J ,- :- ,. 7 ,l =- ;· - ,": • .. . :- . ... · -~.: .; · 

- i 

"'7 -J ( :I1l ,),'~'"' -1- ?J 

961 
The Myth: 

"90% of the Tongass Is Wilderness and will never be 

logged" 

--Don Young. KPC, et al. 

The Facts: 

T how big is the Toogass timber base? ••• 

When Don Yo

wtll ever be lo

"biological he

worry" about 

heart out- b

• The 17-miiDon (\ere Tongass National Forest 112/3 rock. h, muskeg and s

• The remaining 1/315 comldered commercial forest land. 

• Only 4% of the Tongaq National For .. t contains high-volume old-growth 

These acres provide critical habitat for fish & wndllfe and are targeted by 

• Nealty half of these pltme acres have been logged since 1954. 

T how much is really protected? ••• 

• The Tongass National Forest has 6.8 million acres 

set aside by Congress as Wilderness. legislated 

"LUD n· wildlands. and salmon stream buffers. 

ThLs equals 40% of the total acreage--but the 

maJoltty of these acres haye po tree•. Over 10 million _.., 

acres are avaUable for other multiple uses under the Tongass Forest Plan. 

• The 1/3 of the Tongass that contains commercial forest land = 5. 7 million a

2.2 miiHon acres (40%) are protected by law. The remaining 3.46 mmlon a

open for logging via the Forest Service planning process. 

• Fully 75% of fbe forests orlglpql odme hlgb-yolyme old-growth gcres hgy

Only 25% of the most valuable old-growth Oust 241.000 acres) has been le

T how much has been cut? How much will be cut? ..• 

• Nearly a mUIIon acres of the most productive Tongass. state and private 

• 1. 7 miiUon acres are scheduled for lagging under the current forest plan: 

existing timber base 

For- 1o1 1011on, contact' !he Soutll- Alaska Conservatton Council 96th st. 1328, Junea
198 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Councll 

Jllaoall, AK 89&01 

(9071 463-8312 tu 

January 26, 1996 

Du~ne Gibson, Resources Coaunittee Staff 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Dear Duane: 

This letter is In regards to your January 24. 1996 Fax to me, and the press release 

announcement of Field Hearings concerning Congressman Y oung'• T ongast Bill. 

Forgive me for not contacting you sooner, but I've been In non-stop meetings, and on 

long airplane flights - so I have not been able to respond until now. 

Your fax stated that Congressman Young wants to 'hear from diverse penpectives' and 

'we want to be fair.' With all due respect, for you to honor these goals and provide 

meaningful opportunities for participation by Alaskans, you need to hold hearings In 

many more communities .in our region - not just In Wrangell and Ketchikan. 

Fundamental prindples of our demoaacy-such as free speech. public ownenhip of 

public lands, and Informed decision-maldng by elected representatives In Congress -

will not be served by the currently proposed hearing schedule and format 

Congressman Young's press release makes his bill sound like a moderate, benign, 

simple transfer of lands to the State of Alaska. Instead, this bill represents an Incredible 

reversal and re-write of almost 100 yean of national forest policy In Alaska and 

removes over 15 yean worth of conservation protections established by Congress -

including the protection of many by watenheds and salmon stream buffer zones 

supported by commerdal fishing groups, Native Interests, recreation and tourism 

bushwsses, more than a dozen Alask.ut communities and the Governor of Alaska. 

Given the far-reaching consequences of this bill, you should give a much bigger 

priority to hearing from Alaskans from as many communitites as possible during your 

week-long Congressional break. Therefore, we urge you to hold hearings in 

Petenburg, Sitka, Cralg/l<lawock, and Juneau, when you visit our home region. 

Sadly, if Congressman Young fails to hold additional hearings at this time, he will fail 

to give Alaskans a fair chance to be heard. Furthermore, he will fail to fairly represent 

their views on an issue of such great magnitude for Alaskans and for an the dtizens of 

the United States who are currently co-ownen of each and every one of our national 

forests •• including the Tong ass. 

~riR~- Bart Koehler / berutive Dire•tor ,,J..;~:~ •l 

UASI\." s.JCltTY or ·"-':£iU:.\.o.; FORE:'! ::\o\&:LU.R;:. ~ •• nt &l.:~r • \:..\SK~ : : .:;:: .. -.-:.-:: •.'." • o:n: :::.,j: r.: : :::::::;.~:: :. :-: :..:-·_;: ::::.. 7t ~ ... •'l'l' : ;:.:.;a 

nm:s:.s or ar.~ -.; £~.: 6'-"i. J.-n .. ·J • rR:::s::r- G!" -:;;._,:;;:: ; =,~- ,; .•:.;·.• · :x~: : : •:; •.!. :: ·:.:.;;?":;_, :: : s. ~ ..... :.•·• .~.:; \\,::.,:,:.· .: r;;·.-.~:-: ~: :.::.:·::-::..?t:, .. •• : '-:.::.,:; ::~ .::--:;.-:- ;~ :.:: ::. . :: :~;:·:::: · .. ,_; _:.:: . . ·. ; ::: ..... :: ·.::. ~:;; .' " ...• :-.. -' '-~·' '" " • :: ~:.·. :-: :.H:: . .-... ::- : :-s s- :- ::r:--:· • : ....... ~: ·: _. : :-::.::: ,: .: :: :-. ! .. . • - ·-.!:.-:.. ·_, -

·,·~.:·~:..-:..~ .:. :..~..:::: .;_-.:;:;.: __ . \ . .....- ~-: .... : ;.:..: . :..:-. ..::.: :-~::. .... -.: 
199 

Federal forest use payment 

to city not a windfall 

By CHRIS RUSS 

,.~-

Juneau will receive roughly 

SSOO,OOO more In federal timber 

receipt payments than budgeted. 

City omciab, however, say the 

payment isn't a windfall. 

The $7~,%21 paid by the federal government is a part of the 

Twenty-Five Percent Fund 

whiclt turns a quarter of all ~ ey mustered trom aMual use and 

sale ol national forest products 

and services to communities. 

It's elpected the city will re- ceive the mooey earlf if! 1998. 

In May, Juneau budgeted for ~.000 for revenue received 

from the receipts, but that was 1 

conservative estimate. 

"If we got to spend the money 

without penalizing PIL T payments two years down the road, it 

would be exciting," said Deputy 

City Manager Donna Pierce. If 

the city were to spend the additional 25 percent money, it would 

create a deficit later, she said. 

The extra $500,000 is not a windfall because it is budgeted 

against another federal funding 

program called Payment In Lieu 

of Taxes or PILT. 

PILT is calculated using a for· 

mula Involving population, the 

amount of federal 18nd In a bor· 

ough and timber receipt payments over the previous two 

years, said city Finance Director 

Craig Duncan. 

This year's PILT payment was $397,998. 

Juneau's portion ~f the 25 percent money comes n-om an esll· 

mated $7.3 mllllon allocated to 

the state trom receipts generated 

!rom timber sales, road credits, 

mining, recreation and other fees 

In the Toogass and Chugach national forests. 

Up until1991, Alaska distributed its money only to organized 

boroughs based on national forest 

acreage within each borough. Under a 111t1 change in state law cit· 

ies and schools located withln I 

national forest, but outside an or- ganized borough, can also share 

the revenue generated by that 

forest. 

Other Southeast communities 

receiving 25 pen:ent funds include 

Yakutat, $536,480; Hoonah, 

$304,444; Pelican, $51,638; Skagway, S177,&96; Angoon, $27,174; 

Tenakee Springs, $8,822; Kake, 

5244,.138; Wrangell, S&34,077; 

Cr11g, S449,014; Hydaburg, $136,347; Thorne Bay, $83,839; 

and Klawock $24-4,324. 

Money for schools within the 

national forest, but outside an or- gar.ized borough, is distributed to 

eligible cities and Regional Education Attendance Areas based on student enrollment. 

Alaska's method of distribution is different than most states 

where receipts are returned to 

counties proportionate to receipts 

generated within their boundaries, said Gary Morrison forest 

supervisor for the Chatha;~ Area. 

A number of areas receive substantial payments even though 

fe.w ~ no. receipts are generated Within !hell' boundaries, he said. 

1 

' 

•• A( 

81 

j 

~ 

a. 

" 

• " I) 

i 

• f 

' t 

I 

t 

~ 

J 

l 

' 

J 
200 

TESTIMONY CONCERNING 

THE TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSITION ACT, H.R. 2413 

Presented by 

Eric Muench, Principal 

Alaska Woods Service Company 

Post Office Box 6811 

228 Martin Street 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

(907) 225 - 5372 

at a public hearing held in Ketchikan, Alaska 

on February 16, 1996 

before the 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON RESOUCES 
201 

Eric Muench 

Alaska Woods Service Co. 

P.O.Box 6811 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

(907) 225 - 5372 

Testimony on the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act 

HRH13 

February 16, 1996 Ketchikan, Alaska 

.SUMMARY 

I have 34 years of forestry and logging engineering and woods work 

experience in Southeast Alaska. This is a timely and essential bill for 

Southeast Alaska 

The American Logic of Local Control 

In a free society control of land and resources transfers to State and 

local governments as they form to represent the people . 

. The Problem In Southeast Alaska 

In Southeast this transition has stalled because of the predominant 

presence of national parks and the Tongass National Forest. Past 

important land use decisions have been made in Washington with 

little regard for local preference. Decisions made with purely 

national political interests in mind are not good for democratic 

government or for the economy 

Problems of Federal Timber Sales Management 

The Forest Service is not cost effective. Timber sale preparation is 

hampered by wasteful laws and regulations. Roads cost much more 

than they should. Timber appraisals are not effective in establishing 

realistic minimum bids. Federal requirements and environmental 

impact statements create delay and high costs for the work done. 

Advantages of State Management of the Tongass 

State forestry management is much more efficient and could take on 

Tongass management. Alaska has a solid record of good forestry on 

lands under state jurisdiction and of good stewardship of other 

resources. Any problems will be solved much faster with local input 

rather than with an unresponsive faraway bureaucracy. 

Suggestions for Changes to H.R. 2413 

Three changes are suggested to avoid management indirection and to 

create a smooth and positive transition 
202 

Testimony of Eric Muench 

Concerning 

H. R. 2413 

TO TRANSFER THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST 

TO THE STATE OF ALASKA 

PUBLIC HEARING lN KETCHIKAN ALASKA 

FEBRUARY 16, 1996 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment to you about this 

important and ground-breaking bill. I am Eric Muench of Ketchikan 

and I operate a forestry consulting and logging engineering business 

in Southeast Alaska. I worked for the U.S. Forest Service in 

Southeast from 1962 to 1967, mostly in timber. After several years 

in logging, surveying, mineral exploration and construction, I started 

and continue to operate an independent consulting service. Working 

with local ANCSA Native corporations and with the Ketchikan 

Gateway Borough on projects that involve dealing with State agencies 

or liaison with and with timber offerings of the Forest Service has 

given me a good view of how those various agencies work. 

I believe this is a timely and essential bill for the people of Southeast 

and in fact makes good economic as well as political sense for the 

future of the rural economies throughout the western states. 

The American Logic of Local Control 

In a society of free people local control of the economic base is 

essential to, and as important, as the operation of free enterprise. 

For a natural resource based economy such as Alaska's, this means 

local control of public lands is essential. In a new land like the west 

during American settlement there is a natural transition to local 

control. 

At first the land was near-wilderness, with few inhabitants, and no 

local or regional governments at all to manage or control land use, 

and little need for them either. The entire area was a territory of the 
203 

Federal government, which alone could deal with what little 

governance was needed. 

With increasing settlement, local governments formed to deal with 

the affairs of isolated concentrations of people but there were still no 

regional or State governments, and federal management continued 

on the outlying areas. 

Continuing growth brought a need for expansion of communities into 

formerly outlying areas as well as individual and community need 

for, and dependence on, the land resources of the surrounding 

countryside. This ·caused problems and frustration as local folk tried 

to deal with a federal government unused to thinking in local terms 

and impatient with niggling local dealings. It also brought the 

dilemma, for a free people, of a population not allowed to govern 

itself. The response to this was statehood, and in Alaska's case, with 

the State land entitlement. The state, its towns and boroughs were 

supposed to deal with local concerns and economic development in 

the democratic American manner. 

The Problem In Southeast Alaska 

However, in Southeast the transition to local control of the economic 

base atrophied. Acerage conveyed to the state and local governments 

was miniscule. Over 95% of Southeast (the land area south and east 

of Yakutat Bay) remains in federal ownership. The lands comprising 

most of the economic base of Southeast remained in the Tongass 

National Forest. Planning and development upon which 

commumties depend is done by outsiders. Local Forest Service 

planners, though they are professional land managers and usually 

civic-minded citizens, are controlled by the policies of Washington. 

Those policies are in turn influenced by special interests with little 

concern for local needs or desires. Citizens often face nonsensical 

federal rules enforced by bureaucrats who are "just going by the 

book". 

Congressman Young will remember this example: In the mid 1970's 

when the Forest Service was going about its new program of forestwide land planning, an important Ketchikan concern was land use 

designation of the area known locally as the East Behm Canal 

country. Almost no one questioned the virtue of a protective scenic 

designation for a sizable area of this outstanding landscape. The 

Forest Service developed four alternatives, ranging in size from 

2. 
204 

perhaps 200,000 acres to probably around 1,000,000 acres. (I do not 

have the exact details anymore.) One local group proposed a much 

smaller area, possibly around 60,000 to 80,000 acres. Another group 

proposed a much larger area, 2,200,000 acres stretching from the 

southernmost point of Alaska mainland to the borders of Canada and 

the Bradfield River drainage near Wrangell. Few people locally gave 

those two extreme proposals much credibility or chance of adoption. 

But because of the influence of the Sierra Club on the Carter 

Administration, the largest extreme was chosen, thereby making a 

wilderness monument not only of the scenic heart of the area but 

also of the most logical road route to the continental interior (the 

Unuk River corridor, site of an old mining road), of a potential hydroelectric site now needed by Ketchikan (Grace Lake), of the worlds 

largest molybdenum deposit (Quartz Hill), and of the potentially most 

useful protected harbor/town-site in the area (Manzanita Bay). 

Named Misty Fjords (which corresponds to no place name in the 

area), the portion visited by tourist ships and airplanes amounts to 

only a small fraction of the area locked away from any development 

In the recent 25 year national mood-swing toward increased concern 

for the environment, Alaska has been the favored sacrificial lamb of 

national politicians eager to earn the praises of powerful 

environmental lobbies without inconveniencing their own 

constituents. 70% of the federal land in Southeast Alaska has been 

locked away from any chance of economic development as nationa.l 

park or as national forest wilderness, roadless or other restrictive 

classification. In spite of that, the Clinton Administration's politically 

appointed Alaska Forest Service bosses are trying to lock away a 

major portion of the 8% of Southeast's federal land which is 

presently managed for timber production. More wild swings of 

policy occasioned by shifts in national political fortunes and 

administered by an uncaring bure:wcracy can be expected. This sort 

of interference in local resources and land use is not healthy for th ~ 

economy, not democratic, and not in the American tradition. 

Problems of Federal Timber Sales Management 

U.S. Forest Service operations are not cost effective. It has been a 

constant source of amazement and disappointment for me over the 

past thirty four years that so many capable, dedicated and 

hardworking Forest Service employees cannot accomplish any more 

than they do. The Service is hopelessly hidebound and bureaucratic, 

often frustrating its own best people. As an example, from 1990 to 

3 
205 

1994, Tongass National Forest timber sales volume dropped 17%, 

timber revenue dropped 35%, and timber industry employment 

dropped 59%, but during that same period Forest Service timber 

employment dropped only 9%, Forest Service total employment rose 

by 1/2% and total Forest Service spending rose a full 29%. 

Forest Service timber sales preparation. work is not allowed to be 

efficient. Federal environmental laws and regulations, treat even good 

seasoned employees as though they were completely ignorant and 

uncaring of any concerns outside their narrow specialty. To comply 

it is commonly necessary for even a small logging . unit to be visited 

by a landscape architect, an upland game biologist, a fishery 

biologist, a soil scientist, an archeologist, an engineer, and a forester, 

all doing the work that could be performed by one or two 

experienced field men with occasional advice froin the specialists as 

needed. I have been in the forest on right-of-way field reviews with 

so many Forest Service specialists that it was necessary to find a 

fairly spacious clearing so that everyone could gather around tc take 

part in the discussion of some important matter. I have spent a 

whole day with three Forest Service archeologists searching high and 

low on about a two acre site of rock, muskeg, and scrubby timber 

where no one had the least expectation of finding any cultural 

remains, but were obliged by regulation to investigate anyway. 

Forest Service roads are commonly overbuilt for the purposes they 

serve, resulting in vastly increased engineering and inspection time 

and much lower stumpage values because of the high construction 

cost. In one recent case I looked at a timber access road route 

designed to overly high standards for the benefit · of later recreation 

use. It required major cuts and fills that could otherwise have been 

avoided. The extra design, staking and inspection costs could only be 

imagined but the construction cost was over $350,000 per mile, 

which could have been reduced to about $135,000 per mile for 

timber access purposes. This would have produced a slightly slower 

and slightly shorter road. The speed would not have mattered much 

because it was only about a two mile road to a dead end from which 

it can never be extended due to prohibitive topography. 

Forest Service timber appraisals attempt to reach a fair and objective 

valuation of the timber to be sold. But the federal process for doing 

so is counter-productive. Commonly a year-long cost and selling 

value data collection process is followed by several months of data 

4 
206 

analyzing and averaging and distribution to field units. Then severa l 

more months pass in which the data are applied to individual timber 

appraisals, advertisements and bid award. Then more months go by 

while the timber is provided road access, logged and delivered to 

mills, processed and finally marketed. The problem with this proces5; 

is that successful businesses do not respond to the past or to tht: 

present, but only to their estimate of future values. Two year old 

data does little to determine the "fair market value" that buyers will 

stick their necks out for. The result is often minimum bids out of 

phase with the market, being either too low or so high as to attract 

no bidders, making demand appear artificially low. In the evaluation 

of timber that I deal with for private owners, these procedures and 

lag times are short-circuited. We know what competetive con tract 

costs are for road building, logging, and etc. Marketing experts and 

trade groups with whom we deal provide current information on 

prices and (usually) valuable insights to near-future selling values. 

The appraisal process is faster and simpler, and less hindered by a 

need for the appearance or proofs of fairness and rule-following. 

have very 

contracting and 

for myself and 

some projects I 

roughly calculated timber cruising, engineering, 

administrative time as well as accounting time both 

for others involved in the sale of private timber on 

have worked on. Four to ten million board feet per 

person-year is a common average range. The Forest Service average, 

based on the 1990 and 1994 listings of volumes offered and sold and 

of "timber staff", seems to hover around I 112 million board feet per 

person-year. The need that the Forest Service has of government 

reporting and public accountability and of tending to the broader 

public good make this a somewhat unfair comparison, but I believe it 

shows, without intending any insult, that U.S. government operations 

are, perhaps inevitably, not very efficient. 

Perhaps the biggest present impediment to Forest Service efficiency 

in its timber program is the need for seemingly endless 

environmental impact statements of great weight and wordiness 

which become the subject of appeals and lawsuits and delays. The 

delay value in fact seems to account for environmental extremists' 

resistance to any improvement to the process. However it can surely 

be streamlined without losing the opportunity for meaningful public 

participation, though perhaps never as part of the federal program. 

s 
207 

Advantages of State Management of the Tongass 

The State of Alaska has a core of experienced foresters and managers 

for whom expansion to take on Tongass mangement would be quite 

feasible if wasteful federal expenditures were eliminated. The 

Division of Forestry, for example, oversees the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Act compliance on an average of about 400 

million board feet per year of private land logging operations in 

Southeast as well as the State beach salvage program and occasional 

State timber sales with a Southeast staff of only 7 full-time and 3 

part-time foresters and 2 clerical people. 

Alaska's commitment to environmental quality and record of forest 

protection for non-timber uses is as good as that of the federal 

government. The Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act and 

regulations are a comprehensive document for conserving present 

and future forest values on State, municiple and private lands. 

Alaska had an anadromous stream buffer requirement in place on all 

forest land under its jurisdiction before the U.S. Forest Service did. 

State fish and wildlife protection expertise and efforts are better 

than those of national forest managment. The Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game brought back Southeast salmon runs from near 

ruination under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the late 1950's 

to frequent record runs since the late 1970's. In spite of its small 

population and the huge areas of federal parks, refuges and 

wilderness areas, Alaska has the largest area of state parks in the 

nation. 

As manager of the Tongass Forest, Alaska will not be perfect. 

Mistakes will be made. But when they are, the path to correction 

will be shorter and swifter than what a top-heavy remotely 

controled bureaucracy like the U.S. Forest Service can do. Problems 

that now just bounce off the well-insulated Washington brass will 

get the undivided attention of State commissioners of natural 

resources, fish and game, and. environmental quality And the Sierra 

Club members of any large eastern metropolitan area will no longer 

be able to steamroll over the wants and needs of Southeast Alaska. 

Suggestions for Changes to H. R. 2413 

Sectjon 6Cbl : I suggest that the Land Use Designations in effect on 

the day of patent should remain in effect for an indefinite period 

' 
208 

until the State takes a positive step to adopt, modify or change it. 

This will insure a continued deliberate management policy and avoid 

a possible period of "drift" after one year when no one may be sure 

just what mangement direction should be. A Land Use Designation 

system as large and involved as that now on the Tongass will not be 

easy to review in a single year. 

Section 7Cgl: suggest that the Secretary should provide a list of 

encumbrances and unfulfilled federal obligations to the State upon 

passage of the bill, along with a fiscal note. This will help the 

legislature in their consideration of election to recieve the Tongass. 

New Section believe it would be prudent to enjoin the federal 

administration from transferring by presidential order any portion of 

the Tongass National Forest to national park or refuge status during 

the ten years Alaska has to make the election, unless it has the 

consent of the Alaska State Legislature to such a transfer. 

Thank you once again for this opportunity to provide input on thi:; 

valuable piece of legislation . 

7 
209 

Executive Summary: A Study of 

Five Southeast Alaska Villages 

Introduction and Background 

!nearly 1993, Congrcsstoldthe~oflhclmeriortocxanunewhy!McommwuucsmSoutheasl 

Alaska-Haws. K£tchilwl. Petmburg. Tcnalcec. md W~ been clcrued ebgibilny to form 

villagcorwbancorporauonsundertumsolthc 1971Ai8skaNIDveCWmsSeulcmentAcl(ANCsA). Thm: 

!edcl21 agcnacs-d!e Fon:st Scmcc. the Buruu o! Und Manaplenl. and the Bureau o! Indian AIW~ 

then conuacted With the lnsutute o! Soaal and Economic Raearch at the Uru..,mty of Alaska Anchorage 

to ~ a rcpon on that qUdUon 

Tlus n:pon Will be presented to Congress. Congn:s will WI: ll to help dctcm\llle whether the h"" 

commuruucs ""'n: tntenuonally or mad""rtently denied eligibility to form village or urban corporauons. 

The rcpon presents the awilable Mdencc on the OftiiSiion, ond looks at how the histoncal OI'CUIIISW\CC$ 

and condmons of the study communtues com pan: with those of the Southeast communtucs that""'n: 

able to form village or urban corporauons under ANCSA. Filially. it estimateS some of the ftnana.al beneftts 

the shareholders of Southc.asl VIllage and urban corponttions and the at-large shareholders of the 51udy 

commwuucs n.,.. n:ett""d from ANCSA. 

ANCSA awarded about S 1 bilhon and 44 million aaa to Alaska's Nauve people and called lor 

csubltslunent of "llage and n:,.onal corporauons to manage the money and land. In lour larger communmcs. the act also allo""'d cstabltshment of urban corporations Instead of village corporauons. 

All Nau"" benehcancs enrolled to a rc,.onal corporauon. and m051 also enrolled to etther a village or an 

urban corporauon 

The Sl bdhon tn ANCS.~ money was dtVIded-bascd on populauoo--;among the n:gtonaland the 

''lllage and uroan corporauons A lmle a..r hall of the land entttlemcnt ""'nt to village and urban 

corporauons. Wlli: the n:!1'onal corporauons gcwng subsurface nghts to village corporanon lands. The 

balance of the land enutiements ""'"t to the n:ponal corporauons under a land-loss formula 

Sccuon II of A.II;GA ltstec '..U.gc>-tn all n:gtons cxccp! Southeast-that would be ehgible to Corm 

VIllage corporauoru. once the Dcpanment of the lntenor hadconftrmed that they met the ehgtbtbtycntena 

Thc VIllages wcrc n:autn:d ta> dtscusscc more below) to n..., at least 25 Nau"" rcstdcnts and \O n. .. popuiauoru that ,...,. mos:i'· "'""'". tncnlso could not bc ·modem and urban tn character.· An addmonal 

prOY1Ston allo,...d ''lllagcs tna: v.-.n: notltsted tn sccuon lito become ehgtble by prOVIng that they met thc 

cntena. Ftnaliy. a spec .. , prO\'ISton altov..,d iour largcrcommuruucs-Juncau. Sllka.l<£rw. and Kod .. kthat dtd not mcc: tnc rcqutn:men'-' ior f\oau,-. VIllages to Corm urban corporauons 

Provisions for Southeast Communities Under ANCSA 

Nauvc communu•o 1n Soul na.s: Ai»KJ were trute:d chfie:~ntly from communtucs 1n other regaonsbecause the Tlant:a11n.::! H'1d~ ln01'"' n.a:i rccc1ved .an earlacr ciauns stttlcmcnt (as chscusscd below}. 

The ftrst admtn"tr.otn't SCI\Icmcn' btl! ton• of thc precursors to ANCSA) excluded Southeast communutes aito~ctnc: &"' ltn::np 01 tn< L' S C..Oun of Clatms and the Indian Clatms ColtlllUS5Ion 

scpponed "'~='""'"''-' o' Titnc:: .,~ H>t:ia !"'Oup• tna: nol all thctr abongtnal nghts had been cxungwshed 

bv ti1e a.ri1e~ s.ettttme!":: )uDWaucn: Ktucmen: t:nll5 began hsung Southeast vdlagcs 
viii 

210 

Ultimaldy. ANCSA tnduded a sc:paza~.< sc:cuon-Sccoon 1~r Southeast villages. That sc:t:uon 

lislcd 10 Southeast commuruocs that were eligible to fonn village corporauons. But unlike earlier sc:cuons 

that dealt with villages m Olhcr regtons. sc:cuon 16 did llOl include a provtston for wilisted villages. Two 

addiuonal Southeast commuruur:s,Juneau and Sitlca, were mduded in a 5J'1'cial piOVlSlon that alloW.d four 

communities to fonn urban corporauons. All the village corporauons m Southeast Alaska got less land than 

corporauons d.sc:where, because: they had bme&ted under the arlier Thngu and Halda sc:ttlem<nt. 

Th~ Srudy Communities 

The srudy commuruu..-Haln<S. Ke!chikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, and Tenaket-4re all located 

m Southeast Alaska but were notlisled m Sccuon 16. So what bcrtehts were the Nauvc =tdents o( the 

study commuruuc.s granted or dcrued under ANC5A' 

Nauvcs from the study commuruut:S did not have the option of cstabhshmg village corporauons. 

They became at-large shareholders of Scalaska. the regional corporation for Southeast Alaska. 

At-large shareholders r=tvcd proporuonate shares of cash distributions from the ANCSA 

sc:ulement fund m ueu of diStnbuuons tO village corporations. They also n:cCJvc, as do the vtllage 

and urban shareholders. ongomg cash diStnbuuons and other bmchts from Scalaska. 

Wtthout vt!bge corporauons. the study cornmuruucsdid not get the 23.0ol0 acrr:s that each or the 

village and urban corporauons m Southeast Alaska recctvcd. Those: land cnutlements have proved 

parucularly valuable m Southeast Alaska. where there an: <XIenStve SWlds of commercial umber 

The Alaska Claims Settlements 

C' ongress can settle abongtnal clauns aim= any W2}' 11 ch005<S, as long a; the settlements rcllcct 

"Congress's uruqw: obugaoon ~<>Ward lncbans" and do not vtolate tht~rconsmuuonal nghts. (Sec Cohen's 

Handbook of Federal Jndtan Law. 1982 cd .. at lll; Gctchcs and Wilkmson. Cases and Maunals on fcd.raJ 

Inman Law, 267-68. 1986 ed.l Alaska Nauvoc:s have won rwo sculcrncnts of abongmal clatms. and the 

scu.lements reflect rwo dtllen:nt approaches 

The &rst, the Thngu and Hatda settlement. came after Congress authonzed the Timgu and H;uda 

lncbans of Southeast Alaska to ukt thCJr clauns before: the U.S. Coun of Clatms. The Coun of Clatms 

dcctded tn 1959 that the Thngtt and Hatda should r=tvc compcnsauon, and tn 1968 valued thCJr land 

clatms at S7.5 rrullion To manage the sculcment. Congress rccogru:.ed a consoudated mba! body--the 

Central Counal of the Thngu and Hatdo lncbans ol Alaska. 

The sc:cond settlement was the much larger 1971 Alaska Nauvc Clatms Settlement Act, under wtuch 

Congress settled abongtnal clatms ol all Alaska Nauvcs In that sc:ulement, Congress ttself awarded both 

land and monr:y and mandatal CTUIJon of Vlllage. urban. and regtonal busmcss corporauons to manage 

the:mc:ts. 
211 

Participation of the Study Communities 

in the Tlingit and Haida Settlement 

S<:veru SICpS led up to the Thngitmd Haida 5d1kmcru: the 1935 jurisdiaionalAct. allOWing the Tiingu 

and Haida to tal« thor clauns before tht U.S. CDun of CJiims; the subsequmt estabhshmtllt of the U,nual 

CD unci I of the Thngit and Halda Indians; the 1959 CDun of CJiims clccision that thelndWu were entitled 

to compensation: the 1965 amendments 10 the jurisdictional N:.t. broadening the function of the C.,ntru 

CDuncil and the ehgibibry cntena for bcnt&ciarios; and the 1968 CDun of Claims award of S7 .5 million 

in compcnsaoon for lost Thngn and Haida lands. · 

Who bcnehted under the scnlcmcnt changed c:onsidmbly from the early steps in the 1930s to the 

JUdgmentm 1968. The 1935 acttalk<d about "tribal communitios." and the 1959 CDun of Claims 

deciSion spcohc:alJy bsted Thngu-Halda trib<S and the modcn communioos assoaated wtth those tribes. 

In 1965 amendments tothe)urudlcuonal N:.t, CDngress broadened eligibility for bcne&ts under the settle· 

ment so that any group of Thnglt and Haida Indians could orpnizc. seek membcrslup il) the c;.,ntral 

CDunc:il, and thereby bcco!IIC ebpblc for scolcment bcndits. 

Table I hsu commuruucs rwned 

mthe 1959and 1968CDunofCiaims 

deciSIOrts on the Thngu and Halda 

settlement and the Southeast com· 

mwuucs recogruud uncier ANCSA. 

How did the stuoy commwuut> of 

Hames. Ketchikan. 'Wrangell. Pe~e~ 

burg. and Tenaku tai« pan on lht 

i1CU\1UC.S lc.admg up to the sctticmen:. 

and how did they bcncfu under the 

All of the SlUd\'commuruucs 1ook 

pin an the uriy orpni!Jiuo"'l 

mccungs o! the Cer.:ral Counc:1l 

of the Ti1nr.: an~ Ha1da lndW\$ 

Between 1953 anc! 196(1 1\eteh•· 

lgn. Wran~d! . anc! Petei'IDUfb 

regularly pantelpal<~ 1" TI•n~n · 

HaldaannualconY<nuoru tu.ncs 

somcumc.s had au own Oclc(:.JtC.S 

and somcumo tent ~ n!S1dcn: as 

pan of the IOukwan delepuon 

T cnakte appc>l'l no11o luvt bc<:r. 

acuvc an the o~uon 1n tnc 

1950. 

I

' 1 ab.le 1. Comparison of Southeast Communities I 

l...i.sted in Tiingit and Haida Decision and in ANCSA 

I CCllolN\INITIES I.Jrn:D IN 1959 Ccir..IIUN!l1f5 I.Jrn:D 

AND 1968 16TH CoulT DEcstOHS• IN ANCSA 

Angoon• Nlgoon 

Douglas' ~ ...•.. 

HIIDIS .. .. 

Cta~g 

Hoonah' Hoonah 

Hydabur&' Hydaburg 

Juneau..., Juneau 

K.ake' Kake 

Kasaan Kotcblbn .. 

IOawock' IOawock 

IOukwan' IOukwan 

PttenbuJf 

Soxman' s.xm.n SIW .. s.u.. .Skagwoy" 

~ Yakutat• Yakutat 

Tow 16 ll 

; l.JwOU'I. 1919ctc-cu onumodtmcommuNues1.tiOOl~td wnhtnba\pups 

~~ "' I Qet8 de:OSion u commuruues whtrt lnd&ans 5hoWd rem~ compnu.iiJCIIn lor 1051. lmcb 
212 

In tts 1959 Nhng. t1u: Coun of CWms hsttd Hames. ~u:lukan. and Wrangell among the modem 

commuruues assoo.aled wtth Thngn and tuida tnbes. It did not lisl Tenakee or Petersburg 

The coun also reponed thai a tlurd of the modem commuruties ll had ~ogruud were not locued 

at the same 51~ as the ongtnal vtll.ages. Th<S< mcluded the srudy commuruues of Hames and 

~tchtlwt. as well as Juneau. Douglas'. and Saxman. 

Ina reponattompanymgthe 1965amendmentstotlu:)unsdlcuona1Act. the Senate med "Jun•!.aU, 

Douglas. ~tchikan, W=geU. and Petersburg" as larger commuruues that wtthout the ammdments would havt: recetvt:d "hule or no benefit" from tlu: expected sc:ulement. 

In tts 1968 award, the Coun of CWms hsted tlu: srudy commuruues of Hames, Ketchikan. 

Petersburg. and W=gdl (as well as Douglas, Juneau. Sitka, and Skagw.~y) as pl.ues where the 

Thngll and tuida had lOSilands when townsu.s were crated. It did not hst Tenakee. 

115 of 1971. four of tlu: ltv. study communtues--Haines. ~tchikan. Petersburg and W=gellas well as 13 other Southeast commuruaes and IWD OUH>f~te chapters were recogruzed as 

members of the Cmu:al Counal of tlu: Thnglt and tuida Indians. 

Eligibility Criteria for ANCSA Village and Urban Corporatioii\5 

Criteria For Village Corporations Except Southeast 

Under terms of the Alaska Nauve CWms Settlement Act. Natrvt: communiaes benehted lhrough bot' 

rtgtonaland vtll.age corporauons (and. m a few cases. through urban corporations). Commuruues that wert 

JUdged mebgtble to form vtll.age corporaaons were not able to sc:lect lands. The cntena for eltgtblt 

commumues evoh•:d over several years and through a number of draft sc:ttlernent blils. 

When the clamu sc:ttlementact was passed tn 1971, ll hsttd (m Sccuon II) the villages ehgtble to form 

vtll.age corporauons and reqwred the Sccre~rv of the lntenor to confirm that the liSied villages met the 

eltg~btbrycntena thai they had at least 25 Naeve =dents as of 1970, that they were not modem and urban 

m character. and uw a maJonry of thm populauons were NaOV<. A separate proVISion of the law allo,..ed 

Vlllages that we"' not hsttd to become ebg~blt by provmg that they met the cntena 

It u not clear where the requtrement for a rNrumum oilS Nauve =dents ongtnattd. The Federal 

Fteld ComrNtu:t for Development Planmng. wluch compiled tnbal !ISIS before ANCSA was 

passed. conslSl<ntly usc:d > populauon of 25 as tlu: standard measure of village <XISience . Also. m 

1970 the mte government ~nerally requtn:d commuruues to have populauons of at least 25 to 

organ.t:r as muruopailues. and the 1970 census tdenti&ed uruncorporated commuruues, mcludmg NaaV< vtllages. wtth populauons of from 25 to 1.000. 

The n:qutn:mtNS tlw ebgtbie villages have mostly Naavt: r<Sldtnts and that they not be modr.m 

and urban appar to ha .. ong~nated for K'YI'ral rasons. Powerful members of Con~ tnsut£d 

on pn:sc:ru abongmal usc: of clwned lands as a pn:n:qwsue lor shanng tn any sc:ttlerntnt .. For 

exam pi< . W.rvnc: Asptnall dwrrnan of the Ho112 Comrrutt« on lntenor and Insular Affatn, 

sponsored a ontlemmt btll that dehned ,.,;attve villages as those that wo:n: not "of a modem and 

urban ~"ttr" i HuMg on HR 3100. HR 7039. HR 7432. 1971). 
213 

ib< Sat< of Alaska also obj<CW!to including oommunilia not "primarily NatM 111 clwacter" (ld. at 

366, tesmnony of Governor Hlckell. And the..- govmunau had on interat 111 hnuung the number of 

communities ebgible to 5Clect bnd because 11 that time il was olso oekaing bnds under its su~ehood 

entitlement.ftnally,upuntiiANCSAwupo.sxd,allthepropoeodsoalcmentbillshad111cludedsomeform 

of Na~ subsistence pnvilege that wculd ha"" all011111!d claouft of bnd around villages to all txa:pt loal 

Na~M subSIStence use~d the more ebgible villages there wm:, the more bnd could ha"" been closed 

(Sen. Rep. Doc. No 92-405 at 4~). (That prtMSIOn was noc included in the &nal settlement bill.). 

Criteria for Utban Corpot'3tions 

EorUer proposed settlement bills had dealt in vmous -rs with the issue of how Nauves not UYlllg'" 

small. rul21 Nauvc villages could bencbt from the settlement. When the bnalclauns settlement was enacted, 

u had tluu opuons lor Nauves bYUig an urban areas: they could enroll to village corporations an the 

commuruaes they wtre onganally from; they could enroll as ll·Jarse slwdloldm of thetr reponal 

corporauons.tnheuolavillagecorporauon;andthoscNativcshvingoutsidethesutecouldVoteonwhether 

to create a 13th rel!lonal corporaaon 

Astde from thOS< gcnel21 pro\'ISlOIIS. ANCSAalso included a special provision lor lour commuruuesSuka and juneau an Southeast Alaska and Kodlak and Kmai in Southc:cntl21 Alaska. Those speciltc 

commuruues wo:re authorued to form urban corporaoonsand select one townslupeach. ANCSA described 

these urban places as commuruues that ..,re "onganally Native villages, but !came to bel . . . composed 

pnmanly of non-Nauves"l43 USC 1613Chl(3)J. 

There appu" to be no record of cntcna or cvaluauon used to del£rnun<: J these communmes ..,re 

mon: quabhed than oine" Ball Van Ness. whowuat thatumechielcounscllorthe Senate ln~enor 

and Insula' Ali11" Comrruuec. Slid In an UII£M<W lor this repon that the urban corporauon 

provmon v.-as neve! lo:mallv Introduced many bills leading up to the passage of ANCSA. and that 

no one had obawed to the lour commuruues' g11rungehgibility. Hank Eaton, whowuatthat ume 

alobD\'ISt io' 1\odaak Nauves. recalled 1n an ~nteMeWthat he and other represcmauves of the lour 

communmeslobbted eonp:re.umen an both houscs.john Borbridge. who at that umcwu•lobbyul 

lor the nmp:uand Hatda. recalled'" an lht<rvtew that Alaska's Senator Ted Stcvms Introduced 

Lhc pro\'u1on ar. lhe inW b11!. and lh.at the sense o[ the confc~nce commmet was that no mo~ 

communltlt.$ "':ould be ~:::r;cptcd io: urban r;orporauon status. 

Eligibility of Study and Other Southeast Communities 

Communnaes tnrou~nou: SoultltaSI Alaska ..., ... as described above. treated diflerently under 

ANCSA. A se0112te secuo.->ccuon I c--ol ANCSA !&Sled I 0 ebgible villages tn Southust and resmcwl 

thctr bnd av.-.ras to one to,..,•srup each Two addnaonal Southeast commuruues.juncau and Suka. ~re 

allo..,d to form un>an eorpor-.uoru 

How woeJT :.h: il\'t s1u::h to~.:r.unau:.l, Irate:! tn early settlement bills. and what hlstoncaJ cvtdmc:e 

ts thc:rc abou: v.-n\ tnry v.-,;:T no: an:iucicc o:-:.tr.c hsl of cbg~blc tommuruucs tn the ftnal clauns settlement? 

24-018 - 96 - 8 
214 

• The SNdy commiiiiiii&-<XICtp! lor TaWca-diclappar on 10111< wber versions of Nau•c 

village lisls bw ~excluded hom ochers. 

• The study communtucs diSappeared from the bst of Soulhc::ut villages at the same nme as the 

1970 <ZnSUS data boc:am< aYallable and as the village ~ cntcria CYOI>ed to n:qwrc tlw 

villages have atleast2S Nanvcs, not be modem and urban Ul cbaracu:r, and have a maJOnry 

NaM populauon. 

• The omiSSion of the audy commuiiiUCO IS n01 cl£ariy cxplamcd in any provlSIOn of ANCSA or Ul 

the accompanytng conference ~'<pon . 

Eligibility Detcnninations for Unlisted Southeast VIllages 

ANCSA included a pi'OYISion that gave unlisted villages a chance 10 prt:>YC 10 the lnu:nor Oepanmm( 

lhal they in faa met the ehpbillry cnu:na for fonmng village corpcnmons.lbe Scnm's version of the final 

claims seulement bill had included a sunilar proviSion for unlisted Soulhcast villages, but the confucna: 

commiaee did not adopt ii tn the bill tlw became law, nor did it explain wily. 

RtprcsmwiYCS of lhrcc of lhc SNdy communtt-Tenak«, Kclchilcan. and ~ 10 

the Alaska NaUVt Claims Appeal Board to try to gatn eligibility 10 form village corporauons. The board 

dented alllhrcc appeals and Slid 

• That ANCSA had "crcau:d an exclUSive list of ehgtble villages Ul Sou:lheast. Alaska which c:ann01 

beaddccl to • 

• That n was ·appa!'<nt that Cori~ dtd not tntend tlw uniiStcd SoulheaSI villages could be made 

eligible for bene&ts under lhc 1\t;t." and 

• That Congress'• WIU!'<IO p!'OYide a speaftC pi'OYISion for unlisted SoulheaSI villages W1IS evidcna 

that Con~ did n01 tnu:nd them to have the .. m~ opponuruty 10 become bsu:d as unbsted 

villages tn other !'<pons of lhc Sllu: (In Rt. Appeal of ~tchikan Indian Corporauon. 2 ANCAII 

It 171.) 

Comparison of Southeast Community Populations 

Acompanson of the 1970populauortsof the 51udycommuntttc5and the Soulheast communwcs that 

..,,.. rccogruzed under ANCSA sheds some login on dtlle!'<nces among and sunilanlles between the IW<I 

groups of commuruua 

• T Olal populauons of lhc Sludy communtucs ..,,.. comparable 10 those of Soulhcast communilles 

rccopiUI'd undtr ANCSA 

• Nat.- madt up dme 10 lhc same percentage of the populauon in Kadlikan ( lS pm:aul and 

WnngeU(19pmaulastn)WICau(l0pc...mtl Pctmburg"sNIIMpopulauon02pcn:ent)was 

smaller as Table l shows 

• Nauva madt up 24 pmznt of tuanes·, populauon-sunilar to the proportions in Summ (27 

percent l and "-n (2 7 percent). but co1101derably below tlw of the ocher medium and 1111111 

Southeast commUNUC:5 rccopu:cl under ANCSA. Nat.- in ANCSI. communsues ocher than 

Suman and "-n madt up a ma,onry of the po~ywhm from 8210 94 pcn:ent. 

ln Tenakee. tiW l' S ClONUS reamlcd u S.U...S malang up 7 pc!tCf1l of the populaion. 
215 

Table 2. Comparison of Native Population aud Enrollments 

iD ANCSA aud Study CommUDitics 

)WICIU Kiirhilom ... . 

Silka 

WGE~ 

Angoon 

Cmg 

1-bmes 

Hoonah 

Hydobur& 

K.kc 

Klawock 

S.....u C"""'l'>omt:S 

!'DCEMT NATM I'DPuuliON 

1970 CENSm 

.. . :~;;~~ . . U\\ ··:'-'· - ·v.·,.· l~ 

94\\ 629 

56\\ 317 

1<4'5 ~~ . , .321 ""'' •. 

71\\ 876 

88\. 565 

90\, 558 

91\. 508 

"'"' 120 

8Q'lo. 253 

7'li. 6+ 

"'"' 196 

8:!~ 342 

Comparison of Enrollment Procedures 

!'DCINT Of ENIOlUB 

I..MNG IN c:o.o.nn.m 

7l't. 

6+., 

62\\ 

SJ'l\ 

Sl't. 

63\\ 

40% 

79% 

46% 

l9% 

14% 

0% 

57% 

70% 

The hrst step'" en:olhnF io: btncb undtr AI\3A wos tdenufymga pLace of rutdenct. Nauvescould 

tdenufy the ccm:;:~!lu ""·ne~ tn~vv.'trt ll\1nJ:a: the ume or acommunnywhert theyorthctrfamihcshad 

tradJtaonallv it\"C~ Ute ~ tnt l~:c~o~ Dc~ mcn : nude deu:munauons of whu:h VIllages wt:re cltgtble to 

form ,,llage CO:-;>o:7uo:u ~~:·\ ~ . ....-no wt"tT enrolied to commumuc.s that were later dctc:muned lobe 

tnei1g1bie ixc:2:"!1e .a•·i.u~ sn..~rtno:~t!"\ o! Sa~k.a ~penal corporauon. 

The~ \o\"t~ : "" oer.ro :: ~c~ : :'JIC':":OC.-J!'lam:u : pcnod and a later pcnod for thost who had rrusscd the 

hrs ~ The l9:'r- .I:Tirr :!':"tr:o:~ 1..;: A." • .::,.._ .IIU.O •n.:au.Jcd ~ proVlSaon that would have allowed Nauve.s who 

had cnrolicd to '~lu~ tt..a: ""'"t~ ~:~~ cc:uryC mcu~blc a chance to change the1r enrollments. But m !act 
216 

that amendment was IIC"U unplanented. Some communitia OIIUide Soulhast Alaska instead won 

changa in eligibihcy through the 1980 Alask.a Nauanallnwal Unds c.m.ervaaon Act. And. as noce:l 

below, the lntenor Dcparunem rWed till! the pnMSion did not apply to Soutlast commuruues. 

Nearly 3,500 Naaveo-or 22 pen:mt of lOIII mrollmont in the Scalask.a n:gion--mrolled to the study 

communitic5. Table 2 shows the number of pmons who enrolled to the stUdy commuruues and to the 

Southeast commuruues recogruzed under ANCSA. What evidma is there about how the miollment 

process in the stlldycommwuucscompan:d With till! in the ~Southeast villages? And ,.,.n: then: 

substanaal diflen:nas Ill mroll.mmt poucms among n:sidaus of the stUdy commuruues and the 

commuruues listed ., ANCSA' 

Thepoilcxsandprocedun:sformrollmmt....n:Wiiformlyappliedinthestudycommuruuesand 

Ill the ANCSA-~d communiues, according to IVIilable doc:umerus and tnteMCWS With 

commurucy mwncra1on. 

Many Nauves., the audy commWUli<S ....n: unaware till! tlwrvillages ,.,.n: not listed as elig;blr. 

to fonn village corporauons. according to several mumcl'llOn inwY!eWed for tlus report. And ., 

many cases they ,.,.n: UIIN'In: of the Significance of villages' being listed or unlisted. 

ltiSnotcloarhowmw:henrollmmttotheSiudycommurutiesmayhaw:beenaf!ectedamongthosc: 

who ,.,.n: aware that the cl>mmuruues ,.,.n: unlisted. Some mumcraton tnteMewed for thto• 

report felt that 11 caused Nauves to mrollelsewhen:, but othen ~h till! it had no stgnihcant efleo: 

on enrollment 

Nauves who enrolled to the Sludy commuruoes ,.,.n: declared in<Ug;ble to haw: ihctr placa " ' 

enrollment dwlgtd under a 1976 amendment to ANCSA. That clctmrunauon carne tn a 198:0 

opuuon of the Department of the lruenor. Anomcys for Scalask.a n:gtonal corporauon and for •· 

=dent of tb&nes unsuccossfully challenged till! optnion. 

The proponaon of enrollees to a commurucy who acrua11y laved in till! commurucy IS another measu,. 

of surulanues and cltflen:nces among the study and the ANCSA communities. As of 1974: 

In the three large SIUdy commuruues and the two Southeast urban places n:cogruud under 

ANCSA. the sha,. of Nauvt enrollees who =ded in the commuruues when: they enrolled was 

Slmtlar The proporoon of enrollees who bvtd tn the communities vaned from 64 to 77 percent, 

as Table 2 shows 

Among the small and medium cornmuruues n:cogruzed under ANCSA. be~ 14 and 79 

percentofenrolleesbvtdtnthecommuruueswhen:theymrollcd. ThestlldycornrnunttyofHarna 

fell tnto that range. With 51 percent of those who mrollcd to Hames also bvtng there. 

None of those who enrolled to T mak.ee bvtd there. 
217 

Histories of Use and Occupation in Study 

and Other Communities 

We can use a number of measures to compare the histoncs. of Nativt use and occupancy m the Sludy 

commuruues and m the llsud commuruties ll\ Soulhast Alaska : 

T zaditio.W Native Knlt:mcnts (villages or C3Dlps) at slta of modem commWiitia, before the 

arrival ol whites 

IDdi.m occupancy of identifiable ueas in the <arty loWD5 

IDdi.m land racrv.otioDS or exclusions &om the Toopss Natio.W Forest 

IDdi.m po .. csstoDS md NatiVe tOWIISite lands 

Federal schools for lDdims 

Churches or missions ICT\'iDg Natives 

Participation in NatiVe Orpni:ations 

Traditional Native settlements at sites of modem communities 

h was common tn Southeast Alaska for modem commuruuos to be established directly on or ncar 

areas and sues of Nauvc settlements and camps. 1his was true of the hV<: study commuruuos and 

oi rccopuud ANGA commuruues. Non-NauV<:S wo:rc drawn to these places by !ish. nuncrals, 

or other resources lndw. settlement patterns...., .. charactcnud by seasonal populauon dispersal 

and .aggrcg.auon 

l>:etchu<•nond Pctcrsilurg""""' summervtllagesand ftshcamps beforc white scttlcrsamV<:d, while 

Hames anc T cnai<te wen: wtntcr ,,ll•ges Wr2ngell was a summer village and then became the 

pnrr.orv .,l .. ~e of the Sukme I<v.-.n m 1836. after the Russtans established a post thcrc 

Amon~ comrnuruues rccogn.,.d uncer ANCSA. Sitka was the sue of a pnnopal village of the Sttka 

I<v.-.n txforc the Russunsc:stabhshrd a settlement the rem the early IBOOs.juneau wasc:stabhshcd 

at the Stt< of a NamT !ish camp Cr21g was c:stabhshcd dtrcctly across from a former village on Fish 

E&!' Island Kasaan,..-.salarFe Haodo "llage:theslteofthevillagtwasmoV<:dabout5milc:stn 1901 . 

when tne mana~cr oi • run~ companv offered educauon and JOb opponunmc:s to =dents. 

Indian Occupancy of Identifiable Areas in Early Towns 

Ont or mo~ a~ m .al! tht study commumucs were considered to be: lndWl villages or lncban 

10\A."TU That v,oas _also tf'\1(' Jn tht A~C.SA f'C'cogmzed communiues or Juneau and Suka and in a 

numbtr of smaller ANC.SA commumues Howrver. m some or the smaller ANCSA communiues 

iokt Kasaan and Cl"lJ~ ~011\T I"<Stdents often hvtd throughout the commuruty rather than ID 

s~: ft:. ~rus 
218 

Land reservation or exclusion from the Tongass National Forest 

Federal land reservaaons wtre set aside !or NauYOS at twna and Ketchikan tn the early 1900s. 

Thelndianvillagut Tenakee wasacluded from the Tonpss Nauonal forest under a federal land 

ordertn 1935. 

• Federal land reservaaons wtre also made uuhe ANCSAcommuniiiCS o! Hydaburg. Klawock. and 

IOukwm early 111 the c:entUI)'. The ANCSA commwutia of Kasaan and Cr.ug were also excluded 

from the Tongas.s Nauonal forest VI the 19205 and 1930s. 

School reserves for federal Indian schools were also set aside in many Southeast communtues. 

mcludutg the su1dy commwuues of Pacrsburg. Wrangdl, and Hatna. 

lndim Possession or NatM: Townsite Unds 

Haines. Kttchtkan. Wrangell. and f>to:rersburg had Indian possession lands identihed when the 

townsues wtre ftm esubltshed. There IS no record or 1ndwt possesAOn lands Ill the Tenakee 

townsuc. SVICe the lnchan vtllage wu outside the original toWnSite. 

Juneau had no lnchan poosesRon lands 111 the anginal townsite, and Sitka had lnchan poosesRO!IS 

totahng less than an a=-«cause the 1ndwt villages 111 those communiues wtre outstde the 

ongtnal townsttes. There IS no record of lnchan posses11ons m the ongtnal tOWl'\Slte of Cr.ug. 

The Bureau of Und Management made no dtsuncuon Ill the admuusuauon or tOW!ISlte lands 

occupted by Nauva tn the INdy commwuD<S and in ANCSA-recogniz£d commuruues. 

Govemmmt Schools for Indians 

federallnchanschoolsoperatedmtwnes.Kttcltikan,Petcrsburg.andWrangeUdunngthepenod 

berween 1881 and 1948 There were also federal govmuncnt schools tn all 12 Southeast 

commuruues recoglll:d under ANCSA. 

• Tenakee had a temtonalschool. IS dtd the ANCSA community o! Cr.ug. 

Churches and Missions Serving Indians 

The hrst chwdlcs to orgazuu VI all the saudy commllllllles wtre Nau~ churches--(hat IS , 

churches that were ether swwl as rruss1oras for NIIIYOS, or churches that Nauve themseiYeS 

esubbshed. ~uclt ICDvtty of NID~ churches was common among ANCSA recoglll:d commuruuesaswdl. 

Participation iD NatM: Organi:ations 

• All the saudy commuruucs had local camps of the Alaska NatM Brotherhood and ~isterhood 

begnwng an the 19205. as dtd ANCSA-ra:oglll:d commuruues. 

Ketclukan. Pamburg. Wrangell. and Hatnes belonged 10 the ~t and !Uida Cenaal Council 

as o! 197l.asdtd ANCSA commuruues IS wtll as Metlalcada; . Washangton;and Oakland. 

Cahfo,.. Tenakee was notacuve tn the councltn 1971. 

• All the saudy commuruues c=pt T cnakee formed IRA orpiiiZitioras 111 the 19305 and 19405. as 

dtd ANCSA recoglll:d commuruues 
219 

Financial Benefits from Village and Urban Corporations 

The village carpom.onsand !he lands awarded them under ANCSAt..v. benthted Alaska Nauves in 

a number of war--mcJudmg !he substsunce, cuhwal. and spiritual values of the land. Most observm 

would ag= that the corpo12cons t..v. also provided valuable economic and soaa1 benehts through their 

political powtr and abibl)' to nurture leadership in shareholdcn. But it's unpossible to put a dollar figure 

on those kinds of values. 

It is possible. how.v.r. to eswnate hnanrial bmefusvillage and urban corpo12Uons 1n Southeast Alaska 

t..v. pr<Mded the1r s~holde~. Corpo12uons in Southeast Alaska diJTer from village corpo12uons 

elsewhere tn the state tn two unponant W3)" . First, Southeast corpot21ions t=tvcd only on< township 

(23 ~ acres) each. because commuruues tn Southeast Alaska had benehto:d from the earlier Tiingu and 

Halda settlement Village corpom.ons elsewhere rettivcd anywhere from three to SIX townslups each. 

Second. much of the land Southeast corpo12Ucr.>Ssel..:ted had valuable umber. Few other villages tn Alaska 

found themselves surroWtded by such an econorrucallyvaluable resource. 

The eswnates of hnanctal benehts lor corpo12tion slwdtolders in Southeast are based on a fairly 

complete set of annual reports lor hY< of the ten village carpo1'2tions and both of the urban corpom.ons. 

R<hable da~ lor the other hvc VIUagt corpor:auons are not ovailable. Although our sample tndudes only 

hall the VIllage corpo12uons. u cOY<~ nearly two-tlurds of !he village shardlolde~ and 100 percent of the 

urban shareholder> So the da~ presented below represent benefits recetY<d by 82 percent of the village 

and uritan corpo12uon shareholder> tn Southeast. 

Stnce n "not our ,.w tocompore hnanctal performances of individual village corpo12uons. wt present 

the vtllage da~ tn compos>te iorm. as • W<tghted aY1:12ge of !he hY< sets of village da~ . The result gtves us 

• sense of the aver:agt hnanctal benehts 

The hve studv commumues "'tre notablt to form V!Uage corpor:auons and dtd not rece>vc land gr•nts. 

How have :he hnan:tal benefits of the cnroliees from the study communtues.-who are at-largt 

shareholder. of Seaiasl<;-<ompared wtth those of VIllage and urban shareholder>' 

All shareno de~t- l.J~e . urban. and ''lllage-re entitled to equal per cap>~ payments from 

the At\: G.-\ stutemr:n: lund and art suU entuled to equal resource rtvtn~ shanng payments 

reoutrc~ unde: •«uon 7io ·· o! .>J'::S .... The dtllerencc "that at-large and urban s~holder> 

colic::: tnosi ~\mtn~ dl:-t:tiy . ..... n,lt paymentS to vdlagt corporauon w~holders go to the 

"lia~c :o'l>Oro:aons wm:t. do not ncccssanl)' pass them dtn:ctly on to shareholders. Some 

~y ruve '""'C.SIC.:ltnem ..,.-c:li .1nd £.3mtd good retums for sh.areholde1'5. but some may Nw: lost 

the mont'\· tnrou~n bJ:i anvutmcnu So ~"Cn though payments are caJcula~d on an equal pc:r 

ap1~ I:W.Il tnc .ll·ilr~~ Jno urti1n sfun:noldcrs havt recetvt:d Larger dtrect cash paymenLS from 

these 50urtc.s 

Howt"~= c:.un ci~nouuoru uom tht ANCSA (und and from ~un:c: ~nuc shanng have 

pro,..,d to bt m•no' :o,.:..red .,,;, tnt hnanctal bencfttsSoutheast village and urban shareholder> 

hJ"·t n::r•\~~ :ro!"!": ll:!lEX ~ I'Yr'\'t:SHne on thc1r lands. 

On J\'t:-3~ sru~no ~t='\ 11: tnt s.amP1c l1 \"t ,'lflagt corporauons had rtcetvc:d more than S57 .000 

m:as~au.::'l=~uo,.,.aso ! !011: Tnt .,..,1'2~ pcrshan:holderbookequlty-measun:olthesharehol~m ,...,.. tn coroo"'te asset>- of the hv< ,,llagc corpor:auons was mon: than Sll 7.000 as of 

}oc;: ;T,~•c) 
220 

Table 3. Slwdtolder Dimibulions uul Book Equity of . 

Five Southeasc Village and Two Urba Cotponlions 

A~E~5V~CE~~ AYDAa Of Two UUAN COIJ'ORATIONS 

FiJcal Tow (In Thousaruis DoU...por T 0111 (In TbowaDds 'DoU... p<r 

Year oiDoU...l Sbarch<>ld<r oiDou.r.) Sbarchold<r 

19n 0 0 0 0 

1978 0 0 0 0 

1979 S71 5126 0 0 

1980 338 601 0 0 

1981 1.~53 2.580 0 0 

1982 26 -46 0 0 

1983 2)4 416 0 0 

1984 501 889 0 0 

1984A(l) 536 952 0 0 

1985 840 1.492 0 0 

1986 781 1.387 0 0 

1987 3.492 6.200 S3,55ot S1 .55ot 

1988 5.081 9,021 409 179 

1989 5.655 10.040 780 3~1 

1990 5.015 8.904 ns 318 

1991 3.1>43 6.469 1.243 5-tJ 

1992(2) ~.713 8.368 4.219 1.845 

To&al Dlslnbuaons S32.J79 S57.491 510,933 54.780 

ll<pontd Ptr Shan:noldu- £away, 1992 

(lnduda ...,< ANOA Und aJ<Ul 5117.073 S31.83 

' Xvcnlcorporauoru.td!waed lht sartof l.har ftsa1 ,or dYnn&lht 19805..&• rtsalh,lhcft.art: snsomeaxsmoftcia&l 

pcMUIIuon c:alaollr ,...,. 

' Dlm\INuon 0... to. 199l an: womplac A..,.t< u compwd hom only) anpanooru 
221 

On aV"<rage, shareholders 1n the two Southeast urban corpo!'aliOns had n:cri""d about S4 ,BOO m 

cash dJStribuuons through 1992-iar less than the village corporauon shan holders. Urban shan· 

holders ha"" rewV"<d less becaUS< (asTable 3 shows) their total distribuuons ha.., been smaller, 

and they haV"< many more shareholdm.---tO the disttibuuon per shareholder IS much smaller. 

Pan of the reason for the smaller disttibutions by the urban corporauons IS that the1r land 

con..yances and therefore loggtng were delayed a number of yars. The a""rage per shareholder 

book equuy"' the urban corporauons was about $32.000 as of 1992-agam. much less than the 

eqwry of village corporauon shanholders. 

The hve vlllage and rwo urban corporauons also earned S4 30 milhon betwccn 1986 and 1988 

by sclllng the~r net operaung l05SCS. A piOYISion of the 1980 Tax ~form Act gave Alask. Nauve 

corporattons the abtluy to sell their operating losses to more profitable busmesses lookmg for 

taX wnte-ofls The Southeast corporauons were able to masurc those losses as the difference 

berwcen the volue of a log at the umc the land was con..ycd to the corporauon and the value of 

the log at the wne u was e~ther cut, sold, orwnu.cn off as h2vutg no V2luc. As of 1992, much of 

the cash generated by soles of losses renamed lcx:ktd up m cscrow accouniS, penchng IRS auchts 

of the transaruons 

Overall. the Southeast VIllage and urban corporations have been the most nnanaally fonunatc 

groups of all ANCSA corporauons. as measured by fmanc.al returns per shareholderto date . There 

are two mam reasons for thctr good fonune . The hrst is that the~r ANCSA lands tncluded valuable 

umbcr. and the second IS that they were able to maJc.: substanual pronts from the sale of net 

operaung losse>-whteh were not actual cash 105SCS but wtrt based on the decline tn the value 

ofumbtr 

Past ftnancl.l! periOTTn.>nce . howtV"<r. does not precha future fonunes of these or any 01h<r 

corporauons Ftrs:. Congress ended soles of net operaung losses tn 1988. so those Will not be a 

future source of mcome Second. much of the commemal umber on vtllagc corporauon lands has 

airc.oo1· bcen ha""'sttc! Those corporauons With corruncrcal umber will still haV< to deal With 

\'Oi~utt v.·orid CNrKet ~nets for umber 

ThiS sum=n rw bnefi,· rmtwcd our hndmgs about the lustoncal arcumStanccs of the Study 

commumues and th'! avaa~bte recorc about now they came to be orrutted from tM ANCSA hst of dtgtble 

Soutilust corr.mu:llu~ 'A r now: tum 10 our cieUJ.ied dlscusslons 
222 

COUNCIL ANNETTE ISLANDS RESERVE 

MET LAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNIT Y 

j.~CK L ·BOOTH. SR .. MAYOR ' 

jl'DITH A. L •L'TH. SECREHRY POST O FFICE BoX 8 

E5TABLISHED 1887 

B .• RBARA J. FAWCETT. TREA5liRER 

METLAK.U LI. A LASKA 99926 

PHO:'\:E (90i ) 1:1Rt;·H 41 

FAX 1907l886· Ul8 

FAX (907) 886· ;997 

TESnMONY OF THE METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY 

IN FAVOR OF THE 

TONGASS TRANSFER AND TRANSinON ACT 

H.R. 2413 

Pmeate• by: MIYOr JICIIL. Baolll, Sr. 

flllraary 18, 1198 

Conqreaaman Young, Member• ot the COIIIIIi tt .. : 

On behalt ot the Metlakatla Indian CCIIIIIIUni ty, I am here to 

expreas aupport tor H.R. 2413 , the Tonqaas· Tranater and 

Tranaition Act, and to thank the Conqreaaman tor. recognizing that 

aOCMthinq must be done tor the timber dependent COIIIIIUnities in 

Southeaat Aiaska that are ignored in the ruah to "save" the 

environment. Metlakatla ia tor aound environmental policy but 

we are tor joba , people and tamiliaa aa well. We applaud thia 

ettort to s .. k a new avenue ot atability tor our economy . 

The Metlakatla Indian CCIIIIIIUnity ia a tedarally recognized 

Indian Tribe. ADout 2,000 people live on Annette Iilland Reserve. 

Until recently, Metlakatla' • economy -• j:>aaad primarily on 

tederal programs, tiahinq and the aala ot tribal timber. Due to 

tederal budget cuta, the collapae ot sallllon markata and other 

tactora beyond ita control, Metlakatla ia now a timber dependant 

coanunity; a timber dependent cCIIIIIIUnity with an un8111ploymant rate 

over so•. A a table timber supply trcm the Tonqa.. National 

Foreat is esaential to our weltare. 
223 

Our history has been to depend on the seafood industry to 

provide the jobs and rev.nues our Coamuni ty needs . We cannot 

change the market&, however, and our seafood enterprise does not 

provide the rav.nua that we formerly enjoyed. We used to look to 

the federal gov.rnment in times of need. I do not hav. to remind 

you that those days are gone. I could tall you about the 

federal budget cuts we face, but I know I would not be saying 

anything that hasn't been said and heard before . What I want to 

malta clear is that we learned we cannot depend on the federal 

government to malta things right for us. 

Tourism is not the answer for us either, at least for the 

present. While others profit from tourists, we have not yet 

determined how we can benefit from this part of the economy . Nor 

do we s- tourism as the only and final answer to Southeast's 

economy. We know tourism is important but it is not the only 

answer. Its seasonal jobs are important, but we need something 

to depend on year round . 

In our efforts to sustain our economy, we turned to the 

resource that has sustained the Tsimpsians for centuries. We 

looked to our forests. We successfully established a Small 

Business Administration timber sale purchase program and started 

a small sawmill to provide jobs and revenues. We have operated 

our mill profitably for about three years. It provides between 

20 and 40 jobs. We also depend on the lease. of our big mill to 

KPC for additional jobs and revenues . So, we have become timber 

dependent. But, our new economic program is now threatened by 

lack of timber. To survive we know we must become a greater 

participant in development of the policies that shape how the 

forest is managed. That is why we support HR 2413. 
224 

Recently, the heacl ot the Forest Service badcally aclati.tted that 

the Forest . Service ia incapable ot providing a a tabla timber 

supply trom the toreata ot Southeast Alaaka. Although I do not 

doubt that the Forest Service baliav.a that stability ia 

impossible, I don't think we can attord to go along with that 

attitude. We cannot be a timber dependant COIIIIIUnity subject to a 

tederal bureaucracy that admits it cannot do the job. 

In Metlakatla, we believe Alaskan' • can aolv. the timber 

supply problem without permanent harm to the environment. That' a 

why we -nt to encourage eva:r:yone to take a hard look at HR 2413. 

This is a chance tor Alaskans to let the Nation know that we 

beliav. Alaskans can taka charge to sol v. ita problema . To do 

otherwise , will be to aul:lnl.it to the continued control by a Forest 

Service that believ.a atabla timber aupply ia impo .. ibla . It 

alao will mean that Waahington, 0 .c. will continua to "know 

what' • beat" tor ua in Southaaat Alaska . That will not be good 

tor our economy. 

We hav. only one auggaation to the language ot the bill at 

thia time . We nota the proviaion that will require diatribution 

ot 25t ot the timber receipts to municipali tiaa and local 

gov.rnmanta doaa not make clear that the term include• the 

Metlakatla Indian Community. We will auggaat apacitic language 

to clari ty thia. 

Conclusion : 

In &IIBII/$11/R Mr. C/16/rmln, ltll mt1 uy ~Pin how mut:h lhtl pt~opltl of 

Mtlllln/11 IPPI'tl&llltl your tllfflrll fiR lht1/t bt1ht1H IRd fiR btlhiU IJIIII thtl pop/tl til Sllulhtllll 

A11lkl. By Ia pmsMtl ,.,.., Mt~lltlntll 11 dtldlrlfll Ill &~~~~~mltmtlntlt/lllnd with 111 rilhl 

lhlnltln1 ptlopltl In St1111ht1nl Alllkl 111 Rnd 1 111/ullon It/ wr tl&llllfiiRI& pnJbltlml. Pill tJI 

/111/IIIIUUIIR ml/ll btl I 11n1 lpptNt:h lhll rd/1 llltiW 111/tl &11111/lln Ill .UIIZI tiM tJI our llltlll 

dt1pt1ndlblt1 ftllllfiiWI, tlllt frlrlll, ltJr lltt1 1111111 til 111. Wt1 bltiW 11116 bill rt/11 1M dllflt:~~llltl 

p1n. 11111 bill, or 1t1mt1 bill, m/111 btl plnt~d, ht~r~nt~r, 111lh1/ 1 lllblt1 tlmbtlf IUpp/y In lh/1 

lftll II JUIII1116tld. Wtl 1Upport your tiRtlrll IRd will &1/RiinUtl Ill IUpparl ftiU/1 lnd !lUI 

Slnllltlt'l t1Ht1rll to 111/rr this pmbltlm until Wtl Jtllthtl/tlb dontl. T1111nk you rt~ry much. 
February 28, 1996 

Rep. Don Young Chairman House Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth Bldg 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: H.R. 2413 

Representative Young: 

It was with an open mind that I listened to the Congressional 

field hearings held in Wrangall ' Ketchikan this month on HR 

2413. And after considering the issue, I wish to express my 

comments on the proposed legislation: 

First, it seemed unfair, to put it mildly, that you were in 

control of who spoke at these hearings. One can only come to the 

conclusion that you want the record to be filled with voices of 

those that you personally agree with. I don't believe this was a true representation of southeast Alaskans. Nor do I believe that 

it's just Alaskans who are affected by the management of the 

Tongass National Forest. xational is a key word here. The 

Tongass belongs to all citizens of the United States. It seems very unlikely that Americans would want to give away one of the 

most beautiful forests in existance. 

I strongly oppose HR2413 as it would repeal all the protections 

enacted by Congress in the Alaska Lands Act of 1980 and the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990. Many years, countless 

individuals, and great effort was put into these Acts, with a strong majority of Congress supporting it. 

I oppose HR2413 because it would repeal the minimum 100 foot 

buffers now required on salmon streams. This isn't excessive. 

It's minimal. The number was only reached after compromise. 

compromise to habitat. 

I oppose HR2413 because I believe it is catering to the pulp 

mills of southeast Alaska at the expense of public health. Both 

the mills in Sitka ' Ketchikan have violated environmental 

quality standards ' permits for years. They began their 

operations long before the general public began to realize the 

harmful effects if industrial processors. I don't think you 

grasp the correlation between environmental health ' public 

health. This seems elementary. 
226 

I oppose HR 2413 because it would obliqate the State to hand over more than 200,000 acres of prime forest land to new for profit 

Native corporations, the so-called "landless natives•. Its only 

just recently that Natives are cominq to the realization that 

their forests are qone (Hoonah for example) and while their their 

pockets have filled, it was only temporary. Now, many find that 

continuinq traditional practices has been severely impaired by 

the clear cuttinq techniques of the loqqinq interests. 

Just because a few native corporations can show earninqs & 

dividends to their shareholders doe~ not mean that they have been a success. Indeed, the Burqer Commission which studied the 

Alaska native corporations consequences have found it 

reqrettfully flawed. To continue to encouraqe this concept seems foolish. 

I live in Ketchikan Mr Younq. I am one of those who you consider 

to be most affected by the manaqement of the Tonqass. 

I request that this be entered into the formal hearinq record. 

Sincerely, 

I. Alexakos 

Box 23426 

Ketchikkan, AK 99901 

cc: Rep. Georqe Miller 

Sen. Ted Stevens 

Sen. Frank Kurkowski 

Gov. Tony Knowles 
227 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman of Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

SEACC 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 

(907) 586-6942 phone (907) 463-8312 fax 

February 29, 1996 

re: additional comments for the Hearing Record for H.R. 2413 

Dear Chairman Young: 

This letter follows up on your recent hearings in Wrangell and Ketchilcao regarding H.R. 

2413,the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act, the real goal of which is to tum our 

largest national forest over to private hands. In addition to the written statement we 

provided for the February 16, 1996 hearing in Ketchilcao, we submit this follow-up 

statement. We request that you include this as part of the official, written hearing record. 

Although bad weather prevented my attending the Ketchikan hearing last week, I 

testified by telephone from Juneau. In a blatant violation of normal hearing procedures, 

you disconnected my call before the panel! was on had finished, and before I could 

correct several inaccurate statements you made in Wrangell and Ketchikan. Here are my 

corrections for the hearing record: 

I. CHAIRMAN YOUNG TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY. 

In a letter to editor of the Juneau Empire (attached), dated February 25, 1996, Chairman 

Young repeated a claim made at both the Wrangell and Ketchikan hearings. You wrote: 

Another point I'd like to make is that while the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act was being discussed in 1989-90, not one hearing was held in Alaska. 

I repeat, not one hearing was held. 

This statement is dead wrong. In April of 1989, the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources held hearings in both Sitka and Ketchikan prior to taking action.on the 

Tongass Reform Law. Unlike the recent hearings in Wrangell and Ketchikan held by 

Chairman Young, the Senate hearings gave a broad diversity of local residents an 

opportunity to testify on the issue of reforming Tongass management: ninety-four (94) 

people testified at the April 24, 1989 hearing in Ketchikan, and another ninety-three (93) 

testified at the April 25, 1989 hearing in Sitka. 

ALASKA SOCIE'IY OF AMERICAN FOREST DWEI..LERS, Point Bakw • ALASKANS fOR JUNEAU • CHJCHAGOF CONSERYAnON COUNCIL, Tenak. Sprinp 

FRIENDS OFBERNERS BAY Ju-~ • FRIENOO OF GLACIER BAY, Gllitlavu. • LYNN CANAL CONSERVA110N, !WNARRGWS CONSERVATJ.ON COUNCIL, PetwMwt• PELICAN FORESTRY OOUNCIL • PRINCE OF WAI..ES OONSERVA110N LEAGUE., Crair 

SIERRA CLUB, Ju-u • SITKA CONSERVATION SOCJE'IY • TAKU CONSERVA'MON SOCI&'IY, J~u • TONGASS CONSERVATION soc:tE'IY, Ketchikan 

WRANGELL RESOURCE COUNCIL •YAK.UfAT RESOURCE OONSERVATJON OOUNCIL 
SEACCa Additional Co.aunents 

for the Reconl oo H.R. 2413 

Fcbnuny 28, 1996 

PallJC · 2 

228 

Chairman Young also has stated that the House of Representatives didn't hold hearings in 

Alaska prior to passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. The Chairman is only 

telling a part of the story. In August of 1987, members of the House Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs held an extensive fact finding trip prior to taking any action 

on Tongass legislation; a trip aimed at listening to people from all walks of life from the 

communities of Juneau, Sitka, Pelican and Ketchikan. ()('~Young was no where to be 

seen on this trip. He refused to join the Committee on this important visit to his own 

state. 

ll. THE MYTII ··"ONLY 10 PERCENT OF TilE 

TONGASS WILL EVER BE LOGGED." 

At both the Wrangell and Ketchikan hearings, you repeated 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 pen:ent that will be lo&ged Is the 

"biological heart" of the Tongass. Saying "not to worry" about this 10 pen:ent is 

like having a dO<:tor tell you that your heart must be cut out·· but, don't worry, the 

rest of your body will be just One! 

Attached for the record is a revised copy of the fact sheet attached to my February 16th 

hearing statement with some minor corrections. The fact sheet explains that: 

Iwo-thjrds of the nearly 17 million acre Iongass is rock, ice, muskeg and scrub land; 

Only one-third (5.7 million acres) is considered commercial forest land; 

Only 4 oercent of the Tongass contains high volume old-growth trees; 

Nearly one-half of the most productive old-growth forest, about 1 million acres, has 

been clearcut since 1954; 

Only 40 percent (6.8 million acres) of the Iongass' 17 million acres have been set 

aside by Congress as wilderness, legislated LUD II wildlands, and salmon stream 

buffers·· only 2.2 million of those ages 0/3rd of the total acres !!lO!ec!ed) are 

commercial forest land; 

Only 25 percent of the most valuable old-growth forest (just 241,000 acres) has been 

legislatively protected, and only 11 percent of the high-volume commercial forest 

land is protected by law; 

Fully 75 percent of the Forest's original prime, high-volume old-growth acres have 

=been protected from logging; 
SEACCa Additio .. l CoOUII<nts 

for the Record on H.R. 2413 

February 28, 1996 

Page- 3 

229 

Over 6 million acres of the Tongass will be crisscrossed by logging roads and 

clearcuts to access the 1.7 million acres of suitable timber currently available and 

scheduled for logging. 

lll. TIMBER JOB LOSSES SINCE 1990 NOT CAVSED BY 

TONGASS REFORM LAW. 

At both the Wrangell and Ketchikan hearings, you and others blamed the Tongass 

Reform Law for the 40 % reduction in timber jobs since 1990. This blame is misplaced -

- the majority of those job losses were caused by Alaska Pulo's cold-hearted coroorate 

decision to close its mills for economic reasons: low pulp markets, high cumulative 

operating deficits, and its President's decision to liquidate and dispose of over one-half of 

the company's total assets in one year-- 1993 . .' 

Some may ijrgue that the Forest Service has a responsibility to provide a timber supply --

but they sure as heck don't have a responsibility to guarantee a profit for a foreign-owned 

culp mill on the back's of the U.S. taxpayer. 

What about the crisis your bill will cause when 1,000 Forest Service workers are thrown 

out of their jobs and Southeast communities lose over $44 Million dollars in annual 

payroll from these workers? The facts show that our economy does not deoend upon the 

timber industry, but has continued to grow since 1990 in spjte of it. 

IV. THE "REAL" TONGASS COMPROMISE 

Congressman Young and others quoted some of SEACCs testimony during the Tongass 

reform debate. Back in late 1990, SEACC executive director Bart Koehler stated that the 

timber base left available after the land set-asides would not impact existing Tongassdependent timber jobs. Bart Koehle~s statement was correct. 

After protecting key areas from logging, the Tongass Reform Law left available the 

potential to schedule up to 395 million board feet per year -- more than 100 million 

board feet above the average cut in the decade prior to enactment of the Tongass Reform 

Law. Congress did !!Ql, however, guarantee a timber base or a specific job level in the 

final Tongass Timber Law. Instead, Congress enacted Section 101 of the Tongass 

Reform Law, which amended section 705(a) of ANILCA to eliminate its unrealistically 

high and uneconomic mandate to supply 4.5 billion board feet per decade from the 

1For the record, we have attached a fact sheet, Tonga.ss Timber JobLos.ses·-Don't Bklme the Reform Act, 

dated July 1995. 
230 

SEACCs Additional Comments 

for the Record on HR. 2413 

February 28, 1996 

Page -4 

Tongass and to repeal its $40 million permanent appropriation for the Tongass timber 

program. 

Under Section 101 of the Tongass Reform Law, the Forest Service may "seek to meet[] 

market demand" for timber, but Qlliy "to the extent consistent with providing for the 

multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources;" Q!!!x to the extent 

funding is available; and Q!!!x to the extent it can do so within the confines of all "other 

applicable law," such as Section 810 of ANILCA and the National Forest Management 

Act In describing the intent behind Section 101 of the Tongass Reform Law, 

Representative George Miller, the House Aoor Leader during the Tongass Reform 

debate, stated: 

"This language requires the Forest Service to meet the needs of resource 

based industries other than timber--including commercial fishing, sport 

hunting [and] fishing, and tourism--and provide for the non-commodity 

uses of forest resources for subsistence and recreation. 

As amended, Section 70S( a) requires that timber sale offerings, even if 

consistent with other resource needs and sustained yield principles, must 

not be in excess of actual market demand." 

136 CONG. REC. H12833 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990). This is what "balanced multiple 

use" on the Tongass is all about. 

Therefore, the real Tongass compromise was a merger between the different approaches, 

overwhelmingly approved by both the House and Senate,' for curbing the timber 

management abuses that had long plagued the Tongass, our largest national forest. The 

House bill terminated the two long-term contracts and designated 23 areas of the 

Tongass, comprising approximately 1.8 million acres, as Wilderness. The Senate bill 

modified the two long-term contracts to promote fair competition and assure protection 

for valuable forest resources and provided that 12 areas of the Tongass, comprising 

approximately 673,000 acres, would be managed in a roadless state (legislated Land Use 

Designation II) to retain the areas' wildland character in perpetuity. The final 

"compromise" bill modified the contracts to resemble, to the greatest extent possible, 

short-term, independent timber sales, and designated 18 areas of the Tongass, comprising 

slightly over 1 million acres plus salmon stream buffer zones, as permanently off-limits 

2The House overwhelmingly approved its bil1, H.R. 987, by a vote of 356- 60 on July 13, 1989. On June 

13, 1990, the Senate un~nimously adopted its substitute to H.R. 987, leading to a conference committee 

which concluded its deliberations on October 23, 1990. See H.R. REP. NO. 101-931, lOlst Cong., 2d 

Seaa. (Oct. 23, 1990). 
SEACC1 Addition~! Comments 

for the Record on H.R. 2413 

Februuy 28, 1996 

Pogo - S 

231 

to logging. Six (6) of these areas were designated as Wilderness, and the remaining 12 

areas were designated as Legislated LUD II (roadless) areas. 

V. CHAIRMAN YOUNG WBONGLY MALIGNS BART 

KOEHLER. 

At the Wrangell hearing. you singled Bart Koehler out as the villain. It is true that Bart 

went on to new challenges after passage of the Tongass Reform Law in 1990. He headed 

South to Greater Yellowstone Country -- he worked for the Greater Yellowstone 

Coalition and you voted for a bill that Bart help shepherd through Congress in 1993. 

Contrary to your statement in Wrangell, however, Bart did not return to Southeast Alaska 

right after President Clinton was elected. SEACC asked Bart to ret\lrn in April of 1995, 

after you and Senators Stevens and Murkowski started your push to rollback Tongass 

reform. If you hadn't started these attacks, Bart would still be riding horses down in 

Montana. 

VI. AlASKANS ALREADY HAVE TilE ABILITY TO 

TAKE CON'fROL OF mEm FUTURE· 

The purported rationale stated for H.R. 2413 is to give Alaskans a legitimate voice in 

what happens to the Tongass. Alaskans, and indeed all Americans, already have a 

legitimate and open process for influencing decisions regarding management of the 

Tongass. The public forest planning process provides the opportunity for Southeast 

Alaskan residents and communities to influence Tongass management -- as owners of 

this great public resource. 

Following release of the latest draft supplemental revision to the Tongass Land 

Management Plan (TLMP) this spring, the Forest Service will hold hearings in 32 

Southeast Alaska communities and provide Southeast Alaskans with the most updated 

information available on the status of the forest resources upon which we depend both 

culturally and economically. This~ public process provides a level playing field for 

all interests to make recommendations to influence Tongass management decisions. The 

Alaska delegation should have heard the voices of Southeast Alaskans last year in the 

overwhelming opposition to the "solutions' which the Alaska delegation sought to 

impose from Washington D.C. The TLMP process provides all Southeast Alaskans with 

the opportunity and responsibility to meaningfully participate in a public decision 

making process to assure that our children and grandchildren will enjoy the same healthy 

forest that we do. 
SFACCs Addition. I Comments 

Cor the Record on H.R. 2413 

February 28, 1996 

Page -6 

CONCLUSION 

232 

In conclusion, H.R. 2413 will only benefit the corporate robber barons who have, and 

will continue to put short-sighted profits ahead of the long term health and welfare of 

local communities. In the case of the Ketchikan Pulp Company, this "robber baron" is 

also a convicted felon currently on probation for intentionally dumping toxic sludge from 

its pulp mill into the waters of Ward Cove. By mandating that the State assume all 

obligations under Ketchikan Pulp's 50-year contract, H.R. 2413 rewards Ketchikan Pulp 

for breaking the law. 

By mandating that the State renegotiate a long-term contract with the Alaska Pulp 

Corporation, H.R. 2413 dismisses the fact that Alaska Pulp's contract was terminated 

because Alaska Pulp materially breached its contract with the United States by closing its 

Sitka pulp mill. H.R. 2413 excuses this selfish corporate behavior which chose to put 

short-term corporate interests ahead of the long-term interests of the workers and 

communities of Sitka and Wrangell. 

Your bill is a very serious threat to our public forest lands, and to the way of life for 

Southeast Alaskans. Your bill is not a transfer, it is a travesty. Your bill is ludicrous, 

ridiculous, outrageous -- and if ever taken seriously -- flat out dangerous. 

We strongly urge you to stop this bill dead in its tracks. 

Conservation Director 
~ t 

f 

_r _,_ 

-. 

,. 

,., 

' ..., 

I 

"' ..... 

r 

~. lfE:il~tlt'IHHif·ill

-.. I fi a-If a 

1 a 

li'~ lf-."4 crllf II e~ r• •• - z~-

., a • Ui:l i fl~., ~, i!i

•f!!.-cll"nl· t• "'lf

iiifr1 111

• if! ft 

g:r;tt. JJsiiflriiJi

. .. ---· --- . ~- -- - -- - 

,!;tlllfi'i~r ~~~~lll~~~

if~ ~~~ ·~~· tr•r

J.!f}r 1·tfiir g~lii[iJr~:

~~;~ ·f!'

1

;!if'tl

1

1i!iliif

~~~Jfrrl t B rl rlr.,fl
The l\'lyth: 

The Tongass "is 90% o Wilderness ... 

only 1 0% would be cut.· 

-aep. Don Young 

The Facts: 

When Don Young says that ·only 10

ever be logged," remember- this 

heart• of the Tongass. Saying ·not 

Is like telling you they'll cut your hea

your body will be just tine I -

'Y how big is the Tongass timber base? ... 

o The 17-mllllon acre Tongass Notional Forest II 2/3 rack, Ice, muskeg and scrub 

o The remaining 1/3 Is considered commercial forest land. 

• Only 4% of the Tongan National Forest contains high· volume old-growth trees

These acres provide critiCal habitat for fiSh & wildlife and ore targeted by big 

o Meally half of these prime GerM have been lOgged since 1954. 

'Y bow much is really protected? ••• 

o Congress has set aside 6.8 mllk>n acres of the 

Tongoss Notional Forest as Wilderness. legislated 

·luO II" wildlands. and salmon stream butters. 

This equals 40% of the total acreage-but the 

majority of these acres w. not commwckJI totest kJtld. 

Over 10 million acres ore available for other multiple uses under 

the Tongoss Forest Pion. 

o The 1/3 or the Tongass that contains commercial f01est land = 5. 7 million acres

2.2 million acres (40%) ore PIOiecled by low. The remaining 3.46 mUilon acres 

open tor logging vta the Forelt Service plamlng proeeu. 

o Fully 15% ot lhe forell's otlgJnal ptfme, high-volume old-growth aenu have ne

of the most valuable old-growth Qust241 ,000 acres) has been legislatively pro

'Y how much has been cut? Bow much will be cut? ••• 

o Meally a mUllan ac,.. of the most Pfoductlve Tongass. slate and private f01es

o 1. 7 miUian acres ore scheduled for logging under the current f01est plan; this m

timber base. Over 6 mnnon GerM ol the Tongan wiU be crisscrossed with road

ac,.., 

for mao. infotmation, coniaci m. 5oulheatl A;o.ko Cont..-v<illoll eoune;, A~9 6111 il
235 

Tongass Timber Job Losses--Don't Blame the Reform Act 

Southeast Alaska timber industry employment is cyclical, rising and falling with international 

wood markets. Timber job declines since the all-time peak of 1990 are not a result of the Tongass 

Timber Reform Act. Yet the former pulp mill community of Sitka is thriving, and Southeast 

Alaska's overall job base GREW by 4% between 1990 and 1994. 

In 1991, the region's two largest independent sawmills closed, due to a marketing and 

financing dispute with their broker, Weyerhaeuser Corporation, causing a 58% decrease in 

independent logging levels on the Tongass National Forest. 

Between 1991 and 1994, private logging levels plummeted by more than 50%, as a number of 

Native corporations approached the end of their loggable supply of timber in roughly 15 

years. This inevitable decline in sustainable logging levels also cost hundreds of Southeast 

Alaska logging jobs. 

Of the 970 direct Tongass-dependent timber jobs lost since 1990, a majority ofthose--400 in 

Sitka and 230 in Wrangell-·resulted from Alaska Pulp Corporation's (APC's) cold-hearted 

business decisions, not a timber supply shortage or the Reform Act. 

• When APC closed its Sitka and Wrangell mills, flQ Tongass timber was under injunction. 

APC shut the Sitka pulp mill despite having a three-year supply of timber available. 

APC closed the Wrangell mill after refusing to bid on a one-year available timber supply. 

• The Sitka mill had tremendous, long-term financial problems. In 1987 (well before the 

Reform Act), APC's cumulative operating deficit stood at $170 million. It sank to "only" 

$122 million by 1991, but plummeting international pulp prices caused the company's deficit 

to swell to $163 million in 1993. APC closed the money-losing pulp mill ( APC lost $31 

million in 1993 ). and APC's President liquidated the company's massive stock market 

investment division withdrawing 55% of the company's net assets in a single year. The 

Reform Act did not cause these long-term financial problems. 

• The timber was there, APC just didn't want to compete for it on the open market. In 

1994, APC paid $1.42 in cash per thousand board feet (mbf) of timber under its 50-year 

timber contract. The same year, timber originally intended for APC under its 50-year contract 

sold on the open market for over $50 per mbf 

• KPC's temporary mill shutdown is driven by pulp prices. KPC's recently announced 

decision to temporarily shut down its Ketchikan sawmill was a business decision driven by 

pulp prices that more than doubled in the last year, and are now at or near their highest levels 

ever. Dissolving pulp is now selling for $1,300 a metric ton on the.spot market. Just one year 

ago, dissolving pulp was at a low of only $530 per metric ton. 

While pulp prices exploded, the average market price for sawn lumber dropped by $138 per 

thousand board feet, or 33%. KPC is running its log supply through its pulp mill. 

July 1995 
236 

D4 Anchor ave. Dallv News . Fridav, January u, 19H 

Forest Service chief calls stable 

timber supply a myth 

The ever-cbancioc environ· 

meoW, IOdal and political ell· 

Ser· Jnate prevents the aervice fi'Dm 

- abso-

-ts. 

' olfefilll &DYthiDJI !DOTe than Ill ~!mitp o1 tM poteDtlll a Oil any gtvm forest In 

UlY liven year or aeries of yean, 

be raid. 

partlcullr forert, 0111! forest fire ·a'IIRY, one rpnac:e budworm oul.-

break away. We m 0¥ ejajign e!L Tbere an many, II'I&IIY tb1lili that don't prnduee atabillty," he sud. · 

llld Ia JWpOIIft 

ftlllton who are de- better performuu:lli Ia 

apney'r timber harvest pro-

"We an cme Liwsult awar, tram a bl& cbaDp all tbe time, ' 

Tbomu told tbe Se01te Enern 

and Natural Resourcer su~m· 

mittee on foruts and public 

Iandi. 

"We are ooe budcet cycLe 

a•ay, one· burricaDe •war on a 

Be»ubllcan Sena. Larry Craie 

of liaho, Prank Murko•lld of 

Alllka and Cral& '1bolnu ot Wy· 

ollliA& aaid theJ want mon treer cut and 1 better aecountinc ol 

the loaclnr pro1ram, whlcb 

=5·:r·srt:~,,,.lt year, orest ervlce 

10ld only 1.3 billion board feet ol •~•-~

tbe 1.7 bUllon board feet ol 

nJnp timber Jllannecl for nle 

and onb' 1.5 bUOon board feet of 

the 2.5 billion board feet of-live, ,_ timber plumed for aale, Mnrkowrkl 11111. 

"lD the put, the allowable 

aale quantUy Ill JOUr forest plaa will romethla& people depended 

upon and_ pluilaed ·arolllid," said 

Kurkowski, tbalrm•n of the full eciJDIIIitlee. 

. "Tbe public deserve~ a clear 

undentllld.lllc - 11ot j~o~~t rhelo· 

ril: - about what !bey can upec:t 

from you," be nid. "Tbeae are real people." lam11 Lyons, acrlcult\lre liD· 

denec:retary for tbe eu'riniiii'Dmt 

ud utu.ral resoulllel, aald tbe 

l"oftlt Servia! miWeel awq. frvm the prartlce of aeltlD& an allclwable nle 'lllllllity Oil lll41vidual 

foreata beea111e "It Cftaled fllae ectatiou. ,. . 

~"lbe ASQ Is not now nor waa It ever illtended to be a larl.t. n 

la a. IIIIUIIN of c:apabllit)'. We 

aeed to rtay awar from talle meuuremeota of performance," 

lit told the panel Tbunda~. 
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Due to the high cost of printing, the material submitted by the 

following was placed in the hearing record files of the Committee: 

Actor, Lorraine M. 

Alexander, Brenton 

Barnes, Paul 

Berry, Paul N. 

Brower, John 

Brown, William T. 

Coghill, Kathy Crumpler, Cynthia 

Dillman, Karen 

Ellis, Kathy 

Emerson, Phil 

Farnell, Richard M. 

Folta, Richard 

Gorman, Peter 

Grunstein, Steven P. 

Haley, Shamar 

Harold, L. Stephanie 

Hart, Karla 

Hooge, Philip N. 

Howe, D. L. 

Kelley, Mark 

Kemmerer, Lisa 

Kirchhoff, Mark 

Kistler, Mark S. 

Knight, Becky 

Knight, Rebecca 

Leghorn, Ken 

Levine, Joyce Gail 

Morgan, Julie 

Opp, Elizabeth 

Ortega, Yvette K. 

Ratner, Marcelyn J. 

Ratner, Nathaniel M. 

Roberge, Scott 

Rosenthal, Jeri A. 

Rothkowitz, Jason 

Ryan, Corinne 

Savage, Katharine 

Sherman, Marty 

Sisk, John 

Sisk, John B. 

Sloss, Jeff 

Smith, Doris G. 

Smith, Richard A. 

Smith, Tarleton F. 

Swanson, John R. 

Thompson, Mary Therese 

Wells, Ralph A. 

White, Katy Whittington-Evans, Chris 

Wilson, l3ob 

Wilson, Jeffrey Wilson, Karen 

(237) 
ISBN 0-16-052592-6 

9 8016