S. Hrg. 101-30, Pt. 2
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
WppRAWir^^ J
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PAEKS AND FORESTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENEEGY AND NATUEAL KESOUECES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION -f'Ui^i
ON ^^^
S. 237 ^ ^OXl£?f^''^
TO REFORM THE TONGASS TIMBER SUPPLY FUND
S. 346
TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION
ACT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
KETCHIKAN, AK, APRIL 24, 1989
SITKA, AK, APRIL 25, 1989
PART 2
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Bostoui '^'•'-'s- Library
Boston, Wi m.ne
S. Hrg. 101-30, Pt. 2
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 237
TO REFORM THE TONGASS TIMBER SUPPLY FUND
S. 346
TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION
ACT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
KETCHIKAN, AK, APRIL 24, 1989
SITKA, AK, APRIL 25, 1989
PART 2
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-148 WASHINGTON : 1989
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana, Chairman
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota CONRAD BURNS, Montana
HOWELL T. HEFLIN, Alabama JAKE GARN, Utah
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
Daryl Owen, Staff Director
D. Michael Harvey, Chief Counsel
Frank M. Cushing, Staff Director for the Minority
Gary G. Ellsworth, Chief Counsel for the Minority
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas, Chairman
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado, Vice Chairman
BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia JAKE GARN, Utah
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
J. Bennett Johnston and James A. McClure are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee
Thomas B. Williams, Senior Professional Staff Member
Elizabeth J. Norcross, Professional Staff Member
J. David Brooks, Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
Hearings: Page
AprU 24, 1989 1
AprU25, 1989 331
Monday, April 24, 1989
STATEMENTS
Amend, Donald F., general manager, Southern Southeast Regional Aquacul-
ture Association 102
Andrew, Kay, representing United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association ... 114
Apostolis, Perry _ 321
Arriola, Rodger ~ 265
Atkinson, Harris L., mayor, Metlakatla Indian Community 96
Bacon, Jim, United Fishermen of Alaska 106
Bartholomew, Leslie J., president of Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Com-
merce 72
Begalka, Walter J., member, Alaska Society of American Foresters 249
Blubaum, John E 261
Bonnet, Michelle 291
Botelho, Bruce, mayor of the city and borough of Juneau 7
Boyer, Laurin 280
Brakel, Judy 309
Bray, David 269
Bruce, Jim „ 253
Bryon, James 315
Bukoskey, John, Northwest International Representative, International Long-
shoremen's & Warehousemen's Union 182
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana 5
Burrell, Richard 318
Canterbury, Jackie, representing the Tongass Conservation Society 203
Clarke, Marlene 80
Clifton, John M., chairman, Ketchikan Overall Economic Development Com-
mittee 276
Coady, Sally, Alaska Women in Timber 180
Connelly, Steve 269
Cook, Earl 246
Dahlgren, Doug 290
Davis, Cheri L., Alaska State House of Representatives 48
Dirksen, Paul 275
Durette, Robert, owner and president, Durette Construction Co 174
Elliot, Bob 274
Ferry, Ted, mayor, city of Ketchikan 34
Finney, Brad 270
Funk, Kent 253
Garrison, Peggy 248
Geraghty, Sylvia, representing Alaskans for Responsible Resource Manage-
ment 199
Gildersleeve, Keatun 180
GUe, Virgil 280
Green, Pauline 316
Gregory, Ralph C, mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough 33
Hannan, Sara 299
Harbour, Don 319
Harbour, Sean C 327
(HI)
IV
Page
Head, Greg 326
Howatt, Nellie 284
Hummel, Eric 274
Johnson, Edwin 288
Jones, Lloyd, Alaska State Senator 53
Kallick, Steven E 303
Kautzer, Joan, representing Alaska Women in Trees 230
Kirchhoff, Matthew D., Alaska Chapter, the Wildlife Society 215
LeCornu, Adrian, mayor, city of Hydaburg 44
Leighty, Bill, Gold Creek Salmon Bake Summertime Outdoor Restaurant 128
Lindgren, Dan 322
Littleton, Ronald 286
MacKinnon, Neil, chairman, Juneau Branch, Alaska Miners Association 118
MacMillan, J. Carol 318
Martin, Angelo 326
Mehrkens, Joseph R., Southeast Alaska Natural Resources Center 208
Monk, Alan 322
Moore, Kevin 288
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska 3
Murphy, Tom 281
Neimeyer, Fern, mayor of Wrangell 63
O'Dowd, Thomas L 283
Paulson, Jan 321
Pihl, Martin R., president and gneral manager, Ketchikan Pulp Co 133
Pihlman, Dale, fisheries biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 131
Prefontaine, Ed 257
Radergraham, Corrine 284
Ransdell, Richard 323
Riffe, Greg 246
Roberts, Ray, representing Ed Thomas, tribal president of the Central Council
of Tlingithaida Indian Tribes 85
Ross, Jan, representing Alaska Cruise Lectures 130
Ryno, Marcia 287
Sebastian, Joseph, representing the Point Baker Community Association 56
Shaub, Thyes, Government affairs director, Alaska Loggers Association 165
Shewey, Renee 297
Shull, Steve 290
Sloss, Jeff, Alaska Discovery, Inc 291
Soderberg, Virgil 320
Soule, Robert 288
Steveler, Greg, the Gustavus Community Association 67
Stone, Roger A 74
Swartz, Stan 285
Taro, Cliff, president. Southeast Stevedoring Corp 73
Taylor, Robin, Alaska State House of Representatives 45
Troll, Kay, executive director, Southeast Alaska Seiners Association 115
Watkins, Fred 246
Watt Nancy 259
Weihing, Waioie, employee arthe LP 236
Williams, Lew M., Jr., publisher, Ketchikan Daily News 81
Williams, WUliam K., president. Cape Fox Corp 90
Winter, Tom 317
Wirth, Hon. Timothy E., U.S. Senator from Colorado 1
Woodie, David 298
Zimmerman, Abe 247
Zink, Dan 289
Tuesday, April 25, 1989
STATEMENTS
Alsup, William 622
Baade, Dixie 542
Bean, Richard Jr 591
Beck, Larry, general manager, ChUkoot Lumber Co 528
Beltran, Michelle 622
Bernard, Mildred 611
Bickar, Patricia 631
V
Page
Billings, Leo 635
Bremner, Don, chairman, Yakutat Alaska Native Brotherhood Camp 13 443
Brenner, Steve 597
Brown, Bernice, Alaska Women in Timber 519
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator, from Montana 336
Bums, Ted 636
Calvin, Margaret 559
Carlson, Charles, director, Sealaska Corp 453
Cowper, Hon. Steve, Governor, State of Alaska 376
Craig, Sandra 589
Cronk, Leslie A., port manager, Sitka, AK 511
Dapcevich, John, mayor of Sitka, AK 340
Elerding, Mike 601
Eliason, Nancy 630
Eliason, Richard L, Alaska State Senator 416
Else, Page 585
Elsquiro, Peter, Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Inc 493
Fike, Robert 620
Furrow, Francis J 612
Gassman, John W 621
Gee, Bill 619
George, Lydia, city council of Angoon, AK 372
Groshong, Ralph, Alaska Pulp Corp 578
Haciyan, Yetvart 624
Hames, Roger, president, Hames Corp 428
Hammond, Austin, Children's Culture Camp 476
Hanlon, Ernestine, Tlingit of Hoonah, AK 449
Harang, Gordon, Arrowhead Transfer, Inc 593
Horan, Charles E., real estate appraiser 434
Jacobs, Dennis, Chilkoot Lumber Co 528
Johnson, Paul, Elfin Cove, AK 425
Johnstone, Alice 558
Jordan, Eric, chairman, Sitka Fish & Game Advisory Committee 498
Kaden, Hayden 580
Kaelke, Michael E., president, Sheldon Jackson College 594
Kilburn, Joseph 589
Kile, Larry 619
Kirchhoff, Mark J., city of Port Alexander, AK 407
Kobylus, Terry 624
Lancaster, Donald 608
Larsen, Ted 635
Leghorn, Ken, Tongass Tourism & Recreation Business Association 513
Loitz, Larry 611
Longshore, Frances 607
Mallott, Byron L, chief executive officer, Sealaska Corp 455
Mathisen, Sigurd, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 492
Metcalf K.J., Southeast Alaska Conservation CouncU 560
Milla, Napolean 623
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska 333
Murray, John 585
Nevers, Foy 584
Nylund, Jim 617
Oetken, Edward R., Alaska Pulp Corp 580
Parton, John 577
Pattison, Wayne, forest engineer 602
Pool, Christine 588
Poulson, Thad, editor. Daily Sitka Sentinel 438
Powell, Larry E., mayor of Yakutat, AK 398
Privett, William B., president. Southeast Conference 338
Ranger, Darrel 618
Roppel, Frank, executive vice president, Alaska Pulp Corp 518
Sandvig, Ruth 584
Sarvela, Pat 612
Schmidt, Lee 554
Senna, James, Shee Atika, Inc 463
Servid, Carolyn 587
Sever, Florian 547
Smith, Carlton R., Southeast Alaska Native Land Acquisition Coalition 464
VI
Page
Sparks, Ronald, member, board of directors, Kiukwan, Inc 463
Sma, Tom [,"[ 616
Stragier, Babe "."' 601
Sunde, Elaine, president. Retail Merchant's Association of Sitka 429
Thompson, Harold K., president, Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc 486
Tonkin, Robert, Territorial Sportsmen 508
Villaneuva, Pete 620
Walker, Diane 618
Waller, Linda 587
Ward, Robert W. Jr., Sitka Convention Bureau 510
Watson, Bartlett R., Armstrong-KTA, Inc 592
Wharton, Eric 616
Williams, Gordon, Alaska TroUers Association 487
Wirth, Hon. Timothy E., U.S. Senator from Colorado 331
Woodhouse, Art, superintendent, Sitka School District 427
Wright, Frank 590
Wright, Larry "",[ 623
Wyman, Phil, chairman, Sitka Fish & Game Advisory Panel 495
Yost, Rubin, mayor. Pelican, AK 423
Zeman, Russell 630
Ziel, Diane M., member, city council, Tenakee Springs, AK 411
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1989
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Ketchikan, AK.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 7 a.m. in the
Ketchikan High School Auditorium, Ketchikan, Alaska, Hon. Tim-
othy Wirth presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY E. WIRTH. U.S.
SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Wirth. The Committee will come to order. I want to
start by thanking Senator Murkowski and his staff who have been
very gracious and helpful in setting up this hearing and we appre-
ciate their assistance. This is a hearing of the Subcommittee on
Public Lands and National Parks and Forests, the Committee on
Energy and National Resources. I am Senator Tim Wirth of Colora-
do and ril be chairing this hearing.
With me of course are our host. Senator Frank Murkowski, and
Senator Conrad Burns from Montana. Senator Burns, we are de-
lighted you are here.
I am pleased to be here today and I want to start by expressing
my appreciation to Senator Dale Bumpers, the Subcommittee
Chairman, and Senator Bennett Johnston, the Chairman of the full
Committee, for agreeing to schedule this hearing.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on two bills,
S. 237, Senator Murkowski's bill and S. 346, legislation which I in-
troduced. Both of these bills concern the Tongass and how it's run.
How the Tongass is run of course affects all of you. We are very
aware of that and that's why we are here. You live here surround-
ed by the Tongass and we have come to hear your opinions and
your concerns and your ideas.
The question of how to run the Tongass is controversial in Wash-
ington, D.C., in my home State of Colorado and it is controversial
here. We deal with a great number of controversial issues in the
Senate and we do our best to listen to all sides, to respect the right
of people to hold opinions that are different from our own and to
respect their right to express those opinions. It is my intention to
see that this hearing is run in that manner.
I expect that I will be hearing a good deal about my own legisla-
tion today. Before we start therefore I would like to say a few
things about what I think it does and why I proposed it.
(1)
The Tongass is more than a local issue. It is not just any national
forest. It is the largest one, it has internationally important wild-
life and fishery resources. Its management has made it one of the
most expensive of all our national forests to run, and in an era
when we are trying hard to find a way to create more balanced
plans for every national forest — plans that are responsive to the
growing public demand for and economic importance of fisheries,
recreation, tourism, wildlife and other values — the Tongass stands
out as hamstrung in its ability to respond to that challenge. I be-
lieve the Tongass is hamstrung because all its planning and man-
agement revolves around three things unique to this forest: the
rigid goal of having to supply 4.5 billion board feet of timber for
sale per decade, the automatic provision of at least $40 million per
year for timber programs and the fifty-year contracts which give
two timber buyers exclusive control of large parts of the forest.
The legislation does five things: it eliminates the now-mandatory
timber goal of 4.5 billion board feet per decade; eliminates the
guaranteed minimum annual appropriation of $40 million; termi-
nates the two 50-year timber contracts so that timber will be sold
through the normal process of short-term contracts. It requires the
Forest Service to revise its land management plan to adjust to not
having the mandatory timber goal, the guaranteed appropriation
or the long-term contracts and also to achieve a balance between
timber, wildlife, fisheries, recreation and other uses and values of
the forest. And finally the legislation places 23 areas off-limits to
logging until this new plan is completed. The legislation does not
put any lands in wilderness. It does not put any lands off-limits to
logging permanently but it would insure that logging under the old
plan does not eliminate the options for protecting these particular-
ly important areas for fisheries, wildlife, recreation and subsistence
use.
These five proposals were made in the hope that they would pro-
tect resources in the Tongass National Forest which are important
to Alaska's economy and that they would enable the Tongass to
adjust to a future which, whether legislation passes or not, is cer-
tainly going to be different than the past.
In the past the forest was run for the timber industry. It is be-
coming apparent that we cannot do that and expect everyone else
to do just fine. Now the commercial fishermen, the tourism indus-
try, the subsistence user and the hunters and fishermen of this
area want to be partners in the management of the forest because
they all depend on the forest as much as the timber industry does.
In the past. Congress thought that pouring money into the
timber program of this forest and other forests would solve all local
economic problems and provide community stability, but now we
have to justify every Federal dollar spent as a good investment.
The taxpayers in every state demand that and it is their money.
And lastly, in the past Alaska was far away from the rest of the
country. It is still far away but now people in every part of Amer-
ica know about Alaska and are interested in it and care about its
environment. They know about the oil spill and they know about
this forest. It is their forest, too, and they want it to be protected
from harm.
It is not my intent to stop timber harvest on the Tongass Nation-
al Forest, or to close the mills in Ketchikan and Sitka, nor do I
think that will happen. I do not see why those mills should not or
cannot operate under the same sort of rules the mills in every
other state operate under. Will it be as easy for the mills as it is
now? Probably not. Maybe they will have more things to worry
about, including competition.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses and I welcome
their input. We will bring back what you say to the other members
of the committee and Congress and I am sure the committee and
the Congress will have a lively debate on these issues and I am
looking forward to working with the committee members and with
the Alaska delegation and with other interested members on this
issue.
Again let me thank Senator Murkowski for his generous hosting
of this hearing and I see Mrs. Murkowski in the front row and we
are delighted to have her here.
Thank you very much. Frank.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
good morning.
It is a good and an early morning. As most of you know Nancy
and I were raised here and graduated from Kay High. I guess
that it is fair of the Chairman to say for us that the sun always
shines in Ketchikan. It is really nice to be home.
Today's hearing really marks the fulfillment of a promise that I
made some time ago, that no action would be taken on Tongass leg-
islation until hearings were held in the communities most affected.
Unfortunately the committee was unable to include Wrangell in
the Hearing Schedule as I had requested. Senator Wirth and Sena-
tor Burns and Beth Norcross, who joins us here, and members of
the professional committee staff are here as well, the Public Lands
Subcommittee, I welcome you to Alaska and I welcome you to Alas-
ka's First City, Ketchikan.
Now both Ted Stevens and Don Young regret very much that
they are not able to be here; the Valdez oil spill disaster has spread
our congressional delegation a little thin and Don and Ted are now
touring Cordova and Valdez, Seward, Homer and Kodiak.
Legislation affecting the future of the Tongass National Forest is
of course a subject vital to the people of Alaska and in particular
those living here in southeastern Alaska. It is essential that Alas-
kans be heard before any legislative changes are made affecting
the management of the Tongass.
Chairman Wirth is Acting Subcommittee Chairman and I want
to thank you and Senator Bennett Johnston, the Chairman of the
full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as well as Sena-
tor Dale Bumpers, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands,
for holding these hearings.
I also appreciate the courtesy which has been extended to me as
a non-member of the Public Lands Subcommittee. The Committee
has before it as Senator Wirth indicated, two bills which would
radically — are of course radically different in their impact on the
Tongass.
Senate Bill 346 produced by my colleague, Senator Wirth and
others, and Senate Bill 237, introduced by me and Senator Stevens.
I believe the Wirth Bill would seriously cripple the timber indus-
try and I think it would drastically reduce the timber supply, abro-
gate our two pulp mill contracts and force the United States to
walk away from a commitment made to the people of southeastern
Alaska.
I also find it rather ironic and troublesome that at a time when
Alaska is facing severe challenges to our economic stability by the
disaster in Prince William Sound that we are also facing the poten-
tial loss of our timber industry or some 4,423 jobs and the life-style
of those Alaskans that are dependent on those jobs.
Now while we sort out the effects of the spill it is fair to say that
exploration of — as well as relief sale activity in Bristol Bay and ex-
ploration in ANWR as well as resale activity in Bristol Bay are cer-
tainly off the screen. Exploration in ANWR and Sale 92 should not
go forward until questions are resolved satisfactorily as to the ade-
quacy of containment and contingency plans proven by actual test-
ing.
It is significant given these realities that we are here today to
fight for our state's only two year-round manufacturing industries.
Why is it that some members of Congress want to shut down our
mills, our timber industry and providers of jobs for three out of ten
residents of Southeastern Alaska.
We can reform the management of the Tongass without devastat-
ing the economy of southeastern Alaska. That is what the Tongass
Management Land Plan, or TLMP, is really all about, to gather the
input from all the interests to make the management of Tongass
National Forest more responsive to all concerns of all parties. With
all the hearings and the input from Alaskans in the record and the
TLMP Report to be available late this year or early next year, I
find it inconsistent that we now move for this legislation before
considering the recommendations made by the people of Alaska
and the affected parties and the TLMP process. It is our feeling
that our bill is a workable compromise and responsible to reasona-
ble concerns about Tongass management. It takes in concerns of
the Southeastern Conference, those who oppose the $40 million
Federal Fund as well as groups fighting for their jobs and life-
styles, such as the Alaskan women in timber.
The important aspect of our proposals are one, it does not walk
away from the commitment made by the United States to the
people of Southeastern Alaska and, two, it does not upset the basic
compromise crafted by them.
Our bill would repeal the off-budget appropriation to Congress'
timber program and repeal the mandate that the Forest Service
make 4.5 billion board feet of timber available to the dependent in-
dustry each decade.
Under our bill the actual amount of timber prepared for sale,
sold and harvested would be limited by the annual congressional
appropriation, the sustained yield capacity of the forest which in-
cludes protection of fish and wildlife and the market demand for
timber. In addition we would require that a sufficient amount of
land outside existing wilderness remain in multiple-use manage-
ment to support the timber dependent southeast Alaska communi-
ties on a sustained basis.
Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere hope that you and others will
keep a perspective on the many important issues that will be
brought to your attention by the witnesses, issues such as old-
growth virgin stands, clear-cutting, additions to wilderness and
buffer zones, free from timber cutting around our small communi-
ties and spawning streams, winter kill of our deer population,
along with beach and fringe stands of old growth to sustain the
deer habitat, along with the presence of the deer from both wolf
kill and hunting by man.
The contributions of lush second-growth stands such as those at
Edmund Bay and Prince of Wales cut during the Second World
War and yielding tenfold, a new forest contributing as a sump in
assimilating carbon dioxide, a positive contribution to the world's
warming trend and the realization that nearly 40 percent of the
Tongass is deteriorating and dying and the only utilization is in the
form of wood fibre and not lumber for that timber we have cut. Mr.
Chairman, it is important that we include in the record the Ton-
gass Land Statistic attached hereto and I would ask that that be
included in the record but I will not read it at this time but I
would like to here praise the 5.7 million acres of harvestable old-
growth forest land in the Tongass, two-thirds already set aside for
fish and wildlife, recreation and wilderness. Two-thirds, Mr. Chair-
man, 1.7 million acres and one-third is already in wilderness in
perpetuity, roughly one-third, 2.5 million acres is managed for fish
and wildlife and other uses which exclude road construction and
logging and only 1.7 million acres or one-third of the harvestable
timber in southeastern Alaska will ever be logged. That is only 10
percent of the entire 17 million acre forest.
Don Young asked me to emphasize the significance of H.R. 1368,
a bill reported by the Forest Subcommittee, the House Agricultural
Committee and the bill requires the Forest Service to meet market
demand up to 4.5 billion board feet per decade and it does away
with $40 million in federal funding and it is quite similar to my
bill.
Mr. Chairman, our bill. Senate Bill 237, represents a compro-
mise. We have eliminated the $40 million annual funding. There
has been so much criticism directed at putting the Tongass on an
equal footing with all other national forests and additional compro-
mises will be forthcoming as a result of these hearings and we do
welcome them. Nevertheless we must craft this legislation to pro-
tect the livelihood and the lifestyles of the majority of Alaskans in
the communities threatened.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the
views of my fellow Alaskans.
Senator Wirth. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
I will be brief because being the new member on this Committee
and the Subcommittee and as a new representative of the State of
Montana I come here to listen, not to hear Senators talk. We hear
each other talk every day in Washington, D.C. This is my first trip
to Alaska and even though I just arrived I can see that this state so
vast that it dwarfs my home State of Montana.
Alaska and Montana have a lot in common. We depend upon
tourism for our economy; we also depend on timber products and
the industry to provide many of our jobs. These similarities are
some of the reasons that I have come to this hearing. I am very
interested in the eventual legislation that will pass with a potential
effect on my home State of Montana and upon this nation.
But more than that I am interested in hearing from people who
would be most affected by the deliberations. I believe strongly that
the decision we make here and on our federal lands must be done
with full consideration of local economies and local communities
and the sociological effects. I believe that a balanced use of natural
forests and a multiple use, if you will, and I also believe that the
proper forest management is achieved through the use of land
management process.
Congress should avoid micro-management decisions. The current
450 million board feet annual supply requirement may or may not
be supportable when the current planning process is completed. If
the revised forest plans indicate that this level of harvest is not
sustainable then we will take another look, reassess and look at
our goals with full public disclosure and the result of long-term ef-
fects on the dependent industries, on the communities that are di-
rectly affected.
Again, I am looking forward to the testimony from Alaskans. I
understand that there are many people who want to testify but
keep in mind that we only have so much time and I will cut my
remarks short. I invite those people to submit written testimony
for our committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think we should get down to the
business at hand.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. Senator Burns. Let me
make a couple of procedural comments about how we are going to
operate.
We will first hear from several panels of witnesses. After the
panels have concluded you will hear from individuals. Most panel-
ists and individuals should check the witness list posted outside to
give you an approximate idea of the time when you will be testify-
ing.
All witnesses on this morning's panels who are here should take
a seat in the section reserved for you, the first few rows of seats
down here. Everyone down here on the left will know who is here
and you will all have a chance then to move in when your opportu-
nity presents itself. When your panel is called to testify please
come up on the stage and take a seat in the back row. There are
two rows of three seats here and that is what I mean by the back
row — that is sort of the on-deck circle. After the preceding panel
has completed testifying move up to the table and bring all the
copies of your written statement with you at that time. The staff
will collect them and distribute them. After you have completed
testifying please exit the stage through the center stair.
While I am finishing this maybe we could have the first panel
and the second panel come up now, the first panel might come up
and take their places, the first panel includes Mr. Ralph Gregory,
Mayor of Ketchikan, Mr. Ted Ferry, the Major of Ketchikan Bor-
ough, Adrian LeCornu, Mayor of Hydaburg, Robin Taylor, State
Representative Cheri L. Davis, State Representative Joe Sebastian,
Representing The Point Baker Community Association, Fern Nei-
meyer, Mayor of Wrangell and Bruce Botelho, the Mayor of
Juneau.
If all of you can please take your seats we would appreciate it
and maybe we can get the second group. Panel II, to come up and
take the spots behind, if they might do so, that's Greg Steveler
from Gustavus Community Association, Leslie Bartholomew, Cliff
Taro, Roger Stone, Marlene Clarke and Lew Williams.
This way it is going to allow us to move this hearing and hear as
many witnesses as we can.
As all of you know we will limit each panel member's oral testi-
mony to three minutes. I know that's not very long but I ask you to
summarize your testimony and your testimony will of course be in-
cluded in full in the record.
Please keep an eye on the timer; in front of me is a timer — there
is a red light and a green light, and the green light will be going on
during your testimony and when the red light comes on I am going
to intervene, unfortunately, and say that we have got to move on.
It is tough to try to cram everything you know about this impor-
tant issue into three minutes and we know that as well.
As I said your entire record will be included in full in the record
and the record will be open for two weeks for additional written
statements.
If any one of the witnesses or anyone else wants to submit a
statement for the record please send it to the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee in the United States Senate in Washington,
D.C. and we will see that it is included or if anybody today is here
and is not going to be able to testify and wants to submit a state-
ment for the record please make sure that we have that before we
leave so with that let us begin, if we might. Start with Mr. Botelho,
who has agreed to kick us off and then go to Mr. Gregory, Mr.
Ferry, Adrian LeCornu, Robin Taylor and Cheri Davis and Joe Se-
bastian and Fern Neimeyer and all of you, thank you very much
for coming and being here so bright and early and bushy-tailed so
early in the morning. We appreciate it.
Mr. Botelho.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE BOTELHO, MAYOR OF THE CITY AND
BOROUGH OF JUNEAU
Mr. Botelho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Murkowski,
Senator Murkowski and Senator Burns. We hope you have seen a
little bit of the big skies that we share here in Alaska with your
great state.
I am Bruce Botelho, I am the Mayor of the City and Borough of
Juneau and here to represent the official view of the Assembly
8
taken by resolution and adopted on March 6th of this year and I
have attached a copy of that resolution with my testimony submit-
ted earlier.
The Juneau Assembly has joined other southeast communities
and the State of Alaska in endorsing the Southeast Conference
policy position on the Tongass National Forest; however we made
two amendments to that resolution.
I am aware that representatives of the Southeast Conference will
be testifying before you tomorrow in Sitka on the details of that
position so I merely wish to emphasize the five main points the
conference first was called for: clarification of the mission of the
National Forest to include an allowable harvest of up to 4.5 billion
board feet per decade depending on marketing conditions and sub-
ject to multiple use values of the Tongass National Forest. In our
view it is important to maintain existing jobs in the forest yet im-
perative we protect fish and wildlife and their habitat. Second, the
Conference has called for establishment of a specific intensive man-
agement fund to ensure that the Forest Service is able to make
sure that marginal timber stands viable sales for the industry
while sustaining other uses of the forest.
Third, the conference is called for setting aside twelve areas for
protection due to the high values of fish and wildlife production in
those areas and here I wish to emphasize that the Juneau Assem-
bly has firmly gone on record in favor of also protecting the Mans-
field Peninsula of Admiralty Island from commercial timber har-
vest by adding it as a thirteenth protected area. This is an area of
great importance to Juneau residents.
The conference has also called for providing land trades, ex-
changes or purchases of non-wilderness lands to increase the
timber base for allowable harvest levels and fifth, the conference
has called for the establishment of an economic diversification fund
for grants and loans to provide opportunities to strengthen the
more diverse southeastern economy.
The second issue that the Juneau Assembly has focused on is the
paramount importance we place on the U.S. Forest Service work-
ing with all southeastern communities in the preparation of all re-
visions in the Tongass Land Management Plan and any reports
that would be required to prepare for congress.
Mr. Chairman and Senators, this proposal was developed to meet
the needs of the Tongass National Forest and the people who live
in it. We believe it is fair, workable and realistic and urge you to
look carefully at the compromise crafted by the southeastern resi-
dents.
Senator Wirth. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Botelho,
you hit the three minute mark at 3:05, setting a wonderful prece-
dent for everybody else all day long and we do appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Botelho follows:]
Testimony of Bruce Botelho, Mayor of the City and Borough of
Juneau - 4/24/89
I am Bruce Botelho, Mayor of the City and Borough of Juneau. I
wish to thank you for coming here to Southeast Alaska where the
people who will be most affected by your decisions live.
I am here to present the official view of the City and Borough of
Juneau as adopted by our Assembly on March 6th of this year in
Resolution 1368am. I have attached copies of that resolution to
the written testimony I have submitted.
The Juneau Assembly has joined other Southeast communities and
the State of Alaska in endorsing the Southeast Conference policy
position on the Tongass National Forest. We specifically
endorsed the version of the policy position dated February 21,
1989, with two amendments set forth in the resolution.
I am aware that representatives of the Conference will be
testifying before you tomorrow in Sitka on their position so I
will merely mention the five main points.
1) Clarification of the mission of the National Forest in the
Tongass to include an allowable harvest of up to 4.5 billion
board feet per decade depending on market conditions and subject
to multiple use values of the Tongass National Forest. It is
important to maintain existing jobs in the forest yet imperative
we protect fish and wildlife and their habitat.
2) Establishment of a specific intensive management fund to
ensure that the U.S. Forest Service is able to make marginal
timber stands viable sales for the industry while sustaining
other uses of the forest.
3) Setting aside 12 areas for protection due to the high values
of fish and wildlife production in those areas.
Here I wish to emphasize that the Juneau Assembly has formally
gone on record in favor of also protecting the Mansfield
Peninsula of Admiralty Island from commercial timber harvest by
adding it as a thirteenth protected area. This is an area of
great importance to Juneau Residents.
4) Providing for land trades, exchanges, or purchases of
nonwilderness lands to increase the timber base for allowable
harvest level (to include potential use of harvested land) .
5) Establishment of an economic diversification fund for grants
and loans to provide opportunities to strengthen ta more diverse
Southeastern economy.
10
The second issue that the Juneau Assembly has focused on is the
paramount importance we place on the U.S. Forest Service working
with all Southeastern communities in the preparation of all
revisions in the Tongass Land Management Plan and any reports it
will be required to make to Congress.
Mr. Chairman and Senators, this proposal was developed to meet
the needs of the Tongass National Forest and the people who live
in it. I believe it is fair, workable, and realistic. I urge
you to look carefully at the compromise crafted by Southeastern
residents, and further urge you to include the much used
Mansfield Peninsula as a protected area. Thank you.
11
Presented by: Assemblymember Campbell
Introduced: 03/06/89
Drafted by: M.G.C.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA
Serial No. 1368am
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, THE SOUTHEAST
CONFERENCE POLICY POSITION ON MANAGEMENT OF THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST.
WHEREAS, the City and Borough of Juneau is located within
the Tongass National Forest, and
WHEREAS, we, the residents of Juneau, like other people
who live within the Tongass, depend on the resources of the
forest for jobs in the timber, fishing, mining, tourism, and
other industries, and
IfflEREAS, we depend on the Tongass for recreation and for
obtaining food through hunting and fishing, and
WHEREAS, proper management of the Tongass is essential to
protect and enhance the use of our forest, and
WHEREAS, Congress is currently considering changes to the
laws governing management of the Tongass National Forest, and
WHEREAS, the Tongass Committee of the Southeast
Conference has developed a policy position representing
neither the interests of the timber industry nor conservation
advocacy groups, but instead the interests of Southeastern
Alaska communities and the people who live and work within the
Tongass, and
WHEREAS, the Assembly has reviewed and endorses the
policy position with certain amendments set forth in this
resolution ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE
CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA:
1. That the Assembly endorses the Southeast
Conference's policy position on the Tongass National Forest
dated February 21, 1989, with the amendments set forth in this
resolution. A copy of the policy position is attached to this
resolution and summarized in the following five points:
12
(a) Clarification of che mission of the National
Forest in the Tongass to include an allowable harvest of up to
4.5 billion board feet per decade depending on market
conditions and subject to multiple use values of the Tongass
National Forest. (Maintain existing jobs in the forest while
protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat.)
(b) Establishment of a specific intensive manage-
ment fund to ensure that the U.S. Forest Service is able to
make marginal timber stands viable sales for the industry and
sustain other values.
(c) Setting aside 12 areas for protection due to
the high values of fish and wildlife production in those
areas.
(d) Providing for land trades, exchanges, or
purchases of nonwilderness lands to increase the timber base
for allowable harvest level (to include potential use of
harvested land) .
(e) Establishment of an economic diversification
fund of grants and loans to provide opportunities to
strengthen the Southeastern Alaska economy.
2. The Assembly adds the Mansfield Peninsula portion of
Admiralty Island to the list of public lands within the
Tongass National Forest that are designated as protected
noncommercial timber areas, and urges the Southeast Conference
to amend the policy position at page 9 to add the Mansfield
Peninsula to Section 709(a)(1) of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) .
3. The Assembly amends the final sentence in Section
705(b)(2)(A) of ANILCA, at page 8 of the policy position, to
read: "The report shall be prepared in consultation with the
communities of Southeast Alaska." The Assembly urges the
Southeast Conference to so amend the policy position.
4. The Assembly amends the final sentence in Section
709(a)(2) of ANILCA, at page 9 of the policy position, to
read: "The report shall be prepared in consultation with the
communities of Southeast Alaska." The Assembly urges the
Southeast Conference to so amend the policy position.
-2-
13
5. Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the
Honorable Steve Cowper, Governor of the State of Alaska; the
Honorable Dale Bumpers, U.S. Senator, Chair, Senate Sub-
committee on Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests; the
Honorable George Miller, U.S. Representative, Chair, House
Subcomittee on Water, Power, and Off-Shore Energy Resources;
the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski,
U.S. Senators, the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative,
members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; and Honorable
Senator Jim Duncan and Honorable Representatives Fran Ulmer
and Bill Hudson, members of Juneau's delegation in the Alaska
Legislature .
6.
Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective
immediately upon adoption.
Adopted this 6th day of March, 1989.
Attest:
f ^ (L fM
Cle]
-3-
Res . 1368am
14
SOUTHEAST CONFERFNCF
A Policy Statement on the Tongass National Forest
Legislation and Management
AN ALASKAN PERSPECTIVE
"Working For All Alaska"
15
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
P O Bo» 22286 Juneau. Alaska 99802
February 21 , 1989
To Whom It May Concern:
The Southeast Conference has worked long and hard to develop the
enclosed policy position regardlna legislation and nianageraent of the
Tongass National Forest. This policy position is intended to close the
argument and stop further erosion of the economy of Southeast Alaska.
It IS not intended to diminish the role of the timber industry or any
other industry in our effort to build a stable diversified economy.
This position has been developed with input from communities of
Southeast Alaska and provides a balanced resolution that is intended to
ensure continued employment, and opportunities in timber, fisheries,
tourism, recreation, mining, and subsistence. The policy was developed
with a focus on the families in Southeast Alaska. Although concerns of
special interests were taken into consideration, and frequently
paralleled that of communities, they were not (and cannot be) the
primary focus.
This policy is intended to accomplish the following:
- Clarify the nlssion of the National Forest Service in the Tongass
to include an allowable harvest of up to 4.5 billion board feet per
decade depending on market conditions and sublect to multiple use
values of the Tongass Forest. (Maintain existing jobs in the forest
while protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat.)
- Establish a specific Intensive management fund to ensure that the
Forest Service is able to make marginal timber stands viable sales
for the industry and sustain other values.
- Set aside 12 areas for protection due to the high values of fish
and wildlife production in those areas.
- Provide for land trades, exchanges, or purchases of non-
wilderness lands to increase the timber base for the allowable
harvest level (to Include potential use of harvested land).
Establish an economic diversification fund of grants and loans to
provide opportunities to strengthen the Southeast economy.
Southeast Alaskans, like most Americans, know it is possible with
ingenuity, hard work, and dedication to have sound economic development
while protecting our quality of life. Me need not settle for less!
We are not professional drafters of federal legislation and therefore
ask indulgence for our presentation. We are available to work with
interested parties to clarify our policy. We respectfully offer our
position paper to Alaskans, the U.S. Congress, and the American people
as a fair and reasonable resolution to the conflict in the Tongass.
Respectfully Submitted,
William B. Privett
President , Southeast Conference
"Working For All Alaska"
16
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
PO Box 22286 Juneau, Alaska 99802
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
Policy Position
Table of Contents;
Page
Introduction 1
II. Underlying Interests and
Obiectives of Southeast Alaskan Communities
III. ANILCA. Considerations 7
IV. Descriptions of Special Areas 10
2/21/89
"Working For All Alaska"
17
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
P O Box 22286 Juneau AUska 99802
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
Policy Position
I. INTRODUCTION
The Southeast Conference is a Non-Profit Corporation comprised of
local elected officials, business leaders and community members
representing Southeast Alaska dedicated to improving the well being
of Alaskans through the prudent expansion of the Alaskan economy.
The Conference was formed in 1963 to spearhead efforts to establish a
transportation Infrastructure In the land locked panhandle of
Southeast upon which to build viable local and regional economies.
The Conference was successful in that endeavor: working with the
State and Federal governments the Southeast Conference built an
ominous "sailing bridge" from Seattle throughout Southeast, the
Alaska Marine Highway System. It is a billion dollar example of
what the people of Southeast can do when they work together to
overcome an obstacle or challenge. That system is only one of may
varied accomplishments of the Southeast Conference efforts ranging
from the Ketchikan shipyard to the continued development and
expansion of the University of Alaska Southeast. The successes can
all be attributed to the people of Southeast striving together for a
common purpose, while maintaining mutual respect for community
differences, quality of life, and the importance of cultural
heritage. The Southeast Conference knows that the well being of the
region is dependent on the well being of the individual communities.
The mission of the Southeast Conference is to build and maintain a
stable, diversified economy that provides for an improved standard of
living, quality employment and business development opportunities for
the people of Southeast Alaska through prudent use of our resources.
Use of these resources should reflect respect of the culture and the
individual community perspective of quality of life by taking strong
deliberate actions to affect business and government decisions and
markets; while encouraging a family centered society, a clean
environment and maximum realization of our mental, physical,
emotional and spiritual well being.
It was with this history and spirit that the Board of Directors met
in September and launched an all out effort to resolve the conflicts
and economic peril surrounding the Tongass National Forest management
and legislation. During the Annual Meeting last Fall in Ketchikan
the Southeast Conference engaged in conversations and work sessions
with timber industry personnel, conservationists, as well as the
Governor and the Regional Forester about the problems in the
Tongass. One thing became abundantly clear, if there was going to be
an acceptable resolution to the Tongass conflict, there needed to be
an effort toward developing a consensus, at least in Southeast.
The Conference established a five member Tongass Committee comprised
of representatives from large and small southeast Alaskan communities
reflecting the interests of timber, subsistence, fisheries, tourism
"Working For All Alaska"
18
and mining. In order to understand the complexity of the problem.
the Tongass Committee decided to look at the southeast economy and
community interests in depth. The committee used a process of
principled negotiation while working on the proiect and constantly
notified communities of progress and sought input. The work of the
committee was divided into three phases: analysis, option
development, and the decision stage. The maiority of the 18 weeks of
work was spent in the analysis stage. Following is a brief
discussion of the committee's findings.
The State's economy will, increasingly in the future, be affected and
directed by the regional economies rather than a single industry
(oil). The regional economy of Southeast is necessarily the future
of the Tongass. The well being of the people of Southeast Alaska is
inextricably linked to the management of the Tongass National
Forest. The economic stability of Southeast is subiect to the
decisions that the Forest Service makes regarding permits, sales,
practices and day to day management of the Tongass. The 65,000
residents of Southeast Alaska rely on four primary industries,
timber, tourism, fisheries, and mining, and in many cases a
subsistence way of life, for employment and the economic
infrastructure. Our economy is beginning to show more strength in
traditional industries, i.e. fishing, mining, and forest products.
It appears that if our trading markets do not falter, we will see
continued growth and diversification.
The Southeast Alaska region, over the past fifty years, has given its
residents one of the State's most economically diverse and stable
geographic areas. However, the future of this economic unit is tied
to continued vitality in the timber, fishing, tourism and mining
industries, as well as subsistence. These industries are inter-
related and dependent on one another for their viability. Our
Southeast industrial base is fragile, inter-related, and dependent on
the price and frequency of goods and services established by the
combined demand of fishing, tourism, mining and timber.
At the present time total employment, earnings to workers and value
of finished product from fishing, tourism, and timber are achieving a
rough balance. The latest estimates by the Alaska Department of
Labor indicates that for the month of July. 1988 there were at least
3.205 workers in the timber industry in Southeast. Actual employment
in fishing and tourism is extremely difficult to compare across the
board. Using baseline data from the USFS and the State, both fishing
and tourism may have total employment at similar levels. It is
currently estimated by the State of Alaska that 20 to 25 percent of
earnings in Southeast are timber industry dependent. By
extrapolation, similar levels are assumed in fishing and tourism.
Mining has made a startling comeback in the past three years and will
soon be an equal partner. Further, subsistence is a significant part
of the economies of most small communities throughout Southeast.
Although certainly employment is not equal across the board, one
thing is clear; taken on the average and over time, there is
beginning a real " level ing" between these basic industries, their
-2-
19
employment and total impact. This mutual support effect results in a
broader economic base and will allow a community to experience a
setbacJt in one industry or segment of an industry without area wide
recession. It also allows costs of community development and
infrastructure to be born by that broader base.
The goal of the U.S. Congress, when the long term timber sale was
approved, was the formation of a stable and enduring economy for
Southeast Alaska. With diversification, including fishing, tourism,
timber, mining, and subsistence, there is a growing realization that
each has an important contribution to the overall competitive
position of Southeast Alaska in the world market. The regional
economic well-being is directly tied to continued health of the other
partners in that industrial base. Every unit of the economy benefits
from the transportation infrastructure, localized roads, and
community development, so long as that does not infringe or threaten
the quality of life or the other industries. The committee found it
essential in these discussions to develop an option that reinforced
economic "value added" diversification.
The underlying interests raise complicated questions and challenges.
Debate is serious, sometimes hateful, but always reflective of a need
to clarify the mission of the U.S. Forest Service in the Tongass.
Southeast opponents of continuation of the large scale logging and
specific subsidized harvest levels are using congressional debates
for airing their concerns about the Forest Service management
practices. They argue that the supposition of a multiple use mission
is skewed, or even impossible given the mandates of Section 70S of
ANILCA to provide 4.5 billion board feet per decade from the
Tongass. These proponents for change say that this harvest mandate
skews the mission of the Forest Service. Their concerns include a
lack of protection of important fish and wildlife habitat . let alone
enhancement. The argument comes to economic point on details that
suggest a threat to the fisheries, subsistence as well as the
recreation and tourism industries.
Opponents of the status quo suggest that the communities' areas of
special interests, quality anadramous streams and wildlife habitat
all fall second consideration to the skewed mission. They add that
there is no opportunity for competition.
Proponents of the pulp timber industry counter by claiming that the
pulp mills are only economically viable with reasonable long term
commitments of access to productive timber stands. Ketchikan Pulp
Company has for example recently invested some 35 million dollars to
"retool their mill" for more cost effective value added use of the
timber coming to them. The mills maintain they must have contracts
and commitments of large volumes of timber to sustain their financial
stability. Further, proponents point out that roads constructed
provide long term use by tourists, fishermen, and hunters; and that
they provide valuable recreation, and subsistence opportunities.
Further, there are four smaller log mills that operate efficiently by
selling the pulp which some estimate is up to 50* of the timber, to
the pulp mills and lumber milling the other for market.
-3-
20
The maior concern of many of the people of Southeast is of course
that a threat to the financial stability of the mills corresponds to
a potential loss of ]obs and ultimately places families in crisis!
Further, irrespective of changes to the status quo. it is obvious
that the limitations of Tongass National Forest designations will
cause some drop in employment due to the decline in production on
private land and the unavailable timber for open sale. The total
employment currently cannot be absorbed in the Tongass. Perhaps
diversification is the only long term opportunity for those that will
ultimately be displaced.
The current level of harvest of 400 mbf and the resultant jobs within
the Tongass (i.e. existing employment that is a function of the
harvest within the Tongass National Forest) may be sustainable.
However, the Forest Service as well as others have shown us in
gruesome detail that the current total Southeast harvest is
definitely not sustainable under any circumstances. This poignant
reality is due to harvest levels on private land that are not on a
sustained yield basis. This harvest level which is not bound by
primary manufacturing restrictions, allowing round log exports,
brings the total harvest in Southeast to almost 800 mbf this year.
There is a contraction coming irrespective of changes to 705. The
focus of the Southeast Conference has been to balance this reality
with other community interests.
Another critical point raised within the Committee debate is the
question of the twelve special areas that communities have requested
be removed from commercial harvest designation. The Southeast
Conference Tongass Committee spent hours reviewing and discussing
these areas. There is no question that they have high quality
unique intrinsic values. The Southeast Conference worked with the
Forest Service, the Department of Fish and Game, and others in
narrowing the scope of these requests. But they are real and the
consequences of the withdrawals mean a loss of a little more than 23
million board feet.
Further, the Forest Service indicates that this will increase the
pressure for intensive management and questions of sustaining a 4.5
billion board foot harvest level. The opponents of status quo also
mention this may further skew the mission.
This issue received further investigation and consideration because
the timber industry and the Forest Service maintain that the
proposals for withdrawal would cause a commensurate loss of lobs.
(The GAG estimates that the loss would be 4.2 jobs per million board
feet.) This is further complicated by an argument that these are
potential jobs, since the 24 million board feet is far short of
impacting the 400 million board feet currently harvested from the
Tongass, not existing jobs. But again the industry counters that
these are potential jobs for those who may ultimately lose employment
from the private harvest that will be shut down (within the next 5 to
10 years) since it is not a sustainable harvest.
-4-
21
The Southeast Conference has determined that no industry as
aforementioned is safe or potentially stable until the Tongass issues
are resolved. Therefore, the committee has ferreted out the maior
underlying interests of the communities and through principled
negotiation, developed a proposed resolution to the manor conflicts.
The vast expanse of land and natural resources in the Tongass are
both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, wilderness, personal
freedom and unlimited opportunity are available to anyone. On the
other, the outstanding natural beauty, the relatively small
population and the widely held mistrust of development invites
congressional intervention. In the Tongass we have an inter-
dependent, fragile economy. Legislation being considered by Congress
could weaken this fabric. It could start a chain reaction resulting
in serious regional recession and economic de-stabilization. It
could cause multiple-use areas to become one-industry towns.
The Southeast Conference has a vested interest in assuring that when
the dust clears in Washington D.C.. there will be no winners or
losers in the Tongass. The Southeast Conference has developed this
position through a principled negotiation process involving
representatives of communities and interests from throughout
Southeast. It is fair, reasonable, and critical to all Alaskans.
-5-
22
II. UNDERLYING INTERESTS/OBJECTIVES OF SOUTHEAST ALASKAN COMMUNITIES
Followina 13 the Southeast Conference policy position on Tongass
National Forest Legislation and Management. We propose that this
position be used for the development of reasonable legislation and
Tongass land management practices that are sensitive to the people
whose lives are physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually
interwoven with the Tongass.
A. Objectives reflecting the underlying interests of the Southeast
Communi t ies:
1) To maintain the employment within the Southeast Timber
industry including providing for diversification (perhaps
Federal-State assistance for retooling and small mills, etc.).
2) To maintain employment within the fisheries Industry including
State and Federal efforts to provide for research, protection',
and mitigation for anadromous streams.
3) To maintain employment within the mining Industry and to
recognize the unique mining opportunities that benefit
communities.
4) To maintain employment within the tourism industry including
sensitivity to respective communities' unique tourism
opportunities (e.g. RVs, parks, docks, and highly visible
areas) , and dispersal of Pacific Rim and other Independent
travelers .
5) To have Congress recognize and provide for respective
communities' social, personal, and cultural uses.
6) To have Congress recognize that all of these uses are important
to the people of Southeast and that these uses, the people, and
the management of the Tongass are interrelated and mutually
support ive .
7) To have Congress recognize the respective communities' interest
in protecting specific areas from commercial harvest.
8) To have Congress recognize that the timber industry needs
access to "appropriate and productive" stands to maintain
a viable industry and timber employment.
9) To insure that Southeast Alaskans have a voice "at the table"
in any and all discussions and decisions regarding the Tongass
legislation. (This includes congressional hearings: and if a
hearing is held in Alaska, it should be held in Sitka.)
10) To maintain a stable and diversified economy throughout
Southeast .
11) To maintain at least the current level of federal commitment to
the economy of Southeast Alaska and to provide opportunities
for diversification, particularly for those that may be
disenfranchised by legislation.
12) To separate Tongass legislation from other political issues or
leaislation.
-6-
23
rTT. AMTT.rA rOMfi T HFRAT T QMS
Section 70S(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 539(a) is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as
fol lows;
(a) Congress finds that the Tongass National Forest possesses rich
and diverse natural resources of inestimable value to the citizens of
Alaska and the Nation. Many of these resources are vital to the
regional economy of Southeast Alaska and. in differing mixes, to its
varied communities. To foster and clarify a balanced'raul t iple use
mission for management of the Tongass Forest and the importance to
the people of Southeast Alaska of clean air and water, timber
harvesting and processing, commercial fishing, raining, subsistence,
tourism (including sport fishing, hunting and other outdoor
recreation), and associated support services, and to provide for
broader distribution of the economic benefits of the Tongass Forest
to the residents of Southeast Alaska, it is hereby enacted -
(1) The Congress authorizes and directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to utilize federal funds of up to 15 million dollars,
adiusted annually for inflation and appropriated on an annual basis,
to ensure a multiple use mission and carry out an intensive
management program. The fund is to be utilized so as to make
available up to 4 billion five hundred million board feet per decade
to maintain a timber supply to a dynamic and dependent industry
necessary to meet annual market demand and subject to protecting and
enhancing other resource industries and uses. The Secretary is
authorized to adiust the allowable harvest, through the Land
Management Planning Process, based on market conditions for timber,
sustained yield principles of management of maintaining fish and
wildlife, and recognition of other considerations of the multiple use
mission .
(2) On the first day of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer funds into the intensive management account
equal to the amount expended from the account during the prior fiscal
year. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to use
funds from the account exclusively for:
(A) Construction of the facilities needed to access new and
existing timber sale areas which have been awarded or released and
which meet the criteria for added investments contained in the 1986
Forest Service Region X's Timber Sale Preparation Handbook; and
(B) Timber stand improvement : and
(C) The Secretary is authorized and directed to use up to 20*
of the intensive management funds to promote, protect and enhance
subsistence sport and commercial fisheries, the wildlife, and
recreation resources. The Secretary shall provide a report to
Congress annually regarding the use and effectiveness of the fund.
(3) The Secretary is authorized to adjust the maximum clear cut
size to optimize economic harvesting of timber sale areas, and make
other adjustments deemed appropriate so long as such clear cut size
and other adjustments are not inconsistent with the multiple use
mission and objectives of the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) .
-7-
24
Sections 70S(b)(l) and (2) are repealed and reenacted to read as
follows:
(1) The Secretary is authorized and directed to establish a
special fund and program of economic diversification loans and grants
to stimulate enhancement and diversification of the economy of
Southeast Alaska. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate
regulations deemed necessary to define eligibility requirements
providing for at least fifty percent of the fund to be utilized for
grants to small businesses, community, and regional efforts that
stimulate the economy of Southeast Alaska. The Secretary is
authorized to establish a loan program to provide loans to industries
within Southeast Alaska for "value added" initiatives or more
efficient utilization of natural resources of the Tongass.
(2) To carry out the special economic diversification program
established by this Section, there is hereby authorized beginning
after Fiscal Year 1989 to be appropriated 320,000,000. from the
National Forest Fund receipts, to be deposited in a special fund in
the Treasury of the United States to reaairi available until expended.
(A) On the first day of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer funds into the economic diversification fund
equal to the amount expended for grants during the prior fiscal
year. Repayments of principle and interest of loans and other
recoveries of funds authorized by this Section shall be credited to
the fund. The Secretary shall provide Congress with a report
annually regarding the use and effectiveness of the fund. The report
shall be prepared in consultation with the Southeast Conference, a
corporation representing municipalities and individuals of Southeast
Alaska.
(3) Sections 705(b) (l)and (2) are repealed effective September 30,
1999.
Section 705(c) is repealed and reenacted to read:
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture shall review and if necessary
renegotiate the long term sale contracts to ensure:
1) employment stabilization to the maximum extent possible for
those working in the Tongass National Forest:
2) fair and reasonable accommodation to the contract holders
considering their investment in requiring fair market value rated for
t imber :
3) fair and reasonable competition within the timber industry in
the Tongass National Forest:
4) that the contracts are consistent with the the Tongass Land
Management Plan and any revisions thereto:
5) that Southeast Alaskan communities are given consideration in
their respective interests;
6) that the contractors are given a clear definition and commitment
of location and amounts of timber available through the contract
period as part of the forest plan revision:
7) clear statements of the responsibility and authority of the
Forest Service to protect fish and wildlife resources and habitats.
-8-
25
Section 705(d) is repealed.
\
Title VII is amended by adding a new section to read:
Section 709(a)(1) The following public lands within the Tongass
National Forest are hereby designated as protected non-coramercial
timber areas:
Impact Potential
Yakutat Forelands 134,822 acres 3.75 million bd. ft. /year*
Kadashan River Watershed
ChucJc River /Windham Bay
Lisianski and
Upper Hoonah Sound
Nutkwa River Watershed
Karta River Watershed
Mt . Calder/Mt. Holbrook
Young Lake
Outside Islands
Noyes
Lulu
Baker
Trap Bay Watershed
Goose Flats
Berners Bay
TOTAL: 646.180 acres 23.27 million bd. ft. /year
(* These volume/year figures are to be compared to the '450' million
board ft/yr timber supply goal managed on a 100 year rotation.)
The Secretary shall manage the protected areas designated in this
section in accordance with Land Use Designation 1 1 as defined in the
Tongass Land Management Plan (amended 85-86). The Secretary shall
establish a management direction specific to the above areas
including allowed uses other than timber harvest, through the Land
Management Planning Process in consultation with the communities of
Southeast Alaska.
(2) The Secretary is authorized and directed to pursue reasonable
opportunities for non-wilderness land exchanges, trades, and/or
purchases with the State of Alaska and/or any appropriate private
land owners of property that may add to the timber base to mitigate
or eliminate the potential economic impacts of 709(a)(1) in Southeast
Alaska. The Secretary shall provide Congress with a written report
and recommendations including a complete description of any proposed
exchanges or trades. The report shall be prepared in consultation
with the Southeast Conference.
134,822
acres
3.75
33.641
2.52
74.942
2.00
134.657
3.58
22.507
1 .87
38.701
0.00
48.000
3.79
18,173
1.35
24.651
1 .64
18.517
.24
31 .946
1.24
6.446
.65
23.798
.60
35.379
.04
-9-
26
IV. DESCRIPTIONS OF SPECIAL A^ZAS
Yakutat Forelands
The Tongass Land Management Plan recognized the area as the
most diverse and productive fish and wildlife area in the
Tongass, with the highest rankings for wilderness values and
ecological diversity. The Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) has rated the entire area as having the highest
value habitat for both fish and wildlife as well as being a
very important eommercial, sport, and subsistence harvest
area.
The Italio, Akwe, and Dstay-Tanis river systems together
produce all five species of salmon and are especially
productive of coho and sockeye. Peak escapements (the
number of fish reported on their spawning grounds after
surviving the commercial and subsistence fisheries) reported
are 37,000 sockeye and 54,000 coho salmon. These systems
are also good habitat for rainbow, steelhead, and cutthroat
trout and for Dolly Varden. Brown bear, moose, mountain
goat, wolves, marten, mink, land otter, beaver, bald eagles,
trumpeter swans, sandhill cranes, and a myriad of other
birds and small mammals are abundant in this diverse and
productive ecosystem. The rare glacier phase of black bear
occurs in the Ustay-Tanis eirea.
The local subsistence and commercial gillnetters benefit
from the abundant salmon. The high quality of sport fishing
on the Ustay, Italio, and Akwe rivers attracts approximately
1600 anglers from Yakutat, other areas of Alaska, the USA,
and foreign countries providing significant income to the
local economy (the average non-local angler spends about
$550 per fishing trip) . Hunting information is only
available for the entire YaAutat Forelands, of which the
proposed area comprises roughly 50 percent. The proposed
area is an important area for moose hunting, an activity for
which public demand far exceeds the level of opportunity, as
well as brown and black bears and mountain goats. Trappers
harvest marten, wolves, wolverine, beaver, and land otters.
It is an important waterfowl hunting area for local
residents.
Berners Bay
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the area as high for
fish and moderate for estuarine resources. The ADF&G rated
the area as high for fish and wildlife. The area is
intensively used by residents of Juneau due to its close
proximity, road access, and resource values.
-10-
27
The Berners, Lace, and Antler/Gilkey rivers are the major
anadromous streams flowing into Berners Bay and produce four
species of salmon as well as rainbow, steelhead, and
cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. The peak recorded
escapements in these three systems combined are 13,300 coho,
4000 sockeye, 9100 chum, and up to 10,000 pink salmon.
Brown bear, black bear, moose, wolves, mink, marten, land
otter, beaver, and land and water birds are abundant in the
area. Mountain goats and bald eagles are moderately
abundant. Seals, sea lions, and whales are common in the
bay.
The Berners Bay area is intensively used by sport fishers,
moose, bear, and deer hunters, kayakers, hikers, and
ccunpers. The Berners River is used by the ADF&G as an
indicator of the coho salmon production for the management
of the northern southeast coho fishery.
Young Lake
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the Young's Lake
watershed and estuary as being of the highest productivity
class for fish. The ADF&G rates the area as
being of the highest value for fisheries, wildlife, and
sport fishing. The proximity of the area to Juneau makes it
an extremely popular recreation spot for fishing, hunting,
beach combingi_camping, and hiking.
Admiralty Creek and adjacent streams produce three species
of salmon, with peak reported escapements of 90,000 pink,
10,000 chum, and several hundred coho. These drainages also
produce substantial populations of steelhead and cutthroat
trout, kokanee, and Dolly Varden. Admiralty Creek is
important in the management of the commercial salmon fishery
for the ADF&G has historically sampled the density of
pre-emergent fry in the stream gravels to estimate the
over-winter survival rate of salmon streams in the general
area. Sitka black-tailed deer, brown bear, marten, mink,
red squirrels, raptors, and waterfowl are abundant. Land
otters and beaver are moderately abundant. Whales and seals
are commonly observed in the nearshore waters.
The Young Lake area is near Juneau/Douglas and accessible by
boat, skiff, floatplane, and wheel plane. The three Forest
Service cabins in the drainage receive the highest use of
any watershed on Admiralty Island. The area is intensively
used in the spring for steelhead fishing and brown bear and
grouse hunting. Summer use of the area includes fishing,
picnicking, camping, hiking, and bird-watching. Autvimn
brings deer and duck hunters to the area. The area is one
of the most popular deer hunting areas for Juneau/Douglas
residents, with 1654 hunters harvesting 468 deer in the
Young's Bay-Hawk Inlet area in 1987 (see attached map). The
system is classified by the ADF&G as a quality watershed for
sport fishing because of the quantity, quality, and
diversity of resident and anadromous fish and the high level
of recreational use.
-11-
22-148 0-89-2
28
Lisianski River
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the area as having
the highest value for the production of salmon. The ADFiG
ranked the area as the highest value for the quality of
sport fishing and the production of salmon and trout and of
moderate value for the production of wildlife. The fish
produced in the Lisianski drainage supports a commercial
fishery worth over a million dollars every year to
fishermen. The area is used heavily by residents of Pelican
for fishing, hunting, and general recreation.
The Lisianski River is one of the top five salmon producers
in the region, with reported peak escapements of 220,000
pink, 5000 chum, 1500 coho, and 100 sockeye salmon. It also
produces significant populations of rainbow, steelhead, and
cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. Brown bear,
Sitka-black-tailed deer, marten, mink, land otter, bald
eagles, waterfowl, and other old-growth forest species are
moderately abundant.
Detailed information on hunting and fishing is not availcdsle
for this small area, although it is important to the
residents of Pelican for at least deer hunting (see attached
map) .
Upper Hoonah Sound
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the area as having
moderate values for fisheries, with the exception of
Paterson Creek watershed which was rated high value. The
ADF&G considers the area a moderate producer of fish and
wildlife and an important harvest area for the residents of
Sitka.
Several drainages each produce over 50,000 pink, over 6000
ch\un, and up to 500 coho salmon in an average year. Most
drainages also produce moderate populations of rainbow,
steelhead, and cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. The
estuarine sedge-grass flats and salmon streams are brown
bear concentration areas. Waterfowl concentrate on the
sedge-grass flats during spring and fall migrations. The
area supports moderate populations of Sitka black-tailed
deer, marten, land otter, mink, wolves, bald eagles, nesting
waterfowl, and other old-growth forest species.
Residents of Sitka use the area to harvest salmon, halibut,
crcdss, deer, and furbearers. In 1987, around 590 deer were
harvested in the area by Sitka hunters in 1100 hunter-days.
Goose Flats
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the Goose Flats
watershed as having moderately high fishery value and high
estuarine resource values. The ADF&G rates the area as a
moderate producer of fish and wildlife and as an important
harvest area for the residents of Tenakee Springs.
-12-
29
All three drainages in the area each produce 10,000-50,000
pinX salmon and over 6000 chum salmon in an average year and
also support cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. The
extensive intertidal sedge-grass flats support spring
concentrations of brown bear and spring and fall
concentrations of migratory waterfowl. There are moderate
populations of deer. Information on the population status
of other species is lacking.
Tenakee Springs residents rely heavily on the area for the
harvest of deer, waterfowl, furbearers, and shellfish.
Kadashan River
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the drainage the
highest value for fisheries and estuarine resources. The
ADFiG rated the area as the highest class for fish and
wildlife production. It is an important harvest area for
residents of TeneJcee Springs as well as the basis for a
large commercial fishery and non-local hunting and sport
fishing. The ADF&G/U.S. Forest Service have monitored pink
etnd chum salmon escapements into the Kadashan River since
1969 and the out-aigration of the juveniles since 1977 to
predict the run strength and manage the commercial salmon
fishery in the general area. Since no other streeun in
northern southeast Alaska has this quality of data,
maintenance of this drainage in its natural condition is
very important to the management of the salmon fishery.
Research has also been conducted in this drainage on coho
salmon, deer, and brown bear.
Kadashan is one of the top five producers of pink salmon in
southeast Alaska, with a peak recorded escapement of 282,000
and average escapement of over 130,000 fish. It is 2unong
the top ten chum salmon streauns in southeast Alaska, with a
peak recorded escapement of 66,000 and average escapement
of 25,000 fish. Coho salmon escapement is estimated at
2000-4000 fish. The drainage also supports rainbow,
steelhead, and cutthroat trout and very high numbers of
Dolly Varden.
Kadashan has one of the largest estuarine sedge-grass flats
and intertidal mud flats in northern southeast Alaska. This
extremely productive habitat is a major nursery for
Dungeness crabs, important herring spawning area, major
spring amd fall feeding and resting stop-over for migratory
waterfowl, and browi bear concentration area during spring.
The Kadashan drainage supports one of the highest
concentrations of brown bears in southeast Alaska. Deer,
marten, mink, land otter, red squirrels, eind bald eagles are
also abundant. Large numbers of seals are attracted to the
edjundant salmon as they mill around the mouth of the river.
The commercial fishery based on Kadashan salmon is typically
worth over a million dollars annually to fishermen.
Residents of TenaJtee Springs depend on the area for the
harvest of deer, salmon, shellfish, and furbearers. The
ADFiG classifies the Kadashan River as the highest quality
for sport fishing.
-13-
30
Trap Bay
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the area as high
value for estuarine resources and moderate value for fish
production. The ADFSG rated the area as the highest value
for wildlife and moderate value for fish. Hydrologic and
fisheries research has been conducted in the area over the
last decade.
The river which runs into Trap Bay supports moderate
populations of coho, pink and chvun salmon and Dolly Varden.
Brown bear are abundant with spring concentrations on the
estuarine sedge-grass flats and subalpine meadows and summer
concentrations along the salmon streeuns . Although specific
studies are lacking, the area is undoubtedly good habitat
for other old-growth forest species.
Residents of Tenakee Springs depend on Trap Bay area for the
harvest of deer (see attached map) , waterfowl, and
f urbearers .
Chuck River
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the Chuck River
watershed as the highest value for fish and moderately high
for estuarine resources. The ADF&G rated The Chuck River
drainage as the highest value for fish and the areas around
Windham Bay, the lower Chuck River, and Endicott Arm as the
highest value for wildlife. The area is popular both with
tour boat operators and Juneau residents.
Chuck River is cunong one of the highest producers of pink
salmon in southeast Alaska, with a recorded peak escapement
of 220,000. It also supports good populations of the other
four salmon species and rainbow, steelhead, and cutthroat
trout and Dolly Varden. The area is good habitat for black
bears and mountain goats.
The Chuck River supports a significant commercial salmon
fishery worth around a million per year to fishermen. The
area is hunted frequently by Juneau residents in pursuit of
black bear and mountain goats. The coastal areas in
Endicott Arm and Windhaun Bay are used by recreational
boaters, fishermen, and charter boats.
Calder-Holbrook
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated subareas within the
boundary of the proposed area as moderately high to high
value for fish and for estuarine values. The ADF&G rated
the subareas as moderate for fish, with the exception 'of a
high value for the Shipley drainage, and moderate to high
-14-
31
for wildlife, with the highest values for the watersheds
draining into Shakan Bay, Dry Pass, Tokeen Bay, and Shipley
Bay. The area is important to the residents of Port
Protection, Point Baker, Cape Pole, Edna Bay, Craig, and
Klawock for the harvest of fish and wildlife.
There are many productive streams in the area supporting
pink, chum, and coho salmon and rainbow, steelhead and
cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. Shipley and Sutter
drainages also support sockeye salmon. The combined peak
escapements for the more important streams in the area is
680,000 pink and 14,000 chum salmon. Herring spawn in
Labouchere Bay. Dungeness crab rear in the area. Harbor
seals are abundant and haulout in the Barrier Islands.
Sitka black-tailed deer and black bear occur throughout the
area in moderately high density. Black bears and migratory
waterfowl concentrate on the estuarine sedge-grass flats at
the head of Calder Bay. Bluff Island is a seabird colony
and a harbor seal haulout. Protection Head is a seabird
colony. Waterfowl concentrate in Dry Pass, Shakan Strait,
and Tokeen Bay.
Residents of Point Baker, Port Protection, Cape Pole,
Edna Bay, Klawock, and Craig use the area for the harvest of
deer, salmon, furbearers, geoducks, crab, waterfowl, and
other resources. Shipley Creek is intensively fished by
Port Protection residents for sockeye salmon. Point Baker
residents gillnet salmon in Shakan Strait. Residents of
Klawock trap throughout Tokeen Bay. Commercial salmon
fishing and crabbing occurs throughout the area.
Karta River
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the Karta watershed
as the highest value for fish. The ADFSG considers the
Karta drainage to be one of the most productive anadromous
fish systems on Prince of Wales Island, as well as having
the highest values for wildlife. The area is very important
for fishing and hunting to local residents as well as
non-resident sport fishers.
The peak recorded escapements to the Karta River are 136,000
pink, 42,000 sockeye, and 41,000 chum salmon. The drainage
also supports rainbow trout, spring and fall runs of
steelhead, cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden. The Karta
River watershed is an extremely productive and diverse area.
Black bear, furbearers, waterfowl, and other birds are
abundant. There are moderate populations of deer, wolves,
bald eagles, and marine mammals. The area is important for
Trumpeter swans in the winter. The estuary is a rearing
area for shrimp and dungeness crab and a herring spawning
•15-
32
There is an excellent trail system linking the series of
lakes from salt water up to the highest lake. The area is a
very popular area for bear hunting, trapping, sport fishing,
and subsistence sockeye fishing by residents of Kasaan. The
Forest Service considers the Karta drainage to be one of the
top two recreation areas on the south Tongass.
Noyes-Lulu-Baker Islands
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the islands as
moderate to moderately high value for fish and estuarine
resources. The ADF&G rated the area as moderate for
wildlife and low for fisheries production. The islands are
in the midst of a major commercial fishing ground that
provides fishermen with over $16 million a year and are
important for the harvests of fish and wildlife for
residents of Craig and Klawock. These dramatic outer-coast
islands are also becoming increasingly popular with
tourists.
The islands' anadromous fish streams support pink and chum
salmon. The two largest systems each produce 10,000-50,000
pinks, with one system also producing more than 6000 chum
salmon a year and the other system producing up to 6000 chum
salmon. Marine mcimmals are abundant along the coast,
including sea otters, sea lions, and humpback whales. The
islands also support deer and wolves.
Residents of Craig and Klawock use the islands to harvest
salmon, other finfish, shellfish, seals, and deer. The
commercial purse seining fleet, along with the associated
fish buyers, packers and processors, depend on the safe
anchorages provided by these islands which could be
jeopardized by log storage in the limited areas of safe
anchorage.
Nutkwa River
The Tongass Land Management Plan rated the drainage as high
value for fish and estuarine resources. The ADF&G rated the
area as high value for fish and wildlife. The fishery
production makes the area extremely important to the
commercial salmon industry and the residents of Hydaburg.
The Nutkwa system, with its large, shallow salt chuck, is an
exceptional producer of pink salmon, with a peak recorded
escapement of 215,000, and a major producer of sockeye, with
a peak escapement of 1400. It also produces chum and coho
salmon as well as rainbow, steelhead, and cutthroat trout
and Dolly Varden. The salt chuck is important habitat for
marine meimmals and waterfowl, including trumpeter swans.
■16-
33
Senator Wirth. Mayor Gregory.
STATEMENT OF RALPH C. GREGORY, MAYOR, KETCHIKAN
GATEWAY BOROUGH
Mr. Gregory. Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to address
your organization this morning and good morning and welcome to
Ketchikan.
I came to southeast Alaska twenty-three years ago on a working
vacation. Like many others, I stayed and raised a family here be-
cause the level of economic activity allowed a working man to
make a living wage. I believe that the Ketchikan Gateway Borough
and Prince of Wales Island, with a combined population of seven-
teen thousand, has the most vibrant economy in the state. This is
no accident but is due to a multiple-use balance which has emerged
among the basic industries of timber, fishing, tourism and mining.
To keep this reasonable level of economic activity we must main-
tain equal access to natural resources.
During this session of Congress, legislators will consider bills
which could dramatically alter this economic balance. As debate
proceeds in Washington, D.C. to re-structure access to the Tongass,
my community is torn apart by the debate. Loggers believe that
soon there could be no place for them to work. Fishermen are told
that they must take a stand against timber harvesting to assure
survival of their industry. Miners worry about reaching their
claims and tour operators are caught somewhere between.
The Tongass contains over 16 million acres, half the coastline of
the entire United States, and yet only 64,000 persons live here.
This vast expanse of land is both a blessing and a curse. On the
one hand, wilderness is available to anyone; on the other, the out-
standing natural beauty of the area invites congressional interven-
tion.
Federal legislation to re-allocate resources must be done careful-
ly. Multiple-use management of the Tongass is successful where it
has been fully implemented. For example the Ketchikan Region
allows all four industries to exist in close proximity and to share
access to resources. This may be the one area in the southeast
where it is possible to experience a life of relative simplicity and
solitude with reasonable social contact and access to most basic
services and work opportunities.
Multiple-use means that industries are working side by side.
These industries demand and have produced the transportation,
utility and supporting infrastructure to meet their combined needs.
Participation by each spreads the costs of maintenance and oper-
ation over a broader base. For example, cruise vessels and fishing
processing ships all tie up at the same dock and some 25,000 RVs
travel scenic wilderness roads, roads provided by the timber indus-
try.
In the Tongass we have an inter-dependent, fragile economy.
Legislation should not weaken this fabric. It should be crafted to
avoid starting a chain reaction which would result in multiple-use
areas becoming one-industry towns.
34
Right now people still come to southeast Alaska on vacation and
many stay to work. Some put down permanent roots. I hope Con-
gress can see these trees in the forest.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mayor Gregory.
Mayor Ferry.
STATEMENT OF TED FERRY, MAYOR, CITY OF KETCHIKAN
Mr. Ferry. Thank you, Senator.
My name is Ted Ferry and I am Mayor of the City of Ketchikan
and I have lived here a little longer probably than most people,
about 65 years, so I do believe I know the working people of the
area.
I am here today because of concern of a great many of our citi-
zens regarding proposed changes of 705 of ANILCA. Our area
cannot afford the loss of one more job.
Ketchikan can accurately be described as a city bigger than it
really is. We serve as the transportation hub of southern southeast
Alaska. We are also the provider of human services for our region.
Ketchikan has taken the lead to ensure that all southeasterners
have available services and opportunities that many of the small
towns in our area do not offer. We are the First City. We are nei-
ther a company town, a fishing village or a tourist destination. We
are and want to continue as a contributing user of the Tongass pro-
viding wood products to the nation and the world, a fishing port
producing quality seafood and a place where people from all walks
of life can come to visit and enjoy the majesty of the Tongass and
our local brand of Alaskan hospitality.
A factor of great concern is what happens to individuals and
families when permanent loss of jobs occur. We in local govern-
ment are often the first to deal with this problem. Erosion of em-
ployment, whether it be fishing, mining or timber, leads to in-
creases in what are already major social problems. Human Re-
source Services and Public Safety Agencies are called upon to deal
with increases in alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse and
yes, even some cases of suicides. I am certain you are aware that
loss of our Federal and State Revenue Funds have compounded
these problems.
Although my concerns include the broader issues and problems
my immediate purpose in testifying is to see that Ketchikan and
southeast Alaska are understood and continue as I feel they must.
After every cycle of boom and bust the analysts probe for cause
and effect, but whether positive or negative we should learn from
the experience. Anchorage, the state's largest city, only recently
has begun to recover from recession. It was not so long ago that the
city of Seattle and Boeing had hard times. In both of these in-
stances basic employment was down approximately five percent
and considered by most as having a severe impact. The loss in
Ketchikan and in southern southeast Alaska if Senator Wirth's
bill, S. 346, is enacted, may be as high as 28 percent.
Again, thank you for letting me come here this morning and I
would like to enter my full testimony in the record.
Senator Wirth. It will be included in the record. Thank you
Mayor Ferry.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Ferry follows:]
35
STATEMEOT OF TED FERRI
MIIOR, cm OF KETCHIKAII
BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC IAM)S,
MtLTIONikL PARKS AND FORESTS
APHIL,2iV,1989
tfenbers of the Subcommittee, ny name is Ted Ferry, Mayor of the City of
Ketchikaiw I have been a local resident sixty-five (65) years.
I am here today because of concern of a great many of our citizens
regardii« proposed changes of 705 of ANIIi2A» Our area can not afford the
^oaa of one more Job»
Ketchikan can accurately be described as a city bigger than it really
iat We serve as the trciiaportation hub of Southern Southeast Alaska. We
are also the provider of human services for our region. Kettchikan has taken
the lead to insure that ALL Southeasterners have avallnhTa» services and
(^portunities that fnwn towns siiiply cannot offer* We are the FIRST CHX
W» are neither a conpaxy town, a fishing village nor a tourist destination.
We are anl want to contizue as a contributing user of the Tongass providing
wood products to the nation and the world, a fishing port producing quality
seafood anl a place vhers people from all walks of life can come to visit
ard enjoy the majesty of the Tongass and Our local brand of Alaskan hospitality.
A factor of great concern is what happens to individuals and families
when permanent loss of Jobs occur. We in local government are often the
first to deal with this problem. Erosion of en;}loymenb, (fishing, mining^
timber) leads to increases in what are already major social problems.
Hu^ein Resource Services ami Public Safety Agencies are called upon to deal
th increases in alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse, and suicides.
I am^ertaln you are aware that loss of Federal/^'t^te revenue funds confounds
se problems.
36
Although my concerns include the broader issues and problems of Alaska
aM the Ifation, lay imnediate purpose in testifying is to see that Ketchikan
and Southeast Alaska are understood and continie as I feel they mist..
After every cycle of bocm and bust the analysts probe for cause and
effect, but whether positive or negative vre should learn from the experience.
Anchorage, the state's largest city only recently has begun to recover from
recession* It was not so long ago that we cannot remember the cutbacks at
Boeing in Seattle and the hard times they suffered. In both these instances
basic enployment was down appraxLaately 5% and considered by most as having a
severe intact. The loss in Ketchikan and in Southern Southeast Alaska if
Senator ''liLrth's bill (S->3A6) is enacted, ii">ri1Tiig> it Ij^ It is iqy
firm coorlctlon that such a loss could not be mitigated, nor in the Mdr^texm
supplanted by Jobs in other sectors of our econoiqy.
Maqy of the socieil services and educational opportunities so necessary
to attract qualified professionals and families will be lost. (Xir school
system currently attracts and retains quality teachers and administrators
who in turn have developed a challenging ourrlailum overcoming obstacles
and circumstances^ The local ta:c and wage structure is a sensitive balance.
I can not overemphasize the iiq)ortance of this city to tne region*
Our — »*»^T r^BT^'nr'^'^ ''•**i-*° are to foster and clarify a balanced use
mission of theltSoi^asQ Ibtlonal Forest; recognize the is^sortance of cleaii
air and water,, timber harvesting and processing, commercial fishing, mining,
subsistence, tourism, sport fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation. It is
inportant that federal funds be appropriated on an annial basis to ensure a
aBVfcipla use oioaioA and to carry out an -^nt^i^il'^l''-TiniiMMt pifigmiTt
Additions and iimrovements of logging roads have increased recreation ""^
37
tourism opportunitiea where little existed before. These benefits have
exdiaa:ed our quality of life, and certainly address the concept s£ nultiplfl
I tfh« rie the comndttee for the opportunity to appear today and for
condj3g to hear, first hand, from a broad cross section of people living a
diverse life style*
The bottom linet
>0 MffWIIDZRNESS
MO IflM GP JOBS
Thank you»
Mayor
38
STATEMENT 07 TED FERBI
MAYOR, CITY OF KETCHIKAM
BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC lAMDS,
HATIOMAL PARKS AMD FORESTS
APRIL 2U, 1989
Meobera of the Subcommittee, ngr name is Ted Ferry, Mayor of the City of
Ketchikaiw I have been a local resident sixty-five (65) years*
I am here today because of concern of a great many of our citizens
regarding proposed changes of 705 of ANTTfiA, Our area can not afford the
loss of one more Job.
Ketchikan has experienced two declines in economic activity since I98Q,
of which the one in 198^ was the moire pronounced* "Hie decline in enployment
in the "Forest Products Industry" was a major factor*
Qie set back in 198^ Included a six (6) month shutdown (June to December)
of our locaX pulp m-in^ This period also contlnied the closure of Ketchikan
Spruce Mill (local lumber mill).
SU>1MER UMMPLOXMENT 198^
juLi "^tiiibi^
AUGUST C.3
SH>TEMBER 13*3
SUMMER UNEMPLOYMENT 1986
JULL
AUG3IST
SEPTMEM3ER
Mich, of the 1986 i mprovemant in esployment was due to a healthier
forest products industry* I call your attention to this very close relation-
ship between the timber i liii|itiinri'<i will illBg •al'ttw if^glftmi- ih pi Mil.
Uneinployinant for Janiary this year was it*7% and February 13*0%* I ask
yo«i. what this percentage might be if our people are permanently denied j obs*
39
A factor of great concern Is uhat happens to Individuals and families
when permanent loss of jobs occur* Ue In local government are often the
first to deal vd.tb this problem. Erosion of enployment, (fishing, mining,
timber) leads to increases in what are already major social problems.
»>iman HesouTce Servlces and Public Safety Agencies are called upon to deal
with increases in alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse, and suicides.
I am certain you are aware that loss of FederaV^tate revenue funds concounds
these problems.
Thousands of people now go to Prince of Wales Island to fish, hunt, camp,
and to just get away from it all. For most of us this was not possible prior
to additions and improvements of logging roads. Hecreation and Tourism
opportunities opened where little existed before. These benefits have enhanced.
our quality of life, and certainly address the cooeept a£, miilt.iplft use.
There are those who state "an inpossible situation exists and is beyond
the ability of the Forest Service to solve". Vte are not in an inpossible
situation, and the Forest Service can and does solve problems.
During* construction of the Swan l£ke Hydro project (22 >5W. $100,000,000)
we had the opportunity to work with Forest Service personnel on environmental,
recreation flnr^ stunpage coats. Iliese people were fair, most enable, and
over ^^■^Tn«» an excellent relationship developed. The results were a project
conpleted on time «"Tf> under budget that will serve our areas long range
interests. CREDIT mist be given to this agency for its constructive review
of this major project in an environmentally sensitive area*
Our nutual responsibilities are to foster and clarify a balanced use
mission of the Tongass National Forest. Recognize the isportance of clean
air and water, tijiiier harvesting end processing, commsrclaX fishing, mining.
40
aiibsistence, tourism, sport fishing, hunting, and other outdoor recreation.
It is inportant that federal funds be appropriated on an annual basis to
ensure a multiple use mission and to carry out an intensive management
program*
I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today and for coming
to hear, first haai, from a broad cross section of people living a diverse
life style.
The bottom lineJ
MO MORE WIUERNESS
m icss cy jobs
DiarJc you.
> ^^
Mayor
41
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TED FERRY
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
Given before the United States Senate Energy Subcommittee on
Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
April 24, 1989
Ketchikan can accurately be described as a city bigger than it phy-
sically is! A strange statement but let me explain. We serve as the
transportation hub of Southern Southeast Alaska and for approximately
half of the Tongass National Forest, the nations largest. We are also
the provider of human services for our regfion many of which are nor-
mally found only in much larger cities. Hospital and medical care (e.g.
many counties in the western states have had to combine resources to
provide such care while having three or more cities in each county with
populations larger than Ketchikan and combined populations many times
greater than our 13,000 residents). Youth programs, social services,
police and fire support, recreation and on it goes. In each instance
our community has taken the lead to insure that ALL Southeasterners
have available these services and opportunities that a typical small town
simply cannot offer. We are the First City. We are neither a mill or
company town, a fishing village or a tourist destination. We are and
want to continue as a contributing user of the Tongass providing wood
products to the nation and the world, a fishing port producing quality
seafood and a place where people from all walks of life can come to visit
«md enjoy the majesty of the Tongass and our local brand of Alaskan
hospitality. We even encourage those with the pioneer spirit and
webbed feet to stay and be part of us.
-1-
42
Although my concerns include the broader issues and problems of
Alaska and the Nation, my immediate purpose in testifying today is to
see that Ketchikan and Southeast Alaska are understood and continue as
I feel they must.
After every cycle of boom and bust the analysts probe for cause and
effect. Regardless of the source, it was change for good or for worse.
The effects may have been mixed, but whether positive or negative we
should learn from the experience. Anchorage, the state's largest city
only recently has begfun to recover from recession. It was not so long
ago that we cannot remember the cutbacks at Boeing in Seattle and the
hard times they suffered. In both these instances basic employment
was down approximately 5% and considered by most as having a severe
impact. The loss in Ketchikan and in Southern Southeast Alaska if
Mr. Wirth's bill is enacted could be as high as 28%. It is my firm con-
viction that such a loss could not be mitigated, nor in the mid-term
supplanted by jobs in other sectors of our economy.
The City of Ketchikan has recently embarked on a major hospital expan-
sion for which we have bonded indebtedness. Many of the social ser-
vices and educational opportunities so necessary to attract qualified
professionals and families will be lost. Our school system currently
attracts and retains quality teachers and administrators who in turn
have developed a challenging curriculum overcoming obstacles and
circumstances.
43
To have created an environment on an island in a rain forest where
even travel is sometimes limited and still give our community and its
citizens the American dream is what is truly unique and what we ask
you to help us preserve.
Those who say "no logging" sire as unreasonable as those who would
clearcut Alaska, although I have never met anyone who advocated that.
I cannot imagine a 4th of July without the timber festival and logging
events. I am not sure that visitors would find Southeast Alaska as
attractive without the men and women of timber. The economy of our
region would lose a basic timber job earning $17.00 and try to replace
it with a $10.00 service job.
The local tax and wage structure is a sensitive balance and I cannot
overemphasize the importance of this city and its services to the re-
gion. If help is not here, then one must go to Seattle. Driving to a
city such as Denver to see a doctor can take several hours and cost
the price of gasoline. For a Southeasterner it can mean being away
from home for several days and cost the price of an airline ticket to
Seattle $427.08.
Move ever so slowly and support our industry in balance.
-3-
44
Senator Wirth. Adrian LeCornu.
STATEMENT OF ADRIAN LeCORNU, MAYOR, CITY OF HYDABURG
Mr. LeCornu. Good morning.
My name is Adrian LeCornu and I am the Mayor of the City of
Hydaburg.
The City of Hydaburg has a population of 456 people, 86 percent
of whom are of Haida ancestry. The community is located approxi-
mately 46 miles west of Ketchikan.
Hydaburg was founded in 1911 when three Haida villages con-
solidated to embark upon the plan devised by the Bureau of Educa-
tion. This four-part plan intended to: one, recast the Haidas in
roles as American citizens; two, create a model progressive village
upon what was known as the Metlakatla Plan; three, set aside an
area of land for the exclusive use of Haida, and four, to develop a
modern industrial economy based on the fisheries and the timber
resources.
We have not realized the dreams of our forebears and the Metla-
katla Plan has not materialized for the Haida.
The City of Hydaburg supports the changes proposed in Senator
Wirth's bill. In addition, the City supports the protection and pres-
ervation of the Nutkwa Inlet, an area extremely important to our
people for subsistence and recreational use and we support the pro-
tection of the outside islands, tradition Haida lands. Two, we sup-
port the provisions of the Haida Land Exchange Act which would
allow Haida Corporation to receive lands such as those in the
Sulzer-Portage Area.
Three, we support the protection of the City of Hydaburg's wa-
tershed by authorizing exchanges between the regional corpora-
tions and the State of Alaska.
The number of people in Hydaburg working in the timber indus-
try is very small. When we look at those signs around town which
say support our timber industry it brings home the fact that the
timber industry is theirs and not ours. Hydaburg has come to be-
lieve that the Forest Service and the timber industry would rather
not have Hydaburg participating in the promises of these long-term
contracts.
We agree with those who have said that the current manage-
ment regime in the Tongass National Forest is a relic of a bygone
era. The dependent industry has shown time and again that is not
concerned with the local economy of southeast, nor with long-term
jobs for their workers. Those interested have only to review the
Reid Brothers antitrust case and the recent complaint brought to
the National Labor Relations Board against Alaska Lumber and
Pulp.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Mayor LeCornu. Again, I appreciate
the efforts that all of you are making to stay within the limit and
it makes it easier on everybody else all day long.
Mr. Taylor.
45
STATEMENT OF ROBIN TAYLOR, ALASKA STATE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Taylor. I am Robin Taylor, Representative of State House
District lA
Senator Wirth [interrupting]. Where do I get a shirt like that?
Mr. Taylor. I will give you this one off my back if you put this
bill through. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. You ought to run for public office, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. That is why I have already been elected for three
terms and also the Minority Leader in the House of Representa-
tives in Alaska and a 28-year resident of this Congress. My chil-
dren went to this school and my children were born in this commu-
nity.
As a fellow politician I am aware of the political realities that
face me and my District today. I know that the rhetoric of emotion-
al demagogues and the mantra chanted by their mesmerized fol-
lowers has been accepted as gospel by certain of your colleagues
who have introduced this legislation to excite this lynch mob men-
tality. In such a situation, facts become meaningless and creative
fiction backed up by an environmental poll will carry more politi-
cal weight than all of these good people testifying today before the
Senate and asking you to leave their economy alone.
If I cut down one tree on your federal barony I can be thrown
into a federal jail. That is true. Just like the American colonists
two hundred years ago we Alaskan peasants know our place. We
know who owns the King's Land which surrounds us. Two hundred
years ago King George fooled the American colonies and those pio-
neers and peasants begged and pleaded, they cajoled and attempted
to curry favor and from my reading of history they were about as
successful as we Alaskans have been with Congress for the last
twenty years.
We have to beg Congress to even come and look at its forest. Na-
ively we believe that you cannot deny that which you have seen
with your own eyes. Two years ago several of your colleagues
toured the Tongass with me. I was shocked by their comments in
the press. Obviously, showing the Tongass to environmental politi-
cians is like explaining and showing Jane Fonda a nuclear reactor.
We sincerely appreciate that you have come here today to honestly
listen, look and learn. To each of you we are grateful, for we know
that you will not deny the overwhelming evidence of good steward-
ship that is obvious on the Tongass.
The Wrangell sawmill is the largest in Alaska and it would be
one of the first victims of Senator Wirth's bill. The last time that
mill closed we witnessed the effects of fifty-two percent unemploy-
ment for over a year. I watched friends lose their homes and move
away. No eagle had to move his nest; his home was protected by
the same arbitrary federal laws that will put my friends out of
work and destroy their lives.
Just like our colonial forefathers, we peasant inhabitants of your
Alaskan Preserve beg you to let us survive. If you flew over one
hundred miles north or south of this auditorium you would still be
in my district and still in the Tongass. Are my friends and neigh-
bors asking too much when we beg you to allow us to use one-tenth
46
of one percent of this land each year to live on? We know you will
not let us build a home there, and we know that we will never be
able to buy even one acre of it, but could we just be allowed to
work there? After one hundred years, over ninety percent of it will
still be untouched.
Until we see your votes on this bill we will not know if you came
as friends or as inquisitors searching for truth on a fraudulent in-
dictment. Sadly today some well-meaning folks will suggest a gen-
erous compromise, naively hoping that by giving the sponsor a
major portion of what they think is desired that maybe Congress
will accept the compromise and leave us alone. We veterans of the
Tongass know all too well that the environmental extremists will
not be satisfied as long as people inhabit the Tongass.
I will cut my remarks off at that point. Thank you. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. The Chair would remind those at the hearing
that they are here as guests of the committee and guests of the
Senate and the Rules of the Senate, the involvement of the com-
mittee is not welcome and we want to get through this hearing as
much as possible — I realize that this is an issue of great emotional
concern to many but I think that maintaining the processes of the
Committee is a way which would be always observed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
47
Statement of Representative Robin Taylor
for the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
AprU24,1989 in Ketchikan, Alaska
I am Robin L. Taylor, Representative of State House District 1 A, and a twenty-eight
year resident of your Tongass National Forest. As Minority Leader in the Alaska House of
Representatives, and as a fellow politician, I am aware of the politioil realities that face me
and my District today. I know that the rhetoric of emotional demagogues and the mantra
chanted by their mesmerized followers has t)een accepted as gospel by certain of your
colleagues who have introduced this legislation to excite this lynch mob mentality. In such a
situation, facts become meaningless and creative fiction backed up by an environmental poll
will carry more political weight than till of these good people obsequiously begging the Senate
to leave them and their economy alone.
If I cut down one tree on your federal barony I can be thrown into a federal jail. It's
true. Just like the Americain colonist two hundred years ago, we Alaskan peeisants know our
place. We know who owns the king's land which surrounds us. Two hundred years ago.
King George ruled the American colonies and those pioneers and peasants tjegged emd
pleaded, they cajoled and attempted to curry favor — and from my reading of history they
were about as successful as we Alaskans have been with Congress for the last twenty years.
We have to beg Congress to even come and look at its forest. Naively we l)elieve that
you caimot deny that which you have seen with your own eyes. Two years ago several of
your colleagues toured the Tongass with me. I was shocked by their comments in the press.
Obviously, showing the Tongass to environmental politicians is like explaining cind
showing Jcme Fonda a nuclear reactor. We sincerely appreciate that you have come here
today to honestly listen, look, and leam. To each of you we are grateful, for we know that
you will not deny the overwhelming evidence of good stewardship that is obvious on the
Tongass.
The Wrangell sawmill is the largest in Alaska and it would be one of the first victims
of Senator Wirth's bill. The last time that mill dosed we witnessed the effects of fifty-two
percent tinemployment for over a ye«ir. I watched friends lose their homes and move away.
No eagle had to move his nest. His home was protected by the same arbitrary federeil laws
that will put my friends out of work and destroy their lives.
Just like our colonial forefathers, we peasant inhabitants of your Alaskan preserve beg
you to let us survive. If you flew over one hundred miles north or south of this auditoriimi
you would still l)e in my district and still in the Tongass. Are my friends and neighbors
asking too much when we beg you to allow us to use one-tenth of one percent of this land
each year to ecim a living on? We know you won't let us build a home there, and we know
that we will never be able to Ijuy even one acre of it, but could we just be allowed to work
there? After one hundred years, over ninety percent would still be virgin wilderness. Is
that too much to ask?
Until we see your votes on this bill we will not know if you came as friends or as
inquisitors searching for "truth" on a fraudulent Indictment. Sadly today some well-
meaning folks will suggest a generous compromise naively hoping that by giving the
sponsor a major portion of what they think is desired that maybe the Congress will accept the
compromise and leave us alone forever. We veterans of the 'Tongass know all too well that
the insatiable appetite of the environmental extremist will not he satisfied as long as people
inhabit the Tongass.
You statesmen of the Senate can stop this human tragedy by outright rejection of the
Wirth bill, S.346. Political compromise means economic disaster for the people of the
Tongass. My legislative colleagues and I represent 12,000 registered voters who live and
work in the Tongass. It is on their behalf that we ask your consideration today.
48
Senator Wirth. Cheri Davis.
STATEMENT OF CHERI L. DAVIS, ALASKA STATE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
I am here representing myself, not myself but Senator Lloyd
Jones who is unable to be here. He is in Juneau fighting for our
ferry system, which is another vital issue to this area. I will submit
his testimony for the record also, in addition to mine and thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the future of the Tongass Na-
tional Forest.
Thirteen years ago, this July, I came to the Ketchikan High
School Auditorium to testify before the Environmental Protection
Agency and members of Congress about the need for jobs in Ketchi-
kan. At that time I was a young housewife with three small chil-
dren, an unemployed husband and no political background whatso-
ever.
I was simply a concerned citizen. At that time we were in danger
of closing down an industry that is vital to this area. Again, I
appear in the Ketchikan High School Auditorium, my children are
older, my husband is employed and I have become somewhat in-
volved in politics. However, the issue has not changed? I am here
to discuss the future of the Tongass National Forest and the timber
industry it supports.
I believe that outside of our state there is a perception that Alas-
kans are more concerned with the money than with our environ-
ment. I disagree. I live in Alaska primarily because of the beauty
of our state. In order to live here however we must have jobs. The
timber industry in the Tongass employees 4,000 people directly and
indirectly. If this industry is shut down by decisions made in Wash-
ington, D.C., who will provide these jobs?
I believe that Alaskans can best decide Alaska's fate and I am
fascinated by campaigns of congressmen in New York and Colorado
which focus on improving someone else's state. I cannot imagine
winning my campaign if I were to have a platform of what I am
going to do to improve Juneau.
When any new development is proposed in our state, we are re-
quired to do an E.I.S. — Environmental Impact Statement. I would
like to propose that if Congress contemplates changes in the man-
agement of the Tongass that we request an Economic Impact State-
ment. If the legislation you pass is too restrictive to allow the pulp
companies to continue to operate, then I propose that we adopt a
slogan modeled after a billboard seen outside of Seattle years ago:
"Will the last person leaving southeast Alaska please turn out the
lights?"
Thank you very much.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Davis.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Davis and Senator Jones follow:]
49
TESTIMONY ON THE
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
Representative Cheri L. Davis
P.O. Box 5723
Ketchikan, AK 99901
(907) 225-6304
50
ELECTIVE DISTRICT 1
HYDER
KETCHIKAN
KUPREANOF
MEYERS CHUCK
PETERSBURG
SAXMAN
WRANGELL
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
Representative Cheri L. Davis
HOME
PO BOX 5723
KETCHIKAN. AK 99901
PHONE 225-6304
DURING SESSION
P.O. BOX V
STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
JUNEAU, AK 99811
PHONE 465-3424
Good morning, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on
the future of the Tongass National Forest.
Thirteen years ago, this July, I came to the Ketchikan
High School Auditorium to testify before the Environmental
Protection Agency and members of Congress about the need for
jobs in Ketchikan. At that time, I was a young housewife with
3 small children, an unemployed husband and no political
background whatsoever. I was simply a concerned citizen.
At that time, we were in danger of closing down an
industry that is vital to this area. Again, I appear in the
Ketchikan High School Auditorium. My children are older. My
husband is employed and I have become somewhat involved in
politics. However, the issue has not changed. I am here to
discuss the future of the Tongass National Forest and the
timber industry it supports.
I believe that outside of our state there is a perception
that Alaskans are more concerned with money than with our
environment. I disagree. I live in Alaska primarily because
of the beauty of our state. In order to live here, however.
51
C. Davis
page 2
04/24/89
we must have jobs. The timber industry in the Tongass
employees 4,000 people directly and indirectly. If this
industry is shut dovm by decisions made in Washington, D.C.,
who will provide those jobs?
I believe that Alaskans can best decide Alaska's fate. I
am fascinated by campaigns of congressmen in New York and
Colorado which focus on improving someone else's state! I
cannot imagine winning my campaign if I were to have a
platform of what I'm going to do to improve Juneau!
When any new development is proposed in our state, we are
required to do an E.I.S. — Environmental Impact Statement. I'd
like to propose that if Congress contemplates changes in the
management of the Tongass, that we request an Economic Impact
Statement!
If the legislation you pass is too restrictive to allow
the pulp companies to continue to operate, then I suggest that
we adopt a slogan, modeled after a billboard seen outside of
Seattle years ago:
"WILL THE LAST PERSON LEAVING SOUTHEAST
ALASKA, PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS?"
52
T O N G A S S
FACTS
16.7 million acres in Alaska's Tongass National Forest.
5.5 million acres in Alaska's Tongass National Forest is
wilderness.
Of the 16.7 million acres, only 5.7 million acres are
considered "commercial."
— "Commercial" means biologically suited for growing and
harvesting timber.
Of the 5.7 million acres of commercial timber land, 1.7
million acres is wilderness, 2.3 million acres is either prime
recreation area, critical wildlife habitat or sensitive
fisheries streams, leaving only 1.7 million acres that can be
harvested. Of this 1.7 million acres targeted for harvest,
only 1% is scheduled for harvest in any given year.
Forest industry jobs pay 25% more than the average job in
Alaska.
A payroll of $159 million for direct employees of the
industry.
The above information cited in "Keeping Alaska Alaska,"
Alaska Loggers Association, 111 Stedman St. Ketchikan.
53
STATEMENT OF
SENATOR LLOYD JONES
SENATE DISTRICT A
Before the
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Notional Paries and Forests
April 24. 1989
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the various Tongass
Timber Reform bills. You hove heard, and will continue to hear, the pros and
cons of wilderness versus development in Alaska. The subject is certainly in the
limelight these days. I ask you to put aside what you ha^/e read and hea.^d in
the notional medio and concentrate on the testimony you will hear today.
These ore the people whose livelihoods will be affected by your decisions.
According to the Alaska Department of Labor, there is on overage of
3,450 direct jobs in the timber industry. This is a conservative number and does
not include the self-employed in the industry or transportation firms directly tied
to logging. 1
Many people come to Alaska for its unique beauty. The state is also a
land of rich natural resources. Producing these resources is a way of life, and
you'll find loggers and fishermen who'll fight very hard to keep this lifestyle. I
believe protecting these jobs is as important as protecting our natural beauty.
I contend we can do both. Without jobs these communities, Ketchikan,
1 The Alaska Loggers Assoctatlon estimates ttiere are 4,538 people wortdna In the Tonaass
S'ror^'!!'^ ':!^"^^' ' -^ '°SSers. 415 sawmill work^. M4 pu°p S worice-s a?(??00
trn^grCr2Srron;reS.*^'^"^'^"^^^°^^^^^
54
Wrangell, Petersburg, Hyder, Myers Chuck, Sitka, built on the last frontier, would
become ghost towns.
The State of Alaska has seen hard economic times in recent years. But
here in Southern Southeast, residents continue to remain relatively stable. The
diversity of jobs in the area is a big factor. Rshing. mineral development,
timber, and tourism depend on the natural resources found here. These
industries drive the economy in Southern Southeast. Each contributes to the
economic pie. If one industry topples, the pinch is felt everywhere, especially if
families move, in search of new employment. The loss of jobs is felt in the
decrease of the town's tax base, school population, housing mart<et, all the
way down to the volume of groceries bought and sold in the supermarket.
The towns in Southern Southeast Alaska are already small. It only takes the loss
of a few jobs to upset the apple cart.
Congress passed the Tongass Timber Act in 1947 authorizing timber soles
in the Tongass National Forest. This was done to provide year-round
employment in Southeast Alaska. In 1971, when Congress passed the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, it sought to increase jobs in the timber industry in
Southeast Alaska by allowing the selection of 23,000 acres of land from the
Tongass National Forest by Native villages, and over 250,000 acres of
commercial forest land by Native Regional Corporations. In 1976, Congress
reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining timber jobs in the Tongass National
Forest when It passed the National Forest Management Act. Further, the clear
intent of Congress when it passed Sec. 705 of ANILCA was to maintain
employment in the timber industry at the same level as before the passage of
the act.
-2-
55
While I personally support Senator Murkowski's bill over Congressman
Mrozek's or Senator Wirth's, I caution the committee to go slow. Please do not
be pressured by the emotionalism that surrounds this issue. The Draft TLMP EIS is
up for public consideration in December 1989. I urge you to put off any
Congressional action until after the Tongass Land Management Plan Revisions
are reviewed. Under this process, the Forest sen/ice can construct alternative
land use proposals for Congress to consider after there is considerable public
input and an Environmental Impact statement is completed. Thank you.
56
Senator Wirth. Mr. Sebastian.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, REPRESENTING THE POINT
BAKER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Sebastian. My name is Joseph Sebastian and I am here in
behalf of The Point Baker Community Association. We still live the
traditional Alaskan way of life, living close to the land and earning
our livelihood from the ocean as commercial fishermen. Our expe-
rience with the United States Forest Service has led us to have
little or no faith in their ability to chart a new course for the Ton-
gass; neither do we have one iota of confidence in the phony U.S.
Forest Service team provision. The U.S. Forest Service is not
known locally and as double-talkers good only for timber roads and
timber extraction.
Likewise as 237 is not a real solution to the Tongass problems
either and we wholeheartedly support S. 346.
We also request permanent protection for the areas listed in S.
346. These priceless areas of course are full of fish and wildlife that
we depend on and once cut down cannot be re-created by man at
any price. The far-flung nature of these 23 areas gives every com-
munity in southeast Alaska a piece of local wildlife to protect their
traditional Alaskan lifestyles.
Permanent protection is a must. The efficiency of the modern in-
dustrial timber industry can log off all these lands in a blink of a
decade and the ten years on North Prince of Wales Island LPK has
all but logged the best of the timber and is going for the rest.
Due to the 50-year contracts and the phony attitude of the
United States Forest Service we have been helpless to stop the in-
dustrial carnage taking place around Point Baker. Areas like
Calder-Holbrook are important to preserving wildlife and assist the
habitat that we and others depend on to feed our families. There
are areas like South Kuiu Island and the Calder-Holbrook Wildlife
Corridor and the Outside Islands where they can fmd shelter in
these lonely remote areas. South Kuiu is also important in migra-
tory wildlife and it's a true wilderness in the fullest sense of the
word. If not protected the United States Forest Service will have
another deficit timber sale and the price of business will be a sale
that is centered in Japan.
The Outside Islands are important to many Point Baker Fisher-
men who travel there to fish seasonally and the Point Baker Com-
munity Association begs Senator Wirth to permanently protect
these 23 national treasures with the wilderness or likewise protect-
ed measures. The value of these wild lands and their fish and wild-
life habitat far outweigh the dollar value of the wood fibre on these
lands. A living breathing ecosystem and balance with Alaska wild-
life and weather is what we need to keep alive the Alaskan dream
and the wilderness spirit of southeast Alaska.
God speed to S. 346.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Sebastian. We are sorry not to
be able to accept your invitation to have a hearing at Wrangell but
we still appreciate your coming down here today. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sebastian follows:]
57
Statement of Joseph Sebastian
Representing The Point Baker Community Association
Before U S Senate .Tongass Field Hearing in Ketchikan Alaska
April 24, 1989
58
My name is Joseph Sebastian, I am a small boat salmon fisherman
from Point Baker .Alaska on N. Prince of Wales Island. I am here to speak on the
behalf of the Point Baker Community Association.
Our small fishing village is perched on the salt water ocean
inlet of Sumner Striaght.and contains some fifty people in all . Most people
in Pt. Baker are fisherman, trollers or gillnetters, or storekeepers, fish-
buyers and older longtermAlaskans bordering on retirement. Many of us still
live in an old time Alaskan fashion dependent on Alaskas fish and wildlife
for a good portian of our diet. The ocean laps our front porch and the forest
starts out our back doors. Blackbear and deer still spill out on our local
beaches, wolves have been spotted within half a mile of our village, but now
the massive clearcuts have all but wipedout the^local forestlands we depend
on.
Many people out here are dissatisfied with the present U S F S
policy regarding Section 705 ANILCA. The cut and run attitude of the two ,
balance
pulp mills can only last a few more years before destroying the ecologicaly^of
the Tongass we all rely upon. The two fifty year contracts along with Sec. 705
will bankrupt our forest and wildlife resouftcE by the end of the longterm
contracts in the year 2011. Our wild places in S.E.Alaska are shrinking rapidly
under the abusive 'Intensive Management' of the USPS and LPK and APC.
The same mistakes are committed year after year like clock-work, due to the
inflexable design and intent of Sec. 705. With a changing land-use ethic taking
place, many small communities are taking steps to protect areas that have
traditional and historic use. Our local hunting grounds, fishing grounds,
boat anchorages, or recreational areas are being threatend and or destroyed
by the policy s of ANILCA Sec. 705.
The fact is the twD fifty year contracts were based on error, and
over-blown estmates with little regard for other forest uses's. At the tmE.jyState "la^^s select-
-ions, subsistence areas or viable wildlife habitat were unheard of. Local recreation was
overlooked, because many little cannunities were just being founded, the possibilities of
tourisn were still just developing. After thirty odd years, much has changed in S.E.Alaska,
and the land ethic in the Tongass needs to be brought up to date to reflect the needs of
taiarrow and the Alaska we wish to see entering the year »11. Yet the two over generous contract^
renain in place, outdated and over expliotive even in this year 198?. It's sickenijig to see this
rare and valuable tinber resource being sold for $ 1.48 per thousand board feet to Japanese
corperations , ^Ao leave us with wrack and ruin of ecological disaster, Oiile the tiirher and
profits go to Japan. It is extremely poor management and poor govemnent, to impoverish
Alaskan timber lands at a deficet to our tax-payers and to the enrichient of the Japanese.
59
On our local scene while 80% of our timber on Federal lands
on Prince of Wales Island are to be cut by the year 2004, we are desparetly
trying to protect the last of the last, wild places in our area of S E Alaska.
I will mention three of these areas, and then descibe each briefly. I would
also like to make clear that 23areas listed in S.346 deserve permanent protec-
tion of Wilderness or LUD 2 protective status. The three areas importent to
Pt. Baker are the Calder-Holbrook Wildlife Corridor ,Kuiu Island, and the
Outside Islands.
While the rest of Prince of Wales Island is being logged to
the bone a small mountainous area of about 50,000 acers known as the Calder-
Holbrook Wildlife Corridor, is the most critical to the longterm subsistence
our
needs of community, and other small villages also. Located along a well
traveled waterway known as El Capitan-Dry Pass, it is used by commercial fisher-
man, subsistence hunters, who climb the steep, rugged peaks in hopes of bagging
a big fat Sitka-Blacktail deer. This area is the last virgfm fragment of what
was once a great forest.
Mount Calder, Highest peak on Prince of Wales Island, at 3,860 feet.
22-148 0-89-3
60
The 'ftjt-side Islands' are a crutial pare of Che ccmiErcial fishing
industxy. Noyes, Baker, Lulu.and San Fernando Islands fit together to provide an idial place
for fish to feed , for fisherman catch, forfish-packers to buy, and for processing ships to
anchor and transform the raw salmon into a frozen product. Over 16 million dollars a year are
made in these local waters. The islands are very rugged and steep, tte ocean-cape weather adds
to tlie wild soul of these islands. Already one tourist sport-boating concern is making over
2 nuUicn dollars a year in the vacinity of the Out side Islands. These islands also deserve
longtenn protection by Congess.
AloN^eS I5Md^ the
To A1/t'^'y People /AJ
Tilt Cg/^M€(«c/>1 I ^bhiA/r
"^ i fi-j^n p^ckiWf 3C0LJ.
61
Kuiu Island is a remote wilderness-class^all but unknown
exept to the crab, salmon, and longline commercial fisherman who frequent
its lonly shores. Kuiu is also on the migratory waterfowl flyway, its quite
coves busy in the early spring, and late fall with ducks, geese, and swans,
who all feed along the many tidal mudflats. But the USFS plans to spend
$3,850,000'',''to build roads and log-dumps for Alaska Pulp Co., so they can
access $262,060.00 dollars worth of timber over a ten year period!!!
It just does not make any sense. If S.346 is made into law ,Kuiu may be saved,
if not, then it too will be ruthlessly destroyed in yet another deficet
USFS timber sale.
po/2.-^ boo /.^) V^i") /)|CW€.
M^N^| /oo^\ ^^l, ^WaM3/\i^€
i'^ tKc LJ^^ie/^^ the fe^ln
uj/^\e/i -fv/Ms ]h ice "^
The fate of the Tongass now rests with Congress, there is
much to be lost, and little to be gained by continuing the present USFS-LPK-
APC policy. The so called stuwards of our public lands, the USFS have failed
the publics trust and have proved that to them, the only good tree is a stump!
It is up to Congress to reform the twisted laws that allow this travesty
to continue. The 23areas all deserve the permanent protection that will save
them from becoming just another USFS deficet timber sale. After some 30 years
of highgrading the forest, bilking the taxpayer, destroying fish and wildlife
habitat, and acting the patsy for Japanese indusrealists, it is time the USFS
recicved a new mandate from Congress, on how to manage the Tongass National
Forest, one of the most spectacular regions in the United States.
62
The fishing village of Point -Baker has a history of wildlife and
subsistence dependence from the surrounding Tongass National Forest. Due
to the local timber harvest;, both current and future, planned by the USFS
and LPK^and APC, it has become clear that our subsistence rights and needs
will not.be met or sustained. The USFS does not practice "sustained yield"
for our local forest plans. If the Alaskan-subsistance, or wildlife habitat
and diversity are not preserved, our residents and citizens will face hunger
and disaster. The demand for deer, bear, fish, and other resources, remains
constant.
Therefore, the Point Baker Community Association resolves that the
area known as Calder-Holbrook Wildlife Corridor, should be preserved as
LUD 1 wilderness or a comparable designation. This will allow an important
fish and -wildlife area to be preserved for the benefit of already heavy
subsistance use. Further, the area known as East and South Kuiu, including -
the Sumner Islands, should also be permanently protected. Kuiu is importent
to the local fishing fleet, trollers, longliners, and crab fisherman all
make a living off Kuiu's shores and find shelter in Kuiu's harbors. (Kuiu
also has many local fish steams.) Also we stand in favor of Rocky Pass
receiving wilderness designation. Rocky Pass's importence and value to the
migratory waterfowl flyway can not be overstated.
We believe and resolve these wildlands must be allowed to survive
and be permanently protected. Our health, wealth, and prosperity of Alaskan
spirit depend on it.
Ctl^.g/W^ ,^^V.,,i^ y.2>V<t,t.W^
r
63
Senator Wirth. Fern Neimeyer.
STATEMENT OF FERN NEIMEYER, MAYOR OF WRANGELL
Ms. Neimeyer. There are no roads leading to Wrangell. The only
access to the outside world is by air or water. I am here today as
the spokesperson for the people of Wrangell because we are all con-
cerned about the future of our town. Our lifestyles and economic
base revolves around the fishing and timber industries.
We live in the Tongass National Forest and are very much aware
of the natural beauty of our surroundings and we understand the
sensitivity of our ecosystem. To us it is our way of life. We under-
stand that if we are to maintain our life style and provide a viable
future for our children it is essential that the management of our
natural resources be implemented in a prudent manner. We are
committed to the wise use of these resources because they repre-
sent our life blood.
The Tongass Timber Reform legislation proposed by Senator
Wirth and Representative Mrazek — Senate Bill 346 and House Bill
987 — are viewed by my constituents as a serious threat to our eco-
nomic future. This legislation would place constraints upon the
timber industry that would cause irreparable damage to the econo-
my of our region and would result in permanent closure of our
sawmill.
This is a frightening prospect. We have had mill closures in the
past and experienced the mental and economic trauma of an imme-
diate 30 percent unemployment rate. It would be grossly unfair to
the people of Wrangell and southeast Alaska if they are subjected
to hard line legislation that poses the prospect of economic depre-
dation. Radical legislative proposals that cater to special interests
will solve nothing. There is room for compromise.
The Southeast Conference has developed a policy position regard-
ing legislation and management of the Tongass National Forest. I
believe that all members of the congressional committee have re-
ceived copies of this document. The southeast policy position ad-
dresses the concerns of a broad cross section of the people living in
the Tongass.
The city of Wrangel has endorsed the Southeast Conference posi-
tion paper because we believe it is an honest compromise. To us
this document represents a conscientious approach to the needs
and wise utilization of all the resources in the Tongass including
the people. We ask that you utilize this document as a reference to
create Tongass Legislation that we can all live with in harmony.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Neimeyer follows:]
64
CITY OF WRANGELL, ALAS
^^ Certified a true and correct
copy of the original llied
if) my office.
TESTIMONY OF FERN NEIMEYER
MAYOR OF WRANGELL, ALASKA .<. ■ . ( ._/, - //.
APRIL 24, 1989 • • 1 -. -
City Clerk _. ,. ^y
City of Wrangell - /
UNITED STATES SENATE """
ENERGY AND PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
MY NAME IS FERN NEIMEYER, I AM THE MAYOR OF WRANGELL, ALASKA.
THE CITY OF WRANGELL (POPULATION 3,112) IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTHERN TIP OF WRANGELL ISLAND IN THE HEART OF THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST. THERE ARE NO ROADS LEADING TO WRANGELL. OUR
ONLY ACCESS TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD IS BY AIR OR WATER.
I AM HERE TODAY AS THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE PEOPLE OF WRANGELL
BECAUSE WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR TOWN.
OUR LIFESTYLE AND ECONOMIC BASE EVOLVES AROUND THE FISHING AND
TIMBER INDUSTRIES. WE WHO LIVE IN THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF OUR SURROUNDINGS AND
WE UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY OF OUR ECOSYSTEM. TO US IT IS OUR
WAY OF LIFE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE ARE TO MAINTAIN OUR LIFE
STYLE AND PROVIDE A VIABLE FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN IT IS
ESSENTIAL THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES BE
IMPLEMENTED IN ^ PRUDENT MANNER. WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE WISE
USE OF THESE RESOURCES BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT OUR LIFE BLOOD.
THE TONGASS TIMBER REFORM LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY SENATOR WIRTH
AND REPRESENTATIVE MRAZEK (SB345 & HB987) ARE VIEWED BY MY
CONSTITUENTS AS A SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR ECONOMIC FUTURE. THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD PLACE CONSTRAINTS UPON THE TIMBER INDUSTRY THAT
WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE ECONOMY OF OUR REGION AND
WOULD RESULT IN PERMANENT CLOSURE OF OUR SAW MILL.
65
CITY OF WRANGELL, ALASKA
FERN NEIMEYER TONGASS TESTIMONY
PAGE 2
THIS IS A FRIGHTENING PROSPECT. WE HAVE HAD MILL CLOSURES IN THE
PAST AND EXPERIENCED THE MENTAL AND ECONOMIC TRAUMA OF AN
IMMEDIATE 30% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. IT WOULD BE GROSSLY UNFAIR TO
THE PEOPLE OF WRANGELL AND SOUTHEAST ALASKA IF THEY ARE SUBJECTED
TO HARD LINE LEGISLATION THAT POSES THE PROSPECT OF ECONOMIC
DEPREDATION. RADICAL LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS THAT CATER TO SPECIAL
INTERESTS WILL SOLVE NOTHING. THERE IS ROOM FOR COMPROMISE.
THE SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE HAS DEVELOPED A POLICY POSITION
REGARDING LEGISLATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TONGASS NATIONAL
FOREST. I BELIEVE THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE HAVE RECEIVED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT. THE SOUTHEAST
POLICY POSITION ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF A BROAD CROSS SECTION
OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE TONGASS. THE CITY OF WRANGELL HAS
ENDORSED THE SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE POSITION PAPER BECAUSE WE
BELIEVE IT IS AN HONEST COMPROMISE. TO US THIS DOCUMENT
REPRESENTS A CONSCIENTIOUS APPROACH TO THE NEEDS AND WISE
UTILIZATION OF ALL THE RESOURCES IN THE TONGASS INCLUDING THE
PEOPLE. WE ASK THAT YOU UTILIZE THIS DOCUMENT AS A REFERENCE TO
CREATE TONGASS LEGISLATION THAT WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH IN HARMONY.
^-^■^ '^
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS
FERNNEIMEYp
j:1
JlZj^Ki OF //2^^V^ .1989
TAkY PUBLIC', STATE OF ALASKA
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
66
Senator Wirth. Thank you, very much, Mayor Neimeyer.
Now I am struck by a number of the panelists — well, I have a
minute or two of questions. I was struck by a number of panelists
saying that if the Wirth bill passes the mills are going to close
down. Is there a position in the legislation that says that the mills
are going to be closed down. The answer to that is no. Right now
what the legislation does is remove the automatic four and a half
billion board feet that is in the current law over a ten-year period
of time. It says that the forest will be out based upon what the
Forest Service determines is going to be the need and also remove
the forty million dollar annual provision that automatically goes to
the Tongass.
There is no other national forest in the country that has an auto-
matic requirement for how much to be cut and there is no other
forest in the country that receives an automatic entitlement.
I just wanted to, for the record, point out that there is nothing in
the legislation that says that X, Y or Z Mill is going to be closed
down.
I do think it is unfortunate and there is — one of our witnesses
this morning talked about over-reaction, I think that was Mr.
Taylor, about overreaction from one group of people. I think there
is also a tendency for there to be overreaction from others, just as
one would somewhat accuse environmentalists of fear tactics, the
world is going to be destroyed if timbering continues. I think also it
is unfortunate that some people in the timber industry said they
were going to have 30 percent unemployment or 40 or 50 percent
unemployment if this legislation passes.
Neither position is true. I think most everybody knows that and
what we plan to do is to find a reasonable balance between the
two.
I just wanted for the record to point that out so everybody under-
stands it, that there is no provision in the legislation that says that
mills are going to be closed down. They will compete like other
mills but there is nothing that says that they will be closed down.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Senator, I would hope that some of our wit-
nesses can address the point that you brought up. I think it is fair
to point out that in both bills before us we would do away with the
proposed entitlement of $40 million. So that point really is not de-
batable. The question is what can you do with regard to the assur-
ance of the long-term safeguards for the industry unless you have a
continuing supply of timber. Our particular bill provides up to 4.5
billion protected based on a number of factors, including the mar-
keting. I would hope that other witnesses would have their tes-
timony directed to the question brought up by the Chairman. In
other words, the necessity of having 4.5 is an appropriate point and
one that should be made by the witnesses and certainly it is not
my intention to debate the matter here.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all, we appreciate your coming.
Thank you ever so much and we also appreciate most of you stick-
ing to the time frame and that is going to be helpful to everybody.
Now we might have the second panel, please come up and while
you are sitting there, we might ask the third panel to come up and
move into the circle here. Mr. Greg Steveler, Gustavus Community
67
Association, Leslie Bartholomew, Ketchikan, Cliff Taro, Ketchikan,
Roger Stone, Ketchikan, Marlene Clarke of Wrangell and Lew Wil-
liams of Ketchikan and coming up, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Williams and
Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Guiza and Mr. DeWitt, you all would move
into, near the center seats.
Thank you for being here, you are also familiar with the rules
and we ask you to hold your statements to three minutes and as
noted before your statements will be included in the full record.
Mr. Steveler. Please be seated Mr. Steveler.
STATEMENT OF GREG STEVELER, THE GUSTAVUS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Steveler. I represent the Community Association of Gusta-
vus, Alaska, which is a little community on the north shore of Icy
Strait, on the north extremity of southeast Alaska.
The people of my town make their living primarily from fishing.
Almost everyone in town uses the region's timber, fish and game as
part of a rural, subsistance-based lifestyle. Our way of life depends
heavily on the country's continued beauty and productivity.
We are not against resource use. That includes logging, which
has gone on for years to provide local lumber, and firewood and the
like. There have also been some small for-export clearcuts. The
country can handle this but by and large large-scale clearcutting
that has been moving into our vicinity now is another matter en-
tirely. We know from personal experience from watching this that
large-scale clearcutting is a form of resource destruction, leaving
the land ugly to farm at and wide open to various forms of abuse
later on.
The goal of our town is sustainable use of the Tongass. Our life-
style depends on that so to us this means logging on a scale, in a
way that the country can absorb it.
We want Americans in the future to find deer, salmon and big
trees and beauty in abundance along Icy Strait, as we have. The
country can provide those things in perpetuity if we use it in a rea-
sonable fashion.
We thank Senator Wirth and his colleagues for their efforts on
behalf of Tongass reform. Their bill proposes some important steps
in the right direction. It would make timber harvest more flexible.
It would force renegotiation of the timber contracts that have made
most of southeast Alaska into two private kingdoms. It would
cancel the automatic money the Forest Service gets to enhance
these projects as a road from nowhere to nowhere along the Chil-
kat Peninsula near our town and it would give some key places
temporary protection from clearcutting.
The bill does a good job to identify areas of Icy Strait important
to the local people. The many marine species that congregate there
support a large sport and commercial fishery as well as sightseeing
and whalewatching vessels up to the size of cruise ships. The coast-
al forests are excellent for deer hunting and pretty much the same
thing holds for Pleasant and Lemesurier Islands, two other areas
slated for protection.
We wish however that the protection of these areas could be far
more than the few years the bill now envisions. In fact, if we had
68
our way, all large-scale logging in our region would be put on hold
for awhile. We strongly oppose management that destroys those re-
sources for the future. That in our view is like — that is what the
Forest Service offers us now. Until we actually see hands-on man-
agement that respects the country and the local people who depend
on it, our beautiful and productive region should be left alone.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Steveler.
[The prepared statement of Greg Steveler follows:]
69
statement of the Gustavus Community Association
regarding
Tongass National Forest Management
I represent the Community Association of Gustavus, Alaska, a
small unincorporated settlement on the north shore of Icy
Strait.
Gustavus people make their living primarily from tourism and
fishing. Almost everyone in town uses the Icy Strait
region's timber, fish and game as part of a rural,
subsistance-based lifestyle. Our way of life depends
heavily on the country's continued beauty and productivity.
We are not against resource use. That includes logging,
which has gone on for years to provide local lumber,
pilings, firewood and the like. There have been some small,
for-export clearcuts as well. The country can handle this.
But the large-scale clearcutting that has been moving into
our vicinity in the past decade is another matter entirely.
We now know from personal experience that this is a form of
resource destruction, leaving the land ugly to look at, far
poorer in fish and wildlife, and wide open to various forms
of abuse that continue to degrade it for years after
l6gging.
our goal is sustainable use of the Tongass. This means
logging on a scale and in a way the country can absorb. We
want Americans of the future to find deer, salmon, big trees
and natural beauty in abundance along Icy Strait, as we
have. The country can provide those things in perpetuity if
we use it in a reasonable fashion.
We thank Senator Wirth and others for their efforts on
behalf of Tongass reform. Their recently introduced bill
proposes some important steps in the right direction. It
would make timber harvest levels more flexible and
responsive to a broad array of resource values. It would
force renegotiation of the timber contracts that have made
most of southeast Alaska into two private kingdoms where
guaranteed overharvest reigns, and which are off-limits to
small-time operators. It would cancel the guaranteed money
the Forest Service gets for such "enhancement" projects as
the 27 mile road from nowhere to nowhere along the Chilkat
Peninsula near our town. And it would give some key places
temporary protection from clearcutting.
The bill does a good job of identifying areas of Icy Strait
important to the local people. The coast from Point
Adolphus to Idaho Inlet is the richest part of Icy Strait.
Page - 1
70
The many marine species that congregate there support a
large sport and commercial fishery as well as sightseeing
and whalewatching vessels up to cruise ships in size. The
coastal forests are excellent deer hunting. Pleasant and
Lemesurier Islands are very productive areas as well; being
so close to Gustavus, they receive heavy use of many kinds.
We wish, however, that the protection of these areas could
be for more than the few years the bill now envisions. In
fact, if we had our way, all large-scale logging in our
region would be put on hold. Gustavus people by and large
aren't in favor of large-scale "lock-up' of the Tongass; our
life depends on resource uses of many kinds. But we
strongly oppose all forms of management that destroy these
resources for the future. That is what the Forest Service
offers us now. Until we actually see "hands-on" management
that respects the country and the Ipcal people who depend on
it, our beautiful and productive region should be left
alone.
Page - 2
71
Gustavus Community Association
P.O. Box 62
Gustavus, Alaska 99826
To: Senators Stevens and Murkowski, Representative Young
From: President, Gustavus Community Association
Re: The "450 timber cut"* on the Tongass National Forest
At the December 12, 1985, general meeting of the Gustavus
Community Association, it was resolved to urge your support
in removing the annual 450 million board feet timber cut
provision from the Alaska National Interest Land
Classification Act, during the upcoming congressional review
of this legislation.
Our reasoning is as follows:
Whereas, the livelihoods of Gustavus residents depend
heavily on tourism, fishing and subsistence, and
Whereas, biologists and others have determined that
excessive timbering can be detrimental to these resources,
and
Whereas, the "450 timber cut" does not allow enough
flexibility in the management of the National Forest for all
appropriate uses, and
Whereas, this level of harvest is not economically sensible,
as shown by the millions of dollars spent to subsidize the
forest products industry on the Tongass,
We, therefore, oppose the "450 timber cut" on the Tongass
National Forest.
*ANILCA calls for 4.5 billion board feet of timber to be
offered for harvest each decade on the Tongass National
Forest, with an annual sxibsidy of up to $40 million.
72
Mr. Bartholomew.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE J. BARTHOLOMEW, PRESIDENT OF
GREATER KETCHIKAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Bartholomew. Thank you. My name is Leslie Bartholomew.
I am Vice President of Ireland Transfer and Storage and President
of the Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce.
I was born and raised in the Tongass National Forest as were
four other generations of my family. I have had the opportunity to
witness first-hand the growth and development of our community
and region because of the existence of a large year-round forest
products industry.
If you had been here thirty years ago, or even forty, you would
realize that our economy is not a base that can be supported by a
single industry. The timber industry has allowed us to expand and
I firmly believe it has had a positive effect. The number of support
businesses that have developed and flourished under a diverse eco-
nomic base are many. How many communities can you point to
with a population base as small as Ketchikan's that has jet service
six times a day, even in the winter months when there are no tour-
ists; large shopping centers; transportation companies offering mul-
tiple shipments per week; construction companies; superb profes-
sional corporations; a first-class health care facility and many
others. These businesses have prospered not only because of their
commitment to Ketchikan but because of a long-term commitment
by the forest products industry to our community.
The tourist industry, which people so mistakenly believe can
carry us on a year-round basis, depends on the income derived
from permanent residents during the winter months in order to be
available for the tourist in the summer. No one can survive on a
five-month income; it could be tried but the welfare rolls can only
take so many people and without the taxes being paid by our busi-
nesses and industries the government would be hard pressed to pay
for the services required by the indigent.
Our company has been in business in Ketchikan since 1919. We
have gone from operating a small fleet of trucks hauling groceries
from the old Alaska Steamship Dock, along with the ice for the
District at Creek Street, 181 to a large, modern facility and fleet
representing companies throughout the world in the movement of
household goods. Without our population base and the natural
desire of man to live in different parts of the world, we could kiss it
all goodbye.
The Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce has been on
record since the beginning of its time in support of a strong forest
products industry. They key here is commerce, the wages of every
person in this community filter through Ketchikan many times
over. Every dollar paid by an employer moved from their bank to
the grocery store, for example, who then turns that dollar over to
their fuel oil supplier, who in turn gives it to their employee and so
on. Thirty percent of those dollars seems like an awful lot to lose; I
cannot imagine going back to the way we used to live. It was not a
bad way to live but it is not the way we live now.
73
I urge you to consider the fact that in 1980, industry and the pro-
wilderness groups made a deal that reduced areas available for
harvest and increased the areas to paddle their canoes. I find it
hard to understand why, several years later, they chose to ignore
that bargain and come back for more. Is it really your desire that I
lose my lifestyle and all I have done to better my standard of
living, or is it just because you have ruined your back yard and you
now want mine?
The U.S. Forest Service will not allow rape and pillage on the
Tongass National Forest and I would suggest that they be allowed
to proceed with the Tongass Land Management Plan.
I urge to you seriously consider the bill presented by Senators
Murkowski and Stevens.
This is one of the facets of the multiple-use forest and I urge you
to remember that when you make your decision as to how I am
going to live.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. The next witness, Mr. Cliff Taro.
STATEMENT OF CLIFF TARO, PRESIDENT, SOUTHEAST
STEVEDORING CORP.
Mr. Taro. I am Cliff Taro, President of the Southeast Stevedor-
ing Corporation. Our principal business is contracting to load
ocean-going ships with timber products going to worldwide destina-
tions. In this capacity we employ workers called longshoremen and
have some of the best in the world. We also furnish all of the gear,
equipment and supervision.
I came to Ketchikan over 37 years ago and brought my wife and
two small children and now my son and son-in-law are vice presi-
dents of our Corporation. We started our business because there
was going to be a pulp mill constructed in Ketchikan with a 50-
year timber supply contract with the United States Forest Service.
We have developed with the timber industry. We now operate in
some fifteen timber-related ports in Alaska. We employ on a daily
basis over 50 full-time people in our various operations. Should we
have vessels loading in all of our ports on the same day we can
employ over 500 workers.
We have made efforts to diversify our business but everything re-
verts back to timber for good solid year-round employment. Fishing
is limited, tourism is a short season in Alaska.
Some irresponsible, misinformed people seem to think that one
can survive in Alaska on tourism. This is wrong and we know it
because we are involved in it.
We have taken the responsibility of representing the large cruise
ship operators as their Alaska Agents. In this capacity we are re-
sponsible for their operations and needs while in Alaskan ports and
waters, such as but not limited to, providing personnel in each port
to handle their requirements, marine pilots, pilot boats, tug boats,
customs and immigration services, ship stores, supplies and repairs,
medical services for crew and passengers, customs brokerage, line
handling, mail service and communications, personnel boats, fork-
lifts, garbage removal, baggage handling and so forth.
74
This might seem like a large order; it is, but remember it is only
for a very short period of time each year.
Last year during the short tourist season, approximately three
months, we serviced 22 large cruise vessels with over one thousand
port calls, carrying over 198,000 passengers, tourists. This number
would be nearly doubled when one considers that many of the pas-
sengers travel via vessel one way and fly the other. With very few
exceptions the many requirements vitally needed by the cruise
ships, as noted, are here in place because of the year-round utiliza-
tion by the timber industry. This short-time use also applies to fish-
ing vessels.
It does not take a CPA to tell us the great cost of providing all of
the necessities for a short season, if they were not in place, because
the timber industry needs them and keeps them viable.
Since there is no free lunch who would be paying? — the passen-
ger, who wants to see our great state and resources. These people
are your constituents. You should not price them out of the oppor-
tunity to come to Alaska.
We all must do everything possible to maintain the timber indus-
try at its present level, which will not only help those of us who
are here and dependent on the industry for a living, but those
people who have yet to discover this great land.
With the rapid depletion of private timber, the need to maintain
federal timber at its present level becomes increasingly important
to continue steady year-round employment.
I want to go on record favoring Senator Murkowski's bill.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Taro.
Mr. Stone.
STATEMENT OF ROGER A. STONE
Mr. Stone. My name is Roger Stone. I am 38 years old and a
banker by profession. I am married with two children and I am an
Alaskan by choice, not by accident.
When I first saw southeast Alaska in 1973 I was overwhelmed by
a land full of natural beauty rich in natural resources and tremen-
dous economic potential and inhabited by people with something
very special in them and about them. It took me several more
years after that first visit to figure out what that special quality
was. Alaskans, especially those of us who live in southeast, not
only live on the last frontier, we in a very real sense are the last
pioneers. Alaskans, as I discovered, are special because everyone of
us who truly calls Alaska home have been gifted somehow with a
can-do spirit. We believe that given the right opportunities we can
benefit from the mistakes made by those who have gone before and
learn the necessary lessons to do those things right in Alaska. The
true spirit of Alaska is engendered by the realization that we all
live very close to the land and to nature. All of us here depend di-
rectly on the products of the land and the sea and the services that
are needed to support these resource extraction businesses. People
come from all over the world every summer to admire this great
land we are fortunate enough to live in. They gaze at our lifestyle
with respect and even envy and maybe wish they were hearty
enough or lucky enough to be a part of the great North.
75
In 1978 when I finally had the opportunity to move to Alaska I
left a solid career in a large corporate bank to move to this last
frontier to make my home. I took a job with a small community
bank and rapidly began learning about the local economy first-
hand. What I discovered was a strong but fragile economic inter-
relationship. Maybe a better description would be an economy simi-
lar to a stool with three legs. These three legs are timber, fishing
and tourism. The economy has strength because all three of these
legs of the stool have some long-term markets from all over the
world.
At the same time the economy is fragile because the legs of the
stool are subject to more than just the normal forces of supply and
demand present in a rational market. The timber leg in particular
is subjected to outside pressures which threaten to cut it off I
know that all of you at some time in your life have had the occa-
sion to sit on a three-legged stool. If you recall such an occasion
you remember that the three-legged stool was quite supportive and
possibly not always comfortable. It met your basic need for seating
at the time.
Now try and picture in your mind's eye that same occasion with
only a two-legged stool. Unless you are very close to the floor and
can support your weight and keep your balance with your feet on
the ground, the two-legged stool would have been entirely inad-
equate for your basic seating needs. This is exactly what will
happen to the economy of southeast if the restrictive legislation
supported by Senator Wirth and Congressman Mrazrek should
become law. The local economy will suffer tremendously and poten-
tially collapse entirely if the timber industry becomes too severely
restricted.
Over the last eighteen months a tremendous amount of uncer-
tainty has been interjected into our local economy involving all
three legs of the stool. The out-right threat of losing one leg entire-
ly has already had devastating economic impact locally. People are
no longer planning on building or expanding or even dreaming.
Most of us are simply trying to survive and preserve a way of life
in a land we all love dearly. Because of this very real uncertainty
several large local businesses in Ketchikan that I am personally fa-
miliar with are sacrificing quality leadership and personnel to deal
with diminishing monetary returns. Many other good people are
simply leaving the community to go elsewhere as opportunities
arise rather than stay here in the land they love and risk their
family security on the uncertainty of a questionable future created
by the whims of a capricious Congress which is influenced more by
the dollars contributed to campaigns by environmental political
action committees than by the wishes, needs and priorities of the
people it supposedly represents.
I come before you today as a victim of this very real economic
uncertainty. I am most probably going to have to leave this com-
munity and this great land in order to continue to make a living
and provide for my family. I ask you gentlemen, if some outsider
came to your home town and took away your job and told you give
76
up all your hopes and dreams, how would you feel? What would
your reaction be and what would you do? If any of you can answer
those three questions I am certainly open to suggestions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stone follows:]
77
Testimony given by Roger A. Stone
April 24, 1989
U.S. Senate Hearing on Tongass Timber Reform Bills
Ketchikan, Alaska
Member of Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce Panel
My name is Roger Stone. I am 38 years old. I am a Banker
by profession. I am married with two children and I am an
Alaskan by choice, not by accident! When I first saw
Southeast Alaska In 1973, I was overwhelmed by a land full
of Incredible natural beauty rich In natural resources and
tremendous economic potential and Inhabited by people with
something very special in them and about them. It took me
several more years after that first visit to figure out what
that special quality was. Alaskans, especially those of us
who live In Southeast, not only live on the last frontier,
we in a very real sense are the last pioneers! Alaskans, as
I discovered are special because everyone of us who truly
calls Alaska home have been gifted somehow with a "Can-Do"
spirit. We believe that given the right opportunities we
can benefit from the mistakes made by those who have gone
before and learn the necessary lessons to do things right in
Alaska. The true spirit of Alaska is engendered by the
realization that we all live very close to the land and to
nature. All of us here depend directly on the products of
the land and the sea and the services that are needed to
support these resource extraction businesses. People come
from all over the world every summer to admire this great
land we are fortunate enough to live in. They gaze on our
life style with respect and even envy and maybe wish they
were hearty enough or lucky enough to be a part of the great
North.
In 1978 when I finally had the opprtunlty to move to Alaska,
I left a solid career in a large coporate bank to move to
this last frontier to make my home. I took a job with a
small community bank and rapidly begin learning about the
local economy first hand. What I discovered was a strong,
but fragile economic interrelationship. Maybe a better
description would be an economy similar to a stool with
three legs. These three legs are timber, fishing, and
tourism. The economy has strength because all three of
these "legs of the stool" have strong long-term markets from
all over the world. At the saune time the economy is fragile
because the "legs of the stool" are subject to more than
just the normal forces of supply and demand present in a
rational market. The timber "leg" in particular is
subjected to outside pressures which threaten to "cut it
off"! I know that all of you sometime in your life have had
occasion to sit on a three-legged stool. If you recall such
an occasion you will remember that the three-legged stool
was quite supportive and though possibly not always
comfortable, it met your basic need for seating at the time.
78
Now, try and picture In you mind's eye, that same occasion
with only a two-legged stool. Unless you are very close to
the floor and can support your weight and keep your balance
with your feet on the ground, the two-legged stool would
have been entirely Inadequate for you basic seating needs!
This is exactly what will happen to the economy of Southeast
if the restrictive legislation supported by Senator Wirth
and Congressman Mzarek should become law! The local economy
will suffer tremendously and potentially collapse entirely
if the timber industry becomes too severely restricted.
When I came to Alaska the D-2 Lands fight was settled. The
ANILCA debate was in full swing, but everyone expressed
optimism that an acceptable compromise would ultimately be
made and that the lands issue in Southeast would finally be
settled once and for all. People were making plans,
building homes and businesses, and borrowing money to expand
knowing full well that their ability to make a return on
their investments depended in great measure on a fair and
reasonble long term plan for the Tongass. Everyone knew
then as we all know now that circumstances change over time
and that a mechanism had to be established to facilitate
change. Just as the framers of the Constitution of the
United States included in that great document a process for
admendments to facilitate change, ANILCA Included the
Tongass Land Use Management Planning process to facilitate
change. Now outside forces are again intervening and
stating that all of the 1980 agreements were wrong and since
these outside forces and individuals seem to think they know
more about what is best for us than we do ourselves, we once
again find ourselves locked in a bitter struggle for our
very lives and livelihoods. The Alaska Congressional
Delegation has once again framed legislation that we feel we
can live with. Senator Murkowski's proposed legislation
recognizes the necessity of reforming the framework
established in 1980 to facilitate long term change, but it
doesn't steal our ability to make a living in the process!
Over the last eighteen months a tremedous amount of
uncertainty has been interjected Into our local economy
involving all three "legs of the stool". The outright
threat of losing one leg entirely has already had devasting
economic Impact locally. People are no longer planning or
building or expanding or even dreaming! Most of us are
simply trying to survive and preserve a way of life in a
land we all love dearly. Because of this very real
uncertainty several large local businesses in Ketchikan that
I am personally familiar with are sacrificing quality
leadership and personnel to deal with diminishing monetary
returns. Many other good people are simply leaving the
community to go elsewhere as opportunities arise rather than
stay here in the land they love and risk their family
security on the uncertainty of a questionable future
79
created by the whims of a capricious Congress which Is
influenced more by the dollars contributed to campaigns by
environmental Political Action Committees than by the
wishes, needs, and priorities of the people it supposedly
represents.
I come before you today as a victim of this very real
economic uncertainty. I am most probably going to have to
leave this community and this Great Land in order to
continue to make a living and provide for my family. I ask
you gentlemen; if some outsider came to your home town and
took away your job and told you
and dreams, how would you feel?
be? What would you do? If any
three questions, I am certainly
to give up all your hopes
What would your reaction
of you can answer those
open to suggestions!
Thank you
80
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Stone.
Ms. Clarke.
STATEMENT OF MARLENE CLARKE
Ms. Clarke. My name is Marlene Clarke of Wrangell, Alaska. I
am the second generation of my family born in Alaska and the
fourth generation of Norwegian immigrants who settled in Alaska.
I own and manage two businesses in Wrangell and am a current
member of the Wrangell Chamber of Commerce.
I am opposed to Senator Murkowski's Senate Bill 237 as this bill
does not address the very important lands protection issue, the 4.5
million board feet or the contracts. We, as residents of Alaska, are
tied to Alaska's ecosystems and the misuse of Tongass National
Forest and its ecosystems can result in permanent damage to all of
the resources we depend on in southeast Alaska.
I support Senator Wirth's Senate Bill 346 and thank you, Sena-
tor, for introducing it. I will support any bill that promotes sensible
management of the Tongass for all of its resources. I am heartened
to read that Senator Wirth's bill cancels the two pulp mill 50-year
contracts and replaces them with the same sales system used in all
other national forests. It also ends the congressionally mandated
4.5 billion board feet per decade timber supply goal and eliminates
the automatic $40 million subsidy. I am worried about the 23 com-
mercial fishery watersheds and wildlife habitat areas this bill
places under a temporary moratorium from logging. I would like to
have these areas permanently protected. If these areas cannot be
designated as wilderness I would like to have them designated as
LUD 11. Of the 23 areas the following are important to my family
as high use areas for commercial and sport fishing: Anan Creek,
Rocky Pass, No Name Bay, Noyes/ Baker and Mud Bay.
As a business person in Wrangell I have been disheartened by
Wrangell Lumber Products'Cowned by AFC) attitude to the commu-
nity and the lack of regard its personnel have had for local opinion.
I do not want to have logging stopped in the Tongass. I do want
this blatant mismanagement to cease and our natural resources
and ecosystems protected. Much is written of old-growth forest and
500 year-old trees. In our latitude, gentlemen, a seedling planted
now will take another 500 years to reach the size of its 500-year-old
brother in our old-growth forest. My newest granddaughter, born
in Fairbanks, will hopefully have the chance to enjoy the resources
of the Tongass as her parents and grandparents and great grand-
parents and great-great grandparents and great-great-great grand-
parents did.
Thank you very much for allowing me to testify at these hear-
ings. I appreciate the time you gentlemen have given to resolve dif-
ferences of opinions regarding these bills.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. I assume your grand-
daughter is registered to vote. [Laughter.]
Mr. Williams?
81
STATEMENT OF LEW M. WILLIAMS. JR.. PUBLISHER, KETCHIKAN
DAILY NEWS
Mr. Williams. My name is Lew Williams, Jr. I am Publisher of
the Ketchikan Daily News here. I have been running newspapers
in southeastern Alaska for 43 years now. I have served in local
public office, in civic organizations and on State Boards and Com-
missions. Currently I am a member of the State's Citizens Advisory
Commission on Federal Areas.
I support the legislation before you today sponsored by Senator
Frank Murkowski and I oppose any legislation that would reduce
the harvest, sustained yield harvest in the national forest below 4.5
billion per decade. I oppose cancelling the long-term timber sales
and I oppose adding any acreage to the wilderness unless the revi-
sion of the Tongass Land Use Management Plan is completed and I
recognize of course your bill doesn t ask for wilderness but there
are some that do.
As a member of the Citizen's Advisory Commission for the State
we have a briefing from the Forest Service on their revision and I
am very encouraged by it and I think they are going to like it and I
hope the committee will get a briefing before making any designa-
tion on any of the areas.
Senator Murkowski's legislation probably is the most reasonable
approach because he grew up in Ketchikan. He served in the Coast
Guard in Sitka and he was a manager of a bank in Wrangell after
the war and he was Commissioner of Economic Development when
Walter Hickel was Governor of Alaska.
The last time I testified before the Senator here in Ketchikan he
was Commissioner of Economic Development and our newspaper
had completed a long series promoting a beach log salvage legisla-
tion. It took us four years to get it through but we finally made it
so we are not anti cleaning up the environment.
Murkowski's legislation as I understand it automatically repeals
the forty million a year to the Forest Service to make enough
timber available. My understanding is that for the last fiscal year
and the next one has already been incurred so I do not know if
that is necessary.
The Southeastern Conference and other organizations have asked
that the forty million be continued and allowed to be used for other
things and I think that would be fine except that I do not think
more money is going to be forthcoming. As for the long-term
timber sales, there is only 10 years left on the KPC sale because
the next five-year plan, which carries up to 1994, had been ap-
proved. I think it would cost you more money and time to cancel
something that has 10 years left than it would be to carry it out.
Keeping the harvest level at present is acceptable or I mean good
business because the Forest Service alone is going to pay — well,
Ketchikan Pulp Company is going to pay the Forest Service ten
million in stumage this year, which is a great increase. The other
mills will kick in a comparable amount and it will only cost twelve
and a half million to make a different sales program so I know that
you are going to begin getting money and it is a poor time to make
any changes.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
82
My name is Lew M. Williams, Jr.
I am publisher of the Ketchikan Daily News (PO Box 7900, Ketchikan, AK)
I have been running newspapers in Southeastern Alaska for 43 years. I
have sen/ed in local public office, in civic organizations and on state
boards and commissions. Currently, i serve on the state's Citizens
Advisory Commission on Federal Areas.
I support the legislation before you today sponsored by Sen. Frank
Murkowski and Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. I oppose legislation which
would reduce the harvest of national forest timber below 4.5 billion board
feet per decade. I oppose cancelling the long-term timber sales with the
pulp mills. I oppose adding additional acreage to wilderness unless the
revision of the Tongass Land Use Managment Plan now under way
recommends such designation after the Forest Service studies and
hearings are completed.
I operated the Wrangell Sentinel and was active in the chamber of
commerce shortly after World War II when communities of Southeast tried
to attract a year around timber industry to Alaska. It was a long,
frustrating job. Now that we have a stable timber industry, it is important
to preserve it.
Sen. Murkowski's legislation probably is the most reasonable approach
because the senator grew up in Ketchikan, graduated from Ketchikan High
School before there was a pulp mill or year around timber industry. He
served in the Coast Guard in Sitka, before that community had a timber
industry. He was a bank manager in Wrangell after the timber industry
was established, including a sawmill at Wrangell. He was state
Commissioner of Economic Development when Walter Hickel was governor
of Alaska. He has hunted and fished Southeast and knows the people and
the area better than anyone in Congress. He knows it better than most area
residents.
The last time I testified at a hearing in Ketchikan before the senator, he
was commissioner of economic development and our newspaper had
completed a long series promoting a beach log salvage program for the
state. There was opposition but after four years, the state legislature
enacted a law that authorized such salvage. I'm pleased the senator is
back for another important hearing.
Murkowski's legislation pending before this committee repeals the
section of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which
83
automatically authorizes $40 million a year to the Forest Service to make
enough timber available to sustain the timber industry. It makes the
appropriation to the Forest Service in Alaska subject to annual
congressional review and appropriation. I understand this already has been
accomplished at least for two years in other legislation. The Southeastern
Conference, a coalition of communities, chambers of commerce and Native
corporations, and other groups ask that the $40 million be appropriated
annually and that it also go to developing other resources. I support any
added funds to Alaska but believe Murkowski's bill has the best chance for
approval.
Otiier Tongass timber issues are not covered in Murkowski's bill and are
best left as they are.
Cancelling tiie long term sales will take more time and money than its
worth. There are only ten years left on the Ketchikan Pulp Company 's
50-year sale.
There are only ten years left because the next tive year cutting plan has
been agreed to and the final EIS is due out this month. That plan carries
KPC until 1994. The contract expires June 30, 2004. The Alaska Pulp
Corporation contract is only six years longer. The conti^acts are currently
being renegotiated without the need for legislation. It's more appropriate
to determine where timber will be cut in the final 10-16 years of tiie
contract, if any action is wanranted, and where timber will be harvested
in the final 50 years of the 100-year sustained yield cutting cycle.
Keeping the harvest level at 4.5 billion board feet per decade is important.
Aitiiough 450 million feet per year weren't harvested during the mid 80s
because of a poor timber market nationwide, tiie timber was cruised and
is available now during the boom years. It cost the Forest Service $12.6
million a year to administer its timber program so it lost money during
the poor years. This year however, Ketchikan Pulp Company alone will pay
the Forest Service over $1 0 million for stumage. If s logical that Alaska
Pulp Corporation and other harvesters will pay more so the taxpayers will
obtain a return on their investment in ttie Tongass. Legislatively reducing
that han/est now is not In anyone's best interest. The Soutiieast
Conference, whose plan is endorsed by the governor, also supports
retaining the 4.5 billion per decade and the long term sales.
Where legislation calls for setting aside 23 areas totaling 1 .8 million
acres from logging or as wilderness, the setaside is unneeded and the
wildemess idea is impractical, unless our only interest in life is
wilderness. No logging is scheduled for those areas. They are being
considered for other uses by the Forest Service in its revision of the
84
Tongass Land Use Management Plan. That congressionally mandated update
will be out in draft fomn this spring or summer. As a member of the
state's advisory commission on federal areas, I've seen the working draft
of the revision ~ if s public record. Under the revision, the Forest Service
is following new, more detailed designation of uses for national forests.
Where the old plan designated areas of the forest on one of four
classifications LUD I (wilderness) to LUD IV (full development), the new
plan designates 24 types of uses including wilderness, scenic, wildlife,
fisheries, timber. Although Forest Service officials have said that
subsistence uses will be considered in all 24 of the new classifications,
our state commission has suggested that a 25th priority, subsistence use,
be added.
It would be beneficial for the Congress to be briefed by the Forest Service
planner team before arbitarily legislating more wilderness or other land
uses in the Tongass.
It apppears that Tongass legislation is inappropriate at this time, or if
some is passed the revision purposed by the Alaska congressional
delegation be enacted.
85
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. WilUams, and all of
you on the Panel. Thank you, the statements were very good and
thoughtful statements.
Are there any questions?
Senator Murkowski. No.
Senator Wirth. We appreciate you all being with us. Thank you
so much for being here this morning.
I will ask Panel III to move in: Mr. Ray Roberts, Mr. Thomas of
the Tlingit-Haida Council and Mr. William Williams, President of
the Cape Fox Corporation and Mr. Atkinson, Mayor of Metlakatla
Community and our next group will come up and into the second
level of chairs to — Mr. Amends, Mr. Bacon, Ms. Andrews and Ms.
Troll.
Come in and we thank you very much for being here, for joining
us, and you all are familiar with the rules of the committee. We
will put your statements in the record and hope that you will be
able to summarize within that three-minute period of time.
Mr. Roberts.
STATEMENT OF RAY ROBERTS, REPRESENTING ED THOMAS,
TRIBAL PRESIDENT OF THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF TLINGIT-
HAIDA INDIAN TRIBES
Mr. Roberts. Good morning. My name is Ray Roberts, filling in
for President Ed Thomas. I am Tribal Vice President of the Tlingit-
Haida Indian Tribes. I wish to thank the committee giving me the
opportunity to express the views of the Central Council on a
matter of great importance, the Tongass Timber Reform Legisla-
tion.
The Central Council is recognized by the Federal Government
and the Judiciary as an Indian Tribal Government. Members
reside primarily in southeast Alaska and have recognized chapters
in Anchorage, Seattle and San Francisco.
The 1929 Alaska Native Brotherhood Convention authorized
action against the United States for approximately 20 million acres
of land in southeast Alaska to which the Tribes claimed Aboriginal
Title. In 1968 the Tribe received a seven and a half million dollar
judgment The Council operates as a result of that judgment. By its
constitution the Council promotes the welfare of the Tribes and ex-
ercises other powers accruing to it through its federally-recognized
sovereignty.
The Council has a long history of recognition, commencing with
the BIA's Indian Involvement Program and later the Self-Determi-
nation Act and has administered educational, employment and
human services programs for the BIA since 1970.
In the short time we have allotted I would like to highlight the
issues of greatest importance to our members. They are fisheries
enhancement, preservation of subsistence resources and a reasona-
ble balance between conservation and development.
I grew up in the Prince of Wales Area and I have been involved
directly or indirectly in fishing all my life and a great many of our
members share in that history. We are troubled by what we feel is
an over-emphasis on timber management as the Tongass Forest's
priority to the detriment of other values. We feel it essential that
86
the Tongass reform legislation that Congress passes give a higher
priority to commercial fishing than is given today. S.346 is a step
in that direction. In addition, certain fisheries protection zones
should be included in your legislation, free of timbering and other
man-made threats to the fisheries resource. Specifically we support
this protection for Nutkwa, Karta and the Outer Islands. Sealaska
Corporation supports a group of seven fisheries enhancement zones
including these three. We support the Sealaska Proposal as well.
We recognize that S.346 protects Karta, Nutkwa and the Outside
Islands and applaud it for doing so. We would like the moratorium
described in Section 302 of S.346 to be permanent.
Subsistence resources are essential to the lifestyle and culture of
our people. Preservation of those resources must be among the
paramount functions of Forest Service management of the Tongass.
We believe that function is no less important than maintaining
timber harvest levels or any other management purpose. We hope
that your final legislation will statutorily mandate that the Forest
Service can protect subsistence resources without compromise. We
support the language suggested by Senator Wirth in S.346 which
adds consideration of the impact of the timber harvest on subsist-
ence resources, wildlife and fisheries resources, commercial fisher-
ies and other impacts in Tongass reports and studies.
We appreciate the findings and purposes described in S.346
which cite the essentiality of Tongass resources for subsistence ac-
tivities in commercial fishing. We agree with the finding that
states that current Forest Service anagement cannot be sustained
without jeopardizing subsistence users.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Your statement will go
in the record; we appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]
87
TONGASS REFORM LEGISLATION
FIELD HEARINGS
TESTIMONY OF ED THOMAS, TRIBAL PRESIDENT
CENTRAL COUNCIL OF TLINGIT-HAIDA
INDIAN TRIBES
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
APRIL 24, 1989
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ED THOMAS AND I AM TRIBAL
PRESIDENT OF THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF TLINGIT-HAIDA INDIAN
TRIBES. I WISH TO THANK THE COMMITTEE GIVING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THE VIEWS OF THE CENTRAL COUNCIL ON A
MATTER OF GREAT IMPORTANCE, THE TONGASS TIMBER REFORM
LEGISLATION.
THE CENTRAL COUNCIL IS RECOGNIZED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE JUDICIARY AS AN INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.
MEMBERS RESIDE PRIMARILY IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA AND HAVE
RECOGNIZED CHAPTERS IN ANCHORAGE, SEATTLE AND SAN FRANCISCO.
THE 1929 ALASKA NATIVE BROTHERHOOD CONVENTION
AUTHORIZED ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR
APPROXIMATELY 20 MILLION ACRES OF LAND IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA
TO WHICH THE TRIBES CLAIMED ABORIGINAL TITLE. IN 1968 THE
TRIBE RECEIVED A $7.5 MILLION JUDGMENT. THE COUNCIL
OPERATES AS A RESULT OF THAT JUDGMENT. BY ITS CONSTITUTION,
THE COUNCIL PROMOTES THE WELFARE OF THE TRIBES AND EXERCISES
OTHER POWERS ACCRUING TO IT THROUGH ITS FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED
SOVEREIGNTY.
THE COUNCIL HAS A LONG HISTORY OF RECOGNITION,
COMMENCING WITH THE BIA'S "INDIAN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM" AND
LATER THE SELF-DETERMINATION ACT, AND HAS ADMINISTERED
EDUCATIONAL, EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS FOR THE
BIA SINCE 1970.
IN THE SHORT TIME WE HAVE ALLOTTED, I WOULD LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THE ISSUES OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE TO OUR MEMBERS.
THEY ARE FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT, PRESERVATION OF SUBSISTENCE
RESOURCES, AND A REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT.
I GREW UP IN THE PRINCE OF WALES AREA. I HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN FISHING ALL OF MY LIFE.
A GREAT MANY OF OUR MEMBERS SHARE THAT HISTORY. WE ARE
TROUBLED BY WHAT WE FEEL IS AN OVEREMPHASIS ON TIMBER
MANAGEMENT AS THE TONGASS FOREST'S PRIORITY TO THE DETRIMENT
OF OTHER VALUES. WE FEEL IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE TONGASS
REFORM LEGISLATION CONGRESS PASSES GIVE A HIGHER PRIORITY
TO COMMERCIAL FISHING THAN IS GIVEN TODAY. S. 34 6 IS A STEP
88
IN THAT DIRECTION. IN ADDITION, CERTAIN FISHERIES
PROTECTION ZONES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN YOUR LEGISLATION,
FREE OF TIMBERING AND OTHER MAN MADE THREATS TO THE
FISHERIES RESOURCE. SPECIFICALLY, WE SUPPORT THIS
PROTECTION FOR NUTKWA, KARTA, AND THE OUTER ISLANDS.
SEALASKA CORPORATION SUPPORTS A GROUP OF SEVEN FISHERIES
ENHANCEMENT ZONES INCLUDING THESE THREE. WE SUPPORT THE
SEALASKA PROPOSAL, AS WELL. WE RECOGNIZE THAT S. 346
PROTECTS KARTA, NUTKWA AND THE OUTSIDE ISLANDS AND APPLAUD
IT FOR DOING SO. WE WOULD LIKE THE MORATORIUM DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 302 OF S. 346 TO BE PERMANENT. /
SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE LIFESTYLE
AND CULTURE OF OUR PEOPLE. PRESERVATION OF THOSE RESOURCES
MUST BE AMONG THE PARAMOUNT FUNCTIONS OF FOREST SERVICE
MANAGEMENT OF THE TONGASS. WE BELIEVE THAT FUNCTION IS NO
LESS IMPORTANT THAN MAINTAINING TIMBER HARVEST LEVELS OR ANY
OTHER MANAGEMENT PURPOSE. WE HOPE THAT YOUR FINAL
LEGISLATION WILL STATUTORILY MANDATE THE FOREST SERVICE TO
PROTECT SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES WITHOUT COMPROMISE. WE
SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE SUGGESTED BY SENATOR WIRTH IN S. 34 6
WHICH ADDS CONSIDERATION OF "THE IMPACT OF THE TIMBER
HARVEST ON SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
RESOURCES, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES" OTHER IMPACTS IN TONGASS
REPORTS AND STUDIES.
WE APPRECIATE THE FINDINGS AND PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN S.
346 WHICH CITE THE ESSENTIALITY OF TONGASS RESOURCES FOR
SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES IN COMMERCIAL FISHING. WE AGREE WITH
THE FINDING THAT STATES THAT CURRENT FOREST SERVICE
MANAGEMENT CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING
SUBSISTENCE USERS.
MOST IMPORTANT, WE SUPPORT SECTION 201(b) WHICH
REQUIRES REVISION OF TLMP TO "SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE
PRODUCTION OF RESOURCES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE LONG TERM
BEST INTERESTS OF ... COMMERCIAL FISHING, ... AND THE
SUBSISTENCE USERS IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA."
OUR LAST PRIORITY IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT. YOU WILL UNDOUBTEDLY HEAR TESTIMONY FROM
WITNESSES WHO BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS THAT CONSERVATION IS
THE ONLY VALUE YOU SHOULD PRESERVE, WHILE OTHERS WILL SAY
THAT DEVELOPMENT IS ALL- IMPORTANT. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED IN THIS AREA FROM TIME
IN MEMORIAL AND WILL LIVE HERE FOR AS LONG AS MAN LIVES
HERE. WE NEED THE LAND PROTECTED AND THE FORESTS TO THRIVE,
BUT WE ALSO NEED A MEANS OF EARNING A LIVELIHOOD AND RAISING
OUR CHILDREN. WE KNOW OF NO MAGIC FORMULA TO PROVIDE EACH
SIDE WITH JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF EMPHASIS. WE ONLY HOPE
TJiAT YOU PAY GREATEST ATTENTION TO THE WITNESSES AND
ORGANIZATIONS WHO SEEK TO FIND A BALANCE AND A FAIR
COMPROMISE.
89
WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL MISTAKES ARE MADE — SUCH AS THE OIL
SPILL IN VALDEZ — THE EFFECTS ARE PERMANENT. THE OIL SPILL
TEACHES US THAT RESOURCES SUCH AS FISHERIES CAN BE DAMAGED
INSTANTLY WITHOUT ASSURANCE OF RECOVERY. WE HOPE THAT THE
MISTAKES OF VALDEZ ARE NOT REPEATED IN SOUTHEAST. WE
BELIEVE THAT YOUR COMMITEE HAS THE WISDOM TO WEIGH THE
TESTIMONY YOU RECEIVE ON TONGASS REFORM, APPLY YOUR GOOD
JUDGMENT TO IT, AND REACH A SOLUTION THAT WILL ALLOW THIS
REGION TO MOVE INTO THE 2 1ST CENTURY WITH A SOLID BASE AND A
VIABLE FUTURE.
/
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY HERE
TODAY .
90
Senator Wirth. Mr. Williams.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, CAPE FOX
CORP.
Mr. Williams. My name is William K. Williams and I am Presi-
dent of Cape Fox Corporation, a Native Village Corporation orga-
nized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
On behalf of the Cape Fox Corporation I want I to express our
thanks for the subcommittee's willingness to hold these field hear-
ings and our appreciation for being permitted to testify today. I
will try to make my remarks as brief as possible.
Cape Fox Corporation is the largest private land holder in the
Ketchikan-Gateway Borough. We own 20,000 acres of timberland in
the area. All of our land is located in the heart of the Tongass. Our
shareholders live in the Tongass and many, if not all, Cape Fox
people are dependent on the Tongass, either for employment in the
timber industry or for subsistence resources. The policies you devel-
op for the Tongass will have a direct and immediate impact on us.
Of the 20,000 acres of commercial timber available to us we have
harvested approximately 75 percent. Cape Fox Corporation does
not actively harvest timber on our lands but instead we have en-
gaged in a business relationship with Klukwan Forest Products
Corporation, another Village Corporation, whereby Klukwan har-
vests the timber for us. Under our present harvest schedule we
have only one to two years of timber harvesting left. Thereafter we
will have about 50 years before the next rotational harvest can
begin. Our position on the Tongass closely reflects the revised posi-
tion expressed by the Alaska Loggers Association in its Policy
Statement of March 17, 1989. In particular Cape Fox supports the
following:
A. The Tongass Land Use Management Plan process should be
continued. The Forest Service has worked with all the parties in
the region to develop a sound management plan for the Tongass.
Cape Fox Corporation applauds the Forest Service's efforts and en-
courages the Congress not to impede the Forest Service in its at-
tempt to accomplish its multiple-use objectives.
B. Maintain Economic Timber Supply. Congress should not
reduce the allowable sale quantity on the Tongass below 4.5 billion
board feet per decade. Cape Fox Corporation does not recommend a
mandated cut or any minimum harvest level. Rather, the actual
harvest levels should be determined by supply and demand and ap-
propriate forestry management techniques.
Congress should ensure access to marginal timber stands on the
Tongass. We recommend an intensive management fund of eight-
een million per year to do preloading, reforestation and thinning
and protect fisheries habitat and fisheries enhancement in areas
with marginal timber stands. The Forest Service should manage
the forest according to principles of multiple-use, including provid-
ing economically viable timber sales to all operators of the Tongass
forest.
There are areas in the Tongass that should not be included in
the commercial timber harvest. Cape Fox recommends the transfer
of special lands into conservation units or protected areas. In par-
91
ticular Cape Fox Corporation is interested in protecting the Naha
Area 16 from road building and timber harvesting. That area is of
special cultural and subsistence significance to the Cape Fox share-
holders.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
22-148 0-89-4
92
TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM K. WILLIAMS
PRESIDENT
CAPE FOX CORPORATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS
APRIL 2i', 1989
93
I. INTRODDCTION
My name is William K. Williams and I am President of Cape
Fox Corporation, a Native Village Corporation organized pursuant
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
On behalf of Cape ;'Fox Corporation, I want to express our
thanks for the Subcommittee's willingness to hold these field
hearings and our appreciation for being permitted to testify
today. I will make my remarks as brief as possible.
Cape Fox Corporation is the largest private land holder in
the Ketchikan-Gateway Borough. We own 20,000 acres of timberland
in the area. All of our land is located in the heart of the
Tongass. Our shareholders Live in the Tongass and many, if not
all. Cape Fox shareholders are dependent on the Tongass, either
for employment in the timber industry or for subsistence
resources. The policies you develop for the Tongass will have a
direct and immediate impact on us.
Of the 20,000 acres of commercial timber available to us, we
have harvested approximately 75%. Cape Fox Corporation does not
actively harvest the timber on our lands, but instead we have
engaged in a business relationship with Klukwan Forest Products
Corporation, another Village Corporation, whereby Klukwan
harvests the timber for us. Under our present harvest schedule,
we have only one to two years of timber harvesting left.
Thereafter, we will have about 50 years before the next
rotational harvest can begin. Our position on the Tongass closely
reflects the revised position expressed by the Alaska Loggers
Association in its Policy Statement of March 17, 1989. In
particular. Cape Fox supports the following:
94
The Tongass Land Use Management Plan process should be
continued. The Forest Service has worked with all the parties in
the region to develop a sound management plan for the Tongass.
Cape Fox Corporation applauds the Forest Service's efforts and
encourages the Congress not to impede the Forest Service in its
attempt to accomplish its multiple-use objectives.
B. MAINTAIN ECONOMIC TIMBER SUPPLY
Congress should not reduce the allowable sale quantity on
the Tongass below 4.5 billion board feet per decade. Cape Fox
Corporation does not recommend a "mandated" cut, or any minimum
harvest level. Rather, the actual harvest levels should be
determined by supply and demand and appropriate forestry
management techniques.
Congress should ensure access to marginal timber stands on
the Tongass. We recommend an intensive management fund of $18
million per year to do preroading, reforestation and thinning and
to protect fisheries habitat and fisheries enhancement in areas
with marginal timber stands. The Forest Service should manage
the forest according to principles of multiple-use, including
providing economically viable timber sales to all operators in
the Tongass Forest.
While Cape Fox recognizes the need to stimulate alternative
industries in the long run, reducing the allowable sale quantity
would have a significant impact on employment in our area,
especially among our shareholders. This will especially be the
case after the timber from our lands has been harvested.
Cape Fox also is concerned that reducing the amount of
timber available to Ketchikan Pulp Corporation may result in
closure of the pulp mill in Ketchikan. That would have a
95
problems with the long term contracts should be resolved through
negotiations between the private parties and the United States
Forest Service.
C. CONSERVATION AREAS
There are areas of the Tongass that should not be included
in the commercial timber base and should not be harvested. Cape
Fox recommends the transfer of special lands into conseirvation
units or protected areas. In particular, Cape Fox Corporation is
interested in protecting the Naha area from road building and
timber harvesting. That area is of special cultural and
subsistence significance to the Cape Fox shareholders. Cape Fox
is interested in exploring the possibility of a land transfer to
preserve this area, perhaps through a value-for-value land
exchange.
In addition, Cape Fox supports the position taken by the
Alaska Loggers Association regarding protection of seven areas
with significant fisheries habitat. We recognize the importance
of commercial fishing to the regional economy and hope that the
Forest Services devotes more efforts and money toward fisheries
enhancement and protection.
I thank you again for giving us the opportunity to testify
before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have about Cape Fox or our position regarding Tongass
management.
96
Senator Wirth. Mr. Atkinson.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS L. ATKINSON, MAYOR, METLAKATLA
INDIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my
name is Harris L. Atkinson. I am Mayor of the Metlakatla Indian
Community. I am here to state the Community's opposition to
Senate Bill 346 and support of Senate Bill 247.
The Metlakatla Indian Community is a federally recognized
Indian Tribe, organized under the Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18,
1934. The town of Metlakatla lies 17 miles southeast of Ketchikan.
Approximately 1,200 of our 2,000 members live there and most of
the lands adjacent to our reserve are part of the Tongass National
Forest.
Our people are primarily fishermen. We have operated our own
cannery for 75 years. The fishing industry can only provide season-
al employment; the only full-time jobs for our people are other gov-
ernment jobs associated with the timber industry.
Our community owns a sawmill which it leases to Ketchikan
Pulp Company. The mill processes approximately 100 million board
feet of timber annually. Nearly 100 full-time, year-round jobs are
available at the mill for our community and with an estimated
annual payroll of four million dollars, the lease payments to the
community make up 10 percent of our revenues. The mill makes
purchases in our community which total well over a million dollars
a year. Our unemployment rate is approximately 35 percent. Jobs
offered at the mill represent fully 20 percent of the full-time equiv-
alent jobs in our community. The loss of lease revenues would crip-
ple our municipal budget.
S.346 conflicts with national Indian policy. During the last ad-
ministration, former President Reagan called upon tribes to reduce
their dependence on subsidies and assume greater independence on
local economies, placing our mill in jeopardy. It was not inconsist-
ent with his policies.
Some Indians in the community have lived here for centuries
and our communities have survived attacks on our sovereignty,
power struggles with an aggressive new state government and the
constant shifts in federal and state policies. Only recently have we
been subjected to efforts to lock up our resources, often by people
without direct ties to our state and community. In plain fact
Senate Bill S.346 is a wilderness bill and its consequences might be
pleasing to some environmentalists and well-intentioned politicians
but it is wrong; it is wrong in its approach and wrong in result.
We ask that you make the corrections necessary to restore sound
fiscal management to the Tongass National Forest and allow Alas-
kans to establish harmony that is necessary for us to live, prosper
and perpetuate our ways of life.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkinson follows:]
97
/-
COUNCIL ANNETTE ISLANDS RESERVE
Harris L. SfKrN§ON.^MAYi
ROSEBELLE G. NPffnur^
Bonnie G. Scud^o.' Treasurer
/^i^4,/;_ K.^'^^.
*>KvN -''W "^ — ^Ttr^i^MCTMKATLA^lNDfctN Community
-^A '^ Established 1887 3,^.:^ -S~r^ i^^^^^lZI^" ^°^ *
"^=:^^^-— MKTtfftferfeAFALSSKA 99926
April 24, 1989
Test i mony Of
°° HARRIS L. ATKINSON, MAYOR °°
Metlakatla Indian Community
Before The
SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE'S
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
Ketchikan, Alaska
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Harris
L. Atkinson. I am Mayor of the Metlakatla Indian Community. I
am here to state the Community's opposition to S.3'+5, a bill en-
titled the Tongass Timber Reform Act. We oppose the bill because
it could savage the economic welfare of our citizens. Moreover,
it will continue the efforts of outsiders to lock up Alaska's
resources without regard to the welfare of Alaska's citizens.
At the same time, I'm here to offer our Community's support
for S.237, which offers a sane alternative. In an honest and
direct manner, it would halt an automatic appropriation for
timber sale preparation on the Tongass National Forest and stop
potential fiscal waste. It does not use the need for this
housekeeping measure to justify plundering our economy. We
believe in wise use of resources. We believe in conservation.
We believe in sound fiscal management. We oppose intrusion into
our lives that promises economic ruin.
The Metlakatla Indian Community is a federally recognized
Indian tribe, organized under the Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18,
1934. Our reservation consists of several islands southeast of
Ketchikan, including our largest island, Annette Island, which
contains nearly 90,000 acres. The town of Metlakatla lies
98
approximately 17 miles southeast of Ketchil<an. Approximately
1,200 of our 2,000 members live tliere. Most of tlie lands adjacent
to our reserve are part of the Tongass National Forest.
Our people are primarily fishermen. We have operated our
own cannery for 75 years. Unfortunately, the fishing industry
provides only seasonal employment. The only full-time jobs for
our people, other than government jobs, are associated with the
t imber i ndust ry .
Our Community owns a sawmill which it leases to Ketchikan
Pulp Company. The mill processes approximately 100 million board
feet of timber annually. Nearly 100 full-time, year around jobs
are available at the mill. Seventy-nine of those jobs presently
are held by tribal members. The mill has an estimated annual
payroll of $4,000,000. In addition, its lease payments to the
Community mal<e up 10% of our municipal revenues. The mill makes
purchases in our Community which total well over $1,000,000. a
year .
We believe S.3't5 could destroy this valuable economic
resource. Much evidence is before Congress showing how pulp
mills and sawmills in Southeastern Alaska are mutually dependent
on one another. The mill on our reserve could not operate profit-
ably without the presence of the pulp mill in Ketchikan to take
Its chips and residual pulp grade wood. A threat to the pulp
industry in Southeastern Alaska is a threat to our sawmill.
This is not to say we oppose rational planning and approp-
riate balancing of interests in forest management. We, too,
are concerned about wildlife and especially fish habitat. The
planning in progress under the National Forest Management Act of
1976 is a sane, balanced and comprehensive approach to forest
policy development. It should be allowed to continue. S.S'tG
would halt this process in favor of a wilderness bill.
The bases for our opposition are as follows:
1) ECONOMIC HARM: The direct and indirect economic impacts
of the demise of the mill are frightening for us to comtemplate.
We must oppose any effort that so seriously jeopardizes 100 year
around jobs in Metlakatla. Our unemployment rate stays at approx-
imately 35%. Jobs offered by the mill represent fully 20% of the
99
full-time equivalent jobs in our Community. The loss of lease
revenues would cripple our municipal budget, reduce services and
further subject our citizens to the hardships of poverty.
2) VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL POLICY: S.3'+6 ignores, indeed,
directly conflicts with national Indian policy. During the last
administration, the government adopted a policy promoting Indian
economic self-sufficiency. Former President Reagan's statement
of Indian policy issued January 24, 1983, called upon tribes to
reduce their dependence on their local economies. Congress went
along with this policy by reducing appropriations for Indian
prog rams .
The Supreme Court has recognized Congress' adoption of this
policy of Indian self-sufficiency. In California v. Cabazon Band
of Mission Indians, _U.S._, 9't L.Ed. 2d 2'+it (1987), the Court
characterized it as the "...congressional goal of Indian self-
government, including its 'overriding goal' of encouraging tribal
self-sufficiency and economic development. These are important
federal interests." S.3'+5 subordinates our economic needs to
preservationist interests. This hardly manifests the consistent
and beneficial approach to Indian economic policy attributed to
Congress by the Supreme Court.
3) VIOLATIONS OF TRUST RESPONSIBILITY: We believe 5.3^+6 also
would violate the federal government's trust responsibility to
Indian tribes. As you l<now, tribes have a special relationship
with the federal government that has been described as one of
"trust". See Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)
This trust relationship historically has been guarded by
Congress in establishing federal land policy. In the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq., the National
Forest Mangement Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1604 e_t seq . , and the regulations
promulgated to implement the policies of the acts, congressional
adherence to trust principles is clear. For example, a provision
of the regulations implementing NEPA states, in relevant part,
as f o 1 1 ows :
100
-<*-
[Federal planners must consider] possible conflicts
between thie proposed action and the objectives of
Federal, regional. State and local (and in the case
of a reservation Indian tribe) land use plans,
policies and controls for the area concerned. ['tO
C.F.R. § 1502.16 (G); Emphasis supplies.]
The regulations implementing the National Forest Management
Act provide several instances where federal land managers must
consider the interests of Indian tribes. For example, 36 C.F.R.
§ 219.7 states as follows:
The responsible line officer shall coordinate regional
and forest planning with equivelant and related plan-
ing efforts of other Federal agencies. State and local
governments and Ind i an t r i bes . (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing regulations reflect a rational, balanced ap-
proach to developing forest management plans. They require con-
sideration of all reasonable competing interests, including Indian
interests consistent with the government's special responsibility
to them. Unfortunately, S.3't5 trashes this procedure for a one-
sided management approach that subordinates, ignores or completely
destroys every other interest except those of resources preser-
vat Ion i sts.
if) PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS: Tsimpshian Indians of the Metlakatla
Indian Community have existed in our part of the world for cen-
turies. Our Community has survived warfare, racial and political
attacl<s on our separate sovereignty, power struggles with an
aggressive new state government and the constant shifts in federal
and state policies that affect our social and economic welfare.
Only recently, however, have we been so consistently subjected
to efforts to locl<-up our recourses, often by people who have no
direct ties to our state or our Community.
We must express our sincere frustration at being the victims
of the actions of outsiders, no matter how well intentloned. We
are suspicious of the statistical data and historical information
used to Justify this latest encroachment. We believe outside in-
terests are exaggerating a fiscal mistalce In ANILCA to foster
wholesale destruction of the forest related economy in Southeast
Al aska.
In plain fact, S.3'+6 is a wilderness bill. It would with-
101
hold 1.7 million acres of land from flexible management policies,
l\r\e consequences of that action might be pleasing to some
environmentalists and well-intentioned politicians. But, it is
wrong -- wrong in approach; wrong in result. We ask. Instead,
that you simply mal<e the corrections necessary to restore sound
fiscal management to the Tongass National Forest and then allow
Alaskans to establish the harmony that is necessary for us to
live, prosper and perpetuate our ways of life.
102
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much.
Senator Burns. I have a question. Yesterday we took a little
slight excursion around the area and I have a question for Mr. Rob-
erts.
I wonder if the Native Alaskans up here, if they want more pro-
tection for the fisheries and this type of thing, than what is sup-
posedly afforded in the Senate Bill 346? What have you done to
protect the logging interest on native lands? What have you done
in that regard because I have seen some — well, there have been
some abuses on both lands. I wonder what steps you have taken for
that.
Mr. Roberts. There have been steps to direct some of these prob-
lems that you are referring to.
Senator Murkowski. Has anything been done physically, any
laws or rules passed to ensure that?
Mr. Roberts. What you are referring to is the name of Sealaska
Corporation, ANILCA, only make recommendations to the Sea-
laska Board. We are two separate entities.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Thank you Senator Murkowski and thank you
all very much. We appreciate your coming in today and sharing
your thoughts with us. I thank you very much.
Our fourth panel, if we could ask them to come join us at the
witness table: Mr. Don Amend, SSRAA, Mr. Jim Bacon of Alaska,
Kay Andrews, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters and Kate Troll,
Executive Director of the Southeast Seiner's Association and while
they are moving to the table would our next panel move into the
back chairs?
Thank you all very much. Why do not we just start with you,
Mr. Amend, if you do not mind?
STATEMENT OF DONALD F. AMEND, GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST REGIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Amend. Thank you. Some of our panel members were not
able to be here but I think we speak for most of the commercial
fishermen in our area.
The majority of southeast Alaskan residents want a stable and
diversified economy throughout southeast Alaska and to assure
this the Tongass National Forest must be driven by multiple use
considerations. The timber industry is just one of three primary
users the Tongass Forest. Commercial fishing, tourism and others
are also primary users of the Tongass Forest and the economic via-
bility of these industries are directly affected by the management
practices used on the forest. The decline of Pacific salmon along
the Pacific Northwest, outside of Alaska, has been attributed pri-
marily to the loss of habitat. Protection of sensitive habitat is es-
sential to maintain viable commercial fisheries. In southeast
Alaska the majority of the Pacific salmon originate from the Ton-
gass National Forest. Therefore, in order to preserve the economic
viability of the commercial fishery in southeast Alaska, the Ton-
gass National Forest must be managed to protect sensitive habitat
that is important to our Pacific salmon. Most people believe this
can be done and have a viable timber industry as well.
103
In a recent survey by the SEALASKA Corporation, 46 percent of
southeast Alaska residents beUeved commercial fishing was the
most important industry in southeast Alaska now, compared to 19
percent for the timber industry. When asked which would be the
most important in the future, the results changed very little: com-
mercial fishing still 37 percent, timber 15 percent. The respondents
also said they wanted an economic diversity and they wanted more
non-timber industries like commercial fishing; 89 percent of those
respondents said this, yet 90 percent of the respondents believed
that both timber and fishing could co-exist. Even in Ketchikan,
where a major pulp mill exists and has a strong timber influence,
the majority of the people voted similarly to all southeast Alaska
residents.
It is difficult to believe those who say if ANILCA is changed that
it would destroy the timber industry. This is not the desire of the
commercial fishermen, but it is essential that certain lands be real-
located to preserve key habitat for wildstock fisheries. The com-
mercial fishing industry is a resource economy which is renewed
every two to five years compared to 100 years for timber; however
the regional economic well-being is directly tied to continued
health of our partners and the future depends upon the Tongass.
The well-being of the people of Southeast Alaska is directly linked
to management of the Tongass National Forest. This requires that
the Tongass must be driven by muitiple-use considerations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amend follows:]
104
SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST REGIONAL
AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION, INC.
1621 Tongass Ave., #103 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
(907) 225-9605
Public Testimony
Tongass National Forest Hearing
April 24, 1989
By: Donald F. Amend, General Manager
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association
The majority of Southeast Alaskan residents want a stable and diversified economy
throughout Southeast Alaska, and to assure this the Tongass National Forest must be
driven by multiple use considerations. The timber industry is just one of three primary
users of the Tongass Forest. Commercial fishing, tourism and others are also primary
users of the Tongass Forest and the economic viabUity of these industries are directly
affected by the management practices used on the forest. ■
The decline of pacific salmon along the Pacific Northwest, outside of Alaska, has been
attributed primarily to the loss of Sb&at. rt»tidTS»n of sensitive habitat is essential to
maintain viable commercial fisheries. In Southeast Alaska the majority of the pacific
salmon originate from the Tongass National Forest. Therefore, in order to preserve the
economic viability of the commercial fishery in Southeast Alaska, the Tongass National
Forest must be managed to protect sensitive habitat that is important to our pacific
salmon. Most people believe this can be done and also have a viable timber industry.
The timber industry argues that if Section 705(a) of ANILCA is changed, the jobs and
economic viability of the timber industry will be threatened. However, current ANILCA
provisions does not assure adequate protection of sensitive salmon habitat. To put this
in perspective, in 1988 there were about 2200 active commercial fishermen. In
comparison, the timber industry employed 1800 loggers. In general, at the present time
the total employment and value of finished product from fishing and timber are achieving
a rough balance.
In a recent survey by the SEALASKA Corporation, 46% of Southeast Alaska residents
believed commercial fishing was the most important industry in Southeast Alaska now,
compared to 19% for the timber industry. When asked which would be the most
important in the future, the resialts changed very little: commercial fishing - 37%, Timber
15%. The respondents also said they wanted economic diversity (82%), and they wanted
more non-timber industries like commercial fishing (89%). Yet 90% believed both timber
and commercial fishing could co-exist. Even in Ketchikan, where a major pulp mill exists
and has a strong timber influence, the majority of the people voted similarly to all
Southeast Alaska residents.
PRIVATE NON PROFIT HATCHERIES
105
April 24, 1989
Page 2
It is difficult to believe those who say if ANILCA is changed, that it would destroy the
timber industry. This is not the desire of the commercial fishermen, but it is essential
that certain lands should be reallocated to preserve key habitat for wildstock fisheries.
The commercial fishing industry is a resource economy which is renewed every 2-5 years
compared to 100 years for timber. However, the regional economic well-being is directly
tied to continued health of the other partners, and the future depends upon the Tongass.
The well being of the people of Southeast Alaska is directly liked to the management of
the Tongass National Forest. This requires that the Tongass must be driven by multiple
use considerations.
30-13
106
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. Delighted that you
agreed. You get the gold metal or the gold letter, whatever it is.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bacon.
STATEMENT OF JIM BACON, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski
and Senator Burns.
Thank you for coming to Ketchikan and thank you for your in-
terest in the Tongass National Forest.
The United Fishermen of Alaska has on its Board of Directors
representatives of 23 commercial fishing organizations and three
at-large members. Our member organizations span from the Bering
Sea to Dixon Entrance and include seven major fishing groups in
southeast Alaska. My name is Jim Bacon and I live here in Ketchi-
kan. I have served on the UFA's Board as a representative of the
Southeast Alaska Seiners since 1986. From February of 1988 to
February of 1989 I served as President of United Fishermen of
Alaska. I am now Co-Chairman of our National Issues Committee.
These titles just cost me time and money. I earn my living purse
seining for salmon in southeast Alaska.
Our concerns with regard to Tongass Forest Management ex-
press our industry's concerns and have a direct bearing on our jobs
and our livelihoods. The lifeblood of our commercial salmon fisher-
ies flows in the rivers and streams of southeast Alaska; 90 percent
of these salmon producing systems lie within the boundaries of the
Tongass National Forest.
Much of the research on the interactions of fish in the forest has
been done by the U.S. Forest Service and it is thanks to their ef-
forts and the work of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game and others that we know as much as we do about the impor-
tance of streamside protection. Continued high production of
salmon depends on maintaining high quality habitat. With care, a
productive fisheries system will return salmon for harvest produc-
ing a positive cash flow and regional jobs with no adverse effect on
the land or other resources.
The problem we run into in the Tongass is that the best of the
woods is the best of the woods. In many cases the highest volume
timber stands are found in the riparian areas, adjacent to the most
productive streams. Sometimes the economic viability of a timber
operation may depend on harvesting the largest spruce located
near the stream to offset the low quality hemlock harvested in the
upland areas. This sets the stage for the conflict that exists be-
tween our industries and also sets the stage for the tough decisions
that must be made by our resource managers, decisions that must
be driven by equal consideration of all the resources. We feel very
strongly that balanced management of all producing resources in
the Tongass should be legislatively identified for the Forest Serv-
ice. All too often management decisions are weighted by the cur-
rent directed timber management goals.
The National Marine Fisheries Service Policy for Riparian Habi-
tat Protection calls for mandatory buffer zones of riparian vegeta-
107
tion, a minimum of 30 meters on each side of all anadromous fish
streams. The U.S. Forest Service does not consider this policy when
laying out timber sales. It is the lack of consistent substantive ac-
tions with regard to other multiple-use needs that is the major
problem in the Tongass today.
The Forest Service is now operating within the riparian zone
under what they term as Aquatic Habitat Management Unit con-
cept. Unfortunately this concept does not require a mandatory ex-
clusionary zone be implemented to protect riparian habitat. Often-
times in practice the amount of streamside cutting is left up to the
discretion of the District Ranger and his or her staff. Streamside
cutting still occurs and buffer strips may be as significant as one or
two trees. Even in cases where a larger buffer is left there is noth-
ing in place to prevent future harvest of those areas. In fact, 1989
to 1994 DEIS for the Ketchikan Area states that by the year 2004
about 50 percent of the AHMU's would be harvested
Senator Wirth. We will put the statement in full in the record,
Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bacon follows:]
108
ORAL TESTIMONY OF
THE UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA
APRIL 24 1989
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS
US SENATE HEARINGS IN KETCHIKAN ALASKA
Mr Chairman and Members of the committee
Thank You for coming to Ketchikan and thank you for your interest in the
Tongass National Forest.
The United Fishermen of Alaska has on its Board of Directors
representltlves of 23 commercial fishing organizations and three at large
members. Our member organizations span from the Bering Sea to Dixon
Entrance and include seven major fishing groups in Southeast Alaska My
name Is Jim Bacon and I live here in Ketchikan I have served on the UFA'S
Board as a representitive of the Southeast Alaska Seiners since 1986.
From Feb. 1988 to Feb 1989 I served as President , I am now Co-Chairmen
of our National Issues Committee. These titles just cost me money. I earn
my living purse seining for salmon in Southeast Alaska.
Our concerns with regard to Tongass Forest Management express our
industry's concerns and have a direct bearing on our Jobs and our
livlihoods. The llfeblood of our commercial salmon fisheries flows in the
rivers and streams of Southeast Alaska. 90% of these salmon producing
systems lie within the boundrles of the Tongass National Forest.
Much of the research on the interactions of fish in the forest has been
done by the U.S.F.S., and it is thanks to their efforts and the work of
National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
•Alaska Department of Fish and Game and others that we know as much as
we do about the importance of streamslde protection Continued high
production of salmon depends on maintaining high quality habitat. With
109
care, a productive fisheries system will return salmon for harvest within
2 to 5 years in an ongoing annual manner , producing a positive cash flow
and regional jobs with no adverse effect on the land or other resources
The problem we run into in the Tongass is that the best of the woods is
the best of the woods. In many if not most cases the highest volume
timber stands are found in the riparian areas, adjacent to the most
productive streams Sometimes the economic viability of a timber
operation may depend on harvesting the large spruce located near the
stream to offset the low guality hemlock harvested in the upland areas
This sets the stage for the conflict that exists between our industries
This also sets the stage for the tough decisions that must be made by our
resource managers. Decisions that must be driven by equal consideration
of all the resources. We feel very strongly that balanced management of
all producing resources in the Tongass should be legislatively identified
for the Forest Service. All to often management decisions are weighted
by the current directed timber management goals.
The National Marine Fisheries Service Policy for Riparian Habitat
Protection calls for mandatory buffer zones of riparian vegitation, a
minimum of 30 meters ( 100 feet) on each side of all anadromous fish
streams. The U.S. Forest Service does not consider this policy when laying
out timber sales. It is the lack of consistent substanitive actions with
regard to other multiple use needs that is the major problem in the
Tongass today.
The Forest Service is now operating within the riparian zone under what
they term an "Aquatic Habitat Management Unit (AHMU) concept.
Unfortunately, this concept does not require a mandatory exclusionary
zone be implemented to protect riparian habitat. Often times in practice
the amount of streamside cutting is left up to the discretion of the
District Ranger and his or her staff. Streamside cutting still occurs and
buffer strips may be as insignificant as one or two trees. Even in cases
where a larger buffer is left there is nothing in place to prevent future
harvest of those areas. In fact, the 89-94 DEIS for the Ketchikan Area
states that, "By the year 2004 about 50% of the AHMU's would be
harvested (pg. 4-120)." and that, "By the year 2054, about 80% of the
AHMU's would be harvested.
no
The UFA and representittves from the timber industry and the
enviormental community spent many days in meetings this year at the
request of Governor Cowper with respective state agencies to craft
statutory language implementing the riparian zone concept on State and
private lands which are adjacent to the Tongass and Chugach National
Forest. It is our goal to establish consistent fishery protection practices
throughout Alaska
The research has been done. The need for streamside protection has been
identified What is now needed is the commitment from our elected
officials and our resource management agencies to bring true management
balance into practice for the continued health and prosperity of all
Alaskans and Americans. We have the natural resources still available to
provide continuing economic opportunity for all facets of our Southeast
economy. It is in the best interest of everyone to insure that our
stewardship is inclusive and equally weighted to the needs of all our
industries for the long term benefit of all Alaskans
Once again I thank you all for coming to Ketchikan and hope you enjoy your
stay.
Ill
UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA
211 4th Street, Suite 106
Juneau. AK 99801
907-586-2820
To the House Interior Committee
United Fishermen of Alasl^a Is a private non-pro+it statewide
organization at 23 fishermen's organizations! including marketing and
aquacuiture associations and specific gear groups. Including our
individual members UFA
■fishermen. UFA is at
agenciesi the U.S. Cc
member s .
cions ana speciTic gear groups. including our
JFA represents over 17iQQ0 Alaska commercial
active before the Alaska State Legislature! state
"ongress and federal agencies on behalf of Its
Seven of our member groupsi Alaska Trollers Association! United South-
east Alaska Gillnettersi Southeast Alaska Seiners Association!
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association! Seafood Producers Cooperative!
and the Northern and Southern Southeast Regional Aquacuiture
Assoc i at i ons 1 are directly affected by activities relating to the
management of the Tongass National Forest. It is our privilege and
responsibi I i ty to present to the committee our concerns regarding
current Tongass management.
In southeast Alaska the majority of the important salmon spawning and
rearing areas are located in the Tongass. Ue feel very strongly that
key fisheries habitat areas must be afforded permanent protection by
law (Legislative LUD II) from logging and related activities.
Multiple use planning for the Tongass must address the cumulative
Impacts that logging activities are having on our fisheries resources.
The National Marine Fisheries Service Policy for Riparian Habitat
Protection (1986) calls for mandatory buffer zones of riparian vegeta-
tion! a minimum of 3D meters (100 feet) on each side of all anadromous
fish streams. The U.S. Forest Service does not consider this policy
when laying out timber sales. It Is this lack of attention to other
multiple use needs that is the major problem in the Tongass today.
In order for the proper protections to be Implemented for the
commercial fishing industry! the obstacles of mandated cut and long-
term contracts must be overcome. All too often decisions to enter a
watershed with tremendous renewable fisheries values is made by the
Forest Service despite our Industry's strident objections. Uhen
pressed to explain their actions! the Forest Service answer is that
they have a mandate to offer 4.5 bi I I Ion board feet per decade.
Another excuse offered is their interpretation of the 50 year
112
view suggests a large
at a I ou cost i
Furthermore) the contracts must be renegotiated to reflect tree market
realities. As R. Neil 5ampson> Executive Vice President of tl-ie
American Forestry Association* said in testimony before the House >
dictating the management of any national forest by federal legislation
is doomed to failure. The furor of the Tongass debate proves that.
Uith regard to the Timber Supply Fund ue feel that the USFS in south-
east Alaska should be ful ly funded to 1) bui Id roads that access some
of the timber stands that are not in sensitive areasi 2) have
fisheries biologists in the field to influence logging activities and
3) continue research into ways that logging can occur uith minimal
impacts on salmon habitat! in other uords> to do a good Job of
managing the forest. To the extent that the supply fund meets these
goals ue uou I d hope to see it continue. Houever > ue are auare that
efforts are ongoing to divert some of these funds into an economic
diversification loan program that could benefit increased production
of commercial fishing. Ue Support these efforts to promote economic
d i ver s i f i cat i on .
The total ex-vessel value earnings contributed by the commercial
salmon fishing industry to the southeast region betueen 1978 and 1986
was $38D million. These are only the dollars paid to the fishermen
and don't take into account the value of the seafood processing
industry and its employment benefits) nor does it reflect the benefits
as those dol lars trickle through the rest of the economy. Ue are
clearly a major contributor to our region's economy and a renewable
resource industry that has been a staluart of the regional economy
since the turn of the century. Uith good stewardship and protection
of spawning habitat uh i I e timber is being harvested; ue uill continue
to be a healthy industry into the 21st century and beyond. This is
supported by a recent survey (see reference below) that shoued a
majority of southeast residents believe commercial fishing to be the
most important industry to the future.
The timber industry is also an important source of renewable resource
income in southeast Alaska and aluays will be. Our interest is not to
pu.t our friends and neighbors Out of uork but rather ue want the
Forest Service to provide adequate protection of fish rearing and
spawning habitat which is critical to the survival of the fishing
i ndust ry .
113
TKe Tongass debate Has been long and di'fflcult for those of us wtio
I i we here. However > in spite of the very cold uinter we are
experiencing this ye»r i there are signs of a break in the ice between
the participants. Recent efforts to arrive at a consensus position by
the Southeast Conference met with some success and the group deserves
a great deal of credit tor their attempts. Also» the results of the
Tongass Timber Reform Act Survey conducted by Decision Sciences> I nc . >
at the request of the Sealaska Corporation showed that a majority of
southeast residents support changes in the current management
practices in the Tongass and feel that the time is now to make those
changes .
In closingi United Fishermen of Alaska Is well aware of the time and
effort the House Interior Committee has put into the Tongass issue and
we appreciate the consideration you have given to what we feel is one
of our country's greatest resources.
nti;arvv^~
Kate Grahan
Execut i veVB i rector
114
Senator Wirth. Kay Andrews.
Before we keep going, what is the difference between seiners and
gillnetters? As a mountain person I do not know.
Mr. Bacon. This is just a gear that they use. We use drift gill-
nets and they use seines.
Senator Wirth. What is a gillnet versus a seine?
Mr. Bacon. A purse seine has got a name like a purse string, it
has a series of rings along the bottom and you push it up under-
neath the fish and then bring them on board and this is speaking
as a seiner. A gillnet strangles them. [Laughter]
Senator Wirth. Now would the seiners and the gillnetters fish in
various areas or are there different ways of fishing for the same
fish in the same areas, is that right?
Mr. Bacon. We have allocated areas that you argue about all
winter. In different spots, the purse seine fleet works in one certain
area and the gillnet fleet will work in another area and we spend
quite a bit of time arguing about that.
Senator Wirth. You are either a seiner or a gillnetter, nobody is
both?
Mr. Bacon. Well, you cannot use the same permit the same area.
Senator Murkowski. I am going to take the liberty to draw my
colleague a diagram.
Senator Wirth. Now I will look forward to that.
And I did not take any of your time, you can now start, Kay.
STATEMENT OF KAY ANDREW, REPRESENTING UNITED
SOUTHEAST ALASKA GILLNETTERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Andrew. My name is Kay Andrew and I am a life-long resi-
dent of Ketchikan. I am representing the United Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters Association. Our organization is eleven years old and
has 200 members throughout Southeast Alaska and Puget Sound.
We as commercial fishermen are directly affected by the man-
agement of the Tongass. Therefore it is our privilege and responsi-
bility to present our concerns regarding current Tongass Manage-
ment.
I would like to speak to you about the importance of protecting
the major river and stream systems in Southeast Alaska. By using
roadless, not wilderness withdrawal, to protect major rivers and
streams, and using riparian zones of the recommended 100 feet by
the National Marine Fisheries Service Policy around all fish
streams, and having a specific mechanism to enforce this, we feel
the destruction of our resources would be better protected.
The 2,000 or more spawning streams in the Tongass that produce
our famous Alaska salmon are as of now not being protected. We
cannot afford to have any more of our major rivers and streams
destroyed or damaged. We must protect all rivers and streams such
as the 23 major systems listed in H.R. 987. I have enclosed copies of
some examples of one system that was damaged to show how the
problems were handled within our state departments. I would sug-
gest you obtain a copy of Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution Assess-
ment Report, Section 319 to the EPA December 1988 to enforce our
concerns on rivers and streams. I cannot stress strongly enough
that United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters is also very concerned
115
about the fish producing streams that are not included in the lists
that have been produced for suggested withdrawal and we would
demand riparian zones on all fish producing streams.
There has been all kinds of talk about the people of the Tongass;
well fishermen are a big part of these people. We have seen lots of
hard times and cuts to our industry and have had to adjust. We
feel the people of the timber industry can learn to adjust also. We
are not asking that the timber industry be done away with as we
feel it is also important and vital to the economy of southeast
Alaska but we want multiple-use protection.
The Southeast Alaska Gillnetters lend respect to the timber in-
dustry and ask for respect back that being, all fish producing
streams must be protected. We feel to accomplish this the 4.5 man-
date must be removed. The long-term contracts must be re-negoti-
ated and the balance of multiple-use management needs to be en-
forced.
In closing, according to the Tongass Timber Reform Act Survey
conducted by Decisions Science Incorporated at the request of the
Sealaska Corporation, a majority of southeast residents believe
commercial fishing to be the most important industry to the
future. We would like to protect this fact.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Ms. Troll. Are you with the seiners?
I understand Senator Murkowski drew a fabulous picture.
Ms. Troll. Trollers is where? You would think that I would be
representing the trollers but no, that not — that is another major
fleet.
Senator Murkowski. I will try to draw that too.
Senator Wirth. Well, I will just tell you that my daughter came
home for the week-end from college and she had a special dinner of
Alaska salmon. That was Alaska salmon, it said so on the box,
Alaska salmon, it did not say whether it was seine, trolled or gill-
netted.
Ms. Troll. Well, I will take credit for that.
STATEMENT OF KAY TROLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST
ALASKA SEINERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Troll. My name is Kate Troll and I do represent the South-
east Alaska Seiners. I also have a Master's Degree in Natural Re-
source Management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environ-
mental Studies. I have worked in the field of resource management
and planning for the state, local, native and private sectors of
Alaska over the past 11 years. I also served on the Ketchikan Bor-
ough Assembly so I feel my background gives me a balanced per-
spective to comment on this.
All the fishermen want is a clear directive for true, balanced
multiple-use management of the Tongass, but that balance is im-
possible to achieve when one use, timber, has a congressional man-
date and all other uses are lumped together under the National
Forest Management Act. When fishermen organizations review
planned timber sales and request more streamside protection the
answer all too often is, we need all the timber we can get to meet
116
the terms of the contracts. We are tired of this answer when the
450 annual MMBF supply mandate has never been harvested. We
firmly believe that removal of the inflexible 450 mandate will untie
the hands of agency professionals. The Tongass Land Management
Plan would then be driven by land and water suitability and multi-
ple economic needs, not driven by politically derived supply figures.
Management by congressional mandate does not work; it drives the
planning process backwards. The Management Plan should be built
from the land up.
The other major obstacle to multiple use management in the
Tongass is the long-term contracts which weigh down balanced
multiple use just as the congressional mandates do. In this light we
ask for contract renegotiation, not contract cancellation. The fish-
ermen believe that the timber industry should be given some meas-
ure of contract stability. We believe contract re negotiation can do
this without devastating our local economy.
The timber industry would have everyone believe that any
change to Tongass Management would be devastating, yet at a
recent conference in Ketchikan on the Future of the Timber Indus-
try in Southeast, Martin Pihl of Ketchikan Pulp Company spoke
with guarded optimism about the future of the pulp industry. I
quote from his text, "But yet there is a very, very solid base of
business out there worldwide to participate in. The market really
looks optimistic for the future." Combine this outlook for markets
with the other forest dependent industries strengthened by true
multiple use management and the economic outlook is certainly
not one of doom and gloom.
In fact the seafood industry employs 3,900 people. The seafood in-
dustry is Alaska's largest private employer and I would like to just
finish by saying our call for balanced multiple use is also a call for
jobs and income. To put it simply fish habitat protection means
more fish and more fish means more jobs and income. A recent
study by the Institute of Social and Economic Research showed
that for every dollar spent on salmon hatcheries 2.3 dollars were
returned to the state's economy. This study clearly indicates that
fish enhancement projects give one of the best rates of return for
public investments. Good fish management and enhancement will
pay off for the Forest Service too. True multiple use management
in the Tongass will strengthen both the fishing and timber indus-
tries in the long term. It is time that we begin to manage the Ton-
gass for multiple use just like all other national forests.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Troll. Now if you will indulge
me for a moment, could you tell me when this happens to the
salmon in the stream, is the catch increased or decreased or what
is happening to it?
Mr. Amend. We were experiencing an increase in the catch for —
especially in the earlier part of this decade and in two favorable
winters and also I believe due to some results of the Magnuson Act
it was bringing in more protection offshore. As a region I think
that Senator Murkowski knows very well of the issues that we had
been facing in the last few years. We were impacted quite severely
by the high seas fleet that has been working out in the North Pa-
cific right now and that is also a very major issue of ours that we
117
have been working with Senator Murkowski. We were impacted
quite hard by high seas interception.
Senator Wirth. This had the biggest impact, drift nets?
Mr. Amend. I think it is a very, very large impact. There is a
number of factors; we had a very cold winter in 1985 that impacted
our return in 1987. We had a lot of freeze off that year. There are
environmental factors also. I do not think you can correctly point
your fmger to one specific thing.
Senator Wirth. And tell me what other fish, where the salmon
fit in with other fish caught in the fishing industry and what is the
volume or the economics of it? How do you generally measure?
Mr. Amend. I think salmon far and away is the largest compo-
nent of the seafood industry but we have a large industry in our
black cod fishery, bottom fish. Senator Murkowski, would you draw
him a long line please? [General laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. It is sable fish.
Mr. Amend. It is a bottom fish. We had a crab fishery and a
shrimp fishery and a halibut fishery. We have got crawfish work-
ing and also bottom fish. We have got a fairly large herring fishery
to comment on just a few. There are quite a few fisheries.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. I just want to make a very brief addition to
make sure my colleagues understand. These fish appear in fresh-
water streams along the coast of southeastern Alaska and Canada
as well as western Alaska and their lifestyle, they migrate out in
the North Pacific and they intermix with Asian stocks, which are
both Soviet Union and Japanese and it is kind of a rearing pond.
They are out there growing up and we manage our fisheries on the
basis of escape. In other words we do not let our standard fish out
unless we have certain escapements in our streams to ensure the
cycle repeats itself but if you have sophisticated fleets in the high
seas such as the Taiwanese and the Koreans and some of the Japa-
nese— and we have got evidence that several hundred boats are out
there with squid nets in salmon-producing areas you will find that
some of these nets are as long as 30 miles, and it is the ability to
manage the resource because you do not know what they are
taking.
I have not had permission to board these boats until a short time
ago. They take the salmon and they sell them, move them off the
vessels on the high seas and they take them to Singapore and Hong
Kong and then they market them over in France and Europe. If we
do not control high seas interception management of the resource
is very difficult and I commend this panel particularly — what I got
was an effort to continue a balanced multiple use plan with par-
ticular emphasis, of course, on fisheries. We have a very serious
international problem in this regard just because we do not control
these fish on the high seas. We have such things as sovereignty of
nations on the high seas and it is a real diplomatic nightmare.
Most of the nations have laws that prohibit fishing on the high
seas but unless they fish and sell over the side because they are
afraid to take those fish home because they know they would be
prosecuted, it is sort of like a laundering operation, or similar to
drugs, a lot of money so they are going to take the risk and thus
they are annihilating the fisheries. I think we lost about a hundred
118
million dollars there, as estimated in value last year, and again it
is very difficult to identify it.
Senator Wirth. If that destroys the resource then you are really
in long-term deep trouble. Senator Murkowski has talked about
this on the floor of the Senate; he certainly has been an advocate
for your industry, your Senator from Alaska.
Mr. Bacon. The term anadromous is a term that spawns in the
streams and then goes to the ocean until it reaches adulthood and
then goes back up into the freshwater streams so it is that anadro-
mous, the use of that freshwater environment and that habitat
that is so critical to these issues that we are talking about here. It
is so important because without that habitat and protection the
salmon — well, the life cycle would not be able to complete itself.
Ms. Troll. We are talking here in an optimistic vein hoping that
you Senators will take some aggressive action on the high seas and
we are concerned that if you are successful at that that the fish
will have someplace to return to.
Senator Wirth. The fish go out and spend two or three years out
there?
Ms. Troll. It is like cows going out to pasture
Senator Wirth. They do not go out there for — they go out there
for two or three years and then come back in to spawn?
Senator Murkowski. They return to the streams where they
were born.
Now if I would not be out of line I would like to point out one
thing in our testimony, that I referred to but I did not get to — Sen-
ator Burns referred to a question he asked to the previous panel,
just a point or two, I will not say anything, I just want to let you
know I was going to pass this out.
[Document handed to Senator Burns.]
Senator Wirth. You have all been heard. I thank you very much
and I appreciate your understanding of the tight schedule and ev-
erybody else is in the same sort of thing. Thank you very much for
being with us.
The next panel, if they will come to the table with the sixth
panel moving into the on-deck circle. This panel is Mr. Dale Pihl-
man. Outdoor Alaska, Mr. Neil MacKinnon, Alaska Miners Asso-
ciation, Bill Leighty, Gold Creek Salmon Bake and Jan Ross,
Alaska Cruise Lectures. You all are coming up, our next group,
please take your places.
Now we will start with Mr. Pihlman.
Mr; Pihlman is not here so he is really helping our schedule.
Mr. MacKinnon.
STATEMENT OF NEIL MacKINNON, CHAIRMAN, JUNEAU BRANCH,
ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. MacKinnon. Thank you. My name is Neil MacKinnon and I
am the Chairman of the Juneau Branch of the Alaska Miners As-
sociation; however because our chapter's membership extends
throughout southeast Alaska, I am speaking today for the orga-
nized mining interests of all of southeast Alaska.
We are very concerned about the pending legislation and the
impact which it is likely to have on the mining interests of this
119
area, now and in the future. The coastal range is teeming with
mineral deposits which have already been identified to some extent
and in some instances are in the process of being brought into pro-
duction. However, beyond that there are many areas of high poten-
tial which everyone agrees may prove to harbor even bigger depos-
its.
In the view of the mining industry in southeast Alaska this legis-
lation is grossly deficient insofar as it ignores existing mining ac-
tivities and more importantly its potential. First, the surface man-
agement prescriptions almost undoubtedly will make mining and
mineral development more difficult. Second, if areas are restricted
or closed to mineral entry then the deposits which such areas may
contain will be lost forever. Third, such an exercise will be con-
trary to the national mineral policy. While the mining law of 1872
constitutes important protection to the future of mining as one of
America's few remaining domestic basic industries, the encroach-
ment of wilderness areas on the public domain restrict and restrain
the growth of this important industry.
We are not asking that any special protections be given to the
mineral industry in this legislation. We are only asking that we be
allowed to continue to seek and develop deposits in the Tongass.
Mining does not create anywhere near the surface impact of clear-
cutting but it does require some surface disturbance. There is a dif-
ference to be understood between exploration and mining as well.
Exploration requires large areas to be open and available but
mining requires only a small surface footprint.
However, roads to tidewater must be built; power line right-of-
ways must be utilized; site development, camp facilities, docks, tail-
ings disposal sites and loading terminals are all a part of the re-
quirements for building a mine. They can be built with sensitivity
to the environment and they need not constitute an aesthetic
insult. The Greens Creek Mine only involves a total surface impact
of 318 acres, most of which is involved in the road from the portal
to tidewater and that is the total surface impact that mine will
ever require.
What we are asking is that when you draft this bill you make it
perfectly clear that there will be no new inhibitions on mineral ex-
ploration and development in the Tongass. It is that simple. We un-
derstand the debates concerning the impacts of logging in the Ton-
gass and while we sympathize with our brothers in the timber in-
dustry we can offer no suggestions to you as to how to solve that
problem other than to say that their concerns are genuine. We
need a strong timber industry in this region just as we need a
strong mining industry so please understand that we support their
objectives; however, do not sacrifice the mining industry in order to
resolve the conflicts between the environmentalists and the log-
gers.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. MacKinnon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. MacKinnon follows:]
120
TESTIMONY OF NEIL MACKINNON
CHAIRMAN OF THE JUNEAU BRANCH
OF THE ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS NEIL
MACKINNON, AND I AM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUNEAU BRANCH OF THE
ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION; HOWEVER, BECAUSE OUR CHAPTER'S
MEMBERSHIP EXTENDS THROUGHOUT SOUTHEAST, ALASKA, I AM HEAR
TODAY TO SPEAK FOR THE ORGANIZED MINING INTERESTS OF ALL OF
SOUTHEAST ALASKA.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PENDING LEGISLATION AND
THE IMPACT WHICH IT IS LIKELY TO HAVE ON THE MINING
INTERESTS OF THIS AREA, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. THE COASTAL
RANGE IS TEEMING WITH MINERAL DEPOSITS WHICH HAVE ALREADY
BEEN IDENTIFIED TO SOME EXTENT, AND IN SOME INSTANCES ARE IN
THE PROCESS OF BEING BROUGHT INTO PRODUCTION. HOWEVER,
BEYOND THAT THERE ARE MANY AREAS OF HIGH POTENTIAL WHICH
EVERYONE AGREES MAY PROVE TO HARBOR EVEN BIGGER DEPOSITS.
IF YOU LOOK ONLY AT THREE OF THE KNOWN DEPOSITS IN
SOUTHEAST ALASKA, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND MY POINT. THE GREENS
CREEK DEPOSIT IS JUST NOW STARTING COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION.
BUT WHEN IT GETS UP AND GOING IT WILL BE THE LARGEST SILVER
PRODUCER IN NORTH AMERICA. IRONICALLY, IT IS NOT A SILVER
121
MINE, BECAUSE THE ZINC VALUES EXCEED THE SILVER VALUES.
THAT MINE IS 7% ZINC, HAS 24 OUNCES OF SILVER TO THE TON OF
ORE, AND WILL ALSO PRODUCE ENOUGH GOLD TO VIRTUALLY PAY FOR
THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A SHIFT IN THE PRICE OF
LEAD, COULD MAKE IT A LEAD MINE, INSTEAD.
THE FAMOUS QUARTZ HILL IS MINE IS ONE OF THE THREE OR
FOUR LARGEST MOLYBDENUM DEPOSITS EVER DISCOVERED ANYWHERE.
ALTHOUGH THE PRICE OF MOLY IS NOW COMPARATIVELY LOW, AS
SENATOR WIRTH OF COLORADO CAN PERSONALLY CONFIRM, MOLYBDENUM
IS SUCH A USEFUL MATERIAL WITH SUCH A HUGE VARIETY OF
DIVERSE APPLICATIONS, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IN A RELATIVELY
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WE AS A NATION SHALL BE SEEKING TO
DEVELOP THAT DEPOSIT TO ITS FULLEST POTENTIAL. THE A- J IN
JUNEAU IS SUCH A BIG DEPOSIT THAT IT WILL BE RESURRECTED
OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO PRODUCE 125 MILLION TONS OF GOLD
ORE IN JUNEAU FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A CENTURY! FOR FIFTY
YEARS THE A-J MILL WAS THE HEARTBEAT OF JUNEAU, AND THE
SOURCE OF PROSPERITY FOR THE REGION AND FOR ALASKA. IT WILL
BE AGAIN.
I MAKE THESE POINTS ABOUT THESE THREE MINES BECAUSE OF
THEIR SIZE AND SIGNIFICANCE, AND I DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION
THAT THEY WERE ONLY DISCOVERED BECAUSE OF THE SURFACE
EXPRESSION OF THEIR MINERALIZATION. THE NINETEEN MILLION
ACRES OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA ARE COVERED BY A VIRTUALLY
IMPENETRABLE ORGANIC MAT WHICH MAKES THE DISCOVERY OF EVEN
122
SURFACE EXPRESSIONS OF MINERALIZATION EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.
THE GEOLOGISTS ASSURE US THAT THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE MANY
MORE OF THESE ELEPHANTINE DEPOSITS FOUND IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA
OVER TIME. AND THIS IS NOT TO MENTION THOSE DEPOSITS WHICH
DO NOT HAVE AN OUTCROPPING. HOW MANY MORE ARE JUST TEN OR
TWENTY FEET BELOW THE SURFACE.
THERE IS ONE OTHER POINT TO BE MADE ABOUT THESE THREE
DEPOSITS AS WELL. OF THE THREE, TWO HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED
WITHIN THE PAST DECADE AND A HALF. ALTHOUGH PROSPECTORS AND
GEOLOGISTS INCLUDING MY OWN GRANDFATHER HAVE CRAWLED OVER
SOUTHEAST ALASKA FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER SINCE LORD
BARANOF WAS THE GOVERNOR, THE FINDING OF THE MINERAL WEALTH
WHICH WE ALL KNOW EXISTS HERE A HAS BEEN A PAINFULLY SLOW
PROCESS. BUT WHEN A DEPOSIT IF FOUND IT TENDS TO BE A BIG
ONE.
BUT DO WE WANT MINING IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA? ONLY THE
REACTIONARY AND ILL-INFORMED WOULD UNHESITATINGLY ANSWER
THAT IN THE NEGATIVE. MINING REPRESENTS NEW WEALTH TO
AMERICA. IT MEANS RAW MATERIALS, IT MEANS JOBS, IT MEANS
CONTINUED PROSPERITY FOR THE STATE AND THE REGION. MINING
IS LABOR INTENSIVE, AND THE PAYROLLS WHICH ARE GENERATED
CIRCULATE IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. MINERS
WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE GREENS CREEK MINE ARE LIVING IN
THE COMMUNITY AND COMMUTING DAILY TO THE MINE. BECAUSE OF
THE LOCAL HIRE POLICIES OF THE MINE, THEIR FAMILIES ARE A
123
PART OF THE COMMUNITY ALREADY, AND THEIR PAYCHECKS HAVE HAD
A PROFOUND EFFECT ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY - ALMOST A MILLION
DOLLARS A MONTH. THIS COMPARES TO A CONTRIBUTION OF THE
JUNEAU ECONOMY OF $13 MILLION PER MONTH BY THE STATE
GOVERNMENT. BEAR IN MIND THAT MINING IS VIRTUALLY A NEW
INDUSTRY, WHILE STATE GOVERNMENT IS A MATURE INDUSTRY AND
POSSIBLY IN DECLINE. WHEN THE KNOWN MINES REACH THEIR
STRIDE IN JUNEAU, THEY WILL CREATE NEARLY 900 DIRECT JOBS
AND A SIMILAR NUMBER IF SECONDARY JOBS. THESE WILL BE
STEADY, FULL TIME POSITIONS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE AVAILABLE
FOR GENERATIONS.
WITH THIS PREAMBLE, LET ME SPEAK TO THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. IN THE VIEW OF THE MINING INDUSTRY IN
SOUTHEAST ALASKA, THIS LEGISLATION IS GROSSLY DEFICIENT
INSOFAR AS IT IGNORES EXISTING MINING ACTIVITY AND MORE
IMPORTANTLY ITS POTENTIAL. FIRST, THE SURFACE MANAGEMENT
PRESCRIPTIONS ALMOST UNDOUBTEDLY WILL MAKE MINING AND
MINERAL DEVELOPMENT MORE DIFFICULT. SECOND, IF AREAS ARE
RESTRICTED OR CLOSED TO MINERAL ENTRY THEN THE DEPOSITS
WHICH SUCH AREAS MAY CONTAIN WILL BE LOST FOREVER. THIRD,
SUCH AN EXERCISE WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL MINERAL
POLICY. WHILE THE MINING LAW OF 1872 CONSTITUTES IMPORTANT
PROTECTION TO THE FUTURE OF MINING AS ONE OF AMERICA'S FEW
REMAINING DOMESTIC BASIC INDUSTRIES, AND WHILE THAT
VENERABLE AND DURABLE LAW WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE
TO MINE IN THE AREAS UNTOUCHED BY THIS BILL, THE
22-148 0-89-5
124
ENCROACHMENT OF WILDERNESS AREAS ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
RESTRICT AND RESTRAIN THE GROWTH OF THIS IMPORTANT INDUSTRY.
TEN YEARS AGO WE WENT THROUGH THIS SAME EXERCISE WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANILCA. BESIDES THE ASSURANCE THAT THE
ANTI-DEVELOPMENT FORCES WOULD NOT BE BACK TO DARKEN OUR DOOR
AGAIN, THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THAT ILL-CONCEIVED LEGISLATION
HAD A WELL-DEFINED AND CLEARLY MEASURABLE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON
ALASKA. IN THE YEARS BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF ANICLA,
EXPLORATION ALL OVER ALASKA WAS A MAJOR INDUSTRY. VERY
LARGE COMPANIES LIKE ANACONDA AND NORANDA WERE HERE TO SPEND
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR IN THE ALASKA ECONOMY. LIKE A
GIANT OCTOPUS, ANICLA REACHED OUT AND CLOSED IMMENSE AREAS
OF IMMEASURABLE MINERAL POTENTIAL TO ANY FUTURE ACTIVITY,
AND THE EXPLORATION DOLLARS DRIED UP.
GREENS CREEK AND QUARTZ HILL, WERE BOTH FOUND AS A
RESULT OF THAT ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION BY THE MAJOR MINING
COMPANIES OF THE WORLD. BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES WERE
INCLUDED IN NATIONAL MONUMENTS - AND THEIR INCLUSION WAS NO
ACCIDENT. A TOTAL OF SEVENTEEN AREAS IN THE TONGASS WERE
REMOVED FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THAT TIME. AND WHEN THAT
IS COMBINED WITH THE MANAGEMENT STIPULATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN
IMPOSED ON THE REST OF THE TONGASS, WE FIND A CHILLING
EFFECT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS INDUSTRY.
125
WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT ANY SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BE GIVEN
TO THE MINERAL INDUSTRY IN THIS LEGISLATION. WE ARE ONLY
ASKING THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO SEEK AND DEVELOP
DEPOSITS IN THE TONGASS. MINING DOES NOT CREATE ANYWHERE
NEAR THE SURFACE IMPACT, FOR INSTANCE, OF CLEAR-CUTTING, BUT
IT DOES REQUIRE SOME SURFACE DISTURBANCE. THERE IS A
DEFERENCE TO BE UNDERSTOOD BETWEEN EXPLORATION AND MINING AS
WELL. EXPLORATION REQUIRES LARGE AREAS TO BE OPEN AND
AVAILABLE, BUT MINING REQUIRES ONLY A SMALL SURFACE
FOOTPRINT. HOWEVER, ROADS TO TIDEWATER MUST BE BUILT.
POWER LINE RIGHTS OF WAY MUST BE UTILIZED. SITE DEVELOPMENT,
CAMP FACILITIES, DOCKS, TAILINGS DISPOSAL SITES AND LOADING
TERMINALS ARE ALL A PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING A
MINE. THEY CAN BE BUILT WITH SENSITIVITY TO THE
ENVIRONMENT, THEY NEED NOT CONSTITUTE AN AESTHETIC INSULT.
THE GREENS CREEK MINE, FOR INSTANCE, ONLY INVOLVES A TOTAL
SURFACE IMPACT OF 318 ACRES, MOST OF WHICH IS INVOLVED IN
THE ROAD FROM THE PORTAL TO TIDEWATER. AND THAT IS THE
TOTAL SURFACE IMPACT THAT THE MINE WILL EVER REQUIRE.
THE A-J MINE, LIKEWISE, WILL HAVE A BARELY PERCEIVABLE
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY OF JUNEAU. IF TAILINGS DISPOSAL
WERE PERMITTED INTO THE OCEAN, AS WAS THE CASE FOR THE
ORIGINAL MINE, THERE WOULD BE ALMOST NO DETECTABLE IMPACT AT
ALL. THE TAILINGS WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE PLACED BEHIND A
DAM, AND THAT, UNFORTUNATELY FOR JUNEAU MEANS THAT THERE
WILL BE A LARGE NEW LAKE IN WHICH TO FISH, MORE HYDRO POWER
126
FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY AND PERHAPS A NEW SOURCE OF
FRESH DRINKING WATER.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS THAT WHEN YOU DRAFT THIS BILL,
YOU MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEW
INHIBITIONS ON MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE
TONGASS. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. WE UNDERSTAND THE DEBATES
CONCERNING THE IMPACTS OF LOGGING IN THE TONGASS, AND WHILE
WE SYMPATHIZE WITH OUR BROTHERS IN THE TIMBER INDUSTRY WE
CAN OFFER NO SUGGESTIONS TO YOU AS TO HOW TO SOLVE THAT
PROBLEM OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE REAL. WE
NEED A STRONG TIMBER INDUSTRY IN THIS REGION JUST AS WE NEED
A STRONG MINING INDUSTRY, SO PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WE
SUPPORT THEIR OBJECTIVES; HOWEVER, DO NOT SACRIFICE THE
MINING INDUSTRY IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN
THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THE LOGGERS.
ATTACHED TO THIS TESTIMONY IS A DOCUMENT ENTITLED
"CONFERENCE JUNEAU, ABSTRACTS OF PROFESSIONAL PAPERS". THESE
TWENTY-FOUR PAPERS WERE PRESENTED AT A MINING CONFERENCE
HELD IN JUNEAU APRIL 20 AND 21 OF THIS YEAR. IF YOU TAKE
THE TIME TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT, YOU MAY GET A SENSE OF
WHAT THE PROFESSIONALS THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE
TONGASS. IF LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES, THERE WOULD BE
MINERAL DEVELOPMENT FROM ONE END OF THE FOREST TO THE OTHER,
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE IN TO TEARING UP THE RAIN FOREST, BUT
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE RARE SCENIC VIEWS AND OTHER THE
127
UNIQUE VALUES OF A TEMPERATE ZONE RAIN FOREST ARE NOT THE
ONLY RARE AND UNIQUE QUALITIES OF THE TONGASS. THERE ARE
RARE MINERAL OPPORTUNITIES HERE AS WELL.
ONE FINAL POINT SHOULD BE MADE. ALASKA TODAY DEPENDS
UPON ITS OIL INDUSTRY TO PERPETUATE ITS ECONOMY. EVERY
SINGLE ANALYST AGREES ON ONE POINT IN THIS REGARD, HOWEVER,
AND THAT IS THAT THE PRODUCTION FROM PRUDHOE IS ON THE
DECLINE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A MAJOR NEW FIND, THE STATE
OF ALASKA IS GOING TO BE IN A WORLD OF HURT ECONOMICALLY
WITHIN THE DECADE. ALREADY OUR LEGISLATURE AND STATE
ADMINISTRATION IS RUNNING IN CIRCLES TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW IT IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE 21,000 STATE EMPLOYEES NOW ON
THE PAYROLL. IT CANNOT DO THAT FOREVER ON THE STRENGTH OF
ONE INDUSTRY. IF WE DO NOT HAVE STRONG ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC
BASES UPON WHICH TO RELY IN THE FUTURE, SUCH AS MINING AND
LOGGING, ALASKA IS GOING TO BE SENTENCED TO DESTITUTION AND
ONCE MORE A WARD OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE FOUGHT HARD
THIRTY YEARS AGO FOR OUR RIGHT TO EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE
OTHER STATES, AND WON. THE PROPONENTS OF THIS LEGISLATION,
IN OUR JUDGMENT ARE NOT ADVANCING ALASKA'S INTERESTS, NOR
THAT OF THE UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE, BY LOOKING AT OUR
TONGASS FOREST ONCE MORE. WE UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, WE
ARE SYMPATHETIC TO PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE RAIN FOREST
IN A RATIONAL WAY, BUT DEPRIVING US OF THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP
OUR RESOURCES IS A BAD IDEA. WE URGE YOU TO ADOPT A
RATIONAL APPROACH.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THESE VIEWS,
IF I MAY ANSWER ANY QUESTION FOR YOU I WOULD BE PLEASED TO
DO SO.
128
Senator Wirth. Mr. Leighty.
STATEMENT OF BILL LEIGHTY, GOLD CREEK SALMON BAKE
SUMMERTIME OUTDOOR RESTAURANT
Mr. Leighty. My name is Bill Leighty. I have lived in Juneau for
18 years operating a family operation of Gold Creek Salmon Bake
Summertime Outdoor Restaurant.
Last year was our 18th season; we served 35,000 people in our
four month season and 80 percent of those people were tourists. We
employ 20 people.
First, we depend on the unspoiled splendor of the Tongass to at-
tract those people from the southeast to see the wilderness. To the
extent that splendor is spoiled in any way by either timber or
mining or roads or highways or tidal waves or whatever, that di-
minishes the appeal and reduces the number of people that are
likely to be attracted there and therefore affects our business and
livelihood.
The primary, the highest and best economic use of the Tongass
long-term I believe is primarily tourism and fishing. The negative
impact can be illustrated by the report we heard from All America
West Tours which had four cruise ships here last year. Now their
daily bookings have dropped from four to six — from six to four.
Now getting back to southeast Alaska: now secondly, we depend
upon a continuous supply of salmon at a reasonable price, the only
thing that we serve as the primary ingredient, to the extent that
the same kind of negligence and indifference in salmon, the same
management that caused the Exxon Disaster prevails and also neg-
atively affects our business and thirdly, as a U.S. citizen, I think
we have better uses for our money than continuing to afford mil-
lion dollar subsidies. If I were you I would put the whole thing in
the Head Start Program.
Now 23 specific areas in Section 302 should be permanently pro-
tected. This is not a lock-up; our children will have the opportunity
to reduce, to reverse your act of Congress with their act of Con-
gress if they see fit. If we do not protect these areas at this time
then our children will not have the opportunity
I believe you are contemplating the loss of hundreds, perhaps
thousands of jobs in the tourist industry and the timber industry
here. We are also contemplating the loss of millions of jobs in the
military industrial complex unless the whole world moves beyond
war for its primary international conflict with pollution as a condi-
tion. We live in turbulent times of change and it is not in our inter-
est to deny the existence of and obstruct this process of change but
to understand them and manage them and we are all going to have
to change tourism and timber alike, and those of us in the tourism
industry will welcome the participation of those in the timber in-
dustry to help to build a sustainable long-term economy in south-
east Alaska.
I speak in support of 346.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Leighty. Thank you very much.
Now I liked your remarks about Head Start as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leighty follows:]
129
yfOlB €B111.
Salmon
^><2^ Alaska's Original Summertime Outdoor Salmon Feed— Since 1971
Box 020993
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0993
Ml
907-586-1424
22 March 89
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; regarding S.346
Dear Senators:
FIRST, tourism-recreation is the highest and best long-term economic use o-f the
Tongass. A quarter-million people visit Southeast Alaska every summer. They all
experience the splendid Tongass wilderness. I-f this splendor is diminished by
logging, the quality o-f their experience will be degraded; fewer people will
visit Southeastern. Tourism employment, which exceeds — and will far exceed, in
the long term — timber employment, will suffer.
Consequently, our family business will be hurt by continued Tongass timber
harvest .
We served 35,000 people in the four summer months of 1988; seventy-four per
cent were from cruise ships. We employ twenty people. We all depend on the
Tongass' unspoiled splendor to attract our clientele, for our living.
SECOND, we serve only salmon. We depend upon the productivity of Tongass
spawning streams. Unless very well regulated and policed, logging damages
spawning streams, diminishing the supply and raising the price of our product's
salient ingredient. Again, we depend on Tongass wilderness.
THIRD, as a U.S. citizen, I advocate better uses for the Tongass timber subsidy
money. I'd put it all in the Head Start program, for example.
FOURTH, as global citizens, we need the Tongass to recycle carbon dioxide.
We can't criticize Brazil for destroying its forests while we poorly manage
ours. We need every tree on Earth, and then some, to slow global warming.
FIFTH, Section 302 of S.346 should permanently withdraw the listed areas from
timber or other development. Sive our children the opportunity to reverse your
Act of Congress by theirs, if they've compelling reasons. Recovery from
development damage in those areas would take decades to centuries.
FINALLY, our family has chosen to live in Southeast Alaska these past eighteen
years largely because of the unspoiled beauty of the place. Harvesting the
Tongass diminishes the quality of our lives. Therefore, please let it be.
Past decades of our short-term thinking — about many issues — will cost us
turbulent and uncomfortable decades, ahead. Let's think long-term, now — about
the Tongass, education, energy, security, etc. — to amel lor ate that turbulence.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
William C. Leighty, Proprietor
Mancy J. Waterman
t«ttached: photos of our business
130
STATEMENT OF JAN ROSS, REPRESENTING ALASKA CRUISE
LECTURES
Ms. Ross. My name is Jan Ross and I am a 35 year resident of
Ketchikan. I represent the group Alaska Cruise Lectures, a group
of 15 women who have been in the business of lecturing on cruise
ships for 20 years. We accompany the ship through the Inside Pas-
sage to Anchorage and return, giving slide presentations on each
port of call and commentary from the ship's bridge on slights of in-
terest along the way. We mingle with the passengers to answer
questions and give them a view from the other side of the rail. The
interest in our program is probably exceeded only by mealtimes.
Bear in mind that the majority of these people are first-time visi-
tors to Alaska and know only what they have read or heard and
they are extremely interested in our lifestyle, the wildlife, oil, fish,
forests and logging methods and dead trees on the hillsides and the
muskey areas, which some are convinced are scars left by clearcut-
ting. We are with these people for two solid weeks and get to know
those who are especially concerned about the environmental issues.
The logging industry is an up-front concern to them because of
all the information in the news media, which often is based more
on emotions and scare tactics than on the real facts. They have
come with the preconceived mental pictures of a land laid naked
from clearcutting, of hillsides and valleys barren of trees.
This mental picture is somewhat confirmed by what they see
during a portion of their trip through British Columbia. We ex-
plain that logging practices in Alaska are more restrictive than in
B.C. As the ship sails through Alaskan waters they begin to see the
difference and they are amazed at the hundreds of miles of heavily
forested hills and valleys and the lack of devastation that they had
heard about. They notice the lush green areas of regrowth and the
beauty is especially noticeable to them when compared, side by
side, to the old growth that is peppered throughout with dead and
dying trees.
This, we take for granted, but first-time visitors with a mental
image of barren and scarred hillsides find it difficult to contain
their expressions of admiration for the unexpected beauty. They
begin to realize that they may have been deceived by the news
media and by those who would like to see Alaska one vast wilder-
ness area. Even the occasional bear or deer that might be spotted
along the beach leaves an impression on their minds, as they had
been led to believe that the wild animals of Alaska have been
driven by development to parts unknown.
They are amazed at the immensity of the Tongass National
Forest. They see for themselves the vast amount of old growth
timber going to waste due to disease, blowdown and fires. They see
firsthand that the old growth forests are subject to devastating
fires with so many trees that are dead, dying and bone dry. They
realize that the economy of this country is forever losing the bene-
fit of this wasted timber. It becomes obvious to them, after seeing
firsthand, the size of the Tongass and the vastness of its trees, that
the present harvest level is not destroying the forests.
Finally, near the end of the voyage many will come to us to ex-
press their satisfaction and joy at learning that Alaska is not being
131
denuded of its forests. They see for themselves that controlled
clearcutting is truly a sensible means of replacing the old dying
forest with new healthy trees and that with this sensible, balanced
approach to forest management there is room in this huge forest
for everyone.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Ross. Mr. Pihlman.
STATEMENT OF DALE PIHLMAN, FISHERIES BIOLOGIST, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Mr. Pihlman. Yes, Senator Wirth, I welcome you to Ketchikan
and thank you for taking the time to come and listen to our con-
cerns about the management of the Tongass.
My name is Dale Pihlman, I am a second generation Alaskan
and fisheries biologist currently with the Alaskan Department of
Fish and Game and also I have been a commercial fisherman for
about 15 years.
Currently I operate three tour buses out of Ketchikan; I employ
approximately 12 individuals, mostly college students, and host
about 8,000 visitors per year.
I would like to start my testimony by taking note of a certain set
of facts that bring us here today. The Tongass has long been gross-
ly mismanaged by the U.S. Forest Service. The fact that you are
here today is evidence of that. If the Forest Service had done its job
managing the forest in a balanced way, Tongass would not be in-
volved in the Forest Management as it is now. For as long as I can
remember the Tongass has been managed as a tree farm with little
consideration given to other values, such as fish and wildlife and
wilderness recreation. As a fisheries biologist and a commercial
fisherman I am continually frustrated by the destruction of
salmon-spawning streams. Today I watch in apprehension as old-
growth timber disappears, steadily decreasing the number of areas
to which I can take my clients.
One does not have to cut down the forest to have it generate rev-
enue. As the world's population increases the availability of wilder-
ness in southeastern Alaska becomes increasingly valuable as a vis-
itor attraction. A recent state survey indicated the state's number
one attraction was not Mount McKinley but the Inside Passage,
first of waterways.
I am not against timber harvesting and I have worked in timber-
related jobs. As a college student I spent time longshoring, loading
ships with cans and bales for ports of call. I worked on a tugboat
loading logs and I recognize the value of the timber industry in the
local economy.
Senate Bill 346 would not weaken the timber industry, but
rather provides the best for all. The legislation provides protection
for areas valuable to the wilderness recreation and visitor industry
but it still provides latitude for increased timber harvest.
Also removing the mandate of the $40 million appropriation
brings a positive element of fiscal conservatism in a time of nation-
al need.
I thank you for your efforts to bring the multiple use.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Pihlman. We appreci-
ate all of you being here this morning and your colleagues.
132
Do you have any comments you would like to make?
Senator Burns. I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
Now Mr. Leighty, I come from a wheat-producing state.
Mr. Leighty. I was raised in Idaho.
Senator BuRNS.Well, I am concerned about the international re-
lationship in the Pacific Ocean in regard to salmon. I think I can
probably take care of two problems with one stone. We do not want
any more salmon fish taken. It helps my beef industry — we will let
our U.S.S.R neighbors and Japanese neighbors have the salmon.
Any reaction from you on that? Indeed, it probably violates the
free-market mechanism.
Senator Murkowski. I do not think it does. What I am saying is
I do not want any more salmon being taken. In other words, would
that affect your business?
Mr. Leighty. Not allow us to be a salmon operation any more? I
suppose we could serve beef. [Laughter.]
We could move on to other things but there is a local salmon
market and a lot of it is being produced, especially in Europe and
South America and Japan. Of course that would be on the market
and replace the Alaska-caught fish.
Senator Wirth. What is the difference between salmon from a
fish farm and salmon that is fresh caught up here?
Mr. Leighty. There is a variety of opinions on that. Of course the
Alaska-caught salmon is superior in all regards. [Applause.]
One opinion I heard just yesterday from the manager of the
Icicle Seafood Plant in Petersburg is that the farm fish is literally
softer, they call it number two fish because it has not been swim-
ming freely in the ocean and it has not been exercising its muscles
and if we were raised on beef like that we would be a little soft too.
[Applause.]
Senator Burns. The point I am making is directly impacting any
kind of Tongass legislation. I am wondering if our attitudes should
change. That is the point I am trying to make here. I think you
sort of stepped around that very well.
Mr. Leighty. I think you are trying to look around beyond our
provincial interests and it is our business and it is what is going to
be the best in the long term for all of southeast Alaska and the
whole planet. I think in the long term the highest and best eco-
nomic use of the Tongass includes the forest industry, of course,
some timbering but it includes emphasis on tourism and fisheries; I
think that that is where the big money is. For example we have
hardly scratched the Japanese market. They are going to buy half
of Hawaii and California and have money left over that they are
desperate to invest and they want to come here. They have not
scratched that market yet.
Senator Burns. I wanted to spend some money on fish but I
want to ask Mr. MacKinnon one question. Are you in favor of any
mandatory actions on the 1872 Mining Law?
Mr. MacKinnon. I think the 1872 Mining Law is eroded in histo-
ry, it goes beyond — further and beyond. Our national experience
beckons the middle ages. I think there can be some changes.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. MacKinnon.
Thank you very much, Senator Burns. I think the point is that if
we — if there is less salmon fishing in the high seas the demand for
133
food will still be out there in China and elsewhere and the Soviet
Union, is that right, and that demand would be met by those coun-
tries that come into this country and buy out — and buying also our
beef.
Senator Burns. You might feed it down there but it starts up in
our country.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all.
Mr. PiHLMAN. If it pleases you, I have some Alaska Department
of Fish and Game documents relating to the management of the
stream problems; would you like those in the record?
Senator Wirth. Sure. Thank you very much, we appreciate you
being here.
What we are going to do now is take a short three-minute recess
and then back to Panel VI and Panel VI can move in to the — we
will have our final panel slip in to the on-deck circle.
[Recess taken.]
Senator Wirth. The committee will come back to order.
While I am introducing this panel you might have Panel VII join
us.
The sixth panel: Mr. Martin Pihl is President and General Man-
ager of Ketchikan Pulp Company; Thyes Shaub, of Government Af-
fairs and Butch Burette, owner of Burette Logging Company; Sally
Coady, President of Alaska Women in Timber and John Bukoskey,
International Representative of the International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union.
We thank you all very much for being with us.
We will start with you, if we may, Mr. Pihl.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN R. PIHL, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
MANAGER, KETCHIKAN PULP CO.
Mr. Pihl. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and
staff. I thank you for coming to Ketchikan and thank you for this
opportunity to testify. I have submitted extensive written testimo-
ny for the record on this vital issue, also a brief oral summary
which I will just have to brief you from.
We would like to make clear at the outset that we respectfully
oppose Senate Bill 346 and H.R. 987, which are designed to undo
the 1980 ANILCA Compromise, to circumvent the congressionally-
mandated planning process, to lock up additional land base and to
lower the harvest levels on the Tongass National Forest. That is
radical legislation and will over time destroy economics and some
participants, I repeat, some participants of the timber industry.
Cancellation of the KPC contract is wrong, bad policy and would
be very very costly to the American taxpayers. As to individual
contracts, if concerns exist they should be addressed between the
parties. If this is concerning any individual contract, it should not
be driving the legislation which has a far-reaching impact on the
people in communities of Southeast Alaska. We want to emphasize
that. Our current operations have never been brighter in outlook.
We have a new sawmill that involves 75 new jobs. This will result
in higher stumpage values to the government over time. There are
sections in my testimony on environmental stewardship and em-
ployment. We employ 950 employees in the area and support 1,200
134
to 1,500. During 1988 our average employee made about $40,800, in-
cluding $3,300 in profit-sharing. The markets have seen a dramatic
recovery. The KPC contract is the foundation and stability of the
timber industry here. No pulp mill anywhere operates without a
continuing supply of timber in some form. There can be no ques-
tion about it. Our contract is no longer long term — ^just fifteen
years remaining — and from our viewpoint more important.
Stability is very important in the pulp mill and the contract pe-
rimeter on land areas — yes, I see the red light.
Senator Wirth. We will put the statement in the record.
Mr. PiHL. If I may, may I just put in a little bit here?
The simple fact of the matter is that timber harvest and other
resource values can both exist in such areas as the Calder-Hol-
brook, and we have shown that we are willing to cooperate in
giving protection in these areas, particularly the professional proc-
ess preferable but we are willing to discuss results of mapping of
some of the particularly sensitive areas to provide protection. The
same survey that Mr. Amends has quoted from, Sealaska supports
protection for not more than seven areas and just portions of the
areas. If we can do that and have a good timber program, we can
protect the other values too.
Thank you very much.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Pihl.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pihl follows, exhibits retained in
subcommittee files:]
135
TESTIMONY BY
Martin R. Pihl, President and General Manager
Ketchikan Pulp Company
BEFORE
The Subconmittee on Public Lands, National Parks
and Forests of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee
United States Senate
Ketchikan, Alaska
April 24, 1989
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify. My name is Martin R. Pihl. I am
President and General Manager of Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) .
I have been a resident of Ketchikan and an employee of KPC for
27 years. Accompanying me today are Owen Graham, our Logging
Manager, and William Phillips, a partner with the law firm of
Hopkins, Sutter, Hamel & Park, to assist in answering any
questions you might have that are not covered in my prepared
remarks.
Since so many erroneous statements have been made about the
topic, my remarks today will deal primarily with the long-term
contract between the United States and Ketchikan Pulp Company
(AlOf s-l(D42) , as currently modified. It should be made clear
at the outset, however, that for reasons detailed in earlier
testimony we respectfully oppose passage of legislation which
is designed to undo the 1980 ANILCA compromise, to circumvent
the Congressionally-mandated planning process, to lock up
additional land base, and to lower the harvest levels on the
136
Tongass National Forest. In most respects, proponents of
Tongass reform legislation have as their real objective to
destroy the timber industry in Southeast Alaska which will have
drastic effect on the economic viability of the area.
As to individual contracts, desired changes, if indeed
legitimate concerns exist, can and should be handled between
the parties. Such modifications have been made in the KPC
contract over the years as needs have arisen. We submit that
the history of KPC's performance under its contract indicates
the appropriateness of the bargaining table — not the halls of
Congress — as the proper forum to make necessary revisions, if
any, to the agreement between KPC and the federal government.
We do not believe issues concerning individual contracts should
be driving legislation which has far reaching impact on the
people and communities of Southeast Alaska.
BACKGROUND
The joint resolution of the House Interior and Agriculture
Committees adopted in 1947 which recommended and authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture to sell timber within the Tongass
National Forest clearly stated the intent, need, objectives and
the importance placed on establishing a timber industry in
Southeast Alaska in the following quotation from that
authorizing legislation:
[I]t is believed that the prompt enactment
of this measure is of the utmost importance
-2-
137
to the Territory of Alaska and to the United
States as a whole.
A large-scale development of the timber
resources in southeastern 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
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 southeastern Alaska and from the
standpoint of promoting the national defense
through increasing the population and
industrial capacity of Alaska as our
"Northern Rampart."
Culminating many years of effort and negotiations by Forest
Service officials on behalf of the U.S. Government, KPC entered
into the first long-term contract in 1951. KPC, a domestic
company from its inception, remains the holder of this
contract. This contract represented the Government's first
success in finding a private party willing to invest the huge
sums of money necessary to build a pulp mill in Southeast
Alaska .
This was an undertaking with definite risks, but this
pioneering venture established the foundation for the many
operations working under the management of the U.S. Forest
Service to put to work and renew a small portion of a decaying
-3-
138 /
forest through sustained yield forestry. KPC, consistent with
the expectations of the long-term contract, has worked hard
over time to develop complete utilization and maximum value of
the timber resource being harvested in Southeast Alaska.
CURRENT OPERATIONS
We operate fully integrated forest products operations
starting with our timber harvest operations concentrated on the
northern half of Prince of Wales Island and the northwest
corner of Revilla Island. Working with the Metlakatla Indian
Community we operate sawmill facilities on Annette Island.
Attached as Exhibit E is a copy of Mayor Atkinson's letter of
August 22, 1988 explaining the importance of this operation to
the Metlakatla Indian Community. We have recently brought on
line a new $13 million small log sawmill at Ward Cove which
will produce 60 million board feet of planed dimension lumber
annually for export and domestic markets. Our new sawmill has
created 75 new jobs and is a major advancement in utilization
to develop maximum values and improved economics in the forest
harvest and conversion equation. This will result in higher
stumpage values and payments to the Federal treasury and local
government bodies. These operations are supported by and
operated in conjunction with our pulp mill at Ketchikan.
-4-
139
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
We have attached as Exhibit A a three-page "History of
Environmental Control at Ketchikan Pulp Company (1/27/89)",
which outlines our record of environmental stewardship over the
entire term of our operations. You will note that care for the
Alaska environment was recognized when our mill was built in
selecting the magnesia base pulp process which employs chemical
recovery. We are currently meeting National waste water
discharge standards. We have met air emission standards on our
recovery boilers since 1978. We are proud of this record and
intend to continue good stewardship of the environment.
EMPLOYMENT
Our operations have met the goal of bringing substantial
year-round employment to southern Southeast Alaska. This has
been done based on the primary manufacture requirement,
developing on-shore jobs and processing the forest resource to
the fullest extent possible in Alaska. KPC currently has 900
employees. By July 1, 1989, this will increase to 950 with
two-shift operation of the new sawmill. KPC supports direct
employment including contract logging, road building and
transportation personnel of 1,200 to 1,500 in the greater
Ketchikan - Metlakatla - Prince of Wales area of Southeast
Alaska. KPC is by far the largest employer in this region, and
much of the service and support industry is dependent upon the
-5-
140
continued viability of our operations. Prior to the
establishment o£ our operations, employment in the area was
totally seasonal and boom-bust cycles had been the rule.
Southeast Alaska today is the bright spot in the Alaska economy
because o£ the strong renewable resource industries in our
region.
KPC's employment base mirrors the population make-up of
Southeast Alaska. Alaska Natives comprise 35% of the total
workforce at KPC. At our sawmill complex on Annette Island,
80-90% of the jobs support members of the Metlakatla Indian
Community.
Our employees enjoy steady work, good wages and benefits.
Indeed, during 1988 our average full-time worker earned
$40,800, plus benefits. These amounts of compensation are
greatly in excess of the private employment statistics for our
state as a whole. Commencing in February, 1987 we instituted a
profit sharing plan for all employees. Under this plan ten
percent of the company's pre-tax profit each month is shared
equally on a per capita basis with all employees. During 1988
profit sharing added $3,300 to each employee's annual
earnings. Gross salary and wages for all KPC employees in 1988
amounted to $32,000,000, plus benefits. Total KPC expenditures
in the Ketchikan - Metlakatla - Prince of Wales economy are
over $5,000,000 monthly.
More than anything, we want to emphasize that KPC's
position, on behalf of its employees . . . its shareholders
. . . and the communities in which we operate, is simple. We
desire that the U.S. Government live up to its commitments
-6-
141
which are part of our contract. We know how to manage a forest
products operation ... to log, and operate sawmills and a
pulp mill . . . all on the basis of generating the highest
economic return and value to the tree. We know how to
accomplish these tasks within the framework of our long-term
contractual relationship with the federal government. We have
operated on the contract . . . through thick and thin . . . for
35 years. Our achievements are the result of the efforts of
our dedicated employees, many of whom have worked at KPC for
extensive periods of time.
MARKETS
We have seen dramatic recovery since 1986 in markets for
both pulp and lumber. Attached as Exhibit B is a summary of
KPC total net sales by country for the years 1986, 1987 and
1988. Environmentalist claims that our markets are being
eliminated and that our products all go to Japan are simply
untrue. While Japan is, and always will be, a very important
customer, we do business in broad domestic and world markets.
KPC exports of $134 million in 1988 clearly make a substantial
contribution toward a favorable balance of trade for our Nation,
In August 1987, the world market price of dissolving pulp
passed the previous all-time high set in 1980. Market
improvements have progressed steadily quarter-to-quarter since
1986 and improvement is continuing into 1989. Attached as
Exhibit C is a summary of KPC net pulp sales by country for
-7-
142
years 1986, 1987 and 1988. This shows broad marketing in that
in 1988 we shipped 21 percent of our pulp to important domestic
customers, some of which use our pulp in the defense industry.
A letter summarizing the importance of our pulp to one such
domestic customer, Hercules Incorporated, is attached as
Exhibit F. The balance was shipped to 20 countries world-wide
to every continent except Australia and Antartica. No country
took over 22 percent of our export pulp. The largest customer
base was in Taiwan, with India second.
The applications of Ketchikan dissolving pulp are
extensive. Listed below are some of the myriad of end products
produced from KPC pulp:
1. Viscose Rayon - clothing, upholstery, curtains,
carpeting, industrial belting, hosing, tires,
cellophane/packing, sponges, twine, bristles and flock.
2. Cuprammonium Rayon - high fashion clothes, women's
undergarments, suit linings, artificial kidneys,
non-wovens, i.e. disposable protective clothing.
3. Nitro Cellulose - dice, encapsulated electronic
equipment and other moldable products, high speed
printing inks, explosives and lacquers.
4. Microcrystalline Cellulose - pills and caplets,
dietary bakery goods, emulsifiers, i.e. sandwich
spreads, low calorie ice creams and cosmetics.
-8-
143
5. Carboxymethyl and Ethyl Celluloses - emulsifiers, i.e.
paints and coatings.
6. Specialities - formica, artificial leathers, molded
luggage and laminates, tissue and specialty papers.
Thus, cellulose, a basic component of wood, is purified in
the pulp process and converted into numerous useful end
products in today's world of modern technology.
STABILITY OVER TIME
The existence of a viable pulp mill{s) provides the real
assurance of continuing the many hundreds of year-round jobs in
the timber industry. Without our pulp mill greatly aggravated
unemployment would have occurred in our region during the
period 1981 through 1985, when our local timber industry (as
the forest products industry elsewhere) faced the most severe
and prolonged recession in its history. The current
replacement cost of KPC's pulp mill, would be at least $400
million. With this asset-investment base, with the long-term
agreement with the United States for assured timber supply at
competitive rates, and with a world-wide customer base
developed over time, one is driven to manage and operate a pulp
mill through both good and bad markets. Sawmills also are a
vital part of integrated timber operations, and KPC has three
sawmills, but time and practice has shown it is an easier
_Q_
144
decision to shut down sawmills when markets are poor. In
contrast, we continue to run our pulp mill based on incremental
economic contribution considerations.
It is true that the timber industry in Southeast Alaska
went through very difficult times in the first half of the
1980' s. There were many factors which combined to aggravate
and extend the down cycle. However, since 1985 the situation
has thankfully changed for the good. This dramatic change has
occurred for several reasons. Our situation during the early
1980 's was greatly aggravated by the inordinate escalation in
logging costs, which began in the early 1970 *s and continued
thereafter. A large part of the cost escalation was driven by
enactment of laws and implementation of regulations by Congress
and the Forest Service. Our analysis shows that the cost to
KPC alone of logging cost increases above general inflation
amounted to $155 million from 1970 through 1985. Since 1986
logging costs have been brought more in line. This has been
one of the key factors in our dramatic economic recovery.
We have restructured our operations and costs internally so
that today we believe we are as competitive as we can be in
these areas. Forest Service appraisals, using regional average
data, in determining the stumpage rates for KPC's contract on
March 1, 1984 compared with August 1, 1988 show a $75 per MBF
(log scale basis) reduction in manufacturing costs for
conversion of logs to lumber and pulp. KPC has consistently
been an industry leader in developing economics of return on
the forest harvest. KPC's recent construction of its new small
-10-
145
log sawmill at Ward Cove is a significant example of this
effort .
CAPITAL INVESTMENT - DYNAMICS
Continuing to build for the future and relying on its
contract with the government for timber supply, KPC made the
follow capital investments during 1988:
$ millions
1. Construction of new small
log sawmill (completed
March 1989) $11.8
2. Logging equipment 6.0
3. Pulp mill additions and
improvements (including
environmental control
facilities) 9.0
4. Logging roads 8.5
$35.3
KPC STUMP AGE RATES ARE POSITIVE
The economics of Southeast Alaska forest harvest and
processing are now solid and returns for economic stumpage are
very positive. Under the upward stumpage adjustment provisions
in KPC's contract (Sections 2(b)2 and 2(c)2), the Forest
Service has adjusted the stumpage rates for volumes for all
species actually logged from August 1 - December 31, 1988, up
to an average of $68.03 per thousand board feet (MBF) . This
-11-
146
represents a 32-fold increase from the rates set by the Forest
Service effective March 1, 1984. With continuing quarterly
market improvements. Forest Service Appraisal Handbook
Directive #57 issued on December 28, 1988 indicates an average
stumpage rate in the range of $75 to $90 per MBF. The Forest
Service is using Appraisal Handbook Directive #57 in
reappraising KPC's stumpage rates effective March 1, 1989.
Only in Alaska does the Forest Service collect and use
end-product pulp selling values in the appraisal process and
setting of stumpage rates. This means the Forest Service is
able to use actual product values and the entire economic
equation of Southeast Alaska forest products operations in
managing the forest and determining stumpage rates.
We have all heard environmental claims that the price for
cutting a giant old-growth spruce tree is equated with the
price of a "Big Mac". In fact, the KPC stumpage rate recently
redetermined by the Forest Service for saw volume spruce is
$230 per MBF, meaning the stumpage price for an individual
eight foot dbh (diameter at breast height) spruce tree is
$5,000 or more. In the same Forest Service stumpage
redetermination for KPC, the average stumpage rate for Alaska
Yellow Cedar is $580 per MBF.
This clearly indicates that the "Below Cost Issue" should
no longer be an issue. The bottom line of forest harvest,
development of integration, and free enterprise practice by KPC
is enhancement of economics and stumpage values.
-12-
147
LONG-TERM CONTRACT(S) - THE FOUNDATTOW
There can be no question but that the long-term
contract(s), together with the pulp mill(s) constructed as a
requirement of the contract, is the foundation of the timber
industry in Southeast Alaska. On these foundations the timber
industry has become the year-round and a principal mainstay of
the economy of Southeast Alaska.
The General Terms of KPC' s long-term contract describe
clearly the underlying conditions and assumptions. Both the
U.S. Government and KPC stated their intention to facilitate
the pioneering of a larger scale timber industry which has
become a primary and the only vear-round industrial base
underpinning the economy of Southeast Alaska. The old growth
climax forests of Southeast Alaska contain a high percentage of
over mature and decaying material which is not saw grade and is
only suitable for pulp. (Pulp grade material comprises nearly
50 percent of the volume of timber harvested in the Tongass.)
For this reason, officials of the U.S. Forest Service knew it
would necessitate construction of a pulp mill to provide a
foundation for developing the timber industry.
Today, having the pulp mill(s) supported by its long-term
contracts is as essential as ever before . . . for these
reasons:
1. The shrinking federally-owned land base available for
multiple use forest management due to wilderness
-13-
148
withdrawals, reserves and study areas and Alaska
Native land selections has forced harvest on the
Tongass to lower quality timber stands containing an
even higher percentage of pulp grade material than was
the case in earlier years.
2. To remain viable independent sawmill and logging
operations throughout Southeast Alaska must have
assured outlets for both residual chips and pulp grade
material on a continuing basis.
3. The pulp mill serves as an essential outlet for pulp
grade material from the harvest on Native private
lands. Substantial harvesting has occurred on private
land since 1980. This logging, which should not be
confused with Tongass National Forest operations, has
added a new dimension, at least temporarily, to the
timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
Also today. KPC's contract is no longer "long-term".
There are only 15 years remaining on the initial 50 year term.
Short-term contracts run up to 10 years.
And tomorrow, meaning over the next few years and on into
the future, the contract-pulp mill foundation will be ever more
important to the people and economy of Southeast Alaska, since
the volumes of harvest from Native private lands will greatly
diminish as a result of the cut-over of these land areas.
-14-
149
PR0VI3IONS OF THE KPC CONTPACT WITH THP; UNITKn STATFg
The KPC Contract with the United States has been
mischaracterized at times during recent discussions about
pending legislation affecting the Tongass National Forest. A
copy of the current agreement is available and should be
reviewed closely. The following comments are accurate as to
the KPC agreement itself.
VOLUME REOUIREMENT.q
The KPC Contract provides, both in the Preamble and in
Section 1, that the Government will provide KPC no less than
1.5 billion cubic feet (or 8.25 billion board feet) of timber
from designated areas of the Tongass National Forest during the
initial 50-year period of the contract. The designated sale
area, also called the primary area, is located generally on the
northern half of Prince of Wales Island and the northwest
corner of Revilla Island in Southeast Alaska. Provision is
made in Section 1(a) of the Contract for additional areas
(called contingency areas), if the requisite volume is not
found in the primary area. Section 1(e) of the Contract gives
the Regional Forester the right to sell two percent of the
volume in any value comparison unit (VCU) in the primary sale
area to others for ultimate use in Southeast Alaska, if such
sale will not materially interfere with the operations of KPC.
-15-
150
The following chart indicates amounts harvested by KPC
under the Contract since its inception:
Period (CY) Volume (MBF)
1954-1978 (24 + years) 3,776,089
1979-1983 (5 years) 596,720
1984-1988 (4 years) 747.652
TOTAL 1954-1988 5.12Q.4fil
This clearly shows contract performance by KPC in maintaining
timber harvest levels.
Thus, at the end of 1988, a total of 3,129,539 MBF remained
to be harvested during the next 15 years. During calendar year
1989, KPC expects to harvest an additional 220,000 MBF (220
million board feet). Utility log scale volumes are counted as
part of the KPC long-term sale volume.
For administrative and management purposes, the Contract
term is broken into five-year periods, pursuant to Section 1(b)
of the Contract. Currently, at least 960,000 MBF must be
offered to KPC during each five-year term, or 192,000 MBF per
year.
Pursuant to the Contract, the timber offered must be
economically viable. Given the pricing mechanism under the
Contract (under which KPC must pay no less than base rates for
timber to be harvested, even if the appraised value is lower).
-16-
o
151
the Forest Service must select sale areas that make economic
sense, since Section 1(d) of the Contract requires that KPC
cannot be placed in "a disadvantageous position with respect t
similar enterprises in the Puget Sound region."
FOREST SKRVICE PT.ANNING PUnrv.fifi
The Forest Service Timber Management program of necessity
must be geared to meet the volume commitments of each program
or division of its planned annual harvest. The planning
process and NEPA process for each himher sal^ rnt-.tino unil- i^
the 59ing reqardlgpp of the cont-ract tf^rm. total rnn<-r;,n<-
YQlume, or type of t-imber Sflle. Cutting units are small blocks
of timber currently limited by the National Forest Management
Act to a normal maximum size of 100 acres. Since the planning
and permitting process is the same for each cutting unit, it
makes little difference whether volume commitments are met in a
large number of smaller volume timber sales or a lesser number
of larger volume sales.
Any potential impact of the larger volumes associated with
the KPC agreement on the planning process would occur only if
the Forest Service administratively delayed or changed the
specific areas to be harvested. The impact of the larger
volumes of the KPC long-term sale is integrated into the
planning process by using the following steps:
-17-
152
1. Preliminary selections bv the Forest Service for the
upcoming five-year period are to be made one-year in
advance to facilitate scheduling of operations and to
allow the Forest Service time to do an adequate
appraisal.
2. Designation of and establishment of cutting unit
boundaries are made by the Forest Service as its
planning and lay-out is completed during the five-year
period.
3. Releases to KPC for road building and harvest are made
90 days in advance of operations, and annually KPC
submits a harvest plan for approval by the USFS. The
release and harvest plan approval process is much
narrower than the five-year plan.
In terms of timing of similar tasks, the only difference
could be that the smaller-volume timber sales are generally
more fully marked on the ground prior to bidding, as compared
to the situation involving the volume associated with the KPC
long-term contract at the beginning of a five-year period.
However, no difference exists if one compares the level of
pre-bid planning on the smaller volume timber sales to the
planning which has occurred prior to release of a cutting unit
to KPC for harvest.
-18-
153
KPC CONTRACT AMENDMENTS STATUS
KPC's long-term contract has been modified in all respects
for consistency with Section 15(b) of the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) . Forest Service Chief Robertson
confirmed this in testimony on December 10, 1987. Even prior
to enactment of NFMA in 1976., a number of changes similar in
nature to those mandated by NFMA had been made. in 1979,
contract sections 1(c), 1(f), 8, 10, 20(a), 20(b), 21(a),
21(c), and 26 were changed with specific identification by the
Forest Service as being NFMA-mandated. A summary and specific
section-by-section language changes as submitted by the Forest
Service on these contract modifications is attached as Exhibit
D. The Forest Service has made other changes such as in
Section 4 which further NFMA compliance but were not identified
as NFMA-mandated.
Moreover, the Forest Service has, in many cases, imposed
change in the management and operation of KPC's contract well
beyond the standards and requirements of NFMA. For example,
our clear-cut size has averaged about 65 acres whereas the
standard set by NFMA is 100 acres (or larger when consistent
with silviculture and environmental standards).
Important contract provisions to the Government dealing
with upward stumpage price adjustment and protection for
species variation which were negotiated into the KPC agreement
effective January 1, 1987, are discussed below.
-19-
154
PRICING OF STUMPAGE
Stumpage appraisal values for every sale of timber from the
Tongass National Forest are determined in the identical manner,
using the same Forest Service handbook procedures and data.
Many factors influence the price of stumpage paid on
individual timber sales, including supply, demand, quality of
timber, utilization standards, location, physical factors,
volume per acre, cost of access and facilities, etc. The
Forest Service, in materials previously submitted to the House
Committee on the Interior, stated the following:
The appraisal method and data does not
differ between the two types of sales. Both
use the same appraisal process and the most
recent selling price and cost data available
at the time of the appraisal. Short-term
sales are generally of better quality,
contain a greater proportion of higher value
species and have less difficult access, camp
and road requirements (emphasis added) .
Later in the same submission, the Forest Service states;
It must be remembered that the long-term
sales were sold with much different
requirements and financial responsibilities
than are short-term sales. First, the
holders of the long-term sales were required
to build and continue operation of a pulp
mill. In addition, they must meet maximum
and minimum cutting schedules, as well as
face uncertain harvest areas and logging
requirements in future rate periods. The
price set through the rate redetermination
process cannot be refused such as in the
case of a short-term sale bidder. The small
sale operator has the flexibility of
choosing the sales on which to bid, and can
select those which appear to provide a
desired economic return at the price bid.
-20-
155
Short-term sales normally occur on areas where some portion
of the road systems previously has been completed by a
long-term or other sale operator. The Forest Service has
concentrated preroading expenditures to benefit short-term
sales. Such benefits properly should be reflected in higher
appraisals and stumpage prices.
A very important stumpage price difference exists due to
differences in utilization standards. Several years ago the
standards of SBA and independent timber sales were relaxed to
require removal only of all material in excess of 50 board
feet. KPC removes all material down to the earlier more rigid
10 board foot standard. This difference should produce a
difference in stumpage prices.
A number of provisions of the KPC contract bear directly on
the valuation of stumpage. Notable among them are:
Section 1(d) — Puget Sound clause;
Section 2(a) — Initial Rates and Adjusted Rates;
Section 2(b) 1 — Scheduled Rate Redetermination;
Section 2(b)2 — Periodic Rate Adjustment;
Section 2(c) — Emergency Reappraisals;
Section 2(d) — Minimum Stumpage Rates; and
Section 2(e) — Contract Modifications.
Nearly all of the remaining provisions of the contract
ultimately have some bearing on the stumpage value. This is
not unlike most commercial contracts.
-21-
22-148 0-89-5
156
One issue that has been distorted in earlier testimony in
Congress is the adjustment of stumpage rates during the
five-year operating period. The KPC contract does provide for
both upward and downward adjustment of stumpaae rates during
the relevant five-year period, if there is a determination
within the period of substantial changes in markets or other
pertinent economic conditions affecting the Forest Service
appraisal. Statements to the contrary are simply wrong. We
have already noted the effect of just such a recalculation by
the Forest Service effective August 1, 1988.
Another issue which has been distorted relates to the
so-called "high-grading" issue. Section 2(b)2 of the KPC
Contract provides for quarterly recalculation of stumpage rates
based on actual species volumes harvested if at variance with
the species estimates used by the Forest Service in its
appraisal. Again, statements to the contrary are simply wrong.
CANCELLATION OF THE KPC CONTRACT IS UNWARRANTED AND BAD POLICY
Earlier in this testimony I have tried to explain the
importance to KPC of its long-term agreement with the United
States — and the importance of the continued viability of our
pulpmill operations to the timber industry and overall economy
of Southeast Alaska. I have described the contents of that
agreement and hopefully have shown that our current contract
meets alleged concerns that have been expressed earlier by some
who seemingly have not read our contract and clearly do not
-22-
157
understand how it operates. We at KPC believe we have met our
part of the bargain and respectfully submit that cancellation
of the contract does not make rational sense from a policy
standpoint.
In addition, there are legal ramifications to cancellation
of the KPC contract. KPC believes that under well-established
and fundamental legal principles, the Congress is not at
liberty to cancel the KPC long-term sale. Contracts with the
United States, as do other kinds of contracts, give rise to
private rights, and it is well settled in the decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts that unilateral
cancellation by the federal government of one of its contracts
deprives the private party thereto of property without due
process of law. We have therefore been advised that
legislation affecting a cancellation of KPC's contract would be
subject to a strong challenge under the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment.
Even if contract-termination legislation survived a
constitutional challenge. Congress by enacting such legislation
would undertake for the federal government a substantial
financial obligation if it cancels the KPC contract.
Legislative cancellation would effect a total breach of the KPC
contract and/or a taking of private property from KPC for which
the Fifth Amendment imposes the requirement upon the government
to pay just compensation to KPC.
If treated as a breach of contract, legislative
cancellation of the KPC contract will make the government
-23-
158
liable for all damages resulting from the breach. The concept
pursuant to which damages are measured is placing the
non-breaching party — i.e. . KPC — in as good a position as it
would have been in if its contract was fully performed by the
government. Under this standard, damages normally include at
least the contractor's expenditures and losses in performing
the contract and, if properly proved, the full measure of the
profits that would have been realized through full contract
performance. The breach would also be subject to the interest
provision of the Contract Disputes Act. The $50,000
performance bond paid by KPC would also be subject to recovery.
If considered to result in a Fifth Amendment taking,
legislative cancellation of the KPC contract would require the
government to pay just compensation to KPC — that amount which
would reflect the full monetary value of the taken property.
Under "takings" analysis, the contractor is to be put in the
same position, monetarily, as if its property had not been
taken. Here, KPC would be entitled to be placed in the same
position it would have occupied if the contract was not
cancelled. As the contract guarantees KPC a sufficient
quantity of timber at competitive rates for the "full scale
operation" of its mill, one must look at the effect on KPC of
the loss of such assured supply, an essential component of any
viable pulp mill operation. In addition, another component of
just compensation would be the added cost to KPC of obtaining
from other assured sources (if other assured sources are shown
even to exist) assured volumes of timber of sufficient quality
-24-
159
and in sufficient quantity to replace what was assured under
the contract to allow continuation of the pulp mill. Needless
to say, removal of 1.7 million acres from timber production on
the Tongass would affect this analysis. The simple fact of the
matter is that no such alternative assured timber supply exists
for KPC. In addition to the value of "replacement timber",
there is strong precedent supporting the inclusion in the award
of just compensation of amounts intended to reflect the
increased costs to KPC of hauling or transporting any such
replacement timber to its mill and its losses due to costs KPC
incurred in fulfilling its contract obligations — i.e.. road
construction and mill construction costs. Finally, it is
settled law that compensation for a taking must include
"damages for delay in payment" — commonly measured as interest
— running from the date of taking (here, contract
cancellation) until the date the full measure of compensation
has been paid.
A memorandum from our attorneys detailing the legal and
financial amplications of proposed legislative termination of
the KPC contract is available for your review.
Neither the contract damage nor the just compensation
formulas take into account the additional and substantial
amount the government should pay workers displaced and/or
dislocated as a result of the negative impact contract
termination would have on the employment situation at the KPC
mill facilities.
-25-
160
LAND AREAS
Current legislative proposals to withdraw from multiple-use
management 1.8 million additional acres from the Tongass
National Forest are not sound either from a practical or policy-
standpoint. One must, in analyzing this topic, recall that the
Tongass National Forest originally (that is before all previous
wilderness and other protected status removals from multiple
use) consisted of 5.5 million acres of commercial forestland
out of a total of 16.5 million acres. Thus, 11.0 million
acres, or two-thirds of the Tongass National Forest land base
has from time immemorial consisted of non-commercial
forestlands and effectively wilderness areas of many types. Of
the original 5.5 million acres of commercial forestland, 1.6
million acres is already designated as wilderness. Another 2.2
million acres of the commercial forestland is already
restricted from timber harvest in favor of other uses of the
Forest. Thus, only the remaining 1.7 million acres comprise
the multiple use timber base of the Tongass. Moreover, the
Forest Service management program for multiple use lands gives
extensive recognition to other values such as fisheries,
wildlife habitat and subsistence, by provision for such
protections as riparian management zones along streams,
wildlife retention zones and location of timber cutting units
to protect aesthetics.
One must also remember that in 1980, Congress placed 5.4
million acres of the Tongass in wilderness, which is the size
-26-
161
of the state of West Virginia and which includes as much
timberland as found in the entire state of Louisiana.
Additional massive Congressionally-mandated withdrawals is a
clear repudiation of the ANILCA compromise which occurred only-
nine years ago and would fly in the face of the Tongass Land
Management Plan (TLMP) , instituted by Congress to deal with
such forest planning questions. The TLMP process is currently
underway and, after full public participation in the process,
should be completed next year. Current legislative proposals
to withdraw massive acreage from multiple use management is, in
reality, merely an attempt to circumvent rational management of
the Tongass National Forest by professionals after full public
comment and discussion as called for by the process Congress
ordered to be followed. Simply stated, the TLMP process should
be allowed to work as formulated.
Additional massive permanent land withdrawals from
multiple-use management, will have a disastrous affect on KPC,
as current legislative proposals would remove from harvesting
several large areas within the purview of our contract with the
United States. The same disastrous result would occur from a
prohibition against multiple-use management (including sale and
harvest of timber, plus associated development such as timber
sale preparation and road construction) until the TLMP process
is concluded, since such a prohibition is for all practical
purposes until at least after the year 2000 because of the
effect of such a prohibition on the planning process.
-27-
162
For example, removal of the Calder-Holbrook area (over
60,000 acres containing 440 million board feet) would
drastically disrupt current KPC operations and would require
expenditure of many million of dollars in moving costs, even
should adequate volumes of replacement timber be made
available. Removal of the Nutkwa area (nearly 54,000 acres
containing 380 million board feet of merchantable timber) from
itiultiple-use management makes breach of the KPC contract much
ihore likely, as portions are scheduled for harvest during the
1990*s. The same can be said about the Karta area which covers'
almost 39,000 acres.
Simply stated, proponents of massive land withdrawals and
reductions in the mandated timber base necessary to maintain a
viable timber industry in Southeast Alaska have but one real
goal in mind — the destruction of the timber industry in
Southeast Alaska. Congressional agreement to such proposals
would have an absolutely devastating effect, not only on KPC
but also upon all of Southeast Alaska. Such proposals are both
unfair, given past Congressional actions regarding the Tongass,
and unwise from a policy standpoint.
Finally, it should be noted that even if Congress should
decide as a general matter to withdraw areas from multiple-use
management on the Tongass, the areas listed in current
legislative proposals are much too large and are not rationally
based. The simple fact of the matter is that timber harvesting
and other resource values can both exist on such areas as
Calder-Holbrook, Nutkwa and Karta. KPC has shown a willingness
■28-
163
to demonstrate the correctness of this assertion by
accomplishing detailed "mapping" of these areas. While it is
clear that professional management of the Tongass is preferable
and should be allowed to occur pursuant to the
Congressionally-mandated TLMP process, should Congress decide •
to disregard such a rational planning process, KPC remains
willing to discuss the results of its "mapping" of areas
affecting its operations, and thus supports the statement of
the Alaska Loggers Association dated March 17, 1989. We
endorse all aspects of this statement and respectfully suggest
that it is an appropriate vehicle for use in resolving the
various positions of different interests on the Tongass.
CONCLUSION
We are confident we can be successful and continue to
provide jobs and the significant economic base for the people
of Southeast Alaska if. the United States will meet its
responsibilities under our contract.
Mr. Chairman, during the various Tongass hearings, you will
hear drastically different perceptions of life in Southeast
Alaska — from those who wish to see balanced use of its
magnificent resources continue . . . and from others desiring
to decimate its economy. However, there can be no legitimate
disagreement as to the importance of the federal government's
contractual commitments to KPC and its moral commitments to the
people of Southeast Alaska. KPC's rights are clear . . . they
-29-
164
are found in our contract. Should these promises to KPC be
broken, it would indeed be unfortunate, but my company can be
reimbursed with money. Breaking the moral commitment made to
the people in Southeast Alaska — first in 1951, and again in
1980 — and by so doing destroying the entire economic fabric
of the region — would be a travesty. Such a breach would
destroy lives, families and communities — in ways money could
never remedy. As an Alaskan and an American interested in a
federal government whose word you can trust, I respectfully
request that you consider carefully this issue involving
Southeast Alaska before you today.
2885C
-30-
165
Senator Wirth. Ms. Shaub. It is nice to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF THYES SHAUB, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR, ALASKA LOGGERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Shaub. I am Government Affairs Director for the Alaska
Loggers Association. ALA is especially pleased to have hearings
held in Alaska so you can hear members of our association and em-
ployees testify.
Our Association has submitted prior testimony regarding the
facts and policies involved in Tongass legislation. However, the
untold story is of the people who have established a lifestyle de-
pendent upon a stable and continuing supply of raw material for
the timber industry. Please, mark well what these people have to
say, they are people who represent a work ethic, a lifestyle that
represents the best of Alaska's traditions. Most of them will consid-
er testifying before you one of the most difficult experiences of
their lives but it is also a measure of their concern.
They are decent, hard-working people who take others at their
word. In 1980, with the passage of the ANILCA legislation they
were told that the land allocations on the Tongass were settled
once and for all; 5.5 million acres were put into wilderness leaving
the remaining land base insufficient to support the job level. In ex-
change for the wilderness these people were assured that their jobs
would be protected. Section 705 allowed a harvest level of up to 4.5
billion board feet per decade or less than one-third of the commer-
cial timber in the Tongass National Forest.
Following this legislation and relying on the word of Congress
these people have invested in over 23 logging communities and log-
ging operations to supply four large sawmills and two pulp mills
and many small sawmills. All of these logging communities are es-
tablished in remote sites and many are complete with families and
schools. These communities are site specific to a particular timber
sale and make up an integrated system of supply to the dependent
pulp and sawmills. Any substantial change in where or how much
harvesting will take place, for example, cancellation of the long-
term sales, will cause a wholesale loss of jobs throughout these
communities that will result in unprecedented dislocations and
hardships.
If S. 346 becomes law our members and their employees will feel
betrayed by a Congress that breaks its word and their contracts.
We support passage of S. 237 introduced by our Alaska delegation
that allows us to retain our industry, our jobs and our unique life-
style.
Our full position is set forth in the attached policy paper which
everyone connected with our industry in southeast Alaska has
agreed to. This includes big and small operators and those who op-
erate on public and private land. It calls for maintaining jobs and
protecting other resources, such as fisheries and wildlife habitats,
and we urge you to review it carefully.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shaub follows:]
166
Alaska Loggers Association, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Ketchikan, Alaska
111 STEDMAN. SUITE 200 .
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 90901
PhoiM907-22S-ei14
STATEMENT OP THYES SHAUB
ALASKA LOGGERS ASSOCIATION .
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman (and members of the Committee), my name is
Thyes Shaub. I am Government Affairs Director for the Alaska
Loggers Association(ALA) . (I am here today representing our
members made up of logging companies, sawmills and pulp mills
throughout Alaska, representing 107 separate companies with over
4,400 workers. In addition, there are 200 associate members which
employ several thousand persons both in Alaska and in the Lower
48.)
ALA is especially pleased to have hearings held here in
Southeast Alaska so you can meet and hear members of our Associa-
tion and their employees testify. Our Association has submitted
prior testimony regarding the facts and policies involved in
Tongass legislation. However, the untold story is of the people
who have established a life style dependent upon a stable and
continuing supply of raw material for the timber industry. Please,
mark well what these people have to say — they are people who
follow a work ethic and life style that represents the best of
Alaska's traditions. Most of them will consider testifying before
you one of the most difficult experiences of their lives — but it
is also a measure of their concern.
There are decent, hard working people who take others at
their word. In 1980, with the passage of the ANILCA legislation,
they were told the land allocations on the Tongass were settled
once and for all. 5.5 million acres were put into wilderness,
leaving the remaining land base insufficient to support the job
SERVING ALASKA'S TIMBER INDUSTRY
167
Alaska Loggers Association, Inc.
level. In exchange for the wilderness designated in Section 703,
these people were assured that their jobs would be protected.
Section 705 allowed a harvest level of up to 4.5 billion board feet
per decade or less than one-third of the commercial timber on the
Tongass.
Following this legislation and relying on the word of
Congress, these people have invested in over 23 logging communities
and logging operations that supply four large sawmills and two pulp
mills together with many small fixed and portable sawmills. All
of these logging communities are established in remote sites and
many are complete with families and schools. All of these
communities are site specific to a particular timber sale whether
independent or long term and jointly make up an integrated system
of supply to the dependent pulp and sawmills. Any substantial
change in where or how much harvesting will take place (for
example, cancellation of the long term sales) will cause a
wholesale loss of jobs throughout these communities that will
result in unprecedented dislocations and hardships.
Any reduction in timber supply will also upset the
exchange of pulp and sawlogs that allows the sawmills and pulp
mills to operate efficiently. It is not possible to run half of
a pulp mill or only part of a sawmill.
. If S. 346 becomes law, our members and their employees
will feel betrayed by a Congress that breaks its word and their
contracts. We support passage of S. 237 introduced by our Alaska
delegation that allows us to retain our industry, our jobs and our
unique life style.
Our full position is set forth in the attached policy
paper which everyone connected with our industry in Southeast
Alaska has agreed to. This includes big and small operator and
those who operate on public and private land. It calls for
maintaining jobs and protecting other resources. We urge you to
review it carefully.
One more thing - we understand that there may be some
Native villages that feel they may qualify under ANSCA. We ask you
to investigate and resolve their issue if needed as part of Tongass
legislation.
-2-
168
Alaska Loggers Association, Inc.
Ill STEDMAN. SUITE 200
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901
Phoita 907.22S-6114
Enclosed is the policy statement of the Alaska Loggers
Association on Tongass legislation. It represents our effort to
address the concerns of the majority of people of Southeast Alaska,
especially those people and communities dependent upon National
Forest timber. We are also sensitive to the concern that other
resources such as fish, wildlife, and subsistence continue to be
protected.
We believe it is time for the ALA, the Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council, the Southeast Conference, and the State of
Alaska to work with the Alaska Congressional Delegation to forge
an "All Alaska" position to present to Congress. We would
appreciate adding your voice to those who agree with us that the
time has come for such a compromise.
ura very truly,
1 Soderbe/g )
SERVrNG ALASKA'S TIMBER INDUSTRY
169
Alaska Loggers Association, Inc.
Ill STEOMAN. SUITE 200
KETCHIKAN. ALASKA 99901
PhoiM 907225-6114
POLICY STATEMENT OF
ALASKA LOGGERS ASSOCIATION ON TONGASS LEGISLATION
GOAL: It is the goal of the Alaska Loggers Association to
maintain year round employment opportunities associated with the
forest products industry, and, therefore, the economy of Southeast
Alaska and the stability of the communities in Southeast Alaska
consistent with the multiple use management of the resources of the
Tongass National Forest.
KEY POINTS OF THE ALA POSITION ON TONGASS LEGISLATION;
Dependent Communities
In considering Tongass legislation, a primary concern
for Congress should be with the well-being of people and com-
munities dependent upon National Forest timber sales in Southeast
Alaska.
Retention of Land and Timber Base To Provide a Supply to
iS£lX-
Produi
Insure" Employment Opportunities Associated with the Forest Products
Industry Supply for Dependent Industry.
Tongass legislation and the United States Forest Service
should retain a sufficient commercial forest land and timber base
under multiple use management to make available an allowable sale
quantity (ASQ) of 4.5 billion board feet per decade subject to
ongoing and annual review to meet timber industry needs based on
market demand, industry capacity and economics.
SERVING ALASKA'S TIMBER INDUSTRY
^/ur^T' S^Zk.s-J^A^
170
•v
Alosko Loggers Association, Inc.
The ALA does not support the concept of "mandated" cut.
The ALA believes harvest levels should be driven by economics,
markets, and sound principles of forestry.
The United States Forest Service management program for
multiple use lands should continue to provide proper recognition
to other multiple use values such as fisheries, wildlife habitat
and programmed subsistence by provision for such protection as
riparian management zones along streams, wildlife retention zones
and protection of the visual resources. Members of the ALA
presently harvest federal timber in accordance with extensive
current provisions in the National Forest Management Act and other
laws which protect these other resource values.
Maintenance of Economic, Viable Timber Supply
The Tongass National Forest multiple use lands should be
managed to provide economically viable timber sales to all
operators which will provide positive stumpage returns to be shared
with local government bodies. Intensive management monies are
needed as part of the program to access marginal timber stands.
These monies are necessary because of the 1980 designation of 1.6
million acres of commercial forest land as wilderness in Section
703 of ANILCA. Intensive management monies should be authorized
up to $18 million per year but should be subject to the annual
appropriations process. The expenditure of intensive management
monies should be limited to accessing marginal timber by preroading
of existing and new timber sales, reforestation and thinning, and
fisheries enhancement.
171
The exemption from Section 6(k) of the National Forest
Management Act must be retained in order to access timber stands
in marginal areas. Access to marginal areas is made necessary by
the 1980 designation of 1.6 million acres of commercial forest land
as wilderness in Section 703 of ANILCA.
Reduced clearcut size is not the best management practice
on the Tongass because it does not necessarily minimize the
potential impact of timber harvest on the National Forest. Tongass
legislation should allow for drainage management in which larger
clearcut size would be permitted so long as it is not inconsistent
with multiple use management and other resource values.
Contracts
Perceived problems of individual contracts should not
drive legislation which can have far-reaching impacts on the people
and the communities of Southeast Alaska. Matters concerning
individual contracts should be negotiated between the United States
government and the respective private party.
Land Area
Current Tongass land allocations are based upon the
existing Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) pursuant to the
Resources Planning Act of 1974. New land allocations, which add
to already designated wilderness or other protected status should
not be the subject of legislation, nor should they be made prior
to completion of the TLMP revisions.
If, however. Congress desires, in the public interest,
to allocate land areas in advance of TLMP, ALA believes that only
172
Alaska Loggers Association, Inc.
portions o£ the following areas should be considered for removal
from multiple use management:
Yakutat Forelands
Kadashan
Lisianski
Karta
Nutkwa
Chuck River
The boundaries of areas considered for removal from multiple use
management must be carefully delineated, a task which members of
ALA are prepared to do. Areas removed should not block access to
areas under multiple use management and allocation should facili-
tate and not block access for power transmission and transportation
corridors. Areas now in protected status should be reviewed to
provide substitutes for those portions of the above areas which are
removed from multiple use management.
Process and Litigation Delays
The Alaska Loggers Association (ALA) remains concerned
about the fact that the process in the consideration of a timber
sale from its conception to its award takes from four to seven
years. Furthermore, the complexity of the environmental "hoops"
through which the Forest Service must jump to put up a timber sale
provide infinite opportunities to delay this process - administra-
tively and through litigation. The ALA believes general steps can
be taken to streamline this process. First, the period for appeal
of forest plans and timber sale EIS's needs to be reduced to a
finite, reasonable period after the plan or EIS is published, after
which the plan or EIS will be deemed to meet all necessary
173
Alaska Loggers Association, Inc.
provisions of law to implement the plan or EIS. Second, multiple
NEPA suits at each level of the plan to sale process should be
discouraged by limiting judicial review of a timber sale to a
determination of whether or not it is consistent with the forest
plan. Third, parties which did not participate in the administra-
tive review process and raise issues therein with respect to a plan
or sale should be precluded from bringing litigation after the plan
has been approved.
174
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burette.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BURETTE, OWNER AND PRESIDENT,
DURETTE CONSTRUCTION CO.
Mr. Burette. Bistinguished Senators and members of the Senate
Subcommittee, my name is Robert Burette and I am Owner and
President of the Burette Construction Company. Our company
builds timber access roads on the Tongass National Forest here in
southeast Alaska. I look around the room today and see many of
you are some of my own boys and know that they too are wonder-
ing why they are defending their jobs when they want to be at
work making a living to support their families.
Through hard work, making good investments and being able to
save some money along the way, we were able to establish our own
business in 1986. My family lived in Juneau and because there was
little logging activity in the area I was forced to start up operations
on Prince of Wales Island. We had just come out of one of the
worst depressed timber markets our industry has known and
things were finally on the uphill swing. It is almost impossible to
borrow money from any source unless the creditor can be assured
that you have projected income or a job to repay the loan. My
creditors were satisfied only because I was holding a contract with
Ketchikan Pulp Company, a firm who in return was holding a con-
tact with the United States Government. What could be better col-
lateral? More importantly I felt that I could ask and expect my em-
ployees to suffer the expense of relocating their families to a
remote place at considerable expense to them in return for an em-
ployment opportunity with our firm.
The company grew and I reinvested our profits into the business.
Our company is located in Thorne Bay and almost totally depend-
ent on a healthy timber industry. All of my employees live in the
Thorne Bay Area and our payroll alone contributes close to a mil-
lion dollars a year into this local economy. This is a direct benefit
to the community as employee dollars are spent in the local area.
Please keep in mind that our company is only one of several small
independent companies in the Thorne Bay Area doing the same
thing. We also support independent subcontractors and their fami-
lies. A dollar earned in the forest of southeast Alaska is turned
over many times. My vendors and suppliers in the region are paid
over two million dollars a year; these dollars stay in the region,
creating indirect jobs. Please keep in mind that mine is a small
company, there are over 100 small companies similar to mine doing
business here on the Tongass National Forest.
Senate Bill 346 introduced by Senator Wirth of Colorado calls for
termination of the 50 year contracts within 90 days of enactment of
law. First of all it is obvious that there would not be the need for
independents as present due to the reduced timber supply. Some of
us will lose our companies, our employees will lose their jobs and
also we are told that if the contracts were terminated it would take
the U.S. Forest Service up to two years to prepare independent
timber sales and to get the system rolling. There are not many op-
tions for a company like mine. I cannot afford to build state or fed-
175
eral highways. I cannot afford the millions of dollars in required
bonding to even bid on those jobs.
The environmental lobby suggests that we are building roads on
this forest just to haul logs. Not so. The roads are built initially to
access the timber but after the timber is harvested the road then
becomes part of the access network to the local areas and commu-
nities. It is important to remember that the full cost of building a
road into a harvest area is absorbed on the initial harvest entry
and not absorbed over the long term. Many times I have accessed
areas for timber harvest that have opened up new and unique rec-
reational areas for lake fishing, camping, and mineral exploration,
to name a few. The public takes full advantage of these access op-
portunities.
Senators, I have been a preservationist for a long time. I have
had to be. I enjoy the recreational activities such as hunting and
fishing that the forest has to offer. I also know that by utilizing a
renewable resource such as timber that the forest will provide job
stability and community growth.
I urge this Committee to support Senate Bill 237, introduced by
Senator Frank Murkowski. I would also ask this Committee to re-
member that people earning their living and contributing to the
well-being of this country should not be dismissed lightly. They
themselves are a valuable resource.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Burette. [Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burette follows:]
176
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT R.DURETTE SR
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON TONGASS REFORM LEGISLATION
APRIL 24,1989- KETCH I KAN , ALASKA .
177
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
SUBCOMMITTEE; MY NAME IS ROBERT DURETTE , I AM OWNER AND
PRESIDENT OF MY OWN BUSINESS, DURETTE CONSTRUCTION CO . OUR
COMPANY BUILDS TIMBER ACCESS ROADS ON THE TONGASS NATIONAL
FOREST HERE IN S.E. ALASKA.
MY FAMILY AND I CAME TO ALASKA SE>v^ERAL YEARS AGO, WHEN I
ACCEPTED EMPLOYMENT WITH A LOGGING OPERATION LOCATED ON A
REMOTE ISLAND BETWEEN JUNEAU AND SITKA. WE LIVED IN THAT
LOGGING COMMUNITY FOR SEVEN YEARS, RAISING OUR TWO YOUNG
SONS , WHILE ESTABLISHING A TRUE APPRECIATION FOR OUR NEW
FOUND LIFESTYLE. IN 1983 WE WERE FORCED TO LEAVE OUR HOME
BECAUSE OF AN ENVIROMENTAL LAWSUIT THAT WAS PLACED ON THE
BUILDING OF TIMBER ACCESS ROADS AT THE KADASHAN DRAINAGE ON
CHICHAGOF ISLAND. I REMEMBER TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO MY FAMILY
WHY WE WERE LEAVING OUR HOME AND JOB, IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE
TO ME, SO HOW IN THE WORLD COULD I EXPLAIN IT TO THEM? I
LOOK AROUND THIS ROOM TODAY AND SEE MANY FAMILY'S, SOME OF
MY OWN EMPLOYEES, AND KNOW THAT THEY TOO ARE WONDERING WHY
THEY ARE HERE DEFENDING THEIR JOBS, WHEN THEY WANT TO BE AT
WORK MAKING A LIVING TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES.
THROUGH HARD WORK, MAKING GOOD INVESTMENTS AND BEING
ABLE TO SAVE SOME MONEY ALONG THE WAY, WE WERE ABLE TO
ESTABLISH OUR OWN BUSINESS IN 1986. MY FAMILY LIVED IN
JUNEAU, AND BECAUSE THERE WAS LITTLE LOGGING ACTIVITY IN THE
AREA I WAS FORCED TO START UP OPERATIONS ON PRINCE OF WALES
ISLAND. WE HAD JUST COME OUT OF ONE OF THE WORST DEPRESSED
TIMBER MARKETS OUR INDUSTRY HAS KNOWN, AND THINGS WERE
FINALLY ON THE UPHILL SWING.
BELIEVE ME, IT ISN'T EASY TO START YOUR OWN BUSINESS UP
HERE, YOU MUST HAVE A SUBSTANCIAL AMOUNT OF WORKING
CAPITOL, A CONTRACT, A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION THAT WILL BACK
YOUR EQUIPMENT NEEDS, AND VENDORS AND SUPPLIERS THAT WILL
ESTABLISH A LINE OF CREDIT FOR YOU. FOR MY COMPANY, ALL OF
THESE THINGS DEPENDED ON ONLY ONE THING; A CONTRACT. BEING
A SMALL INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR I LEARNED ONE THING RIGHT
AWAY. WITHOUT A CONTRACT I WAS A POOR RISK TO MY CREDITORS,
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT ESTABLISH WHAT MY LONG TERM SITUATION
WOULD BE. AS WE ALL KNOW, IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO BORROW
MONEY FROM ANY SOURCE, UNLESS YOUR CREDITOR CAN BE ASSURED
THAT YOU HAVE PROJECTED INCOME OR A JOB TO REPAY THE LOAN.
MY CREDITORS WERE SATISIFIED ONLY BECAUSE I WAS HOLDING A
CONTRACT WITH KETCHIKAN PULP COMPANY, A FIRM WHO IN RETURN
WAS HOLDING A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
WHAT COULD BE BETTER COLLATERAL! I TOO WAS ABLE TO INVEST
IN THE NECESSARY FACILITY AND OVERHEAD EXPENSES AT OUR
OPERATIONS LOCATION IN THORNE BAY. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I FELT
THAT I COULD ASK AND EXPECT MY EMPLOYEES TO SUFFER THE
EXPENSE OF RELOCATING THEIR FAMILIES, TO A REMOTE PLACE AT
178
CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE TO THEM, IN RETURN FOR AN EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY WITH OUR FIRM.
THE COMPANY GREW AND I REINVESTED OUR PROFITS INTO THE
BUSINESS. OUR COMPANY IS LOCATED IN THORNE BAY, A COMMUNITY
ALMOST TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON A HEALTHY TIMBER INDUSTRY. ALL
OF MY EMPLOYEES LIVE IN THE THORNE BAY AREA AND OUR PAYROLL
ALONE CONTRIBUTES CLOSE TO A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR INTO
THIS LOCAL ECONOMY. THIS IS A DIREST BENEFIT TO THE
COMMUNITY AS EMPLOYEE DOLLARS ARE SPENT IN THE LOCAL AREA.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT OUR COMPANY IN ONLY ONE OF SE'v'ERAL
SMALL INDEPENDENT COMPANIES IN THE THORNE BAY AREA DOING THE
SAME THING. OUR COMPANY ALS.O SUPPORTS TWO INDEPENDENT
SUB-CONTRACTORS AND THEIR FAMILIES. A DOLLAR EARNED IN THE
FOREST OF S.E.ALASKA IS TURNED OVER MANY TIMES. MY VENDORS
AND SUPPLIERS IN THE REGICN ARE PAID OVER TWO MILLION
DOLLARS A YEAR. THESE DOLLARS STAY IN THE REGION, CREATING
INDIRECT JOBS. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, THAT MINE IS A SMALL
COMPANY, THERE ARE OVER 100 SMALL COMPANIES SIMILAR TO MINE,
DOING BUSINESS HERE ON THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST.
SENATE BILL 346 INTRODUCED BY SENATOR WIRTH OF
COLORADO, CALLS FOR TERMINATI(>i OF THE 50 YEAR CONTRACTS
WITHIN ^0 DAYS OF ENACTMENT OF LAW. THE BILL ALSO REDUCES
THE ALLOWABLE CUT FROM 4.5 BILLION BOARD FEET PER DECADE TO
3.38 BBF/PER DECADE. SENATOR WIRTH, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT
WILL HAPPEN TO OUR COMPANY AND MANY MORE LIKE US, IF YOUR
BILL WERE TO PASS. FIRST OF ALL IT IS OBVIOUS TI-WT THERE
WOULD NOT BE THE NEED TO HAVE AS MANY INDEPENDENT'S AS
PRESENT DUE TO THE REDUCED TIMBER SUPPLY. SCWE OF US WILL
LOOSE OUR COMPANIES, OUR EMPLOYEES WILL LOOSE THEIR JOBS!
ALSO WE ARE TOLD THAT IF THE CONTRACTS WERE TERMINATED, IT
WOULD TAKE THE U.S.FOREST SERVICE UP TO TWO YEARS TO PREPARE
INDEPENDENT TIMBER SALES AND TO GET THE SYSTEM ROLLING
AGAIN. TELL ME SENATOR, COULD YOU AFFORD TO HAVE YOUR
INVESTMENTS SIT I DEL FOR THAT LENGHT OF TIME? I CERTAINLY
CAN'T. THERE ARE NOT MANY OPTIONS FOR A COMPANY LIKE MINE,
I CAN'T AFFORD TO BUILD STATE OR FEDERAL HIGHWAYS, I CAN'T
AFFORD THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REQUIRED BONDS TO EVEN BIT
ON THOSE JOBS. BESIDES OUR FEDERAL HIGHWAY HERE IS OUR
INLAND WATER WAY, AND MOST OF OUR STATE HIGI-ftJAY IS RECLAIMED
TIMBER ACCESS ROADS. THE ENVIROMENTAL LOBBY SUGGESTS THAT
WE ARE BUILDING ROADS ON THIS FOREST JUST TO HAUL LOGS ON.
NOT SO, THE ROADS ARE BUILT INITIALLY TO ACCESS THE TIMBER,
BUT AFTER THE TIMBER IS HARVESTED THE ROAD THEN BECOMES PART
OF THE ACCESS NETWORK TO THE LOCAL AREAS AND COMMUNITIES.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE FULL COST OF BUILDING A
ROAD INTO A HARVEST AREA IS ABSORBED ON THE INITIAL HARVEST
ENTRY AND NOT ABSORBED OVER THE LONG TERM. MANY TIMES I
HAVE ACCESSED AREAS FOR TIMBER HARVEST THAT HAVE OPENED UP
NEW AND UNIQUE RECREATIONAL AREAS FOR LAKE FISHING, CAMPING,
AND MINERAL EXPLORATION, TO NAME A FEW. THE PUBLIC TAKES
FULL ADVANTAGE OF THESE ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES.
179
SENATORS, I HAfE BEEN A PRESERk^ATI ONI ST FOR ALONG TIME.
I HAiJE HAD TO BE. I ENJOY THE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES SUCH
AS HUNTING AND FISHING THAT THE FOREST HAS TO OFFER. I ALSO
KNOW THAT BY UTILIZING A RENEWABLE RESOURCE SUCH AS TIMBER
THAT THE FOREST WILL PROVIDE JOB STABILITY AND COMMUNITY
GROWTH.
I URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT SENATE BILL 237,
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR FRANK MURKOWSKI . I WOULD ALSO ASK
THIS COMMITTEE TO REMEMBER THAT THE PEOPLE EARNING THEIR
LIVING AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE WELL BEING OF THIS COUNTRY
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED LIGHTLY, THEY THEMSELVES ARE A
VALUABLE RESOURCE.
RESPECTI FULLY SUBMITTED BY;
ROBERT R. DURETTE SR ,
DURETTE CONSTRUCTION CO, INC.
THORNE BAY, ALASKA.
180
Senator Wirth. Mr. Gildersleeve.
STATEMENT OF KEATUN GILDERSLEEVE
Mr. Gildersleeve. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commit-
tee, my name is Keatun Gildersleeve and my family has been log-
ging in the Tongass National Forest for almost 40 years, except for
the time spent in the U.S. Military and college and commercial
fishing. I have spent my entire life in logging camps. My children
go to school in a camp school and many of our employees are the
sons and daughters of the original crew.
With the changing markets and harvesting and labor, we have
chosen to reinvest in this industry each year and much — milling
capacity has changed several times, between harvesting and re-
source protection policies come and go.
Most of the timber which surrounds our operations are not avail-
able for harvest, that which can be harvested is programmed to be
responsible to the sustained yield as mandated by Congress. The
evidence of the wisdom of that mandate can be seen in stands
which were clearcut by my father and now are approaching com-
mercially viable second growth. I see no evidence whatsoever that
our industry has had a negative impact on other resource uses.
Commercial fish harvests are at a near-record level and King
populations are higher than when timber harvest began. Wildlife
populations of all kinds are heaviest in the areas of recent clear-
cuts and old timber.
The State of Alaska will probably have 800,000 visitors this year;
tourism is an increasing operation over the years.
People speak kindly of our contribution and understand that we
harvest a renewable resource and we do so with much less impact
on the environment than is the case with many industries. The
timber business is set to our way of life and a reduction in the
amount of timber available for harvest — we believe Senate Bill 346
can be directly translated into a loss of employment. Obviously the
proposed legislation would be sure to reduce the availability of em-
ployment and lowering capacity will withstand the next economic
downturn, we who live and work in the Tongass National Forest.
You have my word that I will do nothing which would threaten
this diverse usage. I invite any committee member and any of your
staff to look at our operation.
Thank you for coming and thank you for your time.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Gildersleeve.
Ms. Coady.
STATEMENT OF SALLY COADY, ALASKA WOMEN IN TIMBER
Ms. Coady. Before I begin my testimony I would like to present
this petition supporting the bill. There are over seven hundred sig-
natures here representing the people of Tongass and Wrangell,
Hobart Bay, Thorne Bay, Hofman Cove and Lemesuirler Bay.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Ms. Coady. My name is Sally Coady, President of Alaska Women
in Timber.
Our organization of 286 members work in support of the timber
industry through legislation, education and communication.
181
I am here speaking to you today as an Alaskan and as a typical
Alaska Women in Timber member who is very concerned about the
future of my family and my friends who are employed, either di-
rectly or indirectly, in the timber industry.
Alaska Women in Timber works for more public understanding
of the industry and the issues surrounding the forest harvest and
provides a supportive network for the people who work in the in-
dustry and live in the forest.
We know that the forest land provides economic, environmental
and recreational benefits to every American. The forest gives us a
continuous supply of a renewable resources and the industry is a
highly responsible group whose very survival depends on its wise
use of our public land. We know that we practice good forest man-
agement and that the industry operates in harmony both with the
environment and with other industries.
Logging is not new to us. Both my husband's family and mine
are long-time loggers. Our grandfathers and our fathers worked in
the industry. My husband started working in the woods when he
was sixteen. We were raised knowing we could make a good living
in the woods and that because trees are a renewable resource and
our forests are well-managed we will have trees for generations to
come.
We had always wanted to come to Alaska, to the land of opportu-
nity. We knew that our lifestyle would change and we were willing
to make that change.
My husband, who worked for a large timber company in Wash-
ington State, quit his job after 18 years. We sold our farm. Our
three children left the life they were accustomed to; they moved to
Alaska to our future.
We now hunt and fish and camp and we do more activities with
our children. We have a closeness within our family that we did
not have before. We have seen whales, eagles, grizzly bear, black
bear and sea lions. We have enjoyed the beautiful sunrises and
sunsets. We thrive in the great outdoors and all that Alaska has to
offer, but now because of pending legislation our livelihood is being
threatened. What are we to do? Should we wait and see what will
happen and possibly be thrust into the unemployment lines or
should we and our friends move back to the lower 48? Are there
jobs for us in the timber industry? Timber is all we know.
It was a big step to move to Alaska and we thought it was for the
betterment of our lives and family but the constant threat of losing
our jobs is not easy to live with. This is where we want to be and
where we want to stay. We need to know we will always have jobs
available for us in the timber industry.
We all believe in multiple use of the forest and sound timber
management. We are not about to destroy what we love so dearly.
We are managing our forests for the future and we are proud of
the job we are doing.
We hope you will consider us, the people who work and live in
the Tongass National Forest. We need the timber industry to sur-
vive. Please do not make us — the people — the endangered species.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Coady.
Mr. Bukoskey.
182
STATEMENT OF JOHN BUKOSKEY, NORTHWEST INTERNATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION
Mr. BuKOSKEY. Thank you for the opportunity to address you
today. I am John Bukoskey, Northwest International representa-
tive for the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union. I am here representing the longshoremen, not only in the
State of Alaska but those in Washington and Oregon and that is all
of my region, some 4,000 members in my region that I represent,
along with — I was also asked to speak on behalf of the Inland Boat-
men's Union, which is an affiliated division of our union.
We are responding, urging you to support the legislation pro-
posed by Senator Murkowski — I am having problems with the
name, I guess it is too similar to my own, and Senator Stevens, in
regard to the Tongass National Forest. We would like this opportu-
nity to point out that over the past four or five years the longshore-
men in southeast Alaska have experienced a major reduction in
work opportunities most directly related to the economy of the
State of Alaska. They have experienced between a $10,000 and
$20,000 a year reduction in their income over that period.
In reviewing the proposed legislation by Senator Wirth, we feel
this would cut the income another 36 percent, considering that we
would endure a 36 percent reduction in the harvest of available
timber. This bill would dramatically effect our members by reduc-
ing their income to less than what is needed to provide a modest
income for themselves and their families. The longshoremen
throughout Alaska for the last four or five years have tried to earn
a living based on 800 to 1,000 hours. It is impossible for us to be-
lieve that any cutback in work opportunities would be of any bene-
fit to the longshoremen or their families; especially in the ports of
Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Klawock, Pelican, Sitka, Wrangell and
Juneau.
It does not make any sense to those of us in the I.L.W.U. to sup-
port Senator Wirth's position to control and reduce the allowable
cut when approximately 40 to 60 percent of the timber that is
being harvested is literally rotting standing up. To support Senator
Murkowski and Senator Stevens' position to replace the forest with
healthier more productive trees does make sense.
With the suggested 1.7 million acre increase in wilderness area,
to a total of 7.2 million acres; and to increase the amount of timber
that is literally dying or rotting standing up, would be a total loss
of a very valuable resource. It surely is not logical for the fact that
it is a marketable resource which also affects a lot of jobs through-
out the southeast portion of the State of Alaska.
In closing we would venture to guess that there will never be 1.7
million people that would get the opportunity to use the additional
forest, this forest at the expense of the workers of the forest.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bukoskey follows:]
183
INTERNATIONAL northwest international regional omcE
LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S
2800 1ST AVE. - RM. 260, SEATTLE, WA 98121 — PHONE 447-1917 U N ION
Statement prepared for: Senate Energy Committee Hearing conducted
in Ketciilkan on April 24th, in regards to the Tongass National Forest.
I am John Bukoskey, Northwest International Representative for the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. I represent
the membership in the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon
and Alaska, which includes approximately 4,000 members plus their
dependants. In their interest I am making the following statement:
Dear Senators,
We are responding, urging you to support the legislation purposed by
Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens, in regards to the Tongass
National Forest. We would like this opportunity to point out that over the
past four or five years, the Longshoremen in Southeast Alaska have
experienced a dramatic reduction in work opportunities most directly
related to the economy in the State of Alaska. They have experienced
between a $10,000 and $20,000 loss of income for that period.
In reviewing the proposed legislation by Senator Wirth, we feel this
would cut that income another 36%; considering that we would endure a
36% reduction in the harvest of available timber. This bill would
dramatically effect our members by reducing their income to less than
184
what is needed to provide even a modest income for themselves and
their families. The Longshoremen throughout Alaska, the last 4 or 5
years, have tried to earn a living based on 800 to 1000 hours. It is
impossible for us to believe that any cutback in work opportunities would
be to our memberships' benefit, specifically those Longshoremen
working in the ports of Ketchikan, Metlakatia, Klawock, Pelican, Sitka,
Wrangeli and Juneau.
Many of are members are native Alaskans and would be required to look
for other sources of income, such as in the fishing industry, to provide a
living. With the problems in the oil industry today those jobs may also
be drastically effected, for some time to come if not permanently,
because of the oil spill in Valdez.
It doesn't make sense, to those of us in the I.L.W.U., to support Senator
Wirth's position to control and/or reduce the allowable cut, when
approximately 40 to 60% of the timber that is harvested is literally rotting
standing up. To support Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens
position to replace the forest with healthier more productive trees, does
make sense.
With the suggested 1 .7 million acre increase in the wilderness area, to a
total of 7.2 million acres, and increase the amount of timber that is
literally dying or rotting standing up, would be a total loss of a very
valuable resource. It surely isn't logical in the fact that it is a marketable
resource which also effects a lot of jobs throughout the Southeast
portion of the State of Alaska.
185
In closing we would venture to guess that there will never be 1.7 million
people that would ever get the opportunity to see the additional forest
that you are setting aside for their benefit, at the expense of those now
working in that forest.
For those of us that believe there is a need to compromise the Tongass
Forest Operation, it is our opinion that that is what the Murkowski Bill
provides. We therefore would certainly urge that you support the
compromise Bill introduced by Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens
and urge that you do not support Senator Wirth's proposed Bill that is
now being introduced.
We hope that we have made our position clear in this matter. If you
have any questions, or if there is anything more that we can add, feel
free to contact us at your convenience.
186
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Bukoskey and if I
might just take a moment and ask perhaps of you, Mr. Pihl, a
couple of questions.
First of all who owns Ketchikan Pulp?
Mr. Pihl. Ketchikan Pulp is a domestic company wholly owned
by Louisiana Pacific Corporation.
Senator Wirth. Who has the long-term contract up here, what
company has the long term?
Mr. Pihl. Who owns Alaska Pulp? I believe it is foreign owned
by a Japanese consortium.
Senator Wirth. Where does the product from Ketchikan Pulp
go?
Mr. Pihl. Our product last year, for example, was shipped to 51
countries worldwide.
Senator Wirth. How much is U.S. consumed?
Mr. Pihl. About 25 or 30 percent goes to very important domes-
tic customers.
Senator Wirth. And where does the other 70 or 75 percent go?
Mr. Pihl. 21 countries worldwide.
Senator Wirth. Which is the largest importer of your product?
Mr. Pihl. Taiwan followed by India.
Senator Wirth. Taiwan is the larger importer?
Mr. Pihl. And then India.
Senator Wirth. And then where?
Mr. Pihl. Korea.
Senator Wirth. And Alaska Pulp, where does their product go?
Mr. Pihl. It goes to world markets too but my understanding is
that primarily it goes to Japan.
Senator Wirth. So how big are you compared to Alaska, Ketchi-
kan Pulp and Alaska Pulp?
Mr. Pihl. About 20 percent larger, 10 to 15.
Senator Wirth. You are about 10 percent larger.
Mr. Pihl. Yes.
Senator Wirth. Can you tell me why you think that Tongass
should be treated differently than, say, Arappahoe Roosevelt Forest
in Colorado or a National Forest in Montana, why should it be
treated differently?
Mr. Pihl. If you are speaking about funding features, the so-
called
Senator Wirth. Funding, contracts, targets — why should it be
treated differently?
Mr. Pihl. There are 21 answers.
Senator Wirth. As a general proposition why should the Tongass
be treated differently than other national forests?
Mr. Pihl. First of all it took long-term contracts as a foundation
to develop this industry in Alaska and that foundation is important
today as it has ever been.
Senator Wirth. Now you are arguing that if you take away the
long-term contract that foundation is gone, is that right? Is that
the prime reason for the difference?
Mr. Pihl. You must have a discerned supply of timber to operate
a pulp mill and a large integrated operation.
Senator Wirth. Why is that true in the Tongass and not true in
other national forests with the timber that exists?
187
Mr. PiHL. It is true. Name me one pulp mill or large integrated
operation that is not supported by ensured supply of timber — now
that ensured supply can come in the sea on a ship, it can come in
ship contracts, it can come in timber contracts but you have to
have an ensured supply of timber.
Now in Alaska it is all National Forests and that is the only
game in town.
Senator Wirth. Is there any other national forest that has a re-
quirement that a certain amount of federal money must be spent
on that forest every year or that a certain amount of timber must
be cut from that forest every year? Now is there any other one — I
am just trying to understand and I think that members of the
United States Senate ought to understand and I am sure that there
is a good reason for that, why Tongass is treated one way and
every othei* forest is treated a different way.
Mr. PiHL. On those two pieces you are speaking to in terms of
the funding, we have for a long time advocated an overhaul of the
Tongass Timber Supply Fund to scale it down to a much lower
number, to expand it for limited purposes of intensive forest man-
agement, of thinning and in fact a series of other enhancements.
Now in terms of the annual supply, that is not in our vocabulary,
we do not believe in it.
Senator Wirth. Then we can remove the 4.5 billion board feet
and that would be no problem?
Mr. PiHL. No sir. What is important is to maintain an adequate
land base available to the Forest Service to manage, to make avail-
able up to 4.5 billion per decade subject to markets, economics and
industry capacity.
Senator Wirth. Does any other national forest have that kind of
a legislative requirement in it?
Mr. PiHL. I do not believe so.
Senator Wirth. I am just trying to understand Mr. Pihl, why
this national forest is treated differently from others. That's what I
am trying to get at.
The third point on the long-term contracts, do other National
Forests in the country have the kind of long-term contracts that
Tongass has?
Mr. PiHL. There have been some in the past.
Senator Wirth. But they were all phased out in the fifties and
sixties, were they not?
Mr. Pihl. I believe they were.
Senator Wirth. Now the question comes back, I think it is a per-
fectly legitimate question: that we have one forest that is treated
in one way and every other national forest is treated in a different
way and there must be a reason for that. Ms. Shaub.
Ms. Shaub. No other forest in the United States has one-third of
the forest in wilderness and going back to 1980 when they put a
third of the Tongass National Forest into wilderness
Senator Wirth. Now it is in the record, let me point out Ms.
Shaub, that there are many many other national forests that have
a much higher percentage of that forest in wilderness than does
the Tongass.
Ms. Shaub. Which forests are those?
188
Senator Wirth. There are twelve other ones and I will be happy
to point those out for the record.
Ms. Shaub. The other point you are asking is why they are treat-
ed differently. It was my understanding that the Tongass was the
only one but that was the reason why we had to have the addition-
al— well, in order to keep up we had to go into the areas that
were — had valuable timber, we had to add more money into the
management, money for the Tongass in order to access those areas.
Senator Wirth. There is a large part of the Tongass that is in
wilderness. The argument was made, as I understand it, the argu-
ment that you and Mr. Pihl are making is that one of the reasons
that this exists, I think that is what you are making, is one of the
reasons that this exists is that such a high percentage of timber-
land is in wilderness.
Ms. Shaub. One-third of the forest land is in wilderness.
Senator Wirth. How much of the land — of the wilderness land is
in fact timber area?
Ms. Shaub. There is 5.5 million acres in wilderness and I believe
about two-thirds of that 5.5 is forested and about half of that is
commercial forest land and 1.7, I believe, of the wilderness is com-
mercial forest land.
Senator Wirth. How much of that is commercially high volume
timber, do you know, the part that is in wilderness? That is the
area that it states here, how much of the forest wilderness area is
commercial — high quality commercial timber area?
Ms. Shaub. I will not be able to tell you that off the top of my
head but I believe the Forest Service documents that — will show
surely a representative sample I believe between eight to 21 mil-
lion board feet, 20 to 30 and 30 to 50, three categories that they are
generally put into. The largest category is 20 to 30 million board
feet, that is where most harvesting takes place and that is what
most of the higher majority of lands in the wilderness are. There is
a smaller percentage of the
Senator Wirth. Maybe we could get you off the record but the
argument is made that only 80,000 acres or less than two percent
of the Tongass Wilderness consists of commercially important or
high volume timber. That means the choicest timber for harvest
and if those numbers are incorrect perhaps we can get back from
you a correction of that second point about the national forests and
the percentage of those other national forests in wilderness. It is
my understanding that there are many other national forests that
have a higher percentage of wilderness. That may not be correct
but we will make sure that we put that in the record and I will ask
the staff to make sure that that is included in the record.
Ms. Shaub. May I just make another point, how Alaska is differ-
ent?
In other national forests when a company makes an investment
into a sawmill they rely just on Federal timber, they generally
have private timberland contracts to supply the mill as well. In
southeast Alaska the industry was attracted here simply from fed-
eral timber and in order to attract that investment they needed to
have an ensured wood supply made available. That is quite differ-
ent than other National Forests.
189
Senator Wirth. We have found in a study done for the Commit-
tee by the Congressional Resource Service, that the percentage of
designated wilderness, for example, in the Northern Region and
just for the record, the Bitterroot National Forest is 47 percent wil-
derness, the Flathead 45 percent, the Gallatin Forest 41 percent
and I believe that in all Montana and the Nez Perce in Idaho is 22
percent.
Senator Burns. And they want more. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. The point is that where there is small amount
they want more and the point is why is it — We would appreciate it
if you did not interrupt, and again let me remind the people in the
audience that the purpose of the hearing is to try to get the facts
out on the record and those who wish to testify will have plenty of
opportunity to do so later. This is a formal proceeding and mem-
bers who are here are guests of the committee.
Again, the argument is made as I understand it from Mr. Pihl,
that the reason that Tongass is treated differently than other na-
tional forests — and you made that point yourself but I am just
trying to understand this for the record — the reason that the Ton-
gass is treated differently is that such a great percentage of the
Tongass is in wilderness and that is unique. But I have just identi-
fied for the record that that is not unique, that in fact many other
national forests have significantly higher percentages of wilder-
ness. Maybe I
Ms. Shaub. They have private timberlands that they can also go
to for supplies. Really that is different.
Senator Wirth. Now just leave the record open. I think this is an
important question that we are going to want to know very clearly
what the answer is, why is the Tongass treated differently from
other national forests.
Ms. Shaub. We are not asking — Senator Murkowski believes the
funding which supposedly was the big difference. We are just
asking, your Honor, the commitments and the contracts that the
government authorized in 1947 in the Tongass Act and recognized
that southeast Alaska's timber is entirely federal timber except for
the new private — native private ownership. There is no other pri-
vate timber; it is the only game in town. We brought the jobs to
Alaska. We met that objective and we are just asking the govern-
ment to continue to honor its commitment and its contract.
Senator Murkowski. I think it is important to note that we will
be deleting these figures sometime as we have done in the past.
First of all I think it is fair to try to explain once again that in
1980 we put approximately 1.2 million acres in wilderness. Now,
what price wilderness? That took areas that were adjacent to areas
that had already been eroded and put them in wilderness in perpe-
tuity. That meant that rather accessible areas were taken off and
put into the wilderness category. With this determined we will look
at the Misty Fjords Area in the Tongass and in that area hopefully
you will have an opportunity to see it excluded from all logging.
The point is if you look at the Tongass lands statistically, realisti-
cally you cannot use percentages because they are meaningless.
We have already seen movements in the State of Washington to
withdraw up to 2.5 million board feet from the national forest as a
consequence of the concern over the Spotted Owl.
190
Senator Wirth. I am not making a percentage argument.
Senator Murkowski. I just wanted you to understand that it
does not do any good to argue percentages; you have to have specif-
ic miUions of board feet. Total acreage in the Tongass is 16.8 mil-
Hon. The areas of commercial forest land in the Tongass 5.4 mil-
lion. Of that 5.4 million, Mr. Chairman, 1.7 million is in wilderness,
permanently locked up. It is virgin old-growth timber. A million
acres are closed to logging for ten years while the Teler Process is
observed for fish and wildlife and other habitat considerations and
1.7 million remains for timber harvest over a 100 year perpetual
year cycle.
Now the total wilderness in the Tongass is 5.4 million acres.
There is a difference obviously between the total wilderness and
the total acreage of commercial forest lands in the Tongass. Of the
total wilderness acreage in the Tongass, and I think this is a point
that has to be kept in mind as we compare it to other areas, 1.7
million acres of commerical forest land in the Tongass is in wilder-
ness and will remain in wilderness. If you want to put that up to a
size it is approximately the size of New Hampshire, larger than the
State of Massachusetts. That means that the forest land available
to logging of 1.7 million acres over a hundred year cycle, with a
maximum cut of 17,000 acres per year or one-tenth of one percent
of the forest. The average cut for 1980 to 1988 is seven thousand
acres. The average acreage harvested over the last 10 years is ap-
proximately 7,000 acres and Mr. Chairman, the timber harvest
levels from 1978 to 1988, per year moved from 414 to 251 million
board feet, depending on the market. The reason the Tongass is dif-
ferent is that the Federal Government saw fit in 1980 to trade for
the one million acres put into wilderness $40 million annual appro-
priation to allow access to the timber that remained. One can say
what price wilderness, as we have seen in some areas in Northern
California, in the redwoods, when they have taken timber out and
they have actually paid a price on this wilderness.
Now these are facts, Mr. Chairman, and represent not the emo-
tions but the realities associated with how you have to look at Ton-
gass today. It took a million acres out of the commercial forest and
put it into wilderness so there you are today with this reality and
the question is what do we do with the rest of it and that is the
whole point of this hearing.
Senator Wirth. If I understand the reason that the Tongass is
treated differently, is that is the price for wilderness. That is the
summary, that is the bottom line.
Senator Murkowski. That is the bottom line.
Now let's say we take away the amount
Senator Wirth. Then the issue that remains is was that a wise
decision to allegedly trade wilderness for special treatment of the
Tongass and that is the issue. Is that the core issue that is going to
be submitted to Senator Murkowski in this legislation?
Senator Murkowski. Well, I think that is the whole point. If we
are going to debate on one end we ought to open, go back and
debate the merits of the wilderness. Is it in our best interests to
take a million acres out of the commercial forest and put it in wil-
derness? We can go back into that and each introduce a bill on
either side of that and have at it but nevertheless this was out into
191
wilderness. I am not arguing against what was already done but we
have to recognize that that is what makes this forest different, dif-
ferent than any other forest, accessible timber put into wilderness
and the rest of the timber unaccessible and that was the consider-
ation Congress made. This is basically a commitment that there
would be $40 million to access this remaining timber so now we are
taking that out and that was the main objection — why should the
Tongass be different, why should it be funded differently so we
have withdrawn that from the legislation and said no $40 million
but here again we go back to the reasons, the question asked of Mr.
Pihl. I think it is evident that those were the circumstances that
led into the decision to take it, a million acres out of the commer-
cial forest and put it in wilderness.
Senator Wirth. In the creation of wilderness in other national
forests in the country, in all the other national forests, have those
forests then had a legislative target of the number of board feet to
be cut or have those forests had long-term contracts on them?
Senator Murkowski. You have recognized that in 1952 you had
very little industry here because the question was what are you
going to do with the vast majority of the hemlock species when the
demand for timber was limited to spruce. The export of some of
that spruce was started later. I think in the first World War they
made airplanes out of the spruce, they used to make salmon boxes
out of the spruce, they made piano sounding boards, a relatively
limited market.
The reality of how you develop markets over an extended period
of time so there are many factors to consider when you look at how
the industry grew, how interdependent on the species of the forest
and why the pulp mills came in here. There was a territorial gov-
ernment. Governor by the name of Frank Heinselman. Frank
Heinselman was committed as a former Chief Forester to try to get
the industry to come to southeast Alaska so he went out personally
and asked the Governor of the Territory and attempted to get in-
terested parties to come in. Four pulp mills were set up, one in
Juneau, one in Wrangell, one in Sitka and this one in Ketchikan.
There were only two pulp mills ever built. Because there were a lot
of objections to the Juneau Mill, the Champion U.S. Plywood Com-
pany signed a contract and the contract was later canceled and the
Wrangell allotment some say was not sufficient to support the pulp
mill in any event. There were two mills and in order to induce
them to come in they were given long-term contracts and they am-
ortized their investment and as is indicated they now have got 15
years left.
I do not know, Mr. Pihl, what you are going to do in 15 years but
that is your own business. I assume that if we cancel the contracts
you are going to sue the Federal Government for breach of contract
and I do not know how much that is going to be worth but I
assume it will be a full employment act for the lawyers in town.
[General laughter.]
Now these are some of the harsh realities. You could not bring
any industry in here in the early fifties and the early sixties out-
side of the salmon canneries and the reality of that was simply
there are other places more accessible to get wood fiber to supply
192
the markets of the world. I think you will find Ketchikan Pulp has
probably changed ownership two or three times.
When I was a kid there was an American Viscose Corporation
and some food machinery was in there so it had not been a hot in-
vestment or the original owners would have hung onto it and AOP
has lost so much money that the Industrial Bank of Japan prob-
ably owns the mill. Nevertheless there were commitments made; if
you go back to the actual settlement of the peace treaty with
Japan you will fmd out that General MacArthur in reconstruction
of the agreement with Japan provided to our State Department an
understanding that we would assist the Japanese in their recovery
and there is consequently the pulp mill and that pulp mill sale was
actually addressed in the terms of the peace conference. So these
things go way back and we are talking now of the merits of re-ex-
amining these contracts and we have every right to do so but there
is an awful lot of history, there are an awful lot of players and an
awful lot of good intentions and the commitments of two communi-
ties. The people, and rightly so, have the views of those who oppose
and those who propose changes in the mill.
I think there are room for changes but again as we address sensi-
tivities here, there are — well, there is a long relationship and I
think it is important that you understand it and I appreciate your
giving me the opportunity to provide a little bit of background in-
formation.
Senator Wirth. I think that is one of the reasons why the Ton-
gass is treated differently and we have to let people who are not
from Alaska, with the background that you have, know why is it
treated differently. One of the reasons is historic, you are setting
that out as one set of reasons, and second, the trade of wilderness
for forest is the second reason. I think another question that we
have to ask is if long-term contracts are voided does that mean the
mill is shut down and one of the reasons may be, Mr. Pihl, do you
know or Ms. Shaub, do you know that when in the fifties and six-
ties other long-term contracts were canceled by the Federal Gov-
ernment as they were on every other national forest and did that
result in all the mills in those forests being shut down — do you
know?
Mr. Pihl. I do not know the answer to that or whether those con-
tracts ran their term.
Senator Wirth. They ran their term but when they were fin-
ished there was no longer a long-term contract, and did the mill
shut down? In other words are long-term contracts necessary for
the viablity of the timber industry, has that been shown to be the
case in other forests?
Mr. Pihl. I think those mills were in areas where there were
other sources of timber, private timber, ships from sawmills and
that type of thing.
Senator Wirth. I think that is an interesting point to look at.
Take for example in the State of Colorado and the State of Mon-
tana where there is an awful lot of federal lands, do timber mills
succeed there without access to private lands?
I think you have to understand that again, why is the Tongass
treated differently and second, is there no private timber available
193
to the mills here? That is my understanding, the timber on native
lands with access to your mills, is that a fact?
Mr. PiHL. For the lower pulp grades we do buy the pulp but the
higher grades are exportable and the export market pays the
higher value for it and that is where it goes. It's a simple matter of
economics.
Senator Wirth. That poses the other question of economics,
which is one we have not talked about here and I am sure we will
at some point; it is the economics and the subsidies that occur on
the forest, which again is of great concern to many of our col-
leagues and has been mentioned by a couple of the witnesses this
morning, an issue to the continuing subsidy of timbering and why
that is necessary that the American taxpayer would be subsidizing
timber, especially in a situation where you pointed out, Mr. Pihl, a
lot of that timber is being exported to Japan.
There are a lot of people for example in organized labor, Mr. Bu-
koskey, who had been very concerned about the fact that a lot of
America's economic practices has been unfairly or largely subsizing
the Japanese and Mr. Burns mentioned earlier we are subsidizing
the Japanese with very significant amounts of military presence.
How should we be doing that further or should we be looking at
the economics of the situation in such a way that American tax-
payers no longer — if they are — are subsidizing those up here.
Mr. Pihl. Senator, I would like to correct one impression I heard
you say, we established our operations here on the primary manu-
facturing rule that we established and developed our shore jobs
and we are processing the timber to the fullest extent possible on
shore, creating the jobs in this area.
Senator Wirth. The product I thought we established earlier and
the product of one of these companies is almost exclusively going to
Japan.
Mr. Pihl. That is a pulp product or a lumber product; it has gone
through a mill in the vicinity. Alaskan Forests here are operated
under primary manufacturing, the jobs are created on shore here.
We are not frankly dealing with the problem that Oregon and
Washington are wrestling with today over exports of federal
timber. That is a settled question in Alaska.
Senator Wirth. So none of the timber is exported?
Mr. Pihl. A very minor percentage of the cedar for which there
is no local market is exported but
Senator Wirth. Where do all the logs that are cut down go?
Mr. Pihl. Off the National Forest?
Senator Wirth. I was led to understand, I was told last night if
we were to build a house in Ketchikan you would import a lot of
that timber for doing that because the logs are going elsewhere, is
that right?
Mr. Pihl. The logs are not going elsewhere, the National Forest
timber is processed here in southeast Alaska in the sawmills.
Senator Wirth. Where does the product go?
Mr. Pihl. The pulp mill product goes to Japan.
Senator Wirth. I just want to understand where it goes, it does
go to Japan. Well I guess we are getting a little bit circular here.
Senator Murkowski. Let me establish this, I think we are sensi-
tive to, and rightly so, as I said several times during this conversa-
194
tion and I will say one more time, your interpretation of why the
subsidy has to be offset with the recognition that there was no wil-
derness in the Tongass before 1980. What we did is we made 5.4
million acres of wilderness out of the Tongass in 1980. 1.7 million
acres of that was commercial timber that was put into wilderness.
Now that is the offset to the question of the viability which $40
million annually made available up until proposed legislation
which would end the need for strictly the price of wilderness. I do
not think that is appropriate, unless you want it, and we can
debate the merits of it while we have got a hearing here.
Now there is private land in southwest Alaska. Most of it is
owned by the native corporations and for the most part they export
those logs in the round for saw logs because they can get an awful
lot more for them than they can by selling them to the existing
sawmills. The problem we have is what to do with the pulp logs off
the private land because they have no value as timber and are ba-
sically unable to be marketed unless you have something such as
the pulp mills which basically use them for wood fiber so it is a
relatively good forest management practice because if we did not
have the pulp mills you would have the native corporations export-
ing the round logs and probably doing some selective logging and
leaving the pulp in the woods. This gives us an opportunity to use
that timber and it simply makes sense.
Now I was here when you had a mill called Ketchikan Spruce
Mill and when I worked in it it cut regional lumber and it supplied
logs to Anchorage and Fairbanks and Palmer and supplied the do-
mestic Alaskan market. Then one day we got a barge service from
Seattle and Tacoma. We could load a boxcar in Seattle with lumber
and unload it at any number of ports in Alaska and that killed the
industry locally because you could not compete with kiln dried fir,
finished lumber in the small markets of Alaska. That mill basically
shut down for awhile until it finally developed the export market
because we just cannot compete in these small markets anywhere
in Alaska, even Anchorage and Fairbanks, to any degree with fin-
ished lumber because it is cheaper to bring it up in a boxcar on a
barge, you have all the diversification of grades, materials and so
forth. That is the reality of Alaska, that is what makes it so diffi-
cult initially because we have a one-way transportation system and
everything is going up and bypasses Southeast Alaska, because it is
cheaper to load it out of the port of Tacoma or some other place
and bring it all up and you can bring a van or a boxcar of domestic
lumber and lay out to your door, all the cuts you want and you can
put a little mill in the Ketchikan area and in Petersburg, go up in
six months and nobody will give it any financing anyway and that
is the reality and the uniqueness of this market.
That is why when you make one change the resulting changes
are seven or eightfold. When you consider the realities, the pulp
mills cannot export any of their logs because they are under Forestr
Service contracts and there is no other area in the bylaws with the
exception of native corporations and native corporations sell most
of their pulp to the pulp mills so you know you have somewhat of a
balance. The state does not have any timber in southeastern
Alaska so that is the dilemma that we live in. So when you reflect
on this subsidy you have to keep in mind what the public of the
195
United States got for it. They got 1.7 million acres of commercial
timber, not just wilderness but commercial timber, and that went
into wilderness and that is what we maintain for, that is what: a
million dollars a year to access other areas. Now we are doing
away with it.
Senator Wirth. Now maybe we can find out which is put into
wilderness and which is commercial timber, maybe we can under-
stand that now.
Second, let us ask if we might say what other wildernesses were
created. This wilderness was done in 1980, there was a big Wilder-
ness Bill in Colorado in 1980, there was a large Wilderness Bill at
one point in Montana; when those Wilderness Bills were created
did in fact — did it come with a price like the one for Tongass as
well and if not, why not, what happened in Montana that was dif-
ferent than what happened in Colorado or was different than when
we had Wilderness Bills there.
Senator Burns. Let us clarify one thing, I think there is some
confusion in some areas here.
Logs cut from public lands cannot be exported in the raw. There
is a law prohibiting that and that is — we are going to try to put
that into permanent law. I think we should go for value and pro-
tect our mill jobs and I think that we are a lot better off exporting
dimension lumber rather than raw logs and we want to clarify this.
I am — I have a question here; Mr. Pihl, would you really support
reductions in the 400 million board feet goal if the TLMP deter-
mines that this level exceeds the biological probabilities of the suit-
able land? In other words if once these plans, the forest plan comes
in, we found that that is not sustained growth, can you accept the
lower figure?
Mr. Pihl. I do not think the data or the answer on that and it is
not going to be in until TLMP has been completed. It has to — well,
I get nervous about that, the very principle of meeting the $40 mil-
lion was established on the basis that the Forest Service said that
we cannot sustain 4.5 billion without the funding to go into about
25 or 30 percent marginal timber component and that is why it was
necessary. In other words, not fully commercial timber.
Now I do not have — I really cannot give a full answer on that. I
have heard that the Forest Service says 4.5 if you do not — the land
base, that 4.5 can be sustained. The Wirth Bill involves 23 areas,
1.8 million acres additionally. That would put you in that situation
where you couldn't maintain it. As a matter of fact some of the
areas would put the Government in a breach situation because it
involves areas, an area and a likely fail plan and committed under
our long-term contract. For example, what I said, that you can take
the Carter Area for example and you can protect Carter River,
Carter Lake and Salmon Lake and then have a timber program
that just involves the Malgilvery Valley and Edison Creek coming
in from the backside — protecting the sensitive values that we all
want to protect in the lower reaches of the Carter and yet have a
timber program and honor the contract and have the best of both
worlds. The same thing can be done in the Nutkwa Area, for exam-
ple, and we have done that work that shows how you can do that
and we thought we were very close to agreement with some of the
environmental representatives of southeast Alaska last year.
196
Senator Burns. Now this long-term contract, does it contain
some of the environmental protection clauses that short-term con-
tracts contain that are written in the lower 48?
Mr. PiHL. The long-term contract is up to date, in every respect
with NFMA and the other management provisions and acts. Keith
Robertson of the Forest Service confirmed that in his testimony.
Our contract recently has been adjusted so stumpage is adjusta-
ble up and down and the species vary from the Forest Service esti-
mates is adjusted thereto and under those provisions our stumpage
has been set by the Forest Service back to August 1st at $68 from
$2.12, that's a 32-fold increase. Now $68 times 200 million is 13 or
14 billion a year.
Senator Burns. I think there was a concern of the Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council in their testimony in Washington,
D.C., about high grading. They have made some statements in that
regard. How do you respond to that?
Mr. PiHL. There are two charges in high grade: the first charge
comes in the selection process and I just want to say that in the
selection process we nominate areas based on our experience and
people in the field all the time, we nominate them to the Forest
Service for the five-year plan.
The Forest Service takes those and goes through a study of alter-
natives, they make and control the final selection so high grading
in terms of selection, I do not believe it is a legitimate characteriza-
tion.
The other aspect of high grading is — deals with the change in the
species and this is a high value — spruce is a high value trade, as is
yellow cedar, and if your removal of timber varies from the cruise
that the Forest Service uses in setting stumpage rates it could be
effective. In the case of our contract if that happens they re-adjust
the stumpage on a quarterly basis so if there is any high grade we
pay for it; we pay for the actual scale of the species that we
remove.
Senator Burns. I think the questions of Senator Wirth are
worthy questions and they need to be answered and I think when
we answer some of his concerns, in fact all of his concerns, when-
ever it comes to dealing with public land policies, I think that they
were well put and I would say that we are seeing some in the ap-
peals process and this type of thing, we have a real tight supply
right now. In Montana we have got two mills that are going to shut
down. They are going to shut down so the long-term contract I be-
lieve in because nobody can make any claims to make a popular
investment and process on this renewable resource unless they do
have a long-term contract so I find that I still think that of course
hindsight is always twenty-twenty and I really believe that those
environmental issues that have been focused on today are of con-
cern to all of us and have to do with making decisions on public
land policy. We know we are in a tight supply and I would hate to
see some part of the country get into the same supply problem that
we have in the State of Montana so I appreciate your testimony
and I have no further questions.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Burns. I might just
have one final point, to make sure that the record is clear on this
and maybe I am not correct on this but in response to your answer
197
to Senator Burns' question, in these long-term contracts what hap-
pens when the Tongass meets all of the environmental concerns,
requirements of other forests and your answer to that is yes?
Mr. PiHL. Yes.
Senator Wirth. In fact is it not the case that under the Forest
Management Act it is required that there be a suitability analysis
done by the Forest Service, to look at the forest and to determine
whether or not certain tracts are suitable for timbering and that
the requirements under the Forest Management Act are that suit-
ability analysis be done and particularly economic viability and bi-
ological salability and that is required of every forest but for rea-
sons which I — well, I hope you can get for the record, that is
waived under ANILCA, under ANILCA that the suitability require-
ments are waived; in other words Senator Burns' question said —
asked a little different to say, most ways the same requirements
are there but ANILCA the suitability requirements are waived and
there are not the same environmental requirements on the Ton-
gass as there are on other national forests.
Maybe we can get to that — well, might submit that for the record
but again one of the things that I think we have to understand
why the Tongass is treated differently, why is the suitability re-
quirement analysis required of every other national forest and not
required of the Tongass.
Mr. PiHL. When the 5.4 million acres was put in wilderness as a
part of ANILCA in 1980 and the funding was set up to reach into
that marginal timber component, in order to do that and to make
that provision, let us say the 4.5 billion took an exception to that
suitability analysis that you are referring to and I think it is Sec-
tion 705(d) and Congress recognized that if you are going to be
forced into the marginal timber components, was stated as 4.5, you
had to have that provision of that section from the suitability to
the extent to be forced into that marginal timber. That is my un-
derstanding of that extension.
Senator Wirth. I think that you — maybe that would be the case.
Again, the waiving of the suitability requirement was driven by
the 4.5 billion board feet requirement.
Mr. PiHL. No, it is by the 5.4 million acres put into wilderness,
sir.
Ms. Shaub. The objectives they are trying to reach at that
time — there were a group of people that wanted 5.5 million acres of
wilderness and there was the timber industry that wanted to main-
tain jobs and there was the fishing interest who wanted to more
fully protect resources in areas that went into wilderness but
would be harvested for timber and in trying to balance all of that
it was not just timber, it was not just wilderness, it was sort of all
of those issues and how to balance that and when they had all
those interests it did not work, you could not have 4.5 million acres
and still maintain the job level so Congress said, "Well, let us
figure out a way that we can have this amount of wilderness and
keep the jobs, those are two things we want and let's figure out
how to do this".
One way they figured out how to do it was to, let us go into some
of these areas that are — well, we do not consider them commercial-
ly harvestable or they are marginal but these are the kinds of
198
areas that in the National Forest Management Act says you cannot
harvest because they are not economic but in order to make this
thing work you had to access those areas. What are we going to
need to access? We are going to need some extra money and the
extra money was in order to get the 5.5 milUon acres and also to
get the jobs so it was not, when you call that extra money and the
extra money was only 11.7 million dollars, not 14, it was an addi-
tional amount to spend on the Tongass. It was as much as you
wanted to call it a subsidy and the hair always starts raising on my
back when you hear "subsidy" because I disagree with that term.
Senator Wirth. What is a subsidy for some is a necessity for
others. The fact is it is a revenue enhancement. You can use vocab-
ulary in a wonderful way.
Ms. Shaub. Yes, but it is just as much to make that objection for
the wilderness as it was for the jobs and protecting other resources.
It was to make the deal work because it was not just working
under normal means and so it was the result of a compromise and
it was the result of promises, both to the people who wanted 5.5
acres of wilderness and the people who wanted to keep their jobs.
It was a balance and it was a very delicate balance and that is
what we are playing with here and it is not fair to say that that 5.5
million acres is in the bank now, now we are going to go after the
rest and what's left there is the jobs. That's why we are saying it's
not fair, you have got to look at all those objections, what they
were dealing back then and how it came about.
Senator Murkowski. I think he has answered your question
along with Mr. Pihl. It is simply a matter — you have got to cut a
certain amount of timber to maintain, reduce the timber or you
lose the job, it is just that simple. In 1980, without the marginal
timberlands to sustain the yield drop, I think the 4.5 for that
decade or 3.8 because of the wilderness designation and that is the
cost of lots of jobs and so, Mr. Chairman, neither you or I would
want to invest in a mill if we did not have enough timber to sus-
tain the mill to amortize investment and that is what we are talk-
ing about the mills here and a 50-year contract was made and they
put improvements in and provided employment and now they are
15 years from running out and the thing that concerns me more
than anything is they are contemplating making changes. Before
we finish the TLMP. There is a sense of it being made available for
input for outside of Alaska and that is allegedly going to be ready
to use and this recognition I think goes — which recognition that
certainly should be considered because I would certainly agree with
you that changes are needed.
Senator Wirth. Well, we thank you all very much and again you
are going to get back to us with any thoughts that you have. Again
I think one of the key issues that we face, a variety of questions, if
Tongass is treated one way and the forest is treated another —
Senator Murkowski recited very clearly a lot of history for that,
there are a lot of reasons and we have to make sure that we under-
stand for the record in making a decision why payment occurs in
one case and not in another. That is one of the fundamentals and I
think one of the differences between Senator Murkowski's legisla-
tion and my own, is that we are attempting to make this look like
199
all other national forests are treated and then if there is a reason
not to do so then we should know it.
Thank you all very much, that was a long panel but a very inter-
esting one and a lot of these issues have emerged and I wanted to
get some of these issues on the record. We thank you all very much
and Ms. Shaub, you are a very good representative of the loggers.
You can go home and tell them you earned your keep.
Senator Murkowski. I want to compliment the panel too.
Senator Wirth. The final panel of the morning is Ms. Sylvia Ger-
aghty, representing Alaskans for Responsible Resource Manage-
ment (will you all please come up to table two) and Jackie Canter-
bury of the Tongass Conservation Society, Joe Mehrkens of the
Wilderness Society, Natural Resource Center, Matthew Kirchhoff,
Alaska Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Joan Kautzer of Alaska
Women in Trees, Wayne Weihing. We will include your testimony
in full in the record and let me ask you, any of you would like to
do so, we will just go through and you can read your statements if
you want and we will include those in the record or we might ask,
some of you might want to address any of the issues that came up
in the previous panel and if I was attempting to kind of get us, at
some point kind of honing the issues down here so if any of you,
instead of reading your testimony want to comment on any of
those we welcome that as well.
Ms. Geraghty.
STATEMENT OF SYLVIA GERAGHTY, REPRESENTING ALASKANS
FOR RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Ms. Geraghty. My name is Sylvia Geraghty, I am from Tokeen
and I was born in the Territory of Alaska 50 years ago. I am here
representing Alaskans for Responsible Resource Management,
ARRM, a group of small logging operators, fishermen, trappers,
and others. We have about 150 supporters.
I would like to respond to a couple of those things that were
brought up by the last panel, for one thing less than four percent
of the wilderness contains high volume old growth which is 30,000
board feet above — which is really commercially valuable timber-
land. That is less than four percent of the 5.4 million acres that are
in wilderness and neither of the two mills lost one acre or one
board foot due to the Wilderness Act.
The little bit that was lost was replaced by higher volume acres
so they did not indeed lose anything; none of their land was lost to
wilderness.
I would personally like to thank you Senator Wirth, for your in-
terest in the Tongass. I would urge you to add affirmative protec-
tion to the 23 key areas.
The members of our organization have seen many years of
timber industry and Forest Service bureaucracy out of control and
we have seen critical errors in attitude to those of us who generally
have deep concern over the Tongass and when a Congressional del-
egation refers to the Alaskan people as they all share an appropri-
ate timber industry view which is obviously far from true. Thou-
sands of us do not share that, so it has been a land of opportunity
for the timber industry, also it is our land and far too often their
200
riches equal our losses. Favorite bays and coves, fish and game
habitats, recreational opportunities and indeed a way of life has
changed forever with the impact of this industry. Prince of Wales
and adjacent islands have at least one mile of road for every man,
woman and child living there. How much room do we actually
need?
Senator Wirth. Could we have a little more quiet in the audi-
ence please? If you want to speak go outside and then come back.
Ms. Geraghty. What does the future really hold for us when all
the old growth timber is gone? It is a very likely possibility that
there will be no timber industry; it is very unlikely that second
growth from Alaska will ever compete with second growth from
Washington or Oregon, so this is basically a one-time industry.
We are certainly aware that loggers are not responsible for the
problems we have today. They are merely doing their jobs and
make no decision on where or when. ARRM strongly supports the
small, independent operators and mills and their employees. We
believe that the 50-year contracts must be terminated and replaced
with a sytem of short-term competitive sales. We would like to see
an expanded, localized, sustainable, permanent industry replace
the current industry with an emphasis on value-added processing
which will provide more jobs from the same or less timber than is
being harvested today.
ARRM believes that there is room for all of us who have chosen
to make Alaska our home, but only we change the ground rules.
We believe and I personally believe that my grandchildren living
in Wrangell will be grateful for your legislation. Senator Wirth,
and that my great grandparents buried in Petersburg will rest
easier knowing that the Tongass will remain the magical place
that it is today.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Geraghty.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Geraghty follows:]
201
My name is Sylvia Geraghty, I'm from Tokeen and I was born in the
Territory of Alaska 50 years ago. I'm here representing Alaskans for
Responsible Resource Management (ARRM). a group of small logging
operators, fishermen, trappers, subsistence users, and others. We have
about 130 supporters.
I would like to personally thank you. Senator Wirth. for your interest in the
Tongass and for introducing the Tongass Timber Reform Aa. I urge you to
strengthen your bill by adding PERMANENT PROTECTION for the 23 key
areas specified in the bill. Since I live on the west coast of Prince of Wales
Island. I know first hand what will happen to every inch of land not
permanently protected by law.
Members of our organization have seen many years of a timber industry and
Forest Service bureaucracy out of control and with an incredibly arrogant
attitude toward those of us who have genuine and deep concerns over the
Tongass. Our own Congressional Delegation refers to the Alaskan people as if
they all share a pro limber industry view, which is obviously far from true.
What has been a land of opportunity for the timber industry also is OUR
land, and far too often their riches have equaled our losses. Favorite bays
and coves, fish and game habitat, recreational opportunities; indeed, our
very way of life has changed forever because of the impact of this industry.
Prince of Wales and adjacent islands have at least one mile of road for every
man, woman, and child living there. When is enough, enough? Who decided
that we needed or wanted roads everywhere? What does the future really
hold for us when all of the extremely valuable high volume old growth is
gone? Will we be Appalachia North, with no timber industry at all? A very
real possibility. It is highly unlikely that second growth from the Tongass
can ever compete with the far less costly second growth in Washington and
Oregon.
We are certainly aware that loggers are not responsible for the problems we
have today. They are merely doing their jobs and make no decision on
where or when. ARRM strongly supports the small, independent operators
and mills and their employees. We believe that the 50-year contracts must
202
be terminated and replaced with a system of short-term competitive sales.
We would like to see an expanded localized, sustainable, permanent industry
replace the current industry with an emphasis on value-added processing
which will provide MORE jobs from the same amount or less timber than is
being harvested today.
ARRM believes that there is room for all of us who have chosen to make
Alaska our home, but only if we change the ground rules. We believe that
we can have a restructured timber industry that doesn't hurl other
Alaskans. We believe that we can live in peace and harmony. I personally
believe that my grandchildren living in Wrangell will be grateful for the
changes that will come about as a result of Senator Wirth's legislation, and I
believe that my great grandparents buried in Petersburg will rest easier
knowing that the land they loved will always be a special, magical land —
not just a tree farm.
The Forest Service tells us they must honor their two 50-year contracts. We
believe that they have a far more important contract, one with the American
people, and that they have failed to meet the terms of that contract.
203
Senator Wirth. Ms. Canterbury.
STATEMENT OF JACKIE CANTERBURY, REPRESENTING THE
TONGASS CONSERVATION SOCIETY
Ms. Canterbury. Mr. Chairman, my name Jackie Canterbury
and I live in Ketchikan. I am here representing the Tongass Con-
servation Society, which is a diverse large member group here in
Ketchikan. As an educator I have spent many years on Prince of
Wales Island at which time my interest and suspicions began con-
cerning the mismanagement of the Tongass National Forest.
The Tongass Conservation Society applauds Senator Wirth for
your introduction of S. 346 and we know there is strong support for
this bill. Like many individuals in southeast Alaska we are contin-
ually saddened by the loss of habitat that is occurring here in this
magnificent country.
The most difficult to understand, however, is that this misman-
agement continues to occur despite our levels of knowledge and ex-
periences of the past.
What I would like to show you is a photograph of Staney Creek.
Like hundreds of other streams on the Tongass this is forever
changed due to Forest Service logging practices. I know that some-
body mentioned this earlier, this is a creek on the west side. On
Prince of Wales Island, this is what it looks like in denuded form,
and as I say there are hundreds of miles of scenes like this.
If you look down here you can see the campground, what I call
the campground in the clearcut, it looks like this.
[Shows film.]
Ms. Canterbury. And this is the multiple-use concept of the
management on the Tongass, complete with a latrine here and two
picnic tables in a clearcut. [General laughter.]
I will say this for the record, now these are the Nutkwa drainage
and I believe one of the distinguished guests mentioned it as one of
the areas they wanted to keep in perpetuity. It is beautiful and this
is one of the 23 areas and beautiful drainage areas that was men-
tioned and the fisheries called Nutkwa. I also heard them say that
Karta is a very well used subsistence in sport fishing and Naha
and Sarkar were observed recently — counted about 100 swans, is
also a very productive area in our local sports fishing and also this
observers to birds.
Now the last thing I want to say is that it an interesting feeling
to be appealing to a Senator from Colorado to save your own back-
yard. The Tongass Conservation Society believes Senator Murkow-
ski is pretty much ignoring a lot of the concerns of many people
that are dependent on other non-timber values in the forest and I
think it has been heard today by such as fishing groups.
I work in the tourism industry in the summer so you can throw
me in with that group. Unfortunately, the Tongass Conservation
Society was unaware that it could have submitted the names of all
its members for the lottery drawing. Senator Wirth, I have been
asked to deliver these statements — for the least inconvenience I
204
will mail these to you, the individual letters from the people in the
Ketchikan who totally support your bill and I thank you.
Thank you very much.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Canterbury.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Canterbury follows:]
205
April 24, 1989
Honorable Senator Tim Wlrth
US. Senate
Washington D.C. 205 lu
Senator Wlrth,
My name is Jackie Canterbury ana I live in Ketcnlkan, I am here representing the
the Tongass Conservation Society, a diverse large member group. As an educator, l
h?ve spent five years In logging camps on Prince of Wales Island at vi^hlch time my
interest and suspicions began concerning the management, or shall I say mis-
management of the Tongass National Forest.
TCS applauds you. Senator Wlrth, for your Introduction of S. 346, We know there
Is strong support for this bill. Like many Individuals In Southeast Alaska, we are
continually saddened by the loss of habitat that Is occuring here In this
magnificent country.
The most difficult to understand, however, is that this mis-management continues
to occur despite our levels of knowledge and experiences of the past.
We now have the opportunity to protect 23 areas within the forest and to provide
the necessary mandates for new management directions . We support all
components of your bill but urge you to permanently protect all 23 key fish and
wildlife areas within the Tongass.
Staney Creek, like hundreds of other streams on the Tongass, is forever changed
due to Forest Service logging practices On Prince of Wales Island alone, hundreds
of miles of streamsides have been logged to the waters-edge, in the lower right
corner of the photograph is a campground In a clearcut near the creek; complete
with picnic tables and a latrine. This is the Forest Service's current idea of
multiple use on the Tongass.
If Congress falls to act, other areas will vanish such as this productive drainage
In Nutkwa And the Karta, a popular local fishing area. Sarkar and the Naha.
where observers recently counted over lOO swans. Anan, a world class bear
stream All too salmon producers.
206
It Is an interesting feeling to be appealing to a Senator from Colorado to save your
own backyard. The Tongass Conservation Society believes Senator Murkov/skl is
Ignoring legitimate concerns of the many people dependent on other non-ttmber
values In the Tongass National Forest.
Unfortunate ley, TCS was unaware that It could have submitted the names of all of
It's members for the lottery drawing. I have been asked to deliver these
statements from people who signed up to present oral testimony
supporting Senator Wlrth"s bill but whose names were not selected.
In closing, I will use the words of Glfford Plnchot;
7/7 t/)e administration of the forest reserves it must be clearly t)orne in mind that
the land is to be devoted to its most productive use for the permanent good of the
whole people and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies "
It Is time for changelll
Sincerely,
^
<'4'e LiH4e>, 6wr^
Jackie Canterbury
Tongass Conservation Society
724 Bayvlew
Ketchikan, Alaska
99901
207
^n response^
EDITOR, Daily News:
I am writing in response to your
April 20 editorial, "Character
assassins", in which the writer
objected to Bart Koehlers statement
that the upcoming Tongass Timber
Reform hearings will be stacked in
favor of industry. The writer
expressed anger "at accusations
besmerching (sic) the honesty and
integrity of Alaskans and their
elected representatives."
I am one of the local people who
put her name in the hopper in hope
of being selected to speak at the
hearings. All that week, the Ketchi-
kan Daily News exhorted members
of the public to sign up to speak.
Hence, it was amazing to learn that
406 people had applied to speak in
Ketchikan. Upon calling Beth
Norcross at the Senate Energy
Committee Office in Washington,
D.C. I was told that until the last
day to register to give oral testimony,
75 to 100 people had applied to do
so. Subsequently, I heard that on
Friday, Senator Murkowskis office
in Ketchikan was provided with lists
of people to testify by the Ketchikan
Chamber of Commerce and
Southeast Stevedoring. Senator
Murkowski's Juneau office was
given lists by the Alaska Loggers
Association and Southcoast. All told,
the offices were flooded by 300
additional names.
I telephone Senator Murkowski's
office in Washington, D.C. because it
seems to mc that the process is
tainted. It seemed ill-advised to
accept last minute lists that in-
creased the total number of names
by 300 percent. Clearly, industry did
stack the deck for testimony, and
why not? The issue could have
been entirely avoided by stating at
the outset that only requests to
testify on the part of individuals
would be accepted.
The writer of the editorial seem-
"}gly objects to having those favoring
Tongass Timber reform express their
X?rc'r'^^K^"°'*''"g^boutthe
;.ampl/"Tn''Ala°'l:" f'^" '°'
Assocu.ion radio po," ^°8e«''^
'h-. only ,0 perVn^f^^Tn "'
Na..on.l Por«. will be oggJd "Ih"
kT K ' """»Pf-"n8 public ^
a lefl lUlMid u Ibal the 10 percent
Ketchikan Doily News,
Sotufdoy-Sundoy, April 22-23. 1969
figure represents 1,750,000 acres, or
68 percent of the total available
commercial forest land, and the
remaining 32 percent is probably
uneconomic for harvest. Thirty-four
percent will be harvested in con-
junction with the two 50-year
contracts. Presently, one third of the
way through the first 100-year
rotation, about 40 percent of the
total volume available has been
harvested.
In yet another case, an ALA
newspaper ad tells us not to worry,
the forest grows back after harvest.
However, the issue is not whether or
not the Tongass supports timber
regeneration. The issue is the fact
that even-aged stands destroy
wildlife habitat and become biologi-
cal deserts! have spent some time in
the 70 to 75 year old timber stands
on Prince of Wales and Heceta
Islands that were subjected to
experimental thinning, and there is
no undergrowth, no deer or bear
sign, no fur bearer sign, no bird
song. They provide a harbinger of
what is to come. Imagine thousands
upon thousands of acres of desolate,
silent forest. It is in recognition of
this fact that the Forest Service
initiated experimental thinning, in an
effort to open the canopy to provide
corridors for wildlife habitat. I want
my children and their children to
experience the ecological diversity
that can only be found in "de-
cadent" old growth stands.
It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee. More insightful and respon-
sible news reporting would help
people decide what position to take.
As a member of SEACOPS, I support
Senator Murkowski's efforts to halt
foreign interception of salmon. As a
member of this community, I
deplore Senator Murkowski's stance
on logging of the Tongass. It is
pathetic to suggest that it is
unAlaskan to favor conservation of
our resources.
Sincerely,
CHRIS RABICH CAMPBELL
Ketchikan
208
Senator Wirth. Mr. Mehrkens.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH R. MEHRKENS, SOUTHEAST ALASKA
NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER
Mr. Mehrkens. I am Joseph Mehrkens and I represent the
Southeast Alaska National Resources Center located in Juneau,
Alaska. The Center is a joint venture between The Wilderness Soci-
ety and the Underhill Foundation.
My statement is in support of your bill. This bill will strengthen
the region's economy and protects important fish and wildlife
values that are vital to commercial fishing and subsistence uses,
recreation and tourism.
In 1980 when Congress acted on the Alaska Lands Legislation
jobs were the major issue. At that time timber employment was at
record levels due to favorable market conditions. Today's record
timber employment is also the result of a market recovery but is
dominated by intensive logging on private lands.
In the almost 10 years since the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act was enacted, we have gained a much clearer un-
derstanding of what affects timber employment in southeast
Alaska.
First, we know that massive public subsidies to log the Tongass
cannot offset declines in timber demand and resulting job losses.
Second, we know that the increases in the timber industry and
employment is the result of accelerated logging on private lands
which has actually masked a decline in Tongass timber dependent
jobs since 1980.
Third, I can say that the Tongass Timber Reform Act will not
effect Tongass timber dependent employment.
Because Alaska is a higher than the average cost to produce it, it
is less competitive. This means that the Tongass dependent timber
industry is the last to enjoy the new and improving markets and
the first to feel the softening markets.
Because of this competitive position of the Tongass timber de-
pendent jobs are substantially below 1980 levels and this is in spite
of the fact that we have had vastly improved markets in 1970 and
1980.
Looking to the future, the future opportunities for logging and
Tongass dependent timber industry will be diminished as logging
increases on marginal timberlands. For thirty years now we have
concentrated on taking only the best trees and only the higher
quality stands and greater use of lower quality timber in the future
will make Tongass' dependent industry even more susceptible to
market cycles, while employment opportunities will also fall off
with the declining demand for Alaskan products in Japan. Alaska's
timber demand is closely tied to Japanese housing starts. Housing
starts are expected to fall this year and will remain at lower levels
until the mid 1990s. While we are at a peak in the market cycle for
pulp, a recent Forest Service study states that the demand for
Alaska's pulp is expected to peak above 260,000 metric tons in the
period 1987 to '88 and decline gradually to approximately 140,000
metric tons by the year 2000. The implications for unemployment
are obvious; either both mills operate at 50 percent capacity or
209
only one mill will be operating at historic rates. This is an econom-
ic fact of life and has no relationship to the log supply on the Ton-
gass National Forest.
Out of the Tongass Timber Reform Act there will be sufficient
timber supplies to meet the demands into the foreseeable future. If
all protected lands are permanently set aside from the timber base,
the current allowable cut would only — I said now 450 would only
decline to about four hundred million board feet per year. This is
well above the average annual harvest of 316 million board feet
taken since 1977 and well above last year's harvest of 331.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Mehrkens.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mehrkens follows:]
210
The Southeast Alaska Natural Resources Center
130 Seward Street . PO. Box 20212 . Juneau, Alaska 99802 » (907) 463-5333
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH R. MEHRKENS OF THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATURAL
RESOURCES CENTER ON THE TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT, BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, APRIL 24,
1989, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA.
Mr. chairman, I am Joseph R. Mehrkens. I represent the
Southeast Alaska Natural Resources Center located in Juneau,
Alaska. The Center is a joint venture between The Wilderness
Society and the Underhill Foundation. The Center's work is
directed at improving the economic and ecological management of
the Tongass National Forest.
I have lived in Southeast Alaska for 14 years. Early in my
career with the Forest Service, I worked as a forest hydrologist
on the Stikine Area of the Tongass. When I resigned from the
agency in 1987, I was regional forest economist for the Alaska
Region. One of my principal duties as regional economist was to
prepare Tongass timber supply and demand reports to Congress
required by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) .
My statement is in support of S. 346. This bill will
strengthen the region's economy, especially if the 23 areas now
proposed for a five-year logging moratorium are permanently
protected. Local communities, professional resource managers
and various trade organizations have identified these areas as
economically important. They contain important wildlife and
fisheries values that are vital for commercial fishing,
subsistence uses, recreation, and tourism.
In 1980, when Congress acted on the Alaska Lands
legislation jobs were a major issue. At that time, timber
employment was at record levels due to favorable market
conditions. From 1981 to 1986, timber employment declined due
to poor market conditions — despite large public subsidies used
to make Tongass timber available to the industry. Today's
record timber employment is the result of a market recovery
dominated by intensive logging on private lands.
A Joint Project of The Wilderness Society and The Underhill Foundation
211
In the almost ten years since the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act was enacted, we have gained a much
clearer understanding of what effects timber employment in
southeast Alaska.
First, we know that massive public subsidies to log
the Tongass can not offset declines in timber demand
and resulting job losses. This means recent gains in
employment will be followed by losses as we proceed
through the ups and downs of the timber market cycle.
- Second, we know that the increases in timber industry
employment are the result of accelerated logging on
private lands which has masked a decline in Tongass
timber dependent jobs since 1980.
- Third, we know that the Tongass Timber Reform Act will
not effect Tongass dependent employment. In fact, the
Tongass Timber Reform Act will provide greater job
opportunities throughout the region and make the
timber industry more competitive.
The remainder of my testimony puts the factors affecting
past and present Tongass-dependent timber employment into
perspective.
What Controls Tongass Timber Employment
Tongass-dependent timber employment is first limited by the
overall competitiveness of the Alaska timber industry in Pacific
Rim markets. Within this structure, employment levels will
fluctuate with the cyclical demand for Alaska timber.
In recent years, the timber industries in Alaska, British
Columbia and the Pacific Northwest have reduced production costs
to become more competitive in Pacific Rim markets. However,
Alaska's competitors in British Columbia have higher quality and
more accessible timber. In the Pacific Northwest, logging costs
are significantly lower because high-quality second-growth
timber is readily accessible. Native corporations in southeast
Alaska have higher logging costs, but enjoy higher timber prices
which make them more competitive. Being less competitive, the
Tongass-dependent timber industry is the last to enjoy new and
improving markets and the first to lose-out in softening
markets. Employment opportunities are directly tied to the
demand for timber and will follow the ups and downs of Tongass
timber demand.
Because of Alaska's last-in and first-out market position,
the Tongass timber industry has not fully captured the benefits
of market recovery. The region's sawmills are still operating
at low levels. Lumber exports in FY88 were 120-150 mmbf, lumber
212
tally (It) . This is substantially lower then the average of 265
mmbfjlt, from 1977 to 1980. In contrast, the production of
dissolving pulp has achieved the same high levels experienced in
the late 1970s. However, the portion of Tongass timber used to
make pulp has declined from the 90 percent used in the late
1970s, to about 62 percent in FY87 and FY88. The pulpmills are
substituting timber from private lands and logs imported from
British Columbia in place of the Tongass timber. Since 1980,
log imports from British Columbia have averaged about 40 MMBF
and reached a peak of 78 MMBF in 1986.
Past and Present Timber Employment Trends
Based on Forest Service information, there were 2,950
direct timber jobs in FY80. Employrnent gradually fell to a low
of 1,950 jobs by FY85 and then increased to about 3,200 -jobs in
FY88. The FY88 estimate for total timber jobs in southeast
Alaska is about 10 percent higher than the peak levels recorded
during the late 1970s. This is not the case for Tongass-
dependent timber employment. Tongass-dependent timber jobs
today are substantially below FY80 levels. Tongass-dependent
timber employment was estimated at 2,500 jobs in FY80 and has
declined about 25 percent to 1,900 jobs in FY88 — even with
vastly improved markets during FY87 and FY88. Thus the Tongass-
dependent share of total timber employment in southeast Alaska
has fallen from about 85 percent in 1980 to 58 percent in 1988.
The increase in the region's timber employment is
primarily due to accelerated logging on private lands. Logging
on private lands has steadily increased from 61.5 mmbf in FY80
to 305.2 mmbf in FY88. In contrast, logging on the Tongass
decreased from 428.3 mmbf in FY80 to 331.5 mmbf in FY88.
Private timber harvests have nearly equalled or exceeded Tongass
timber harvests since 1985. While timber harvests on private
lands primarily boosts logging employment, it also contributes
to pulpmill jobs.
Future Employment Opportunities
The future competitiveness of the Tongass timber industry
will be diminished as logging increases on marginal timberlands.
For thirty years only the best trees and higher quality stands
have been harvested. Since 1950, the most economically
important species (Sitka spruce) on the forest accounts for
about 27 percent of the total volume harvested. Its natural
distribution over the forest and the timber base is only 11-14
percent. This means that the most profitable trees have been
cut twice as fast as what can be sustained over the harvest
rotation. The timber industry has concentrated logging on the
higher than average volume timber stands. The average volume
per acre for the Tongass timber base is between 22,000 to 26,000
mbf/acre. Yet, harvest yields for the last 3 0 years have been
213
much higher, about 40,000 to 42,000 thousand board feet (mbf)
per acre . The practice of concentrating on Sitka spruce and
taking only the higher volume timber stands lowers the value of
remaining timber supply. The greater use of lower quality timber
in the future will make the Tongass-dependent industry even more
susceptible to market cycles and create greater fluctuations in
employment.
Future employment opportunities will fall off with the
declining demand for Alaska sawn products in Japan. Alaska's
timber demand is closely tied to Japanese housing starts.
Housing starts are expected to fall this year and will remain at
lower levels until the mid 1990s. Actual starts were 1.674
million in 1987 and are expected to decline to 1.2 million over
the next six years. Moreover, there has been a relative and
absolute decrease in wood-based housing starts in Japan since
1979.
There has been a slow steady decline in the demand for
dissolving pulp worldwide due to increased competition from
cheaper, petroleum-based substitutes. Southeast Alaska
producers face competition from lower cost pulp producers in
other nations. A recent Forest Service study states the demand
for Alaska's dissolving pulp is "...expected to peak above
260,000 metric tons in the 1987-88 period, and decline gradually
to approximately 140,000 metric tons by the year 2000." The
implications on employment are obvious. Either both mills
operate at 50 percent of capacity or only one mill will be
operating at historic rates. This is an economic fact of life
and has no relationship to the log supply on the Tongass
National Forest.
Jobs and the Tongass Timber Reform Act
An effort is currently underway to convince the residents
of Southeast Alaska that the Tongass Timber Reform Act will
devastate the region's economy. This is clearly designed to
polarize the various communities, industries and organizations
affected by the management of the Tongass. Yet area residents
already have clear priorities on Tongass reform. A recent
opinion poll conducted by the Sealaska Corporation indicates
that a majority of southeast Alaskans believe that now is the
time for compromise on the Tongass and that areas important for
wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and subsistence should be
withdrawn from the timber base.
Under the Tongass Timber Reform Act there will be a
sufficient timber supply to meet timber demands into the
foreseeable future. If all proposed protected lands were
permanently set aside from the timber base, the current
214
allowable cut of 450 million board feet (mmbf) per year would be
reduced to approximately 400 mmbf per year. This amount is well
above the average annual harvest levels of 316 mmbf taken since
1977 and well above last year's harvest of 331.5 mmbf.
The Tongass Timber Reform Act will also create more
competition for Tongass timber by eliminating the long-term
timber sales and replacing them, with competitive short-term
timber sales. Based on the Sealaska opinion poll, this is
precisely the result a majority of residents want; the
opportunity for more timber firms to compete for Tongass timber.
Greater competition should also bring about a more efficient
timber industry that is less dependent upon taxpayer subsidy.
More competition should also create a better local market for
native-owned timber. Passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act
would open the door to allow more of the non-exportable Native
timber to support local timber-related jobs.
Conclusions
1 The debate over Tongass Timber reforms should focus on how
I strengthen the economy through programs and land allocations
that promote other forest dependent industries such as
commercial fishing and tourism. Alaska will continue to be a
small scale timber supplier to the Pacific Rim. As in the past,
the demand for southeast Alaska timber will control employment
levels regardless of large supply-side investments on the
Tongass. The forecast for Tongass timber strongly suggests that
the timber industry will begin to play a smaller role in the
region's economy. We must begin to prepare for this transition.
The Tongass Timber Reform Act sets the stage for strengthening
the economy by bring the management of the Tongass into better
balance and creating a more equal treatment of all forest
dependent industries.
The reform legislation is consistent with the desires of a
majority of southeast Alaska residents, who according to the
Sealaska study, consider commercial fishing as the most
important industry in the region. Residents have also stated
that growth in the non-timber industries should be the number
one priority in the revised Tongass land management plan.
I urge the committee to pass S.346 with an amendment to
provide permanent protection for the 2 3 areas identified in the
bill as having high wildlife and fisheries values.
215
Senator Wirth. Mr. Kirchhoff.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW D. KIRCHHOFF, ALASKA CHAPTER,
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
Mr. Kirchhoff. My name is Matt Kirchhoff and I am a research
biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I have
been working since 1978 in southeast Alaska towards the research
project. I an here today representing the Alaska Chapter of the
Wildlife Society, which is a professional organization of over 150 bi-
ologists in our state.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and I
would like to add to the record a paper titled "Wildlife and Old-
growth Forests in Southeast Alaska" which was recently published.
It goes into more detail than I can go into here.
A couple of issues just briefly that I would like to respond to. It
has been argued and we hear a lot of percentages, we are talking
about whether we should use 80 percent or 90 percent. I have
heard the 10 percent argument used a lot and they are only allow-
ing me 10 percent of the time so what is the problem? Well, it is a
little misleading if you look at it that way because as you know
most of the Tongass is either non-forested or non-commercial
timber and so it has no value to the timber industry. Also, very
much below the reach of the wildlife species.
Senator Wirth. You say most of the time, what are you saying?
Mr. Kirchhoff. 65 percent.
Senator Wirth. So we are talking about 35 percent, is that right?
Is that a generally agreed number?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Generally a third of the time.
Senator Wirth. In the Tongass generally a third is what?
Mr. Kirchhoff. The cost line is commercial, it is about half of
that amount in low volume. Much of the economic timber in
Senator Wirth. Half of the remaining 35 percent?
Mr. Kirchhoff. That is correct.
Senator Wirth. I
Senator Murkowski. I wonder if the witness could indicate not
in percentages but in actual acreage in the Tongass, what is the
total acreage in the Tongass National Forest?
Senator Wirth. 16.9 million acres.
Senator Murkowski. That is correct, and you are saying 65 per-
cent of that is non-timber?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Not commercial forest lands and that includes
alpine lakes and rocks and glaciers.
Senator Murkowski. And the part that is not commercial timber
is what?
Mr. Kirchhoff. About 26.
Senator Murkowski. And you say up to 1.7 is permanent
growth?
Mr. Kirchhoff. I am not familiar with that figure.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. You have 5.6 in commercial timber, is that
right?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Roughly. I think that is classified as commercial
timber. Certain applicability standards have to be reached before
216
that land can be logged. I assume that — so all of that 5.6 or 5.4 mil-
lion acres is not technically suitable for timber harvest.
O.K., from a wildlife perspective then we cannot just look at the
forest homogenous land places a lot of that forest land, we have to
look at what types of timber are being logged, what types of habi-
tat and where they are located and the most important is what is
the effect on the wildlife population. It is not always a one-to-one
relationship.
If we look at what has been logged so far we are seeing that vir-
tually all of the logging in the Tongass to date has occurred in the
lower elevations, high volume old-growth stands, located along
valley bottoms, rivers and low-election hillsides. These are far and
away the most productive sites in the Tongass and generally the
most accessible sites.
Because of the location and structural characteristics of these
stands they also serve to afford a fish and wildlife habitat. For ex-
ample, some of the research that we have done on North Admiral-
ty Island shows that in the winter of 1982 we had a three-month
period that we had moderate snowfall. We had two-thirds of the
deer in the North Admiralty Island using one-tenth of the habitat.
That was the high volume growth of thirty thousand board feet per
acre. If that were to be the 10 percent that was logged, which is the
pattern that we see much of the time, it would have a far greater
impact on the wildlife population than the percentage that was
suggested.
Another issue I would like to talk about here briefly that has not
been brought up, but we hear often the claim that logging is good
for deer, it may be good for deer in Oregon and Washington but
definitely not the case here in Southeast Alaska. We have a lot of
records of research for over 20 years, we have work that has been
done by the Forest Service, independent universities at the north-
ern end of the panhandle, down to Metlakatla and all points are
the same general conclusion that when you log old-growth forests
you reduce the capability of that habitat for deer.
Two main problems would be young clearcuts would produce an
abundance of forage and do not provide any protection from the
snow in the wintertime, which is a critical season for deer. You see
a lot of deer stretched out on a logging road, you see them in the
fall and you do not see them in the wintertime. In the stages of
forest succession, a 25-year cycle, in 150 years you have got what is
called second growth and you cannot have second growth forest,
which is important for wildlife in any season.
Now I hope you get an opportunity to walk through some of
those stands while you are out here because they leave a lasting
impression. I will just set this up.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize that the effects of log-
ging affect all the species, what the debate is about is how much
emphasis be given to these various things, should we be giving up
deer for more jobs and now that is an issue that you have to deal
with. It has got to be an issue that reflects the best interests of
Southeast Alaska and the country. I would just urge that there be
some room for flexibility so that we can periodically re-assess our
217
needs based on current biological information, economic informa-
tion and the whole gamut of things that change over time and I
choose to support your bill because I think it does build that type
of flexibility.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Kirchhoff.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirchhoff follows:]
218
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
ALASKA CHAPTER
1^°TS
^AV
<:=>|\ ^
S^'^
24 April 1989
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW D. KIRCHHOFF, ALASKA CHAPTER OF THE
WILDLIFE SOCIETY, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBUC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS, PERTAINING TO
TONGASS TIMBER REFORM LEGISLATION.
My name is Matthew D. Kirchhoff. I am a research biologist with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, and have been involved in forest/wildlife research
in southeast Alaska since 1978. I am here representing the Alaska Chapter of the
WildUfe Society, a professional organization of over 150 biologists active in wildlife
research, management and education in Alaska. I appreciate the opportimity to
testify before you today on this important legislation. In addition to my written
testimony, I ask that a paper titled "WildUfe and Old-growth Forests in Southeast
Alaska" be entered into the record.
The Wildlife Society supports passage of Senate Bill 346. We are particuarly
supportive of those sections which would remove the mandated timber supply goal,
replace the long-term contracts with short-term contracts, and provide temporary
protection to 23 important fish and wildlife areas. Unless such legislation is passed,
the Forest Service will, in the long-term, be unable to adequately protect fish and
wildlife resources on the Tongass.
219
From a global perspective, the type of forest we are talking about is exceedingly
rare. The Tongass contains the last significant expanse of temperate rain forest in
the Northern hemisphere. Comparable rain forests are found in only 6 other
locations in the world. Not surprisingly, this unique environment harbors many
important wildlife species, including Sitka black-tailed deer, black bear, wolves,
marten, and the highest densities of brown bears and bald eagles in the world.
It has been argued that wildlife populations are not at risk because only 10 percent
of the total land area will ever be logged. That statistic is misleading, as most of the
Tongass is composed of rock, ice, treeless alpine, or scrub forestland which has no
value to the timber industry and only limited value to wildlife. Of greater relevance
to wildlife are the questions of: (1) what types of old-growth are being logged; (2)
where is logging taking place; and most importantly, (3) how will the loss of that
habitat affect wildlife populations? After 20 years of research on forest/wildlife
interactions in southeast Alaska, we can answer that last question with some degree
of certainty for selected species.
To really understand the wildlife problem, we must step back from the acreage
figures and the percentages, and look at what is being logged. Virtually all of the
logging on the Tongass to date has occurred in higher-volume old-growth stands
located along valley bottoms, rivers, and low-elevation hillsides. These are far and
away the most productive, and generally the most accessible sites on the forest.
Because of the location and structural characteristics of these stands, they typically
comprise he most important wildlife habitat as well. For example, research shows
that during periods of deep snow, up to 2/3 of all deer use occurs on 10 percent of
the habitat base. That 10 percent is the high-volume old growth. Should those core
22-14ft n - flQ - B
220
wintering areas be logged, the impact on long-term deer carrying capacity will be
substantial.
High-volume old-growth stands are relatively rare on the Tongass. The most recent
forest inventory shows that the highest volume stands (over 50,000 bf/acre)
comprise less than 1 percent (89,300 acres) of the total land base. While a complete
moratorium on further harvest in this volume class would seem warranted, instead,
half of the remaining stands are slated for cutting over the next 30 years. High-
volume old growth represents a very small, but very important component of this
forest ecosystem. In the interest of preserving forest diversity, and the wildlife
dependent on that diversity, high-grading on the Tongass must be stopped.
We've also heard some claim that logging is good for deer. While that may be true
in parts of Oregon and Washington, it is definitely not true in Alaska. Although
deer eu-e frequently seen using clearcuts in spring, summer and fall, they avoid
clearcuts during the critical winter months. The main problem with young clearcuts
is inadequate canopy cover to intercept snow. Approximately 20-25 years after
logging, the canopy of the regenerating stand closes in, shading out most understory
plant life. These sterile conditions persist for anywhere from 100 to 150 years, and
provide minimal habitat value for deer and other wildlife. Research conducted to
date indicates there is little we can do silviculturaUy to improve this situation.
As I mentioned earlier, scientists are begiiming to quantify the effects of future
timber harvest activities on deer and selected other wildlife species in southeast
Alaska. Models developed jointly by biologists from the U.S. Forest Service and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game project significant long-term reductions in
221
deer populations, and indicate that current and future human demand for deer will
not be met near many southeast communities.
I use deer here only as an example, because it is the species we probably know the
most about. There are similar problems with, other species, like brown bears, which
will be affected by increased human presence as roads and logging camps are
extended into previously remote wilderness areas. Of all the wildlife species on the
Tongass, there are only a few whose habitat relationships we understand well, and
many whose habitat needs are not understood at all. It is highly unlikely that the
level of development proposed for the Tongass can take place without adversely
affecting many species that have evolved in, and are adapted to, this unique old-
growth environment.
In conclusion, the old-growth forest of southeast Alaska supports a unique and still
largely pristine fauna. Future wildlife diversity and abundance on the Tongass will
depend on the extent to which the old-growth forest is protected- a protection that
does not appear possible imder the existing timber supply mandates of ANILCA.
Reform legislation is needed which grants fish, wildlife and recreation resources the
level of protection the public desires and deserves.
222
3^
Wildlife and
Old-Growth Forests
in Southeastern
Alaska
John W. Schoen
Matthew D. Kirchhoff
Alaska Dcpt. of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 20
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Jeffrey H. Hughes
Alaska DepL of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
ABSTRACT: The archipelago and coastal mainland that comprise soulhcaslcm
Alaska include millions of heclares of old-growth forest, most of which is administered
by the U.S. Forest Service. This old-growth forest includes a mosaic of different stand
types that vary in form, function, and value to different species of wildlife. Certain types
of old growth, particularly low elevation, high-volume stands (productive sites with
large trees), arc rare in the national forest and are heavily used by numerous wildlife
species including the Sitka black-tailed deer {Odocoileus hemionus silkensis), brown
bear (JUrsus arcios), and bald eagle (Haliaeelus leucocephalus). Scheduled clearcul
logging of old-growth limber on ihe Tongass National Forest will not affect a large
percentage of the land area but will have significant and long-lasting effects on our
inventory of certain old-growth types and their associated wildlife species. Old growth
should be recognized as a diverse and complex mosaic of forest types. Maintenance of
adequate populations of many wildlife species in southeastern Alaska will require
maintaining the natural diversity of forest types that comprise the old-growth
ecosystem.
INTRODUCTION
Southeastern Alaska is characterized by
rugged mountains, rain-shrouded forests,
and thousands of kilometers of marine
shoreline. At nearly 7 million ha, the
Tongass National Forest is the largest
national forest in the United States and
encompasses more than 90 percent of the
land base of southeastern Alaska. The
Tongass is located along a narrow coastal
band from Dixon Entrance north to
Yakutat Bay and includes the islands of
the Alexander Archipelago (Figure I).
Although old growth is rare throughout
most of North America today (Thomas et
al. in press), old-growth rain forest is a
predominant feature of southeastern
Ala.ska. These forests provide valuable
resources (e.g., salmon, timber, and
wildlife) upon which many residents
depend for their livelihoods. Old growth
also provides important habitat for a
variety of wildlife and fish species, as
well as abundant recreational
opportunities for local residents and
increasing numbers of tourists.
FOREST ECOLOGY
What is an old-growth forest? In
southeastern Alaska, old-growth forests,
primarily western hemlock-Sitka spruce
(Tsuga heterophylla-Picea sitchensis),
have developed over centuries in the
absence of widespread, catastrophic
disturbances (e.g., wildfires). These
forests (Figure 2) are dynamic, steady-
stale forests (Bormann and Likens 1979)
where the death of old trees is balanced
by the growth of new trees. Seedlings,
saplings, and pole-sized trees grow in the
scattered openings that are created as
large old trees die and fall to the forest
floor. Trees of all ages occur in such
stands, and the ages of dominant trees
typically exceed 3(X) years. In some
stands the oldest trees are more than 800
years old, 3 m in diameter, and 60 m in
height
Old-growth forests have broken,
multilayered canopies through which
sunlight penetrates to the forest fioor.
The forest floor of an old-growth stand is
carpeted by an abundance of ferns,
mosses, herbs, and shrubs (Alaback
1982). Lichens and fungi add to the
ecological diversity found in old-growth
forests as do standing snags and decaying
logs, both on the ground and in streams.
Old growth is structurally complex and
provides unique habitat for many species
of plants and animals (Franklin et al.
1981, Schoen et al. 1981, Meehan et al.
1984, Sigman 1985, Thomas et al. in
press).
When old growth is clearcut, the
ecological relationships on the site
change dramatically. Following
clearcutting in southeastern Alaska,
herbs and shrubs grow abundantly and
spruce and hemlock seedlings become
established. After fifteen years saplings
138 Natural Areas Journal
Volume 8 (3), 1988
223
SOUTHEAST
ALAS KA
FIGURE 1 . Map of southeast Alaska.
dominate the site, competing with other
plants for sunlighL By twenty to twenty-
five years, young trees have shaded out
most other plants. For another century or
more the environment within the dark
even-aged second-growth forest (Figure
3) remains unproductive for many other
plants and animals (Wallmo and Schoen
1980, Alaback 1982). Though timber
production is high in second growth,
species richness (the number of different
plant and animal species) is low. Because
it takes centuries to develop the
ecological characteristics of old growth,
stands that are clearcut every ICX) years
will never again regain the unique
characteristics of old growth (Schoen et
al. 1981, Wallmo 1982).
Old-growth forest is highly variable. It
consists of a mosaic of different stands
ranging from riparian spruce stands to
poorly drained muskeg-bog commun-
ities. On productive sites we find tall
large-diameter spruce and hemlock trees
(Figure 2). These forests contain a large
volume of wood per hectare and are
termed "high-volume" stands (stands
with greater than 74,000 bf/ha). In
contrast, trees are smaller and grow more
sparsely on low-quality sites. These
forests are termed "low-volume" stands.
Though Tongass National Forest is the
largest national forest in the United
States, most of the Tongass is either
nonforest or scrub forest (e.g., small,
scattered trees of no commercial value).
Only one-third of the Tongass land base
is classified as commercial forest land,
most of which is low-volume timber
(U.S. Forest Service 1978) (Figure 4).
Signincantly, only 4 percent of the entire
Tongass land base is composed of high-
volume old growth.
WILDLIFE — FOREST
RELATIONSHIPS
The Sitka Black-Tailed Deer
For many years deer were thought to be a
species adapted to early stages of forest
development and thus were believed to
benefit from logging (Leopold 1950). In
the states of Washington and Oregon, for
example, deer are abundant in areas of
recent clearcutling (Brown 1961). There,
where most lowland old growth is long
gone and snow on the winter range is
rare, a patchwork of young clearcuts
provides more deer forage than the
second-growth forests that now cover
much of the landscape.
In southeastern Alaska, however, the
situation is different Here, winter snow
accumulation and the availability of
high-quality winter range are the most
important factors influencing deer .
populations (Klein and Olson 1960,
Wallmo and Schoen 1979, Hanley and
McKendrick 1985). The best winter deer
habitat is found in old growth where food
production is high and snow
accumulation is low (Wallmo and
Schoen 1980, Kirchhoff etal. 1983,Rose
1984). Though recent cleareuts, from
three to twenty years of age, pnxluce an
abundance of potential deer forage, this is
often unavailable because of deep snow
(Kirchhoff and Schoen 1987). Regardless
of snow conditions, however, deer forage
is virtually nonexislant in even-aged,
second-growth stands (Wallmo and
Schoen 1980, Alaback 1982). These
stands persist from about twenty-five
years after clearcutling until they are cut
Volume 8 (3), 1988
Natural Areas Journal 139
224
FIGURE 2. A high-volume old-growth forest in southeastern Alaska.
P»r, ^-3 lift
FIGURE 3. A seventy-year-old second-growth forest in southeastern Alaska.
again at rotation age, generally ninety to
125 years. In Alaska, information to date
suggests that the benefits to deer of silvi-
cultural management (e.g., thinning
second growth) are marginal (Alaback
and Tappeiner 1984) and the costs are
high.
Though an array of habitat choices is
available to deer in southeastern Alaska,
these habitats vary in their ability to meet
the changing seasonal requirements of
deer. During the summer and early fall,
deer in Alaska use a variety of habitats
including clearcuts, alpine, and low- and
high-volume old-growth forest.
Throughout winter and early spring,
however, deer use old growth almost
exclusively. And during winters with
deep snow, deer prefer high-volume old
growth over all other habitat types
(Schoen et al. 1985).
The major reason for this selective use is
related to a forest stand's ability to
intercept snow. In low-volume stands
with small trees and an open canopy,
snow depths on the ground greatly reduce
forage availability. Snow interception by
the tall broad canopy of high-volume
stands is much greater, resulting in lower
snow depths and more available forage
for deer (Kirchhoff and Schoen 1987).
Though high-volume old growth is
important deer habitat, these same stands
are also the most valuable for timber
production. In the last three decades, the
timber harvest in southeastern Alaska has
focused on the relatively rare high-
volume old growth (Hutchison and
LaBau 1975), and this trend is
continuing. In the next forty years, while
only 5 percent of the low-volume stands
are scheduled to be cut, about half of the
remaining high-volume stands are
scheduled for logging (U.S. Forest
Service unpubl. data). This selective
harvest will have significant long-term
impacts on natural forest diversity and
deer populations.
For example, more than three quarters of
the commercial forest land in the Hawk
Inlet watershed on Admiralty Island is
scheduled for harvest over the next ICX)
years (Rideout et al. 1984). We predict
that this level of cutting over the next
century will reduce deer in Hawk Inlet to
less than 20 percent of their current level
(Schoen et al. 1985). In die next 100
years, if timber harvest proceeds as
scheduled, deer populations Uiroughout
southeastern Alaska will be substantially
reduced, along with hunting and viewing
opportunities. Clearly the ability to
maintain moderate to high population
levels of Sitka black-tailed deer in
southeastern Alaska is dependent on
providing an abundance of high-quality
old-growth winter habitat.
Other Wildlife Species
More than 350 species of birds and
mammals occur in southeastern Alaska
(Sidle and Suring 1986), and many make
substantial use of old-growth forests
140 Natural Areas Journal
Volume 8 (3), 1988
225
NONFOREST
(389b)
NONCOMMERCIAL FOREST
(29^)
(Ihousand board leer per acre)
COMMERCIAL FOREST
(33%;
FIGURE 4. Proportion of different land and forest types on the Tongass National
Forest, southeastern Alaska.
during their lives (Meehan et al. 1984,
Sigman 1985).
Although grizzly bears have been
reduced greatly throughout the lower
forty-eight states, where they are now
classified as threatened, in southeastern
Alaska brown/grizzly bear populations
still thrive and are especially abundant on
Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof
islands (Schoen et al. 1987). Converting
old-growth forests to managed second-
growth forests will result in a decrease in
the number of bears the area can support
(Peek et al. 1987). However, a potentially
more serious consequence of logging is
the extensive system of logging roads
that provides entry into previously
inaccessible bear habitat (Peek et al.
1987). Roads greatly increase bear-
human contact and ultimately lead to the
death of more bears from sport hunting,
killing in defense of life, and illegal kills.
Only sport hunting can be effectively
managed.
Historically, our success in maintaining
stable grizzly populations while
intensively developing olher resources in
North America has been poor. Alaska
represents our last opportunity for
ensuring the grizzly a stronghold on this
continenL
Harvesting old growth will potentially
affect numerous species of birds
including waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors,
passerines, and even seabirds. Numerous
migratory birds seek cover, forage, and
nest in old-growth forests. Old growth
also provides critical habitat for many
resident birds during wintef when
inclement weather and limited food
supplies threaten survival (Haapanen
1965, McClelland 1977).
Recent research (Noble 1978, Kessler
1979, Hughes 1985) indicates that at least
twenty-six species of forest birds are
associated with old growth in
southeastern Alaska. Breeding
populations of kinglets {Regulus spp.),
woodpeckers, several species of hawks
and owls, and others will be reduced as
old-growth habitat disappears.
Converting old growth to managed
second growth greatly reduces the
structural diversity of the habitat,
resulting in fewer places for birds to feed,
nest, escape predators, and avoid bad
weather.
Similar to deer, many forest bird
populations are limited by the availability
of food resources during winter (Fretwell
1972). Chickadees (Parus spp.), kinglets,
woodpeckers, brown creepers (Cerihia
americana), and other birds use old
growth for foraging and roosting during
winter (McClelland 1977, Mannan and
Meslow 1984. Hughes 1985). One
common forest resident, the winter wren
(Troglodytes troglodytes), nests and
feeds in clearcuts during the breeding
season but often is precluded from using
clearcuts in winter due to heavy snow
accumulation.
Large, standing dead trees, or snags,
which occur naturally only in old-growth
.•forests, are used most often as cavity sites
by birds. Harvesting old growth
permanently reduces suitable snag
habitat for cavity-dependent birds
(Haapanen 1965, McClelland 1977,
Mannan and Meslow 1984, Hughes
1985). Leaving suitable snags will not
ensure the perpetuation of cavity-
dependent wildlife. Standing snags in
clearcuts only provide potential nesting
sites. Without the necessary forest cover
and wintering habitat upon which
nonmigratory cavity-nesting birds
depend, snags remain unused.
Twelve of the twenty-six old-growth
associated bird species in southeastern
Alaska rely on tree cavities for nesting
and roosting (Hughes 1985). In
southeastern Alaska, certain traits make
snags valuable as bird habitat. Cavity-
nesting birds throughout the Northwest
exhibit a strong preference for large
diameter snags for cavity excavation
(Balda 1975, Mannan et al. 1980,
Raphael 1980, Zaraowitz and Manuwal
1985). Large snags, more than 58 cm in
diameter, are used most often as cavity
nest sites by birds in southeastern Alaska
(Hughes 1985). In addition, snags with
bird cavities nearly always contain
heartrot decay throughout the snag
(Hughes 1985). Heaitroi softens the tree
Volume 8 (3), 1988
Natural Areas Journal 141
226
interior and makes it suitable for
excavation (McClelland 1977, Mannan et
al. 1980, Raphael and While 1984). Short
rotation age results in a major reduction
of heartrot in second-growth stands since
conifers less than 100 years old contain
little decay (Kimmey 1956).
As with deer, the selective harvest of
high-volume old growth may signifi-
cantly impact several species of birds.
For example, in surveys conducted on
Admiralty Island, the winter density of
hairy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens)
and golden-crowned kinglets (Regutus
satrapa) was more than six times greater
in high-volume stands than in low-
volume old-growth stands (Hughes
1985). In a managed forest ecosystem the
best way to ensure the availability of
habitat for birds associated with old
growth is to leave an adequate and
sufficiently diverse array of old-growth
stands undisturbed (Noble 1978, Franklin
et al. 1981, Mannan and Meslow 1984,
Hughes 1985).
Numerous other species also make
extensive use of old-growth forests.
More than 7(X)0 bald eagles inhabit
southeastern Alaska (King et al. 1972),
Most nests occur near the coast primarily
in large old-growth trees with an average
age of more than 400 years (Hodges and
Robards 1982). Another species that is
associated with old-growth forest is the
Vancouver Canada goose (Branta
canadensis futva), which nests, rears
broods, and forages in old growth,
primarily low-volume stands (Lebeda
and Ratli 1983). Recent evidence also
suggests that the marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus), a small
seabird, nests in old-growth forests in
northern California (Binford et al. 1975),
Vancouver Island (Harris 1971), and
southeastern Alaska (Quinlan and
Hughes unpubl. data).
A number of furbcarcrs are strongly
associated with old-growth habitat
including river otter (Lutra canadensis),
marten (Maries americana), and mink
(Mustela vison) (Johnson 1981, Larsen
1983, Woolington 1984, Johnson 1985).
During winters of deep snow, moose
(Alces alces) also use old growth (Doerr
1983, Hundertmark et al. 1983). In
southeastern Alaska, even mountain
goats (Oreamnos americanus) use old
growth where, during winter, they seek
the protective cover of steep forested
sites adjacent to cliffs (Schoen and
Kirchhoff 1982, Fox 1983, Smith 1985).
Old-growlh forests also provide
important habitat for a variety of fish and
aquatic organisms, including several
species of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)
that use forest streams for spawning and
rearing habitat (Hanman 1982, Mechan
el al. 1984). The long-term effects of
clearcutting old growth on salmon
productivity arc not yet well understood.
OLD-GROWTH MANAGEMENT:
A HOLISTIC APPROACH
Though it is often convenient to describe
old growth as valuable habitat to specific
high-profile wildlife species (e.g., Sitka
black-tailed deer, northern spotted owl
[Sirix occidenlalis caurina]), we also
must recognize its importance as a pro-
ductive and complex ecosystem. Ecosys-
tems are composed of interlinked plant
and animal communities. These commu-
nities interact within their abiotic envi-
ronments in a multitude of ways ranging
from interspecific competition and
predator-prey relationships to nitrogen
fixation and nutrient cycling (see
examples in Bormann and Likens 1979,
Franklin et al. 1981, Mascr and Trappe
1984, Norse etal. 1986).
Maintenance of biological diversity
should be a goal of forest management
and requires that all the integral parts of
the ecosytcm be preserved (Norse et al.
1986). Considering the recent initiation
of major research efforts and limited data
on the functions and processes within
old-growlh ecosystems, it is imperative
that the remaining old-growlh forests be
managed conservatively.
Timber harvest is characteristically con-
centrated on the most accessible and
valuable timber stands. This has resulted
in the significant reduction of certain for-
est community types (e.g., high-volume
riparian spruce stands) and thus an
increase in habitat fragmentation and
reduction of biological diversity (Harris
1984, Norse et al. 1986). Ecological
problems associated with habitat frag-
mentation include introduction of unac-
ceptable habitat, insularization, vulnera-
bility to natural catastrophe, reduction in
size of populations, ecological imbal-
ances, and negative edge effects (Harris
1984, White 1987, Wilcove 1987).
The theory of island biogeography
(MacArthur and Wilson 1967) provides
much of the background for the recent
concern over habitat fragmentation.
Because the Tongass National Forest en-
compasses an archipelago consisting of
hundreds of islands ranging in size from
less than 1 km' to more than 7000 km',
habitat fragmentation is an even more
significant management concern in
southeastem Alaska than in national for-
ests elsewhere.
In southeastem Alaska one approach to
ecosystem management would be to
identify entire watersheds or large areas
with natural boundaries for old-growth
retention (Schoen et al. 1984). Habitat
protection for an entire watershed will
ensure maintenance of the natural distri-
bution and juxtaposition of habitat types,
minimize habitat fragmentation, and pro-
vide habitat requirements for all the
indigenous species for which there is, as
yet. little or no available data. This
approach is in contrast to current man-
agement that maximizes fragmentation
by allocating habitat retention in small
individual forest stands within water-
sheds. Generally, large habitat reserves
are considered better than smaller more
isolated ones (Diamond 1975) and also
require less management to maintain
existing species and communities (White
1987). The result of a watershed
approach to old-growih retention is that
some watersheds would be allocated pri-
marily to timber production while others
would be allocated exclusively for pro-
duction of fish, wildlife, recreation, and
maintenance of biological diversity.
142 Natural Areas Journal
Volume 8 (3), 1988
227
On lands where old-growih harvest is
scheduled and biological diversity is also
an important goal (though both cannot be
maximized on the same hectares in
southeastern Alaska), we recommend
that harvest of identifiable old-growth
communities (e.g., volume cla.sscs) not
exceed their proportional occurrence
within the planning area. In situations
where a particular forest community
(e.g., riparian old growth) is rare and has
been identified as critical fish or wildlife
habitat, a further reduction in harvest
would be warranted.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The science of wildlife ecology
developed after most of the continent's
old-growth forest had already been
harvested. Thus, early generalizations
about the value of old growth as wildlife
habitat were founded on few data. In fact
most of the research on the ecology of old
growth and its associated plant and
animal species has been published within
the last decade. As our knowledge of old
growth increases, so does our
appreciation of its unique and intrinsic
value.
Today the Tongass National Forest in
southeastern Alaska supports the largest
unbroken tracts of old growth in the
United States. Though it is true that only
a small percentage of the Tongass will be
logged in any one year, most of that
logging occurs in the relatively rare
stands of high-volume old growth. This is
where many of the wildlife, fisheries, and
recreational values are centered. In the
past, emphasis was placed on how many
acres were set aside as old-growth
wildlife habitat. Today an equally
important concern is over what kind of
acres are maintained for wildlife habitat
"With present knowledge, it is not
possible to create old-growth stands or
markedly hasten the process by which
nature creates them" (Society of
American Foresters 1984, p. 17). Thus,
management for old-growth ecosystems
and the species associated with ihem
must focus on identifying and
maintaining an adequate quantity and
representative variety of ohd-growth
stands.
Old growth has become a rare and
dimini,shing national resource. Because it
takes centuries to develop the ecological
attributes of old growth, the biological
effects of clearcutting are cumulative and
long-term. As old-growth forests arc
harvested, our future management
options are reduced. It is important,
therefore, that the public be aware of the
irreversible effects of harvesting the
remaining old growth on public lands.
The forest management decisions we
make in southeastern Alaska today will
determine to what extent future
generations will have the opportunity to
use and enjoy the unique biological,
educational, and esthetic values that old-
growth forests provide.
ACKNOWLEDGMF,NTS
We thank D. Anderson, K. Aubry, R.
Flynn, R. McNay, and L. Suring for their
constructive criticism and editorial
review.
LITERATURE CITED
Alaback, P. B. 1982. Dynamics of
underslory biomass in Sitka spruce-
western hemlock forest of southeast
Alaska. Ecology 63: 1932-1948.
Alaback, P. B. and J. C. Tappeiner, II.
1984. Response of undcrstory
vegetation to thinning in the Sitka
spruce-western hemlock forests of
southeast Alaska. Estab. Report on
file at the Forest Science Laboratory,
U.S. Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska.
57 p.
Balda, R. P. 1975. Vegetation structure
and breeding bird diversity. Pp. 59-80
in D. Smith, tech. coord.. Proceedings
of the symposium on management of
forest range habitats fornongame
birds. U.S. Forest Service, General
Technical Report WO-1. 343 p.
Binford, L. C, B. G. Elliot, and S. W.
Singer. 1975. Discovery of a nest and
downy young of a marbled murrelet.
Wilson Bulletin 83: 303-319.
Bormann, F. H. and G. E. Likens. 1979.
Pattern and process in a forested
ecosystem. Springer- Verlag, New
York. 253 p.
Brown, E. R. 1961. The black-tailed
deer of western Washington. Wash-
ington State Dept. of Game, Biologi-
cal Bulletin 13, Olympia, Wash.
124 p.
Diamond, J. M. 1975. The island
dilemma: lessons of modem biogeo-
graphic studies for the design of
natural preserves. Biological Conser-
vation 7: 129-146.
Docrr, J. G. 1983. Home range size,
movements and habitat use in two
moose, Alces atces, populations in
southeastern Alaska. Canadian Field
Naturalist 97: 79-88.
Fox, J. L. 1983. Constraints on winter
habitat selection by the mountain goat
{Oreamnos americansus) in Alaska.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Washington, Seattle, Wash. 147 p.
Franklin, J. F., K. Cromack, Jr., W.
Denison, A. McKee, C. Maser, J.
Scdell, F. Swanson, and G. Juday.
1981. Ecological characteristics of
old-growth Douglas-fir forests. U.S.
Forest Service General Technical
ReponPNW-118.48p.
Fretwell, S. D. 1972. Populations in a
seasonal environment Monographs in
Population Biology 5. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
217 p.
Haapanen, A. 1965. Bird fauna of the
Finnish forests in relation to forest
succession. I Annales Zoologici
Fennici2: 153-196.
Hanley, T. A. and J. D. McKendrick.
1985. Potential nutritional limitations
for black-tailed deer in a spruce-
hemlock forest, southeastern Alaska.
Journal of Wildlife Management 49:
103-114.
Harris, L. D. 1984. The fragmented
forest. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 111. 211 p.
Harris, R. D. 1971. Further evidence of
tree nesting in marbled murrclets.
Canadian Field Naturalist 85: 67-68.
'-^
Volume 8 (3), 1988
Natural Areas Journal 143
228
Hartman, G., ed. 1982. Proceedings of
the Carnation Creek workshop, a ten
year review. Malaspina College,
Nanaimo, British Columbia. 404 p.
Hodges, J. I. and F. C. Robards. 1982.
Observations of 3,850 bald eagle nests
in southeast Alaska. Pp. 37-46 in
W. N. Ladd and P. F. Schempf, eds..
Proceedings of a symposium and
workshop: raptor management and
biology in Alaska and western
Canada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
Hughes, J. H. 1985. Characteristics of
standing dead trees in old-growth
forest on Admiralty Island, Alaska.
M.S. Thesis. Washington State Uni-
versity, Pullman, Wash. 103 p.
Hundertmark, K. J., W. L. Eberhardt,
and R. E. Ball. 1983. Winter habitat
utilization by moose and mountain
goats in the Chilkat Valley. Final
Report on file at the Alaska Dept. Fish
and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 44 p.
Hutchison, O. K. and V. J. LaBau. 1975.
The forest ecosystem of southeast
Alaska, 9. Timber inventory, harvest-
ing, marketing, and trends. U.S. Forest
Service General Technical Report
PNW-34. 57 p.
Johnson, C. B. 1985. Use of coastal
habitat by mink on Prince of Wales
Island, Alaska. M.S. Thesis. Univer-
sity of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
179 p.
Johnson, L. J. 1981 . Otter and marten
life history studies. Final Report,
Alaska DepL Fish and Game, Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project
W-21-1, Job 7.10R, Juneau, Alaska.
29 p.
Kessler, W. B. 1979. Bird population
responses to clearcutting in the
Tongass National Forest of southeast
Alaska. Alaska Region Report 7 1 , on
file at the U.S. Forest Service,
Ketchikan, Alaska. 22 p.
Kimmey, J. W. 1956. Cull factors for
Silka spruce, western hemlock and
western red cedar in southeast Alaska.
Alaska Paper 6, on file at the U.S.
Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska. 31 p.
King, J. G., F. C. Robards, and C. J.
Lensink. 1972. Census of the bald
eagle breeding population in southeast
Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 47: 297-305.
Kirchhoff, M. D. and J. W. Schoen.
1987. Forest cover and snow: implica-
tions for deer habitat in southeast
Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 51: 28-33.
Kirchhoff, M. D., J. W. Schoen, and O.
C. Wallmo. 1983. Deer use in relation
to forest clear-cut edges in southeast
Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 47: 497-501.
Klein. D. R. and S. T. Olson. 1960.
Natural mortality patterns of deer in
southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife
Management 24: 80-88.
Larsen, D. H. 1983. Habitats, move-
ments, and foods of river otters in
coastal southeast Alaska. M.S. Thesis.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska. 149 p.
Lebeda, C. S. and J. T. Ratti. 1983.
Reproductive biology of Vancouver
Canada geese on Admiralty Island,
Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 47: 297-305.
Leopold, A. S. 1950. Deer in relation to
plant successions. Journal of Forestry
48: 675-678.
MacArthur, R. H. and E. O. Wilson.
1967. The theory of island biogeogra-
phy. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ. 203 p.
Mannan, R. W. and E. C. Meslow. 1984.
Bird populations and vegeiadon
characteristics in managed and old-
growth forests, northeastern Oregon.
Journal of Wildlife Management 48:
1219-1238.
Mannan, R. W., E. C. Meslow, and H.
M. Wight. 1980. Use of snags by birds
in Douglas-fir forests, western
Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 44: 787-797.
Maser, C. and J. M. Trappe, eds. 1984.
The seen and unseen world of the
fallen tree. U.S. Forest Service
General Report PNW-164, Pacific
Northwest Forestry and Range
Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oreg.
56 p.
McClelland, B, R. 1977. Relationships
between hole-nesting birds, forest
snags, and decay in western larch-
Douglas- fir forests of the northern
Rocky Mountains. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Montana, Missoula,
Mont 495 p.
Meehan, W. R., T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T.
A. Hanley, eds. 1984. Fish and
wildlife relationships in old-growth
forests: proceedings of a symposium
held in Juneau, Alaska, 1982. Ameri-
can Institute of Fisheries Research
Biologists. 425 p.
Noble, R. E. 1978. Breeding-bird
populations in hemlock-spruce old-
growth and clearcuts, Prince of Wales
Island, Alaska. Technical Report on
file at the U.S. Forest Service,
Ketchikan, Alaska. 65 p.
Norse, E. A., K. L. Rosenbaum, D. S.
Wilcove, B. A. Wilcox, W. H.
Romme, D. W. Johnston, and M. L.
Stout. 1986. Conserving biological
diversity in our national forests.
Ecological Society of America,
prepared for the Wilderness Society.
116 p.
Peek, J. M., M. R. Pelton, H. D. Picton,
J. W. Schoen, and P. Zager. 1987.
Grizzly bear conservation and
management: a review. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 15: 160-169.
Raphael, M. G. 1980. Utilization of
standing dead trees by breeding birds
at Sagehen Creek, California. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of California,
Berkeley, Calif. 195 p.
Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984.
Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds
in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife
Monographs 86. 66 p.
Rideout, D., E. S. Miyala, and E. Olson.
1984. A statistical profile of the
timber supply base of the Tongass
area in southeast Alaska. Final Report
on file at the Dept. of Forest and
Wood Science, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colo. 131 p.
Rose, C. L. 1984. Deer response to
forest succession on Annette Island,
144 Natural Areas Journal
Volume 8 (3), 1988
229
southeast Alaska. Pp. 285-290 in
W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr.. and
T. A. Hanley, eds.. Proceedings of the
symposium on fish and wildlife
relationships in old-growth forests,
Juneau. Alaska, 1982. American
Institute of Fisheries Research
Biologists.
Schoen, J. W. and M. D. Kirchhoff.
1982. Habitat use by mountain goats
in southeast Alaska. Final Report,
Alaska Dept Fish and Game, Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project
W-21-2,Job2.6R, Juneau, Alaska
67 p.
Schoen, J. W.. M. D. Kirchhoff, and M.
H. Thomas. 1985. Seasonal distribu-
tion and habitat use by Sitka black-
tailed deer in southeastern Alaska.
Final Report Alaska DepL Fish and
Game, Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Project W-22-4, Job 2.6R,
Juneau, Alaska. 44 p.
Schoen, J. W., M. D. Kirchhoff, and O.
C. Wallmo. 1984. Sitka black-tailed
deer/old-growth relationships in
southeast Alaska; implications for
managemenL Pp. 315-319 in W. R.
Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T. A.
Hanley, eds.. Proceedings of the
symposium on fish and wildlife rela-
tionships in old-growth forests,
Juneau, Alaska, 1982. American
Institute of Fisheries Research
Biologists. 425 p.
Schoen, J. W., S. D. Miller, and H. V.
Reynolds, III. 1987. Last stronghold
of the grizzly. Natural History 96(1):
50-61.
Schoen, J. W., O. C. Wallmo, and M. D.
Kirchhoff. 1981. Wildlife-forest rela-
tionships: is a reevaluation of old
growth necessary? Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 46: 531-545.
Sidle, W. S. and L. H. Suring. 1986.
Wildlife and fisheries habitat manage-
ment notes — management indicator
species of the national forest lands of
Alaska. U.S. Forest Service Technical
Publication RIO-TP-2, Juneau,
Alaska. 62 p.
Sigman, M. J. 1985. Impacts of clearcut
logging on the fish and wildlife
resources of southeast Alaska.
Technical Report 85-3, on file Alaska
Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.
95 p.
Smith, C. A. 1985. Habitat use by
mountain goats in southeastern
Alaska. Final Report Alaska Dept.
Fish and Game, Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Project W-22-2,
Job 12.4R, Juneau, Alaska 1 10 p.
Society of American Foresters. 1984.
Scheduling the harvest of old growth.
Report of the SAF task force on
scheduling the harvest of old-growth
timber, Bethesda Md. 44 p.
Thomas, J. W., L. F. Ruggiero, R. W.
Mannan. J. W. Schoen, and R. A.
Lancia In press. Management and
conservation of old-growth forests in
the United Slates. Wildlife Society
Bulletin.
U.S. Forest Service. 1978. Landtype/
timber task force working report.
TLMP-3. Alaska Reg., Juneau.
Alaska. 449 p.
Wallmo. O. C. and J. W. Schoen, eds.
1979. Sitka black-tailed deer. Pro-
ceedings of a conference held in
Juneau, Alaska U.S. Forest Service,
Alaska Region, Series R 10-48. 231 p.
Wallmo, O. C. and J. W. Schoen. 1980.
Response of deer to secondary forest
succession in southeast Alaska. Forest
Science 26: 448^62.
Wallmo, O. C. 1982. Managing forests
to retain the wildlife habitat character-
istics of old growth. Presented at a
symposium and workshop entitled
Old-growth forests: a balanced
perspective. Bureau of Governmental
Research and Service, University of
Oregon, Eugene, Oreg. 5 p.
White. P. S. 1987. Natural disturbance,
patch dynamics, and landscape pattern
in natural areas. Natural Areas Journal
7(1): 14-22.
Wilcove. D. S. 1987. From fragmenta-
tion to extinction. Natural Areas
Journal 7(1): 23-29.
Woolington. J. D. 1984. Habitat use and
movements of river otters at Kelp
Bay, Baranof Island, Alaska. M.S.
Thesis. University of Alaska, Fair-
banks, Alaska. 247 p.
Zamowilz, J. E. and D. A. Manuwal.
1985. The effects of forest manage-
ment on cavity-nesting birds in
northwestern Washington. Journal of
Wildlife Management 49: 255-263.
Volume 8 (3), 1988
Natural Areas Journal 145
230
Senator Wirth. Ms. Kautzer.
STATEMENT OF JOAN KAUTZER, REPRESENTING ALASKA
WOMEN IN TREES
Ms. Kautzer. Welcome to the Tongass, thank you for your inter-
est in my homeland and America's largest public forest.
My name is Joan Kautzer and I am a commercial fisherman and
wildlife artist from Point Baker, Alaska. I am speaking in behalf of
Alaska Women in Trees.
We formed our group because we could no longer stand silently
by and watch as our national forests were mutilated beyond their
condition or passively watch as hundreds of miles of new logging
roads to nowhere dissect our wild islands each year. We strongly
support S. 346 and feel the original intent of the Forest Service has
gone haywire. Instead of protecting America's forests from being
looted by large corporations they now act as timber brokers for the
multi-nationals, moving to timber at the expense of the taxpayer,
environment and all of the forest uses.
I can liken this management policy to selling great paintings for
the value of the canvas; it is wrong and it must be stopped.
The only criteria for timber sales here is corporate economic fea-
sibility. Under the constraints of the 50-year contracts and the 450
mandate we are experiencing one-time timber stripping, not forest
management and Tongass public participation in forest planning
consists of commenting on foregone conclusions, wading through
reams of incomprehensible graphs and documents and studying
EISs that always turn out the same findings, with no significant
impact. The attempt is to placate us by allowing us to submit plan-
ning alternatives that are never chosen.
After voicing our concerns at a recent public meeting at Point
Baker Forest Service, biologists admitted that deer habitat on the
North Prince of Wales would "Be in shambles in the next 20
years", yet in the next breath the Forest Service showed residents
jumbo clearcuts planned for the next ten years which would clearly
impact habitat further.
While sound environmental policies are not a criteria in the Ton-
gass Management scheme neither are sound economics. An exam-
ple is a spectacular island that has abundant fish and wildlife. The
Forest Service will spend four million taxpayer dollars to receive a
meager return of $262,000 from the APC pulp mill per timber cut
in 10 years but the APC was convicted of monopoly fraud and anti-
trust. There is no sustained yield or fiscal responsibility in a time
of growing federal budget deficit. He said the 23 areas as priceless
intrinsic environment are far outweighing the value of production
but these 23 years has been brought to the attention of the Forest
Service by different use groups as needing permanent protection,
always to no avail.
We cannot affect this change at the local level, they told us so,
TLMP will not do it. This 30 day Dead Eagle Sound and Lab Bay
Dump will not fly again, the Tongass will not be the same if we do
not protect these areas
Alaska Women in Trees supports S. 346 with permanent protec-
tion for the 23 areas.
231
I also brought some letters from 32 different people that support
this.
Senator Wirth. You give them to us and we will be sure that
they are included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kautzer follows:]
232
Testimony of Joan Kautzer
Representing Alaska Women in Trees
Before the U S Senate, Tongass Feild Hearing in Ketchikan, Alaska
April 24, 1989
-^^^■H-^
233
Thank you for allowing my written testimony to be included in the
hearing record for The Tongass Timber Reform Act, SB346.
Ny name is Joan Kautzer. I am a commercial fisherman and wildlife
artist from Pt. Baker, Alaska on the northern tip of Prince of Wales Island.
I would like to testify on behalf of Alaska Women in Trees. We are a group
of Southeast residents dedicated to preserving the old growth forest in
the Tongass. We come from varied economic backrounds and have members in
Ketchikan, Kaufman Cove, Pt. Baker, Port Protection, Craig, Petersburg,
Tenakee, Juneau, and Haines. We formed because no longer could we silently
stand by as the National Forest is doforoctod at an annual rate of 20,000
acres, or passively watch as an annual 295 miles of new logging roads dissect
our wild islands. We denounce the current management priorities that set
timber harvest above and in conflict of all other forest uses. We strongly
support SB346. We feel it is imperative to the future of the Tongass that
the 23 areas named in the bill be granted permanent protection as Wilderness,
or, at very least be permanantly removed from the timber base. As a world
leader, the United States has taken a stand against cutting rain forests in
South America and other global communities. Now it is time to save the very
last temperate rain forest within our own borders. With more places becoming
humanly altered, we are just beginning to understand the benefits of leaving
natural ecosystems in tact.
When describing the trees in the Tongass the USPS repeatedly uses
the words: decadent, rotting, and overmature. They attempt to conjure up
a vision that says, "The resource is decaying before our eyes, all these
trees are just wasting away on the stump," and "in order to have a healthy
Forest we need all new trees." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Old growth trees are the most optimum natural condition for a forest. It
supports the healthiest habitat for fish and wildlife. It is a self perpet-
uating intricate system wherein every living organism is interdependent on
trees at every stage of life and death.
Old growth forest is the nurturing foundation for the commercial fishing
industry and the tourist industry. It hosts the crucial salmon producing
watersheds and beautiful recreational areas. Unfortunately, tht; over-
harvesting of timber is undermining the supporting base of the! 3e two
industries. The USPS has created a timber industry, bolstered b y a false
economy, which is jeperdizing all other forest uses. The entire premises
234
for a second growth timber industry in the Tonaqss is purely hypathetical.
With the supposed 100 to 150 year rotations, the Tongass is competing with
pulp trees grown in 15 to 30 years in other parts of the U.S. So far second
growth management has consisted of a mere 10% of all clearcuts receiving
thinning. The remaining 90% is left waiting for costly management funds
in a time of a growing federal budget deficet.
The second growth forest (alias "the healthy new trees") is decidedly
unhealthy for wildlife. Fish, birds, deer, and bears suffer in this sterile
altered enviroraent. Sitka black tail deer, an indicator species for envir-
omental impact studies and a heavily relied on subsistance food, will suffer
astounding losses. On the northern end of Prince of Wales Island, 79% of
the federal lands are being clearctft, by the end of the first 100 year
rotation an estimated 92% of the deer population will be lost. The Forest
Service bioligist admitted at a recent meeting in Pt. Baker that deer habitat
on N. Prince of Wales "would be in shambles in the next 20 years", yet in
the next breath, the USPS showed residents jumbo new clearcuts planned for
the next 10 years which would clearly impact habitat further. Such ironies
plague the management of the Tongass.
While sound enviromental policies are not a criteria in the current
Tongass management scheme neither are sound economics. East Kuiu, an area
valued highly for it's fisheries resources, abondant wildlife, and water-
fowl is in the APC contract area. In order to access timber for the meager
stumpage return from APC of $262,060, the Forest Service proposed the building
of 15 miles of road and a terminal transportation facility, with the price
tag of 3.85 million taxpayer dollars. That's a loss to taxpayers of $3,587,940
to benefit APC. APC, a Tokyo based Japanese corporation was convicted in the
1980 Reid Bros. Case of driving small loggers out of business, monopoly,
antitrust, and defrauding the goverment out of millions of dollars. In times
of trillion dollar deficets, the USFS is exercising no fiscal restraint
inthe Tongass. It is time the USFS becomes accountable for its expenditures
and returns to the scrutiny of the congressional appropriations process.
In regards to the terminal transportation facility in No Name Bay
and the 15 miles of road on E. Kuiu, the USFS held a public meeting in Pt.
Bakerin Jan. of 1987, to supposedly allow residents to voice concerns.
Despite the fact the comment period was still officially open,, the USFS
informed residents that they had already made up their minds to construct
the facilities. So in fact, public input was being solicited as a techni-
cality,and had no hearing on the <leri.sion making process. Under the rifiid
constraints of the ^450 mandate and the 50 year contracts, this is a common
235
occurance. There is no room for true public particij)ation. Most public
meetings with the Forest Service consist of t|>e''public frustrately voicing
concerns, the USFS jotting them down then telling us that they must "get
out the cut " and fulfill the contract sales so there isn't any leeway for
change. USFS enviromental impact statements and enviromental assessments
consistently turn up the same findings: NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. All the
while subsistance users, fishermen, and recreationalists can see that the
impacts of the long term sale plans with their gigantic cutting units are
destroying the forest. Over the years, each of the 23 areas has been
repeatedly brought to the attention of the USFS on the local level, by
the different user groups as crucially important to the welfare of our
non-timber industries and fish and wildlife resources. Now, as time is
closing in, we are asking Congress to protect these areas from being sense-
lessly destroyed by a one time deficet logging operation which will benefit
few and rob every American of one more wild place.
Too long have the preferential terms of the 50 year contracts domin-
ated federal management policy in the Tongass. Too long have the wants of
LPK, and the Japanese owned APC been funded by the Tongass Timber Supply
Fund, promoting the currupt policy of private dominion over public lands.
The overriding emphasis on short term timber harvesting is wasting millions
of tax payer dollars and is hurting the self-sustaining fishing and tourist
industries. The Tongass is in need of change and S346 is a step in the right
direction. The current status quo is destroying the forest and only seri'ous
management reforms will correct the situation.
The members of Alaska Women in Trees believe that the Tongass is a
raagnificant American legacy and its rare beauty should be preserved for
all generations thru the creation of more wilderness areas and a new balanced
Forest Service directive.
236
Senator Wirth. Mr. Weihing.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE WEIHING, EMPLOYEE AT THE LP/KPC
PULP MILL
Mr. Weihing. Thank you, Senator. My name is Wayne Weihing,
I have been employed at Ketchikan Pulp Mill for 21 years and I
am here to voice my opposition to Senator Murkowski's bill for the
following reasons:
I believe it is essential to have permanent protection for the vital
areas to protect the fisheries, recreation and wildlife. The Forest
Service has failed to implement the multiple-use concept on the
Tongass. For example, there is very little, if any, trail maintenance
for access to lakes and streams and some of the Forest Service
cabins have been eliminated and remaining cabins are being main-
tained by volunteer workers.
I support Senator Wirth's bill because I believe that the changes
necessary to protect the Tongass will never take place unless the
automatic appropriation is repealed and the 50-year contracts are
terminated and replaced with short-term contracts.
Now I do not intend for anyone to lose their jobs or put the in-
dustry out of business. My job is important to me as I am sure ev-
eryone whose job is related to the Tongass National Forest is im-
portant to them but I believe it is important and we just keep in
mind that the National Forest belongs to everyone in the U.S.A.,
not the timber companies or the State of Alaska or any special
group. Because it is a national forest each person has a stake in
the Tongass, including myself.
I use the Karta River, the Naha River and Prince of Wales
Island for hunting and fishing and recreation. To have the opportu-
nity to use these areas is why I came to Alaska and I want to con-
tinue to live in southeast Alaska.
Legislative changes are necessary to finally bring responsible
management to the Tongass. As a worker in the timber industry, I
feel a personal responsibility to voice my support for Senator
Wirth's bill, with an amendment to grant permanent protection for
important fish and wildlife areas.
Ketchikan Pulp Company's callous exploitation of the natural
Tongass is compounded by their callous exploitation of the work
force. As pulp mill employees, we have had our wages cut and our
medical benefits reduced and have been forced with the threat of
termination to work under unsafe work conditions. I would like to
retain my pride of workmanship and my personal dignity and I
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Weihing, thank you very much. I respect
enormously your coming this morning and testifying and realize
that often the situation in which you are working at a workplace
where people are advocating a totally different perspective and
some probably accuse you of endangering their jobs and their lives
with their wives and children — I appreciate your coming and I
want you to know that yours is the perfect example of what free-
dom of beliefs and freedom of political beliefs should mean in this
country.
237
I hope that in the process of doing this you do not come in for too
much abuse and I am sure your superiors will respect your exercise
of your rights as an American citizen, just as we do, and I hope
that it is very clear to everybody how much yours is an exercise of
the rights of being an American and we appreciate your being here
and being as forthright as you are being.
Mr. Weihing. Thank you, sir.
Senator Wirth. Now Mr. Mehrkins is an economist and you have
heard a discussion earlier made to the reason for the Tongass being
treated differently and the fact that it was done so for the purpose
of protecting the job base; now essentially that was one of the main
things, going through the area of discussion. You were here at that
point, were you not?
Mr. Mehrkins. That is correct.
Senator Wirth. Now, putting a different window on that, did
that strategy for job protection work and will it work in the
future?
Mr. Mehrkins. Basically that was the blueprint that the Tongass
Master Plan would have but what that failed to do was recognize
that the thing that — chiefly wanted — the only thing that controls
timber employment is man and the Pacific Rim countries, not re-
gardless of how much money we want to throw at this problem and
supply side will not be able to offset the supply and demand of
those timber jobs. We had roughly about 2,200 Tongass dependent
jobs in 1980; we spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $260 mil-
lion in 1986 and still lost half those jobs or better.
Even today with the vast improvement that was still 40 percent
below
Senator Wirth. Would you give me those numbers again, would
you briefly?
Mr. Mehrkins. I will give them to you exactly; it is in my testi-
mony. Since 1980 we
Senator Wirth. You are saying we spent how much?
Mr. Mehrkins. Based on Forest Service information — now let me
correct this, there were 2,950 direct timber jobs in 1980, that is
fiscal year 1980, and employment gradually fell to a low of 1,950
jobs in 1985 and increased to about 3,200 jobs in 1988. Now these
for the total Tongass or total areawide employment.
Now the Tongass-dependent jobs are only a portion of these. In
1980 timber employment was estimated at 2,500 jobs and has de-
clined about 25 percent to about 1,900 in fiscal 1988. I do not have
fiscal 1989 figures; I do know that they are slightly higher.
Senator Wirth. Those are direct jobs that declined from 2,500 to
1,900 in 1988?
Mr. Mehrkins. From 1980, 2,500 Tongass related jobs declined
now to 1,900 jobs.
Senator Wirth. Tongass-dependent jobs are defined as what?
Mr. Mehrkins. That would be jobs that would be tied back to
timber, that comes off the forest lands versus other supplies.
Senator Wirth. Those are direct jobs?
Mr. Mehrkins. Those are direct jobs.
Senator Wirth. Now what was that, 2,950 in 1950 to 3,200 that
you had earlier?
238
Mr. Mehrkins. Those are jobs that would reflect the entire in-
dustry, not only Tongass dependent but private logging. Private
logging has rapidly increased so that
Senator Wirth. So the relevant jobs in the Tongass was subject —
was that right?
Mr. Mehrkins. Yes, yes.
Senator Wirth. The 2,500 jobs was 1,900. Is there any debate
about that set of numbers?
Mr. Mehrkins. These were taken from Forest Service Timber —
Supply and Demand Reports are also based on State of Alaska De-
partment of Labor
Senator Wirth. And how much was spent since 1980?
Mr. Mehrkins. Basing the GEO Report which covers from 1981
to 1985, something like that, 256 million or 257 million and now
there has been considerable spending since then of course, and of
that 256 million, the GAO found literally half, about 131 not neces-
sarily to be spent because the timber demand was so low and that
fact, 131 million, that was spent by maintaining jobs had failed.
They could not offset the decline of jobs or the decline of demand.
Senator Wirth. Now $380 million and 1,900 jobs were involved.
How much per job is that?
Mr. Mehrkins. I would work out the numbers but in the past the
subsidy has been somewhere in the neighborhood of about $35,000
per job per year.
Senator Wirth. That is pretty good.
Mr. Mehrkins. It would depend on which side of the equation
you are looking at.
Senator Wirth. Is there any debate about that figure, that
$35,000 per job per year subsidized by the Federal Government?
Mr. Mehrkins. The debate centers on what you heard today. It is
a debate about wilderness or debate about government spending or
the debate about the timber programs; too many things they would
like to clarify here.
In 1985 I led a team of Forest Service — a Disciplinary Planning
Team, and prepared 706(b) status report, that is the status of the
Tongass National Forest which required in those draft reports at
the conclusion of my team was that there was no effect of wilder-
ness on a Tongass timber-dependent job levels. That had even been
published in several public drafts. It was then subsequently edited
out at the Secretary of Agriculture's office but that was the deter-
mination of that team.
Secondly, we are talking about the fact that we needed this
money as part of this deal to invest in marginal timber, since we
had done exactly what TLMP had requested us and actually invest-
ed in marginal timber — our average harvest yield per acre should
have been about 26,000 board foot per acre. That did not happen, in
fact it was substantially higher than that and basically followed
historic trends about 40,000 to 42,000 foot per acre and frankly
what that says to me that we spent the money and the money was
used to build roads and so forth, and maintain the facilities and
whatever but that money was spent in the better timber stands,
not the marginal timber stands, so that is also fair.
Senator Wirth. Is that high grade?
239
Mr. Mehrkins. That is about the — that is the best example of
high grading you can think of.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator. I think it is appropri-
ate to note that the figures used present figures prior to the stump-
age, is that correct?
Mr. Mehrkins. I just do not understand your question.
Senator Murkowski. You are basing your generation of — over a
lengthy period of about $40 million as federal assistance to the
forest year which is somewhere in the area of $323-350 million the
rate used, is that right?
Mr. Mehrkins. That is right.
Senator Murkowski. That's based on — I know that you are refer-
ring to the Federal Government based on stumage figures prevail-
ing in the market place during that period of time, is that not cor-
rect?
Mr. Mehrkins. Several ways that it reported, basically that is
correct.
Senator Murkowski. Did that take into consideration current
stumpage as one gentleman said, that has risen from two to three
dollars up to $68 or thereabouts.
Mr. Mehrkins. That is not correct. It does take into account rev-
enues that are considered to be federal stumpage receipts.
Senator Murkowski. And what about?
Mr. Mehrkins. I do not have it in front of me but I can give you
year by year
Senator Murkowski. But what concerns me is, I think that we
have to recognize that we are going to take current stumpage,
going to see a positive return of the forest.
Mr. Mehrkins. I would disagree with that entirely.
Senator Murkowski. Well the Forest Service is always giving us
the figures and there is a positive return on the issue.
Mr. Mehrkins. Could I explain how you get that?
Senator Murkowski. It is based on the return on — as a conse-
quence of the increased stumpage. and if you return to the Bor-
ough, the State and the Borough and the Federal Government as
well.
Mr. Mehrkins. There is a major factor that is far more signifi-
cant that the increase in stumpage and that has not been imple-
mented yet but is ready to be implemented, as I understand it.
Basically what you do is you take the cost of the roads as built
by purchase or credits, which is a form of trading for roads and you
include as a benefit on the benefit side all of those costs as if that
were a benefit on the cost side. You only deduct from those values
less than one percent of the costs, so that is why we have these fig-
ures showing positive return when in fact they are highly negative
in any kind of economic analysis, a fair economic analysis, I could
come across.
Senator Wirth. It is my understanding that both the GAO and
the Forest Service have agreed on the accounting process?
Mr. Mehrkins. They are in the process of reading that.
Senator Murkowski. No, it has been agreed upon.
240
Mr. Mehrkins. There are questions about the costs that I am
talking about as being the fact that these roads under the system
would be amortized over a period of about 250 years when the
useful life would be only 30. Now GAO has recognized the fact that
that is a problem and that is kind of like trying to build Washing-
ton, but not amortizing the cost today and recognition of those
problems to GAO is in the Forest Service. I might add, having
looked at the costs, the polling techniques used to — have led us to
believe that they are speaking from.
Senator Murkowski. Well I would be happy to share with you
the information that I have if we could pursue it.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce for the record the Employ-
ment Summary of the Southeast Timber Industry in 1988 from the
Department of Labor showing the logging, 2,064 jobs, 501 in saw-
mills, 182 in pulp for Department of Labor total of 3,447, a 17 per-
cent increase over 1987, plus additional direct jobs not included in
the Department of Labor's total for the 3,447. These include 296
Longshoring, 95 towing, 150 road construction, 435 in Forest Serv-
ice. This bring according to the Department of Labor 4,423 direct
jobs and I would ask that that be entered into the record as well as
the 1988 Fiscal Year Production Figures for the Regional Office of
the U.S. Forest Service and I seem to be getting a lot of informa-
tion at Sitka and it is U.S. Forest Service figures. Fiscal 1988, Har-
vests and Imports from Southeastern Alaska follows for the year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Burns.
Senator Burns. I just have a couple of questions to clarify.
I guess, Mr. Mehrkins, I would ask you do you know of any legis-
lation that requires the Forest Service to profit on the sale of
timber?
Mr. Mehrkins. No, at the same time the Forest Service under
the principle of trying to maximize the benefits, the net benefits to
all people would have to consider providing positive economic bene-
fits across the board in a multiple-use sense. In other words no,
there is no mandate to make a profit but there is no mandate to
lose money either, and come up with the greatest positive benefit —
set of benefits possible.
Senator Burns. Using that analysis would you want the Forest
Service to also take the same approach with recreation and the
Fish and Wildlife Programs?
Mr. Mehrkins. I believe that there never has to be — well, I do
support that. That is the organization I speak for. We believe that
these resources should be put forth in an economically sound
manner that is physically responsible, that is going to help to
strengthen the economies. I guess that's the long answer, sir, to
your question.
Senator Burns. Mr. Kirchhoff, I was interested in your testimo-
ny, I just wonder if you would tell us what is the effect on popula-
tion of bald eagles since .timber harvesting began in earnest in the
1960s.
Mr. Kirchhoff. I can address that with respect to deer but I am
not able to talk about bear.
Senator Burns. Well what about since the 1960s?
241
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. Well, it is hard to get a single answer. In
McDuff Islands and Central Park or the Kuiu Islands, it is closed
season; there is no hunting and in the Mystic Fjord area, Baranoff
and Chichagof Islands there is a six-deer bag limit and in the
southern part there is a two-deer bag limit and that it varies a
little bit along the mainland so we have seen just — I think what
you are getting at to come up with transient population over the
time. We had high numbers of deer in the 1950s, we had a series of
very difficult winters in the 1960s, early 1970s and the population
crashed across the area, the population has responded and the last
20 years the northern part or portion of the — in the southeast we
have had relatively high deer figures. It has been much lower in
the southern southeast. Current high numbers of deer are largely
through the wildlife that we passed since the 1970s. We have been
doing some more surveys this spring and found the highest mortali-
ty since those early 1970s reports on the Chichagof Islands, we
have had a fairly hard winter this year in the southeast.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
I want to commend this panel.
Senator Murkowski. I wonder, Mr. Kirchhoff, if you would ex-
plain to me, if there is any principal logging on Kuiu Island?
Mr. Kirchhoff. There is logging on Kuiu Island.
Senator Murkowski. How long has this been in relationship to
the proposal to initiate the plan, the ALT, and initiate a bigger
program that has been objected to. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Perhaps — well, I am very familiar with Kuiu
Island, the areas that have been logged but in the APC five-year
plan, a substantial portion of their volume comes off.
Senator Wirth. It is supposed to come off North Kuiu?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Can you explain the difference in the deer
population at Kuiu Islands, Ornaski or with Admiralty, Chichagof
and Baranoff as unique?
Mr. Kirchhoff. With islands north of Frederick Sound
Senator Murkowski. You do not have wolves?
How would you deal with the wolf take in a week?
Mr. Kirchhoff. I really do not know.
Senator Murkowski. As a game ball, you do not know that?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Well I think we worked into models about ten
pounds of deer per wolf per day.
Senator Murkowski. Ten pounds of deer per wolf per day and
there are no deer on Admiralty, Baranoff and Chichagof?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Excuse me, no, there are no wolves.
Senator Murkowski. What is the limit there for hunting? Fish
and Game sets a limit?
Mr. Kirchhoff. It is six deer for most of that.
Senator Murkowski. What about Kuiu?
Mr. Kirchhoff. The season is closed there.
Senator Murkowski. Can you give us any explanation; now Kuiu
is right across from Baranoff, this is where six deer are — this has
got some population base on Kuiu — would it have any town of any
consequence?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Well I think the predator is probably responsible
for that.
242
Senator Murkowski. For the predator take in your testimony,
was that the wolf predators or the deer population which obviously
is fairly significant?
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. That is correct.
Senator Murkowski. Is there any relation, any reason why this
reluctance in the Department of Fish and Game and I know you
are not speaking for them but I continually had opportunities to
meet with people from our State Fish and Game for some reason
and they always seem to leave out the wolf predator and I really do
not know why.
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. Well, we are concerned about the low level of
deer in those areas. We have a research project for three years.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Mehrkins, do you have any predator control?
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. No.
Senator Murkowski. Did you use to have predator control in
Southeast Alaska?
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. I believe there was.
Senator Murkowski. And now there is not any more? We can
have that straightened out today. I think it's important that we
relate to game policies and we look at all pertinent factors and cer-
tainly the wolf is a pertinent factor; indeed as you say, one will
take ten pounds of deer a day and I do not think any one of us
knows how many wolves there are and that is pretty fast, particu-
larly if you get a tough winter and get winter kill or deep snow, we
all know the realities of that. Now I would liked to ask the panel
one general question, is there generally an agreement that in fact
there is within the make-up of the forest as we see it today 1.7 mil-
lion acres that have been set aside in perpetuity in wilderness,
virgin timber, was selected at the recommendation of the environ-
mental groups in 1980, according to their priorities. This is when
we basically created the wilderness. It is the agreement that the
1.7 million acres of commercial timber that was put into wilderness
at the recommendation specifically of national environmental
groups who had input in it, would actually agree with that
premise?
Mr. Mehrkins. I disagree.
Senator Wirth. Would you perhaps say it is not 1.7 million acres
of commercial timber that is in wilderness?
Mr. Mehrkins. It is commercial timber that is a misnomer. First
off if you go back to the definition all it says is that to be commer-
cially qualified as commercial timber it has to meet a certain mini-
mum growth rate and that particular chunk of ground may be up
on a mountainside and slide into Salmon Creek and would not be
harvested or is not technically feasible to be harvested or may not
be economic but they still call it commercial timberland.
Now when you put in all these other screens like operability, eco-
nomic and the amount of commercial timber that is in wilderness
that defaults often the 1.7 that you are citing to literally like
200,000 or down to 80,000.
Senator Murkowski. I think what we ought to do is quiz the
Forest Service a little better because those are the figures that
they have provided us and they say that is commercial timber that
has been put into wilderness, an area the size of New Hampshire,
1.7 million acres of commercial forest land is in wilderness. I would
243
also ask the panel if they are generally in agreement that two mil-
lion acres are closed to logging, currently this 2 million of the 5.4
million acres of land, forest land. In the Tongass, those two million
acres are in fact closed to logging for ten years under the TLMP
Fish and Wildlife and other considerations? Can you in consider-
ation— give a consideration to TLMP Plan? Can anybody here?
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. May I speak to you a little — give a little histori-
cal fact on this?
Senator Murkowski. Anybody care to comment on this?
Mr. Mehrkins. I would like to make a comment that indeed it
has been deferred for a ten year period and a comment that con-
cerned me today, that it was mentioned that we could maintain
that 4.5 billion board feet if no more land was — which we have also
taken into account but I think that means, and I am not sure, I'm
not qualified for that, is that to come up with that 4.5 billion that
is all the existing land timber base, you would have to drop into
the timber base — I know the figures and "Led-to's" and those lands
will have to be tapped if that 4.5 billion timber supply mandate is
continued.
Senator Murkowski. Well, that is obviously part of the TLMP
and I think it is important that all Alaskans recognize the acres of
commercial forest in the Tongass, 5.4 million acres currently, com-
mercial forests 1.7 million acres are in wilderness permanently
locked up as old-growth timber, two million acres are closed to log-
ging for ten years by TLMP for fish and wildlife and other consid-
erations and at least 1.7 million acres scheduled for timber harvest
over 100 years and that is what we are talking about canceling at
this time or dramatically changing.
Senator Wirth. There appears to be some debate about these
numbers, is that right?
Senator Murkowski. These are Forest Service numbers, I do not
think there should be any debate.
Senator Wirth. But I gather from your response that there is
some debate about the 1.7 million acres that is closed due to wilder-
ness and you are saying well there are not really commercial but
there are gradations of commercial and maybe you can provide to
us what you mean by that.
The public — well, you talked earlier about 30,000 board feet per
acre if I remember and a lot of this falls below that 30,000, and
30,000 is not commercially viable. We can all go spinning around
like crazy with statistics I am sure and we do it on a steady basis.
Maybe you can give us some more statistics that will show a little
bit more about what is going on.
Senator Murkowski. I think we have to recognize, we have to
have some basis for saying the Forest Service is right or wrong. I
am just saying that is all we have, I would be interested in know-
ing what Mr. Mehrkins' figures are that he uses for commerci^
forests within the Tongass. What figure do you use?
Mr. Mehrkins. You asked me this question in 1987 when I testi-
fied before this Committee and I believe I answered it then, 80,000
acres is as prime stock if I remember right, there is 180,000 acres,
30,000 board foot an acre in the above.
Now I would like to leave myself open to correct that.
244
Senator Wirth. We can leave the record open for that. We will
ask the Forest Service as well. It has been my understanding that
it was not 1.7 million acres of commercially viable timber that had
been set aside as wilderness but rather more like 150,000 to 300,000
acres that was; just that amount has been set aside as wilderness
and that is because the definition of what is viable is different than
the definition that used by some — well Senator Murkowski knows a
lot more about it than I do.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you have to be careful with these fig-
ures because if you say that there is 80,000 acres of wilderness and
how much is in the whole forest, commercial grade of timber?
Mr. Mehrkins. That is a good point. In fact there was a misno-
mer about the whole idea of commercial forest land and why we
had a failure to try to invest marginal timberlands.
Senator Wirth. We will leave this open for the record and we
will also contact the Forest Service to make sure that we get their
definition and their numbers. You had a lot of experience in this,
didn't you; you worked for the Forest Service for awhile?
Mr. Mehrkins. I worked 15 years, 17 years with the Forest Serv-
ice and up in the Alaska Region since 1975.
Senator Wirth. Senator Murkowski, without guessing, we cannot
get any more unless we have some base to agree upon or at least
know where the differences are right now and I have a little feel-
ing of a greased pig, you squeeze it and it squeals off and then you
grab it again and it squeals off over there, to the auctioneer.
Senator Burns. I have a couple of questions that come to mind.
This wolf thing intrigues me. I want to ask you, is this the same
critter that they want to introduce back into the Yellowstone Eco-
system in Montana? [General laughter.]
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. It is a different sub-species I believe.
Senator Wirth. That is all for my bill. [General laughter.]
Senator Burns. I just wondered if I could offer a suggestion to
the Senator from Colorado, if he could make the initial introduc-
tion maybe into the State of Vermont or Massachusetts and we
will see how it works there before we try it in Montana.
Senator Wirth. Maybe by having them that would bring the
tourists to Massachusetts and that would offset the Dukakis'
budget deficit.
Senator Burns. Well, he needs it bad enough. The debate has
started to heat up down there amongst stockmen as you well know,
and I could tell you a little story about the Airedale dogs on
Kodiak Island, but I will not bore you with that.
I have heard a lot of questions of second growth or regrowth or
regeneration — what scientific basis do you have for your contention
that second growth or regrowth timber is of inferior value for wood
products and fish and wildlife habitat and recreation use? We
know it goes through stages and what I have been listening to here
is that basically we are talking about the harvest of a renewable
resource, is that correct?
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. It is renewable as a wood fibre but not in the
sense of the regular characteristics of those stands. The character-
istics of second growth cedar is very much different than the old
growth stands that they replace.
245
Senator Burns. When you look at that poster can you tell me
what the state of that forest was 6,000 years ago?
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. When you look at what forest?
Well, it looks very much today like it did 6,000 years ago, it is
just in a state of self-perpetuating forest. The individual changes
and forest changes on a very fine scale acre to acre will change but
over all it stays in its original state.
Senator Burns. If we change our management of harvest to se-
lective cut, rather than clearcut, would that solve part of the prob-
lem?
Mr. KiRCHHOFF. Yes, it would.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much. We really appreciate
your being here.
The record will, as we pointed out, remain open for any further
statistics you want to provide to thoroughly confuse us or to help
us.
Thank you all very much for being here.
We are going to attempt now to — we are running if you can be-
lieve it or not, or believe it, eight minutes ahead of schedule and
that is going to stop however, we are going to move right in to the
individuals who through the lottery are going to testify.
Let me now move my — to remind Senator Murkowski and Sena-
tor Burns how we were set up for this part of the hearing. We have
a witness list outside. All individuals on the witness list should, if
they will, take seats in the section down here on the left. I am
going to call up to the witness table individuals one at a time in
the order that they appear on the witness list and then the next
group should take the seats behind those at the witness table and
that, as we have done in the panels will have a group that is ac-
tively at the plate and a group that is on deck.
Bring all copies of your written statement with you when you
come up and we will collect them and distribute them appropriate-
ly-
Each individual should limit his or her testimony to two minutes
and keep your eye on the timer.
We now call up the first twelve witnesses, the order in which
they appear and ask the first six to come up here and the second
six to take the chairs behind the list.
Mr. Earl Cook, Mr. Bill Hoff, Mr. Greg Riffe, Mr. Boyd Roberts,
Mr. Fred Watkins and Mr. Abe Zimmerman, if you would all
please join us, move right in as it is appropriate. Why don't you
start right there and as the second six would come up and take the
seats behind, Peggy Garrison, Nancy Watt, Walter Begalka and
Kent Funk and Jim Bruce and Ed Prefontaine.
Everybody has been told about this and we are going to move
right through and if people are not here I am afraid they are just
not going to be here. That is too bad.
Gentlemen, we thank you very much for being here. Mr. Cook, I
guess you are here, is that right? We will start with Mr. Cook and
run the timer for two minutes and please introduce yourself and
let the panel know what it is you do for a living.
Mr. Cook, you are on.
Pull the microphone right up close to you.
246
Mr. Cook. Well, I would like to ask Mr. Wirth, how do you get
where you are at and where I am at one step at a time? Keep that
in mind while I say what I have to say.
STATEMENT OF EARL COOK
Mr. Cook. My name is Earl Cook, I live and work in Southeast
Alaska.
If you close the Tongass for harvesting you are depriving me and
thousands of others of our homes and our jobs and I cannot believe
that people like you could be so insensitive as to devastate the
economy of an entire region.
Would you like it if people were going to take your job and home
away from you? I do not think you would.
All the people here in southeast want this to be left alone so we
can work and live the way we feel and if you close the Tongass you
are taking away my constitutional right to live and work where I
choose, and in closing, all I have got to say is I do not like it and
leave me alone and let me work.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Cook. [Applause]
Again, the Chair will remind our friends in the audience that
they again are here as guests of the United States Senators, we are
happy to have you here to observe and there are some times that
the political process may look a little bit like the Johnny Carson
Show. This is not intended to be so.
Mr. Cook. You want my shirt?
[Witness removes his shirt.]
Mr. Cook. I will keep my hat but you can have my shirt.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. [General applause.]
O.K., Mr. Riffe.
STATEMENT OF GREG RIFFE
Mr. Riffe. My name is Greg Riffe and I drive a log truck.
I came here to tell you that this is — what this means to me and
my family if the logging is shut down.
I was born in Alaska and my dad and grandfather were and are
in the logging industry, so I was born into logging. My family — I do
not know anything but logging. My roots are here in southeast and
I just do not know what I would do for a living if I had to leave
here. I do not want to leave here.
Will the government provide me and my co-workers with jobs
and training for industrial jobs?
So what it all boils down to is what is more important, people or
wilderness? Why cannot we keep both?
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Riffe.
Mr. Roberts or Mr. Watkins.
STATEMENT OF FRED WATKINS
Mr. Watkins. My name is Fred Watkins, I live and work in La-
bouchere Bay. I am a log truck driver and I live and work in La-
bouchere Bay.
If r lose my job because of this bill I would have to sell my home
and try to find another job, move to another state and start over in
247 •
a different area. I have worked on this job for about five years now.
This happened to me about five years ago because of a similar situ-
ation and I did not like being unemployed and looking for work to
support my family. If this bill is passed it would be devastating, not
only to me and my family, but to the economy of the entire State
of Alaska. Let us keep our jobs and support the state.
Thank you for listening.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much Mr. Watkins.
Mr. Zimmerman.
STATEMENT OF ABE ZIMMERMAN
Mr. Zimmerman. There was something I wanted to address, a
comment that you made earlier, I believe, that your bill does not
necessarily say that it wants the industry to be shut down. It does
not say it would not and I just thought I would bring that to light
first.
Possibly I have a self-serving mentality, like people with oppos-
ing views, but I am not trying to destroy industry that has proved
itself beneficial in many aspects thus depriving many families of
their livelihood and the homes that they have come to enjoy. We
live in this area by choice and not out of necessity and the thought
of relocation to somewhere else is not very appealing to most of us.
If what we are talking about does pass, I feel we will be taking a
giant step backwards; useful productive citizens being forced into
an already overcrowded job market with all the attending major in-
conveniences involved does not seem like progress. Relocation and
retraining does not appear very attractive when there are so few
industries where a future exists for peoples' careers as solid as the
future should be in the lumber and pulp industry.
We need to remember that what we may like may not be what is
the best for the environment, which I believe is the point in ques-
tion.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are working with a program where
people, wildlife and the forest itself can all live together and all
benefit. We are in a remote area where there is virtually no unem-
ployment or any need for welfare programs under the current leg-
islation. We are proud of being able to contribute our share and
hope we will be able to continue to do so.
If we are forced out, the impact on the area would be devastat-
ing. I cannot believe that the fishing and tourism industries can
support our area without the help of the wood products industry.
Thanks for taking the time to listen to us.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, and we thank all four of
you.
I think your testimony summed it up just right, Mr. Zimmerman
when you said that you are working for a program where people,
wildlife and the forest itself can all live together and all benefit.
That is the balance we are searching for and I think that as you
pointed out as well, Mr. Zimmerman, there is nothing in either
piece of legislation that says that the industry would shut down.
Now there is nothing in either piece of legislation that — or any-
where that says that industry will stay open. What we are after is
248
a balance between all of these competing demands and that after
all is the job that we are electing to try to find.
I greatly appreciate your being with us and Mr. Cook, I greatly
appreciate your gift of the shirt.
Senator Murkowski. I want to thank the panels as well. We did
not come here to take the shirts off your back and I think we ought
to give the gentleman back his shirt.
Mr. Cook. I do not want it, keep it.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, thank you anjrway.
If we might have Peggy Garrison, Nancy Watt, Walt Begalka,
Ken Funk, Jim Bruce and Ed Prefontaine. Next will be John Blu-
baum, Roger Arriola, David Bray, Steve Connelly, Brad Finney and
Robert Elliot.
We will start with Ms. Garrison.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY GARRISON
Ms. Garrison. I am Peggy Garrison and I am just one of more
than a thousand, many thousand people whose livelihood depends
on the timber industry in southeast Alaska.
I have lived in the Tongass National Forest for more than nine
years, this is where my husband and I have raised our children and
where we work, where we recreate, where we have bought land
and where we hope to retire. The Tongass National Forest is our
home.
The timber industry offers us the security of permanent personal
economic stability. This in turn allows us to maintain a life style of
our choice which is directly related to the scenic beauty and recre-
ational opportunities available in the Tongass National Forest and
southeast Alaska.
I sincerely believe that the passage of Senator Wirth's Bill 346
will have the same economic consequence to thousands of people
living and working in southeast Alaska as the Valdez oil spill has
had on the economic base of Prince William Sound, with one obvi-
ous difference — there will be no Exxon funds available to help
make up the lost paychecks in the Tongass.
Perhaps the loss of jobs for thousands of Alaskans and the result-
ing economic turmoil forced upon hundreds of families is of little
consequence to people from New York or Colorado. It is, however,
of utmost importance to those of us that depend on the Forest
Service and the 50-year contract to maintain a viable and stable
timber industry in southeast Alaska.
I would dare to hope that any elected official who has the oppor-
tunity to vote on the Wirth Bill or any similar bill now or in the
future will take a long, hard look at what the economic conse-
quences may be to the people most affected, the people who live
and work in the Tongass.
We do not need more wilderness simply for the sake of wilder-
ness. We do need however the continuing opportunity to earn an
honest living from a renewable resource, timber.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Garrison.
Ms. Watt is not here I gather.
Mr. Begalka?
249
STATEMENT OF WALTER J. BEGALKA, MEMBER. ALASKA
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Mr. Begalka. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
my name is Walter Begalka. I am a member of the Alaska Society
of American Foresters, who provides 234 professional foresters
throughout the state employed as private consultants, educators,
researchers and administrators.
The issues that these bills deal vv^ith will have devastating reac-
tions. As members of the forest profession we do not advocate one
use over the other, however we believe that the professional, quali-
fied through their profession and education enables him to — well
the Alaska SAF recommends that Congress take no further action
on the Tongass legislation until completion of the revised Tongass
Land Management Plan, which is scheduled for completion by De-
cember of this year.
The Alaska SAF, as well as our parent National Society, has rec-
ommended that the Forest Service develop specific land manage-
ment planning alternatives and independent of existing 1980 crite-
ria. This allows the land-use planning process to work more effec-
tively by enabling the Forest Service to look beyond the current
program and land-use mandates set by Congress.
The TLMP revision will provide Congress with improved infor-
mation regarding the resource capabilities of the Tongass National
Forest. Through this process it is possible to assure a balanced ap-
proach to the management of the Tongass and to maintain the
community stability of southeast Alaska.
The Alaska SAF believes the existing land management plan-
ning process is the most appropriate vehicle for making changes in
special provisions for
Senator Wirth. I will have to move you in the interest of getting
to everybody else. Thank you and your statement will be included
and put in the record.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Begalka follows:]
250
STATEMENT OF
WALTER J. BEGALKA
MEMBER, ALASKA
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND FORESTS
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. SENATE
ON
S. 237 AND S. 346 REGARDING
THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
APRIL 24, 1989
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Walter
J. Begalka. I am a member of the Alaska Society of American
Foresters, known also as SAF. The Alaska SAF is comprised of 234
professional foresters throughout the state employed as private
consultants, educators, researchers and administrators with the
Federal and State governments as well as private industry. The
Alaska SAF wishes to thank the members of the subcommittee for
your continued interest in the management of the Tongass National
Forest.
As you are well aware, the issues the proposed legislation seeks
to address are complex, encompassing biological, social and
economic impacts of anticipated management actions. As the
Alaska SAF membership represents all segments of the forestry
profession, we do not advocate one use over another. However, we
strongly believe that the profession is qualified through the
TK:705 - 1 -
251
education and experience of its members to identify the costs and
benefits of various land-management alternatives. For these
reasons the Alaska SAF recommends that Congress take no further
action on Tongass legislation until completion of the revised
Tongass Land Management Plan, which is scheduled for completion
by December of this year.
The Alaska SAF, as well as our parent National Society, has
recommended that the Forest Service develop specific landmanage-
ment planning alternatives independent of existing Alaska Nation-
al Interest Lands Conservation Act 1980 criteria. This allows
the land-use planning process to work more effectively by
enabling the Forest Service to look beyond the current program
and land-use mandates set by Congress.
The Tongass Land Management Plan Revision will provide Congress
with improved information regarding the resource capabilities of
the Tongass National Forest. Through this process it is possible
to assure a balanced approach to the management of the Tongass
and to maintain the community stability of southeast Alaska.
The Alaska SAF believes the existing land-management planning
process is the most appropriate vehicle for making changes in
special provisions for the Tongass. We are especially concerned
that any legislation that interferes with this process would have
negative implications for professional land management throughout
TK:705 - 2 -
22-148 0-89-9
252
the Nation. In addition, the Alaska SAP feels the Forest
Services public involvement programs provide an adequate vehicle
for incorporating public opinion. The integrity of forest
planning is at stake.
The Alaska SAF encourages the development of management alterna-
tives both with and without the constraints imposed by the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act. If
Congress deems it appropriate, changes to ANILCA can be made
after the revised plan is completed.
Thank you for this opportunity to express the views of the
Alaska SAF.
TK:705 - 3 -
253
Senator Wirth. Mr. Funk.
STATEMENT OF KENT FUNK
Mr. Funk. My name is Kent Funk. My wife Sherry and I are
Ketchikan residents and just recently purchased a home north of
town. I am employed as a machinery salesman for McDonald In-
dustries.
McDonald Industries' main office is in Seattle and we operate
out of seven branches in Oregon, Washington and Alaska. The
Ketchikan Office, one of three in Alaska, was recently expanded.
We constantly have managerial and service personnel traveling
from Seattle throughout southeast Alaska. We spend a great deal
of money on air travel, motels, restaurants and car rentals.
Company-wide, 52 per cent of our business is dependent on the
logging industry. Thus far in the Ketchikan Branch 100 percent of
our business is dependent on logging operations in the Tongass Na-
tional Forest, from Ketchikan to Haines, including Prince of Wales
Island. At the present time we have over $6 million in company-
owned equipment operating in the Tongass. This generates revenue
for marine transportation, fuel companies, ferry systems and the
air taxi services.
Should the timber harvest quota be reduced it would directly and
quickly force a reduction in our presence and efforts in the Ton-
gass, not only reducing our volume of business but also our funds
spent in the regional economy. We would like to see the harvest
levels remain as they are.
I enjoy hunting and fishing in my spare time. My only concern
personally about the management of the Tongass is to ensure the
enhancement of our fisheries through proper logging practices.
Senator Wirth. You came to the magic moment, thank you very
much.
Mr. Bruce.
STATEMENT OF JIM BRUCE
Mr. Bruce. I am Jim Bruce. I will skip through the first three
paragraphs that you have and Senator, I would ask that that Eco-
nomic Analysis of the Ketchikan Economy be entered into the
record. I did not prepare it; it was prepared at the local university.
Senator Wirth. It will be available to the Committee, thank you.
Mr. Bruce. I support the Southeast Conference's Policy State-
ment with what I consider improvements. First, Provision in law
should now be made for long-term contract to be extended for an-
other 50 years, thereby long-term planning can be continued by in-
dustry with assurance that its needs for change and expansion till
be met and second, neither the legislation nor the long-term con-
tracts should be written in such absolute language as we now use.
More leeway must be given the Forest Service to engage in con-
stant dialogue with the industry, local officials and the public
based on general statutory I guidelines.
My study in Japan last year taught me that we are not now and
will not compete with the Japanese way of doing business unless
you who govern make long term peace with industry, with worker,
with native, with environment and with the locals. Thank you.
254
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Bruce.
Senator Burns wanted to know if you are still acquainted with
Hank Brennan.
Mr. Bruce. Well, Hank Brennan and I were friends.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bruce follows:]
255
Welcome! I am Jim Bruce. [P.O. Box 7258, Ketchikan, Alaska
99901, Telephone (907) 225-9525]
I'm a third generation Coloradian--descended from homesteaders,
raised on the side of Pikes Peak and having B.S. and Juris
Doctorate degrees from the University of Colorado--but
transplanted to Ketchikan in 1964. My children are lucky enough
to have been born in Ketchikan and our oldest son has the name
"Denali" after our tallest mountain, which some people outside
mistakenly call Mount McKinley.
My position on the legislation before us is dictated by my
e-xperience growing up. On the one hand I love the out-of-doors.
My grandmother once chained herself to a Colorado Spruce Tree to
keep the City of Colorado Springs from cutting it down to widen a
street. She succeeded. My heritage teaches that our most
precious art work is natural.
On the other hand in high school I made up my mind that I would
live where there was some industry to go with my more ascetic
side seeking a cabin up a mountain. Only tourism supported my
little mountain town. People caume to see picturesque scenery,
not to assist my parents materially. It was obvious then, as it
is now, that the price of living well required industrial
productivity in my community. Even today with hundreds of
thousands of visitors to Ketchikan in the summer, only 5% of the
local personal income comes from tourisml/. Never-the-less, our
diverse economy here including forest products has afforded my
children the means to live in the best spot in this world.
Therefore, I support the Southeast Conference's Policy Statement,
with these improvements: (1) Provision in law should now be made
for the long term contract to be extended for another 50 year
term. Thereby, long term planning can be continued by industry
with assurance its needs for change and expansion will be meet.
(2) Neither the legislation nor long term contracts should be
written in such absolute language as we now use. More
256
leeway must be given the Forest Service to engage in constant
dialogue with the industry, local officials and the public based
ou general statutory guiding principles and not specifically
legislated paramaters.
My study in Japan last year taught me that we are not now and
will not compete with the Japanese way of doing business unless
you who govern make long term peace with industry, with worker,
with native, with environment, and with local citizen.
Thank you for listening but two minutes was not enough time.
1. C.L. Cheshire and Bryan Mangum, An Analysis of the Ketchikan
Economy, Economic Development Center, Ketchikan Community College
(renamed University of Alaska Southeast), June 1987, at page 31,
Table V. In contradistinction to the contribution of tourism,
the forest products industry contributes "2fc% of the basic
economy." Id. at 12. "The key ingredient for the financial
success of the [forest product] industry was and is the pulp
mill." Id. at 13. The Analysis should be read in its entirety
for it is more elegant and complete than I can be. A copy is
attached hereto to assist in understanding why the more
reflective members of this community so strongly support
continuation of the long term contract.
257
Senator Wirth. Mr. Prefontaine.
STATEMENT OF ED PREFONTAINE
Mr. Prefontaine. I am Ed Prefontaine, I am the Manager for
High and Dry Building and Plaster, and it is owned by my oldest
son.
I will skip over the creation of additional wilderness areas at the
request of minute but very vocal groups. Creation of a wilderness
area automatically condemns the land to non-use. It does not make
it a single-use lands; it is non-use; it then becomes a public liability
which only a select few taxpayers can enjoy.
The long term timber contracts should not be canceled in total.
The honesty and integrity of the government demands this. These
are not Indian Treaties. These contracts were made in good faith to
the American people and they should not be abrogated.
The Forest Service and Timber Industries in the Tongass areas
are staffed by competent and successful foresters and engineers.
We do not need interference by persons or groups that have no fi-
nancial stake locally. In short let them stay at home and tend to
their own affairs.
A well-managed forest on a sustained yield basis is to be pre-
ferred to urban decay, ghettos, drugs and street gangs, et cetera.
Consider a moment a bathroom without toilet tissue or a school-
room without pencil and paper. Is preserving a decaying forest
worth these privileges?
The welfare rate of participants in the Tongass Forest Industry
sets an enviable national record. If we lock up our forests we are
going to go on welfare.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Prefontaine.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prefontaine follows:]
258
TESTIMONY ON THE TONGASS TIMBER REFORM LEGISLATION
by ED PREFONTAINE
April 2A, 1989
The Wirth and Mrazek Bills are totaly unacceptable to The Alaska Titnber
Industry and most of the people of Southeast Alaska for the following reasons:
1. Creation of additional wilderness areas are at the request of minute, but
very vocal groups. They are well financed and willing to use any half-truths or
out right distortion to gain their goals. Creation of a wilderness area
automatically condemns the land to non-use and it then becomes a public
liability which only a select few taxpayers can enjoy. Indeed, that part of the
forest which is most accessable to the public is reached by using old logging
roads. The Tongass forest is by its very nature a self regenerating wilderness.
The recent debacle at Yellowstone National Park clearly demonstrates the future
of un-managed forest lands and its cost.
2. The long term timber contracts should not be cancelled in total. The
honesty and integrity of Government demand this. These are not Indian treaties.
These contracts were made in good faith to the American people.
3. The Forest Service and Timber Industries in the Tongass areas are staffed
by competent and succesful foresters and engineers. We do not need interference
by persons or groups that have no financial stake locally. In short let them
stay at home and tend to their own affairs.
4. A well managed forest on a sustained yield basis is to be prefered to urban
decay, ghettos, drugs and street gangs and social economic problems of other
states. Consider for a moment a bathroom without toilet tissue, a classroom
without paper and pencil. Is preserving a decaying forest worth these
privileges?
5. Many useful projects in the past have been delayed by the actions and
claims of minority groups, this has resulted in great cost and in many
instances, economic losses. We urgently need legislation forcing these groups
to assume financial responsibility when these claims prove to be groundless or
untrue. Until this is accomplished, the current scene will be repeated without
end
6. The welfare rate of participants in the Tongass Forest Industry sets an
enviable national record. The percentage rate is nearly non-existant. The
present bill if accepted would turn Southeast Alaska into a latter day
Appalachla. We do not need this. Why not leave self reliant and self
supporting people alone, and honor these contracts as they are written?
7. Many of the professional and highly skilled individuals, with knowledge of
the stability of the region, have moved into Southeast Alaska and in good faith
have invested heavily in housing and business enterprises. If legislation is
enacted which greatly impacts the economy, will Congress provide the finances to
repay these people for their Investments, and assist in relocation?
Please defeat the Wirth and Mrazek bills. Thank you.
259
Senator Wirth. Ms. Watt has joined us. Ms. Watt.
STATEMENT OF NANCY WATT
Ms. Watt. I apologize for my being late. I am Nancy Watt, I am
an Alaskan Cruise Lecturer and I support the timber industry in
the way it is right now.
I can tell you it is not a threat to tourism, nor is it offensive to
cruise ship passengers. It has a very positive effect on the thou-
sands of cruise passengers I have traveled with, for the majority of
tourists in this part of the state come on cruise ships.
For 17 years I have traveled on these cruises and voyages in the
Alaskan waters and I have personally talked to and dealt with
about — mingled with about 12,000 people over a long period of
time. Let me tell you what the typical cruise ship passenger is look-
ing for and hoping to find.
First of all he wants to see beautiful wilderness and they want to
find a frontier lifestyle. They are saying only that, is this really
Alaska's last frontier for American nature and the American
people. Will you find wilderness? Oh, oh, my yes, they are absolute-
ly amazed at the millions of trees and the lack of habitation. I am
happy to know that the Tongass National Forest is highly regulat-
ed and so much of it is already in wilderness and in fact they are
surprised that there is so little logging done in proportion to the
number of trees.
They are really interested in the American-Alaska lifestyle and
people and they constantly say, what do people do for a living here.
Happily I do not have to say about Ketchikan, they mostly work
for the government. I have to say, well, we are dependent on one
industry. In Ketchikan we can say some log, some fish, some tour-
ism industry and the rest of us pay for trees and sell to those who
do so the majority of course are cruise ship passengers and they
are finding different and an interesting lifestyle and the same
people co-exist with the wilderness they find at Tongass works out
very well and we hope you will too.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Burns.
Senator Burns. I just have one question of Mr. Begalka.
Is the Forest Service doing a good job or have they been lax in
enforcing their environmental rules and regulations in those areas
that have been heavily logged?
Mr. Begalka. Well, I think they have done a good job, I think —
well, I do not work for the Forest Service but I work for private
industry.
Senator Burns. That's why I asked you.
Mr. Begalka. Well I think our feeling is the same. By the way I
think they have taught a good forestry course, I do not know if
they still do or not but yes, I think the Forest Service has done a
good job.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much. We are very pleased
to have you with us. Thank you for being here and we appreciate
Ms. Watt, that you were able to make it, to slide in.
Senator Murkowski. I have one question to be directed to Mr.
Begalka.
260
There is concern over the ability to manage the forests but we
know that we have private and native lands which I believe have
to meet state regulations and then we have National Forests,
which is under the Forest Service. Could you comment in your pro-
fessional opinion on the adequacy of the State to manage and over-
see its responsibility on private lands for logging practices in a
manner in which is compatible, say with the Forest Service and I
take advantage of you because there are three professional forests
available that random select.
Mr. Begalka. Well, as you know right now the state is involved
in a renewal, a revision of the state's Forest Practices Act. Prob-
ably the most significant difference I can see and offhand would be
the size of the clearcuts. In the private timber the natives are al-
lowed to harvest all the wood.
The other problem that I could see is the fact that the state is
quite understaffed in their regulation personnel. They can get out,
they have two forces at Ketchikan who regulate the State Forest
Practices; the Forest Service on the other hand has a tremendous
number of machines and biologists that — they do very well to com-
plete.
Senator Wirth. What I am getting at and I think
Senator Murkowski. What I am getting at and I want the Chair-
man to understand the differentials because, we paint with a broad
brush accusations such as poor forest Management practices and
logging too close to creeks, erosion and so forth. I am wondering if
in some cases we are confusing and not making a distinction be-
tween what is happening on the private land or as you indicated
that there is a limitation of that state access to oversee us and the
fact that they can log much larger areas and that the control is
much stricter on federal lands than it is on the private lands and
that we see inconsistencies and we see more of them on private
lands than public lands or not.
Mr. Begalka. Well I do not really think — I think that the con-
trol is adequate and no matter what the state says — I work for the
natives sometimes too and I discovered the forest practices they in-
voked were as good as — they had the fence put up but it is a little
difficult to assess when you can take an entire valley and clearcut
it in a single 80-acre unit and I see no adverse problems either
way.
Senator Wirth. We thank you all very much. Mr. Begalka and
we thank you for your professional views.
Now if we might move to the next panel, Mr. John Blubaum,
Roger Arriola, David Bray, Steve Connelly, Brad Finney and
Robert Elliot. Perhaps moving up we might get our next six speak-
ers, Eric Hummel, Paul Dirksen, John Clifton, Laurin Boyer, Virgil
Gile and Tam Murphy.
Let us begin with this group, you are all familiar with the rules
of the committee and the constraint of time. The red light will go
on at the end of two minutes and as you know I will just be forced
to cut you off at that point and not being rude, only trying to re-
spect everybody else and get to them.
Mr. Blubaum.
261
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BLUBAUM
Mr. Blubaum. Before we start I would like to present you with
another petition like the ones presented earlier; it has over 100 sig-
natures and represents 500 people but it is basically from the
My name is John Blubaum and I have been a resident of — now
this is in support of Mr. Murkowski's Bill.
Anyway, my name is John Blubaum and I have been a resident
of Prince of Wales Island for 29 years. I am after the balance that
you said. By professional classification I am a logger but basically I
am just a person trying to make a living. I have been a member —
an elected official in southeast — we have 15 in the school district.
We have 15 schools in the Tongass which gives me an opportunity
to travel and gives me an idea of the Tongass' grandeur.
I come from a small southern background and naturally I just
wanted to succeed and got into logging, as a logger. Now what hap-
pens to loggers is that it is hard to perceive rotating a crop every
hundred years. This ground is not — will not raise soybeans or corn
or wheat but it does an awful good job of raising spruce, hemlock
and cedar.
Also I would like to allude to Fernando Mendez, who is known as
Chico Mendez. When I say that everybody should recognize that
the name Mendez is an environmentalist in Brazil, the lumber cap-
ital, but basically he was a logger. Logging people do not realize
that but all he did was tapping rubber trees and when they got old
and would not produce any more he was a strong advocate of cut-
ting the trees and replanting them, rubber trees.
What he was against and why he lost his life was defending his
forest against deforestation so basically we are not deforesting.
Congress, we are just basically harvesting old mature trees.
The fishermen in this audience are basically farmers too; they
harvest crop once a year, a renewable resource, and if they are
lucky and diversified they might get two so
Senator Wirth. We have reached that point.
Mr. Blubaum. Well, I would like to say that Robert W. Service, a
poet from here promised — a promise made is a promise made.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blubaum follows:]
262
TESTIMONY BY
JOHN E. BLUBAUM
P.O. BOX 434
THORNE BAY, ALASKA 99919
907-828-3946
April 24, 1989
My name is John E. Blubaum and I've been a resident of Prince of Wales
Island for 29 years. I am an advocate of the balance of the Tongass
National Forest philosophy. By professional classification I am
termed a logger. I am married and have two sons who have been born in
the Tongass and presently live in the Tongass. I am a member of the
Moose Club, Elks Club and the Masonic Temple. I have served eigth
years on the Southeast Island School District Board and have coached
and refereed high school and junior high basketball for the last 15
years. Of those years of service on the school board and with other
activities, I have been able to travel extensively in the southeastern
portion of the Tongass. I have worked on Prince of Wales Island,
Revi 1 1 igagado Island, Admiralty Island and a couple of other smaller
Islands. This has given me the first hand knowledge of how I perceive
the Tongass and how it is managed.
I would like to try and focus on the idea that all of us here in this
room are really farmers. I was raised in southern Indiana in a small
farming community. I completed my high school education there and
then traveled to Los Angeles to attend college. I came up to Alaska
as a college student to work the summer of 1960. I liked the way of
life so well, I've been here ever since.
It is only natural that coming from a farming back ground, I can
actually perceive a logger as a farmer. We are basically a farmer and
everyone in this room could be a farmer in his own profession.
Wheather it be a newspaperman trying to glean his little acorn of
information on how he can perceive these hearings so he can write for
his paper. You people on the committee arm farmers trying to glean
information so, you can go back and make a decision. The fisherman in
this room are farmers that harvest a renewable crop every year. We as
loggers are merely farmers. It is hard for people to realize rotating
a crop every 100 years, puts you into the class of harvesting or
farming a renewable resource. We are not like a miner or an oilman
that deals with a non-renewable resource but, basically they are
harvesting the fruits of the land, wheather it be silver at Green
Creek or oil on the north slope. We are basically farmers, all of us,
every job we have, wheather we're a businessman trying to go out and
harvest the fruits of someone elses labor selling them a product. We
in turn are no different, we're harvesting logs from a small percent
of an over mature forest.
Now, I would like to allude to Francisco Mendes Filho, better known as
"Chico Mendes". When I say the name of Chico Mendes everyone will
recognize his name as an environmentalist, rubber tapper or logger who
263
was killed de-fending his -forest in Brazil. A lot o-f people don't
realize that Chico was really a logger. He wasn't opposed to logging.
Mhat he was reall-/ opposed to was de-f orestation. But, everyone
perceives him as anti logging. He wasn't anti logging. He was in
favor o-f a healthy forest and that was mainly his job. He was -farming
rubber and he was the head o-f the rubber tapping union in Brazil. All
they were doing was farming by going out and tapping the rubber trees
and receiving the latex from them for making rubber. However, he knew
that when a tree got old and started producing less and less rubber it
was time to fall that tree and utilize the lumber and plant a new
tree. And that is basically what we do.
We are in the process of harvesting old mature trees and planting new
ones. Then when someone alludes to the greenhouse effect that might
be taking place because of the vast deforestation of the Amazon area
has nothing to do with the Tongass. What it does have to do with is
the lack of common sense management of their forest. When you see a
picture of a terribily large clearcut make sure you know where it
comes from, wheather it is on private timber such as the Indian
corporation. You will not see them on the Tongass, because it's not
allowed by the forest service. You folks know that, I know that and
everyone in this room should know it. But, the environmentalist or
these people who Bre trying to emulate Chico Mendes say, hey they »re
tearing our forest up.
Lets all try in the future wheather we are fisherman, logger,
businessman, all try to emulate Chico Mendes and try to save a dying
forest. The way to do that is to harvest the over mature old trees.
Plant news ones and get a healthy forest going again. This not only
serves two pole purpose, as adding oxygen to the atmosphere to kind of
counteract the deforestation in Brazil, (if you would like to think of
it in that manner). It provides utilizing nature, it utilized a
promise that has already been given to the people of our great state
of Alaska. All we are asking is that when you try to make your
decision, try to think and emulate Chico Mendes. Save our forest by
allowing the forest service to continue to manage it in a proper
manner where we can all live in the Tongass. The fisherman, logger,
businessman, tourist, everyone is important and no one is more
important than the other person. But, the main thing is, here we have
a little piece of gound cornored in the great scheme of things that is
over mature and needs to be harvested. It can be harvested properly
and can be replaced properly. Lets don't talk about how the native
corporations manage there land. Thats their business. We're here
today to discuss how to manage the Tongass.
Do not eliminate jobs without just cause. I maintain all Alaskans
live outside of the comfort zone but, we do so by choice. Don't put
an added hardship upon the small population of our state. One base of
our employment field will effect all of the residents of Southeast
Alaska. Each committee member probably has cities in your state with
more population than our whole state of 450,000 people. It is so hard
for such a minority ' of population to try and convince the vast
majority that we are not over harvesting and devestating the state of
Alaska.
264
I wholeheartedly support the idea that there is a balance that can be
maintained efficiently and easily here in the Tongass. All we have to
do is use a little common sense and we can all go on with our lives.
My children who where born in the Tongass can continue to live in the
Tongass and their childrens children can live in the Tongass if they
so desire too! All, because there will always be a crop to harvest.
Thank you.
John E. Blubaum
265
Senator Wirth. Mr. Arriola.
STATEMENT OF RODGER ARRIOLA
Mr. Arriola. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you.
My name is Rodger Arriola and I am a 34-year resident of Ketch-
ikan and employee of Ketchikan Pulp Company for 15 years. I am
an employee representative affiliated with the Association of West-
ern Pulp and Paper Workers, Ward Cove Local 783.
Local 783 represents 308 of the 374 hourly employees at Ketchi-
kan Pulp Company. Two weeks ago, when I learned of this opportu-
nity to testify I began to solicit support from co-workers on the
issue of the Tongass. Many were reluctant to support written or
local opposition to KPC management position, mainly out of fear of
losing their jobs. On four previous occasions mill workers and this
community have been held economic hostage to KPC's threat of
shutting the pulp mill down, yet my co-workers feel something
needs to be said and done concerning this scare tactic of crying
wolf and the erroneous statements concerning wages, benefits and
profits shared equally by all employees at KPC. In spite of the dev-
astating wage and benefit cuts and a recent attempt by manage-
ment to oust Local 783 from the mill, KPC employees wish to make
it known that we have not shut the mill down by going out on
strike or other means. In fact record production levels and record
profits have been achieved during this time, yet once again when
KPC comes under scrutiny for mismanagement of our resources
they are the ones who threaten to shut the mill down. Ketchikan
Mill Employees, when is enough enough?
We have already felt the travesty of having the economic carpet
literally pulled out from under our feet by present KPC manage-
ment who felt the need to terminate our contract with them and
implement new conditions which are favorable to them. When mill
management talks about a restructured operation and reduction of
internal costs that allow them to be competitive, mill employees
know what they are talking about. Devastating reductions in wages
and benefits, poor labor relations to the point KPC employees are
the lowest paid workers in the entire pulp and paper industry on
the West Coast.
KPC wants written guarantees from the Federal Government, a
commitment in the form of the present contracts. Yet KPC employ-
ees have tried in vain for nearly five years and have not achieved
the goal of obtaining a fair contract with present mill manage-
ment.
To coin a phrase I once heard, this is the moral equivalent of war
and if we will not be vocal we will continue to be the victims of
this Great Alaskan Rip-Off.
Mr. Chairman, there must be some form of sanity brought back
into this industry spurned by greed before more people are hurt be-
cause of the waste and mismanagement. If your bill now pending
before the Congress will help bring this about I support your bill,
however with one exception.
Under Title III, Section 302 (a) and (b), if it is possible to attain,
this section must be amended to permanently protect these areas
266
which are important to many of my co-workers as well as the Fish-
ing and Tourism Industries. If required, I am able to supply de-
tailed information to support this testimony.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Arriola.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arriola follows:]
267
April 24, 1989
Mr. Cliairman and members of the coranittee, thank you for the oppeirtunity to
testify at this hearing. My name is Rodger Arriola. I am a 34 year resident
of Ketchikan and an employee of Ketchikan Pulp Ccmpany for 15 years. I am a
employee representative, affiliated vdth the Association of Western Pulp euid
Paper Vtoricers, Ward Cove Local 783. Local 783 represents 308 of the 374
hourly employees at KPC. T\(*d weeks ago, when I learned of this oppertunity to
testify. I began to solicit support frcm oo-woricers on the issue of the
Ttongass. Many were reluctant to support written or vocal opposition to KPC
managements position, mainly out of fear of losing their jobs. On four
previous occasions mill workers and this comnunity have been held economic
hostage to KPC's threat of shutting the pulp mill down. Many of my co-
workers feel something needs to be said and done oonceming this sccure tactic
of "crying wolf" and the erroneous statements ocxiceming wages, benefits and
profits shared "equally by all" employees at KPC. In spite of devestating
wage and benefit cuts, and a recent attempt by management to oust AWPPW from
the mill, KPC employees vdsh to make it known that we have not shut the mill
down by going out on strite or other means. In fact, record production levels
and record profits have been achieved during this time. Yet, once again when
KPC comes under the scrutiny for mismanagement of our resources, they are the
ones who threaten to shut the mill down. Ketchilcan! Mill enployees! When is
axjugh, enough? W6 have already felt the travesty of having the economic
cairpet literadly pulled out from under us by present KPC raanagemait who felt
the need to texminate our contract with them and implement new ccxiditions
which were favorable to them. When mill management talks about a restructured
operation and a reduction of internal costs that allow them to be competitive,
mill employees know what they are talking about. Devestating reductions in
wages and benefits, poor labor relations to the point, KPC employees are the
lowest paid workers in the entire pulp and paper industry cxi the west coast.
KPC wants writtQi guarantees from the Federal Government, a committment in the
form of the present contracts. Yet KPC enployees have tried in vain for
nearly five years and have not achieved the goal of obtaining a fair ocxitract
with preseit mill management.
268
To coin a phrase I once heazd, this is the "moral equivalent of war", and if
we will not be vocal we will continue to be the victims of this Great Alaskan
Rip-Off.
Mr. Chairman, there must be some form of sanity brought back into this
industry spumed by greed before more people are hurt because of the waste and
mismanagement. (IF) your bill now pending before the congress will help to
bring this adxxit, I support your bill. However, with one excepticxi. Under
Title III, section 302 (a) and (b), if it is possible to attain, this section
must be amended to permanantly protect these areas which are important to many
of my oo-'workers as well as the Fishing and Tourism Industries. If required,
I am able to supply detailed informaticxi to support this testimcxiy. Which if
the coRmittee desires I will make available at your request.
269
Senator Wirth. Mr. Bray.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BRAY
Mr. Bray. My name is David Bray and I am a member of the
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters. I am not against logging since
my father worked in the local pulp mill for 26 years. What is both-
ering me is that a clearcut cannot be cleaned up by removing all
the slash. Why cannot logging equipment such as old cable, rusted
flywheels and drums be removed from the streambeds? Granted,
not all streams in a clearcut area have these problems.
I realize it would cost extra money to do this but we as fisher-
men have to spend extra money to protect our resources.
Whatever bill is adopted it should make the logging company
police their logging practices.
All I am concerned about from a fisherman's point of view is pro-
tecting a resource that I make a living from. The fishermen have
given up a lot in terms of enhancing their resource, why cannot
the logging companies give a little in a form of a compromise and
those in recreation and
Well, I recommend strong enforcement.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Bray a refreshing
statement.
Mr. Connelly.
STATEMENT OF STEVE CONNELLY
Mr. Connelly. My name is Steve Connelly and I live and work
at Ketchikan Pulp at Thorne Bay on Prince of Wales Island year-
round.
Senator Wirth, I am opposed to your bill because one way or an-
other it attempts to shut down our industry through contract can-
cellation and reducing our timber supply.
After ANILCA agreement we thought a lasting compromise had
been reached and we could go to work with a secure timber base
and harvest levels. This was an agreement which put two-thirds of
the commercial forest land in wilderness or other non-harvest des-
ignations.
These compromises may not shut us down or kill us initially but
they are surely killing us by half.
Now you and preservation groups are back and want even more
of a small timber base upon which our livelihoods, families and
communities depend. We are tired of being told that we have to
sacrifice our productive lifestyle by other people with more wealth
and sophistication who will bear no part of the costs imposed on us.
The men and women in the timber industry contribute to this
country by working hard and paying taxes and then they find that
their sustenance is not as important as that of an over-mature
forest of which eight million acres in the Tongass is already pre-
served. It's now apparent there is no effective counterbalance to
the environmental movement. Senator, I wish you would consider
people to be at least as important as fish and as deer.
The real tragedy of legislation is that there is no crisis in the
Tongass Forest. Our timber industry is renewing a small portion of
a decaying forest through sustained yield forestry. Fish and wild-
270
life populations are thriving and their habitat has a higher priority
than timber harvesting in the planning process.
If any changes are needed to be made in the Tongass they should
be addressed in the Tongass Land Management Planning process.
Resource professionals should determine the proper balances in the
forest and it should not be the subject of legislation.
I would like to close by telling Senator Burns we beat the seven
day week in the logging camp. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Thank you Mr. Connelly.
Senator Burns, I am assuming again that that was part of a beef
we had.
Now Mr. Finney.
STATEMENT OF BRAD FINNEY
Mr. Finney. My name is Brad Finney and I am a lifetime resi-
dent of Alaska and in the audience are my two children who repre-
sent the fourth generation of my Alaskan lineage.
My family and I utilize the Tongass Forest as our recreational
area.
I am an avid hunter and camper and have covered more miles on
foot in the Alaska Wilderness than the good Senators covered
flying here from Washington. If I were to run into other people in
my travels I would be appalled and most certainly move on to find
a less impacted area.
I feel fresh clearcuts are an eyesore and as a rule stay clear of
them. I love Alaskan solitude, old growth timber stands, shaded
streams and gentle rains. I live here because of these qualities; I do
not want to lose them.
In my 33 years in Alaska I have been able to satisfy all these
desires on Prince of Wales Island amidst the most extensively
logged areas in southeast.
When I was born there was seven miles of road on Prince of
Wales, now there are over 700 driveable miles. It is because of
these roads, this access into the wilderness, that I have always
found Prince of Wales so inviting and such a good source of recrea-
tion.
I work for a heavy construction company which historically de-
rives 50 percent of its annual work from the timber contracts and
employs up to 300 people.
If our Congress breaks the long-term contracts and breaks the
ANILCA Agreement, I would heartily support such legislation, I
would also support the subsequent subsidies to us not to log and
not to build roads. A few hundred million more in agricultural sub-
sidies would hardly be noticed I am sure.
With this alternate source of income I will then be better able to
enjoy the wilderness I love, Prince of Wales Island.
I think wilderness is a good and healthy thing for the environ-
ment and for this country. I think Alaska has enough and if you
doubt it I invite you to take a hike with me into some of the non-
designated wilderness areas.
Let us not lock up Alaska's resources, its recreation, its future. I
want my children to live in Alaska — let us not make it a park for a
very wealthy few.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Finney follows:]
271
^^ <PA II ^<=i ^t^ /yuDSsT ^er^TnMj moue^ <=>r\
<pp -tktnn. J. lo^e. /f/ask^n -Sc^n-^u^^j
fxci^e oec^wse c^^ "Me'-S^e j uy.U^'i'Le.S^.'-
272
;l.
VVnen T U'v^JS /oorn -tAer^ v\/'tuSi 7^
ni?/^s. Ji ^^ hec^iust^ of fhese
A=*c> r^ii/fT^rac. ^ncd .^CiCin ^ c^<=xD<a -^ our c£.
+erm pLOs^irc^c-h^^^J lo re^k^, -fine An^SI^
^cic/ leer's I a'f'/'oi^, ZT K/foM/S^^/^J
! Wf-fA -/-V^ ^l+ernci-itz -^o Lire a <=>f
\Jr\aiDme ZT lu'T/ /-/-/) en be loe-hier cahAe
273
en^T^onryien~r ^«o<^ Tor -hUi^^ IXoun-W^i
-fne nan- ^eSijn<^'t'€c/ p^/fk/erncSS^ ^^t^OsS.
/.ef' ^ nc>i^ona/<£^ T-^r ^ park for <
274
STATEMENT OF BOB ELLIOT
Mr. Elliot. My name is Bob Elliot and I thank you for the oppor-
tunity to voice my opinion.
My wife and I own and operate Coastal Machinery in southeast
Alaska. We have facilities in both Ketchikan and Juneau and pro-
vide sales and service of equipment for the logging industry
throughout southeast. We have been in business for ten years and
currently have 26 employees.
I know I speak for all of them and their families when I urge the
Congress of the United States not to renege on the last compromise
concerning the Tongass National Forest.
We have made commitments in southeast Alaska, largely due to
the conditions already set forth in 1980. From an economical stand-
point that commitment includes borrowing money long term, simi-
lar to the investments made by the two pulp mills based on those
long term contracts.
Legislation to reduce the amount of timber available and cancel
the current long term contracts would have a devastating effect on
not only all of our employees and their families but thousands of
others that choose southeast Alaska as their home.
While the Government may have the ability to take our tax dol-
lars and buy back the contracts with the pulp mills, they do not
have the ability to absolve themselves of the moral responsibility to
the people for the resultant loss of jobs and business from such
action. I caution you, the ripple effect would not stop there.
In light of this country's current trade deficit, it would seem a
more prudent approach might be the wise development of our nat-
ural resources, especially our renewable resources such as the Ton-
gass, rather than compounding the problem by locking up more
land for wilderness.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much, we appreciate your
being here and giving us the benefit of your views.
We might move to the next six, to the table please. Mr. Eric
Hummel, Mr. Paul Dirksen, Mr. John Clifton, Laurin Boyer and
Virgil Gile and Tarn Murphy, move to the chairs please, Mr.
Thomas O'Dowd, Corrine Radergraham, Nellie Howatt, Stan
Swartz, Bill Rotecki and Mr. Bolshakoff.
We can start with Eric Hummel.
STATEMENT OF ERIC HUMMEL
Mr. Hummel. My name is Eric Hummel and I live on Gravina
Island; I am a ten-year resident.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of the Tongass
Timber Reform Act.
There are 70,000 people who live and work and play in Southeast
Alaska. The logging industry employs several thousand of these
but in the public comments of these hearings they have tried to
make you believe that they speak for the remaining 65,000 of us.
Sorry, there are plenty of Alaskans who support the Tongass
Timber Reform Act.
The Tongass National Forest is used in some way by each of its
residents and people come from all over the world to marvel at its
275
wilderness, its natural beauty and botanical wealth. This should
not be a single use National Forest but it is being managed as
such. Fish and wildlife habitat and scenic recreation and tourism
potential are all damaged or destroyed in clearcuts. These are
areas that have been stripped of their multiple use potential. The
Tongass needs a balance between logging and its other uses. This
balance has been lost.
The 4.5 billion board-foot decade production mandate imposed on
the U.S. Forest Service by Congress does not allow for the reasona-
ble management on a multiple use basis. National Forest manage-
ment cannot come from politically based production quotas. This is
the way the Soviet Union runs its agriculture and it is not a good
way to run our national forests. From a personal standpoint this
means that the places where we go camping with our families, fish-
ing with our friends or sightseeing with our guests are on the chop-
ping block. These are places full of deer, otter, bear, wolves and
eagles, as well as salmon, trout, steelhead and Dolly Varden and
yet when we work toward the protection of the places that we love
best we know that our success is based on the sacrifice of someone
else's back yard.
Please cancel the 50-year contracts, repeal the 4.5 billion board-
foot harvest mandate and please give permanent protection to
some of the aresis that we most value for its wildlife and recreation
value. Permanent protection will not lock up the land but will lock
up the Tongass use, stripping it of all value by clearcutting it.
Let us share use of this wonderful region with loggers, fisher-
men, hunters, campers, tourists and just plain people and then we
will have something to share with our children and our grandchil-
dren.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Hummel.
Paul Dirksen.
STATEMENT OF PAUL DIRKSEN
Mr. Dirksen. My name is Paul Dirksen and I am from Anchor-
age. I am a Real Estate Appraiser and have been appraising in the
State of Alaska since 1964. I am a resident of Juneau and have
wide experience appraising southeast Alaska.
I wanted to comment on the impact on real estate value if there
is a termination of the timber contract.
In 1982 when they were proposing to move the capitol from
Juneau to Willow I was employed by the new capitol's County
Commissioner to do a study of what I could be expected to happen
to real estate values in Juneau if the capitol were moved. Based on
that study our conclusion was that values would decline in the
neighborhood of 50 percent.
Since that time we have had a drastic decline in real estate
values in Anchorage where my principal business operation is;
properties that were selling in 1985 for $100,000 are selling now for
as low as 25,000 or in the neighborhood of a 75 percent decline in
values.
This is the impact after only a 12.5 percent decline in population.
Typical real estate purchases involve an equity payment of perhaps
276
20 percent, with the balance being borrowed from financial institu-
tions. Decline in value in the neighborhood of 30 percent would in-
volve a total loss of the equity; it would often hurt the people that
owned it and as we have been learning quite recently breaking
banks as well. Over the weekend we heard that the Alliance Bank
went down. The cancellation of the timber contract would elimi-
nate the only year-round employment in southeast Alaska.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Dirksen, I am afraid we are at that point.
Mr. Clifton.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. CLIFTON, CHAIRMAN, KETCHIKAN
OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Clifton. My name is John Clifton and I am employed by a
locally owned First Bank. I am Chairman of the Overall Economic
Development Program in Ketchikan; the Committee consists of 14
citizens in the City and Borough of Ketchikan and the members
have backgrounds from diversity in the public and private sector.
The Committee was designed to create employment opportuni-
ties, costs are more stable and diversified local economies, improve
local conditions and provide a mechanism for building and coordi-
nating the efforts of local individuals and organizations concerned
with the economic development of the Ketchikan Community.
At a special meeting held on March 28th the Committee voted to
support the Policy Statement of the Alaska Loggers Association on
the Tongass Legislation. The vote was six to two voting against the
motion; the two minority voters did acknowledge their support for
the Policy Statement on the Tongass National Forest Legislation as
presented by the Southeast Conference.
Now many of the arguments that we have heard here deal with
emotional issues. The information in my written statement clearly
shows the economic importance of the timber industry to southeast
Alaska and the impact of reduction levels of harvest. With small
reductions harvest the levels of employment and population would
significantly be lowered and the opportunities to use the region
would be greatly reduced.
I urge careful consideration of the Tongass National Forest Leg-
islation and the economic impact of your decisions on the people in
the communities in Southeast Alaska.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clifton follows, attachments re-
tained in subcommittee files:]
277
TESTIMONY FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS
RELATED TO THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST LEGISLATION
JOHN M. CLIFTON, CHAIRMAN
KETCHIKAN OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
April 24, 1989
278
The Ketchikan Overall Economic Development Committee is designed
to create employment opportunities, foster more stable and
diversified local economies, improve local conditions, and
provide a mechanism for guiding and coordinating the efforts of
local individuals and organizations concerned with the economic
development of the Ketchikan community. Members are appointed by
the Borough Mayor. The Committee is comprised of 5 sub-
committees, Timber, Fisheries, Tourism and Secondary Industries.
The membership represents a cross section of the public and
private sector of the community.
While our stated purpose is to promote development, it is clearly
understood that the preservation of existing jobs is critical to
the economic well being of the community.
The Committee approved a motion on March 28, 1989 supporting the
"Policy Statement of the Alaska Loggers Association on Tongass
Legislation" (see attached Exhibit 2). The vote was 6 to 2 with
the chair only voting in case of a tie. While two members of the
committee do not support the ALA statement, they do support the
"Policy Statement on the Tongass National Forest Legislation and
Management" prepared by the Southeast Conference (see exhibit 3).
The members are opposed to the legislation that will cost the
area jobs.
Recognizing the importance of the industry, the timber sub-
committee initiated the idea for the conference on "The Future of
the Timber Industry In Southeast Alaska" which was held January
28, 1989 and was sponsored by the University of Alaska Southeast
- Ketchikan and the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce. The idea with
the conference was for the speakers to present their views in a
format that could be published and used in the future.
Unfortunately the program was not well covered by the media, and
the written text of their presentations was just made available
this week.
Dr George W. Rogers of Juneau, Alaska gave a first hand
perspective in his presentation of "The Impact of the Long Term
Contracts on the Economy of Southeast Alaska: 1954 - 1988". The
long term contracts were what made the development of the timber
industry possible (see exhibit 4).
Drs. Con Schallau and Wilbur R. Maki of the Pacific Northwest
Research Station in Corvalis, Oregon presented their findings in
a presentation titled "Some Economic Implications of a Change in
Timber Harvesting on the Tongass National Forest" which they
developed with the assistance of Dr. Doug 01son(6ee exhibit 5).
I would summarize their presentation with an excerpt:
"An economic impact analysis of Southeast Alaska
demonstrates that some plausible changes in harvesting from
the Tongass National Forest will be accompanied by
significant changes in employment. A reduction from the
current harvesting level of 396 mmbf to 350mmbf would
279
eventually eliminate a total of 400 jobs directly and
indirectly associated with the timber processing industry.
The seriousness of this possibility is further amplified by
the fact that Southeast Alaska will experience a significant
loss of jobs as harvesting by the Native Corporations
declines . "
As a personal note, I have lived in the northwest all my life.
As a Boy Scout I grew up loving the forest, hiking and camping,
observing the wildlife.
The forests were both publicly and privately owned. To this day
one of my favorite camping spots is a meadow that was created as
the site for a logging camp long since torn down. I never
thought much about it. Yes, I knew that the area had been clear
cut thirty years earlier, but that didn't make the under brush
less dense as we scavenged for dry fire wood. Old logging roads
made access to most of the areas possible. The trees grew tall
and strong.
Sometimes when I'd sit around the campfire talking with my dad.
He'd tell me how he had grown up enjoying the out of doors,
spending the summers hiking and fishing in the wilderness. Like
his father, he was concerned about clear cutting of the forests.
My dad was a highway contractor, he saw lots of logging, and
built hundreds of miles of roads. But, he was always amazed at
how fast the forest grew back after harvesting the trees. He
knew that with management suited to the region the forests would
come back to be harvested again in the future.
I work for a local bank that serves Southeast Alaska. I didn't
move here for the job, I moved here to be close to the out-of-
doors, to live and work with people who enjoy the forests, rivers
and ocean as much as I do. My neighbor has a kayak, I have a
power boat, we both use the same ocean, we get along as friends
and neighbors. Alaska is big enough for a variety of vocations
and avocations.
After 4 years I have stopped being concerned about how few non-
Alaskans understand this state, its size and its people. But I
continue to be frustrated by how so much of our lives are
affected by people who don't live here.
If the Valdez oil spill had happened of the coast of Long Island,
New York I bet it would be cleaned up by now because the
politicians in New York would know how to take care of their
constituents. Similarly, the Alaska Congressional delegation is
best suited to work with the people of Alaska. I support them.
In conclusion, the Tongass National Forest Legislation issue
impacts all of Southeast Alaska. Our economy and life style
depends on a balance of the factors involved. To alter the
management plan for the Tongass without careful consideration to
the economic impacts is not a viable option.
280
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Clifton.
Mr. Boyer?
STATEMENT OF LAURIN BOYER
Mr. Boyer. Gentlemen, I am glad to be here for the opportunity
to express my views on the Tongass Region.
My name is Laurin Boyer, and I am an employee of the South-
east Stevedoring. I travel all over southeast Alaska with my work
and I love this area and have hunted, fished and trapped in it since
1952.
I believe that logging using sound practices and sustained yield
should be taking place and thought of in much the same manner as
a farmer raising and harvesting crops.
Any cut in the amount of timber harvesting would surely have
an impact on the economy of this area.
My main concern is that decisions affecting our logging and econ-
omy are being made based on emotionalism, misrepresentation, ig-
norance and downright lies.
At least three of the nation's leading magazines have had arti-
cles which are filled with examples of this.
Comparing our self-reproducing forests to the tragedy happening
in Brazil's forests where massive areas are cleared by burning for
the growth of coca and other crops is the height of ignorance.
I have heard logged areas compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To me they could be compared to a wheat field after harvesting
and I know from experience that after a few years new trees and
brush will grow up and make it a haven for deer, bear and other
wildlife.
And save a 400-year-old tree? From what? It will soon be a pile of
rot. It could have been used to provide work to bolster our local
economy and reduce our nation's trade imbalance.
My conclusion is that southeast Alaska is the victim of an emo-
tional minority who blindly serve their own self interests to their
own end and a government who still breaks treaties and agree-
ments as readily as they have done in the past.
Our trees are a natural renewable resource and lets allow them
to be harvested following a sound management plan brought to-
gether by Alaskans for Alaskans.
Thank you. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyer.
Mr. Virgil Gile.
STATEMENT OF VIRGIL GILE
Mr. Gile. My name is Virgil Gile and I am a 30-year resident of
Alaska and I am representing the International Longshoremen and
Warehousemens Union Local 87. I am here to speak in support of
the Murkowski-Stevens Bill 237.
The continual picking away at the timber industry in the Ton-
gass has caused a great amount of instability for the working
people of Alaska. The two pulp mills and their satellite sawmills
have given southeast Alaskans their first stable year around em-
ployment, which has been enjoyed by workers, families and the
281
service community for over 30 years — hardly a cut and run oper-
ation as depicted by our critics.
The two pulp mills are continually being sniped at as being
giant, mindless, foreign entities. May I remind you that the mill
employees are Alaskans, working to do their part for the economic
well being of America. Stop the mills and associated timber indus-
try and great harm will be done to America. The stability of indus-
try mentioned has allowed us to put down roots, build homes, edu-
cate our children, and establish healthy, thriving communities in a
very harsh climate. The past 12-15 years, there has been a growing
number of attacks on the timber industry by lock-ups into wilder-
ness, with an ongoing demand for more, of good viable timber in
the Tongass. Of the remaining timber made available to us, endless
legal challenges of every timber sale confronts us. It takes at least
two or three years to prepare a timber sale by the Forest Service,
then two or three years in court and finally it is too expensive for
the small companies and only the bigger companies can afford the
waiting, uncertainty, roller coaster lumber market and high cost of
operating in the northern climate. To take back the guarantee of
resource timber, as promised in the 1950s, and put us on a catch-as-
catch-can offering of timber is not conducive to any long range sur-
vival of industry.
I have heard on C-Span and read in the media that Alaska's con-
gressional delegation is one of the most highly regarded and known
for their honesty and integrity. Encourage all members of the
House and Senate to keep this in mind and support their bills on
the Tongass and help us survive here in Alaska.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Gile. I want to call
everyone's attention to that portion of your statement which will
be, we all agree, about the high regard which the Alaska Delega-
tion is held.
Our final witness in this panel is Mr. Tam Murphy.
STATEMENT OF TAM MURPHY
Mr. Murphy. My name is Tam Murphy and I am currently presi-
dent of Local 62 Ketchikan. I was born and raised here in Ketchi-
kan and I have made my living from the timber industry for the
last 23 years. I have seen rises and falls of work opportunity in the
timber industry and right now the industry can take no more de-
creases in job opportunities. The contract the mills have now in
southeast Alaska is also a contract for our homes, family and job
security, now and in the future. I feel that if the Wirth bill were to
pass, loss of job opportunity would follow and all of us in the
I.L.W.U. and the timber industry making a living from the forest
would be looking for new careers without any compensation from
the bill.
I feel the Alaska bill would give the mills and all of us related to
the timber industry for our livelihood a fair chance to stay in the
industry.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. We appreciate all the
members of this panel.
Senator Burns. May I ask a question?
282
Mr. Hummel, I want to thank you for your testimony here today.
It was very well thought out and I congratulate you for that and
you dealt with the managing of the Tongass and I guess it brings
out why Senator Wirth has been continuing to ask you questions
and well put, I might add, about why manage different here or cer-
tain things about Tongass that is not applied to other forests.
Would you agree that management of our different national for-
ests all over the 50 states should be determined on a case-by-case
basis?
Mr. Hummel. Yes, I think it should be determined at the Forest
Service level and you guys are here to provide policy but not to fill
in all the numbers is my understanding and what has happened
here in the Tongass that you said that there is this 4.5 billion
board foot mandate and that in essence did take a policy which is
allowed for use.
Senator Burns. Now as you said that the forests should be dealt
with on a case-by-case basis by professional foresters, not by us, but
when we get the right information and sifting through it, would
you agree or disagree at this point that S. 237 addressed this?
Mr. Hummel. Senator Wirth's bill addresses this, yes, I think
that he addressed that.
Senator Burns. I think S. 237 is Senator Murkowski's Bill.
Mr. Hummel. No, I do not think because in his bill he does not
eliminate the mandate from Congress to provide 4.5 billion board
feet of lumber per year.
Senator Burns. But you don't want us to get into the microman-
agement?
Mr. Hummel. That is what Senator Murkowski does, it stays in
the micromanagement business but what I am asking you to do is
to get out of it.
Senator Burns. Would you agree that S. 346 best addresses that?
Mr. Hummel. Yes, I think Senator Wirth's bill best addresses
that.
Senator Murkowskl Now our bill provides up to the determina-
tion being made on the state of the industry, the ability of the
market to assimilate that, does not necessarily mandate 4.5.
I have been reminded that I have one very brief question I would
ask Mr. Clifton if he generally agrees with the statement made by
Mr. Dirksen with regard to real estate values. If the pulp mills
were to shut down here the values, as I understand you, would de-
cline 50 percent, is that basically it?
Mr. Clifton. Yes.
Senator Wirth. Would you agree, being in the banking business,
that you would expect that kind of decline? We have already seen
what happened in Anchorage so we have some comparison.
Mr. Clifton. Then the best I can speak to that question would be
that in, I believe 1984 or 1985 there was a shutdown of a spruce
mill locally. Prior to that, I think it was 1985, real estate prices hit
a high. There was a very high use of rental units, no vacancy rates.
With that mill closure and also with the slowdown of the crews at
that time in the logging industry, housing prices fell dramatically.
Even with the strength now of the timber industry and the fishing
industry and the tourism, prices still have not reached that level
again. They say what the decline in the real estate prices would be
283
honestly depends on what the number of employment drops would
be and the information that we have shows that reduction in cut-
ting of fifty million board feet in the area would cost 400 jobs, indi-
rectly or directly in the industry and it states 50 percent and I
could not necessarily agree with that.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, I think it would be proper for
the record if the committee would review the effect of certain other
areas. If redwoods are taken out of the commercial forests or wil-
derness and what the resulting obligation of the Federal Govern-
ment was in regards to homes, loss of equity and so forth which at
that time can all be leased under the Federal Government. We did
not go into that and thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. The committee just wants to take a stretch for a
minute and we thank you all very much and we will have our next
group be prepared to move in and ask this group — well, why do not
we take a stretch for about seven to ten minutes. We are about
halfway through this.
[Recess taken.]
Senator Wirth. The Subcommittee will come to order again. The
witnesses this afternoon, starting with the panel we have called
before and the next panel that will come up and take the chairs up
there, Mr. Littleton, Marcia Ryno, Mr. Kevin Moore, Robert Soule
and Dan Zink.
Let us start with this panel. Mr. O'Dowd, speak right up.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. O'DOWD
Mr. O'Dowd. My name is Thomas L. O'Dowd, I am the Managing
General Partner of the Ketchikan Bowling Center.
I and three others built this center in 1982; the cost of the Center
was approximately $3 million. Since that time the Bowling Center
has averaged approximately 50 employees per month. We have de-
termined that at least 50 percent of our league and nonleague
bowlers are employed in timber. This could be a primary or second-
ary type of employment and this constitutes approximately $70,000
a month in gross revenue. Each bowler spends approximately
$2,000 per year in the Bowling Center and the Bowling Center is
dependent on bowlers in timber-related industries in Ketchikan.
These include logging companies, equipment companies, construc-
tion companies, insurance companies and banks.
Bowling has traditionally been a blue collar sport and in Ketchi-
kan more so than in most areas. We depend on those loggers, pulp
mill workers, related workers and their families. Bowling is a rela-
tively expensive sport. Without jobs they will give up on recreation-
al activities, including bowling.
To conclude, when we built the Bowling Center we believed that
the United States Government would honor its contracts and obli-
gations with respect to the Tongass National Forest and to the
pulp mills. Otherwise we would not have made the financial com-
mitment to our community. It is equally certain that if the pro-
posed Tongass legislation is passed the Bowling Center will not be
able to meet those obligations and will be forced to close.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Dowd.
284
Ms. Radergraham.
STATEMENT OF CORRINE RADERGRAHAM
Ms. Radergraham. My name is Corrine Radergraham. I have
lived in Alaska for 35 years, mainly in Ketchikan. I work with the
Superior Court as a Guardian providing for children who have
been taken away from their families due to abuse and neglect.
My husband and I provided a home for numerous foster children
as well as raising our own. My family enjoys boating, fishing and
hunting, scuba diving, canoeing and hiking, beachcombing and
other outdoor activities, and we particularly like to berry pick on
clearcuts the second year; it is the best berry picking around.
In order to economically feed our large family over the years we
have relied heavily on venison, which has been there for the
taking, and continues to be there in greater abundance in the past
few years.
We have not observed that the timber harvesting has harmed
any of these activities, but in fact through the wide system of log-
ging roads provided by the industry has made it easier for us to
reach some of our favorite areas. In addition we do not feel that
tourism has been harmed, as the tourists enjoy the use of the same
roads. Commercial fishing has likewise not been affected by timber
harvesting but has declined due to high seas piracy and over fish-
ing.
We want to continue living in southeast Alaska. As the timber
industry and other dependent industries are recovering economical-
ly that will be possible provided work continues to be available.
Alaska is currently in economic crisis. Any legislation which af-
fects one of our foremost industries negatively will exacerbate that
crisis. I oppose any legislation which would harm the timber indus-
try.
Senator Murkowski's bill is the most reasonable approach and I
am in complete support of S. 237.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Radergraham.
Ms. Howatt.
STATEMENT OF NELLIE HOWATT
Ms. Howatt. Honorable Senators, Ladies and Gentlemen; I am
Nellie Howatt and I live and own a business in Thorne Bay, located
on the East Coast of Prince of Wales Island.
Today I am privileged to come before this panel for two precious
minutes to voice my support of the Timber Industry in Alaska.
I respectfully insist that you and your colleagues do everything
possible to reach a compromise, a fair, equitable and permanent so-
lution, before passing legislation that would have a devastating
effect on myself, my neighbors and the entire population of south-
east Alaska.
Thousands of jobs are at stake in your decision. That might not
count for much compared to more densely populated areas but in
the Tongass any decline in the forest products industry would ad-
versely affect everyone here today.
285
Not a single person would be immune to the trickle effect caused
by loss of jobs in timber, from our hard-working loggers to our doc-
tors, teachers and government employees. Each would suffer from
a decline in one of the largest economic bases in southeast.
Without jobs many of us would be forced to relocate, possibly to
your state. Can you say that we would be welcome? Can you
handle our employment needs which may include retraining? Can
your schools support the influx of thousands of children who
cannot quite understand why dad lost his job?
Fact is most of us desire to pursue our livelihoods right here in
the Tongass, our forest home, but we are constantly forced to
defend ourselves against those elected to serve our best interests,
most of whom have never even been in the Tongass.
I appreciate the effort you are making to actually see our forest
and listen to its people speak. I hope that you will return to Wash-
ington and to your own constituents with a better understanding of
this unique place.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Howatt.
Mr. Swartz.
STATEMENT OF STAN SWARTZ
Mr. Sw^ARTZ. Senators, welcome to Alaska. I am Stan Swartz and
I have lived in Ketchikan for ten years. I worked for 13 years as a
career U.S. Forest Service employee in timber sale administration.
I oppose Senator Murkowski's bill because it does not protect
enough of the Tongass National Forest and furthermore it is an af-
front to my intelligence and personal values.
I support your bill. Senator Wirth, and I thank you for introduc-
ing it. Repealing the mandated 450 million annual allowable cut
and the 50 year contracts are very important. I urge you to
strengthen the bill by granting permanent protection to the 23 key
areas.
During my Forest Service career I witnessed complete disregard
for fish and wildlife habitat. The policy is to muck it up now and
maybe we can fix it later. Countless spawning and rearing streams
for salmon are choked with logging debris. When selecting stands
for harvest the Forest Service would attempt to mitigate environ-
mental damage through appropriate contract language. Mitigating
language is only effective when both the Forest Service and the
contractor adhere to the regulation. The pulp mill has a history of
paying only lip service to environmental constraints in the 50-year
contract. The Forest Service in many cases has no spine and sides
with the pulp mill. Based on my experience I believe the 50-year
contracts must be terminated and replaced with short-term con-
tracts.
I would not be misled by the pulp mill, the Ketchikan Chamber
of Commerce or the Editorial Staff of the Ketchikan Daily News.
Reform will bring the Tongass National Forest in line with the Na-
tional Forest System and reform will not decimate the timber in-
dustry in southeast Alaska.
Senator Wirth, I am glad you are seeing through Senator Mur-
kowski's smoke screen and that you know that it is a sham. Your
286
legislation will ensure a Tongass National Forest for generations to
come.
Senator Wirth. Thank you for being here. If there are no ques-
tions from the panel let's move to the next group.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. I have a question for the last witness, just
shorter contracts; now 15 years left
Mr. SwARTZ. I realize that and realize the legislation that you
are proposing may not go into effect for two, three, four or five
years and
Senator Murkowski. What did you have in mind?
Mr. SwARTZ. I have in mind implementing the fixed contract; it
is a shorter contract that would affect the national forests around
the country.
Senator Murkowski. And that is what term?
Mr. SwARTZ. It varies depending upon
Senator Wirth. Now 50 years is unreasonable in your opinion?
Mr. SwARTZ. With the present long-term contract, yes.
Senator Murkowski. My point is it will run out in 15 years. I am
just asking for your opinion, if you have one.
Mr. SwARTZ. I do.
Senator Murkowski. What do you feel the contract, if it is going
to be renegotiated, what the terms should be?
Mr. SwARTZ. In my opinion it depends on the size of the sale en-
tirely.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much for being with us, we
appreciate it.
The next panel of witnesses, Mr. Ronald Littleton, Marcia Ryno,
Garrett Davis and Kevin Moore, Robert Soule and Dan Zink.
Now thank you all for joining us.
Mr. Littleton and the others, in fact you have a two-minute slot
and you will press the button at the end of two minutes. Thank
you all.
STATEMENT OF RONALD LITTLETON
Mr. Littleton. My name is Ronald Littleton. I have lived in
southeast Alaska for 22 years. I have worked for South Coast, In-
corporated for 12 years, building logging roads, state and federal
highways. For nine of these years I have lived on Prince of Wales
Island enjoying the fishing, hunting and recreation activities of the
area.
I am going to read a poem that expresses my feelings about log-
ging in this area. It was written by Kenney Twitchell of Coffman
Cove.
At dusk you can see it from up on the hill. It's a beautiful forest, the trees stand so
still.
From the snow capped mountains to the valleys below, then dawn is awakened by a
big logging show.
Now a logger is a map with strong will and great pride, that he carries with him
deep down inside.
From the yarder he runs to the truck that he drives, and the men in the riggin'
each day risk their lives.
Then it's up off the landing and down off the hill, the trucks haul the logs on down
to the mill.
287
Where they make lumber for house": and desks which they write "The Curse Of The
Logger" on paper of white.
Which is not made of plastic and not made of tin, it's made from a tree and the
wood held within.
They all try to stop us from the forests we log, they say it looks ugly, but what
about their cities with the smoke and the smog?
For our air is clean and our water is pure, unlike New York or Miami I'm sure.
As for the glory days of logging the end they say is near. "But old loggers never die,
like myths and dreams they just disappear."
Thank you. [Applause]
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Now we have had some depressing moments and all and we ap-
preciate your being here.
Marcia Ryno.
STATEMENT OF MARCIA RYNO
Ms. Ryno. My name is Marcia Ryno and I am in road construc-
tion. I have lived in the Tongass for 20 years and we raised our
family in logging communities.
We moved to Coffman Cove on Prince of Wales Island when we
first came to Alaska. The area that was logged at that time is al-
ready thick with second growth timber.
My husband has worked as a logger and is now working in road
construction on Prince of Wales.
While raising our kids in camp we enjoyed fishing, hunting, the
wilderness and scenic beauty and all the while being able to work
in the Tongass.
Both my sons have graduated from high school in southeast
Alaska and are now working in the road construction building log-
ging roads and raising their families here.
I make my living as a flagger on road construction projects. I
have been a camp cook for 15 years, cooking in both logging and
road construction camps for up to 55 men at a time. The men I
have cooked for are here for the lifestyle, not just the job or espe-
cially the working conditions.
If there is no logging and we have to leave, would Senator Wirth
be interested in having me come to Colorado to cook for him and if
so does he plan to hire the other 500 people I have cooked for as
gardeners?
Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr. Johnson. My name is Ed Johnson
Senator Wirth. I appreciate it but everybody — there are a lot of
people who could not come so I really cannot do that. Thank you
and I am sorry but it would not be fair to everybody else. If you
wait until the end
Let me jump on if I may — you do understand lots of people who
could not testify and it would not be fair. Now you will probably be
Number 65.
Mr. Johnson, well, I am sorry, I am sorry, go ahead, why don't
you just go ahead and do it right now. I did not realize you were on
the list, you are Edwin Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
288
STATEMENT OF EDWIN JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. My name is Edwin Johnson and I live and work
here in Ketchikan.
I feel that the timber industry has played a substantial role in
developing Southeast Alaska and making it a better place to live.
The standard of living that a lot of us enjoy today is a result of
their contribution to our economy. A lot of the roads and transpor-
tation facilities that we take for granted are in place today because
of timber related activities.
I feel that this same timber industry can continue to contribute
to the benefit of all of us in the area, provided they are given a
chance.
I am here today to tell you that I support our timber industry
and I want you to give them the backing they need to stay in busi-
ness and continue to benefit our community.
As far as the timber itself goes I feel that it is a renewable re-
source and should be treated as such. I think that it is in the best
interest of the country to utilize its resources to the fullest. To uti-
lize timber as a renewable resource it has to be managed and I
think both the timber industry and the Forest Service have done
commendable jobs in that respect.
As a parting comment I would like to request that the committee
Members do the unpolitical thing and do not mess up something
that has been — let me go back.
As a parting comment I would like to request the committee
members do the unpolitical thing and do not mess up something
that is reasonable, that produces something and has benefited vir-
tually everyone in the community.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN MOORE
Mr. Moore. My name is Kevin Moore. I own a home at Coffman
Cove on Prince of Wales Island and I work for a construction com-
pany engaged primarily in road building in Southeast Alaska.
The timber industry is essential to the survival of the communi-
ties on Prince of Wales Island, Ketchikan, Sitka and several other
areas of southeast Alaska.
It is also essential to protect our wildlife and preserve a portion
of our wilderness which Alaskans have been blessed with in abun-
dance.
Both of these goals can be met by environmental groups and in-
dustrial groups reaching a compromise. Both sides have to give to
ensure the survival of those of us that call Alaska home.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Soule.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SOULE
Mr. Soule. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee; my name
is Robert Soule. I am employed by a construction company. I was
289
born and raised in Ketchikan and have been a resident for 28
years.
The new legislation under proposal will drastically affect our life-
style. We are totally dependent on a continuing timber supply. The
timber industry has brought the only stable and year-around econ-
omy to southeast Alaska.
We have built and invested in a strong industry. Our stable em-
ployment depends on a secure supply of forest products.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Soule. We appreciate
your perspective.
Mr. Zink.
STATEMENT OF DAN ZINK
Mr. Zink. I have been a resident of southeast Alaska for close to
46 years, born and raised here. I am not an expert on anything yet
but I am just one of the many people who know a little bit about
quite a few things.
Growing up here in the southeast for me means doing things in
the out-of-doors, in the woods and on the water and in the air. As a
kid growing up my three brothers and I did the things that kids
used to do in the out of doors, camp, hike, fish, shoot 22s and just
plain have fun getting dirty and hurt.
My dad was a small contractor and us kids helped him after
school and on weekends if he could catch us. Life was good I guess,
we did not have a lot of money but did not lack for much except
maybe a TV set and a pickup truck that would start when it was
supposed to.
We had a lot of fishermen friends in Ketchikan and my dad
worked on their homes primarily doing foundations and outside
concrete work. Dad had made many fishermen friends while work-
ing on the fishtraps here in southeast.
Time went by and the pulp mill moved into town and as a young-
ster it did not impress me too much, except that us boys had to
work with dad pretty steady now because he was getting a lot of
work related to the pulp mill and we got a new TV set and a
pickup truck that was pretty reliable.
I graduated from high school and after military training went to
work for Halvorson Tugs, towing log rafts to Ketchikan and fuel
barges to camps. After that I went to work for the Forest Service
in the Engineering Department and lived in tent camps from Hy-
daburg to Whale Pass locating and surveying roads. At that time
there was no road up the length of Prince of Wales Island. It was a
long hike from Control Lake to salt water, a real beauty in those
days.
Dad was gone and my brother Jim and I were contractors, we
have done pretty well, raised our families and continue to hunt,
fish and play with them here in Southeastern Alaska. Without a
doubt we have derived a large part of our livelihood from the
timber industry.
Sure I feel remorse to a certain extent when I look at a clearcut
but I also feel like an intruder when I paddle a canoe into a cove
and scare up birds or a bear runs off to hide or walking up to the
290
edge of a lake and a beaver slaps its tail and dives in the water. I
am not an expert on it but I know that with a little care, planning
and patience, like these animals, the trees will return.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Zink. Very nice statement.
Now we all thank you very much, we appreciate your being here.
Thank you ever so much.
Mr. Johnson, the same for you for your patience until we got all
squared away.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for the
next group there is a wilderness article and stumpage prices
Senator Wirth. Without objection we will put that in the record.
Now if the next panel will join us, Mr. Steve ShuU, Doug Dal-
gren, Michelle Bonet, Jeff Sloss and Renee Shewey, our next panel
and then on deck will be Mr. David Woodie, Pauline Lee, Sara
Hannan, Steven Kallick, Judy Brakel and Ed Lapeyri.
All right, we are going right now to Steve ShuU, as our lead-off
man. Steve.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SHULL
Mr. Shull. My name is Steve Shull, a 30-year resident of Ketchi-
kan, born and raised.
For 20 years I have been in the field. I am just another taxpayer
of this great system our country has here. I cannot understand why
you, Mr. Wirth, want to change the Tongass Forest Agreements of
1980 when it certainly could not have had a chance to work in only
nine years. Come on, give it a chance, do not try to make me and
others like me live in turmoil in a vast wilderness none of us want.
Wilderness cannot make my friends, my family or me a living. Can
it make you a living, Mr. Wirth? I suppose it would one way or an-
other.
Come on, let this forest be prosperous.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Shull.
Mr. Dahlgren.
STATEMENT OF DOUG DAHLGREN
Mr. Dahlgren. Mr. Chairman, I am Doug Dahlgren and I live 80
miles southwest of Ketchikan, Alaska. I am a road builder from
Long Island with a population of approximately 250.
I have been in the business most of my adult life and in Alaska
on and off since 1975. During that time I have seen many unwant-
ed changes within the timber industry. It would be nice if the
people could count on our government to protect our livelihood in-
stead of taking away the necessary resources to survive in the
country.
On Long Island we log native timber that will soon be a commod-
ity of the past and the Alaskans will need to depend entirely on
the Forest Service timber sales to live in southeast Alaska.
I think the legislators need to realize that we have more than
enough wilderness and we certainly do not want to see the timber
harvest curtailed in any way. We must assure the harvest and re-
generation of Alaska's timber in order to secure the economy for
Alaska's future generations.
291
Originally I am from Montana and I have seen the impact on
logging communities and the toll it takes on hard-working people.
In fact I have seen families lose everything they have worked for
all their lives and Senator Burns can confirm that, that the Mon-
tana loggers are being strangled today by the environmentalists
and the legislation. I believe in rules and regulations but not to the
point that people cannot stand up under the pressure.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Dahlgren.
Michelle Bonnet.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE BONNET
Ms. Bonnet. My name is Michelle Bonnet and in August of 1987
I had the great pleasure of climbing Holbrook Mountain on the
east side of Kosciusko Island. Now that hike was one of the most
wonderful experiences of my life. Holbrook is beautiful and unique.
On that one small mountain are contained all the perfect elements
of a mountain, first the classy mossy old-growth woods, then the
muskegs with baby bear prints in the mud, then the thick scrubby
pine that is a struggle to climb through, then the steep rock and
finally the beautiful, wonderful small peak, from which you can
gaze all around Sea Otter Sound.
On that small peak, an owl had been sitting there before we
came along and there was also a deer bed and many well-traveled
deer trails most of the way up the mountain.
There are plans to cut the timber on Holbrook and there is also
this bill that Senator Wirth has introduced that will grant at least
some protection to the Mount Holbrook Area. I urge you to pass
this bill and also to strengthen it so that this magical, full-of-life
place will never be cut.
I was born in Alaska and grew up here. I spent six years of my
childhood on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island. I have al-
ready seen too many parts of Sea Otter Sound clearcut and roaded.
I remember as a child going to Deweyville to explore. I also remem-
ber perfectly the moment I rounded the point coming into Sarkar
Creek and was hit with the brand-new view of that huge, ugly,
completely out-of-place bridge. The roads had once again reached a
favorite place.
Sea Otter Sound and the rest of Prince of Wales have seen
enough of this large-scale logging and road building. Why is it nec-
essary to do more damage?
I support fully the cancelling of KPC and APC contracts. These
companies have only their profits in mind and not the best inter-
ests of southeast Alaska or its residents. I also support Senator
Wirth's bill and hope it is passed so that this National Forest can
receive the protection it deserves.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Michelle.
Mr. Sloss.
STATEMENT OF JEFF SLOSS, ALASKA DISCOVERY, INC.
Mr. Sloss. My name is Jeff Sloss and I work in the tourism in-
dustry. I have with me a letter signed by 180 Juneau residents that
were disappointed that the hearings were not held in Juneau and I
292
would like to submit that for the record and I will now begin my
testimony.
I have worked as a guide for Alaska Discovery, a wilderness guid-
ing company, for the seven years and have lived in southeast
Alaska for ten. Alaska Discovery is the oldest outfitted guide in the
Tongass, operating trips for 17 years around southeast Alaska,
based from a dozen communities.
Our company strong opposes 237 and is fully supportive of S.346
and we thank you Senator Wirth for its introduction.
We favor seeing management of the Tongass shift from heavily
subsidized large-scale timber harvesting to a more balanced and
economically sound program which would include diversified small-
er logging operations, conventional short-term competitively-bid
sales, along with wildlife and recreational management.
Current Forest Service policy has our tourism business paying
three per cent of its adjusted gross income up front to the Forest
Service in permit fees while the $40 + million subsidy to the timber
industry helps log some of our key recreational-use areas and in
fact the Forest Service now charges more to take one person into
the forest to look at the trees for one day than it charges the pulp
companies for a thousand board feet of virgin timber.
Alaskan Wilderness experience is the single largest drawing card
for the visitor industry in Alaska and as Dale Pihlman put it this
morning, the number one attraction is our Inside Passage. The in-
dustry is second only to the oil industry in this state and that will
only last and will be second for another decade and now I will look
at some of the wilderness desires in southeast but S. 346 identifies
the 23 smaller special value areas that are important to many
southeast Communities and visitors.
Alaska Discovery depends upon many of these areas for their
wilderness values, including the Pt. Adolphus-Mud Bay Area which
at this point is our most popular trip in the Tongass.
I will sum up: The timber supply will still be available, we just
want to protect the old growth which under Forest Service manage-
ment is not a renewable resource.
We strongly support your Bill 346 with the addition of perma-
nent protection as wilderness for the 23 areas.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Sloss, we will include your state-
ment in full in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sloss follows:]
293
369 South Franklin street • Juneau, Alaska 99801 • (907)586-1911
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY SLOSS, ALASKA DISOVERY, INC.
on S. 3^6 - the Tongass Timber Reform Act
My name is Jeffrey Sloss. I have Morked as a guide for
Alaska Discovery for the past 7 years and have lived in
southeast Alaska for 10 years, working first with the
State's Natural Resources Dept. on National Forest land
selections and later with the Forest Service in Recreation
and Lands on the Juneau District. My next position was
Lands planner for the City and Borough of Juneau followed by
consulting work on various lands— related projects in Juneau.
However, for most of the last decade I have worked
summers as an outdoor recreation guide in many of the
spectacular wilderness areas of the Tongass National Forest.
These include Admiralty Island National Monument, Russell
Fiord, Stikine— LeConte, Tracy Arm/ Fords Terror and West
Chichagof— Yakobi Island Wilderness areas.
Alaska Discovery is the oldest outfitter/guide permit
holder on the Tongass National Forest, operating trips for
17 years around southeast Alaska, based from the communities
of Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka, Angoon, Tenakee,
Hoonah, Gustavus, Pelican, Juneau, Haines, Skagway and
Yakutat .
Our company is fully supportive of Senator Wirth's
Tongass Timber Reform Act (S. 3^6) and we thank you for
introducing it. We favor seeing management of the Tongass
shift from heavily subsidized large— scale timber harvesting
to a more balanced and economically sound program which
would include diversified smaller logging operations along
with wildlife and recreation management. Therefore we
support S. 346; the repeal of sections 705<a) and 705(d) of
ANILCA, and cancelation of the two 50 year timber contracts,
replacing them with conventional short term, competitively
bid sales.
Commercial and non-commercial recreation demand on the
Tongass has soared since 1980. Even the vast Juneau
Icefield, 1500 square miles of permanent glaciers and
snowfields, has recently been zoned by the Forest Service
into 10 recreation management areas. Forest Service figures
(RIM) indicate an overall increase of 100% in recreational
use on the Tongass between 1975 and 1983. Tourism and
recreation is now second only to State government in the
number of jobs provided in southeast Alaska. Alaska
Discovery's business has grown by over 300% in the past 8
years.
^^•Jieaieii io 4A» 8^tfo^nt«tU and '^ottAe^mnUott c^ 4Ae ^\e<U ,yiltnAa*t ^fUi/etfteiA
- Sine* 4972 -
294
Page E
Jeffrey Sloss* Alaska Discovery April 2^, 1989
There is still tremendous growth potential for a long
term visitor and resident recreation industry on the
Tongassj if we can reform management of the Tongass.
Current policy has our tourism business paying 3'/, of its
adjusted gross income up front to the Forest Service in
permit fees, while a ^O + million dollar subsidy to the
timber industry helps log some of our key recreational use
areas. In fact? the Forest Service now charges us more to
take one person into the forest to look at the trees for one
day than it charges the pulp companies for 1,000 board feet
of virgin timber (roughly *3.00 versus *H.OO).
Our industry can last forever, as the demand continues
to grow for the. Alaska wilderness experience, as long as we
have an adequate supply of the rapidly disappearing high
volume old growth forest on which our business depends.
These are the areas that support the most vital fish,
wildlife and recreation habitat, which visitors and
residents come to see and this is why S. 3^6 should be
strengthened to grant permanent protection for the S3 key
areas.
Our company has also suffered directly from large-scale
timber harvesting and road building activities, as in the 3
examples that follow:
1 ) Alaska Discovery had to abandon one of the best
paddling trips in southeast Alaska, between the communities
of Tenakee Springs and Hoonah, following large-scale clear-
cutting of the forest along the shore in the mid to late
1970s. The visible and audible impacts of large clearcuts,
logging roads and operations adjacent to this water route
made the trip unenjoyable, ^^hence we ceased it's operation.
The Tenakee Springs town council has since passed several
resolutions opposing additional timber harvests, yet council
members sre repeatedly told by Forest Service staff that
they have "no choice;" ANILCA dictates that new timber must
be offered each year.
S) In 198A, Alaska Discovery joined as a plaintiff in the
suit Sierra Club et al . to prevent the Forest Service from
pre-roading the Berners Bay area north of Juneau. This area
is of prime recreational importance to residents of Juneau,
visitors and tourism businesses like our company. As
documented in the affidavit of our company president, the
Forest Service repeatedly admitted that the timber was of
such low quality that it would probably not sell, even with
*5 million of pre-roading dollars from the Tongass Timber
Supply Fund. When asked why these pre-roading dollars were
being spent, Juneau District Ranger Jack Blackwell stated
"Quite frankly, we have no choice, or flexibility, not to
295
Page 3
Jeffrey Sloss> Alaska Discovery April S<», 1989
proceed." Blackwell went on to explain that Section 705 of
ANILCA compelled the agency to offer so much new timber
volume each year > regardless of the marketability.
3) Alaska Discovery has conducted fishing and wildlife
viewing adventures in the Yakutat Forelands area - an area
initially considered for Wilderness designation under
ANILCA, it is currently scheduled for large-scale reading
and clearcutting using Tongass Timber Supply Fund dollars.
This area holds tremendous values as a roadless fishing*
wildlife and recreation area which would be lost if the
subsidized logging was to proceed. However, while sec. 705
of ANILCA remains in effect, Alaska Discovery cannot commit
the additional marketing and equipment investment needed to
sustain commercial operations on the Yakutat Forelands.
Alaska Discovery depends on many of the S3 areas listed
in S. 346 such as: Berners Bay, Chichagof , Kadashan, Trap
Bay, Yakutat Forelands, Pleasant and Lemesurier Islands and
the Pt . Adolphus-Mud Bay area. In fact, the Pt. Adolphus
area, the gateway to Glacier Bay National Park, is now our
most popular trip in the Tongass.
Current Wilderness withdrawals cannot, in many ways,
support the visitor industry because they consist largely of
inaccessible icefields and mountains. Only 9 percent of the
highest volume old growth of the Tongass is designated as
Wilderness. Alaska Discovery tried for 5 years to market
summertime icefield cross-country skiing trips, and still
operates a few mountaineering classes to local residents.
The three fourths of the designated Wilderness in the
Tongass that is rock, ice, and muskeg no doubt has it's
charm, but the vast number of visitors want to see the grand
old growth forest and the wildlife populations which have
made the Tongass famous.
Too many outfitters, wilderness lodges, fishing and
hunting camps, private boaters and campers, and tour
operators are attempting to squeeze into the relatively few
unspoiled areas which remain in the forest. Our company
believes that Congress must recognize that current
wilderness designations on the Tongass do not protect enough
of the key wildlife and recreation use areas from large-
scale timber operations. Therefore it is vital that S. 346
be strengthened to grant permanent protection as wilderness
for the S3 key areas listed in the bill.
A 1986 study conducted by the Forest Service t the
Alaska Division of Tourism surveyed all of the Tongass—
permitted outfitters, lodges, charter operators and
recreation businesses in southeast Alaska. When asked what
296
Page ^
Jeffrey Sloss, Alaska Discovery April E4, 1989
factors increased the desireabi 1 ity of their services, the
respondents unanimously gave the highest rating to
"designation as Wilderness".
Tourism and particularly recreational tourism is the
fastest growing industry is southeast Alaska; an overall
growth rate of 5% annually ('86 grew 12%j and '87 too!)
Tourism is the #S industry statewide, second only to oil for
probably less than 10 years. Alaska Dept. of Labor
statistics reveal that visitors to southeast Alaska have
been steadily increasing as have the number of direct jobs
in tourism. Since ANILCA was passed, employment in
recreational tourism has more than doubled. In fact, jobs
in tourism have surpassed timber jobs by an increasing
margin each year this decade.
Summary;
The tourism and recreation industries are growing and
are paying their own way on the Tongass National Forest.
Ours is a stable and sustainable industry over the long
term, and presently returns 354 of adjusted gross income to
the Treasury for acqess to Federal lands. The current
timber industry is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers and
is largely regarded as a sunset industry. After the best of
the old growth is logged over the next 5—15 years, it is
unlikely the current subsidized timber and pulp industry
will remain in southeast Alaska. In the mean time, federal
subsidies and mandates impair the growth potential of
tourism and threaten to remove the "wild" image which bring
visitors to southeast Alaska. Alaska Discovery supports S.
3^6 and the permanent protection as Wilderness of the 23 key
special value areas.
297
Senator Wirth. Renee Shewey.
STATEMENT OF RENEE SHEWEY
Ms. Shewey. Renee Shewey of Coffman Cove. Mr. Chairman, we
do not support your legislation. I feel that every single member
and their families in the logging communities — my family moved
to Alaska from Oregon about three and a half years ago. Before
moving to Alaska our lifestyle consisted of food stamps and many
bills and federal handouts, if you will. In fact we could not even
find a job pumping gas and in contrast we now have a future, we
have a comfortable home, we have food that we bought and paid
for and we pay our bills. We are paying taxes instead of living off
them.
My 14-year old is a straight- A student instead of smoking and
drinking; he is involved in the battle of books, spelling bees and
lots of writing. We have high school students who take it upon
themselves to organize camp clean-up, a camp where kids of all
ages get involved, in not games but clubs with good purposes in
mind. When is the last time kids in your neighborhood did some-
thing like that?
We have to shoo the deer population from our gardens; we have
black bear that visit us much to my chagrin. We live here where
we can watch the ugly clearcuts grow to lush dense forests. My
husband has more self-confidence in himself than ever before. Our
life is almost perfect. We thought we had a piece of the American
Dream but there is a dark cloud over us, this dark cloud is a group
of people who, under guise of the environment are saying we do
not belong here. They lie about the animals and the habitat being
taken from them. They take pictures of muskeg and pass it off as
clearcut. These environmental groups are clogged up and already
overloaded and just to make logging operations go broke waiting.
Where is the justice in that? There are second and third genera-
tion families working here. Our story is not so unique. There are so
many stories of survival here. Reader's Digest and Sports Illustrat-
ed are missing some great opportunities for some real stories
Please don't write us off as non-consequential, we just want to con-
tinue to live the lifestyle we chose.
If a bill must be passed let it be S. 237 and with this testimony I
am also submitting statements of people of Coffman Cove ^ who
could not be here.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
All of you, thank you very much. [Applause.]
We have had some really super statements this afternoon and
that ranks right near the top, Renee. Thank you very much, all
five of you, we really appreciate your being here.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Well I think this guy probably as much as
any other represents genuine concern on both sides of the issue
and of course sends the message to the three of us who represent
the rest of our colleagues and take the responsibility to try and re-
solve this because I do and we can both see we are worlds apart in
' Statements retained in subcommittee files.
298
relationship to our own individual views. We of course appreciate
and are sensitive to and I know that I have taken one side of the
issue and bear the responsibility for taking that side of the issue.
My colleague, Senator Wirth, has taken the other side of the
issue and we are obviously going to have to be held responsible as
we address and resolve and one of the things about legislation is
that we all know Senator Burns is more often than not kind of like
compromise, say like sausage. No one wants to see sausage being
made but it is part of the process.
Michelle indicated her concern and the beautiful mountain I can
recall, having seen as a child with my mother, a great accomplish-
ment, yet the realization that people have to live — Michelle, you
did not indicate your particular affiliation but it is important that
people obviously have a lifestyle and the gentleman from Alaska
discovers there is a job to do in this tourism in Alaska and wants
to see Alaska in its pristine state, even though it is a seasonal situ-
ation. It is a very dramatically-growing industry and I just want to
point out one thing more, Mr. Chairman, that the difference of
opinion that exists here has been so eloquently expressed by the
witnesses.
Senator Wirth. I agree with you, that was a great cross section.
We had a good audio-video tape of everybody watching.
Senator Murkowski. At some point in time we will have to make
a decision.
Senator Wirth. All right, moving right along, the next panel,
David Woodie, Pauline Lee, Sara Hannan and Steven Kallick, Judy
Brakel and Ed Lapeyri and on deck, if you would move in, Jim
Byron, Gary Robinson, Pauline Green and Tom Winter, J.C. Mac-
Millan and Richard Burrell.
Why don't we start with all of you, Mr. Woodie here?
STATEMENT OF DAVID WOODIE
Mr. Woodie. My name is David Woodie and for the past thirteen
years I have lived and worked in the woods in southeast Alaska. I
have worked in a lot of different camps and am pretty familiar
with the timber industry here. Contrary to the industry propagan-
da, the corporations working on 50-year contracts have not lived up
to their end of the bargain.
Anyone who has lived for long on Prince of Wales can tell you
how the two pulp corporations consolidated their monopoly of the
timber industry in the 1960s. A civil judgment brought against
them for anti-competition practices amazingly led to no criminal
charges. Apparently they are above the law.
Corporate giants act like absentee landlords. A few years ago
when Louisiana Pacific planned to restart the logging camp at
Little Naukati local people were told we could no longer use the
dock. I had been using the dock for ten years. For residents of the
area it was the only access to the Prince of Wales road system.
Contractors pursuing forestry work had rented trailers from
former residents of the camp. They were simply told to vacate im-
mediately as the camp would be razed to make room for new con-
struction. This occurred on public land.
299
Long term sale holders are granted exclusive rights to virtually
all green, standing timber. Local operators can log only blowdown
or other salvage timber. When local people need small timber sales
or personal use permits they are told that long term sale obliga-
tions leave no budget or personnel for other timber sales. Local log-
gers have difficulty getting sales put up for bid, or administered
adequately for this same reason.
Every effort in which I have been involved, either to establish a
consistent small sales program or to protect non-timber resources
has come up against the same wall. In all things at all times the
long term sales come first, usually to the exclusion of other inter-
ests. This is not multiple use.
A final note; I do not feel that a piece of land is locked up when I
or anyone else can go there to fish or hunt or do any of the other
things that are part of the freedom offered by wild places: These
places belong to all of us, and birds and bears included. That free-
dom means a lot more to me than the freedom to rob and exploit. I
would rather have these places and no money than the opposite. I
support the Wirth Bill wholeheartedly. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Pauline Lee.
A Voice: Pauline Lee is not here.
Senator Wirth. Sara Hannan.
STATEMENT OF SARA HANNAN
Ms. Hannan. Thank you for this opportunity to share my sup-
port for Senator Wirth's bill on the Tongass Timber Reform Act.
I am a life-long Alaskan and I currently live in Juneau where I
work in private competitive business. Length of residency should
not have any bearing on national policy discussion but on the last
frontier time in residence often equates directly to the respect of
your opinions.
Fundamental tenet of decision-making in a democracy is that
reasonable people can evaluate the same body of evidence but still
reach different conclusions. With regard to the Tongass Timber
Reform Act we need to ask ourselves, who are these reasonable
people and what are the different conclusions?
Corporations are not reasonable, they are profit-driven entities.
Their sole priority is to make money and pretense they raise about
concern for jobs for Alaskans is only ornamental. They are not con-
cerned about Alaskans working in the timber industry; they want
big trees for small money that can be chewed up into pulp or cut
into cants and sold to overseas manufacturers at enormous profits.
Alaska has long been the destination of every greedy exploiter of
national resources but greed is not a commitment to the future of
the environment or the economy or the people.
If you were truly concerned about Alaskan jobs, America's last
temperate rain forest, and the balance of fair trade, I urge you to
support Senator Wirth's bill reforming Tongass Management. It is
simple economics that a competitive free market industry cannot
develop as long as the major players get major breaks.
Sound public policy cannot allow a valuable ecosystem that sus-
tains many diverse industries, such as tourism and commercial
fishing — granted the old growth of Tongass must be granted protec-
300
tion by law not just a temporary moratorium. If the prime old
growth stands with roads and surveys paid for by U.S. taxpayers
are seemingly the only economical areas to harvest then the econo-
my is false and we are being cheated.
The current management practices of the Tongass National
Forest must be reformed. Senator Wirth's bill makes reasonable
changes that reasonable people can live with, work with and grow
old with and I would also like to submit letters for support of Sena-
tor Wirth's Bill from Alaskans in Juneau, Haines and Petersburg.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Hannan. Mr. Kallick.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hannan follows:]
301
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THANK 70U POR THIS OPPORTUNITT TO SHARE MY SUPPORT FOR
SENATOR WIRTH'S TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT WITH TOU. MT
NAME IS SARA HANNAN. I LIVE IN JUNEAU. AND I AM A LIFE
LONG ALASKAN. IN OUR UNITED DEMOCRACT LENGTH OF
RESIDENCT SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON NATIONAL POLICY
DISCUSSIONS. BUT ON THE LAST FRONTIER TIME IN RESIDENCE
OFTEN EQUATES DIRECTLY TO RESPECT OF OPINIONS.
I HAVE SPENT MOST OF MY LIFE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN PUBLIC
POLICY DEBATES WORKING WITH THE FULL GAMET OF ALASKAN
POLITICIANS FROM THE CONSERVATIVE U.S. SENATOR TED
STEVENS TO THE MOST LIBERAL. FORMER STATE SENATOR VIC
FISCHER. A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF DECISION MAKING IN A
DEMOCRACY IS THAT RESONABLE PEOPLE CAN EVALUATE THE
SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE BUT STILL REACH DIFFERENT
OONaUSIONS. WITH REGARD TO THE TONGASS TIMBER REFORM
ACT. WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES .... WHO ARE THESE REASONABLE
PEOPLE? WHY ARE THERE SUCH DIFFERING CONaUSIONS?
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT REASONABLE. THEY ARE PROFIT DRIVEN
ENTITIES. THEIR PRIORITY IS TO MAKE MONEY. ANY PRETENSE
THEY RAISE ABOUT CONCERN FOR 'JOBS' FOR ALASKANS. IS ONLY
ORNAMENTAL. PULP MILLS ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT
ALASKANS WORKING IN THE TIMBER INDUSTRY... THEY WANT BIG
TREES FOR SMALL MONEY. THAT CAN BE CHEWED UP INTO PULP OR
CUT INTO CANTS AND SOLD TO OVERSEAS MANUFACTURERS AT
ENORMOUS PROFITS. : ^ , :
SINCE RUSSIAN FUR TRADERS ARRIVED HERE IN THE 1700S.
ALASKA HAS BEEN THE DESTINATION OF EVERY GREEDY EXPLOITER
OF NATURAL RESOURCES. GREED IS NOT A COMMITMENT TO THE
FUTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE ECONOMY.
IF YOU ARE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT ALASKAN JOBS. AMERICAS
LAST TEMPERATE RAIN FOREST. AND THE BALANCE OF FAIR
302
TRADE. I URGE TOU TO SUPPORT SENATOR WIRTH'S BILL
REFORMING TONGASS MANAGEMENT: IT IS SIMPLE ECONOMICS
THAT A COMPETITIVE. FREE MARKET INDUSTRT CANNOT DEVELOP
AS LONG AS THE "MAJOR' PLATERS GET MAJOR BREAKS.
SOUND PUBLIC POLICY CANNOT ALLOW A VALUABLE ECOSTSTEM
THAT SUSTAINS MANY DIVERSE INDUSTRIES - SUCH AS TOURISM
AND COMMERCIAL FISHING - TO BE DESTROYED. THE VIABLE AND
FRAGILE OLD GROWTH OF THE TONGASS MUST BE GRANTED
PERMANENT PROTECTION BY LAW. NOT JUST A TEMPORARY
MORATORIUM. IF THE PRIME OLD GROWTH STANDS. WITH ROADS
AND SURVEYS PAID FOR BY U.S. TA2PAYERS. ARE SEEMINGLY THE
ONLY ECONOMICAL AREAS TO HARVEST ~ THEN THE ECONOMY IS
FALSE AND WE ARE BEING CHEATED.
■i
IF OLD GROWTH IS UNPROTECTED. SO ARE SALMON STREAMS
UNPROTECTED. AND SO IS THE HEART OF THE FOREST WHICH MANY
ALASKANS LIVE OFF OF. AND AS aEARCUTS BECOME COMMON
SCENERY. OUR GROWING TOURIST INDUSTRY WILL DISAPPEAR.
THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST MUST BE REFORMED. SENATOR WIRTH'S BILL
MAKES REASONABLE CHANGES THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN
WORK WITH....FISH WITH....LIVE WITH....GROW OLD WITH.
303
STATEMENT OF STEVEN E. KALLICK
Mr. Kallick. Senator Burns, thank you for coming here to visit
us in Tongass. Senator Murkowski, welcome back.
My name is Steve Kallick, I live in Juneau and I work for con-
gress reform but I am testifying on behalf of myself.
Senators, up until recently, today, you have not been hearing a
fair cross section of the different opinions of people of the Tongass.
We are not all here just for a paycheck; many of us live here be-
cause we love this land as it is. The Tongass is our home too and in
fact some of the people who dare to speak out and testify in favor
of Tongass Reform actually risk their jobs by speaking out. There
are many more who stand up to harassment and abuse and must
endure personal attacks on themselves in the newspaper here in
Ketchikan and hundreds sit at home today and listen to the radio,
excluded from this hearing. The last minute changes in the sign-up
rules — I beat the odds but others were not so lucky. I told them,
trust this process to be fair but unfortunately I was wrong and I
am sorry for them.
Senator Murkowski, I am also sorry that your mind is made up
on this issue, I am sorry that you continue to ignore hundreds of
letters, perhaps thousands, from Alaskans that support Senator
Wirth's bill. I am sorry you think only Sitka, Ketchikan and Wran-
gell are affected by logging. People in Juneau and other communi-
ties and places like Point Baker, Pelican, Hoonah, Angoon, Shakan,
Yakutat and Fanshaw — and you know I could go on, strongly dis-
agree with you.
With all due respect. Senator, you are wrong and the majority of
the people in the Tongass support Tongass reform.
Senator Wirth, thank you, and 25 other Senators who support
your bill, please amend it to protect all areas permanently as wil-
derness.
Senator Burns, please enjoy your visit to our beautiful land and
Senator Murkowski, believe this, you can deprive us of our seats,
you can squelch public debates but we will not go away. Remember
the Tongass is our home too.
Thank you. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kallick follows:]
304
STATEMENT OF STEVEN E. KALLICK
JUNEAD, ALASKA
Testimony Before the United States Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
April 24. 1989
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I consider myself exceptionally lucky to sit before you
today, with two minutes of your attention and a chance to speak
out as one of "the people of the Tongass." You have heard from
some of the people of the Tongass today; tomorrow in Sitka you
will hear from some of the others. But, tragically, you will not
hear from them all. Nor will you, in a few short days, get to
know the people and the place as we do, we who make this
phenomenally beautiful land our home, we who will live here the
rest of our lives.
Contrary to what you might think from the public testimony
today, there are thousands of people living here, either in
rough-hewn cabins in isolated coves or comfortable apartment
buildings in Juneau, who did not come to Alaska just for a job.
They too are the people of the Tongass, but you will not hear
305
them say they will pack up and leave if we fail to subsidize,
pamper and protect their particular choice of employment.
If you were to travel Southeast Alaska, from village to
village and home to home, as I have over the last five years, you
would find that some of the people of the Tongass are here simply
because they love this land, the ancient trees, the cry of a
raven at dawn, the shimmer of the sea, and the dark shape of the
brown bear traversing a distant tideflat. They love this land so
much they will do any work or live without work, without
televisions and new pickup trucks, without winter trips to
Hawaii, without the comforts of modern life and guaranteed
paychecks .
These people of the Tongass will stand up to the last of the
robber barons, who run the pulp mills here and in Sitka; they
will speak out against the deciaation of the old-growth forest,
of abuse of resources and of people, even if it costs them their
jobs. They will stand up for the Tongass even if it means they
must endure mean-spirited personal attacks and bullying from Lew
Williams, posing as considered editorial opinion in the Ketchikan
Daily News.
These people of the Tongass care enough to write you in
favor of Tongass reform, supporting the efforts of Senator Wirth
in careful, heartfelt personal pleas. You have hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of their letters in your offices in Washington. But
306
will you hear a fair representation of these brave people of the
Tongass today? Sadly, thanks to the best efforts of Senator
Murkowski, the answer is no.
I am lucky. To get this seat I took time out of my busy day
and followed Senator Murkowski 's ground rules. I wrote a
personal letter, signed it and nailed it well before the
deadline. I called others who would surely have wanted to
testify and urged them to write also. Some who live in distant,
remote fishing towns could not get a letter sent in time. I told
them Senator Murkowski 's office would put each on a list if they
called in person. I know that people line up on the dock in
Point Baker to use the community phone and I imagined them
calling in one by one. Others must have called in by marine
radio, since they were out on fishing boats during the sign-up
period. Some of the people of the Tongass travelled miles by
skiff or even on foot to find a telephone and get on the list.
That shows how much they care about the Tongass and how much they
wanted to tell this Committee.
Senator Murkowski, lots of those people asked me what we
were doing to make sure that everyone got a fair chance to
testify. They said they did not trust you or your office to play
by the rules. But I know you, sir. I have worked with you and
your staff in Washington for years. So I defended you before the
doubters and promised that even though you have taken an extreme
307
position in the Tongass manageinent debate, you would behave as a
Senator for all of the citizens and hold everyone to the same
rules. I believed you were fair and swore it to others.
But here I sit today, in a hearing you rigged to make it
seem like all the people of the Tongass want to cut it down for
money. And I among all those I talked to am alone in this seat,
trying to speak for everyone you excluded by changing the rules
at the last minute. What can I say to them but I am sorry I
trusted you. After hearing you say for years how unfair it is to
move Tongass reform legislation without hearing from the people
of the Tongass, I still cannot believe that you are trying to
present Southeast Alaska in a, like a false front town in a
Hollywood western, where everyone works in a pulp mill and nobody
wants to save Lisianski, Kadashan, Naha, Karta, Nutkwa, Sarkar
Lakes, Chuck River, Duncan Canal, or Kuiu Island for their
children.
Senator Murkowski, for years you have been ignoring the
voice of lots of people of the Tongass. And as the roads and
clearcuts march across each island the voices get louder. When
hundreds of letters come to your office from your own
constituents, asking you to protect some of the Tongass, you say
that the real people of the Tongass are too busy working to
write. But when you get a company petition from Wrangell, you
wave it around as proof of your cause. When your own biased
308
opinion polls show a majority support your logging promotions,
you trumpet the results as truth. But when Sealaska Corporation
polls the people and finds a clear majority supporting Tongass
reform, you discount the validity of polls. And now, Senator
Murkowski, you demand a hearing to give all the people of the
Tongass a chance to speak, but you change the rules at the end to
cheat those who disagree with you of their right to speak out.
Senator Wirth, I know you are a wise and courageous
statesman. I thank you deeply for your help and interest in
saving a little bit of this incomparable place. Words alone
cannot express the gratitude we have for you. I hope you enjoy
your travels in Southeast Alaska and return to stay with us many
times. You will always be welcome in our homes.
Senator Murkowski, you may have succeeded in stacking this
hearing and silencing a few voices for the moment, but it will
not last. You can try to ignore us but we will not be ignored.
You can gag us to keep us from speaking, but even then our
silence will speak truths louder than all your endless
filibusters and harangues. The voices of all of the people of the
Tongass, people who love it just as it is, will not be silenced.
We will not go away.
309
Senator Wirth. Now I would like once again to remind our audi-
ence that everybody here is a guest of the committee. While we ap-
preciate your shows of enthusiasm one way or another it does not
really fit the purposes of the hearing process.
Now Judy Brakel, is that right?
STATEMENT OF JUDY BRAKEL
Ms. Brakel. I thank you for your work and his co-sponsors for
introducing their Senate Bill 346 and ask that it be strengthened
by permanent protection to the 23 areas proposed for a moratori-
um.
If these hearings were in Petersburg where I grew up or in
Juneau where I now live, the room would full of people who want
to see a change and I can tell you that since the oil spill people
have become a lot less silent and passive, Senator Murkowski,
about the ecological destruction of Alaska.
My family has lived in southeast Alaska for generations and as a
kid I traveled by boat all around Southeast for years. Now my sons
fish salmon and my husband and I spend summers working as wil-
derness guides, we guide visitors who want to see raw places, not
logged off country and roads so logging is rapidly reducing the
places where we can do trips but protecting our livelihood is not
why I am here.
Most of the people here supporting the present system never saw
the country before the logging. Cut over country looks natural to
them. For myself the massage logging affects me too deeply and
thinking about it produces a feeling of sickness, like thinking about
the oil spill. The logging is slower than the oil spill but every bit as
destructive because its effects will last longer.
Although I am here supporting reform I confess I want it to stop.
Too much has been laid waste, small scale logging is OK but noth-
ing remotely like the scale we have seen. The trees grow back and
the forest is green again but as a lot of my colleagues have pointed
out they make poor wildlife habitat and I think biologists predict
that on 340 drainages logging will reduce deer populations over 75
percent. We eat deer. Many villages and small fishing communities
depend on deer.
Salmon are the basic wealth of our country and have been since
the Thlingit were the only ones here. Salmon require high quality
stream habitat; the logging is targeting exactly on the stream and
river valleys where the highest volume, easiest to get timber grows.
One of the effects of building thousands of miles of road is a
rapid decrease in brown bear populations. Chichagof Island has
been an alarming kill rate — fish and game staff familiar with the
situation do not have much hope for the long term survival of the
brown bear population and I brought a stack of letters from
Juneau that I just submitted that have — one of them has that on
the brown bear problem, some way about the economic effects of
reform.
I raised three kids by myself and I have seen a few hard times
but one thing I found you could depend upon was the natural
wealth of the country. This country provided my family with much
of our food and most of our fuel and also provided us with our
310
pleasures and I agree with that man there, I would rather have
wilderness today that is so productive than a lot of money.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Judy, we appreciate your
testimony and all four of you, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brakel follows:]
311
Testimony Before the U.S. Subcommittee on Public
Landsi Parks and Forests
April 2<», 1989
My name is Judy Brakel. I live at ^^0 E. 1st St . i Juneau,
Alaska. I am here to testify in favor of Senator Wirth's Tongass
Timber Reform bill and against the Tongass bill introduced by
Senator Murkowski. I thank Senator Wirth and his co-sponsors for
introducing their bill and ask that it be strengthened by
providing permanent protection to the 23 areas presently proposed
for a logging moritorium.
It is unfortunate that the location, scheduling and sign-up
proceedures for the Senate hearings, including allowing the mills
to submit lists of employees, have combined to produce a highly
unrepresentative set of people testifying. If these hearings
were being held either in Petersburg, where I grew up, or in
Juneau, where I live now, this room would be packed, not with
supporters of the timber status quo, but with people who want to
see a change. And I can tell you that in the weeks since the oil
spill people have become alot less silent and passive about the
ecological destruction of Alaska, of which Tongass logging is a
prime example.
As a kid I traveled all over Southeast Alaska by small boat. We
were just looking at the country and being in it. Our whole
family did this for years and years and we never got tired of it.
Now my sons fish salmon and my husband and I spend suftimers
working as wilderness guides, taking people who come from other
states on kayak and hiking trips to see the country. Those
people want to see wild country, not logged off country and
roads. Logging is quickly reducing the places where we can do
trips. But protecting my livlihood is not why I'm here.
Most of the people who are here to support the present system
never saw the country before the logging. They came from country
that was logged out to a country in the process of being logged,
and it looked natural to them. For myself, the massive logging
of the country I grew up in affects me too deeply. I try to look
away from it, and so far I have not been a good conservation
activist. It's easier to forget about the logging in Juneau
because that area of the Tongass has yet to be cut and the one
nearby timber sale was forstalled when a coalition of local
people sued the Forest Service. It's easier to forget because
thinking about it produces a deep feeling of sickness, like
thinking about the silent spring in Prince William Sound. The
logging is slower than the oil spill, but every bit as
destructive because its effects will last longer.
We're supposed to be here supporting reform. I confess I just
want it to stop. Too much country has been laid waste already.
Some small scale logging would be OK, but nothing remotely like
the scale we've seen. One billion board feet were cut last year
312
in Southeast Alaskai between Native and National Forest lands.
Almost everyone believes that ^.5 million board feet per year is
above the sustainable yield.
Alaska's Dept. of Fish &. Game has researched the effects of
logging on deer populations in the Tongass. Biologists predict
that on 3^0 drainages in Southeast, logging will reduce deer
populations by 50 to 75'/.. On 100 other drainages it will reduce
deer over 75V,. My family doesn't eat beef. We eat deer. What
about the people who live in the Native villages and small
fishing communities? They depend on those deer.
What about our salmon runs? Salmon are the basic wealth of the
country. They are eaten by bears and eagles and people. They
are the backbone of our economy, and have been since the Thlingit
were the only people here. Continued healthy salmon runs require
high quality stream habitat. The logging is targeting exactly on
the stream and river valleys, where the highest volumn, easiest
to get timber grows.
What about the effects of building thousands of miles of roads
through the wilderness? In 1950 there were less than 100 miles
of permanent road in Southeast Alaska. In 1988 there were 2,300
miles (omitting temporary roads). Current plans call for
building 295 miles per year, and more will be built to log Native
1 ands .
One of the effects of those roads and of logging camps is a rapid
decrease in brown bear populations. Black bear can coexist
pretty well with people and roads. Brown bear cannot. The brown
bear areas in the Tongass are the mainland, the "A B C" islands
(Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof) plus Kruzof Island and
Yakutat. Last fall an alarming kill rate on the heavily logged
and roaded northeast Chichagof Is. caused the Alaska Dept. of
Fish & Game to close the area's brown bear season by emergency
order. Deer limits also had to be cut. To maintain the bear
population, the annual harvest can be no more than 5'/. For the
last ^ years it has been 2 to 3 times that. ADF&G staff who are
familiar with the situation do not have much hope for the long
term survival of a brown bear population on northeast Chichagof.
There is great concern about the decline of the few remaining
brown bear populations in the contiguous United States.
313
Meanwhile here in Alaska the Forest Service makes plans to reduce
their numbers and range in a hurry.
I want to talk about the 50-year contracts with the mills. In
the 1950's I heard people express their unhappiness with the
Forest Service insistance on making large pulp sales. People
wanted smaller scale industry, like plywood mills. Initially,
after the sales, there were locally owned logging outfits: Meurs,
I . ,,-.-«K»»ri?-^' Reid Bros. Soon the two pulp mills colluded to
drive the independent loggers out of business, and they got just
about every one of them. Eventually the Reid Bros. sued. Many
years later the case was decided in Federal court in their favor.
If you read that decision, with its descriptions of wholesale
violations of antitrust laws by the pulp comp.inies, you will see
one of the many reasons to break those contracts.
Some people are worried that changes in Tongass management could
bring hard times for families whose livlihoods are affected.
Others say that won't happen. I don't know. I raised 3 kids by
myself and I've seen a few hard times, but one thing I found you
could depend upon was the natural wealth of the country. This
country provided my family with much of our food and most of out-
fuel. It also provided us with our pleasures. So I ask those
people to put their minds to ways of living with less and
enjoying the country more. The country will give them alot.
So thank you. Senator Wirth, your 1^ co-sponsors, and the members
of the Public Lands Subcommittee, for lending your time and
attention to the question of salvaging Southeast Alaska- from
ecological destruction.
314
Senator Murkowski. For the record I want to address a portion
of the remarks made by the gentleman, Mr. Steven Kallick. For
your benefit and that of others who may question the propriety of
the manner in which this hearing is conducted, you should recog-
nize I am not a member of the Subcommittee. Through the courte-
sy of the Chairman and the Acting Chairman and the professional
staff and the fact that the hearing was in my state, I was accorded
the opportunity to participate, which is quite appropriate.
Now let us make sure we understand a couple of other things;
the manner in which you describe the hearing having been con-
ducted is a personal affront to my integrity. Now you might be able
to mislead some of your people at Seak but you cannot mislead the
people in Ketchikan, the people who watch us on television.
I have seen the statement issued by SEACC and it is blatantly
false. In addition, you will reach any end to extend your point of
view. If you care to enunciate in some detail the charges I am sure
that the professional staff will be happy to respond.
They conducted this hearing in a manner in which they agreed
collectively was the fairest under the circumstances; obviously we
regret that we cannot accommodate all the witnesses. I personally
was willing to hold the hearing on Sunday but it was impossible to
do so for other conflicts which were not my own. Nevertheless we
are doing the best we can but I want the record to reflect that if
you have any allegations about impropriety you better make it
known because I am just a little tired of this kind of flamboyant
generalization that comes from Seak and I think Alaskans ought to
understand it. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. As long as this issue has been brought out and
again for the record Senator Murkowski and I had agreed on the
random nature, random drawings of people who wanted to testify.
We agreed that would be the fairest way of doing it and the loca-
tions of the hearing. Senator Murkowski wanted to have a third
day of hearings at Wrangell, but that could not be done and Sena-
tor Murkowski said that he would be very happy to have the hear-
ing yesterday, Sunday, which I would not do so we settled, agreed
upon two days to be in Ketchikan today and Sitka tomorrow.
The only area that, after we tried to figure out all the contingen-
cies and all of the variables, the one that we did not think of, that
we have never discussed, was the submission of lists, and that was
done and lists apparently were submitted and became a part of the
drawing process. We never discussed that as a procedure.
I had assumed that it would be individuals writing in but we
never discussed whether individuals writing in or lists being sent
in would make people eligible for the drawing so if there is any
misunderstanding on that front that misunderstanding exists if
people who were on this list had a better chance of being drawn,
that is what happened. That was not part of the rules of discussion
that we had and I think that that is probably a fair discussion of
how the process was set up. So the list issue is the only one that is
outstanding in terms of any disagreement that we might have
about how the hearings proceeded or were established.
There now, is there any more to be said?
Senator Murkowski. Not other than the material somewhere in
the offices in Ketchikan and Juneau was simply forwarded on to
315
Washington and disposition was made there through some kind of
a computer drawing of some nature. I had no participation in that.
Senator Wirth. I am informing my staff that the drawing was
made, the list was submitted after the time of closure for submis-
sion and some were able to submit lists — knew about submitting
lists and other people did not know the lists would be submitted
and it is in that area that there might be some area of misunder-
standing or some people feeling that they got had or did not get
had and that is, I think, nothing that — and any of us had any idea
was going to happen. I will tell you Senator Murkowski and I must
have talked a dozen times about the procedure, what would be fair
way for submitting lists and the one variable we did not think
about. I think we thought about just about every other one, as to
what would happen and what did not happen and as one knows, it
is sort of like water, water always seeps down and looks for the
hole, looks for the opening, right, and just you found the opening
and slipped right in there and obviously caused a significant prob-
lem and I think I can assure you that the next time Senator Mur-
kowski and I do hearings together we will have a very clear policy
on lists.
Senator Murkowski. There is no doubt about that.
Senator Wirth. Enough said about that, we appreciate you all
being here and everyone is operating in a good way and responsible
and that is extraordinary, I think. Senator Murkowski. In many
ways only in America would you have people feeling so strongly,
sitting next to each other, in total disagreement from one witness
to the next, only in America would you have an employer and em-
ployee come in and say that the policy of that person's employer
was fundamentally wrong and many of us disagreed with him even
though the employer pays that individual's salary. No matter how
this comes out I think this is, in my opinion, quite remarkable tes-
timony to how democracy ought to work and while I have heard
that this hearing was set up in some way and have not allowed de-
mocracy to work then I apologize for that. As Frank says we did
the best we can and as to the lists we did not anticipate this.
If there are no other comments on the subject, let us go on and
we thank you all very much for joining us. Thank you for being
here.
The next panel, Mr. Jim Byron, Gary Robinson, Pauline Green,
Tom Winter, J.C. MacMillan and Richard Burrell and if we could
move into the on-deck circle we will have Don Harbour, Viril So-
derberg, Perry Apostolis, Jan Paulson and Dan Lindgren and Alan
Monk.
Thank you all for being here. May we get started with Mr.
Byron?
STATEMENT OF JAMES BYRON
Mr. Byron. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. I admire those red suspenders. You must be
a logger.
Mr. Byron. I am a logger. I represent a large logging and cutting
operation. We have four different distinct spheres of cutting that
we work in. Half of our cutting is in private timber, native lands,
316
and the other half is in the Forest Service, Tongass National
Forest.
Southeast Alaska is home to three generations of my family.
Both my father and myself have felled timber and supervised cut-
ting crews in the Tongass for a total of 31 years between us. In the
early days regulations and rules governing logging and cutting
practices were few. Today the Tongass is managed with the future
in mind. Everything from the placement of roads to the protection
of fish streams are taken into account before the first tree is felled.
Is is very easy to pick up a magazine or newspaper to read an
article or look at pictures that show or tell the negative aspects of
logging. Important decisions such as the ones facing us now need to
be addressed with all the facts.
We invite you to go out into the forest and look for yourselves.
Where my father first felled timber the regrowth is 40-50 feet tall,
a healthy stand of timber that 60 years from now someone will un-
doubtedly be trying to turn into a wilderness area. It should not
take anyone very long to realize that the single best use of this
land is growing trees.
We are committed to this land not on a short term but for our
children and beyond. The Tongass has a crop growing on it that is
an extremely valuable and renewable resource. We do not want all
of the timber to log nor do we want more wilderness. We have a
good management system now; to change this on the eve of the
next Tongass Land Management Proposal is not in the best inter-
ests of the Tongass. To terminate the long term contracts will not
do anything but cripple the healthy economy of southeast Alaska
and disrupt the lives of many people.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Byron.
Mr. Robinson.
[No response.]
Senator Wirth. Pauline Green.
STATEMENT OF PAULINE GREEN
Ms. Green. Thank you.
My name is Pauline Green and I support the Stevens-Murkowski
Senate Bill 237. I think it unrealistic to stamp case closed on our
logging, jeopardizing our economy by adding more wilderness to an
already vast established area. I prefer to stay off the government
hand-out rolls and earn my living.
Yes, I believe in preservation but I believe in people preservation
first.
I have lived 35 years in logging communities and have seen
many positive lifestyle changes.
We established homes, schools instead of correspondence courses
and churches. Scholarships are offered students by Alaska Loggers.
Opportunities have opened, not previously available, due to the
inter-related businesses in our area.
Senator Wirth, you have children. Did it ever occur to you fresh
produce, fruits and milk were not commonplace on the table?
Transportation has changed that. Surely as a parent you can un-
derstand those priorities.
317
Before roads were built my husband became critically ill, there
was no 911 number to call from the bush. Air Rescue came as soon
as the weather permitted, however too much time had lapsed.
Shortly after his death a road opened and access was possible to
several hundred people. Medical help became available as a direct
result of the logging industry.
I love the state and the lifestyle I chose but I request the same
rights to necessities other states often take for granted.
Please visit the camps, review the total dollar and environmental
impact on families before you decide on how our lifestyle should be.
Senator Wirth and Senator Burns, I thank you, and Senator
Murkowski, I am very proud to have you as my Senator.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Winter.
STATEMENT OF TOM WINTER
Mr. Winter. My name is Tom Winter and I am an employee of
Six Robbies, Seattle. My company is a warehouse distributor of
truck fleet parts and equipment. Our headquarters are in Seattle
and we have two regional stores in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
My sales territory includes southeast Alaska and my customers
are the logging industry, as well as the cities, towns and the State
of Alaska Highway Maintenance facilities. I have been servicing
this territory for eleven years and I have experienced every one of
the upswings and downturns in the state's economy.
Better than 50 percent of my personal income is dependent on
southeast Alaska sales. In addition our stores in Anchorage and
Fairbanks sell to and support logging in the interior and near
Kodiak. I am here today to explain to you that my company and I
are very dependent on a healthy logging industry in Alaska and a
healthy southeast Alaska economy.
As an associate member of the Alaska Loggers Association I have
spoken to many of the over 200 suppliers' representatives who, like
myself, have expressed serious concerns about the future of their
livelihood. Our friends and customers in this industry depend on us
to get products and services to them in order for them to operate
their trucks and logging equipment and we depend on them to be
able to sell their services.
The proposed legislation in Congress today places the livelihood
of all of us and the people of the Tongass and the many tiers of
suppliers both in Alaska and from the lower 49 States in jeopardy.
I urge you to retain a land and timber base to provide a supply
which ensures employment opportunities associated with the forest
products industry supply for dependent industry. Any changes in
the long term contracts would have a far-reaching effect on the
people and the communities of Southeast Alaska.
A healthy logging industry with year-round employment oppor-
tunities does strengthen the economy of southeast Alaska.
Senate Bill 346 would be devastating to the established timber
industry in the Tongass. Therefore I support Senate Bill 237 as the
legislation that will most equitably resolve the pending issues of
the Tongass.
Thank you.
318
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Winter.
Ms. MacMillan.
STATEMENT OF JO CAROL MacMILLAN
Ms. MacMillan. I am Jo Carol MacMillan, a 29-year resident of
Ketchikan, by choice.
I am wearing a hickory shirt and red suspenders to publicly pro-
claim my support of the timber industry in Alaska. Pinned to the
shirt is a button, picturing a logger's family, with the inscription
"Preserve the people".
Most of us live here because of the people, certainly not for the
weather or the cost of living. The people are an integral part of the
Tongass. Most of us choose to live where there is a stable economic
base rather than in an area with boom and bust fluctuations.
Those who are professionals in business or any vocation that re-
quires an investment and a commitment to a specific area, select
one that has a promising projected future. The timber industry is
one third of our economic base.
As a wife and mother of four, a wage earner and home owner, I
am not an expert on economics, forestry or politics, but I keep in-
formed on the issues. When matters of such magnitude as the man-
agement of the largest forest in the United States are at issue a
point is reached at which those who are the experts should be al-
lowed to use their expertise.
The sign on the road to Ward Lake states, "Tongass National
Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture." Trees are a crop, one
which replants and thrives in this area, and one that can be har-
vested, with management, animal life, forest and people together.
The beauty of the Tongass attracts us, a warm friendly people
welcomes us, but a sound economy allows us to stay.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BURRELL
Mr. BuRRELL. Ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of
myself, my family, my company and my employees. My livelihood
has depended on the Tongass National Forest for 27 years. Myself,
my family and my 20 employees care a lot about what is going to
happen in the forest. We hope our statements today will help to
convince you all that we need your ongoing support of what the
Congress instituted nearly a decade ago.
ANILCA was a compromise of forest land that took a lot away
from the productivity of the forest. Several million acres are locked
up in wilderness and roadless areas. We have recently lost the Ton-
gass Timber Supply Fund of $40 million as a compromise.
Congress instituted 50-year timber sale contracts nearly 35 years
ago. There are healthy second growth timber stands on virtually
every patch cut made the Tongass. We are not deforesting, we are
involved in serious land management, planning and working with
proven first entry timber harvesting methods. The logging roads
and highways have enhanced fishing and hunting tremendously
throughout the Tongass National Forest.
319
Since 1976 set aside timber has been sold competitively. If the 4.5
billion per decade cut is reduced I believe the S.B.A. program will
dissolve. On the other hand, how trustworthy would Congress be
deemed if you renege on the 50-year contracts with 16 years left on
one and 20 years on the other? Common sense tells us to live up to
our agreements. Our leaders must set the example.
Live up to Congress' previous commitments and give credit
where credit is due. The Forest Service has done a tremendous job
and will continue to as long as the land is not locked up.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Burrell. Now we ap-
preciate the five of you being here and thank you very much for
being so patient so late in the afternoon.
Our next panel is Mr. Harbour, Virgil Soderberg, Perry Aposto-
lis, Jan Paulson and Dan Lindgren and Alan Monk and our final
on-deck hitters will come to the chair, Dick Ransdell, Greg Head,
Angelo Martin and Mr. Sean Harbour. We will start with Mr. Don
Harbour if we may.
Mr. Harbour.
STATEMENT OF DON HARBOUR
Mr. Harbour. Senators and people, my name is Don Harbour
and I own and operate Harbour Logging Company. I have lived and
worked in the Tongass for most of my last 30 years and have spent
most of that time in remote logging camps with my family.
I have lived in many areas of southeast Alaska and have logged
both old growth and new growth timber. The second growth was
originally logged in 1906 by oxen and was 24 to 30 inches in diame-
ter, healthy spruce and hemlock, and that was in 1966 which
makes it 60 years old.
Much of the old growth I have logged has been overripe or blow-
down timber that was over 50 percent suitable only for pulp.
Without the pulp mills to provide a market for the large volume
of overripe and defective timber a small independent logging con-
tractor like myself could not stay in business. We have no way to
dispose of this but of course there was — the 50-year contracts with
the pulp mills made it possible for many people like myself to live
year-round and raise families in this wilderness known as the Ton-
gass.
I have been here long enough to see the benefits of the multiple-
use concept. I have flown, floated and driven many times over most
of southeast Alaska and have watched areas I logged 30 years ago
flourish with new healthy timber growth. I have been in second
growth the Russians logged that I defy most of the rabid preserva-
tionists to tell the difference from old growth, other than it was an
exceptionally healthy stand of so-called "old growth".
I am fed up with seeing pictures of new clearcuts in the media
and never seeing photos of 20 or 40 year old clearcuts showing how
tall and healthy the new growth is.
The road system in the Tongass is a wonderful thing because I
enjoy seeing the older people driving around if they couldn't walk
it, and experiencing the Tongass first hand, instead of having to fly
320
over or watch it on TV. When I am too old to fly, which I do
myself, I expect to be able to drive over the Tongass.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Harbour.
Mr. Soderberg.
STATEMENT OF VIRGIL SODERBERG
Mr. Soderberg. Senators, we the undersigned are the residents
of the Barge Inn, we are working there as a flotilla currently an-
chored at Winter Harbor on the Northwest side of Prince of Wales
Island. Our mission to construct logging roads within strict forest
regulations and specifications.
We are justifiably proud of what has been accomplished today —
dead, rotten, bug-infested stands have been replaced by vigorous
stands of young, green second growth.
A great National Forest can now be accessed by all Americans
through the road network now in place. As professionals and resi-
dents of the forest we oppose all aspects of Senate Bill 346 and
House Bill 987. The cancellation of the long-term contracts would
eliminate the Ketchikan Pulp Mill at the first downturn of the
market. Half the employees in the industry would be forced to
leave at that time. Likewise comparable numbers of service sup-
port people would follow. Those remaining would be subjected to
the roller coaster ride of the economy, depending upon two season-
al industries. Southeast Alaska would rapidly assume the economi-
cally handicapped characteristics of nondiversiflcation that the rest
of the State is so famous for. Elimination of the 4.5 billion board
feet allowable sale quantity would also eliminate some of our ca-
reers in the National Forest.
Native corporations are eager to continue their logging and road-
building operations and harvesting their own stands but will find
no timber available or displaced and already in the forest. In either
case the dropping of employment and economic activity would
follow.
The nature of the Tongass Timber Supply Fund would remove
incentive to improve the harvest yield on a marginal stance, which
remained open after the wilderness area selections. To do so would
be to decrease the timber base with resulting decreases in employ-
ment and the local economies. Removal of the portion of the forest
which pays the local economy for loss of productive lands to wilder-
ness should be followed by elimination of wilderness areas. Addi-
tional selections of commercial forest lands for wilderness areas
should not be made; to remove timber from productive harvest and
lock it away to rot, burn or blow down is serious mismanagement.
Southeast Alaska is a model community and the Tongass is a
model forest and you can kid the fans but you cannot kid the play-
ers.
The rules should apply to everyone and not be changed in the
middle of the game.
Thank you. Senator. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Thank you Mr. Soderberg.
Mr. Apostolis.
321
STATEMENT OF PERRY APOSTOLIS
Mr. Apostolis. My name is Perry Apostolis, I have been in
Alaska for four years, this is my second year following — with a con-
struction company. I have logged in Admiralty Island and Prince of
Wales Island. I have 14 years experience in logging and other vari-
ous types of tree work, all from Oregon and Alaska. It is not hard
to see that the trees in southeast Alaska are overripe and need to
be harvested. Alaska has a natural second growth that is coming
up beautifully. Our logging industry has divided nice forests in
southeast Alaska for tourism and hunters and sightseers.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Ms. Paulson.
STATEMENT OF JAN PAULSON
Ms. Paulson. My name is Jan Paulson. I have been a resident of
Alaska since 1972. Currently I am employed as a civil engineer by
Seley Corporation, a Ketchikan-based resource company. We are di-
rectly involved in logging, construction and tourism.
I oppose S. 346. This legislation, proposed by Senator Wirth,
would not be beneficial to the people of Southeast Alaska. Reduc-
ing the allowable annual cut on the Tongass could only result in
the loss of jobs and hinder future development.
Locking up more of the Tongass to wilderness would not be bene-
ficial to anyone. The areas currently designated as wilderness are
accessible only to the affluent or very hardy. For instance, Misty
Fiords National Monument is only accessible by float plane or boat.
There are no hiking trails or viewpoints for the average vacationer
to enjoy. I believe the roads built to access timber can also be used
to access recreational areas, areas that would be available to re-
tired people traveling in motor homes and on tight budgets. Short
trails from these roads could also make the Tongass accessible to
the handicapped.
I believe most of the opposition to logging in the Tongass stems
from misinformation campaigns by environmental groups. It was
easy for the writers at Sports Illustrated to take pictures of a fresh
clear-cut and say this is bad but what they did not show was the
ten-year-old cut down the road that has completely grown over
with healthy young trees.
The management of a multiple use forest is a complicated issue,
one that most people not directly involved do not understand. For
them the only rational solution is to stop all logging.
The most important issue before us today is the continuation of
the 50-year timber sale contracts. United States entered into these
contracts with the intention of meeting the terms. If these con-
tracts are terminated everyone loses. All taxpayers will be invited
to share in a buy-out that at this time has an unknown bottom
line. The reduction in timber-related jobs will adversely affect the
employment level of our service industries and the entire economy
of southeast Alaska.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Paulson.
Mr. Lindgren.
322
STATEMENT OF DAN LINDGREN
Mr. LiNDGREN. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dan Lindgren
and I am an Accountant employed by Wrangell Forest Products.
I strongly believe that every effort possible must be made to
ensure the continuation of the timber industry in southeast
Alaska. Therefore, I disagree with the Tongass Timber Reform Act
for many reasons, three of which I will cover today.
First, cutbacks in the timber industry would have devastating ef-
fects on the hopes and dreams of thousands of Alaskans. Real
Estate values would plummet and many families would be stuck
with large mortgage payments and no jobs. This coupled with high
costs to move from Alaska would leave many families stranded.
This in turn could lead to more homeless families and higher rates
of crime.
Second, 96 percent of the Tongass National Forest remains un-
touched by the timber industry. Trees sprout like weeds in logged
areas without planting, making Alaska the United States' best re-
newable wood source. Proper thinning of this second growth forest
creates a forest with a value two to three times more than the old
growth forest. This second growth forest will also have a road
system that will greatly increase the economic return of harvesting
timber in Alaska. All these factors will help ensure jobs for future
generations of Alaskans.
Third, the timber industry in Alaska is still in its start-up period.
Millions of dollars have been invested in property, plants and
equipment. These investments were made on the premise of an
adequate supply of harvestable timber. If this timber supply was
shortened, compensation would need to be made, not only to the
pulp mills but also to other small businesses that rely on the
timber industry. The price tag for this compensation would be hun-
dreds of millions of dollars and would be paid by our tax dollars.
In conclusion, without a striving timber industry southeast
Alaska would suffer a tremendous crunch in its economy. Thou-
sands of Alaskans who have invested their lives in the timber in-
dustry would lose everything they have worked so hard for. This
along with the millions of dollars of compensation that will have to
be paid only proves how foolish it would be to tamper with the
timber industry in southeast Alaska.
I urge you to consider the thousands of lives that will be affected
every time you vote for legislation concerning the Tongass Nation-
al Forest.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Monk.
STATEMENT OF ALAN MONK
Mr. Monk. Just six months ago I could have been counted among
the proponents of this proposed legislation. I would have readily
agreed that we do not have enough designated wilderness in our
national forests to allow for mass logging and the rapid depletion
of a very valuable resource. I would also have agreed that we need
to do something drastic to save the habitats of our endangered
wildlife. Yes, I would have said that those loggers only care about
323
cutting down our national forests and getting the almighty dollar
and to heck with anything else.
Oh, yes, and while I am at it, what is all this hullabaloo about
the loss of jobs? These displaced loggers can easily fmd jobs in the
other big Alaska industries, fishing, tourism and the ever present
oil field.
Well, as I said, I would have been of this opinion but something
changed my mind. I moved to southeast Alaska from New Mexico.
I am no longer a member of the uninformed, lounge chair environ-
mental group. It is very easy for Joe Blow from New York City to
sit in his easy chair and talk about environmental concerns and
how his national forests are being raped and something needs to be
done now before the whole United States looks like New York City.
Since moving to Alaska I have just begun to realize how vast the
Tongass National Forest is and what a tiny portion of it is actually
being logged or ever will be. I also see that the logging operations
are well regulated and the cutting is not just haphazard, but is well
planned.
I just do not feel it is right for people to make decisions or policy
on matters that they do not have first-hand knowledge of. How
many of the legislators who will decide this issue or the environ-
mentalists who support it have ever been to Alaska to see first
hand the magnitude of this forest and the economic stability its in-
dustries provide the people of the Tongass?
Are you willing to sacrifice the economic stability of Southeast
Alaska just to placate the lobbying efforts of the environmentalists
whose main support comes from the white collar Yuppies who will
probably never even see Alaska let alone the Tongass National
Forest?
I think it is about time that Alaskans are allowed to determine
Alaska's future and let Coloradoans worry about Colorado and
their own problems with their national forests. I do not see any
federal legislation being proposed to stop all the commercializing of
their forests by the ski industry.
I ask, Mr. Wirth, are you willing to close up a ski resort in Colo-
rado for every logging operation we lose here because of your legis-
lation? [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Any questions of this panel?
[No response.]
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much for joining us.
Our final group is Mr. Dick Ransdell, Mr. Greg Head, Angelo
Martin and Mr. Sean Harbour.
Mr. Ransdell.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RANSDELL
Mr. Ransdell. My name is Dick Ransdell and I am employed in
Ketchikan by a company involved in both logging and tourism and
have been involved in financial activities for the past 20 years.
For a variety of reasons I am here to oppose the bill as proposed
by Senator Wirth. I think discussion of elimination of the long-
term sales would certainly affect the ability to finance the type
projects which were put in place with the advent of the long-tern
sales now in existence. I feel the government, in providing these
324
sales, induced not only significant investment by the pulp plants,
who seem to be the scapegoat in this situation, but also by a
number of independent loggers and other support activities, includ-
ing everything from the boll weevil center to the local restaurant.
I am confident in this statement as I participated in the financ-
ing and building of a $65 million fiberboard plant in the Republic
of Ireland and we could not have gotten that contract unless we got
support from the government. I feel it is an obligation of the gov-
ernment when they make those commitments.
The second point, the company I work for in Alaska has exported
over a $100 million worth of lumber in the past several years,
which certainly must contribute to the balance of trade problem
that we seem to have. In producing this lumber we have provided
approximately 200 people in the small town of Wrangell with year-
round employment and a similar number of seasonal jobs located
in the logging industry.
An adequate timber supply and a market facility to sell the pulp
logs is essential to the existence of the areas' sawmills and logging
operations. We should all recognize the potential impact on the
economy of southeast Alaska of changes in government policy.
Timber and related industries supply a large number of our citi-
zens with employment.
I thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Ransdell.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ransdell follows:]
325
I AM RICHARD RANSDELL, AND I AM EMPLOYED IN KETCHIKAN BY A COMPANY
INVOLVED IN BOTH LOGGING AND TOURISM, AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. DISCUSSION OF ELIMINATION
OF THE LONG-TERM SALES WOULD CERTAINLY AFFECT THE ABILITY TO FINANCE THE
TYPE PROJECTS WHICH WERE PUT IN PLACE WITH THE ADVENT OF THE LONG-TERM
SALES NOW IN EXISTENCE. I FEEL THE GOVERNMENT, IN PROVIDING THESE
SALES, INDUCED NOT ONLY THE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN THESE PLANTS BUT
IN ADDITION, INVESTMENT BY MANY INDEPENDENT LOGGERS AND OTHER SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES. I AM CONFIDENT IN THIS STATEMENT AS I PARTICIPATED IN THE
FINANCING AND BUILDING OF A $65,000,000 FIBERBOARD PLANT IN THE REPUBLIC
OF IRELAND WHICH WAS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN WE HAD OBTAINED A 20-YEAR
CONTRACT WITH THE IRISH GOVERNMENT FOR WOOD SUPPLY.
NOW THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE, THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO
CHANGE THE RULES. THE COMPANY I WORK FOR HAS EXPORTED OVER 100 MILLION
DOLLARS WORTH OF LUMBER IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WHICH CERTAINLY MUST
HELP THE BALANCE OF TRADE. IN PRODUCING THIS LUMBER WE HAVE PROVIDED
APPROXIMATELY 200 PEOPLE IN THE SMALL CITY OF WRANGELL WITH YEAR-ROUND
EMPLOYMENT AND A SIMILAR NUMBER OF SEASONAL JOBS IN LOGGING, NOT
INCLUDING THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT.
AN ADEQUATE TIMBER SUPPLY AND A MARKET TO SELL PULP LOGS IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE EXISTENCE OF THE AREAS' SAWMILLS AND LOGGING OPERATIONS. WE SHOULD
ALL RECOGNIZE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA OF
CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT POLICY. TIMBER AND RELATED INDUSTRIES SUPPLY A
LARGE NUMBER OF OUR CITIZENS WITH EMPLOYMENT.
I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY OPINION ON WHAT IS AN
IMPORTANT MATTER TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA.
326
Senator Wirth. Mr. Head.
STATEMENT OF GREG HEAD
Mr. Head. Thank you. My name is Greg Head and I am Vice
President of Klawock Timber Alaska, Inc. My family came to
Alaska over 20 years ago and built a sawmill. We were encouraged
and assisted in this by Frank Peratrovich, a far-sighted Klawock
Native who envisioned year-round employment for his people. This
has finally come about and we are now employing 100 people in
the mill itself and another 150 in the woods, either building roads
or harvesting timber. The mill will process about 75 million feet of
logs this year; 90 percent of this volume is barged to the mill and
we also produce our own power at the mill site.
We are 100 percent dependent on the Tongass for our raw mate-
rials to stay in business. Because of this dependency we have
always been in direct competition with the two pulp mills for logs
and we have been at a distinct disadvantage for getting logs.
Now the pulp mills are able to procure a guaranteed log volume
with set stumpage, which influences the market and limits our
profitability and makes it difficult for us to compete.
Aside from the 50-year contracts, probably the biggest hurdle for
us in the Tongass to overcome in our fight for existence is the
export by the Native Corporation. The exporting of jobs with these
logs was and is a mistake and it has had a severe impact on how
the rest of the country views the timber industry in the Tongass.
Like the 50-year set-asides, this also influences the market down-
ward. Foreign buyers, if given a choice, would rather process Alas-
kan logs than buy Alaskan lumber.
We feel the long-term contracts should be cancelled and that em-
ployment will actually increase as a result. We feel the Forest
Service should be given more say in where and what should be cut.
They are mandated by law to consider all the various interests
before they allow a cut and we are confident that if permitted, they
would do a good job and a balanced job of managing the forest.
We feel anyone exporting saw logs should be barred from any
federal timber.
Lastly, we feel no more timber should be set aside for wilderness,
in fact because of the proven regenerative properties of the Ton-
gass we feel the Forest Service should be allowed to designate the
timber inside the forest. We would like any constructive efforts to
correct current misuse of the Tongass but that does not mean that
the loggers should be barred from responsible timber harvest.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Head.
Mr. Martin.
[No response.]
Senator Wirth. Mr. Martin, are we on to you?
STATEMENT OF ANGELO MARTIN
Mr. Martin. I am Angelo Martin, part owner of a corporation lo-
cated in Ketchikan, founded in 1947 by Barney Lind. I started
working there in 1980 and purchased ownership in 1985. We now
employ eight people and the timber industry is 40 percent of our
business and 20 percent indirectly.
327
We do printing from companies as far away as Cold Bay to An-
nette Island. This takes in the Tongass National Forest and is 120
miles wide by 500 miles long.
The Tongass is very vast and rich in resources and can sustain
all the industries in harmony, such as fishing, timber, mining, visi-
tor and recreation.
I feel that the government made a commitment by signing the
50-year lease and should uphold therein without cutting back any
of the timber yield any further. If there has to be a compromise
then I support Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Frank Murkow-
ski's bill. Frankly, Senator Wirth's bill is just not worth a damn.
Let us Alaskans choose our own destiny. Lind Printing cannot
survive without the timber industry.
Also attached is a letter from Alaska Women in Timber printed
on pulp made at Ketchikan Pulp Company, giving you the true
facts about logging on the Tongass.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Harbour.
STATEMENT OF SEAN C. HARBOUR
Mr. Harbour. My name is Sean Harbour and I am 22 and have
lived in Alaska all my life. I grew up in a logging camp and am
now employed at the Ketchikan Pulp Mill. I was raised with a
thorough grounding in the economics of timber harvest.
A virgin forest is not paradise. In many areas widespread devas-
tation takes place naturally from a variety of sources, including
insect infestation of trees, forest fires and blowdown. Each of these
three factors accounts for a sizable loss in the forest each year. The
key word on the Tongass is harvest. The forest can naturally make
up for its annual losses from acts of God many times over. It is for
this reason that the idea of sustained yield harvesting is practica-
ble from an economic viewpoint.
In 5 years' time a clearcut area has rebounded so far that it is
almost impossible to walk through the area. I have found that the
only practical means of traversing these areas is by following the
inevitable and numerous deer and bear trails that literally criss-
cross any section of the forest, clearout or otherwise. That is if you
like to crawl on your hands and knees.
A principal fact of life is that for multiple use purposes the only
practical access to inland forest is via logging roads.
The people of Alaska in conjunction with the United States Con-
gress worked hard to establish a viable year-round timber industry
that would attract and support permanent residents to further and
broaden the economic development of the state. I personally feel
that the limber industry is needed to provide an adequate income
for a large number of people, especially in view of the fact that I
was raised to believe that logging is an honorable and worthwhile
profession. I deeply resent the portrayal of the logger as an assas-
sin of the forest when what I know from personal experience is
that modern forest management practices not only provide wood
for today's forest product industries but will also provide for tomor-
row's on a perpetual basis and improve the health, quality and
amount of wood produced per acre, therefore improving our world-
328
wide competitive standing without decreasing, indeed increasing,
our natural resource base.
In conclusion I would like to state my support for Senator Mur-
kowski's bill as the best compromise available for the Tongass and
the Nation.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Harbour.
Senator Murkowski and Senator Burns, any questions?
Senator Murkow^ski. Mr. Head, you indicated in your statement
on page two that you feel anyone exporting saw logs should be
banned from bidding on federal timber. The consequence of that
statement of course, addressing legislation that has been intro-
duced in the State of Oregon and I wonder if one can draw the con-
clusion from your statement that if you are a private owner of
timber that would preclude in your opinion the ability to bid on
federal timber; for what specific reason?
Mr. Head. The biggest reason we saw was and now it is almost a
mute point because there has been so much export but we felt that
the biggest thing here is jobs. One of the biggest considerations is
that the— well, if it had manufacturing capabilities, we had to have
manufacturing facilities before export, that the demand for the
wood would still have been there, even after it was manufactured
but the jobs would have stayed in Alaska and so given us a better
base to
Senator Murkowski. Well, I know there is a good deal of debate
coming up. I know the Senator from Oregon is involved heavily
and the Federal Government does under Congress regulation have
the authority to prohibit the export of raw logs. I am not suggest-
ing that at this time but I was just interested in that portion of
your testimony. I can judge from that that your mill would be a
viable entity if you had more timber and you cannot use pulp, you
have to have saw logs?
Mr. Head. Right.
Senator Wirth. And saw logs are being exported currently?
Mr. Head. We are not talking about the saw logs, we are talking
about all of Alaska if there are not any more restrictions on it we
should have enough to process for our sawmill. I am talking about
building facilities, other people building facilities, so there are
more people here of course.
Senator Murkowski. Are you operating currently?
Mr. Head. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Where are you getting your logs? Are you
buying them?
Mr. Head. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Now what do you do with your pulp, do you
chip it?
Mr. Head. No, we have never been able to negotiate a contract.
We are exporting it to Japan.
Senator Wirth. Do you export the shipment direct?
Mr. Head. Right. ^ u f vo
Senator Wirth. Do they pay more than you can get here tor it.-*
Mr. Head. Right.
Senator Wirth. Well, gentlemen, we thank you, the four of you
very much, we appreciate your being with us and your patience
329
being at the end of the batting and sticking with us. Thank you
ever so much for coming and now unless there are closing words
for the good of the order, any of my colleagues: Senator Murkowski
or Senator Burns?
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to reiter-
ate, this is my first visit to Ketchikan, Alaska and you have made
my visit very very good here. I appreciate the folks that have come
to listen to this hearing and the people who have testified and Sen-
ator Wirth is right. You can sit down and you can either oppose or
you want to firm your convictions towards a certain piece of legis-
lation. It is wonderful, because that is the American way. That is
one of the traditions that keeps this country together and keeps us,
sort of keeps us part of the civilization in this society.
We appreciate all of you folks who testified here today. I have
learned quite a lot and I look forward to tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Senator Burns.
[Pause.]
Senator Wirth. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. I want to thank you and members of the
Staff, Professional Staff, that you have traveled so far and my good
friends and colleagues from Montana, who I think has really gotten
a different perspective of Alaska and Senator Conrad, this is also
his first trip up here. He is my colleague. Senator Wirth.
I want to thank you all for your hospitality and obviously you
have seen from this process that there is a wide divergence of opin-
ion and that is the way it should be.
Again I would suggest to you that hopefully we can reach a re-
solve. Obviously it will not be satisfactory to all of you but hopeful-
ly all of you can find something of substance in the ultimate legis-
lation that is worked out of this process.
Again, thank you for not only the beautiful sunshine but for the
chance to meet people from Ketchikan and very happy to see the
high school students here, that they are able to attend a portion of
this and can understand at least to some extent what some of us do
in Washington more often than not and unfortunately the difficul-
ty Washington is. We do not have time to get out and hold field
hearings at this time. We have had hearings on Tongass in Wash-
ington, of course, and it is very difficult for people to come back
there and because of the way the Senate is structured why we
really do not get the opportunity to come out often enough.
Senator Conrad and Senator Wirth, tomorrow I hope that you
each will have an opportunity to see some of the southeastern, a
little more so on the flight to Sitka and see some of the clearcuts
and look at some of the areas that have been logged five years ago,
ten years ago, twenty years ago and further and that you get to
compare some of the private timber sales and the logging with
some of the Forest Service; I think it gives you a better idea. I
know the best way to see southeastern Alaska is to climb into a
beaver which goes, a Chipper, 75 or 80 knots and be prepared for a
long chip. The thing is about the beaver, it is usually incompatible
with your kidneys because there are places to sit down almost any-
where and go ashore so do not take it somewhere where Congress,
including Senator Johnson, I think this is an off-the-record com-
330
ment but he said that if I see any more wilderness around here I
am going to give up, the point being that this is a big hunk of real
estate in southeast Alaska and a beautiful part, a very previous
part and the stewardship of this part of Alaska obviously belongs
to all Americans but I think those in southeast Alaska, in spite of
the divergence of opinion really feel that this is their special place
and from this process, why, hopefully we can continue to regard
this special place with some dedication and sensitivity of all the
witnesses who testified today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
On behalf of the Committee I want to thank you and all of the
citizens of Ketchikan for their hospitality today. I thank the Staff
as well, most especially I want to thank those witnesses who came
and spent so much time with us today. You know I think we had
about a hundred witnesses today, we learned a lot.
Senator Burns, we certainly appreciate particularly so many
heart-felt moments of testimony. That is a tribute to the people's
commitment to their way of life and to this beautiful, beautiful
part of the country
We thank you for getting us up here and making sure that this
hearing occurred and I want to thank all the members of the audi-
ence that took their time, and expressions of concern came bub-
bling out — but that is the American way too, so all of you, thank
you very much.
The Committee will be adjourned until tomorrow morning at an-
other reasonably early Alaskan hour. Let us hope that tomorrow
we will also be blessed with good Rocky Mountain Montana-Colora-
do clear blue skies.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene,
Tuesday, April 25, 1989.]
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1989
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Pubuc Lands,
National Parks and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Sitka, AK.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8 a.m., in the Sitka
Centennial Center, Sitka, AK, Hon. Timothy E. Wirth presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, U.S.
SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Wirth. Thank you for coming.
The Chair welcomes you all to the hearing of the Subcommittee
on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests, of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee.
I am Senator Tim Wirth from Colorado, and I will be chairing
today's hearing. With me here are Senator Conrad Burns of Mon-
tana and our host. Senator Frank Murkowski, whom you all know.
I am pleased to be here today, and I want to start by expressing
my appreciation to Senator Dale Bumpers from Arkansas, the Sub-
committee Chairman, and Senator Bennett Johnston, the Chair-
man of the full committee, for agreeing to schedule this hearing.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on two bills:
S. 237, Senator Murkowski's bill, and S. 346, a bill I introduced.
Both of these bills concern the Tongass National Forest; and we
have come here to hear your opinions, your concerns, and your
ideas.
Of course, how the Tongass is run affects all of you and that is
why you are here, to let us know your concerns. We are aware of
that and I repeat, that is why we are here as well.
The question of how to run the Tongass National Forest is con-
troversial. It is controversial in Washington, D.C., it is controver-
sial in my home state, and it is controversial here. We deal with a
lot of controversial issues in the Senate, and we do our best to
listen to all sides, to respect the right of people to hold opinions
that are different than our own and to respect their right to ex-
press those opinions. It is my intention to see that this hearing is
run in that manner.
I expect I will be hearing a lot about my bill today. Before we
start, I would like to say a few things about what I think it does
and why I proposed it.
The Tongass is more than just an Alaskan issue. This is not just
any national forest. It is the largest national forest. It has interna-
(331)
332
tionally important wildlife and fishery resources. Its management
has made it one of the most expensive of all our national forests to
run.
And, in an era when we are trying hard to find a way to create
more balanced plans for every national forest — plans that are re-
sponsive to the growing public demand for and economic impor-
tance of fisheries, recreation, tourism, wildlife and other values of
our forests — the Tongass stands out as hamstrung in its ability to
respond to that challenge.
I believe the Tongass is hamstrung because all its planning and
management revolves around three things unique to this forest: the
rigid goal of having to supply 4.5 billion board feet of timber for
sale per decade, the automatic provision of at least $40 million per
year for timber programs, and the 50-year contracts which give two
timber buyers exclusive control of large parts of the forest.
The legislation which I have introduced has five central provi-
sions. First, it eliminates the now-mandatory timber goal of 4.5 bil-
lion board feet per decade for the Tongass.
The second point of the legislation eliminates the guaranteed
minimum annual appropriation of $40 million for the Tongass
timber program.
The third point of the legislation terminates the two 50-year
timber contracts so that timber will be sold through the normal
process of short-term contracts. Long-term timber contracts were
eliminated from the other national forests in the country during
the 1950s and 1960s, while this is the mechanism remaining here.
Fourth, the legislation requires the Forest Service to revise its
land management plan to adjust to not having the mandatory
timber goal, the guaranteed appropriation, or the long-term con-
tracts, and also to achieve a balance between timber, wildlife, fish-
eries, recreation, and all the other uses and values of this forest. In
other words, this provides the Forest Service with room to start de
novo on its planning process.
Fifth, the legislation places 23 areas off limits to logging until
this new Forest plan is completed. The legislation does not put any
lands in wilderness. It does not put any lands off limits to logging
permanently, but it would ensure that logging under the old plan
does not eliminate the options for protecting these particularly im-
portant areas for fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and subsistence use
in the new plan.
These five proposals were made in the hope that they would pro-
tect resources in the Tongass National Forest which are important
to Alaska's economy, and that they enable the Tongass to adjust to
a future which, whether the legislation passes or not, is going to be
different than the past.
In the past, the Tongass was run for the timber industry. It is
becoming apparent that we cannot do that and expect everyone
else to do just fine. Now, the commercial fishermen, the tourism
industry, the subsistence user and the hunters and fishermen of
this area want to be partners in the management of the forest be-
cause they all depend on the forest as much as the timber industry
does.
In the past. Congress thought that pouring money into the
timber program of this forest, and other forests, would solve all
333
local economic problems and provide community stability, but now
we have to justify every federal dollar spent as a good investment.
The taxpayers of every state demand that. It is their money.
Lastly, in the past, Alaska was far away from the rest of the
country. It is still far away but now people in every part of Amer-
ica know about Alaska, are interested in it, and care about its envi-
ronment. They know about the oil spill and they know about this
forest. It is their forest, too, and they want it to be protected from
harm.
It is not my intent to stop timber harvest on the Tongass Nation-
al Forest or to close the mills in Sitka and Ketchikan, nor do I
think that will happen under my proposal. I do not see why those
mills should not, or cannot, operate under the same sorts of rules
the mills in every other state operate under.
Will it be as easy for the mills as it is now? No. Maybe they will
have more things to worry about, including competition.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses and I welcome
their input. We will bring back what you say to the other members
of the Committee, and I am sure that the Committee and the Con-
gress will have a lively debate on these issues. And I am looking
forward to working with the Committee members, with the Alaska
delegation and with other interested members on this important
issue.
Again, I thank you all very much for being here. After other
opening statements, I will outline the rules of the Committee in its
operation today.
I would like to turn now to our host. Senator Murkowski, and
say that we had a very good day yesterday in Ketchikan, a very
well-balanced and well thought-out presentation. The record that
was made was a very good one, and I am sure that we will have a
similar kind of a record today. And much of this comes because of
our good host, Senator Murkowski, and the careful work that he
has done. Frank, from all of of us, thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Tim. I want to
thank all of you responsible for hospitality last evening. I might
say the boat trip was well balanced and although we had different
views on either side of the boat we intermingled and and had a
lovely evening. It was a very fine way to introduce us to your com-
munity, although I am no stranger here. As many of you know,
Nancy and I lived here from 1955 to 1956 and I am very glad to be
back.
I am pleased to see the sun shining. I always remember Sitka
with the sun shining.
Today's hearing marks, I think, certainly a fulfillment of my
promise to Alaskans that no action would be taken on Congress
legislation until hearings were held in the communities most af-
fected. Unfortunately the Committee was unable to include Wran-
gell in the hearing schedule although I requested that.
334
Senator Burns and the members of the professional committee
staff of the Public Lands Subcommittee, I welcome you to Alaska
and, of course, to the City of Sitka. Both Ted Stevens and Don
Young regret that they are unable to be here today but the oil spill
disaster kind of spread our congressional delegation a little thin
and Ted and Don are touring the Cordova, Valdez, Seward, Homer
areas.
Legislation affecting the future of the Tongass National Forest is
a subject vital to the people of Alaska, as the Chairman has al-
ready indicated, particularly those living here in Southeastern
Alaska.
It is essential that Alaskans be heard before any legislative
changes are made affecting the management of the TongEiss.
Chairman Wirth, as Acting Subcommittee Chairman, I thank
you. Senator Bennett Johnston, the Chairman of the full Commit-
tee, as well as Senator Dale Bumpers, the Subcommittee Chairman,
for holding these hearings. I also appreciate the courtesies that
have been extended to me as a non member of the Public Lands
Subcommittee.
The Committee has before it two bills which would have radical-
ly different impacts on the Tongass, Senate Bill 346, introduced by
my colleague Senator Wirth and others, and Senate Bill 237, intro-
duced by myself and Senator Stevens.
It is my belief that the Wirth bill would seriously cripple the
timber industry as we know it today. It would drastically reduce
the timber supply, abrogate our two pulp mill contracts, and force
the United States to walk away from a commitment made to the
people of Southeastern Alaska. I find it rather ironic and trouble-
some that at a time when Alaska is facing severe challenges to our
economic stability and our state budget disaster principally in
Prince William Sound that we are also facing a potential loss of
our timber industry and as much as 4,423 jobs and the life styles of
those Alaskans dependent upon it.
Now, when we sort out the effects of the spill, exploration of
ANWR, as well as resale activity associated with Bristol Bay, we
are certainly off the screen. Exploration of ANWR and Resale 92
should not go forward until questions are resolved as to the ade-
quacy of containment and contingency plans and that they are
proven by actual testing.
Further, it is significant, given the reality that we are here today
fighting for our state's only year-round manufacturing industry.
WTiy is it that some members of Congress want to shut down the
mills, the provider of jobs for three out of 10 residents in South-
eastern Alaska? We can reform management of the Tongass with-
out devastating the economy of Southeastern Alaska. That is what
the Tongass Land Management Plan or TLMP is all about, gather-
ing the input from all interests to make the management of the
Tongass National Forest more responsive to the concerns of all par-
ties. With all of the hearings and inputs from Alaskans already in
the record, and the TLMP report available this year or early next
year, I find it inconsistent that we move on legislation now before
considering the recommendations of the TLMP plan.
Our bill, I feel, is a workable compromise and responds to reason-
able concerns about the Tongass management, which takes in the
335
concerns of the Southeast Conference as well, those who oppose the
$40 million federal funding, as well as groups fighting for their jobs
and life styles, such as Women in Timber.
The important aspects of our proposal are, first, it does not walk
away from the commitment made by the United States to the
people of Southeastern Alaska. Two, it does not upset the basic
compromise of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act of 1980. Our bill will repeal the mandate that the Forest Serv-
ice make 4.5 million board feet of timber available to the depend-
ent industry each decade. Under our bill, the actual amount of
timber prepared for sale, sold and harvested, would be limited by
the annual Congressional appropriation, a sustained yield capacity
of the forest which includes protection of fish and wildlife and the
demand market for timber. In addition, we would require a suffi-
cient amount of land outside the existing wilderness remain in
multiple use management to support the timber-dependent South-
east communities on a sustainable yield basis.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that you and others will keep a per-
spective on the many important issues that will be brought to your
attention by the witnesses this morning. These include, Mr. Chair-
man, old growth, virgin stands, clear-cutting, in addition to wilder-
ness and buffer zones free from timber cutting around our small
communities and spawning streams and winter kill of our deer
population along the beach and free stands or old growth to sustain
the deer habitat, along with the pressures on the deer from both
wolf kill and hunting by man.
The contribution of second growth stands, such as those in vari-
ous areas. Prince Wales Island, cut during the Second World War,
yielding nearly tenfold new forest contributing as a sump, if you
will, assimilating carbon dioxide, is making a positive contribution
to the world's warming trend, the realization that over 40 percent
of the Tongass is deteriorating and dying and the only utilization is
in the form of wood fiber, not lumber, of the timber taken.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that we include in the record the
Tongass land statistics attached hereto, and I would ask that those
be included in the record at this time, basically a summary of the
5.7 million acres of harvestable, old-growth forest land in the Ton-
gass, two-thirds is already set aside for fishing, wildlife, recreation
and wilderness, two-thirds of the commercial old growth forest, 1.7
million acres or one-third was put in wilderness in 1980 and is
there in perpetuity. Roughly one-third, 2.3 million acres, is man-
aged for fish and game and wildlife and other uses, which exclude
road construction and logging. There remains only 1.7 million
acres, or one-third of the harvestable timber, that will ever be
logged. That is only 10 percent of the entire 17 million acre forest.
Don Young asked me to emphasize the significance of another
piece of legislation, H.R. 1368, a bill recorded by the Forest Sub-
committee and the House Agriculture Committee. This requires
the Forest Service to meet market demands, up to 4.5 million board
feet per decade and does away with the $40 million Federal fund-
ing. It is quite similar to my bill. We think that is very significant
on the House side.
Mr. Chairman, our bill S. 237 represents a compromise. We have
eliminated the $40 million annual Federal funding where so much
336
criticism was formerly directed, and put the Tongass on an equal
footing with all of our other national forests.
Much of the testimony from Ketchikan has been prepared with-
out consideration that indeed the bills before this Committee cur-
rently eliminate the Federal funding. Additional compromises will
be forthcoming as a result of these hearings, and we certainly wel-
come them. Nevertheless, we must draft this legislation to protect
the livelihood and life styles of the majority of the Alaskans in the
communities threatened.
Mr. Chairman, there has been some concern over the ability to
accommodate the large number of witnesses, and I regret that and
I would ask that the correspondence, including the notices and
other pertinent data relative to the selection of witnesses be made
part of the record.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the views of my
fellow Alaskans and thank you very much for the opportunity to
be here today.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Senator Burns?
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MONTANA
Senator Burns. I will be brief in my remarks this morning. We
have a very long day ahead of us. This is my first trip to Alaska,
and I have come here to listen to Alaskans. I come from the State
of Montana and I bring you greetings from the great state of Mon-
tana as one flatlander to another, and it is a pleasure for me to be
here.
Even though we just arrived, I can see that we have similar situ-
ations. The only thing is that your state dwarfs my own, but we
have common problems. We depend on tourism for much of our
economy. We also depend on timber products, an industry that pro-
vides a lot of our jobs. These similarities and some other reasons
are why I have come to this hearing. We are very interested in the
eventual legislation and the potential effect that it might have on
my home state and, of course, the whole nation.
More than that, I am interested in hearing from the people who
would be most affected by these deliberations. So many times, legis-
lation passes out of Washington that has social and economic
impact on those communities that will be involved. I believe that
decisions that we make on Federal lands must be done with full
consideration of local economies and local communities.
I believe in a balanced use of our national forests, each forest in
the United States. They vary and they are unique in their own
makeup, and management practices will have to vary and be
unique to those individual forests.
We have situations in the lower 48 states where the single use
concept is not working the best down there. Congress should avoid
micro management decisions. The current 450 million board feet
annual requirement may or may not be supportive when the cur-
rent planning process is completed, keeping in mind that there is
no mandate to cut that much but you can cut up to that point. If
the revised forest planning for the Tongass indicates that this level
of harvest is not sustainable, we ought to take another look, reas-
337
sess our goals with a full look at disclosure, the result of a long-
term effect on the current industries and the communities that are
directly effected.
Again, I am looking forward to testimony from Alaskans. I un-
derstand that there were many more that wanted to testify. We
had many more requests than time would permit. I invite those
people to submit testimony to the Subcommittee in writing.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is to your credit that yesterday the
hearing went very well. I am looking forward to a lively debate
today in hearing from Alaskans. You did a wonderful job yester-
day, and I am looking for your performance to be as good today.
Thank you very much.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Senator Burns.
Before beginning the hearing, let me take care of a few adminis-
trative details. We are first going to hear from several panels of
witnesses. Before that we are going to make sure that our micro-
phones are working. Miracles of modern science.
After the panels have concluded, we will hear from individual
witnesses. Both the panels and individual witnesses should check
the witness list posted outside to give you an approximate idea of
when you will be testifying. After the panels have concluded, fur-
ther instructions will be given to those on the individual witness
list before they testify.
As I requested earlier, all of the witnesses on this morning's
panels who are here should take a seat in the section reserved for
you in the first few rows of the chairs to the right. When your
panel is called to testify, please take a seat on the first row of the
reserved section. You will be in our so-called "on-deck circle," and
the preceding panel will come up and take a seat on the stage. In
other words, what we would like to do is have the first panel here,
the second panel in the on-deck circle and then we could just move
as rapidly as possible.
The staff will collect statements from you when you are in the
on-deck circle. Because of the large number of witnesses appearing
today, it will be necessary to limit each panelist's oral testimony to
three minutes. Your testimony will be included in full in the
record but only a three-minute oral time is available. Please keep
an eye on the timer right here. The timer has a green light and a
red light. If you are in the green light your time is running. When
the red light goes on, I will move in and ask you to please stop.
That might appear to be rude, and I might stop you sometimes in
the middle of a paragraph, but I will ask you to understand that if
we do not do that, we will be here to the middle of next week. And
I do not think anybody wants to do that.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks for additional
statements or additional material you might want to add to that
record, and if anybody here would like to submit a statement for
the record, please send it to the Subcommittee office in Washington
or give it to us before we leave today.
Many of you have statements from other individuals; and if you
want to submit those, please make them available to one of the
members of the professional staff or to any of the three of us and
we will make sure that those are inserted in full in the record.
338
With that I believe we are ready to go. Governor Cowper is
coming and we will move right to him as soon as he arrives. So, let
us start with Panel Number 1 and if the members of that panel
would come up and join us at the witness table I would appreciate
that.
Panel Number 1 is Mr. William Privett, President of the South-
east Conference, accompanied by Mr. McKie Campbell. Second,
John Dapcevich, the Mayor of Sitka; Lydia George, Angoon City
Council; Larry Powell, Mayor of Yakutat; Mark Kirchhoff, spokes-
man for Point Alexander; Diane Ziel of the City Council of Tenakee
Springs; Dick Eliason of the State Senate; Rubin Yost, the Mayor
of Pelican; and Paul Johnson, a spokesman for Elfin Cove.
We appreciate all of you being here. I believe that there are
enough chairs here at the witness table for all of you. Thank you
very much for coming. And I hope the second group will come and
join us at that second set of seats, and then we know we are ready
to roll with Panel Number 2.
The only exception to the three minute rule — and, of course,
rules are made to be broken — Mr. William Privett, the president of
Southeast Conference, accompanied by McKie Campbell, has been
given a total of six minutes, and everybody else has been given
three. Mr. Privett represents a broad coalition of people this morn-
ing.
Mr. Privett, why do not you begin, and thank you all very much.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. PRIVETT, PRESIDENT, SOUTHEAST
CONFERENCE
Mr. Privett. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commit-
tee. Senator Murkowski, and fellow Alaskans and visitors. My
name is Bill Privett and with me is McKie Campbell from Juneau.
I am president of the Southeast Conference and Mr. Campbell is
vice-president. We are both members of the Southeast Conference,
a special committee on the Tongass. We sincerely appreciate this
opportunity to meet with you and the time that you and your staff
have taken to make this possible.
The Southeast Conference is a nonprofit corporation comprised of
members representing communities, businesses, and individuals
from Southeastern Alaska. The mission of the conference is to
build and maintain a stable, diversified economy that provides for
an improved standard of living, quality employment and business
development opportunities for the people of Southeast Alaska
through prudent use of our resources.
With that mission in mind, Alaska timber, the Board appointed a
special committee on the Tongass. They explored the possibility of
working with management on legislation for Tongass National
Forest that would represent diverse and varying underlying inter-
ests for the communities of Southeast Alaska. We perceived our
charge as hard-working, deeply concerned Alaskans who had per-
sonal sensitivity to employment of their friends and neighbors and
a profound respect for Alaska's resources in a compromising deter-
mination to keep the Southeast alive.
339
The commissioning forces were in a position because we came to
understand the Congress intends to take action on the Tongass and
we believe it was irresponsible for us not to give it our best shot.
Committee members, Ralph Gregory, Chairman and Mayor of
Ketchikan; John Dapcevich, Mayor of Sitka; Rubin Yost, Mayor of
Pelican; McKie Campbell, assemblyman and member of the city of
Juneau. This group represents large and small communities, as
well as extremely diverse interests. The position that the Tongass
committee developed was formed over 22 weeks of work, intense
interviews, research and discussion, plus creative negotiations as
well as frequent soul searches.
An overview of our findings was that the well-being of the people
of Southeast Alaska is inexplicably linked to the management of
the Tongass National Forest. The economics of the Southeast is
subject to decisions that the Forest Service makes regarding per-
mits, sales, practices and day-to-day management of the Tongass.
The 65,000 residents of Southeast Alaska rely on four primary in-
dustries, timber, tourism, fishing, and mining, in many cases a sub-
sistence way of life for employment in the economic interest struc-
ture. Our economy is beginning to show more strength in tradition-
al industry such as fishing, mining and forest products. It appears
that if our trading markets do not falter, we will see continued
growth and diversification .
The Southeast Alaska over the last 50 years has given its resi-
dents one of the State's most economically diverse and stable geo-
graphic areas. However, the future of this economic unit is tied to
continued vitality in the timber, fishing, tourism and mining indus-
tries, as well as subsistence. These industries are interrelated and
dependent on one another for their viability.
If the committee gains anything from their visit to take back to
your colleagues, we hope it is this: The position that the Southeast
Conference has designed has been developed by Alaskans. It is our
economic livelihood. The Tongass is our future. The action Con-
gress takes will immediately and directly impact the 65,000 people
living in the Tongass who deserve to be heard.
It is your burden to continue to hear the questions surrounding
the Tongass National Forest, complex, extremely emotional,
modern, and detailed explanations and arguments of special inter-
est groups. Debate is serious and sometimes painful. We always re-
flected the need to clarify the mission of the U.S. Forest Service in
the Tongass.
We began our work by identifying the underlying interests of
communities into general consensus points. These points were dis-
tributed, debated, expanded and refined. The committee then went
to work melding the general consensus points into a specific policy
statement that I am officially giving to you today.
Mr. Chairman, let me respectfully suggest to you and your col-
leagues and your staff that anyone deciding to explore this issue
reasonably will find that there are five major areas that must be
addressed. I will identify those as how the Southeast Conference
addresses them.
First, we must clarify the mission of the National Forest Service
in the Tongass. The Southeast Conference proposes that this be a
clear multiple-use mission, and that includes allowable harvest of
340
up to 4.5 billion board feet per decade, adjusted at the Secretary's
discretion depending on market conditions and subject to multiple
use values for the Tongass Forest. This serves to maintain existing
jobs in the forest while protecting fish, wildlife and their habitat.
Second, we must ensure that the Forest Service is able to make
marginal timber stands viable sales for the industry and sustain
other values. The Southeast Conference proposes establishment of
a specific and intensive management fund to do so.
Third, we must protect the areas from timber harvest which
have high values of fish and wildlife production and community
use of those areas. The Southeast Conference proposes 12 areas be
set aside from timber harvest and be put in LUD 2 designation.
Fourth, we must increase the land trades to increase the timber
base for the allowable harvest level, which is to include potential
use of harvested land. The Southeast Conference recommends land
trades, exchanges, or purchases of non-wilderness lands.
Finally, we must provide opportunity to strengthen the South-
east economy. To meet this need, the Southeast Conference pro-
poses the establishment of an economic diversification fund of
grants and loans.
There is probably no specific interest group that is totally satis-
fied with our position. The position remains controversial, particu-
larly within environmental and timber industries. We have worked
to protect the contracts and the small mills, and yet we recommend
that the Secretary determine the appropriate harvest level for the
Tongass land management planning process, depending on market
conditions and subject to other uses of the forest. We have come to
understand in the performance of intensive management land
trades and purchases may be the only way to increase the land
base, and it is just as important as economic diversification.
Please understand that this is a fragile package that is balanced
by the five key elements that are of equal importance. It is fair,
reasonable and critical to the people of Southeast Alaska, critical
because it addresses the importance of strengthening and diversify-
ing our economy. We realize that this is a national forest being
managed in the interest of all Americans.
Senator Wirth. Now, your final words will all be in the record as
well as your proposal. You see, now we are moving; when the red
light goes on, then we move. Thank you very much.
Mr. Privett, we appreciate the work you and all of your col-
leagues have done. Mr. Dapcevich was our host last night, as Frank
Murkowski pointed out. There were a very diverse group of people
on the boat, and that beautiful evening in Sitka we thank you very
much for, Mr. Mayor.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DAPCEVICH, MAYOR OF SITKA, AK
Mr. Dapcevich. Good morning. I would like to extend a very
warm Sitka welcome to Senators from Colorado and Montana and
to our own Senator, Frank Murkowski, and to members of your
staff.
For the record, my name is John Dapcevich. I am the mayor of
the city and borough of Sitka, Alaska, and I am a 60-year resident
of Alaska.
341
I was a member of the Southeast Conference Task Force which
reviewed Tongass legislation and made a recommendation to Con-
gress and our Governor.
To better understand the economic impact to Alaska, I would
like to offer an analogy concerning Colorado showing the effect Mr.
Wirth's bill would have on our state.
The city of Denver, Colorado, in Senator Wirth's own state is cur-
rently embroiled in a dilemma of whether or not to build a new
airport. Stapleton Airport has some 21,000 direct jobs. By 1995 this
number is expected to increase to 25,000.
The new airport would build a stronger economy and brighter
future for Denver. It would defend Denver's status as a national
hub. It would create 90,000 new direct, indirect, and tourism-relat-
ed jobs. It would create 2,500 construction jobs per year during the
four years of construction.
However, Denver has a major air and noise pollution problem
that traps carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter over
Denver. This problem is caused by airplane emissions from the
522,000, that is the 1988 figure, takeoffs and landings of aircraft at
Stapleton Airport. This number is expected to increase to 817,000
takeoffs and landings by the year 2000.
The pollution problem is further compounded by the 10,000s of
vehicles driven daily by the persons who have the direct and indi-
rect jobs created by the airport being a national hub. This problem
will be further aggravated by the expansion of the current airport
or by the construction of a new one.
Now, if Senators Murkowski or Stevens were to introduce legisla-
tion to reduce Stapleton to a regional airport, instead of a national
hub, thousands of direct and related jobs would be lost to Denver.
Our Senators could be justified in such an action, since it would
reduce the air and noise pollution in Denver.
I most certainly do not advocate such action, but I point this out
to demonstrate what would happen to Southeast Alaska should
Senator Wirth's bill be enacted into law. A drastic reduction of
flights at Stapleton would not be as devastating to Denver's econo-
my as would the closure of the pulp mills to Sitka.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "The care of human life and happi-
ness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate
object of good government."
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present my views on
this legislation. I hope you will consider the compromise forged by
the Southeast Conference of Cities.
I am also submitting detailed written testimony, which I hope
you will read thoroughly.
In conclusion, thank you for coming to Alaska to hear from us
Alaskans firsthand.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dapcevich follows:]
342
City and Borough of Sitka
304 LAKE STREET. SITKA, ALASKA. 99835
TESTIMONY OF MAYOR JOHN DAPCEVICH
CITY & BOROUGH OF SITKA
AGAINST THE WIRTH BILL •
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
AT SITKA, ALASKA, APRIL 25, 1989
Mr. Chairman, my name is John Dapcevich. I am the Mayor of the
City and Borough of Sitka. I am also a sixty year resident of Southeast
Alaska, and a life long Democrat. I was a member of the Southeast
Conference Task Force, which has reviewed Tongass legislation and made a
reconmiendation to Congress and the Governor.
Sitka
residents and
is the most beautiful city in Alaska. We have 8,500
a diversified economy consisting of timber, fishing,
tourism, and education. We want to maintain that diversity. We also want
the federal government to keep its word on maintaining the jobs of timber
workers in exchange for wilderness.
To begin with, I would like to give a historical preface to show
how we arrived at the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act
(ANILCA) in 1980.
Prior to World War II, Alaska was a sparsely inhabited Territory
with less than 70,000 residents, mostly Natives. Juneau and Ketchikan
were the two largest cities with approximately 5,000 and 4,000 persons,
respectively. Sitka's population was under 2,000.
Southeast Alaska's main economy was made up of fishing, mining,
and tourism. The timber industry was small, with a smattering of sawmills
throughout Southeast Alaska. These mills produced nothing for export.
343
Their total production was used to supply the communities' individual
lumber needs. Tourism consisted of passenger vessels, which also carried
freight. There were some three dozen of these vessels that served
Southeast Alaska, many of them only from May to September. Tourism ceased
during World War II and was very slow to rebound. In fact, there was no
significant tourism until shortly before Statehood (1959).
There were several "boom and bust" construction cycles following
the war. These were due to a military buildup and the establishment of an
Defense Early Warning System.
Although most of these defense projects were in the interior part
of Alaska, many Southeasterners went north to work on the projects. They
left their families home. Actually, there were many career construction
workers living in Southeast Alaska who prospered and suffered during these
boom and bust situations.
Prior to World War II, the Caucasian population was small. Men
outnumbered women as much as ten to one in some areas. As a consequence,
prostitution flourished. There was a "line" in every city, a "line"
referring to the rows of houses of ill repute. They were allowed to
operate without interference from the law until the mid-fifties.
The canneries imported most of their labor from the lower 48
states. This labor force was mostly made up of Filipinos, who worked,
ate, and slept on the cannery property. They left the state at the end of
each season with all of their earnings. Local Natives, and some older
Alaska high school students were also used.
The canneries' fish traps were raping and reaping the salmon
resources. This practice went on almost unchecked. If it were allowed to
continue, we would not have the fishing we enjoy today. The Territory of
Alaska had no authority to abolish fish traps. That was one of the
predominant reasons there was such a clamor for Statehood. The fish traps
were eliminated in 1959 after Statehood was achieved.
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
Page 2
344
In Juneau, the Alaska-Juneau (A-J)gold mine, the largest of its
type in the world, was indeed a sight to see. The A-J mine produced
10,000 tons of crushed rock daily. It employed 1,000 men and operated
three shifts year around. Most of the labor ccune from Europe. Irish,
Russians, Finlanders, Serbs, Greeks, and others made up most of the work
force. Most of the miners were either single or left their families in
the old country. Labor was cheap, working conditions difficult and
dangerous , yet people stood in long lines waiting for someone to get
killed or injured so they could take their place. This, incidentally, is
what brought my family to Alaska in 1928.
Sitka had its economy built around fishing, a sawmill, and some
small mining activity in the area. There were two fairly large mines
operating on West Chichagof. They used Juneau more than Sitka for a
supply source for materials and labor.
In 1947, Harry Truman was President and Alaska was an organized
Territory, more than ten years away from Statehood. Our trade was almost
totally with the lower 48 states. Our biggest industry, the fishery,
produced only 20 million dollars in sales. Contrasted with the current
trillion dollar federal budget and high deficit, at that time, the federal
budget was 37 billion dollars with a one billion dollar surplus.
In the same year. Congress passed the Tongass Timber Sales Act.
This committed Southeast Alaska's future forest products industry to
dependence on the dissolving sulfide pulp mills, still in operation
today. Congress was also moved to assist the pulp mills by a desire to
promote "the national defense through increasing the population and the
industrial capacity of Alaska" and the desire to make "available to the
national economy valuable and sorely needed products from the great
forests of Southeast Alaska" .
Since Statehood, fishing has rebounded because of strong
enhancement programs and because of the 200-mile limit control given to
the United States from the Laws of the Sea Conference.
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
Page 3
345
This brings us up to 1980 and the Alaska National Interest Land
Conservation Act, also known as ANILCA.
One of the most difficult issues which faced Congress during
ANILCA deliberations in 1980 was to simultaneously satisfy the national
desire for protection of large acreages of wilderness in the Tongass
National Forest while maintaining employment in the existing timber
industry which depend on federal timber supplies. Section 703 of ANILCA
designated 5.5 million acres of the Tongass National Forest as
wilderness. Section 705 specified a timber supply of 4.5 million board
feet per decade for the dependent industry and provided a continuing
appropriation of no less than $4 0 million per year to the Forest Service
in order to make the timber supply available. Section 705 reaffirmed the
forest service's long standing social objective of creating and
maintaining year around employment and community stability based on the
timber resources of the Tongass National Forest.
In short. Section 705 was a key part of the overall compromise
which made ANILCA possible in 1980. One of its key architects. Senator
Tsongas, described the compromise as follows:
The greatest fear regarding the timber industry in
Southeast was that so much area was placed in
wilderness that the cost of maintaining the timber
harvest might be beyond budgetary expectations. In view
of these fears. Section 705(A) has been modified to
ensure the availability of funds. Rather than specify
the extra funds needed, a mechanism has been provided
whereby the Secretary each year will obtain all of the
funds needed. The amendment assures the availability of
at least $40 million. These funds are intended to be
spent in the seune manner and for the same purposes as
those provided in the committee bill. These include
expenditures for stand improvements, the timber and road
program, and related capital investments but also
include the regular costs of sale and road layout and
preparation and may include research activities which
contribute directly to improved timber utilization and
advance technology. In addition, the amendment provides
a decade sale average of 4.5 billion foot board measure
so that the United States Forest Service can adjust the
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
Page 4
346
yearly sale offering upward or downward in any one year
to adjust for annual sale fluctuations to assure the
maintenance of 450 million average annual harvest.
126 Cong. Rec. S. 11192 (Daily Ed. August 19, 1980).
Congressman Udall agreed with the general thrust of Section 705:
It is clear that any and all sums transferred to the
Secretary of Agriculture under Section 705 are to be
employed by the recipient Secretary for the purpose of
implementing the provisions of the Tongass Land
Management Plan in the Tongass National Forest.
Neither Section 705 nor any other section of the
senate bill requires or authorizes any revisions in
the Tongass Land Management Plan, which will continue
in effect unless and until it is revised at the end of
the initial planning period in accordance with the
National Forest Management Act and other applicable
law.
126 Cong. Rec. H. 10544 (Daily Ed. November 12, 1980).
Notwithstanding the clear understanding of the parties to the
compromise, the Wirth bill would repeal it.
The Committee needs to think through what repeal of Section 705
would really mean. Since Section 705 consists of previously appropriated
timber sale layout and sale management monies, as well as incremental
monies to provide for intensive management; repeal could well mean that
there is no timber management money for Southeast Alaska and thus, no
timber program. If this is the case, the holders of the long term timber
sale contract will have a cause of action for failure to provide the
volume required by their contract. Small operators will have contract
action for those contracts which they are then operating and which are
abrogated by the lack of timber sale management money. Workers would
simply be laid off and dependent communities left without this important
taxing and indirect economic benefit source of funds. In short, repeal
could mean that an economic disaster for Southeast Alaska would occur.
As the McDowell study shows, which I have attached to my
testimony, the loss of the pulp mill would cause a major economic disaster
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
347
in Sitka, comparable to what the oil spill has meant to Valdez. We would
lose approximately 400 direct jobs and up to 400 additional indirect
jobs. The remaining taxpayers would have to take over Alaska Pulp
Corporation's (APC) share of payment for the existing infrastructure,
including water, sewer, and electricity. For instance, APC has reduced
taxes for us all by paying $10 million for excess power from our Green
Lake dam over the last six years.
The cancellation of the long term sales proposed in the Wirth
bill would result in closure of the pulp mills. Each mill has testified
that it would be unable to obtain short term financing in bad markets
without an adequate supply of timber. Thus, at the next down turn in the
pulp market, our mill would close. Furthermore, the rest of Southeast
Alaska would be hurt. This would mean that there would be no market for
approximately 50% of the harvest, including that of private land owners
for all of the lower value material which cannot e sold in export. This
is why Forest Service planners sought to establish the pulp mills in the
first place.
The failure to seriously consider points like this, and the
apparent effort by the environmental community to pass legislation in
advance of the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) , which is supposed to
deal with these issues, cause those of us who live in Southeast Alaska to
worry that there is little or no concern in Congress for the working
people of Southeast Alaska. For example, the people who live in my
community of Sitka are totally dependent for employment upon those
resources and industries which are located in Sitka. They are not free to
live in Sitka and commute, for example, to Juneau, or to Seattle, or to
some other area for employment. If the opportunities for employment in
Sitka are lost, the opportunity to live in Sitka would also be lost.
I understand. Senator Wirth, that you will be going to Valdez
after this to look at the man made oil spill disaster in that community.
Is it your intent to premeditatedly author a similar disaster for Sitka?
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
22-148 0-89-12
348
We are concerned with the anti-job arguments being made by you
and the groups which are advocating your bill and the termination of the
long term sales and the set aside of 23 new non-logging areas which your
bill proposes. Some people cite concern about fish and game. This
concern needs to be balanced. For example, the fish processors in my
community have told me that if the Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC) were not
in Sitka to help defray community utility and bonding costs, they could
not afford to operate. The record fish runs in Southeast Alaska also show
that logging and fish are compatible industries. There also appears to be
an increase in geune activity in Southeast Alaska in past years, resulting
in adjusted bag limits with regard to game.
In addition, all of these arguments in favor of the Act were made
during the four years of debate on TLMP, which was the basis of Section
703-Section 705 compromise and thus, were considered by Congress. As
Senator Tsongas pointed out:
Fortunately, the Tongass plan is done. And it shows
that it will work. It shows that the goals of timber
production, fisheries, and wildlife protection and
wilderness preservations can be put together in a
package like the Tongass law package and there will be
no job loss.
126 Cong. Rec. S. 9428 (Daily Ed. July, 1980).
Other people cite economic reasons for passage of your bill.
They argue that the money being spent on the Tongass results in below cost
sales in which the federal treasury gets considerably less in timber
receipts than the money it spends. This is not a valid argument for
amending Section 705 of ANILCA by passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act
for two reasons:
The first reason is that stumpage rates have gone up as a result
of improved markets in the Orient. I believe there has been a fundamental
permanent change in the market structure caused by the change in the
yen-dollar relationship. This will result in increased stumpage share
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
349
revenues to Sitka and other timber dependent connnunities such as
Ketchikcin. APC has recently worked out contract changes with the U.S.
Forest Service which could, and probably will, increase its stumpage rates.
The second reason why those advocating passage of the Wirth bill
for economic reasons are wrong is purely a social/ jobs reason. The
existing primary manufacture policy sacrifices federal revenue in order to
create jobs. Here is how it works: Since the inception of the timber
program in the Tongass National Forest, the rule has been that round logs
cannot be exported. Value must be added in the form of primary
manufacture before a timber product can leave the Tongass National
Forest. The private landowner is under no such constraint. Corporate
reports for many private land owners show positive profit levels and
substantial cash flow. By the same token, the purchase of national forest
timber lost money in the 1980 's under this program. (I know for example,
that Alaska Pulp Corporation, which runs the pulp mill in Sitka, has had
severe losses over the last several years, although since markets have
picked up, it may be making money now.)
When one compares the money being made by round log export versus
the losses suffered as a result of primary manufacture, it becomes quite
clear that the federal government could make a lot more money on stumpage
if round logs from the national forest were exported. The only loser
would be the workers and the communities which depend upon the primary
manufacturing facilities for jobs they provide. Those jobs would be
exported from Alaska to the Pacific rim.
So, as we see it, those who cite concerns about below cost sales
as a reason for passing the Tongass Timber Reform Act must have one of two
things in mind:
(1) Killing the timber industry altogether, which they say they
do not want to do; OR
(2) Exporting the timber in the round so it will make money.
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
Page 8
350
In either case, the dependent coimnunlties lose the jobs provided by the
primary manufacturing facilities. It follows that I am for retaining the
Section 705 compromise and keeping those jobs and keeping them in our
Southeast Alaska communities.
A word needs to be said about the 23 non-logging areas proposed
in your bill. All of the non-logging areas that could be set aside were
set aside in Section 703 of ANILCA. The addition of these areas to your
bill makes the timber industry appear to be correct in its charge that
your bill is really a wilderness Trojan horse. Senator, we do not need
more wilderness. We have that in abundance and are smart enough to keep
it, even without your help. We need to maintain our jobs and community.
In conclusion, while I believe that Section 705 can, and should
be made to work better, I am totally opposed to passing the Wirth bill
because we want these jobs to remain in our communities. Passing the
Wirth bill may benefit those advocating more wilderness, but it could
devastate us. We are depending upon Congress to keep its word for the
benefit of the great majority of our citizens.
In this regard, why not let the TLMP revision process run its
course? The draft is anticipated in December 1989. It deals with all the
key issues raised by your bill and it reports but treats them in a
thoughtful and more objective way. People have participated in this
process and have a right to have their participation count. Passage of
this legislation which would prematurely come out in favor of one side of
the debate would make TLMP meaningless.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify.
Written Testimony
April 25, 1988
Paqe 9
.HO .o,^
351
*" jsiTKA \ City and Borough of Sitka
304 LAKE STREET. SITKA, ALASKA. 99835
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL REPARATIONS DUE TO
ALASKA PULP CORPORATION CLOSURE
Testimony before U.S. Senate Energy Subconaittee on Public Lands,
National Parks, and Forests Public Hearing in Sitka, Alaska, April 25, 1989
by Stuart Denslow, City and Borough of Sitka Administrator
Any meaningful discussion of proposed changes in Tongass timber management
must consider the devastating consequences to Sitka and Southeast Alaska if the
Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC) mill were to be forced out of business. To
assess the socioeconomic impacts and estimate the reparations necessary to
compensate for these losses, the City and Borough of Sitka contracted with the
Juneau-based consulting firm. The McDowell Group, to prepare an "Analysis of
Impacts and Potential Reparations Due To Alaska Pulp Corporation Closure,"
completed April 15, 1989.
The analysis was to include scenarios for reductions in APC operations,
but substantial reductions may not be economically feasible, and a 50 percent
reduction in log supply is more likely to result in full closure. Closure
would result in a loss of one-fourth of Sitka's economic base and would be felt
in every segment of Sitka's economy. The timing of these impacts would likely
be experienced within two years, with an initial period of outmigration and
economic recession followed by a prolonged period of personal and business
bankruptcies, collapse of the real estate market, business closures, reductions
352
Stuart Denslow Tongass Testioony Page 2
in goveriunent services and additional job loss and outmigration as the effects
ripple through the support sector of the renaining economy.
Population loss of 2.050 residents, 24 percent of Sitka's total, is based
on employment loss. It would occur for the most part within a year, though
outmigration may be slowed by people being unable to sell their houses.
Assuming households affected by APC's closure are typical of the community in
terms of number of school children, 413 of the 1713 Sitka public school
enrollment (24 percent) would be lost. A proportional share. $1.5 million, of
the State of Alaska School Foundation Fund, and other proportional funding
sources amounting to another $0.5 million, would also be lost.
The basic industry losses of 375 APC employees plus a longshore crew of
20, with an APC payroll of $17 million, would be lost. Removal of the $17
million APC payroll from trade, service, and other private sector support
industries which benefit from APC accounts for 29 percent of all basic industry
income to Sitka. The likely loss of most or all of the U.S. Forest Service
employment of HI and their payroll of $3.4 million would increase all impacts
shown in this analysis by another 28 percent. For example, population loss
would total 2,624 or nearly one-third of the community, rather than the 24
percent shown in this analysis, which is confined to the direct loss of APC
operations.
Support industry employment loss would total an additional 599 persons,
with an estimated 459 jobs in the private support sector and 140 support
industry government jobs lost. In total, about one-fourth of all Sitka jobs
would be lost, including all of those in the highest paying industry, forest
353
Stuart Denslow Tongass Testimony Page 3
products. Payroll losses would total $37 nillion, or 29 percent of all income
earned in the Sitka economy. Sitka's average monthly wage would drop from
$2,033 to $1,885 per month if the highest paying sector, forest products, were
removed .
Declines in gross business sales are assumed to be in direct proportion to
losses in total income — a 29 percent loss. An estimated $37 million loss in
business sales would result, with $19 million of it in retail trade. Further
sales decline could result because industries which maintain a stable economy
such as construction would be virtually eliminated.
Municipal utility and property tax revenues would be affected through the
direct loss of APC payments, such as the $1.4 million in electricity, $100,000
in water, and $326,000 in property tax paid by APC, as well as through
population loss and related decline in the commercial sector. Direct funding
from the State of Alaska through Municipal Assistance and Revenue Sharing would
be reduced in proportion to the population loss. The mill pays 17 percent of
property taxes in Sitka, and APC-employed households pay an additional 18
percent.
The largest economic losses are likely to be in the decreased value of all
forms of real estate. If Sitka were to lose 24 percent of its employment and
29 percent of its payroll (a moderate estimate), a 40 percent loss in the value
of all residential real estate could be anticipated. If the average Sitka
single family homeowner owns a $120,000 home, it would be worth $72,000
following APC closure, a loss of $48,000 per family. For the economy as a
354
Stuart Dens low Tongass Testimony Page 4
whole, real estate losses would be $84 million. The study team felt real
estate losses could well exceed 40 percent simply because there would be no
market for the more than 600 vacant housing units which will result from APC
closure. For purposes of the analysis, commercial real estate values are
assumed to fall in proportion to the loss of gross business sales at 29
percent. This converts to a $16 million loss. Industrial real estate would
experience a loss of $59 million. In total, Sitka's real estate value losses
should total $171 million, assuming the 40 percent loss in residential real
estate is not conservative.
Hhat do these economic losses mean in terms of social and other less
quantifiable but equally devastating impacts? First, services would be
significantly reduced. With a loss of 400 students, school staffing would be
reduced by one-fourth, maintenance and utility costs will not be reduced, and
cost per student would rise with funding dramatically reduced, which would
likely result in a decline in the quality of education.
Services at the municipal hospital would decrease dramatically, with a
minimum of a 50 percent loss in patients and revenue, due to loss of
population, insurance coverages, and incomes adequate to permit elective
medical care. Staff and medical services would be reduced or eliminated, and
Sitkans would have to leave town to obtain those types of care. Rates would
rise, and the quality and quantity of health care would decrease, with the
average Sitka family having less ability to pay for what health care remains.
355
Stuart Denslow Tongass Testimony Page 5
Local government administration would lose significant state funding and
result in layoffs in the schools, hospital, public services, and other
municipal staff. Everyday services such as police and fire protection, street
maintenance, and utilities would be reduced. Bonding ability of the
municipality would be significantly reduced.
A severe econonic recession increases the need for social services, but a
smaller population and less money results in less social services to meet the
demand. Such problems as domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, divorces,
bankruptcies, and job loss and financial stress are all exacerbated.
The 70 percent of households in Sitka which own their hones would have
negative equity in their investments, losing an estimated $48,000 in value on
the major source of financial security. They would be unable to sell their
homes for what they owe on them and may not be able to sell them at any price.
Discretionary spending would be severely reduced, with those in the
durable goods business often the first to close. Donations to charities would
suffer, providing less resources to help the needy. The poorest families would
suffer disproportionately, as they have the least resources to find other
enplonent. An APC closure would have especially severe effects on the Native
population. 145 Natives hold mill jobs at APC, and Native people have less
economic mobility and would have a greater degree of economic and emotional
duress due to less average income and fewer alternatives for work.
356
Stuart Denslow Tongass Testimony Page 6
Support sector impacts would be far reaching. The construction industry
would be devastated, with loss of much of this industry's $4 million payroll.
Other industries, such' as transportation services, utilities, trade and seafood
industries, finance, insurance and real estate would all be reduced, with fewer
jobs, services and goods available. Service industries are expected to decline
in relation to the 29 percent loss of income in the community.
Other communities have experienced devastating economic recessions during
the 1986-88 period. Juneau's recession drove real estate values down by one-
third and was the result of a loss of less than 10 percent of the economy. In
Anchorage, where the real estate market collapsed, banking system destabilized,
thousands of homes were left empty, businesses closed, and business and
personal bankruptcies continue, the economic loss was less than 15 percent of
the total employment. The I970's recession in Seattle triggered by Boeing,
when signs appeared saying "Will the last one out turn off the lights?" was a
loss of just 5 percent. Sitka's potential loss of one-fourth of its economic
base is far more severe than any of these, with the analysis of impacts
resulting from the closure of APC erring, if at all, by being too
conservative.
An economic dislocation of the scale of Sitka's projected loss would cost
home owners an average of $50,000 in home value with no market to sell to. Job
losses, financial ruin, personal trauma and increased social problems are
inevitable. Leaps of 50 percent in utility rates and property taxes; cutbacks
in municipal services such as police, fire, health care, and education; higher
prices for goods and services; and less selection are certain to occur. The
357
Stuart DeDSloH Tongass Testinony Page 7
business community would be financially devastated, and perhaps a third of all
businesses would close, accompanied by bankruptcies, defaulted loans, loss of
hundreds of jobs, and collapse of the real estate market.
The decline certain to be caused in Sitka by an APC closure would have
twice to three times the proportional impact which the Alaska recession had on
Anchorage. Declines of the potential Sitka magnitute made have unknown impacts
in addition to those quantified and qualified in the McDowell report, since no
Alaska community has experienced so severe an economic contraction in recent
times. With the additional potential loss of U.S. Forest Service employment, a
33 percent or greater loss to the community's economic base would follow, and
the impacts would be even more exaggerated than previously assessed.
The forest products industry is critically important to Southeast Alaska.
The loss or severe restriction of this industry would impact every resident of
the region, forcing many to leave with huge financial and emotional losses, and
causing continuing personal losses and devastating socioeconomic consequences
for those who remain. The crippling impact on the community of Sitka caused by
the forced closure of Alaska Pulp Corporation would be almost impossible to
measure adequately, and no amount or form of reparations could begin to
compeanate either the community as a whole, or its individual residents. I
urge you to recognize the urgent need to resolve the continuing controversy
over the Tongass by providing for adequate timber supply, in order to permit
Sitka and other affected communities to continue to remain economically viable.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
358
The McDowell Group
MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS
a division of
DQ DATA DECISIONS CROUP, INC
Analysis of Impacts and Potential Reparations
Due to
Alaska Pulp Corporation Closure
Prepared for
City and Borough of City
Sitka, Alaska
Prepared By:
The McDowell Group
Juneau, Alaska
AprU 21, 1989
128 DIXON STREET JL'NEAU, ALASKA 99801 PHONE: (907) 586^126, 586-2f03
359
Analysis of Impacts and Potential Reparations
Due to
Alaska Pulp Corporation Closure
The purpose of this analysis is to provide estimates of the socioeconomic
impacts of the possible closure of the Alaska Pulp Corporation and to estimate
in turn the reparations necessary to compensate for these losses.
Reconsideration of the management policies of the Tongass National Forest
could affect the timber supply for the Alaska Pulp Corporation to the point
where permanent closure is the only economic alternative.
This analysis v^as to include scenarios for reductions of 1/3 and 1/2 in the
scale of APC operations. However, interviews with corporation officials and
the consultant's knowledge of the econonnics of major manufacturing
operations both conclude that reductions of this magnitude may not be
economically feasible. Major plants have economies of scale operating at full
capacity which they do not have at 1/2 or even 2/3 of capacity. A reduction of
1/2 in log supply is more likely to result in full closure than in reduced
operations.
For readers interested in the impacts and reparations of partial operations
scenarios, simply take 1/3 or 1/2 of the losses shown for the closure scenario
except for losses in real estate values, property tax and utility revenues. Losses
of all other items on the enclosed table will be proportional when they are
played out over time. The reaction of the real estate market in the partial
closure scenarios are likely to be more than 1/3 to 1/2 of the full closure losses
because real estate overreacts to economic change.
The actual timing of these impacts will vary depending on the financial
condition of affected families and the schedule for shutting down. Studies of
significant economic change in other Alaska communities show almost all
impacts are fully experienced within two years with the heaviest impacts
being within the first six months. The initial period of outmigration and
economic recession is followed by a prolonged period of personal and
business bankruptcies, collapse of the real estate market, business closures,
reductions in government services and additional job loss and outmigration
as the effects are played out throughout the support sector of the remaining
economy.
Population
The population loss of 2,050 residents, 24% of the Sitka total, is based on
employment loss. While population loss does lag employment loss for some
360
period of time-a month or two to over a year, depending on the financial
condition of famihes affected-population will eventually equal the
employment loss. Population in the Sitka case may be slowed by people being
unable to sell their houses. During the Alaska recession of 1986-88, when the
housing market was depressed it was not vmconunon for families to simply
leave their houses when they had to move to other places for employment.
School Enrollment
The assumption is made that the households affected by APC closure are
typical of the community in terms of number of school children. This means
413 of the 1713 Sitka public school enrollment (24%) will be lost. With them
will go a proportional share ($1.5 million) of the State of Alaska School
Foundation Fund which provides the Sitka School District with most of its $8
million annual budget. State contributions are based on enrollment. Not
included at this time £ire estimates of additional school funding losses from
other sources including local contributions. Public Law 874 funds and other
sources which provide the district with another $2 million. Certainly the local
ability to contribute will be reduced. Were these losses proportional to student
loss, another $0.5 million would be added to the loss column.
Employment
Basic (direct) industry losses are simply the 375 APC employees currently
working plus a longshore crew of 20 which handles pulp shipping. Not
included in these number are the likely loss of most or all of the U.S. Forest
Service employment of 111 and their payroll of $3.4 million. Were U.S.F.S.
employment and payroll to be lost, all impacts shown in this analysis would
be increase by another 28%. For example, population loss would total 2,624 or
nearly 1/3 of the commtmity rather than the 24% shown in this analysis. This
analysis is confined to the direct loss of APC operations.
Support industry employment lost would total an additional 599. Support
employment in the private sector is calculated by reducing it in proportion to
the basic industry income lost by removal of the $17 million APC payroll
from trade, service and other private sector support industries which benefit.
APC accounts for 29% of all basic industry income in Sitka. The private
support sector reacts more to changes in income available in the local
economy than to population and an estimated 459 jobs would be lost.
Government support industry losses in local, state and federal government
employment are based on population rather than income loss, because most
government services are provided roughly in proportion to the size of the
population being served. One hundred forty support industry government
jobs would be lost.
In total, about one-fourth of all Sitka jobs would be lost, including all of those
in the highest paying industry, forest products.
361
Payroll
Payroll losses total $37 million, or 29% of all income earned in the Sitka
economy, including seafood harvesting income which in not usually
included in Alaska economic analysis. The payroll estimate is done by
totalling the direct APC payroll loss of $17 million plus the support sector
private and government payroll ($12 million) associated with those 599
positions. Average private and goverrunent support industry salaries are
used.
Average Wage
Sitka's average monthly wage wiU drop from $2,033 to $1,885 per month
when the highest paying sector, forest products is removed. APC workers
averaged $3,600 in 1988, 77% above the community average. The standard of
living and the health of the business community v^ll be significantly lower
in Sitka for those remaining following APC closure.
Gross Business Sales
Declines in gross business sales are assumed to be in direct proportion to
losses in total income, -29%. An estimated $37 million in business sales will
result, $19 million of it in retail trade. Further sales decline might result
because those industries which maintain a stable and growing economy, such
as construction, will be virtually eliminated.
Muiudpal Impacts
Mvmidpal utility and property tax revenues from all sources will be affected
in two ways. One is the loss of direct APC payments such as the $1.4 million
in electricity, $100,000 in water and $326,000 in property tax paid by the
company. In addition, the population loss and related decline in the
commercial sector vail significantly reduce municipal receipts.
Electrical revenues will be reduced by the $1.4 million in direct APC payments
plus another $1.3 million will be lost if all other electrical demand is in
proportion to the population being served. Water demand is also expected to
decline in relation to the population, costing $55,000 plus the aimual APC
payment.
Property tax losses are based on the loss in value of each of four categories-
residential, commercial, industrial and, vacant and other. Industrial property
tax assumes the current assessed value of APC of $59 will be $0 upon closure
but that the other $17 million in industrial property will remain unaffected,
though an area wide real estate depression will probably have some effect on
the value of the holdings of other industries.
362
Direct funding from the State of Alaska in the form of Municipal Assistance
and Revenue Sharing is affected by the APC loss. Municipal Assistance
($720,000 in FY 1988) is directly proportional to population as is about half of
Revenue Sharing money ($790,000).
Real Estate Values
The largest economic losses are likely to be in the decreased value of all forms
of real estate. When demand for real estate changes, price changed tend to be
significant since the supply of real estate is relatively fixed. In the case of
grow^th, the supply of land, housing and commercial space cannot grow apace
so prices increase sharply until eventually more real estate become available.
In a recession the reverse impact on price is more severe than in growth
periods because the supply of real estate carmot be reduced.
The recent Alaska recession taught some valuable and painful lessons about
real estate values on the economic downside. The case of nearby Juneau
provides some insights into what is likely top occur in Sitka were APC to
close.
Between 1986 and 1988, Juneau lost a bit less than 10% of its total employment
and payroll. Less than 10% of the population left the community before the
economy began to recover in the second have of 1988 due to additional state
government employment and a major mining development. However, the
impacts on real estate value of even this change were dramatic. According to
the municipal Assessor's office the value of the average single family
dwelling dropped from $128,000 to $85,000, a loss of 1/3 of the total value.
Every single family homeowner lost an average of $43,000 in the value of
their house between 1986 and 1988. Owners of condominiums and mobile
homes experienced greater losses. The Assessor's office estimates that overall,
residential property now brings less than 70% of its 1986 value.
Were Sitka to lose 24% of its emplojonent and 29% of its payroll-compared to
Juneau's 10% loss-the impact is nearly impossible to estimated. In the case of
Juneau, the situation was compounded by existing overexpansion in the
housing supply. Without an economic decline some downward price
adjustment would likely have occurred but the Assessor's office and other
experts feel this would have accounted for a drop of less than 10% in the
value of residential real estate property. This leave the impact of Juneau's
economic downturn at a value loss of 20% or more.
Currently, Sitka does not have an oversupply of housing and both sale and
rental prices are relatively high for the stock which is available. Considering
this fact, a moderate estimate of a 24% loss in the economy would be a 40%
loss in the value of all residential real estate. If the average Sitka single family
homeowner owns a $120,000 home, it will be worth $72,000 following APC
closure, a loss of $48,000 per family. For the economy as a whole, residential
363
real estate losses would be $84 million. In the opinion of the study team, Sitka
real estate losses could well exceed the 40% simply because there will be no
market for the approximately 600 to 700 vacant housing units which will
result from APC closure.
Commercial real estate in Juneau was not hit as hard because the oversupply
was not as extensive as in residential real estate and because value of
commercial real estate is arrived at differently than that of residential real
estate. Commercial values fell 5-10%, roughly in proportion to the economic
loss. Commercial real estate values are based on tiie net earnings retxirned to
the owner, rather than the actual value of construction or replacement.
Therefore, when estimating the loss to Sitka, the economic health of the
business commimity will be the primary determinant of commercial real
estate values. For purposes of this analysis, commercial real estate values are
assumed to fall in proportion to the loss of gross business sales, -29%. This
converts into a loss of $16 milUon.
Industrial real estate has been discussed in the previous section and will
experience an estimated loss of $59 million. In total, Sitka's real estate value
losses should total $171 million, assuming the 40% loss in residential real
estate is not conservative. Real Estate calculations are based on official FY 1988
Sitka City and Borough assessments.
Summary of Impacts and Potential Reparations
Due to
Alaska Pulp Corporation Closure
Impact Loss
Population 2,050
School Enrollment 413
Employment 944
Payroll (millions) $28.7
Gross Business Sales (millions) $37.4
Selected Municipal Impacts (millions) $6.4
Real Estate Values (millions) $170.8
% of Sitka
Total
24.1%
24.1
24.1
28.5
28.5
32.7
46.1
364
Alaska Pulp Corporation
Socioeconomic Impacts on Sitka
Summary Table
Sitka in 1988 with
Alaska Pulp Coip.
Sitka without
Percen
Alaska Pulp Cotp.
Impacts
Alaska Pulp Coip
Chang<
Population ^
8,500
2,050
6,450
-24.1%
School Enroliment
1.713
413
1,300
-24.1%
Employment
4,127
944
3,183
-24.1%
Direct
395
Indirect
599
Payroll (million $)
$100.7
$28.7
$72.0
-28.5%
Direct
$17.1
Indirect
$11.6
Average Wage
$2,033
$3,600
$1,885
-7.3%
Gross Business Sales ^
(million $)
$131.2
$37.4
$93.8
-28.5%
Retail Sales
$67.3
$19.2
$48.1
-28.5%
Municipal Impacts
(million $)
$19.68
$6.43
$14.79
-32.7%
Electricity Revenues
$6.70
$2.70
$4.00
-40.3%
Water Revenues
$0.33
$0.16
$0.17
-48.5%
Property Tax Revenues ^
$1.94
$0.90
$1.04
-46.4%
Sales Tax Revenues ^
$3.23
$0.92
$2.31
-28.5%
Municipal Assistance ^
$0.72
$0.17
$0.55
-24.1%
State Revenue Sharing
$0.79
$0.10
$0.69
-12.7%
School Revenue
Foundation Formula
$6.15
$1.48
$4.67
-24.1%
Real Estate Values
(millions)
$370.7
$170.8
$199.9
-46.1%
All Residential
$209.5
$83.8
$125.7
-40.0%
All Commercial
$56.8
$16.2
$40.6
-28.5%
All Industrial
$74.9
$59.0
$15.9
-78.8%
Vacant and Other
$29.5
$11.8
$17.7
-40.0%
1. Based on share of total Sitka area employment.
2. Assumes that 285% of all Sitka gross sales are due to APC employees, their families, related support sector
employees, who together account for 24.1% of the population and 285% of total Sitka payroll.
3. Property tax losses based on estimated decline as a result APC shut-down in each of four real property
categories. See real estate value detail at bottom of this table. Residential real estate assumed to decline 40%
based on similar case during ]uneau recession, commercial values reduced 29% in direct proportion to lost sales
revenue and industrial property values assumed value of pulp mill at zero, down from assessed value of $59
million.
4. Assumes that 285% of all City and Borough sales tetx revenues are due to APC employees, their families, along
with related support sector workers and their families. This group accounts for 285% of all Sitka payroll.
5. School funding is in direct proportion to population, as is municipal assistance. Approximately half of state
revenue shcuing is directly prof>ortional to jTopulation.
365
Analysis of Additional Impacts
Introduction
In addition to the straight calculation of economic losses in the first section of
this report are other losses less quantifiable but equally as important. An
economic event of the magnitude of an APC closure would be devastating to
emy economy. It takes only moderate decline in economic conditions to cause
significant damage to an economy.
Sitka's potenticil loss of one-fourth of its economic base is far more severe
than the Seattle Boeing recession of the 1970's when signs appeared saying,
"Will the last one out turn off the lights?". In Seattle's case the loss was just
5%, compared to Sitka's potential loss of 24% to 29%. Juneau's recession
which knocked real estate values down by one-third and triggered personal
and business financial grief was the result of a loss of less than 10% of the
economy. In Anchorage-where the real estate market collapsed, the banking
system destabilized, thousands of homes empty, businesses closed, meills
vacated and a two-year stream of business and personal bankruptcies
continues-the economic loss was less than 15% of total employment. Clearly,
the proportional loss for Sitka would far exceed these other cases.
Local Government Impacts
An APC closure would significantly reduce bonding ability and credibility of
the City and Borough of Sitka. Since APC directly provides 20% of the
electrical utility income and 30% of the water income, any bonding dealing
with these services would be seriously affected.
Local government layoffs are likely to be in proportion to the municipal
government's decreased ability to generate revenue. Of the 389 jobs in local
government, an estimated 130 v^ be lost with proportional losses being
greatest in hospital staffing.
School staffing will be reduced by one-fourth and the district will be stuck
with maintenance and utility costs for the complete school physical plant,
which will be underutilized because of the loss of over 400 students. Cost per
student will rise, yet State education fimding for Sitka will be dramatically
reduced. The only alternative is larger classes, fewer teachers and a likely
decline in the quality of education.
The municipal hospital v^rill experience at least a 50% loss in patients and
revenue. In Fairbanks, for example, where the economy declined about 10%,
the occupancy of the hospital declined by nearly half. In times of recession,
medical needs are postponed or simply ignored because of the cost to the
individual. This is true because unemployed workers and their families have
no medical coverage in most cases. In addition, the population requiring
366
medical services will be one-fourth smaller. The net result is the municipality
losing significant revenue from fewer patients and in turn having to raise
rates to partial make up the difference. These rates must be paid buy the
remaining population which will have much less personal income to pay for
them. Further, significant reductior« in medical staff decreases the quality
«md quantity of health care available in Sitka. Private practitioners will also be
forced to dose shop. The end result of an APC closure will be less health care
for the average Sitka family and less ability to pay for what health care
remains.
Finally, local government administration will lose significant state funding
(see main impact table) and layoffs will occur in schools, the hospital and
municipal administration. Everyday services such as street maintenance, fire
and police protection, upkeep of utility systems and administration will be
reduced. Insurance rates may increase as a result of lower levels of fire and
police protection.
Social Service Impacts
Severe economic recessions are a double-edged sword where social services
are concerned. Personal trauma increases the demand for social services but a
smaller population and less money mean less social services to meet demand.
Such social problenns as domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, divorces,
personcil bcmkruptcies, trauma from job loss and financial stress are all
exacerbated by economic catastrophe. Social services are needed to help
individuzds and families cope with the loss of homes, jobs and financial
security.
Household Impacts
The average household in Sitka (70% of which own their own homes) will
have negative equity in their investment in their home. They will lose an
estimate $48,000 in value of their major source of their financial security,
their home. They will be unable to sell the home for what they owe on it,
making it impossible to leave the community without taking a significant
cash loss or just abandoning their home and destroying their credit rating.
Anchorage, Juneau, the Matanuska-Susitna area and Fairbanks have had
thousands of homes abandoned in their recessions which were moderate
compared to the scale of Sitka's with an APC withdrawal. Many households
had no other choice than to remain unemployed and drain their reserves,
desperately trying to hang onto a house which they owned, which was worth
less than they owe on it for which there was no one to sell it to at any price.
Home ownership will become an economic yoke for two out of three Sitka
families.
Another effect on households in a serious recession is the ceasing, or at least
slowing, of discretionary spending. Households become fearful and stop
buying a number of goods and services, especially those which cost much
367
(cars, boats, furniture, etc). Obviously this affects the business community and
those in the durable goods business are often t he first to close and /or declare
bankruptcy. While the loss of income may be 29% for the community as a
whole the spending of the remaining 71% will be severely curtailed until the
economy stabilizes, which could take several years were APC to close in Sitka.
All of the cases just mentioned suffered from consumer fear and a halt to
certain types of spending. Donations to charities also suffer in recession times
so those most essential in hard times-such as the Sedvation Army-have less
resources to help the needy.
Finally, economic recession of the severity considered here is very regressive.
Those with the least economic ability will be the most seriously affected.
Families in poor housing, with little or no savings, seasonal or part-time
employment and with disabilities, will suffer disproportionately, as they have
in other areas of Alaska affected by recession. They will be the first to lose jobs,
the first to become homeless, the first to go without adequate medical care
and the first to exhaust their reserves. They will also be the least capable of
moving to another location and of finding new employment in other areas.
An APC closure would have a disproportionate impact on the Sitka Native
population. 145 Natives hold mill jobs at APC and Native people tend to
have less economic mobility than other workers. The degree of economic and
emotional duress would be greater due to less average income and fewer
alternatives for work.
Support Sector Impacts
The construction industry, which currently employs 129 on a year around
basis, will be devastated as it was in Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks and Mat-
Su. No new construction will be needed and no government capital projects
will be built in a decliiung community. This industry and its $4 million
payroll can be expected to become a fraction of its current size in a matter of
months were APC to close.
Support industry manufacturing, which consists of printing and other local
functions will also be hit harder than average. It is unlikely the local paper
could remain in business with the loss of its commercial advertising base.
Transportation service would be reduced and prices increased because the
Sitka market will shrink by at least one-fourth. Air travel, already unusually
expensive in Southeast Alaska, would cost more. Communications prices
would increase and services decline, not only because of the loss of market
but because of the loss of a major source of communications business, APC.
The cost of maintaining the communications infrastructure for a smaller
economy would increase per unit cost of telephone and long distance service.
This raises cost to the remaining households and businesses which are in a
poorer position to pay for existing rates much less higher ones.
368
To recover lost utility revenues from the remaining population and business
community, electrical rates would have to be raised 68% above current rates
and water fees by 94%. Property tax rates would go up 46%, provided the
conservative estimates of loss in property values hold true. While these
increased costs would be heavy burdens for the average remaining
household, they may impose even greater negative impacts on other basic
industries.
The trade industries will be affected by severe losses in sales. A typical
business may operate with a 5% to 20% profit margin when times are good. If
29% of the sales are lost as projected businesses must still pay their fixed costs
and would forego their profits which are necessary to survival. Hardly a
business in Sitka could sustain a 29% loss in income. It can be expected that a
sigruficant proportion of Sitka's retail businesses would fail within a year,
perhaps a third or more of them. The remaining businesses would need to
reduce employment, payroll, inventory and any capital investment they may
have been contemplating. Prices to local consumers would increase because
lower sales mean higher costs per unit of sales. Selection would also be
reduced and more local money would be spent outside the economy, further
weakening the retail sector which has 526 jobs in 1988 and may lose a third or
more of them by the time the economy bottoms out.
Finance, Insvirance and Real Estate, employers of nearly 70 in Sitka will be
devastated. The real estate industry will become a fraction of its current size
and one or more baixks will likely close their branches. All banks will be
holding bad consumer and business loans and take significant losses. The
Alaska recession of 1986-88, though less than half as severe as the Sitka
scenario with an APC closure, destabilized the entire Alaska banking system,
caused closure of several banks and savings and loan institutions, and
stiffened credit requirements. The insurance industry is also hit hard by
recession with fire a risk among failing businesses. Insurance sales also drop
significaintly in recessions. Households and businesses remairung in Sitka
will be saddled with virtually unattainable credit requirements even of they
maintain respectable credit ratings. For financial institutions in general,
loaning money in Sitka vdll be off limits except in the most risk free cases.
Real estate financing vdll be impossible since the real estate market will
collapse in the first several months following APC closure.
Service industries are expected to decline in relation to the loss of income in
the corrununity, a 29% loss. As in the trade sector, prices will rise for those
who remain and the level and variety of services available will be reduced. In
total service industries employ 621 and an estimated 178 of them will lose
their jobs. Private medical services will be severely affected with some
sp)ecialists no longer able to make an adequate living in Sitka. As mentioned
earlier, recession conditions drastically reduces use of medical services and as
10
369
a result, Sitka may lose as much as 50% of the privately provided medical
services. Social services including nonprofits such as the drug and alcohol
abuse programs will be reduced if not eliminated due to loss of local
contributions. Membership organizations, which employ a significant
number of service workers will layoff workers because local support for them
will decline.
Federal government support employment will also experience layoffs because
such employers as the Postal Service will have reduced workloads. State
employment will be relatively unaffected except in the critical social service
area where less population means less support from state programs.
Impacts on Other Basic Industries
One might not think the seafood industry would be affected by an APC
closure but industry experts identify a number of negative impacts. Since
seafood processors are heavy users of electricity and water and have millions
invested in real property, any increase in electrical and water rates and
property taxes will hurt economically. But increase of the 46% to 94%
magnitude in these costs could cause some shut downs in Sitka's largest
employer, seafood. A processor closure would in turn trigger losses in the
resident harvesting fleet. Fishermen base in Sitka for a number of reasons but
a critical one is the presence to of the most aggressive and responsive large
processors plus a number of other processors and buyers. Were the processing
sector reduced, the resident fleet would shrink to some degree.
The leading processor estimates their costs will rise by $100,000 to $200,000 per
year to cover increase utility rates. Further, the City and Borough of Sitka
becomes less capable of providing the necessary expansion and maintenance
of port and harbor facilities critical to the fishing fleet. It also will have
reduced ability to develop city waterfront property to aid development of
seafood industry infrastructure. Since both forest products and seafood are
users of industrial support services (vessel repair, mechanics, machinists,
industrial parts and supplies, expediting and shipping, etc.), the loss of forest
products business will significantly reduce the industrial support services
now available to the fishing fleet and processors. This in turn makes Sitka a
less desirable port and could cost the local economy money in two ways. One
is the business which must go outside the community to other locations and
the other is the possible loss of some vessels which currently home port in
Sitka. Also, much employment in the seafood industry is seasonal and /or
part time. These jobs are often filled by the dependents of people with more
stable year-around jobs, particularly those in the APC mill which are the
conununity's highest paying. When the mill closes and those families leave,
the available labor force for the processors and harvesters will shrink.
The tourism industry in Sitka has lots to offer visitors because many
businesses and facilities exist to serve other markets. One mainstay of the
11
,_— =^'^"
370
hotel business is the business travel attracted by the forest products industry,
many shops exist to service local demand and also serve visitors in the
summer. Transportation schedules and prices are set primarily for the local
market and visitors also benefit from the service. Were APC to shut down, it
is unlikely that as many shops, overnight facilities and transportation
schedules would exist. This makes the community less attractive and
certairJy more expensive for visitors since businesses will have to raise prices
to compensate for APC and related losses. For example, with less air and ferry
frequency, Sitka becomes less accessible and more expensive for visitors.
Summary
In summary, while other communities have had devastating economic
recessions during the 1986-88 period, there is nothing of the scale of an APC
closure on Sitka's economy to compare to. Sitka's projected 24% to 29% loss
would be two to three times that of any community in the state since
statehood.
For households in other areas of the state, even modest recessions proved
devastating financially and emotionally. An economic dislocation of the scale
of Sitka's projected loss would cost every home-owning family and average of
$50,000 in the value of their house with no market to sell to. Job losses,
drained savings, ruined credit ratings, personal trauma and increased social
problems are just part of the package each household might be granted with
an APC closure. Leaps of 50% or more in utility rates and property taxes plus
cutbacks in municipal services ranging from police to health care and
education are certain to occur if local government attempts to remain solvent
as it loses millions in revenue from local and state sources. Households
would pay higher prices for virtually every good and service and have less
selection than before. Lower income families will be the soonest and hardest
hit because their reserves and alternatives are so much less than average.
They have less ability to survive even a short period of unemployment or to
move to another location for employment with their usually limited skills.
The business community would be financially devastated and perhaps a third
or more of all businesses would close, accompanied by personal and business
bankruptcies, defaulted loans, loss of hundreds of jobs in the private support
industries and a collapse of both the commercial and residential real estate
market. The remaining businesses would operate with reduced profit
margins, offer less variety and charge higher prices in a significantly reduced
market. More local money will flow outside because less selection will be
available locally. The banking community would likely respond by closing
some branches, taking significant losses on bad business and consumer loans
and making credit in Sitka virtually impossible to obtain for those affected by
the loss of APC. No responsible banker would loan on anything affected by
the Sitka economy.
12
371
Finally, other basic industries, particularly seafood and tourism, would be
affected in the form of higher costs, less selection, the loss of industrial
support goods and services, decreased ability of local government to provide
services and facilities and outmigration of seasonal and part-time labor force
critical to both industries. Nonresident hires would increase.
Now that Alaska has had some experience in the effects of recessions it is
possible to quantify and qualify the impacts of economic decline. Therefore,
the data developed in the Sitka case is simply the application of known effects
of economic decline in Alaska applied to the possible Sitka case. But the
difference between the Alaska recession of 1986-88 and the Sitka case is one of
scale. The decline certain to be caused in Sitka by an APC closure would have
twice to three times the proportional impact which the Alaska recession had
on Anchorage. Declines of the potential Sitka magnitude may have unknown
impacts in addition to those quantified and qualified in this report, since no
Alaska commuruty has experienced so severe an economic contraction in
recent times.
13
372
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
STATEMENT OF LYDIA GEORGE, CITY COUNCIL OF ANGOON, AK
Ms. George. My name is Lydia George.
The City of Angoon is right on the Tongass National Forest, Ad-
miralty Island, and the City Council of Angoon would like to ex-
press their appreciation for the opportunity to express our position
on the 705 (a) provisions of ANILCA, which establishes a 4.5 billion
board feet per decade timber supply and an off budget, unappropri-
ated $40 million per year to access marginal timber and for other
purposes, which directly benefit the long-term contracts of Alaska
Pulp Company and Ketchikan Pulp Company.
The City of Angoon welcomes the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Public Lands National Parks and Forest to the State of Alaska and
would like the committee to focus its attention to the concerns of
our community and the lands surrounding the municipality as it
exists and will exist for generations to come.
Over the past decade, the Federal Government has extinguished
a program that the U.S. citizens of this Nation, living within the
boundaries of a municipality, have directly benefitted from, the
Federal Revenue Sharing Program. The timber industry continues
to receive a subsidy from the Federal Government.
There are three struggling industries within our state. The com-
mercial fisheries, which is the oldest industry within our state, has
been a hard-hit industry over the past three decades and continues
to decline. The Commercial Fishing Industry receives no Federal
subsidy for recovery. This industry now faces the possibility of ex-
tinction due to the oil spill in Valdez.
The tourism industry is a new industry that is being developed
in the State of Alaska and the benefits of this industry are derived
by the State of Alaska and the urban communities. This industry is
not federally subsidized.
The native corporations in Southeast Alaska are involved in the
Timber Market within the State of Alaska and receive no Federal
subsidy to continue their participation in the timber industry.
There is one reality that has developed here in the community of
Sitka during the implementation of the 705(a) provision of
ANILCA. The timber industry was in a depressed state, and ALP
had an agreement with their employees to take a reduction in ben-
efits and wages so that the industry could survive the depressed
period of the timber market. When the market recovered, the em-
ployees requested that the wages and benefits also recover and
went on strike.
[The prepared statement of Ms. George follows:]
i
373
P.O. BOX 189
' ^ ' ANGOON
OF ALASKA PHONE:
NGOON 99820 (907) 788-3653
TESTIMONY OF LYDIA GEORGE FOR THE CITY OF ANGOON
The Council of City of Angoon would like to express their appreciation for the
opportunity to express our pnsition on the 705 (a) provisions of ANILCA which
establishes a it.5 billion board feet per decade timber supply and an off budget
unappropriated $W million per year to access marginal timber and for other
purposes, which directly benefit the long-term contracts of Alaska Pulp Company
and Ketchikan Pulp Company.
The City of Angoon welcomes the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands National
Parks and Forest to the State of Alaska and would like the committee to focus
their attention to the concerns of our community and the lands surrounding the
municipality, as it exists and will exist for generations to come.
Over the past decade the Federal Government has extinguished a program that the
U.S. Citizens of this nation, living within the boundaries of a municipality, has
directly benefitted from. The Federal Revenue Sharing Program. The timber
industry continues to receive a subsidy from the Federal Government.
There are three struggling industries within our state. The Commercial
fisheries, which is the oldest industry within our state, has been a hard hit
industry over the past three decades and continues to decline. The Commercial
Fishing Industry receives no Federal Subsidy for recovery. This industry now
faces the possibility of extinction due to the oil spill in Valdez.
374
The tourism industry is a new industry that is being developed in the State of
Alaska and the benefits of this industry are derived by the State of Alaska and
the urban communities. This industry is not federally subsidized.
The native corporations in Southeast Alaska are involved in the Timber Market
within the State of Alaska and receive no federal subsidy to continue their
participation in the timber industry.
There is one reality that has developed here in the community of Sitka during the
implementation of the 705 (a) provision of ANILCA. The timber industry was in a
depressed status and ALP had an agreement with their employees to take a
reduction in benefits and wages so that the industry could survive the depressed
period of the timber market. When the market recovered the employees requested
that the wages and benefits also recover and went on strike. ALP did not concur
and instead hired "scabs" whereby leaving several unemployed residents of the
community of Sitka. The City of Angoon believes that ALP did not comply with the
intent of ANILCA through the actions taken at the time of the incident.
The City of Angoon is located in the center of the Admiralty National Monument
and is designated as a wilderness area. The residents have the right to use the
traditional fish and wildlife resources of the area. The average family income
of our community is approximately $5,000 per family unit. Some people may wonder
how a family can survive on such a low income. The fish and wildlife resources
make up the remainder of our economy. This is very important to our community.
The 705 (a) provision of ANILCA has a potential of a large scale development of
areas surrounding Admiralty Island. As the development occurs, it is very
375
apparent that the only fish and wildlife resource area left will be Admiralty
Island. This will have a negative impact on the economy of the community of
Angoon if no amendments are made to the 705 (a) provision of ANILCA. For a
community that has lost Federal Revenue Sharing and is losing State Revenue
Sharing year by year, perhaps a subsidy program will be in order by the Federal
Government for depressed communities in the near future.
To subsidize one particular industry within a government structure, discriminates
against other residents not involved in the industry within that government,
whether the government be municipal, state, or federal. Perhaps a subsidy plan
for all industries equally, are in order as an amendment to the ANILCA 705 (a)
provision.
376
Senator Wirth. Ms. George, your three minutes are up. Thank
you very much for reading your statement. The balance of your
statement will be in the record.
If I might, maybe, Mr. Perkins, you and Ms. George might move
back for a second. Governor Cowper has joined us, and it might be
that we could put him at your place at the table. All of you might
slide over just a little bit.
Governor Cowper is here, and we certainly welcome him and as
per our earlier agreement, we will put him on right away.
[Applause.]
Senator Wirth. It is great pleasure for me to welcome Governor
Cowper. Governor, we are honored to have you come down and join
us this morning. We appreciate your involvement and I want to
say as one member of the United States Senate so many of us in
the Senate respect and appreciate your very careful judgment and
your accuracy on behalf of your constituents, which is tireless and
very, very able. Thank you, sir, for coming here. I am sure all Alas-
kans appreciate the very hard work you do for them.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
ALASKA
Governor Cowper. I have prepared testimony which I would like
to submit to the committee at this time.
Senator Wirth. That will be included in full in the record follow-
ing your oral testimony, which will be included first in today's
hearihg. '
Governor Cowper. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome you to
Alaska on behalf of Alaska and particularly the people of South-
east Alaska. We appreciate your thoughtfulness and your courtesy
in extending the hearing process to Southeast Alaska, which is so
vitally affected by this proposed legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the Tongass is a national asset belonging to all
citizens of the United States. It is, at the same time, it is an area of
vital importance to the people of Southeast Alaska whose liveli-
hoods depend on the natural resources of the forest. To many, the
Tongass is home, and to communities large and small it provides
the basis for most economic activity in the region. During this
hearing, you will hear from those who depend on the Tongass
Forest, loggers and millworkers, commercial fishermen, tour opera-
tors, outfitters and guides, hardrock miners, and those who provide
services to the primary industries, as well as people who depend on
subsistence use of forest resources in pursuit of their traditional
way of life. These and other people of the Tongass value this forest
greatly, but they have differing priorities.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Tongass has had a long
history of conflict. Congress attempted to put that conflict to rest
in 1980 when it set aside 5.5 million acres of national interest land
as wilderness and simultaneously provided for job protection in the
dependent timber industry.
It has become abundantly clear, however, that the divisiveness of
this issue has not gone away. The 1980 compromise has not ended
the calls for more wilderness, nor has it adequately provided stabil-
ity for the livelihoods and life styles of those who live and work in
377
the forest. In addition, many affected Alaskans and smaller com-
munities in the region believe that their interests were ignored in
ANILCA. Many Alaskans share the view that it is time to address
these problems. Once again Congress is being asked to legislate the
future of Southeast Alaska.
I have opposed legislative changes to the Tongass provisions of
ANILCA in both this and the previous Congress because we need a
stable legal regulatory regime. I have also been informed that 191
administrative remedies exist which could correct many of the
problems. It is clear to me, however, that Congress intends to
change the current law with or without a compromise involving af-
fected Alaskans. Unfortunately, neither S. 346 nor S. 237 achieves
a compromise acceptable to the majority of Southeast Alaskans.
For this reason, I cannot support either bill. Until such a compro-
mise is reached, the conflict will continue and Congress will be
asked to revisit Tongass legislation again in the future. I would
like to put this issue behind us for good.
During the past few months, a committee of courageous local
mayors and city council members have hammered out a compro-
mise proposal for Tongass legislation which recognizes the underly-
ing interests of Southeast Alaska communities. While neither per-
fect nor unanimously supported, this unprecedented Southeast Con-
ference compromise comes closer to satisfying the concerns of a
majority of affected Alaskans than any other alternative. For this
reason, I support key elements of this compromise and urge you to
seriously consider their merits.
The key elements of the compromise include the following:
The Secretary of Agriculture would have the discretion to offer
for sale up to 4.5 billion board feet of saw timber per decade, sub-
ject to annual appropriations, his estimate of annual market
demand for wood products from the forest, sustained yield capacity
of the forest and protection of other resources and uses of the
forest as determined through the planning process. The forest plan-
ning process would not be constrained by any Congressionally man-
dated timber supply requirement.
This approach would allow the Secretary to use the planning
process and the 10-year plan to determine how much timber would
be made available during the course of the decade.
As those who were close to the Southeast Conference process are
aware, a number of amendments were considered which would
have eliminated the Secretary's discretion to set the harvest level
in the 10-year plan. These amendments were not approved by the
Southeast Conference. The small communities and non-timber
users have made it very clear that no compromise is possible unless
the Secretary of Agriculture has this discretion.
It should be noted that the proposal of the Southeast Conference
does not require the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the 10-year
figure. The language merely gives him the discretion to set this
figure based on his professional judgment and dictates of applicable
Federal law.
Adequate funds should be appropriated each year to ensure a
program of intensive forest management in addition to normal ap-
propriations. Up to $15 million should be provided annually for
this intensive management program. Up to 20 percent of this
378
amount should be used to promote, protect and enhance commer-
cial, subsistence and sport fisheries, the wildlife and recreation re-
sources, in addition to other normal appropriations for these pur-
poses. The balance of intensive management funds should be used
to conduct precommercial thinning in young timber stands and,
under existing Forest Service criteria, to invest in the construction
of new facilities needed to access timber sale areas.
The Southeast community compromise includes the placement of
12 areas in a special Congressionally protected status that would
permanently prohibit commercial timber harvesting. Less restric-
tive than wilderness, this status would allow other compatible mul-
tiple use activities as described in the Land Use Designation II cat-
egory of the 1979 forest plan. Areas which would receive special
permanent protection are Kadashan River, Chuck River, and Wind-
ham Bay, Yakutat Forelands, Lisianski and Upper Hoonah Sound,
Nutwa River, Karta River, Mt. Calder and Mt. Holbrook, Young
Lake, Outside Islands, Trap Bay, Goose Flats, and Berners Bay.
These special areas have been identified by communities as par-
ticularly important to them for subsistence, sport, and commercial
fishing, and the harvest of wildlife for subsistence and sport. These
high values are confirmed by our Department of Fish and Game.
Communities understand that setting these areas aside from log-
ging will reduce the land base currently available to supply com-
mercial timber. It is important, therefore, that this impact be miti-
gated to the extent possible by the intensive forest management
program. According to the data available to us, these set-asides
would reduce the current 430 million board foot annual sale quan-
tity by 28 million board feet. This is about 6 percent of the average
amount to be made available annually in accordance with Section
705 (a) of ANILCA. We believe that this reduction will have little
effect on existing employment levels, but it is likely to impact po-
tential future jobs as the industry rebounds from its 1980-85 reces-
sion. Last year, 331.5 million board feet of saw timber was harvest-
ed from the Tongass Forest, or about three-quarters of the 450 mil-
lion board foot annual timber supply. This 1988 harvest, according
to published Forest Service estimates, directly supported 1,781 jobs
in the dependent timber industry and indirectly affected another
3,385 jobs in the support services.
The Southeast compromise also recognized that the forest plan,
when revised, might also limit the available timber supply in pro-
viding appropriate protection to other resource values. Community
leaders and I know that there are such risks and uncertainties
with the compromise proposal. We believe, however, that there is
greater risk of adverse impact and the promise of renewed conflicts
inherent in legislation currently before the Congress.
For many years, the primary objective of the Forest Service's
timber program in Southeast Alaska has been to provide communi-
ty stability and economic diversification. This has been a worth-
while objective but the focus of the program is timber. I believe
that Congress should now broaden this objective.
The three major sectors of the economy in the southeast are com-
mercial fishing, tourism and timber. Hardrock mining is regaining
a major role in the region. The Southeast compromise recognizes
379
that each part of the region's economy is important and that the
Tongass Forest is central to all.
For this reason, we support the establishment of a $20 million
economic diversification program of grants and loans. This pro-
gram will be utilized by communities and local businesses that
depend on the Tongass Forest to stimulate the creation of new jobs.
"Value-added" initiatives and more efficient utilization of the Ton-
gass Forest and its resources would be encouraged and supported,
and the loss of potential future jobs in the timber industry would
be mitigated.
The two long-term timber sale contracts should not be unilateral-
ly canceled. These agreements should be reviewed by the Secretary
and renegotiated as necessary to ensure employment stabilization
to the maximum extent possible for those working in the forest;
fair and reasonable competition within the timber industry; full
and reasonable compensation to the contract holders for any
taking; consideration of the respective interests of Southeast Alas-
ka's diverse communities; definition and commitment of timber
available through the remaining contract period to contract hold-
ers in the revised forest plan; and clarification of Forest Service au-
thority to protect fish and wildlife habitat in areas under contract.
The State of Alaska encourages this committee to consider adopt-
ing the Southeast compromise proposal this year rather than en-
acting legislation which is unlikely to end the conflict over the
Tongass National Forest. The proposal not only reflects a resolu-
tion of many issues of local concern but addresses these concerns in
a manner which furthers the national interest in true multiple use
management of the National Forest. I believe that this compromise
is not only the best hope of settling differences that divide the
people of Southeast Alaska but addresses the national interest in
the Tongass as well.
We hope, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the people of Southeast
Alaska that this compromise will be adopted and that Southeast
Alaska can depend on some stability in its economy in the future.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Governor Cowper follows:]
380
TESTIMONY OF GOVERNOR STEVE COWPER, STATE OF ALASKA
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
April 25, 1989, Sitka, Alaska
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Steve Cowper,
Governor of Alaska. On behalf of the people of Alaska, and
particularly those who live in southeast Alaska, I want to
welcome you all to our state. Thank you for giving Alaskans the
opportunity to express their views about management of the
Tongass National Forest.
The Tongass is a national asset belonging to all citizens of the
United States. It is, at the same time, an asset of vital
importance to the people of southeast Alaska whose livelihoods
depend on the natural resources of the forest. To many, the
Tongass is home, and to communities large and small, it provides
the basis for most economic activity in the region. During these
hearings you will hear from those who depend on the Tongass
Forest: loggers and millworkers, commercial fishermen, tour
operators, outfitters and guides, hardrock miners, and those who
provide services to the primary industries, and people who depend
on subsistence use of forest resources in pursuit of their
traditional way of life. These and other people of the Tongass
value this forest greatly, but they have differing priorities.
It's not surprising, therefore, that the Tongass has had a long
history of conflict. Congress attempted to put that conflict to
rest in 1980 when it set aside 5^ million acres of national
interest land as wilderness and simultaneously provided for job
protection in the dependent timber industry.
It has become abundantly clear, however, that the divisiveness of
this issue has not gone away. The 1980 compromise has not ended
the calls for more wilderness nor has it adequately provided
stability for the livelihoods and life styles of those who live
and work in the forest. In addition, many affected Alaskans and
smaller communities in the region believe that their interests
were ignored in ANILCA. Many Alaskans share the view that it is
time to address these problems. Once again Congress is being
asked to legislate the future of southeast Alaska.
I have opposed legislative changes to the Tongass provisions of
ANILCA in both this and the previous Congress because we need a
stable legal and regulatory regime. I've also been informed that
administrative remedies exist which could correct many of the
problems. It's clear to me, however, that Congress intends to
change the current law with, or without, a compromise involving
affected Alaskans. Unfortunately, neither S. 346 nor S. 237
achieves a compromise acceptable to the majority of southeast
Alaskans. For this reason, I cannot support either bill. Until
such a compromise is reached, the conflict will continue and
Congress will be asked to revisit Tongass legislation again in
the future. I'd like to put this issue behind us for good.
381
During the past few months, a committee of courageous local
mayors and city council members have hammered out a compromise
proposal for Tongass legislation which recognizes the underlying
interests of southeast Alaska communities. While neither perfect
nor unanimously supported, this unprecedented Southeast
Conference compromise comes closer to satisfying the concerns of
a majority of affected Alaskans than any other alternative. For
this reason, I support key elements of this compromise and urge
you to seriously consider their merits.
The key elements of the compromise include the following:
The Secretary of Agriculture would have the discretion to offer
for sale up to 4.5 billion board feet of sawtimber per decade,
subject to annual appropriations, his estimate of annual market
demand for wood products from the forest, sustained yield
capacity of the forest, and protection of other resources and
uses of the forest as determined through the planning process.
The forest planning process would not be constrained by any
Congressionally mandated timber supply requirement.
This approach would allow the Secretary to use the planning
process and the ten year plan to determine how much timber would
be made available during the course of the decade.
As those who were close to the Southeast Conference process are
aware, a number of amendments were considered which would have
eliminated the Secretary's discretion to set the harvest level in
the ten year plan. These amendments were not approved by the
Southeast Conference. The small communities and non-timber users
have made it very clear that no compromise is possible unless the
Secretary of Agriculture has this discretion.
It should be noted that the proposal of the Southeast Conference
does not require the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the ten
year figure. The language merely gives him the discretion to set
this figure based on his professional judgement and dictates of
applicable federal law.
Adequate funds should be appropriated each year to ensure a
program of intensive forest management in addition to normal
appropriations. Up to 15 million dollars should be provided
annually for this intensive management program. Up to 20% of
this amount should be used to promote, protect, and enhance
commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries, the wildlife, and
recreation resources in addition to other normal appropriations
for these purposes. The balance of intensive management funds
should be used to conduct precommercial thinning in young timber
stands and, under existing Forest Service criteria, to invest in
the construction of new facilities needed to access timber sale
areas.
- 2
382
The Southeast community compromise includes the placement of 12
areas in a special Congressionally-protected status that would
permanently prohibit commercial timber harvesting. Less restric-
tive than wilderness, this status would allow other compatible
multiple-use activities as described in the Land Use Designation
II category of the 1979 forest plan. Areas which would receive
special permanent protection are: Kadashan River, Chuck River
and Windham Bay, Yakutat Forelands, Lisianski and Upper Hoonah
Sound, Nutkwa River, Karta River, Mt. Calder and Mt. Holbrook,
Young Lake, Outside Islands, Trap Bay, Goose Flats, and Berners
Bay. These special areas have been identified by communities as
particularly important to them for subsistence, sport, and
commercial fishing, and the harvest of wildlife for subsistence
and sport. These high values are confirmed by our Department of
Fish and Game.
Communities understand that setting these areas aside from
logging will reduce the land base currently available to supply
commercial timber. It is important, therefore, that this impact
be mitigated to the extent possible by the intensive forest
management program. According to the data available to us, these
set-asides would reduce the current 450 million board foot annual
sale quantity by 28 million board feet. This is about 6% of the
average amount to be made available annually in accordance with
Section 705(a) of ANILCA. We believe that this reduction will
have little effect on existing employment levels, but it is
likely to impact potential future jobs as the industry rebounds
from its 1980-85 recession. Last year, 331.5 million board feet
of sawtimber were harvested from the Tongass Forest, or about
three-quarters of the 450 million board foot annual timber
supply. This 1988 harvest, according to published Forest Service
estimates, directly supported 1781 jobs in the dependent timber
industry, and indirectly affected another 3385 jobs in the
support services.
The Southeast compromise also recognized that the forest plan,
when revised, might also limit the available timber supply in
providing appropriate protection to other resource values.
Community leaders and I know that there are such risks and
uncertainties with the compromise proposal. We believe, however,
that there is greater risk of adverse impact and the promise of
renewed conflicts inherent in legislation currently before the
Congress.
For many years, the primary objective of the Forest Service's
timber program in southeast Alaska has been to provide community
stability and economic diversification. This has been a worth-
while objective, but the focus of the program is timber. I
believe that Congress should now broaden this objective. The
three major sectors of the economy in southeast are commercial
fishing, tourism, and timber. Hardrock mining is regaining a
major role in the region. The Southeast compromise recognizes
that each part of the region's economy is important, and that the
- 3 -
383
Tongass Forest is central to all. For this reason, we support
the establishment of a 20 million dollar economic diversification
program of grants and loans. This program would be utilized by
communities and local businesses that depend on the Tongass
Forest to stimulate the creation of new jobs. "Value added"
initiatives and more efficient utilization of the Tongass Forest
and its resources would be encouraged and supported, and the loss
of potential future jobs in the timber industry would be
mitigated.
The two long-term timber sale contracts should not be unilateral-
ly cancelled. These agreements should be reviewed by the Secre-
tary and renegotiated as necessary to ensure employment stabi-
lization to the maximum extent possible for those working in the
forest; fair and reasonable competition within the timber indus-
try; full consistency with the Tongass Forest Plan as periodical-
ly revised; fair and reasonable compensation to the contract
holders for any taking; consideration of the respective interests
of southeast Alaska's diverse communities; definition and commit-
ment of timber available through the remaining contract period to
contract holders in the revised forest plan; and clarification of
Forest Service authority to protect fish and wildlife habitat in
areas under contract.
The State of Alaska encourages this committee to consider adopt-
ing the southeast compromise proposal this year rather than
enacting legislation which is unlikely to end the conflict over
the Tongass National Forest. The proposal not only reflects a
resolution of many issues of local concern, but addresses these
concerns in a manner which furthers the national interest in true
multiple use management of the National Forest. I believe that
this compromise is not only the best hope of settling differences
that divide the people of southeast Alaska, but addresses the
national interest in the Tongass as well.
384
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Governor Cowper.
[Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Please let me just, as a point to be made by the
Chair to those who are with us today as guests of the Committee,
remind you that you are guests of the United States Senate. As
much as there is a temptation in an event like this to express one's
appreciation, and I share your enthusiasm for the careful analysis
done by Governor Cowper, much as you wish to express that enthu-
siasm, we would appreciate it if you would not do so. It is contrary
to the rules of the United States Senate, and I would ask you not
to respond one way or another to any of the witnesses.
I would, if I might, Governor Cowper, like to state right now for
the record that it is a very good table that the Southeast Confer-
ence presented, which was a comparison of your approach,
ANILCA, the legislation that I introduced, and the legislation in-
troduced by Congressman Mrazek, H.R. 987, which I think is a very
helpful resource and a good framework for us all to look at. It also
includes the outline of the areas that you are proposing, the 12
areas of the Southeast Conference.
I think it is appropriate, if we might take a few minutes, that we
might exchange some thoughts about that. Do you have a little bit
of time?
Governor Cowper. Certainly.
Senator Wirth. One of the issues that we face. Governor Cowper,
one of the broad philosophical questions that came up yesterday,
and I wanted to give you an opportunity to address it, is a question
of why the Tongass should be treated in any way different from
other national forests in the United States. No other national
forest in the United States has a congressionally mandated or a
congressionally suggested ceiling or target for timbering. Earlier
someone said that we should not micro manage, and I would agree
with that.
Why should the Congress be telling a forest how much should be
timbered or might be timbered? Why should there be within the
appropriation a fund automatically set aside for the Tongass? No
such fund exists for any other national forest. Why should we
maintain these long-term timber contracts? Those long-term timber
contracts were canceled in every other national forest during the
1950s and 1960s.
In other words, from the perspective of many people the Tongass
stands out. Granted, is the largest national forest but the question
that we have to answer is why should the Tongass be treated dif-
ferently. I would like to ask you how you would respond to that
question.
Governor Cowper. Mr. Chairman, there is in the law a doctrine
known as estoppel, which is legal and not all people understand
what it means.
Senator Wirth. I am a non-lawyer. Give me a shot.
Governor Cowper. Basically what it says is that if people have
been induced to rely on a certain policy and if the policy was
changed and it would act to their detriment, then you cannot
change the policy. So, that is legal talk, and it is not directly appli-
cable to this situation. But the fact is that the Congress in years
past did, in fact, set up a special legislation that directly affected
385
the Tongass National Forest for the specific purpose of allowing
the people in Southeast Alaska to create a timber industry in order
to assist their economy. It is in fact a subsidized industry in direct
and indirect ways. I do not think there is any reason to pretend
that it is not, that many, many people in Southeast Alaska over
the years have come to rely on the fact that the Federal Govern-
ment did put into effect a policy, actions were taken, plants were
built, jobs were created in reliance on that Federal policy which, by
the way, is not unprecedented. The Federal Government has in
many other contexts created situations which amounted to subsi-
dies for jobs in one area or another.
We believed in 1980 and we continue to believe today that it
would be unfair to suddenly change the rules of the game in a way
that would substantially impact the citizens of this area who had
come to rely on that policy over time. We believe that it would be
more fair to make the types of compromises in this legislation that
are reflected by the Southeast Conference proposal. We recognize
that the Tongass is, in fact, treated differently than other forests,
but there is an historic context for that treatment. And we think
that if changes are going to be made, they should be made with a
sense of understanding that there are real people here that are
going to be directly affected if there is a radical, sudden change in
that policy.
Senator Wirth. Let me, if I might, Governor, pursue that just a
little bit. I appreciate the history and I understand that. I mean,
we have had many subsidized industries over the years, subsidized
by the Federal Government. The Federal Government, however,
from time to time decides that it has learned from its mistakes and
makes a change if the evidence suggests that changes ought to be
made. So, the question that we then have is has the subsidy pro-
gram worked, has it in fact saved jobs since ANILCA passed? For
example, has the number of jobs decreased, stabilized, or increased?
Has ANILCA, passed in 1980, encouraged competition or has the
market become less competitive? It has in the timber industry. And
has ANILCA been productive in terms of encouraging other eco-
nomic programs or, as some suggested yesterday, has the excessive
emphasis on timber discouraged other industry, such as the fishing
industry?
Those are the kinds of balances and trade-off questions that we
are going to have to ask and will be asked between now and the
time that we get to the floor. Some of my colleagues are going to
have questions as well, but that is my point of comment. I realize
the subsidy program was set up. Has it worked?
Governor Cowper. Well, in the first place, we believe that the
questions that you mentioned are legitimate, and we believe many
of them have been addressed in the context of this compromise sug-
gestion. I suppose it would be difficult to say with any confidence
whether the 1980 legislation has worked or to what extent it has
worked, being that the current conditions of the timber markets in
Alaska are a lot better than they were in those days. Much of it
depends on has there been an increased demand in Asia for timber
and timber products. Certainly it has depended on the relatively
weak dollar in Asia, which means that our products can be put on
the market for much less than was the case previously. It means
386
that we are much more competitive than we were back in 1980. So,
the timber industry in the Southeast has improved a great deal in
recent years. We claim that probably the causes are many, but the
ANILCA provisions of 1980 did create what was an accessible sta-
bility in terms of policy so that people could make investments in
confidence that things would not change the following year. I think
it would be very difficult to say to what extent ANILCA caused
this change in the timber market for the better and which part of
it was caused by other factors completely different from ANILCA.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Governor Cowper.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Governor, I was particularly impressed with your presentation
representing the state and the Southeast Conference, which Mr.
Privett reviewed for us. As one who was very involved in the draft-
ing of the legislation which is before you, S. 237, I think it is worthy
to reflect that you know well the spirit of compromise in which
legislation is drafted.
As I said in Ketchikan, the development of legislation is some-
thing like making sausage, not too pleasant to observe but never-
theless a necessity and a reality. I think the recommendations ex-
pressed by you of the Southeast Conference for the most part rep-
resents just that kind of input relative to the divergency that we
have between Senator Wirth's legislation and that of my own, and
I feel quite confident that we pursue this process of making sau-
sage, so to speak, that many of those recommendations can be ad-
dressed.
One of the difficulties that we are going to have, however, in the
Southeast Conference recommendations is the suggestion of estab-
lishing an economic diversification fund for grants and loans. As
we well know in this climate it is pretty difficult to depend on
Washington for Federal assistance. And, in both Senator Wirth's
bill and my bill, we have done away with Federal assistance of $40
million. To combat — and I am not saying this is possible — but it
does create some problems. I think in the Southeast Conference the
request is about $15 million. I just wanted to share that reality
with you.
We have had a great deal of discussion on the merits of why the
Tongass is different. As you indicated, you were back in Washing-
ton during the ANILCA drafting and I think we have to look at the
issue both ways. As you recall. Governor, we have done a fair job
in relationship to the job issue, inasmuch as there are two pulp
mills in Southeast Alaska providing jobs.
What I do not think we have done adequately, as reflected by my
colleague from Colorado, is the other side of the issue. We had no
wilderness in Southeast Alaska prior to ANILCA in 1980. That leg-
islation set aside out of the commercial forests in Southeast
Alaska, not just the area but the commercial forests, the areas that
were selected for reprobation purposes by various environmental
groups, 1.7 million acres were put into wilderness, and that was a
very positive thing. That precise process has not been done in other
forests.
The question is what price wilderness? This has been discussed
at great length because you take an area out of a commercial
forest and put it in wilderness and we see the redwoods and that
387
price related in adjudication over fairness, peoples' jobs, a very,
very lengthy complicated process.
Now, as we see the evolution of what is happening in the forests.
We see the stumpage go from $2 to $3 per 1,000, reflected on the
market currently. In Ketchikan I think it is $68. I do not know cur-
rently what it is here in Sitka, but it has gone up dramatically. So,
if we take the background and history I think we have to recognize
that there has been an evolution that has occurred as a conse-
quence of changing times.
Speaking as one of the senators representing the people of
Alaska, in the spirit of compromise, we look for a process recom-
mended by you. Governor, from the Southeast Conference, as they
have indicated, as to how we can better structure this to address
the concerns of all without really throwing out the baby with the
bath water. So, I certainly welcome your recommendations and
look forward to continuing to work with you, and I think good rec-
ommendations are going to come out. The Tongass Land Manage-
ment Plan has been underway for some time, to reflect the spirit of
Alaskans expressing themselves in open forum and recommenda-
tions and so forth which should be considered as we proceed with
this legislation.
Senator Burns. Governor, first of all, appreciation for showing
up here this morning. I know the demands on your time, and I see
you are very interested in this issue. I only have one question. I
was interested in mining. We did not hear much about mining yes-
terday in Ketchikan. Could you give me— do you have any sort of—
an estimate on what and how much mining could possibly occur in
these areas.
Governor Cowper. Senator Burns, I am not aware of any specific
proposal in the areas that we have designated as set aside areas,
any of those areas. Now, I am willing to have anybody who knows
more about it than I do correct me on that. I know people who do
know more about it.
Senator Burns. I would not have those figures on my fingertips
for the State of Montana either, but I just wondered if you had an
idea. You did mention that and that is sort of interesting.
There are 5.4 million acres that are set aside in the Tongass. In
your recommended areas for special management, how many acres
of harvestable timber will be taken out of the Tongass timber base?
Do you have an estimate at all on that?
Governor Cowper. We have the board feet, but we are looking
for acres.
[Consults with aide.]
Senator Burns. How many acres?
Governor Cowper. 646,000 acres.
Senator Burns. Thanks again. Thank you for your hospitality up
here and the pressures on your time. Thank you very much, I ap-
preciate your coming.
Senator Wirth. Now, we have a few more minutes. May I run
through a few more elements to make sure that we get these on
the record?
In your comments about the changing nature of the timber in-
dustry, you talked about the increased demand for timber products
in Asia. One of the elements that is involved in the discussion of
388
the Tongass is exactly that issue, and it is my understanding that
one of the two mills that we are talking about is owned by the Jap-
anese and all of that product goes to Japan and of the second mill,
which is owned by Louisiana Pacific, I understand, about 70 per-
cent of the product from that mill goes to the Pacific and a great
percentage of that goes to Japan. So, we have coming cut of the
Tongass program, a lot of the timber is going directly to the Japa-
nese. Is that your understanding as well?
Governor Cowper. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Wirth. Now, it is very difficult, I think, for the Ameri-
can public to understand why the American public, the American
taxpayer, is subsidizing a program for the Japanese at a time in
which the United States has an enormous trade deficit. At a time
at which the Japanese are doing phenomenally well financially,
why is it that the American public is subsidizing a program for the
Japanese consumer?
I am sure that there is someplace a very good answer to this or
maybe these are just the tides of history that have moved by us. I
was wondering if you all looked at that in the Southeast Confer-
ence and discussed that issue — there is no reason that you would —
or maybe this is an issue we deal with on the whole context of our
trade relationships with the Japanese.
Governor Cowper. Well, Senator Wirth, I think that most people
at least in Alaska view that subsidy, to the extent that we admit it,
as a subsidy to the industry in Southeast Alaska and not to the
Japanese consumer. They are the buyers of timber; they are indeed
the buyers of most of our commercial fish harvest here in Alaska
as well.
We think if the price of the timber were raised, they would look
elsewhere. They are looking for a market priceSthat is acceptable
to them, as they would for any type of product. I do not see that as
a direct subsidy to them, although I certainly understand how you
make that connection. There is no question about the fact that
they are subsidiaries in mills, and the business interests that they
own in connection with the timber industry in Southeast Alaska
benefit from the current situation. We think, however, in the bal-
ance that it is more important to maintain jobs for Southeast
Alaska residents than to worry about whether there is an effective
subsidy to the Japanese consumer.
Senator Wirth. So, technically what that says is that the eco-
nomics of these two mills do not work by themselves, that the mar-
ketplace that we hear so much about does not allow Alaskan
timber to compete, without the subsidy; if the Japanese were
paying market prices, they would go elsewhere. Is that correct?
Governor Cowper. Well, Senator, I would not know, I am not
going to stake my mind and reputation on that statement. We
know what we hear. We know what we are told by the industry
and by others. I think that the result of conversations that we have
had, not only from the industry here in Southeast Alaska and from
the Japanese, but from other citizens of the state, leads us to make
this proposal for a compromise.
Senator Wirth. I appreciate that, and the reason I raised this
issue was not to wave the Texas flag but just to say it is within the
context of a deep concern of the American public about our eco-
389
nomic relationship with Japan, the perception of many that, for ex-
ample, the Japanese are not paying their fair share of the defense
burden. The American public is paying 6 percent of our gross na-
tional product, and the Japanese are paying 1 percent. You have
heard all of these arguments; but certainly, as we get to the floor
of the United States Senate discussing this legislation, the issue of
our relationship with Japan, our economic relationship, comes into
this.
Governor Cowper. I would suppose. Senator Wirth, that any
time you have a harvest of natural resources that are ultimately
sold to the Japanese where you manage those resources for the use
of public funds that you could say, in effect, that that was a subsi-
dy to the Japanese.
This is a little different situation. It is a grade higher than that,
and I recognize that. But, as I say, in the end, as we balance the
equities here we think that exist in the industry, it needs to have
some floor here. We find in Alaska that often we are controlled
forces that do not bother to ask us what we think, and we appreci-
ate you not being in that category. We do not want the rug pulled
out from under the industry, I guess is what I am trying to say.
Senator Wirth. I am not taking issue with the argument. I am
saying that there is an old saying, "What you see depends on
where you sit," and there are many would do not sit where you do
and do not understand Southeast Alaska, you having been here,
from someone who is viewing it from quite a different perspective.
I did not raise this issue for the purpose of being contentious or ar-
guing about your position. It was just to point out that there is a
difference in flow here.
That leads me to a second issue that relates very much to this.
There is in the proposal that you and the coalition put together, I
think, a very interesting idea and that is for kind of a value-added
approach.
I come from an area of the country, and Senator Burns comes
from an area of the country, where people often view themselves as
Colonials. You know, the colonists are out there extracting our re-
sources and we have had that happen to us in mining and timber-
ing and water resources, so that for a long period of time we got
the lowest possible value for the resources coming out of our state
that go someplace else where value is added, and that is where the
real money is made.
One of the arguments that I have been making, over and over
and over again to the Forest Service in Colorado is what we ought
to be doing is looking at the economics of this situation and try to
figure out how we add greater value to the investment that is
made there or to the resources that are taken out. And, therefore,
that value-added notion I think is a very creative one, and it may
give us an opportunity to work out some very interesting and per-
haps kind of model language.
I find that very appealing, and I know that others coming from
states like mine, like yours, like Senator Burns' all live within this
sort of mentality, that somehow here we are, whether it is a big
bank or someplace else, with all the big money someplace else. The
loans get made to us. We are a capital poor area. The resources get
390
taken away. The value is added someplace else. Somebody else is
making all of the dough and we are left with depleted resources.
So, I think that the idea that you put in here is certainly worth
our very careful consideration. If you have any further comment
you might want to add to that, I just thought it was very intrigu-
ing.
Can I jump for a minute to the contract issue as well? Were we
to cancel the contracts, which as I have pointed out has been dis-
cussed, and in other national forests that was done in the 1950s
and 1960s, and maybe there were a couple held over that were
done in the early 1970s. If those contracts to be canceled, the ques-
tion is what kind of a transition period might get built in? Clearly,
we do not want to have both contracts stop here and then have a
period of time where there are no contracts between the Forest
Service and the timber industry. It is not anybody's intent at all to
have the whole timber industry stop dead. Therefore, we ought to
be looking at some kind of transitional language. I was wondering
if you know or any others, Mr. Privett, or others representing the
conference might have looked at that issue? Do you know of any-
body who thought about it or looked at that issue of the transition
period?
Governor Cowper. I would defer to the Conference on that issue.
Senator. We have not directly considered that but maybe the Con-
ference has.
Mr. Privett. No, we have not, Mr. Chairman. That is probably
one of the most terrifying things we could be thinking about at this
point. We tried to put it together in a document to continue to sal-
vage the contracts in some form. Most of those contracts run for 15
years, and one will be up in 20 years and the other one is up —
really, it is not a long period of time.
Senator Wirth. I understand that. Unfortunately, it appears
from all of the documentation we have from the Forest Service
that those contracts and their long-term nature drives all of the
other decisions. Most of the decisions made by the Forest Service
have artificial variables that drive the way in which they manage
the forest, and that is why the whole point of the 4.5 billion target
and the contracts are of such concern, because they do tend to
skew all of the decision making.
Just like. Governor Cowper, if we said, "Well, we are going to
make you governor, but 90 percent of your time has to be spent by
law in one area of the state." If the Constitution said that, he
would have to spend 90 percent of his time in one area of the state
and would not be allowed to do a lot of the other things that he at
his discretion would do were it not for that 90 percent requirement.
It is not a perfect analogy by any means, but I just point that out
as illustrative of what the problem is by having those variables
within the requirements. That changes the nature of the Forest
Service and probably does not allow them to be thoroughly objec-
tive in the way in which they would view the national forest.
Senator Burns. Would the senator yield?
Senator Wirth. I would be happy to.
Senator Burns. Senator Wirth — I thank you very much Mr.
Chairman, but I would ask Mr. Privett or the Governor, would you
agree, regarding these long-term contracts, would you agree that
391
here in Alaska you have fewer options to develop the local econo-
my as long as the Federal Government is the biggest land owner?
Governor Cowper. I would surely agree with it.
Mr. Privett. No doubt in my mind, sir.
Senator Burns. Short question, short answer. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wirth. Now I know how you stand on a transition
period. I do not know if you have anything else you want to add to
that. I know it is difficult. If you are all looking at transitions,
therefore, what you end up doing is saying maybe we are not going
to have a long-term contract, and I understand your position is to
maintain those long-term contracts but we would appreciate any
thoughts that you might have on that transition period were the
contracts to be canceled. Then what would you recommend that we
do?
Governor Cowper. Mr. Campbell can speak to that, sir.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, Senators, on the subject of cancel-
ing the contracts and on a transition period, there are a couple of
very quick points. First, the long-term contracts are no longer long
term; they are in the last stages of their terms.
Senator Wirth. Last stages, meaning what?
Mr. Campbell. 15 years and 20 for another one. Secondly, we cer-
tainly realize that there may need to be renegotiations of provi-
sions within the contracts. Third, we think what has been the driv-
ing force that has affected the Forest Service's management has
been the mandate to provide 4.5 billion within the framework of
the contract for ANILCA. We think that mandate to provide this
4.5 has been the thing that has caused problems with the Forest
Service's management. What we are advocating is, while the Forest
Service has certainly been encouraged to, if they can do it reason-
ably, provide up to 4.5, they would more than likely be mandated
to provide that timber regardless of all other values.
Senator Wirth. Just a second, Mr. Campbell. I would say there
may be a distinction but not a difference between 4.5 and up to 4.5.
You still have a legislative mandate of a target and I have never
seen an executive agency, particularly one that is often as timid as
the Forest Service can sometimes be, doing anything but looking at
that language and saying, okay, that is the framework but that
then makes it less. We would have to make less other difficult deci-
sions. So, I follow your logic all the way. You said then you wanted
to get rid of 4.5.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, getting rid of the 4.5 is not neces-
sarily an option. What we have done is now it is a mandate to pro-
vide up to 4.5 with strong direction to the Forest Service to take
the other values of the forest into account in their decisions on how
much timber to provide. I belieVe that is something that has been
lacking up to now.
Senator Wirth. I understand and I appreciate that. In other
words, it is left with do we or do we not include 4.5 in the legisla-
tive language? And I would think that is one of the most grievous
elements, but that again, like I say, depends on where you sit.
Governor?
Governor Cowper. I would say that I would probably look on
that provision as being something of a fig leaf rather than the
392
other way around. I looked at that and it appeared to me that the
only effect of that language was to preserve historic reference
point; otherwise it is effectively doing away with what was previ-
ously a floor and is now a ceiling. I think that was the purpose of
the Southeast Conference addressing the issue in that way.
Senator Wirth. Then the logical question would be why would
we bother to include it at all? We do not include any of the forest
plans in legislation related to national forests, and it has been in-
terpreted by the Forest Service as one of the driving elements. You
know and I know what happens with an executive agency. They
look at this and they see the number and they say, "Ah-ha, if I just
pick that 4.5 that allows me to avoid making a lot of other tough
choices that I might otherwise have to make." Maybe I am getting
a little cynical in my old age. I deal with a lot of executive agen-
cies, but I have watched a lot of that in operation.
Governor Cowper. I would expect that the Forest Service prob-
ably would see that, probably would recognize that the legislation
having been changed in this way v/as probably reflective of a sig-
nificant shift in Congressional views towards his decision, but I
would not presume to speak for the Forest Service. Sometimes I do
not speak for my own agency, but if I were working for the Forest
Service, I would view it as a complete change in the whole issue.
Senator Wirth. I have one other set of questions related to
boundaries. Would either of my colleagues want to pursue this?
Senator Murkow^ski. If I can paraphrase, for my colleagues,
sometimes what you see is what you want to see; and I think if we
reflect on 4.5 with a great deal of concern, we should look at what
we have done for the last decade, which is about or a little over 3.7.
So, to my friend from Colorado, we have had the ability theoretical-
ly under the existing legislation to come up to 4.5 in the last 10
years, and we have not done it. I think it is important for my
friend from Colorado to understand why we were at 3.7. The reali-
ties of the free market have simply dictated that we could not
market any more timber than we marketed, and there are other
considerations that go into it.
Another thing that I think we have had a difficult time commu-
nicating is the fact that this so-called Federal assistance, and I am
not going to use the word "subsidy," of $40 million was not some-
thing that was just given. It was in return for the 1.7 million acres
taken out of the commercial forest land of Southeast Alaska and
put in wilderness.
So, one can make the case very easily, what price wilderness? We
have taken away the subsidy and so it may be a conversation in
this hearing, if it indeed is interpreted by some of you as subsidy. I
do not think it is but nevertheless it has gone into legislation.
The ability to put up to 4.5, which is in the Southeast Conference
recommendation and in our language, simply means that that is a
target, subject to the ability to sustain a level of employment in
Sitka and Ketchikan and other communities of Southeast Alaska
to provide stability. It did not allow in excess of that. It provides
for people to plan, educate their families, know that they are going
to have a job.
If you want to take that away from them, why that is within the
authority of the United States Government. So, we can renegotiate
393
these contracts. But by the same token, there is 15 to 20 years left
on both contracts, and we are moving into an area of legislation
without the input of the plan that Congress approved, which is the
TLMP of all of the input from all of the people.
I would hope my friend from Colorado recognizes the realities as-
sociated with Alaska as he visits our state because we talked about
the balance of payments debt with Japan. We are a positive con-
tributor to that. We are an answer to the problem. The $424 mil-
lion of export value of our timber, about $336 million goes to
Japan. That offsets our deficit balance payment.
My friend from Colorado has got to understand that the Japa-
nese are not getting the jobs in Sitka or Ketchikan or elsewhere. It
is the Alaskans that are employed in these mills. The payroll taxes
are paid by our American citizens working in these mills. The Jap-
anese are paying taxes. They own the mill here in Ketchikan.
As we look at Alaska, and Governor Cowper knows it better than
anyone, and we talk about assistance to the industry. Well, appar-
ently the government has been giving assistance to the industry in
the form of $4 million. That has already been acknowledged and
we are taking it away.
If we want to continue to chew on it, we can, but let us look at
some of our other industries. Look at coal. We are developing a
coal industry in the state. The state is assisting, and they should.
We have a state-owned railroad that carries the coal. I would hope
that my colleague has an opportunity to go down to Seward and
view that. We have a port in Seward that was assisted by state
funds so that we could bring about development of our coal indus-
try because it would not happen unless we do.
Now, is that the kind of subsidy that we are talking about in the
timber industry? No. We have had Federal assistance over an ex-
tended period of time for the 1.7 million acres in wilderness.
I would hope my colleague would have a chance to go down to
the Kenal and recognize that we have been exporting natural gas
since about 1967. We sent two tankers a week. Fortunately, we
have never had an accident and knock on wood.
The realities are that as you look at Alaska's resources, and we
are talking about gas and coal and high-rock minerals, and most of
our fishing industry off shore is partially owned by foreigners — the
Japanese in many cases. We have a timber industry that is owned
in Sitka by Japanese, but we compete in the world marketplace.
We compete with South Africa. We compete with Australia. We are
either going to be competitive or we are not in the market with our
resources in those areas.
The only area where we are not free under the market condi-
tions is the export of our oil and as the Governor knows we are
prohibited by Federal law, dictated by the selfish interests of spe-
cial interest groups, that do not allow us to find a free market for
our oil. We could save the American taxpayer money and we could
save and bring into the coffers of the State of Alaska substantially
more revenue if we could export our oil because the transportation
costs are less than shipping it to the Gulf Coast or the lower areas
but we are prohibited by U.S. Federal law that says, "No, Alaska is
different."
394
My colleague from Colorado wants to know why Alaska is differ-
ent, and we had better look in our own back yards, Senator. That is
why we are different. We are treated different right down the line
and I am a little sick and tired of it, but nevertheless that is the
price we have to pay. We are one of the newer states. When we
talked about the Western movement, that is the full history of the
exploration of the Western states and it is just too bad about it,
and we are going to try and change it. But I assure you it is not
easy because there are other states that say, "Hey, we do not want
your Western coal in the East that is free of some of the effects of
air pollution. No, we do not want that coal. We want Eastern coal.
'Why? Because they do not want to face the realities associated of
losing markets as we address who has got the cleanest coal.
So, as we attempt to develop diversification in the State of
Alaska, people do not come to Alaska because they are in love with
it from the standpoint of buying our resources. They come simply
because they can make a return on their investment; we are either
competitive or we are not competitive.
So, when you go to look at the timber industry, look at the fish-
ing industry. Tremendous amounts of money are expended, as they
should be, on the fishing industry because it is a renewable re-
sources, but so is the timber industry if it is appropriately man-
aged.
So, I have been a little provoked from time to time, Mr. Chair-
man, as you can tell but, nevertheless, we have a job to do here to
try and work this thing out and I think the compromise is the obvi-
ous course we are going to follow and I think that the recommen-
dation from our governor and the Southeast Conference are right
on target.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Senator Murkowski. I notice that
you were saying that you were sick and tired of Alaska being treat-
ed differently, and I understand that and one of the things we
want to do, I think, is to make sure that Alaska is not treated dif-
ferently.
The coal area, that is another area. It certainly would do well if
you and I agreed upon that. There were real discriminatory efforts
to take a shot at Alaskan oil in the last trade bill. We got together
on the floor of the Senate to try and eliminate that.
I would like to ask the staff if we might also find out why only
3.7 billion board feet was in fact purchased. Was that because there
was no market for the other 800 million? I do not know and I think
we ought to know on that and have that recorded. In preparation
of that additional 800 million board feet, how much did it cost the
taxpayer to prepare for sale the timber for which there was no
market? It is part of the process. Governor, of looking at the subsi-
dies that are involved in all of this, the Federal funds in all of this.
Let me also, if I might, before we get into the rest of the day,
focus a little bit on how much wilderness was created and how
much timber was created in 1980. Arguments have been made on
what price wilderness and I think that is a good question. I think
we ought to look at that.
First of all, I should point out for the record that this has no par-
allel at all with Federal action on the redwoods. In the redwood
area, the Federal Government created a Redwood National Park
395
and that had been private property before the Federal Government
moved in and purchased that private property, purchased the land
holdings there. That is very different from anything we are en-
gaged in here.
Secondly, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the parallels to my good city
of Denver and Stapleton Airport, but I do not know what the paral-
lel is there. There is no Federal land involved. It is not being done
on a national forest. It is a little bit like asking somebody do you
walk to school or do you carry your lunch. It is a totally separate
operation.
Let me look, if I might, at the amounts of forest wilderness that
were created in 1980. The argument is made that there was 1.7 mil-
lion acres of timber that was put into wilderness. Let us take a
look at the Department of Agriculture Status of the Tongass Na-
tional Forest 1987 report. On page 22 of that report, it points out
that the total amount put into wilderness was 1,478,000 acres. That
was land that was so-called commercial forest land. That means
land that has any timber on it, effectively at all, is capable of pro-
ducing any minimum amount of timber, not necessarily harvest-
able or saleable. That 1.5 million acres is any land that has timber
on it, not necessarily marketable. So, that is that 1.5 million acres.
So, let us start by saying the total amount — this came up yesterday
and I wanted to make sure that we have that and it is so-called
commercial because it has timber on it, but it is not necessarily
harvestable. So, then we say how much of that 1.5 million acres
was harvestable? That is the next question we have to answer. Let
us remember that 1.5 million acres was put into wilderness. How
much of that was harvestable? The 1.5 million acres is outlined on
page 22 of the Forest Service report on this whole issue. On page
23 it says of the 1.5 million acres, the amount that was harvestable
was a little less than 500 acres. So, 1.5 million acres was put into
wilderness and only 500 acres was harvestable.
We might say, well, what does harvestable mean? Harvestable
means anything from zero to 50,000 board feet per acre, and nor-
mally that which is commercially feasible is above 30,000 board
feet per acre. So, of that amount, only 80,000 acres had commer-
cially feasible timber on it. In other words, of 1.5 million acres that
was put into wilderness, by the Forest Service's own number, and
this is the 1987 report, only 80,000 acres had 30,000 board feet per
acre or more. From time to time there is harvesting below that
30,000 feet per acre, but that becomes, going back to the subsidy
issue, very heavily subsidized timber and certainly not timber that
is going to be competitive in the market we are talking about.
I just wanted for the record to point out that of the 1.5 million
acres put into wilderness only 80,000 were prime commercially har-
vestable acres, according to the Forest Service's numbers. Those
are also the areas that were the most sensitive, related to fish habi-
tat and other values as well. The controversial timbering area is
only 80,000 acres. I think that stands for itself on the record.
We are not talking about taking out of the Tongass and putting
into wilderness a vast reserve of timberable area. That has not
happened.
Now, if I might, Governor, I would just like to ask you for the
record, and maybe the Congress might want to do this. I was in-
396
trigued at the differences in the set-aside areas. You all had pro-
posed 12 areas to be set aside, totaling 646,000 acres. And the legis-
lation that I proposed has 23 areas or 1,789,000 acres. So, first of
all, are those 12 areas that you are talking about set aside tempo-
rarily or are they set aside permanently?
Governor Cowper. They are permanently set aside.
Senator Wirth. So they cannot be timbered in the future; they
would not be wilderness but they cannot be timbered in the future?
Governor Cowper. That is correct.
Senator Wirth. On that point, your legislation is stronger than
mine. Mine sets it aside temporarily until the Forest Service comes
back with an overall new approach for the forest. So, I just wanted
the record to show that, that you are rougher on the 646,000 acres
and that we are in great agreement on a number of these areas. I
am sure that by putting this into the record, we will show that we
are identical on Berners' Bay. We are identical on Kadashan. We
are identical on Karta River, and we are identical on Young Lake.
We are identical on Trap Bay. Five areas that everybody agrees
ought to be excluded.
We then have remaining some areas with significant difference
in the acreage, and other areas that we have proposed that are not
in your proposal. The question I want to ask and maybe it would be
appropriate to then ask our own staff, how do we go about getting
together and understanding from you and your people why you
chose the areas you did and the acreages that you did, why you did
not pick up some of the areas that we have and the acreages that
we have? I would like to understand, if we could, where those dif-
ferences are and where they came about. Maybe you have already
embarked upon that but I think it would be very useful. Clearly,
we are going to have legislation of some kind of set-asides like this,
and I think we ought to be as careful as possible to understand
your thinking on this. I know, Mr. Campbell, you have been deeply
involved in this. What process should we set up? I am just kind of
groping as to where we go from here on these boundary lines.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to work with
you on the details of these. The reasons that we selected the 12
areas is that we did an extensive outreach to every community
within Southeast Alaska throughout this process, repetitive meet-
ings, and said, "tell us what you think," before we got to the areas
that should be set aside. These were the 12 areas that came back
from the communities. Some of the areas that support the timber
industry very strongly say that this area is very special. The other
thing that the communities felt or were very adamant on was that
they did not want these areas in capital wilderness. These were
areas that they use or need to use, and they did not want involved.
If I may, just very briefly, one of the things we realized is that,
when we set aside these areas, we do contract some timber from
the timber base. We try to look at the areas carefully to do that to
the minimum extent, but to the extent that we do hurt the timber
base, we also realize that we affect the jobs that are connected with
that industry. We would all love to be able to simply live here and
enjoy Southeast Alaska, but in order to do that, we have to have
jobs; and we feel that there can be a better mix of jobs, and there
397
has to be a better mix of jobs, but we also feel that we are going to
need some Federal help for that transition.
Senator Wirth. I understand that, Mr. Campbell, and I think it
is a very creative proposal as well that you all put together. I sug-
gest, and I do not know if this makes sense, but maybe we can,
after the hearing is over, get you and maybe somebody from the
fishing industry and somebody from the professional staff to sit
down and look at these boundaries and see if we can identify a
process. Let me ask you, if you have reactions to this, to identify
and see if we can set up some kind of a process where we can
maybe come to a pretty rapid resolution as to what ought to be
done and what should not be done. None of us is proposing wilder-
ness at this point, but what we would like to do is set up a process.
If that makes sense, maybe we could have Mr. Campbell and staff
and somebody from the fishing industry sit down afterwards and
see if we can put together some kind of a step-by-step approach.
Mr. Privett. We would love to be involved with that, sir.
Senator Wirth. I have taken much of your time, Governor
Cowper, and I thank you very much, but there seem to be some
very important schematic areas. We have a plus here in having
you here, and I thank you very much. It gives us the opportunity
at the highest level to make sure that we are getting this out.
Once again, let me say how much I appreciate the time you have
spent with us, the gracious welcome that was received in Alaska
from you and your colleagues and also, Mr. Privett, the very good
work of the Southeast Conference. I think you have some very in-
teresting ideas that I think we have a chance to build upon togeth-
er, and I do thank you very much.
Mr. Privett. Thank you, sir.
Senator Wirth. Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. I think the record should reflect on the
identification of the difference between your figure of 1.5 and mine
of 1.7; 1.5 was put in the works in 1980, plus .2 v/as put in monu-
ments and that was managed as wilderness. So, when I give you a
figure of 1.7, it includes 0.2 in monuments managed as wilderness.
So, I think we are basically in agreement on the figures that we
are using.
I would also suggest, as we look at what constitutes prime
timber, we recognize that the definition is roughly 30,000 board
feet in a given area. That area of 30,000 board feet constitutes
prime timber. What the marginal aspects of that are, I assume we
can get from professional foresters.
For the record, I also think it is appropriate to recognize that the
cost of the redwoods was initially estimated to the U.S. taxpayer as
about $350 million and, so far, $1.4 billion has been expended, and
this does not take into account the dollars paid in compensation for
loss of jobs and the identification of the area. As indicated, the cost
of closing down the redwoods has not resulted in any increase in
the number of motels or any evidence of greater tourism in the
area. Officially, there has been no appreciable increase.
So, I think, as we reflect on reality, our collective obligation, my
friend from Colorado as well as my friend from Montana, is to rec-
ognize that there is a significant burden to the taxpayer. If we
were to take out of the existing Tongass timber contracts the areas
398
included, there would be litigation initiated by those who suffered
damages, and I just offer this in the way of comparison.
I think, finally, and I do not know if the gentlemen from the
Southeast Conference would agree with my generalization, but I
think it is fair to conclude that one of the reasons the environmen-
tal community is so opposed to up to 4.5 of AC, that is more or less
of a legislative dictate. So, if it is not spelled out, I can assure you
there will be further efforts to put areas that are not now in wil-
derness in wilderness in the Tongass, and that is just a reality. The
commitment of the extreme environmental community is to add
more wilderness, and they certainly have their right.
But if you have, and I think that was the intent of the Southeast
Conference, "up to," it simply means provide the stability for
Southeast Alaska to at least the level we are. Again, the bottom
line, in spite of our interpretation of figures, as my colleague evalu-
ated for you, the fact remains, whatever figures you use, there are
still only 1.7 million acres out of the 5.4 that are set aside for the
timber industry, or a renewable 100-year harvest site. Whatever
figures you use, the timber industry has only got 1.7.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Governor, we thank you very much, and maybe
you have some closing words for the good of the order before you
depart. You are probably ready to get out of here.
Governor Cowper. No closing words.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Governor. That was a
very productive and helpful discussion for the committee and for
the record. As usual, you have been of great assistance. We thank
you very much and look forward to working with you and your col-
leagues on this in the near future.
Thank you, sir, for being with us.
Senator Wirth. If we might refer to our panel. You have all been
very patient, and we thank you very much. And I hope you found
that exchange interesting, as I did, certainly.
Mr. Powell, you are next, and we look forward to hearing from
you.
Back to the timer. I had to make an exception for the Governor,
but I hope you understand. I felt we should give him as much time
as was appropriate.
STATEMENT OF LARRY E. POWELL, MAYOR OF YAKUTAT, AK
Mr. Powell. My name is Larry Powell, Mayor of the City of
Yakutat, located at the northwestern extremity of the Tongass Na-
tional Forest.
I have held my present position for the past 18 years and have
been intimately involved in similar past land designation processes.
These include formation of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park
and Preserve, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Russell
Fiord Wilderness Area, Situk Wild & Scenic River Study, plus cur-
rent ongoing efforts to create the Yakataga-Suckling Hills Game
Refuge (Alaska State Legislative process), and the present Tongass
reform efforts as it relates to the Yakutat Forelands.
I have witnessed and attempted to modify or mitigate logging ac-
tivities by both the U.S. Forest Service and the State of Alaska Di-
399
vision of Forestry and private lands logging by Koncor Forest prod-
ucts for 23 years. My tenure has allowed me to evaluate firsthand
the effects of high-liner logging operations, and it is positive short-
term economic advantages versus the long-term negative aspects
which will be with us for decades. I have seen most all of the acci-
dents possible in that business, which surely compromise the viabil-
ity of the long-standing, long-term commercial fishing industry —
commercial fishing is the number one industry in Yakutat — and
the prospect of a future visitor industry downgraded by massive
1,000 acre plus clearcuts in our area.
We believe that there are other resource values out there, and
they must be prioritized before it is too late. Through much articu-
lated public policy, the community of Yakutat is opposed to Sena-
tor Murkowski's proposed bill S. 237. It simply does not address our
concerns for the Yakutat Foreland.
Senate Bill S. 346, as submitted by Senator Tim Wirth, is sup-
portable but needs to incorporate longer-term protection for the
Yakutat Forelands. I have attached copies of numerous documents,
which carefully outline the City of Yakutat's and the people's posi-
tions. We do certainly appreciate your efforts and concerns by in-
troducing your proposed legislation.
Although the community is generally opposed to designation of
additional "wilderness" on the forelands, there is serious concern
that the available Forest Service planning processes cannot provide
the permanency that is required. We, therefore, support a special
management area designation. Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Area, similar to that outlined in the Sealaska position on the Ton-
gass legislative changes. This would provide long-term protection
from logging and road building.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
400
CITY of YAKUTAT
P.O. BOX 6
YAKUTAT, ALASKA 99689
(907) 784-3323
TONGASS FOREST REFORM ACT LEGISLATION
SENATE FIELD HEARINGS
SENATOR TIM WIRTH SENATOR FRANK MURKOWSKI
APRIL 25, 1989
TESTIMONY
BY
LARRY E. POWELL
MAYOR
FOR THE
CITY OF YAKUTAT
YAKUTAT, ALASKA
401
COMMENTS BY THE CITY OF YAKUTAT
ON TONGASS REFORM ACT LEGISLATION
iEING CONSIDERED BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
APRIL 25, 1989
My name is Larry E. Powell, Mayor for the City of
Yakutat, located at the northwestern extremity of the
Tongass National Forest. I have held my present position
for the past 18 years a.ndhave been intimately involved in
similar past land designation processes. These include
formation of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Russell
Fiord Wilderness Area, Situk Wild & Scenic River Study
plus current ongoing efforts to create the Yakataga-
Suckling Hills Game Refuge (Alaska State Legislative
process) and the present Tongass reform efforts, as it
relates to the Yakutat Forelands. I have witnessed and
attempted to modify or mitigate logging activities by
both the U. S. Forest Service, State of Alaska-Division
of Forestry and private lands logging by Koncor Forest
Products for 23 years. My tenure has allowed me to first
hand evaluate the effects of high-liner logging operations
and it's positive short term economic advantages versus
the long term negative aspects, which will be with us for
decades.
402
I have seen most all of the accidents possible in that
business, which surely compromise the viability of the
long standing - long term commercial fishing industry
(commercial fishing is the number one industry in Yakutat)
and the prospect of a future visitor industry downgraded by
massive 1000 acre + clear cuts.
We believe that there are other resource values out
there and they must be prioritized before it is too late.
Through much articulated public policy, the community of
Yakutat is opposed to Senator Murkowski's proposed bill
S.B. 237. It simply does not address our concerns for
the Yakutat Forelands.
Senate Bill S.B. 346, as submitted by Senator Tim
Wirth, is supportable, but needs to incorporate longer term
protection for the Yakutat Forelands. I have attached copies
of numerous documents, which carefully outline the City of
Yakutat and the peoples position. We do certainly appreciate
your efforts and concerns by introducing your proposed leg-
islation.
Although the community is generally opposed to designa-
tion of additional "wilderness" on the forelands, there is
serious concern that the available Forest Service planning
processes cannot provide the permanency that is required.
We therefore support a special management area designation
403
(Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area) similar to that
outlined in the Sealaska position on the Tongass legislative
changes. This would provide long term protection from log-
ging and road building. The Yakutat Forelands area is unique
due to a significant level of motorized vehicle use (including
trucks, all-terrain work vehicles, motorized skiffs, airplanes,
fishing camps) that is required to support traditional comm-
ercial fishing activities along the beaches and at the mouths
of major river systems. Such a designation would protect the
fish and wildlife habitat of the highly productive river systems
and prohibit the road from the Dangerous River to Dry Bay.
It would allow greater f 1 exi bi 1 i ty for the management of the
existing and future levels of motorized boat, vehicle and air-
craft use needed to support traditional commercial fishing
activities, fish camps, cabins and use of subsistence resources.
The people of Yakutat depend heavily upon the fish and wild-
life resources of the forelands. This designation would res-
pond to the City of Yakutat's management concerns.
The City of Yakutat has opposed the 450 million board
foot cut on the Tongass for years by resolution, as have num-
erous other southeast communities. That mandate, while not
being consistent with Congressional intent, is not realistic
or responsive to current times and needs within the region.
Other industries important to the Tongass and individual
404
communities, such as fisheries and tourism, need to be recog-
nized for their unquestionable potential. If the $40 million
[705(A)] can not be allocated based upon priorities to stim-
ulate and strengthen the overall economic base of each area
within the region, then it should be eliminated.
We agree with Sealaska's position that the present sys-
tem of allocating the timber resource must be converted to a
market driven approach. It will help to achieve long term
economic stability, even though the short sighted voice attempts
to refute that concept.
The bottom line for us is that we have supported a well
balanced multiple use management approach - that so far has
been an unattainable goal. The future for the Yakutat forelands
holds no promise, if we continue to be careless and short-
sighted - that is why your efforts are so crucial Senator
Wirth.
I would like to thank you both for the opportunity to
testify and remain at your disposal to answer any questions
or can be helpful in resolving these perplexing problems.
Si ncerely ,
City of Ya,k-u>at
405
Senator Wirth. Mr. Powell, let me briefly ask you, on the Yaku-
tat Forelands issue, I know that in the Southeast Conference pro-
posal they have permanent protection of 134,000 acres and that the
legislation that I have offered has protection, albeit as Governor
Cowper and I were discussing, for 232,000 acres of the forest. What
is the position of the community? Do you want permanent protec-
tion? That is number one. Secondly, how much acreage are you
talking about? The Southeast Conference had 134,000 and we had
232,000. Do you know what the differences are between the two?
Mr. Powell. Correct on permanent protection. I am not quite
sure. Senator, what the difference is.
Senator Wirth. Well, I think it would be very important to have
from Yakutat your perspective on what the protection ought to be.
I guess the main difference is the 134,000 versus the 232,000. I hope
you can get from the staff here and the Conference before you
leave what the boundaries are and get back to us, because we are
here to hear people impacted by this, and I cannot imagine any-
body more impacted than you.
Mr. Powell. Thank you. I would be very happy to.
Senator Wirth. We are very happy to hear from you and thank
you for being here.
Senator Murkowski. May I just briefly ask, it is my understand-
ing that 15,000 acres of native timberland is in the Yakutat area
and that has either been logged or is scheduled for logging.
Mr. Powell. That is correct. I am not sure of the acreage exact-
ly-
Senator Murkowski. Well, I am not sure either, but I am curious
to know, you indicated 1,000 plus clearcuts. Does that include
native land?
Mr. Powell. Some of it is but not all of it.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I think it is important to recognize
some is native land and some is not. I would ask any of the wit-
nesses to come up that might be qualified to address that, unless
you can distinguish that for us, because I think a distinction should
be made here. We are talking about Federal Forest Service land
and recommendations. When you make a generality of 1,000 plus
acres of clearcut, the inference is, of course, that this is Federal
Forest Service lands.
Mr. Powell. In the most recent sale of the Yakutat that was put
out three or four years ago, one clearcut that was part of that sale
was 500 acres, and a portion of that sale was not cut because of
lack of volume. And it was subsequently turned back by the bidder.
Concord Forest Products, and it is now proposed to be resold, and
that is the other 500 acres. So, you are going to end up with a joint
clearcut of about 1,000 acres in that one area. It will be the largest
in the whole Setak Lake area, which is in that vicinity.
Also, if I might add, when the Forest Service started logging in
the vicinity of Yakutat in 1965, some of the cuts that were made
were in the neighborhood of 300 acres. There were alternating cuts
that proceeded up the highway towards the Setak for about 10
miles. Those were cut. Now what has happened with the selection
is those alternate patches are now being cut, and our regeneration
cycle is something like 150 years plus in the Yakutat area. So,
what happened is a range of clearcut extends from the community
406
all the way to the Setak River, which is about 10 miles long. So, I
would have to have a calculator to figure out how many acres
there are in that area.
Senator Wirth. So, what you are saying to me is that for every
section that may have been set by the Forest Service, there was
also a section set for native selection?
Mr. Powell. No, this was set for selection, which is the rotation
process. This area going to be cut, and this will be not cut.
Senator Murkowskl What I am trying to distinguish is the ques-
tion that we have two tracts of timber associated in Yakutat:
Forest Service timber and native timber. You are saying that there
are 1,000 plus clearcuts, and that is a large area. What I am trying
to distinguish is how much are native, which are basically beyond
our control because there has already been transferred entitle-
ment, and how much is still in the Forest Service. Do you have
those figures.
Mr. Powell. Well, all the lands that are basically in the vicinity
of where the native selections are right now are no longer in the
U.S. Forest Service timberland area. It is all to the outside.
Senator Murkowskl The timber is still being cut, the native
timber?
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Murkowskl It is all Forest Service?
Mr. Powell. All of it is virtually gone. One more year.
Senator Murkowskl Then the native timber will be gone. All
right. Thank you.
Senator Wirth. We thank you very much, and we will look for-
ward to hearing from you when you are able to figure out how we
get the boundaries worked out. And I expect you will be able to
answer Senator Murkowski's questions as well.
Mr. Powell. The Yakutat Forelands area is unique, due to a sig-
nificant level of motorized vehicle use, including trucks, all-terrain
work vehicles, motorized skiffs, airplanes, fishing camps, that is re-
quired to support traditional commercial fishing activities along
the beaches and at the mouths of major river systems. Such a des-
ignation would protect the fish and wildlife habitat of the highly
productive river systems and prohibit a road from the Dangerous
River to Dry Bay. It would allow greater flexibility for the manage-
ment of the existing and future levels of motorized boat, vehicle
and aircraft use needed to support traditional commercial fishing
activities, fish camps, cabins and use of subsistence resources. The
people of Yakutat depend heavily upon the fish and wildlife re-
sources of the forelands. This designation would respond to the City
of Yakutat's management concerns.
The City of Yakutat has opposed the 450 million board foot cut
on the Tongass for years by resolution, as have numerous other
southeast communities. That mandate, while not being consistent
with Congressional intent, is not realistic or responsive to current
times and needs within the region. Other industries, important to
the Tongass and individual communities, such as fisheries and
tourism, need to be recognized for their unquestionable potential. If
the $40 million, 705(a), cannot be allocated based upon priorities to
stimulate and strengthen the overall economic base of each area
within the region, then it should be eliminated.
407
We agree with Sealaska's position that the present system of al-
locating the timber resource must be converted to a market-driven
approach. It will help to achieve long-term economic stability, even
though the short-sighted voice attempts to refute that concept.
The bottom line for us is that we have supported a well-balanced,
multiple-use management approach. That, so far, has been an unat-
tainable goal. The future for the Yakutat Forelands holds no prom-
ise if we continue to be careless and short-sighted. That is why
your efforts are so crucial, Senator Wirth.
I would like to thank you both for the opportunity to testify and
remain at your disposal to answer any questions or can be helpful
in resolving these perplexing problems.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Kirchhoff.
STATEMENT OF MARK J. KIRCHHOFF, CITY OF PORT
ALEXANDER, AK
Mr. Kirchhoff. I am here today representing the City of Port
Alexander, and my name is Mark Kirchhoff.
Port Alexander is a small fishing community of 128 people locat-
ed on the southern end of Baranof Island. I have lived in Port Al-
exander since 1976, and from 1986 to 1988, I served as Port Alexan-
der's mayor.
To understand Port Alexander, you have to understand how iso-
lated it is, and our entire economy is based on commercial fishing
and subsistence. In that regard, we are very dissatisfied over the
way Tongass has been managed over the last 10 years. Every year,
we see thousands and thousands and thousands of acres of produc-
tive fish and wildlife habitat turned into relatively sterile second
growth. We know from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
and the Forest Service that this is going to result in the long-term
reductions of fish and wildlife populations. So that is our concern.
Now, in 1984, the City Council of Port Alexander unanimously
passed a resolution calling for the repeal of the "450" timber
supply goal contained in the Alaska Lands Act. I agree with Mike
Campbell that the 450 is what drives the Forest Service's planning
process on the Tongass. With the 450 written into law, the Forest
Service has very little flexibility to change or delete harvest units,
stay out of important fish- and wildlife-producing drainages, or oth-
erwise meet the desires of local communities, fishermen, sports
hunters, or subsistence users of Southeast.
We recognize the importance of the timber industry to the South-
east Alaska and that it means jobs to the mill towns. There are a
lot of people here today who can tell you how important the jobs
are, but I think it is important to take the whole Nation's economy
and look at that, too.
There are many, many people in Southeast Alaska who depend
on healthy fish and wildlife populations and, because of that, there
are a lot of groups in Southeast Alaska that have called for reform
on the Tongass. That includes 16 Southeast Alaska communities; it
includes the Sealaska Corporation, the Alaska Trollers Association,
and the Alaska Territorial Sportsmen, and guides and commercial
fishermen. It is not right to say that outside environmentalists are
408
calling for reform, because there are many Southeast Alaskans
who want reform.
The question we have to answer is what kind of reform do we
want on the Tongass. Senator Murkowski submitted a bill and Sen-
ator Wirth has also submitted a bill. Senator Murkowski's bill does
nothing to address the concerns of small communities on the Ton-
gass because it does not address land protection.
On the other hand. Senator Wirth's bill, I believe, is a good bill
for all Southeast Alaska, and I want to emphasize also all South-
east Alaskans, because it preserves some important fish and wild-
life habitat for other users of the forest, commercial fishermen, for
subsistence, and for the tourism industry. At the same time, it
allows the Forest Service to sell up 4.5 billion board feet a year for
the forest products industry, and this will keep all the current log-
ging-related jobs, based on past cutting levels. To say that this bill
is a disaster to the forest industry is just not correct.
In conclusion, the City of Port Alexander urges Congress to
eliminate the 450 provision of the Alaska Lands Act. This will
allow the Forest Service more flexibility in addressing the public's
desires.
We acknowledge the timber industry's legitimate place in South-
east but ask that they do the same for other users of the forest. We
want to make sure that the key fish and wildlife areas in the Ton-
gass, the Kadashans, Lisianskis, Yakutat Forelands, and South
Kuius, are permanently protected in some manner, so as to ensure
our own economic livelihood.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirchhoff follows:]
409
CITY OF PORT ALEXANDER
P.O. Box 8725 Port Alexander. .AK 99836 909/568-2211
25 April 1989
STATEMENT OF MARK J. KIRCHHOFF, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF PORT
ALEXANDER, ALASKA, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
LANDS AND NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS, PERTAINING TO TONGASS
TIMBER REFORM LEGISLATION.
My Name is Mark Kirchhoff. I'm here today representing the City of Port
Alexander. Port Alexander is a small fishing community of 128 people located on
the southern end of Baranof Island. I've lived in Port Alexander since 1976, and
from 1986 to 1988 I served as Port Alexander's mayor.
The City of Port Alexander is very dissatisfied with current management of xhe
Tongass. As a community strongly dependent on commercial fishing and the
subsistence harvest of wild fish and game, we see our lifestyle and livelihoods
jeopardized by the level of clearcutting taking place across the Tongass. With
every passing year, tens of thousands of acres of valuable, productive fish and
wildlife habitat are replaced with relatively sterile second growth. Forest Service
and Alaska Department of Fish and Game research has shown that over the long
term, this pattern will result in decreased production of fish and wildlife from our
forests.
Port Alexander was one of the first communities in southeast Alaska to ask for
changes in how the Tongass is managed. In 1984, the city council unanimously
passed a resolution calling for the repeal of the '450" timber supply goal contained
in the Alaska Lands Act. With the "450" written into law, the Forest Service has
little flexibility to change or delete harvest units, stay out of important fish and
wildlife producing drainages, or otherwise meet the desires of local communities,
fishermen, sports hunters, or subsistence users of Southeast.
Traditionally the small villages of southeast Alaska have been centered near areas
of abundant fish and wildlife. Now, many of these same areas are being
threatened by logging. We recognize the importance of the timber industry to the
southeast Alaska economy, and that it means jobs to the mill towns. There will be
many here today who will testify to that. But we also have to be concerned about
the of the region's economy. ^■■■■■■■^^■MMiMlBHHltali^HliMiii^M^'V
m
There are
other important resources in the forest besides timber. That's why many other user
groups in the Tongass, including sixteen southeast Alaska communities, the
Sealaska Corporation, the Alaska Trollers Association, and the Alaska Territorial
Sportsmen, have called for reform.
The question is, what kind of reform? The City of Port Alexander hasn't yet
endorsed any of the measures now before Congress. It is apparent, however, that
410
Senator Wirth's bill comes much closer to achieving Port Alexander's goals of
protecting fisheries and wildlife habitat than does Senator Murkowski's. Senator
Murkowski's bill does nothing to help small communities like Port Alexander.
Senator Wirth's bill, on the other hand, is a good compromise for all southeast
Alaskans. Senator Wirth's bill would remove fifty million board feet a year from
the Tongass timber base for the protection of other forest values such as tourism,
commercial fishing, and subsistence. The bill would also leave the forest products
industry with 400 million board feet a year to harvest — enough to preserve all
current logging-related jobs based on past cutting levels.
In conclusion, the City of Port Alexander urges Congress to eliminate the "450"
provision of the Alaska Lands Act. This will allow the Forest Service more
flexibility in addressing the public's desires. We acknowledge the timber industry's
legitimate place in Southeast, but ask that they do the same for other users of the
forest. We want to make sure that the key fish and wildlife areas in the Tongass -
the Kadashans, Lisianskis, Yakutat Forelands, and South Kuius - are permanently
protected in some manner so as to ensure our own economic livelihood.
411
Senator Wirth. Now, just a brief question, Mr. Kirchhoff. Have
you told us which of those areas the legislation which I have of-
fered and which the Southeast Conference has suggested — where
you are on those boundaries? Can we make sure that we get that
from you before you leave, sir?
Mr. Kirchhoff. Right.
Senator Wirth. Now, you have seen the handout here, and we
appreciate again getting local input as to what kind of protections
ought to be built in. It appears that we are headed in that direction
in some fashion, and we would like to get your specific input on
that.
We flew over Port Alexander yesterday afternoon, and it is not
accessible in a lot of places.
Mr. Kirchhoff. That is right.
Senator Wirth. Ms. Ziel, Diane Ziel, City Council member of
Tenakee Springs.
STATEMENT OF DIANE M. ZIEL, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL,
TENAKEE SPRINGS, AK
Ms. Ziel. My name is Diane Ziel. I am a member of the City
Council of Tenakee Springs. Thank you for the opportunity to testi-
fy on behalf of Tenakee Springs, a community that has been drasti-
cally affected by the present mismanagement of the Tongass. Tena-
kee has long supported Tongass reform, and I am here to testify in
favor of Senator Wirth's bill and against Senator Murkowski's bill.
In public meetings, the Forest Service personnel have stated that
they are unable to consider the needs of our community. First, be-
cause of the 50-year contracts and because of the 450 mandate, our
community has had to go to Federal Court to halt illegal road
builders.
Senator Wirth. Is that on the record anjrwhere, Ms. Ziel? Are
they saying that or have they written that to you, do you know,
when you say the Forest Service says they cannot consider the
needs of the community and so on?
Ms. Ziel. Yes, we have tapes of meetings and minutes of meet-
ings also.
Senator Wirth. Would you look through those? I would like to
see that for the record.
Again, when you make statements like that, be sure we can pin
them down, and I would appreciate receiving that from you. Thank
you.
Ms. Ziel. Our community has had to go to Federal Court to halt
illegal road building financed by the Tongass timber supply fund.
We feel that there are key areas in the Tongass that need perma-
nent legislative protection. Areas of particular interest to Tenakee
residents are Trap Bay and Kadashan. Kadashan is one of the top
salmon producers in the Southeast.
In 1985, the economic value of the pink salmon run was over $1
billion. Kadashan's renewable resource value far outweighed the
dubious value of harvesting timber in this water shed. It supports
commercial hunting and fishing and is fully used by both residents
and visitors.
412
Trap Bay is important both for subsistence and recreation, and it
is one of the most breath-taking, beautiful areas in the Southeast.
The Forest Service plans to clearcut Trap Bay, despite the small
amount of timber available, and this has left even local loggers be-
wildered.
Tenakee also requests an amendment to the Tongass Act. We are
an isolated village, unconnected to any of the road systems. We
wish to remain that way.
If the Forest Service condemns municipal property, then it in-
sists on shoving the road connection down our throats. We request
that a single line be added to the Tongass bill to prohibit the inter-
connection of any road or any other road that crosses the corporate
boundaries of Tenakee Springs with any other road system. Having
unnecessary roads forced on us, or being told by the Forest Service
that our community's needs are unimportant, or that Tenakee does
not know what clear- cutting is yet underscores the preference
given to the timber industry. As one resident put it, "The Tongass
is being managed under a policy of confrontation and revenge.
Senator Wirth, thank you for introducing your bill for reforming
the Tongass. At the request of a number of my constituents, who, I
remind Senator Murkowski are also his constituents, we object to
the way these lists are compiled. Many small communities were ex-
cluded because the rules of the Commission were not enforced and
the timber industry was permitted to buy selection. We are
shocked that the Senator would be a party to such an inferior
action, and it is regrettable that the subcommittee would allow
such lists to be included.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ziel follows:]
413
TESTIMONY OF
DIANE M. ZIEL
for the
CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS
before the Senate Subcocmattee on
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIC»IAL PARKS AND FORESTS
on the
TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT
S.346 and S. 237
My Name is Di£u-ie Ziel . I am a member of the City Council and a f orrier nayor of
the City of Tenakee Springs.
Thank you for the opportunity to tisl iCy huL-fonj thus subconmittee on behalf ȣ
Tenakee Springs, a cortmunity that has been draslica) ly affei:terl by present
mismanagement of the Tongass.
As evidenced by the resolutions and letters that are a part of my written
testimony, Tenakee Springs has long supported Toiiyass reform. I am here to
testify in favor of Senator Wirth's bill, S. .346, and against Senator Murkou'ski ' «
bill, S. 237.
The City of Tenakee Springs would like to see the following changes made in
Tongass Manageinent: replacanent of the 50 year contracts with short term,
competitive bid contracts, and an end to the Tongass Timber Supply Fund and the
mandated 4.5 billion board feet per decade Timber Supply Goal. These policies
have been a particular bane to Tenakee Springs and the surrounding area and we
feel very strongly that they must be changed.
In numerous public meetings in our cotmunity. Forest Service personnel have
stated that they were unable to consider the needs of our cornainity, first
because of the 50 year contracts, and after ANILCA was passed Ix-ause of the 450
mandate. Our comunity has had to go to Federal Court to halt illegal ro.=ii3
building funded by the Tongass Timber Supply Eiind.
In addition we feel that there are key areas in the Tongass that need perrrvinent
protection from clearcutting.
Three areas of particular infortance to Ten^ikee residents are Trap Bay, Kadashan
and the Goose Flats area.
Kadashan is one of the top five pink salmon cind one of the top ten chum salmcn
producers in Southeast Alaska. In addition, Jt lkartx:)rs a wide variety of
wildlife and waterfowl. In 1985, the economic value of the Pink 5v^Inion run nlonc
was over one million dollars. Kadashan's continuing value for fish, wililliff an<]
recreation far outweighs the dubious value of harvesting timber in this
watershed .
414
Goose Flats is an extremely important area for local and visiting siwrt hmiti-rs,
subsistence hunting and fishing and coninercial crabbing.
Trap Bay is iirportant locally for subsistence and recreation. In addition, it is
one of the most breathtakingly beautiful areas in Southeast. Forest Service plans
to clearcut Trap Bay, despite the small amount of timber available, have left
even local loggers bewildered.
Tenakee Springs also requests the addition of an amendment to the Tongass Tirnl^r
Reform Act. Tenakee is an isolated village unconnficted to any other road system.
We wish to retrain that way. Tenakee 's charm, its very identity depr-nfls upon
renaining isolated. Yet, the Forest Service insists on shoving a road conned; ion
down our throats. We request that a single line be added to the Tonyaas Bil 1 to
"prohibit the interconnection of the Indian River Rr>ad or any other road thai
crosses the c»rporate boundaries of Tenakee Springs with any ot,her road syslim".
Having unnecessary roads forced on us, being told l>y the Forest Service tliat our
conrunity's needs are uniitportant or that "Tenakee doesn't know what cle.iix;utting
is... yet", underscore the preference given to tlie timber industry interests. As
one resident put it, "The Tongass is being managed under a policy of
confrontation and revenge" .
Senator Wirth, thank you for introducing your bill for reform in the Tongass. It
is tiitie to bring rational management to the Tongass National Forest.
415
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Ziel. Since the issue has been
made on the record let us make sure we all understand what hap-
pened.
In setting up these hearings, Senator Murkowski and I agreed
that there would be lots of advocates from all sides on this, and
what we would do is to set up a procedure whereby anybody who
wanted to testify would let the subcommittee know by writing in or
calling in to Senator Murkowski's office. After all the names were
in by a certain deadline, we would then have a random drawing, on
the assumption that that would be a pretty accurate reflection of
the number of people who registered to come in.
We had probably six to 12 discussions of this at one point or an-
other over the last couple of months before agreeing to this proce-
dure. The one item which I did not anticipate and was a little sur-
prised on was the submission of lists. That had never been any part
of the discussion. We just never discussed that, and toward the end
of the time period, apparently a large variety of lists were, as I un-
derstand it, sent in. And those were accepted and forwarded on to
the Committee in Washington.
By the time they arrived at the committee in Washington, the
deadline for submission of names had passed, thereby putting us in
a very difficult position. One, there was not then time for other
groups to submit lists, making it, therefore, a relatively skewed
representation. Second, we could not, I did not think in good con-
science, turn down those lists, as a number of people who would
have thought that their names were in by having their names on
the lists. If we had thrown out the lists at that point, we would
have skewed the whole process again.
So, we got snookered by the lists but not at anybody's intent.
There was no intent on anybody's part that this happen that way.
It was just that some groups felt there was a possibility, and they
took that possibility. The business of elections and how people are
represented in democratic societies and ways of influencing the
rules are as old as democracy. We discussed another example, and I
think that Senator Murkowski would probably agree with me, were
we to do this again, we would have an iron-clad whole defined defi-
nition of the list issue.
I would just add two other items. The panels were very carefully
balanced to reflect a wide range of perspectives. I think, as yester-
day, the panels today will do so. Second, any individuals who sug-
gest that this is a conspiracy by any member of this committee or
somebody else is absolutely wrong. We have done this as carefully
as possible and just had not foreseen the list issue, and that was
slipped right in unbeknown to any of us. And it happened, and that
is the best I can do in describing it. If people feel that they have
been treated unfairly in the process, I apologize for myself and on
behalf of the committee. Those are issues that we deny and regret
that they happened.
Senator Murkowski, I do not know if you want to add an3dhing
at this point for the record, as to how we arrived at where we are?
Senator Murkowski. As you recall, we had several discussions on
the floor. We did not know whether to open it up on first-come,
first-served basis, as people tried to get to the offices of Juneau or
Ketchikan, or whether because some of the areas were very remote
416
and I think, Senator, this was your suggestion, we should draw at
random. All the names were submitted, including those on the
lists, to our offices in Ketchikan and Juneau, prior to the deadline.
The manner in which they were transmitted back to Washington I
do not know, but they came in to the professional staff and they
were catalogued on the computer and then drawn out in that proc-
ess. I did not have anything to do with that. Our professional staff
was there, and I would be happy to answer at a later time any
questions you may have.
I want to just make a very short reference to the representative
from Tenakee Springs. I certainly have no objection to the commu-
nity expressing its wishes or feelings. I think one of the things that
we have to recognize is that the Forest Service is not blameless
either, just like the rest of us. They come into the small communi-
ties and they say, "Well, we have a mandate of 4.5, and that is why
we have to do this or that." Well, I do not buy that; I do not sup-
port that. The fact that the Forest Service has cut 3.7 is a reality,
and they should not allow you to be stampeded by that threat. I
would support your position in that regard. As to my attitude
toward the Mayor of Yakutat, I do not want any more Forest Serv-
ice sales to occur in Yakutat. This is one area where we should
make sure it does not happen. It should not be denuded, and if you
have got most of your area under native soil and there would be
clearcut, that is fine. You will not get any more Forest Service
sales.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. I hope by putting it on the record and explaining
to everybody what did happen, we can clear this up. I appreciate
your bringing it up. And I understand the frustration of a lot of
people and the feeling that something did happen — how the lists
got into this.
Thank you.
Dick Eliason, State Senator from Alaska.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD I. ELIASON, ALASKA STATE SENATOR
Senator Eliason. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I am Alaska State Senator Dick Eliason, and I represent Senate
District B, which encompasses the majority of the Tongass Nation-
al Forest. I have lived here in Sitka for 50 years, and I have been
in the State Legislature for 19 years.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that over the past couple of years you
have become familiar with the Tongass issues and know that we
are dealing with a very sensitive and complex issue.
As I am sure you are aware, this district, like most of the South-
east, has an economy that relies heavily on fishing, tourism,
mining and timber. All four of these industries are of great impor-
tance to the well-being of the people I represent. Let me assure you
that the decisions that you make relating to the Tongass National
Forest will have far-reaching ramifications on our economy.
There is considerable fear that if the current proposed changes
in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or
ANILCA, were to be implemented, the Alaska Pulp Corporation
would soon be forced out of business. This would, of course, pro-
417
foundly affect the economy of Southeast Alaska. In a study done by
the McDowell Group in 1988, it was found that the Alaska Pulp
Corporation is responsible for at least one-quarter of all Sitka area
employment and as of 1986 was responsible for an estimated 7 per-
cent of all regional employment.
It must be emphasized that there are few aspects of our economy
here in Southeast that would not be adversely affected should APC
be forced out. Many of the businesses here in Sitka have already
expressed their conviction that they would be unable to stay afloat.
This community has bonded itself based upon the continued oper-
ation of the pulp mill. Should APC pull out, Sitka's businesses and
households would be forced to shoulder a much greater burden.
Prince of Wales Island, which is part of my district, would be im-
pacted virtually overnight by revisions in ANILCA. There has been
dramatic growth in the timber industry over the past several years
on the island, and many small logging camps have developed into
permanent communities. A community, such as Thorne Bay, that
relies almost totally on logging, could not survive an extreme revi-
sion in ANILCA.
Being a fisherman and a lifetime Southeast Alaska resident, I
certainly recognize the necessity for certain lands within the Ton-
gass National Forest to be designated as protected noncommercial
timber areas. The areas which I am personally familiar with and
feel should be protected are the Yakutat Forelands, Kadashan
River Watershed, Lisianski and Upper Hoonah Sound, and Berners
Bay. I sincerely believe, however, that we have enough designated
wilderness areas in the Tongass.
It is crucial that the Forest Service provide proper recognition of
other uses such as fisheries, wildlife habitat, tourism and subsist-
ence. The Forest Service should most certainly continue to protect
areas such as wildlife retention zones and riparian management
zones along streams. In managing all of these multiple uses, the
Forest Service should always keep in mind the preservation of the
visual beauty of Southeast Alaska. I feel very strongly that a
healthy timber industry can and must exist in harmony with the
other multiple uses of Southeast Alaska.
It is vital for Congress to realize that we need to know today
what is in store for us tomorrow. It is very difficult to plan for the
future of our economy with this Congressional axe hanging over
our heads. I must emphasize that decisions affecting the timber in-
dustry must be made with the understanding that the livelihood of
Southeast Alaska hangs in the balance.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Eliason follows:]
418
TESTIMONY FOR TONGASS HEARINGS
APRIL 25, 1989
SITKA, ALASKA
SENATOR RICHARD I. ELIASON
419
CHAIRMAN WIRTH, SENATOR MURKOWSKI , MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
GOVERNOR COWPER:
WELCOME TO SITKA:
I AM ALASKA STATE SENATOR DICK ELIASON. I REPRESENT SENATE
DISTRICT B, WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE MAJORITY OF THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST. I HAVE LIVED HERE IN SITKA FOR 50 YEARS, AND
I'VE BEEN IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR 19 YEARS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M SURE THAT OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS YOU
HAVE BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE TONGASS ISSUES, AND KNOW THAT WE
ARE DEALING WITH A VERY SENSITIVE AND COMPLEX ISSUE.
AS I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE, THIS DISTRICT, LIKE MOST OF
SOUTHEAST, HAS AN ECONOMY THAT RELIES HEAVILY ON FISHING,
TOURISM, MINING, AND TIMBER. ALL FOUR OF THESE INDUSTRIES ARE
OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE I
REPRESENT. LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT THE DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE
RELATING TO THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST WILL HAVE FAR REACHING
RAMIFICATIONS ON OUR ECONOMY.
THERE IS CONSIDERABLE FEAR THAT IF THE CURRENT PROPOSED
CHANGES IN THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION
ACT, OR ANILCA, WERE TO BE IMPLEMENTED, THE ALASKA PULP
420
CORPORATION WOULD SOON BE FORCED OUT OF BUSINESS. THIS WOULD,
OF COURSE, PROFOUNDLY EFFECT THE ECONOMY OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA.
IN A STUDY DONE BY THE MCDOWELL GROUP IN 1988, IT WAS FOUND
THAT THE ALASKA PULP CORPORATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AT LEAST
ONE-QUARTER OF ALL SITKA AREA EMPLOYMENT, AND AS OF 1986, WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ESTIMATED 7 PERCENT OF ALL REGIONAL
EMPLOYMENT .
IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THERE ARE FEW ASPECTS OF OUR
ECONOMY HERE IN SOUTHEAST THAT WOULDN'T BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED
SHOULD APC BE FORCED OUT. MANY OF THE BUSINESSES HERE IN
SITKA HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED THEIR CONVICTION THAT THEY WOULD
BE UNABLE TO STAY AFLOAT.
JUST ONE IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF THE MILL CLOSURE ON SITKA
RESIDENTS, WOULD BE GREATLY INCREASED UTILITY RATES. THE
ALASKA PULP CORPORATION ACCOUNTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 27 PERCENT
OF ALL ELECTRICAL UTILITY REVENUE TO THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF
SITKA, WHICH MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY OF SITKA TO
PROVIDE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE HYDROELECTRIC POWER. THIS
COMMUNITY HAS BONDED ITSELF BASED UPON THE CONTINUED OPERATION
OF THE PULP MILL. SHOULD APC PULL OUT, SITKA'S BUSINESSES AND
HOUSEHOLDS WOULD BE FORCED TO SHOULDER A MUCH GREATER BURDEN.
PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND, WHICH IS A PART OF MY DISTRICT, WOULD
BE IMPACTED VIRTUALLY OVERNIGHT BY REVISIONS IN ANILCA. THERE
HAS BEEN DRAMATIC GROWTH IN THE TIMBER INDUSTRY OVER THE PAST
421
SEVERAL YEARS ON THE ISLAND, AND MANY SMALL LOGGING CAMPS HAVE
DEVELOPED INTO PERMANENT COMMUNITIES. A COMMUNITY SUCH AS
THORNE BAY, THAT RELIES ALMOST TOTALLY ON LOGGING, COULD NOT
SURVIVE AN EXTREME REVISION IN ANILCA.
BEING A FISHERMAN AND A LIFETIME SOUTHEAST ALASKA RESIDENT, I
CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THE NECESSITY FOR CERTAIN LANDS WITHIN THE
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST TO BE DESIGNATED AS PROTECTED
NON-COMMERCIAL TIMBER AREAS. (THE AREAS WHICH I AM PERSONALLY
FAMILIAR WITH, AND FEEL SHOULD BE PROTECTED, ARE THE YAKUTAT
FORELANDS, KADASHAN RIVER WATERSHED, LISIANSKI AND UPPER
HOONAH SOUND, AND BERNERS BAY.) I SINCERELY BELIEVE, HOWEVER,
THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS IN THE
TONGASS.
IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THE FOREST SERVICE PROVIDE PROPER
RECOGNITION OF OTHER USES SUCH AS FISHERIES, WILDLIFE HABITAT,
TOURISM AND SUBSISTENCE. THE FOREST SERVICE SHOULD MOST
CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO PROTECT AREAS SUCH AS WILDLIFE RETENTION
ZONES AND RIPARIAN MANAGMENT ZONES ALONG STREAMS. IN MANAGING
ALL OF THESE MULTIPLE USES, THE FOREST SERVICE SHOULD ALWAYS
KEEP IN MIND THE PRESERVATION OF THE VISUAL BEAUTY OF
SOUTHEAST ALASKA. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT A
HEALTHY TIMBER INDUSTRY CAN AND MUST EXIST IN HARMONY WITH THE
OTHER MULTIPLE USES OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA.
422
IT IS VITAL FOR CONGRESS TO REALIZE THAT WE NEED TO KNOW TODAY
WHAT IS IN STORE FOR US TOMMORROW. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO
PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR ECONOMY WITH THIS CONGRESSIONAL AXE
HANGING OVER OUR HEADS. I MUST EMPHASIZE THAT DECISIONS
AFFECTING THE TIMBER INDUSTRY MUST BE MADE WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LIVELIHOOD OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA HANGS IN
THE BALANCE.
423
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Senator Eliason.
Let me set the record straight. Yesterday, we had a number of
comments saying that people's livelihood was going to be destroyed,
jobs were going to be taken away, the whole economic fabric of
Southeast Alaska was going to fall apart. If the mills were forced
to close down, all of this would turn into wilderness, and the
timber industry would stop. There is no provision in the bill that
we force out A, B, C. There is no provision in the bill that says we
are going to shut down the timber industry. There is no provision
in the bill that says we are going to turn all of this into wilderness.
There is nothing in the bill that says that.
I understand that there are a lot of individuals who like to get
people all riled up and excited and fearful. It reminds me a little
bit of Washington lobbyists who go around creating problems and
then go to their clients and say, "Hey, there is a problem out there.
I will solve it for you if you pay enough money." They are paid big
money, and then they go back and solve the problem. And we are
back where we started, with everybody a little worse for the wear.
I think a good metaphor is the Chicken Little syndrome. If you
do this, the sky is going to fall in. I do not think there are many
unreasonable people who read this legislation who believe all of
these drastic things are going to happen. I do not make this com-
ment based on your testimony, Senator Eliason, it is just an obser-
vation by the Chair about this legislation. I am just preparing ev-
erybody for a lot of what we are going to hear probably later in the
day.
Senator Eliason. May I respond to that? Well, I think that is a
trend that I have seen in the past. Like I say, it is just one step, in
my opinion, toward that goal, and if you step too far, you are going
to do that.
Senator Wirth. One can believe that the trends are there and so
on that are going to transpire. I heard this morning that the trends
in the timber industry are just the opposite. Timber is getting
stronger rather than weaker.
Now, Mayor Yost from Pelican.
STATEMENT OF RUBIN YOST, MAYOR, PELICAN, AK
Mr. Yost. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I
am Rubin Yost. I am here today representing the City of Pelican,
which is a small fishing community located 70 miles up from Sitka.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for inviting me here to tes-
tify at this hearing.
The City of Pelican supports Amendment Sections 705 and 706.
Pelican has a past resolution stating its opposition to 4.5 billion
board feet per decade timber supply goal. We passed a resolution
supporting the same amendments that are proposed in Senate 346.
We also call for permanent protection of the Lisianski River area.
The present council stands behind these resolutions, and I am in-
cluding copies of the resolutions in my written testimony.^
The Lisianski River is one of the top five pink salmon producing
rivers in Southeast Alaska. When you consider the importance of
' Retained in subcommittee files.
424
this area in terms of commercial fish habitat and subsistence use
and tourism potential, it is incredible that we would risk jeopardiz-
ing the integrity of this area. This action would not be justifiable,
and the legislation that creates such a situation should be changed.
A mandated supply will render Forest Service planning meaning-
less. It means that other multiple use considerations will always be
second to the need to supply the timber required by law. A 50-year
contract with exclusive rights to a geographic area gives too much
control to the timber contractor and too little consideration to the
affected communities that were not in existence or were ignored
when the contract was signed.
During the last five months, I have been a member of the South-
east Conference's special targets committee, working to find the
bottom line to meet the minimum needs of all Southeast communi-
ties. We worked out five key points, two of which I will elaborate
on.
The first is clarifying the mission of the Forest Service to include
an allowable harvest of up to 4.5 billion board feet per decade, to
be adjusted at the Secretary's discretion through the Tongass Land
Management process, based on market demand and multiple use
considerations.
The second point is our recognition of communities' needs to
have certain areas protected, and it resulted in our calling for 12
areas to be permanently set aside.
Pelican stands by its original resolutions. However, we support
the Committee's recommendations as a final bottom line compro-
mise. I hope you will consider this compromise in your delibera-
tions. As citizens of Southeast Alaska, we are all interested in the
same thing, the stands of high-volume, multiple old growth. Previ-
ous wilderness designations did not sufficiently address this issue,
and a mandated supply level does not contain the planning process
to resolve it. True multiple use management means no one can
stop it; it is permanently guaranteed, except that of the planners,
and cannot occur with a Congressionally mandated bias.
I urge you to amend it to allow the Tongass to be preserved and
managed as multiple use.
I would also like to submit a petition from the Pelican Forestry
Council which is interested in management of forests, signed by 50
residents, and I have also attached two letters of people who would
like to testify but were not able to.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Yost, and if you leave
those with us we will make sure they are included in the record.
I would like to make the same request of you that I did of Mayor
Powell and others. The contents of the Governor's proposal, and I
am sure you are familiar with this, have included for the Lisianski
River 134,000 acres, and the legislation that I have introduced has
a broader designation, the Chichagof, which includes the Lisianski,
of 350,000 acres.
Mr. Yost. This includes areas that we did not identify at the
Southeast Conference and also it lumps together two areas, Upper
Hoonah Sound and the Lisianski area.
Senator Wirth. Upper what?
Mr. Yost. Upper Hoonah Sound.
425
Senator Wirth. They just list the Lisianski in there. Could you
check in with us, if you can, and we will look at those boundaries?
Again, I want to have the most local input possible. The difference
between 134 and 353, what do you all hold, what would you like to
say?
Mr. Yost. I could do that. I could show you by VCU, which are
actual boundaries.
Senator Wirth. We appreciate your being here.
Now, the last member of this panel is Mr. Paul Johnson, a
spokesman for Elfin Cove.
STATEMENT OF PAUL JOHNSON, ELFIN COVE, AK
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I am Paul Johnson, and I was born
and raised in Southeast Alaska and have lived here all of my life. I
work as a registered guide, and I am here today representing Elfm
Cove, a commercial fishing and tourist community. I have lived
there for 17 years.
Our community has always been against the 450 since its incep-
tion. We want our local areas permanently protected and also, in
addition, to be put in the island group. Our jobs and livelihoods in
our area are important to us, too. We are small but talented. We
do not want to change our life to take care of others. We have been
there a long time.
The old growth is important to us. It means a lot. It is too bad we
have to hang Alaska's laundry up for people throughout the U.S. to
look at. The U.S. Government created this problem, so now it is
Alaska's problem to clean it up, and we need your help.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Is Elfin
Cove, then, in the same area as Lisianski and the Chichagof?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Senator Wirth. All right. We thank you very much. Let me ask
my colleagues if they have any questions for this panel.
Senator Burns. Thank you for the opportunity. I said in my
opening statement that I came to listen. And that is the way it is
working out, and I have made all these notes here.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much. I want to commend
the panel, Mr. Chairman. I think what we have got here is a com-
bination of concerns and collective effort from the Southeast Con-
ference, enunciated by Mr. Privett. It has been very helpful to me
because draft legislation is just that, it does not encompass every-
body's point of view. Obviously, it cannot. That is why we have
these hearings as a starting point.
We have two pieces of legislation. You can interpret them differ-
ently. I interpret my colleague's as throwing the baby out with the
bath water. That may be an unfair evaluation. He suggested mine
does not go far enough.
Now, your input, your reference, sir, was to Elfin Cove, and I
have been there many times. I can appreciate the beauty and the
splendor and know why you are there. I would like to be there
today myself We have an obligation as a Congress, as expressed by
you people, to protect those interests, and it can be done and it will
be done.
426
I think it is important, as we look at some of the things that
come out of this hearing today — you know, we talked about the 4.5
and then we discovered that for the last 10 years it has been 3.7.
That is fairly important to reflect on despite the things that the
Forest Service occasionally tells us, 50-year contracts are realistic,
but they have 15 or 20 years to run. I believe as well that the Li-
sianski River ought to be protected, and I will work toward that
end. I plan to fly over the 12 or 13 areas later on this summer
during a recess, and I know some of them, some of them I am fa-
miliar with. I have fished the Karta River. I know Berners Bay
area. I have been in the Yakutat area but not for the specific pur-
pose expressed in the concerns of those from Yakutat. I think that
is the best way to reflect all the needs of these people and the ex-
pression of what should or should not be, because I think, very
frankly, we will get the input from those in the environmental
community, as those interests are evident, to add as much as possi-
ble to the area.
That is fine, but somebody has to make a decision. It is very diffi-
cult to make those decisions, Mr. Chairman. I have just been sit-
ting down with a group. It is important to get the input of a group
that collectively knows decisions have to be made as a consequence
of compromise and, of course, that is the entire process that ap-
pears here and what is occurring in this forum today.
Finally, I do not want to extend the conversation necessarily to
Ms. George from Angoon, but I think it is appropriate that the
record should reflect, and I intend to bring this up in a little more
detail with witnesses that are forthcoming in the panel from Shee
Atika, because we all know Angoon, with the permission of the
Federal Government, received a land swap with an opportunity to
cut timber on Admiralty and wisely they chose a land exchange.
And they took their position down on Prince of Wales Island. That
is where they cut timber today and generate revenues for their
very dramatic economy that they have developed, and some other
jobs as well. Yet, and I worked very, very hard, to propose an ex-
change to get Shee Atika, which is the Sitka native corporation,
Mr. Chairman, to receive by an act of Congress 22 or 23 million
acres on Admiralty Island to take as their settlement. We worked
very hard trying to encourage an exchange with the extreme envi-
ronmental group to support and identify and exchange so that
there would be no logging on Admiralty Island. Unfortunately, we
could not get the support from the environmental community. I
think the extreme environmental community has failed in its re-
sponsibility, because today logging occurs on Admiralty Island in
Kuna Cove.
That was a tragic mistake. We had an opportunity to do a land
exchange, and Ms. George knows they have been logging Admiralty
Island since 1900 in small amounts, but up until then, there had
not been any logging in Kuna Cove. It was an ideal opportunity to
make an exchange similar to what Kootznoowoo was able to do in
moving down to Prince of Wales. Unfortunately, that did not come
about. All of the environmental representatives throughout the
United States came up to Alaska and flew over Admiralty. That is
all they did. They would not even consider the merits of that ex-
change.
427
If you have anything to say to that, Ms. George, please state it.
Ms. George. Thank you. Senator. It was our protection of Alas-
ka's subsistence,life style data, Alaska Native Indians. I feel like I
am protecting Admiralty Island. The good senators that came up to
protect them, the national monument of Admiralty Island. We
went into a lot of hardships as we exchanged land and to protect
the island for its resources of wildlife and we did not want any
timber cut on the island although we know it would have brought
in a lot of money to the community, but we are subsistence users
and have about 600 people in the village of Angoon. And we ex-
changed land so we could cut elsewhere to protect that national
monument. Our people have always thought to protect the land
that we live on because we live off the land, that is our life style.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. We appreciate all of you
coming and being here and your great patience. I think it has
taken much longer for the first panel than any of us had anticipat-
ed, but I think it has been very productive, and very helpful. We
thank you very much for being with us. As I pointed out earlier,
the record will be kept open for two weeks. If you feel as if there
are further items that you might like to add, we would appreciate
hearing from you.
Some of you are going to give us some help on the boundaries,
and we would like the suggestions from you before you go. Thank
you very much.
Senator Murkowski. I would like to add for the record that there
are approximately 1 million acres of wilderness on Admiralty that
will be maintained as wilderness in perpetuity.
Ms. George. Yes. We thank you for that particular wilderness.
Senator Wirth. If our next panel would come up. We will have
Art Woodhouse, superintendent of the Sitka School District; Robert
Hames, president of the Hames Corporation; Elaine Sunde, Sunde
Alaska Traditions; Charles Horan of Horan, Corak & Company;
and Thad Poulson, editor and publisher of The Sitka Sentinel.
While they are coming in, the next panel could move into the on
deck circle: Mr. Bremmer, Ernestine Hanlon, Byron Mallott, James
Senna, Ron Sparks, Carlton Smith, and Austin Hammond.
We are probably going to pick up in speed here very significantly
through that good opening discussion and clarification of a variety
of items for the record. So, Mr. Woodhouse, why do not we start
with you and the timer you are looking at? And away we go.
Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ART WOODHOUSE, SUPTERINTENDENT, SITKA
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Woodhouse. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. I ap-
preciate the assurances, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have to be
concerned about the closing of the pulp mills, because there is
nothing in your legislation that would necessarily cause that. How-
ever, I am sure there is nothing in the 50-year contracts that spoke
to only running 30 or 35 years either. So, if I belong to the Chicken
Little outfit, I hope you will excuse me.
428
We estimate that the Sitka School District would lose about 25
percent of our student body between the closing of the pulp mills
and whatever loss there might be to the Forest Service.
This, of course, would produce a condition where we would lose
at least 25 percent of our youngest teachers and the higher-salaried
teachers would stay on and the lower-salaried teachers would be
laid off, which would drive up the cost per student.
There is an indirect condition that would hurt our School Dis-
trict, not in dollars and cents but rather in quality of education.
With 426 students in Sitka High School, we are presently able to
offer advanced math, science, and foreign language courses that we
would certainly not be able to offer if our high school enrollment
fell to 320, a 25 percent reduction.
Presently, our funding amounts to 70 percent from the state and
30 percent from the community. The formula is student driven,
and any reduction in students will result in the corresponding loss
of revenue. Additionally, our community bonded itself for $18 mil-
lion in 1986 so that we could build a new elementary school and
remodel and add on to our existing middle school. Education is im-
portant in Sitka, and people are willing to put their money where
their mouth is. The number of classrooms for the new elementary
school did not allow for a 25 percent reduction of the students in
the 1990s.
Presently, Alaska education is in a constant state of adjustment
and cutbacks due primarily to the cost of oil. Some of our cities
have been severely crippled by $10 a barrel oil. Of course, with the
oil economy comes the potential for disaster, such as what hap-
pened in Valdez this spring. However, we are coping with these
hardships.
Alaskans understand about financial cuts, disasters and hard-
ships, but what we do not understand is Senate Bill 346, which
would methodically and deliberately add more financial cuts, disas-
ters and hardships to the people of Alaska. The timber industry is
a big part of our lives. We have made long-range plans based on
the long-term commitments that are in effect today.
The proposed changes in Senate Bill 346 would not create a wil-
derness. They would create an economic wasteland. Is that your in-
tention?
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hames.
STATEMENT OF ROGER HAMES, PRESIDENT, HAMES CORP.
Mr. Hames. My name is Roger Hames. I am president of two cor-
porations, one located in Sitka and the other one in Ketchikan. We
are primarily in the retail grocery business. With my brother and
sister, we represent a transfer into a third-generation, family-
owned business, extending back over 50 years in this area.
We are about to complete a major remodel at one of our stores
and incur a major debt for completion. I must pause to contemplate
the future and what our business will be like if the economic
"rules" are changed. Will we grow, stagnate or be on the decline. I
consider myself and my family to be aggressive and optimistic
when it comes to living and doing business here in Southeast
429
Alaska. There will not be a slow-down because of our efforts. When
I speak of changing the rules, I am talking about the proposed can-
cellation of the 50-year contracts with Alaska Pulp Corporation,
APC, and Ketchikan Pulp Corporation, KPC, that were agreed to
in the mid-1950s.
Let us say two teams, APC/KPC and the Feds, decide to play a
game of baseball with the rules spelled out in advance. When the
game is half way over, an observing fan, environmentalist, con-
vinces the umpires, elected officials, that a 50-year contract is not
fair and decide to change the rules by pitching the APC/KPC team
beach balls while the opposing team continues to be pitched base-
balls. Hardly fair, is it? How can we, as business people, make long-
term decisions with these demands to change constantly hanging
over our heads? We have been to the bargaining table several
times, settling with compromises. How many times does it take? If
we are going to renegotiate, let us go back and reopen all the com-
promises.
Let me say here and now that I will join the first group in any
lawsuit filed over the cancellation of these 50-year contracts.
Our Federal Government is notorious for identifying situations
that someone has identified for change, and overreacts, over-identi-
fies, and then over-legislates to correct it in their eyes. Our recent
income tax revision is a prime example of this type of reaction.
I find it very difficult to understand, as I am sure others do, that,
if S.346 was such a good idea, why was it not proposed by one of
Alaska's own elected officials? They have over 42 years of com-
bined experience in serving our great state. I strongly believe that
those supporting Tongass timber reform have little or nothing to
lose. I believe further that the vast majority of those people do not
even live in this area. Why do others outside of Alaska keep pro-
posing what is best for us?
I encourage each and all Senators to oppose S. 346 and to support
Senator Murkowski's S. 237.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Elaine Sunde.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE SUNDE, PRESIDENT, RETAIL
MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION OF SITKA
Ms. Sunde. My name is Elaine Sunde. I am testifying as presi-
dent of the Retail Merchants' Association of Sitka. I think that was
identified when I submitted my name, but it got lost and I do not
mind.
I have a statement here that describes our retail business com-
munity, but if you had a chance to walk around, you already know
what it is like. It is very small and locally owned. Three-quarters of
our businesses in our downtown area are either owned and operat-
ed by women alone or operated and owned by men and women
working together.
Being particularly characteristic of our retail business communi-
ty puts us in a very unusual situation. Senator Wirth. We are a
part of the people that are concerned that the sky may be falling
and I guess I feel some concern with that metaphor because if it is.
430
it means very much to all of us because we are very small business-
es. We have almost no flexibility to adjust to a radically changed
economy. We have very few employees. We carry small inventories.
There are not many places to tighten the belt if we get into trouble
in the economy of this community.
Also, because we are small businesses, lending institutions re-
quire that we tie our personal assets to our business investment.
So, if our businesses go down, we lose our homes; we lose every-
thing that we have. We have very little to play with here.
My great concern is that the Tongass Land Management Plan —
and I was a member of the planning team that wrote that 10 years
ago — wound up with a final map which in no way resembled what
the planning team presented. And, I might add, it did not look like
what the environmental community wanted either. It was a map
that arrived at the last minute and was imposed on a planning
process that had been going on for a very long time and was en-
acted with almost no idea whatsoever as to what the ramifications
would be. I notice that the report that you have read to us from
this morning from the Forest Service was written almost seven
years after the Tongass Land Management Plan and ANILCA were
put into effect. We bought that plan without any idea of what the
cost was going to be.
It is my concern that if you are wrong, if the economy does fail
as a result of this, and we have no way of knowing because our
planning process is incomplete, the very small people in this com-
munity are the ones that are going to pay the price. There will be
protections for the large guys in this whole scheme, but there is
not any protection for me or my family and those I represent.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Sunde.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sunde follows:]
431
TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATE ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEE
by
ELAINE SUNDE, PRESIDENT
SITKA RETAIL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION
My name is Elaine Sunde. I am testifying as president of the Retail
Merchants' Association of Sitka. Additionally, I am speaking on
behalf of myself and my husband, co-owners of a small retail gift
store in Sitka, Alaska.
You are visiting the largest National Forest, located within the largest
State in the Nation. The immensity of the Tongass and the incredible
size of Alaska are paralleled only by the massive political drive
which has been generated to determine our future. And yet, as you
have seen, this community, which lies in the direct path of the so-
called "Tongass reform movement," is very small. The anxiety and
fear now being experienced by our individual residents must seem
even more insignificant. In fact, we feel ourselves to be lost entirely
in the immensity of generalizations which are being voiced about
management of the Tongass.
I believe, however, that there is a value in our small community
which merits the recognition and the protection of the United States
Congress. My testimony is intended to assist you in this effort to
recognize and appreciate our situation.
Let me point out a few interesting facts about the retail business
community in Sitka:
1. If you walk from one end of our town's main street to the other —
and take time to look up each side-street as you walk — every single
business you pass by is owned and personally operated by a local
citizen. Every single one.
2. Secondly, if you decide to stop in and say "hello" to the people in
these small shops, you will discover that three-fourths are either
432
women-owned businesses or husband/wife partnerships. In many
cases, you will find a son or a daughter also sharing in the family
enterprise.
3. Thirdly, while the Small Business Administration may define
"small businesses" as those with 500 to 1,500 employees, a retailer in
Sitka with five full-time year-round employees is considered large.
4. Finally, because of our size, most of our small businesses — even
if incorporated -- are required by the lending institutions to assume
full debt responsibility. This means that we lack the ability of big
corporations to protect personal assets.
These circumstances make us extremely vulnerable to any event that
would reduce Sitka's population or current economic stability. In the
event of the loss of a major employer, what would be our options?
First, we are not chain-store operations. While extended chain-stores
may balance losses in one location with a flourishing operation
elsewhere, small businesses in Sitka have no choice but to ride the
economy to the bottom.
Secondly, our small size is reflected not only in the relatively few
employees but also in the level of inventory which our current
population base can sustain. Many businesses in Sitka operate at or
near the minimum quantity orders that wholesale suppliers will fill;
this is particularly true during the period September-May when
fishing and tourism are at minimal levels. What this means is that
we have almost no flexibility — either through employee or
inventory reductions — to adjust to a significant change in Sitka's
population base.
And, finally, since our businesses and personal property are tied
together in small business financing, we have no protection from the
loss of our homes and personal assets when our businesses fail.
433
The Tongass has been termed the "jewel" of the National Forest
system. And so it is. That is why we have built a "jewel" of a
community here, in the heart of the Tongass. There is enormous
community pride in Sitka — and justifiably so. The retail businesses
of Sitka play a major part in what makes this community so special.
It is the business community that sustains the Sitka Summer Music
Festival, the Historical Society, the Raptor Rehabilitation Center. It is
the business community that buys Christmas lights in the winter and
flower baskets in the summer; that makes sustaining pledges to
support public radio; that contributes to support the multitude of
programs for citizens with special needs -- our young, our elderly,
our disabled.
Sitka is a place where the local pharmacist knows your first name
and the dress shop owner knows your wife's sizes. It is a place
where you can walk safely and count on your neighbor in time of
need.
Legislation being considered in Congress — those bills to terminate
the timber contracts and extend wilderness still further — come with
an extraordinary price tag. I am not talking about the investments
of the pulp mills or the possible costs to buy out contracts. I am
talking about my home. I am talking about the small shop at the
corner of Lincoln & Lake Street which represents both years of hard
work and the future security of my husband, myself, and our six
children. I am talking about all of the other homes and small
businesses and families in Sitka, Alaska.
We need and ask for the protection of the United States Congress.
Thank you very much for your willingness to come to Sitka, to listen
with open minds, and to recognize our value and importance in your
decision process.
434
Senator Wirth. Mr. Horan.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. HORAN, REAL ESTATE APPRAISER
Mr. Horan. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I have
been a real estate appraiser in Southeast Alaska for 15 years. I
would just like to say th^t I love the forest. I have hunted, fished
and camped in Misty Fjords National Monument, Admiralty Na-
tional Monument and in other areas of Baranof and Chichagof Is-
lands. I enjoy the wilderness characteristics of Alaska and believe
they are being adequately preserved and managed by the existing
Forest Service Management Program. Professionally, I have flown
over much of this wilderness and have valued remote and wilder-
ness properties inside and outside of wilderness designated areas,
national monuments and preserves.
We do not know for sure what the impact of the Wirth bill is
going to be, but it seems to be most severe and wide-sweeping and
would impact the timber industry the most. The Sitka economy is
currently relatively stable. Alaska has had a history of boom and
bust, but Sitka enjoys a pretty good balance. But there is a possibil-
ity of that being changed by your bill, Senator Wirth, and I would
just like to speculate, based on our experience, and this is outlined
in tables — the testimony I will provide you — on what may happen
in Sitka because it has happened in other communities we docu-
mented in Southeast Alaska.
If 20 percent of the industry was knocked out or severely crip-
pled, you would see interruptions in supplies of raw materials.
Also, incomes would drop as budgets tightened; mortgage payments
would be late. After savings dried up and unemployment compen-
sation ran out, wage earners would have to relocate and many
homes would go on the market. As sales increased, the prices
would be driven down below the level of many of the mortgages
people have. The owners in this position would be forced to sell and
either would be forced to default on their payments and possibly
would be sued, file personal bankruptcy or have to rent their
homes and subsidize the payments if possible.
Sitka has had an active real estate market over the last eight to
10 years, and since 1981, September of that year, it has been pretty
stable and we have that pretty well documented. My guess is that
in the last eight to 10 years, about 40 percent of the housing indus-
try has either been refinanced or has been financed through the
original purchaser and has had a second mortgage placed on it.
The most popular purchase allows only 10 percent down, and in
some cases zero percent down, so many of the homes that have
been purchased over this period of time have less than 20 percent
equity value above their current mortgage. If 20 percent of the
basic industry is knocked out and homes are forced to go on the
market, likely we would see this kind of decline, we would see per-
sonal bankruptcy and devastation of the future financial planning
of many of our homes and a dramatic change in our life styles.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Horan.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horan follows:]
435
HORAN, CORAK AND CO.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS/ANALYSTS
Charles E. Horan, M.A.I. wdtttcm Tccrrunuv 403 Lincoln Street
James A. Corak WRITTEN TESTIMONY Sitka. Alaska 99835
CHARLES E. HORAN, MAI, No. 2 PANEL MEMBER (907)747-6666
TONGASS TIMBER HEARING AT SITKA, ALASKA
APRIL 25, 1989
POSITION
Oppose Wirth Bill, Senate Bill No. 346.
Support the Alaska Delegation Bill, Senate No. 237.
BACKGROUND
Born in Washington, D.C. in 1950.
Graduated from University of San Francisco In 1973.
Alaska resident 1973 to present, Sitka resident since 1976.
Married Alaskan wife of Tlingit decent; have 2 school age children.
PROFESSION
Real estate appraiser - tnember of American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
Partner - Horan, Corak and Company
serving commercial and residential real estate needs in Southeast. We also
do contract municipal tax roll assessments for Craig, Petersburg, Skagway
and Pelican, Alaska.
Advocations include hunting, fishing, camping, chopping wood, teaching church
school and playing with the kids.
MULTI-USE MANAGEMENT OF THE FOREST AND LIFE-STYLES
I have hunted, fished and camped in Misty Fjords National Monument, Admiralty
National Monument and in other areas on Baranof and Chlchagof Island. I enjoy
the wilderness characteristics of Alaska and believe they are being adequately
preserved and managed by the existing Forest Service Management Program.
Professionally, I have flown over much of this wilderness and have valued
remote and wilderness properties inside and outside of wilderness designated
areas, national monuments and preserves.
Although not without conflict in my opinion it appears that the forests are
being adequately managed for a multitude of uses including fishery resources,
timber resources, mining, recreational and wilderness preserves.
The current Senate Bill No. 346, would limit the ability of the wood processing
mills within Southeast Alaska to function on a guaranteed contractual basis.
If this were to happen it could cause reduction in employment resulting in
reduction of population and a decreased economic base. This would also erode
the population base ability to service a debt incurred for our utility and
school systems. This would also limit the variety and dependability of
obtaining goods and services. The closure of more forest lands and the
cancellation of the timber contracts would not enhance the quality of life but
could permanently alter it in a detrimental way for Southeast Alaska residents.
The Sitka economy is relatively stable. Alaska is historically known for Its
continual boom and bust cycles. Sitka community economics are in balance now
shared with wood products, fishing, tourism, government services, this stable
base would possibly be destroyed by Senate Bill No. 346.
SERVING SOUTHEAST ALASKA
436
THE REAL ESTATE MARKET
Please be aware of the impact that the W1rth Senate Bill No. 346 may have on
our local economy. I speak especially with the regard of real estate. We have
seen real estate declines of the following approximate magnitude for the
various communities listed below:
Community Impact on Real Estate
Skagway 25 - 35% decline
Haines 25% +/- decline and
over iO years of
economic stagnation
Cause
Closure of the railroad in 1982.
Closure of 2 sawmills in the mid
1970's and termination of Alaska
Pipeline construction In the late
1970's
Juneau
20 - 70% decline,
depending on property
type.
1985 - 1988 less than 10% cutback
in employment of State Government
and fear of future Job losses.
Market over built.
Ketchikan 20 - 30% decline in
property, depending on
type.
1984 to 1986 closure of Ketchikan
Spruce Mill, property, depending on
6 month closure of Ketchikan Pulp
Mill, loss of Coast Guard cutter
home port.
The exact effect that the closure of the mill or severed interruption of raw
material to the mill would cause to the housing and general real estate market
in Sitka Is uncertain. Based on our observations of what happens in other
communities it appears that a significant number of people would be put out of
work. Household Incomes would drop. As budgets tighten, mortgage payments
would be made late. After savings dried up and unemployment compensation runs
out, or wage earners have to relocate, many homes would go on the market.
At this point the market perception usually goes like this. Buyers are
cautious, if they buy it will only be the best property at the lowest price, it
will offset the market risk they perceive. Sellers in increasing numbers would
put their homes on the market out of necessity or in fear of losing their job
or losing equity as the market get worse.
When sales do occur, the best homes sell at the lowest prices, driving prices
down. Sellers who have equity or value above their mortgage will sell at a
loss if they need to leave town or get out of a high mortgage payment.
As competition to sell Increases, prices will be driven down further.
Eventually, prices will fall below the level of many of people's mortgage
amounts. The owners who must sell 1n this position will have the following
options:
A. Default with the possibility of being sued.
B. File personal bankruptcy.
C. Rent house and subsidize payments if possible.
Sitka has had an active real estate market over the past 8 to 10 years. I
would estimate/guess that approximately 40% of our housing inventory has been
purchased or refinanced over this time. The most popular loan programs allow
for 5-10% down payment with some programs allowing zero down. This means that
most people who have purchased, refinanced or taken a second mortgage out on
their homes in the last 8 to 10 years have 0-20% equity in their homes.
HORAN, CORAK AND CO.
437
It is difficult to say exactly what would happen pricewlse to homes In Sitka.
The current market is in balance with a slight pressure to Increase rents and
house prices. House prices have not significantly Increased since September of
1981.
If 20% of the basic industry was knocked out I would guess for the first 6
months no price change would occur. On the other hand, the selling of homes
would be virtually stopped. Buyers would wait and see.
As seller's were pressured to sell, prices could drop between 15 and 30X
perhaps over a 2 year period. If Jobs are created 1n other sectors of the
economy the mid to lower range of this drop may be realized. If panic sets In
and people who do not need to relocate put their homes on the market out of
fear of job loss or future equity loss, the rate of depreciation could
accelerate as it had in Juneau. A 20% decline 1n property values could wipe
out many Sitkan families' financial stability.
The loss of a home or equity could be devastating to family financial plans.
Bankruptcy is very difficult emotionally as well as financially. The passage
of Senate Bill No. 346 may precipitate this type of catastrophic Impact on
Sitka and in other communities throughout Southeast Alaska.
INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS
Southeast Alaska has a unique beauty where mountains meet the sea in endless
shorelines. The heart of the people is typical of many areas of rural
America. Most of the population are settled in small insular communities with
no direct load linkage to other towns. Isolated in a way, the region is very
coherent in its hospitality and the way it conducts business. Our business is
not unusual when we will commit the resources of our firm for amounts In excess
of $10,000 based on a personal agreement over the phone. Generally, the people
In the region are honest, hard working people who consider a deal is a deal.
Due to our remote location, the hardship of our weather, the lack of adequate
transportation linkage, we rely heavily on government services and help.
However, we work hard and endure the hardships of our environment at times
because of this chosen life-style. By living In a frontier land of wilderness
and opportunity, we have grown to honor this age old custom of trust in
conducting our affairs with each other and with the government. It is apparent
to many of us that the government is looking to pull out on a deal that had
been made in the past relative to the timber sales contracts with the pulp
mills and relative to the amount of land designated for wilderness areas. We
feel the deals have been made, the process is in place which allows us to enjoy
the life-style which we are used to. We therefore ask out of a sense of
fairness that the status quo be continued.
We are also concerned about the fiscal responsibility of government in meeting
its needs and managing its resources properly. For these reasons we endorse
Senate Bill No. 237 proposed by the Alaska delegation as being a prudent way to
approach management of the Tongass Forest. For reasons cited above which we
feel could cause economic hardship and devastation of our life-style, we oppose
Senate Bill No. 346.
Thank you for your consideration.
HORAN, CORAK AND CO.
438
Senator Wirth. Mr. Thad Poulson.
STATEMENT OF THAD POULSON, EDITOR, DAILY SITKA
SENTINEL
Mr. Poulson. Thank you, Senator. My name is Thad Poulson.
My wife and I are the owners, managers and editors of the Daily
Sitka Sentinel, the Sitka newspaper. Before coming to Sitka in
1969, I was the Associated Press correspondent for the State of
Alaska, stationed in Juneau.
I am testifying today as a journalist, a businessman and a 20-
year resident of Sitka who prizes the unique values symbolized by
this community.
I am in favor of the Murkowski-Stevens bill. I speak in favor of
the compromise approach endorsed by the Southeast Conference of
Cities. I speak against the Wirth and Mrazek bills that propose uni-
lateral cancellation by the U.S. Government of the 50-year Federal
contracts with the two Southeast Alaska pulp companies.
If the government has difficulty today in fulfilling these con-
tracts, with safeguards to all long-term uses and values of the
forest, it is because the Congress has repeatedly changed the
boundaries of the playing field in the course of the game.
With all due respect. Senators, this, in the immortal words of
Yogi Berra, is like deja vu all over again.
In my 20 years in Sitka, I have seen and experienced the trans-
formation of Sitka from a provisioning economy where there was
generally one place in town that might have what you want and if
they did not you went without into the sophisticated and multi-fac-
eted economy that we enjoy today. Naturally, my business, along
with my debts and my payroll obligations, has grown with the for-
tunes of the town. Successful merchants advertise in my newspaper
to promote their business and sell their merchandise, not to make
a charitable or goodwill contribution. I am not ashamed to tell you
that the latter motivation was all we could count on in my early
days in Sitka, before the community achieved the critical mass of
population and economic activity to truly sustain a daily newspa-
per.
University of Alaska economist George Rogers refers to the pulp
industry of Sitka and Ketchikan as the anchor of all other econom-
ic activity of the region. Of course, that was the purpose of the
long-term contracts in the first place. You will hear others with ex-
pertise testify that the timber and pulp industry is the economic
foundation of one-fourth of the Sitka population. Loss of that criti-
cal one-fourth would be disastrous to our business community, and
the shock waves would touch every resident of this town.
I am deeply troubled by the fact that neither the Wirth nor
Mrazek bill addresses in any meaningful way the economic havoc
that would visit upon the people and economy of Southeast Alaska,
and, more particularly, upon Sitka.
These two bills, I believe, can only be characterized as punitive
in effect, if not in intent. Punitive to innocent people, whatever
their political views, whose only offense is to live, work, own prop-
erty or do business in Sitka, Alaska at the time the U.S. Govern-
ment reneged on a solemn obligation.
439
My environmentalist friends assure me that the pulp mills would
continue to operate despite the unilateral abrogation of these con-
tracts. I suggest that this is disingenuous in the extreme. The void-
ing of the contracts by the U.S. Government could be interpreted
in only one way by the other parties: The volume of wood required
for economic operation of the mills not only will not be guaranteed
but, by inference from the fact of cancellation, the necessary
timber will actually be denied.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Poulson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poulson follows:]
440
Testimony of Thad Poulson, editor and co-publisher. Daily Sitka Sentinel, April 25,
1989, Sitka, Alaska.
Senator Wirth, Senator Murkowski, Senator Bums:
Thank you for for coming to Sitka and giving the people who will be most directly
affected by Tongass legislation the opportunity to testify.
My name is Thad Poulson. My wife and I are the owners, managers and editors of
the Daily Sitka Sentinel, the Sitka newspaper. Before coming to Sitka in 1969 I was
the Associated Press Correspondent for the State of Alaska, stationed in Juneau.
I am testifying today as a journalist, a businessman and a 20- year resident of Sitka
who prizes the unique values symboUzed by this community.
I am in favor of the Murkowski-Stevens bill. I speak in favor of the compromise
approach endorsed by the Southeast Conference of Cities. I speak against the Wirth
and Mrazek bills that propose unilateral cancellation by the U.S. government of the
50-year federal contracts with the two Southeast Alaska pulp companies.
If the government has difficulty today in fulfilling these contracts — with
safeguards to all long-term uses and values of the forest — it is because the Congress
has repeatedly changed the boundaries of the playing field in the course of the game.
With all due respect, Senators, this, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, is like
deja vu all over again.
In my 20 years in Sitka I have seen and experienced the transformation of Sitka
from a provisioning economy — where there was generally one place in town that
might have what you want and if it didn't you went without — into the sophisticated
and multi-faceted economy that we enjoy today. Naturally, my business, along with
my debts and my payroll obligations, have grown with the fortunes of the town.
Successful merchants advertise in my newspaper to promote their business and sell
their merchandise, not to make a charitable or goodwill contribution. I'm not ashamed
to tell you that the latter motivation was all we could count on in my early days in
Sitka, before the community achieved the critical mass of population and economic
activity to truly sustain a daily newspaper.
University of Alaska Economist George Rogers refers to the pulp industry of Sitka
and Ketchikan as the anchor for all other economic activity. Of course you know that
this was the purpose of the long term contracts in the first place. You will hear others
with expertise testify that the timber and pulp industry is the economic foundation of
one fourth of the Sitka population. Loss of that critical one-fourth would be disastrous
to our business community, and the shock waves would touch every resident of this
town.
I am deeply troubled by the fact that neither the Wirth nor Mrazek bill addresses in
any meaningful way the economic havoc they would visit upon the people and
economy of Southeast Alaska, and more particularly upon Sitka.
These two bills can only be characterized only as punitive in effect, if not in intent.
Punitive to innocent people, whatever their political views, whose only offense is to
live, work, own propeny or do business in Sitka, Alaska at the time the United States
Government reneged on a solemn obligation.
441
My environmentalist friends assure me that the pulp mills would continue to
operate despite the unilateral abrogation of these contracts. I suggest that this is
disingenuous in the extreme. The voiding of the contracts by the U.S. government
could be interpreted in only one way by the other parties: the volume of wood
required for economic operation of the mills not only will not be guaranteed, but, by
inference from the fact of cancellation, the necessary timber will actually be denied.
There would be little reason for either mill to attempt to continue operation, and
every reason to sue for damages. I find it extraordinary that neither the Mrazek nor the
Wirth bill addresses the issue of compensation, to which there is no doubt the pulp
companies would be entitled should either of these bills be enacted. I am not
suggesting that either of these bills would be acceptable to the people of Southeast
Alaska if there were compensation. I do suggest, however, that the reason the figure is
not in the bills, is that it would grossly exceed the net annual cost of what the enemies
of these contracts call the Tongass subsidy until the contracts expire, and would put
the lie to any claim that passage of these bills would save money for the U.S.
Treasury.
There is a parallel situation in the country at the present time. As Senators you will
be called upon this year to approve legislation that will cost upwards of one hundred
billion — that's billion with a B — dollars to honor the deposit insurance claims of
depositors in failed, and in many cases, fraudulently run, savings and loan institutions.
The rationale is that the credibility of the United States in honoring its obligations is
as stake. I have yet to hear of anyone in public office suggest that the government not
honor this obligation, despite its astounding cost.
I and thousands of my townspeople, Senators, have a much more modest claim
against the full faith and credit of the United States, and that is that the spirit of the 50-
year contracts that underpin our economy continue to be honored.
442
Mr. PouLSON. There would be little reason for either mill to at-
tempt to continue operation, and every reason to sue for damages. I
find it extraordinary that neither the Mrazek nor the Wirth bill
addresses the issue of compensation, to which there is no doubt the
pulp companies would be entitled should either of these bills be en-
acted. I am not suggesting that either of these bills would be ac-
ceptable to the people of Southeast Alaska if there were compensa-
tion.
I do suggest, however, that the reason the figure is not in the
bills is that it would grossly exceed the net annual cost of what the
enemies of these contracts call the Tongass subsidy until the con-
tracts expire and would put the lie to any claim that passage of
these bills would save money for the U.S. Treasury.
There is a parallel situation in the country at the present time.
As senators, you will be called upon this year to approve legislation
that will cost upwards of $100 billion — that is billion with a B — to
honor the deposit insurance claims of depositors in failed, and in
may cases, fraudulently run, savings and loan institutions. The ra-
tionale is that the credibility of the United States in honoring its
obligations is at stake. I have yet to hear of anyone in public office
suggesting that the government not honor this obligation, despite
its astounding cost.
I and thousands of my townspeople. Senators, have a much more
modest claim against the full faith and credit of the United States,
and that is that the spirit of the 50-year contracts that underpin
our economy continue to be honored.
Senator Wirth. Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to com-
pliment the witnesses. I do not have any particular questions. I
think it was covered in their testimony, the obligations that the
Federal Government has.
I would like to compliment Elaine Sunde for the many courtesies
that she extended our committee in making arrangements and
hotels and various other things She, of course, works full time and
has been very, very hospitable, as have all the folks in Sitka.
Senator Burns. I would just reiterate, I thank you very much for
making those arrangements.
I am getting a signal from this panel that your main concern is
long-term contracts, is that correct? In other words, it is the main
problem. You do not wish to lock up these areas but you object to
the contracts and the attitude that goes with those contracts, is
that right?
[Affirmative response.]
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, and thank you all very
much. Elaine, thank you again for all of your help. We appreciate
you all being here.
We have been going now for three hours, and why don't we take
a 10-minute stretch. I will ask our Panel 3 if they will prepare to
join us at 11:10, and we will proceed at that point.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Wirth. If the committee would come back to order. The
third panel this morning is a very distinguished group of Alaskans,
443
Don Bremner, President of the Yakutat Alaska Native Brother-
hood; Ernestine Hanlon from Hoonah; Charles Poulson from the
Sealaska Corporation; James Senna, Chief Executive Officer, Shee
Atika, Inc.; Ron Sparks, Klukwan, Inc.; Carlton Smith, Landless
Urban Indians; and Austin Hammond, Chilkoot, Haines.
We thank you all very much for being here, being with us, and
Mr. Bremner, why do you not begin?
STATEMENT OF DON BREMNER, CHAIRMAN, YAKUTAT ALASKA
NATIVE BROTHERHOOD CAMP 13
Mr. Bremner. Thank you, Senator Wirth. My name is Don
Bremner. I am Chairman of the Yakutat A.N.B. Camp 13. I am
also Chairman of the Yakutat Fishermen's Association and a
member of the Board of Directors of the Yak-Tat Kwaan, Inc., Cor-
poration, our native corporation formed under ANCSA of 197 L
As Chairman of the Yakutat ANB. I am here to say that our
camp supports your Bill S. 346 and that we oppose Senator Mur-
kowski's Bill S. 237.
After reviewing both S. 346 and S. 237, including all material
available to our ANB. Camp, it is obvious that S. 346 comes closer
to our camp goals, needs, and community desires of protecting the
Yakutat Forelands from run-away logging. We view S. 346 as bal-
ancing all uses and resources within the Tongass National Forest
with important accountability measures attached and bringing
overdue cost benefit factors into a more realistic focus. However, to
add strength to S. 346, our A.N.B. Camp recommends that you
clearly add:
One, in S. 346, Title III, sections 301 and 302, that a 20-year mor-
atorium be placed on the 232,962 acres of the Yakutat Forelands.
Two, that there be established Regional Tongass Regulatory
Boards.
Three, that there be an additional economic plan established,
based upon market supply and demand and a tax plan for all
direct Tongass user groups of all TNF resources.
Four, that there be a section establishing Regional Research and
Development Branches within the USES.
In other areas, our ANB. Camp supports the positions of the City
of Yakutat and Sealaska position paper on the TNF, dated 1/26/89.
We further support the position that:
One, that ANILCA Section 705 be repealed and, long-term con-
tracts 12-11-010-1545 and AlOfs-1042 between U.S. and APC and
U.S. & KPC, respectively, be terminated. These amount to unfair
trade practices and do not allow for proper land management prin-
ciples.
Three, that an ASQ be an average of 285 million board feet per
year and no higher than 300 million board feet per year, unless the
market demand is present.
Four, that the automatic $40 million TSF appropriation be re-
pealed and replaced with an as needed, as cost/benefit dollar
amount equivalent to the timber volume sales.
Five, there be no pre-roading programs in any Tongass sale area
prior to a proper timber sale, based upon market supply and
demand. Obviously, since the inception of ANILCA 705, the oper-
22-148 0-89-15
444
ational trend and impact have been leading to a balanced manage-
ment plan of all TNF resources and user groups.
We feel that with S. 346, our recommendations, and if the U.S.
Congress would work towards balanced foreign trade policies and
practices, our timber industry and products would enjoy equal foot-
ing in the world trade markets. Also, with this action, all RNF user
groups and resources will be better off and at least none the worse.
I have attached further written comments supporting our camp
views.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bremner to follows:]
445
April 25. 1989
Mr. Chairman, Senator Wirth:
My name is Don Bremner, I'm Chairman of the Yakutat A. N.B. Camp
13. I 'in 5>lso Chairman of the Yakutat Fishermen's Association and
a Board of Director of the Yak-Tat Kwaan. Inc. Corporation, our
native corporation formed under ANCSA of 1971-
As Chairman of the Yakutat A. N.B. I'm here to say that our Camp
supports your Bill S.3^6 and that We oppose Senator Murkowski's
Bill S.237.
Aft'=r reviewing both S.B. ?^i6 and 3.B. 237, including- all material
available to our A. N.B. Camp, it's obvious that S.B. 3/16 come.s
closer to our Camps ?oals. needs, and community desires of protecting
the Yakutat Fc-elands from run-away-J oa-ging'. We view S.B. 3^16 as
balancing all u?5ep and resources within the Tongass National Forest
wit'-' important occountabillty measures attached and bringing over-
due cost/benefit factors into a more realistic focus.
Fowe\-^r, tc add strength to S.B. 3^^^ our A. N.B. Camp recommends, you
clf^arly add;
1. In S.B. 3^6. Title III. Sections 301 S, 302, that a (?0) year
MoT-atoriuT be placed on the 232,962 acres of the Yakutat Forelands.
2. There be established Regional Tongass Regulatory Boards.
3. There be an addition establishing an economic olan based upon
market supply & demand and a Tax Plan for all direct Tongass user
groups of a.ll TN'^ resources.
i. There be s section establishing Regional Research & Development
Branches within the U.S.F.S.
(1)
446
In other areas our A. N.B. Camp supports the positions of the City
of Yakutat and Sealaska position paper on the TNF, dated 1-26-89.
We further support the positions that:
1. ANILCA Sec. 705 be repealed.
2. Long term contracts 1?-11-010-15'15 and A10fs-10/i2 between U.S. &
APC and U.S. «i KPC. respectively, be terminated. These amount to
unfair trade practices and donot allow for proper land manag'ement
principles.
3. That an ASQ be an average of 285 mmbf/yr and no higher than 300
mbf/yr , unless the market demand is present.
a. That the automatic $/lO, 000, 000. 00 TSF appropriation be repealed
and replaced with an as needed, as cost/benefit dollar amount
equivalent to the timber volume sale.
5. There be no pre-roadlne programs Into any Tone-ass sale area
prior to a proper timber sale, based upon market supply 8. demand.
Obviously, since the inception of ANILCA 705 the operational trend
and impacts has been leading to a balanced management plan of all
TNF resources and user groups.
We feel that v;ith S.B. 3^6, our recommendations and if the U.S.
Congress would work towards balanced foreign trade policies &
practices our timber Industry and products would enjoy equal footing
in the world trad'^ markets. Also, with thi" action all TNF user
groups and resources will be better off and at least none worse off.
Att'jched are further written comm.ents supporting our camps views.
Thank-You,
Don Bremner, Chairman
A. N.B. Camp 13
attach/ Supporting Comments & Documents
(2)
447
11
1987 giimfp cf^\M'2 co9ti^EO\(rioo\C
.■7>
RESOLUTION NQ. uQ u}^
Submltled by: Yokulal ANB-ANS camp 13 \ ^
WHEREAS, 14 Southeast communities have passed resolutions
condemning the 450 MMBF annual mandatory cut on the Tongass
Forest; and,
WHEREAS, the Tongass Timber supply funds is allowing the U.S.
Forest Service to road areas in rural Southeast which is largely
contrary to local desires and is competitevley detrimental to
. regional and village corporation logging; and,
■■'whereas, the long term economic viability of Southeast's timber
resource must be based upon market values rather than by
government mandate and mandatory subsidy; and,
NOW, therefore, be it resolved by the membership of the ANB
and ANS camp 13 that the mandatory 450 MMBF cut be eliminated and
another method of timber allocation be instituted which wil truly
benefit, on a sound economical and enviromental basis, a majority of
the communications in Southeast; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Tongass Timber supply fund be
thoroughly re-evaluated so that so that true multiple use of
resources (timber, fisheries, tourism, wildlife and subsistence) be
achieved in concert with local community needs and desires; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all commercial users of the Tongass
Timber resource have equal access allocation contracts and not a
A Production o) Iho Ml. Edguciimbo
select few. - High school computer Dopanmem
448
1987 g^RS^HN^ C^^lMT C09\[yE9ffI09l
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thai copies of this resolution be sent to
members of the House and Senate, Congress Committee on Interior &
Insulor affairs. Gov. Cowper, members of Alaska Legislature, U.S.
Forest Service and the Alaska office of Management and Budget.
A Production ol the Ml. Fdgecumba
High School Compulof Doparlmoiit
449
Senator Wirth. Ernestine Hanlon.
STATEMENT OF ERNESTINE HANLON, TLINGIT OF HOONAH, AK
Ms. Hanlon. My name is Ka Sy Yah Gah and my English name
is Ernestine Hanlon. I am Tlingit from Hoonah. From time memo-
rial, my dad's family is from around Hoonah and my mom's family
is from Killisnoo. I am from the Dogsalmon clan, of the Raven
moiety.
I weave Tlingit spruce root baskets and Chilkat robes. The bas-
kets are woven from the Sitka spruce roots and dyed grass. This
form of weaving is centuries old: after the world flood receded or as
long as the trees have been with us.
Tlingit artwork is recognized as high-quality pieces of work. Be-
cause of the richness of the land, we were not in search of food. We
had the time to figure out how to weave a perfect circle in our
Chilkat robes or carve a detailed totem pole depicting our family
crest. We continue to produce beautiful baskets because, according
to our "law of the land, 'we still have our trees. Each basket very,
very old, and not so old, in our designs. All show a deep respect
and appreciation of this land. A person can feel this through the
generations as we come to the land to harvest materials for our
baskets, Chilkat robes or other art work, as we gather our food and
medicine.
Hoonah is surrounded by Tongass National Forest, a village that
is predominately native. Fishing and hunting have always been the
major way of life. The state of the land was such we were never
hungry or cold.
More than any other place in Southeast Alaska, as a village, we
feel the effect of logging and road building. We feel the impacts
now and see irreparable damage to the land, should we allow the
Forest Service to continue management as is. Murkowski's bill
would not allow other protections that we need to guarantee sur-
vival of this land and our culture. It would only allow more mis-
management.
Thank you, Senator Wirth, for introducing S. 346. We need to see
the end to the 4.5 cuts. We are living in enough destruction. The
$40 million subsidy drives this destruction, mostly to needless
roads, another negative impact to our way of life. We need to end
the 50-year contracts and replace them with a short-term, competi-
tive bids to show the American spirit of free enterprise. To
strengthen Wirth's bill, we would like to see permanent protection
to the 23 areas. Seven of these areas are very crucial to Hoonah,
Pleasant Island-Lemesurier Islands and Port Adolphus are very
crucial habitat for the deer and other wonderous wildlife. Port
Althrop, Idaho Inlet, Mrd Bay, Lisianski River are such crucial fish
habitats our fishermen can hardly believe our government wants to
destroy it.
Our fishing industry includes five types of crabbing, shrimping,
halibut, cod, snapper, herring. King Salmon, Dog Salmon, humpy,
Coho and Sockeye Salmon. Historically, we have the expertise of
fish by knowing the seasons of the runs, using different types of
gear to catch the fish, knowing the winds and tides, also of smok-
ing and storing of the fish. As "Subsistence Users of Hoonah Want
450
to be Heard" points out, our fisheries and seafood have been affect-
ed already through river erosion: salmon spawns have been washed
away, log yards and dumps cause continuous oil leakage into
waters, and bark from logs stored in waters are causing untold
damage.
As fishermen go to the fishing grounds, they tell us they have to
be on constant alert of floating logs. This potential causes damage
to boats, fishing gear, engines and lives. They travel a lot by night
because of regulated fishing time, a quota which seems to get cut
more each year.
Our fishermen at the same time are not happy to see foreign
fishermen so easily rob another resource. We are the only country
that has to shake fish that are incidental catches. For example,
during Black Cod season, the halibut has to be tossed back to the
sea to watch it float or sink, sometimes up to 20,000 pounds a
season per boat. This is against our beliefs or laws, knowing this
can feed families throughout a winter. We cannot afford to let this
country ruin more natural habitat by logging practices we have to
live with.
For years, the Forest Service has been saying in their EIS that
there is no significant impact on our way of life. As a plaintiff in
Hanlon v. Barton we had no choice but to take action before we
lost everything. ANILCA, Title 8, a "subsistence" law, is finally
being realized and being complied with.
We had to sue the Forest Service and ADC to protect our way of
life. If you fly over the tip of Chichagof Island, you will see the be-
ginning of Forest Service cuts and get a better understanding of
what we face on our hunting and fishing grounds.
May you hear the voices of our ancestors.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanlon follows:]
451
statement of Ernestine Hanlon
Tlingit of Hoonah, Alaska
BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS
AND FORESTS.
APRIL 25, 1989.
MY NAME IS KA SY YAH GAH, MY ENGLISH NAME IS ERNESTINE HANLON, I AM
TLINGIT FROM HOONAH. FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, MY DAD'S FAMILY IS FROM
AROUND HOONAH AND MY MOM'S FAMILY IS FROM KILLISNOO, I AM FROM THE
DOGSALMON CLAN, OF THE RAVEN MOEITY.
I WEAVE TLINGIT SPRUCE ROOT BASKETS AND CHILKAT ROBES. THE BASKETS,
ARE WOVEN FROM THE SITKA SPRUCE ROOTS AND DYED GRASS. THIS FORM OF
WEAVING IS CENTURIES OLD, AFTER THE WORLD FLOOD, RECEDED OR AS LONG
AS THE TREES HAVE BEEN WITH US.
TLINGIT ARTWORK, IS RECONGIZED, AS A HIGH QUALITY PIECES OF WORK,
BECAUSE, OF THE RICHNESS OF THE LAND, WE WERE NOT IN SEARCH OF FOOD.
WE HAD THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WEAVE A PERFECT CIRCLE, IN OUR
CHILKAT ROBES, OR CARVE A DETAILED TOTEM POLE, DEPICTING OUR FAMILY
CREST. WE CONTINUE TO PRODUCE, BEAUTIFUL BASKETS BECAUSE, ACCORDING
TO OUR "LAW OF THE LAND", WE STILL HAVE OUR TREES. EACH BASKET VERY,
VERY OLD, AND NOT SO OLD, IN OUR DESIGNS, ALL SHOW A DEEP RESPECT
AND APPRECIATION OF THIS LAND. A PERSON CAN FEEL THIS THROUGH THE
GENERATION^ AS WE COME TO THE LAND, TO HARVEST MATERIALS, FOR OUR
BASKETS, CHILKAT ROBES OR OTHER ART WORK, AS WE GATHER OUR FOOD AND
MEDICINE.
HOONAH, IS SURROUNDED BY TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, A VILLAGE, THAT
IS PREDOMINATLY NATIVE. FISHING AND HUNTING, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
MAJOR INDUSTRY .> THE STATE OF THE LAND, WAS SUCH, WE WERE NEVER,
HUNGRY OR COLD./ , .
MORE THAN ANY OTHER PLACE IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA, AS A VILLAGE, WE FEEL
THE AFFECT OF LOGGING AND ROAD-BUILDING. WE FEEL THE IMPACTS, NOW
AND SEE IRREPABLE DAMAGE TO THE LAND, SHOULD WE ALLOW THE FOREST
SERVICE TO CONTINUE MANAGEMENT AS IS. MURKOWSKI'S BILL WOULD NOT,
ALLOW OTHER PROTECTIONS, THAT WE NEED TO GUARBNTEE , SURVIVAL OF THIS
LAND AND OUR CULTURAL, IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW MORE MISMANAGEMENT.
THANK YOU SENATOR WIRTH, FOR INTRODUCING S346. WE NEED TO SEE END
TO THE A. 5 CUTS, WE ARE LIVING IN ENOUGH DESTRUCTION. THE $40 MILLION
SUBSISDY, DRIVES THIS DESTRUCTION, MOSTLY TO NEEDLESS ROADS, ANOTHER
NEGATIVE IMPACT, TO OUR WAY OF LIFE. WE NEED TO END THE 50 YEAR
CONTRACTS AND REPALCE THEM WITH A SHORT TERM, COMPETITIVE BIDS, TO
SHOW THE AMERICAN SPIRIT OF FREE ENTERPRISE. TO STRENGTHEN WIRTH'S
BILL, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERMANENT PROTECTION TO THE 23 AREAS. 7
OF THESE AREAS, ARE VERY CRUCIAL TO HOONAH. PLEASENT ISLAND, LEMISURE
ISLAND AND POINT ADOLPHUS, ARE VERY CRUCIAL HABITAT, FOR THE DEER AND
OTHER WONDEROUS WILDLIFE.
452
APRIL 25, 1989,
PAGE 2,
PORT ALTHROP, IDAHD INLET, MUD BAY, LISIANSKI RIVER, IS, SUCH A
CRUCIAL FISH HABITAT, OUR FISHERMAN, CAN HARDLY BELIEVE, OUR GOVERN-
MENT, WANTS. TO DESTROY IT.
OUR FISHING INDUSTRY INCLUDES: 5 TYPES OF CRABBING, SHRIMPING, HALIBUT,
COD, SNAPPER, HERRING, KING SALMON, DOGSALMON, HUMPY, COHO AND SOCKEYE
SALMON. HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE THE WXPERTIXE OF FISH. BY KNOWING
THE SEASON OF THE RUNS, USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF GEAR TO CATCH THE
FISH, KNOWING THE WINDS AND TIDES, ALSO OF SMOKING AND STORING OF THE
FISH. AS "SUBSISTENCE USERS OF HOONAH, WANT TO BE HEARD", POINTS OUT,
"OUR FISHERIES AND SEAFOOD HAD BEEN AFFECTED, ALREADY THROUGH RIVER
EROSION, SALMON SPAWNS HAVE BEEN WASHED AWAY, LOG YARDS AND DUMPS
CAUSE CONTINOUS OIL LEAKAGE INTO WATERS AND BARK FROM LOGS STORED IN
WATERS, ARE CAUSING UNTOLD DAMAGE."
AS FISHERMAN GO TO THE FISHING GROUNDS, THEY TELL US THEY HAVE TO BE
ON CONSTANT ALERT, OF FLOATING LOGS. THIS POTENTIAL AND REALISTIS,
DAMAGE TO BOATS. FISHING GEAR, ENGINES AND LIVES!!!!!! THEY TRAVEL
ALOT BY NIGHT, BECAUSE OF REGULATED FISHING TIME, A QUOTA WHICH SEEMS
TO GET CUT MORE EACH YEAR.
OUR FISHERMAN, AT THE SAME TIME ARE NOT HAPPY TO SEE FORIEGN FISHERMAN,
SO EASILY ROB ANOTHER RESOURCE. WE ARE THE ONLY CONTRY THAT HAS TO
SHAKE FISH THAT ARE INCIDENTAL CATCHES. FOR EXAMPLE: DURING BLACK
COD SEASON, THE HALIBUT HAS TO BE TOSSED BACK TO THE SEA TO WATCH IT
FLOAT OR SINK. SOMETIMES UP TO 20,000 POUNDS A SEASON PER BOAT. THIS
IS AGAINST OUR BELIEVES OR LAWS KNOWING THIS CAN FEED FAMILIES THROUGH-
OUT A WINTER. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LET THIS COUNTRY RUIN MORE NATURAL
HABITAT, BY LOGGING PRACTICES, WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH.
FOR YEARS, THE FOREST SERVICE, HAS BEEN SAYING IN THEIR E.I.S. THAT
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, ON OUR WAY OF LIFE!!!!!!! AS A PLAN-
TIFF IN "HANLON VS. BARTON" WE HAD NO CHOICE, BUT TO TAKE ACTION
BEFORE WE LOST EVERYTHING. ANILCA, TITLE 8 , A "SUBSISTENCE" LAW,
IS FINALLY BEING REALIZED AND BEING COMPIED TO.
IN OUR INJUNCTION, WE ARE ABLE, TO PROTECT, 17 V.C.U.'S IN WHITE
STONE HARBOR, WHICH IS A CRUCIAL DEER HABITAT. A LOG TRANSFER
FACILITY WOULD NOT BE PUT IN V.C.U. 209. ROAD ACCESS TO SOME UNITS
WILL BEHALTED. THE FOREST SERVICE IS NOW REQUIRED TO SEE IF ANY OF
THE PLANS. FOR LOGGING WILL HAVE IMPACT ON OUR WAY OF LIFE, WITH
RESPECT TO THE 1986-90 APC OPERATING PLAN. ALSO ANY CARRY OVER, WILL
HAVE TO HAVE A SUBSISTENCE HEARING. FOR THE RECORDS: HERE IS THE
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF INJUNCTION. THIS PROVES TO ME THAT OUR
TRIBAL BELIEVES OR LAWS OF PROTECTING OUR LAND. WILL FOREVER ... PROVE
TO BE RIGHT. THIS LAND AND OUR PEOPLE CAN NOT BE SEPARATED, IT IS
OUR RESPONSIBITY, TO CO-EXIST AND SPEAK FOR THE LAND.
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST IS BEAUTIFUL CONTRY. CONTINUED LIFE OF THIS
LAND, WILL BE CONTINUED LIFE AND CULTURE OF THE TLINGIT PEOPLE.
AS YOU ARE IN THIS AREA, FLY OVER THE NORTHERN TIP OF CHICAHAGOF
ISLAND, YOU WILL SEE THE BEGir/lNfC OF THE FOREST SERVICE CUTS AND GET
A BETER UNDERSTANDIN OF WHAT WE FACE.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF
BILL S 346.
453
Ms. Hanlon. In our injunction we are able to protect 17 VCU.'s
in White Stone Harbor, which is a crucial deer habitat. A log
transfer facility would not be put in VCU. 209. Road access to some
units will be halted. The Forest Service is now required to see if
any of the plans for logging will have an impact on our way of life
with respect to the 1986-90 APC operating plan. Also, any carry-
over will have to have a subsistence hearing. For the records, here
is the stipulation for entry of injunction. This proves to me that
our tribal beliefs or laws of protecting our land will forever prove
to be right. This land and our people cannot be separated. It is our
responsibility to co-exist and speak for the land.
Tongass National Forest is beautiful country. Continued life of
this land will be continued life and culture of the Tlingit people.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor
of Bill S. 346.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Carlson.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES CARLSON, DIRECTOR, SEALASKA
CORP.
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Charles Carlson, and I am a director of Sealaska
Corporation.
On behalf of Sealaska, I would like to express our appreciation to
the Senate Energy Committee and this subcommittee for inviting
us to testify today.
As a preliminary matter, we would like to note that the debate
process surrounding the Tongass Reform Legislation has been a dif-
ficult but often rewarding experience. We would like to thank the
Southeast Conference of Mayors for their courage and contribution
in the debate on the Tongass. They have taken farsighted, and
sometimes politically unpopular, positions in framing their position
on Tongass Management. Sealaska supports many of their posi-
tions and encourages the subcommittee to seriously consider their
recommendations.
We also want to thank the Governor's office for its diligent work
with the many interested parties in this process and for its efforts
in crafting workable compromises.
I would like to focus your attention today on some of the points
we consider critical to the Tongass debate. You have an opportuni-
ty to convert the Tongass reform legislation into a farsighted eco-
nomic development bill. You can help set us on a path toward eco-
nomic diversification that will provide us and our children with a
reliable and sustainable economic future.
First, we believe that Tongass Forest management must strive to
accomplish multiple-use objectives. In 705 (a) of ANILCA, Congress
directed a great deal of money toward protecting the "dependent
timber industry" in Alaska to protect the jobs in that industry.
Congress provided little money to tourism, commercial fishing or
mining. Despite eight years of this one-directional subsidy, employ-
ment in the timber industry is down, not including native employ-
ment. At the same time, fishing and tourism are booming, and
mining is growing.
454
Currently, the primary force in management decisions on the
Tongass are the two long-term timber contracts. The Forest Service
is severely constrained in its management choices by the terms of
the contracts. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the Forest Service
simultaneously to comply with the long-term contracts and achieve
the myriad other multiple-use objectives required by law, including
providing recreational opportunities, offering timber to independ-
ent purchasers and protecting wildlife and subsistence resources.
Senator Wirth. Unfortunately, it is red light time. Mr. Carlson,
we will include your statement in the record in full. Do you have a
brief summary paragraph you would like to make?
Mr. Carlson. Not really. We deleted a lot to get into this time
frame. I thank you.
Senator Wirth. We will get all of that in the record and, of
course, the record will be left open.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:]
455
ORAL PRESENTATION
TESTIMONY OF
BYRON I. MALLOTT
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SEALASKA CORPORATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
APRIL 25, 1989
456
I. INTRODUCTION
Good morning. My name is Byron Mallott and I am the Chief
Executive Officer of Sealaska Corporation. On behalf of
Sealaska, I would like to express our appreciation to the Senate
Energy Committee and this Subcommittee for inviting us to testify
today. As a preliminary matter, we would like to note that the
debate process surrounding the Tongass Reform Legislation has
been a difficult but often rewarding experience. We would like
to thank the Southeast Conference of Mayors for their comrage and
contribution in the debate on the Tongass. They have taken far-
sighted, and sometimes politically unpopular, positions in
framing their position on Tongass Management. Sealaska supports
many of their positions and encourages the Subcommittee to
seriously consider their recommendations.
We also want to thank the Governor's office for its diligent
work with the many interested parties in this process and for its
efforts in crafting workable compromises.
II. STATEMENT
It is appropriate that Sealaska Corporation participate in
the Tongass debate. We bring a unique perspective to the issues
arising from the Tongass debate. Our congressionally established
boundaries encompass the entire Tongass National Forest.
Sealaska shareholders also are shareholders in 12 urban and
village corporations in Southeast. Virtually every community in
the Tongass counts among its residents descendants of the first
457
human inhabitants of the Tongass: the Native people of Southeast
Alaska. Our shareholders are part and parcel with the Tongass.
The Alaska Native Community is a vital and interrelated
component of the society and economy of the region. Sealaska
Corporation and the numerous Village Corporations are Alaska
based and Native owned. The employment created by Native
Corporations is employment for Southeast residents. The revenue
from our fishing, timber and mining activities stays in the
region and stimulates the regional economy. Our shareholders,
the Native Alaskans, have been here since before recorded history
and they will continue to be here after the debate on the Tongass
has subsided.
A. ECONOMIC DIVERSITY
I would like to focus your attention today on some of the
points we consider critical to the Tongass debate. You have an
opportunity to convert the Tongass reform legislation into a far-
sighted economic development bill. You can help set us on a path
toward economic diversification that will provide us, and our
children, with a reliable and sustainable economic future.
First, we believe that Tongass Forest management must strive
to accomplish multiple-use objectives. In 705(a) of ANILCA,
Congress directed a great deal of money toward protecting the
"dependent timber industry" in Alaska to protect the jobs in that
industry. Congress provided little money to tourism, commercial
fishing, or mining. Despite eight years of this one-directional
subsidy, employment in the timber industry is down, not including
458
Native employment. At the same time, fishing and tourism are
booming and mining is growing.
Currently, the primary force in management decisions on the
Tongass are the two long term timber contracts. The Forest
Service is severely constrained in its management choices by the
terms of the contracts. It is difficult, if not impossible, for
the Forest Service simultaneously to comply with the long term
contracts and achieve the myriad other multiple-use objectives
required by law, including providing recreational opportunities,
offering timber to independent purchasers, and protecting
wildlife and subsistence resources.
Sealaska believes the long term contracts are an important
part of the regional economy. Nonetheless, they should not be
omnipotent to the point of making all other multiple-use
objectives subservient to them. The long term contracts should
not be the engine pulling the regional economy. Rather, they
should be one car in the economic train that is driven by the
forces of supply and demand within the multiple-use framework.
1. REGIONAL ATTITUDE SURVEY
In recent weeks, Sealaska commissioned an independent survey
of Southeast Alaska residents to determine their attitudes on the
Tongass reform legislation and their expectations about the
future of the Tongass. There were a number of surprising results
from the survey, but perhaps the most significant were the
answers to the following three questions.
459
When asked what they considered the most important
industry in Southeast Alaska presently, 4 6% of the
respondents chose commercial fishing; 21% chose tourism; and
19% chose timber.
When asked what they considered the most important
industry to the future of Southeast Alaska, 37% chose
commercial fishing; 21% chose tourism; 21% chose managing
use of wilderness, park and monument areas; 15% chose
timber; and 11% chose mining.
When asked about diversifying the Tongass Forest
economy, 82% supported greater economic diversity, and 89%
agreed that the Tongass Forest management should promote
growth in non-timber industries like commercial fishing,
mining, and tourism.
This indicates that the people of the Tongass do not expect
to hitch their economic wagon exclusively to the timber industry.
Rather, they expect to have a diversified economic team pull them
into the future. It is noteworthy that only 9% of the
respondents to the survey favored contract cancellation, but
fully one half felt that the contracts should be modified.
We have made the survey available to the Committee.
B. FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT
The next area of concern to Sealaska is fisheries
enhancement and habitat protection. Sealaska encourages you to
strike an appropriate balance between conservation and
development. We have proposed that seven areas be designated as
Fisheries Protection Areas. These areas provide exceptional
habitat and spawning grounds for large populations of fish.
Without these areas, the fragile chain holding together the
annual ecological cycle of birth and death can be irreversibly
destroyed.
460
We have seen in dramatic fashion, from the oil spill in
Prince William Sound, how man's negligent errors can threaten the
fishstocks and other marine population, which in turn jeopardize
economic livelihood of thousands of Alaskans. We cannot afford
to make a similar error by reducing the natural habitat for
wildstock fish.
We recommend that a substantial portion of the current
Tongass Timber Supply fund be redirected toward fisheries
protection and enhancement, economic diversification and
community impact grants. Both the Governor and the Southeast
Conference support this need. We have legislative language to
achieve this objective as an addendum to my testimony.
Such a reallocation would not only brunt the inevitable
economic impacts of reduced funding for timber harvesting and
facilitate a move toward economic diversification, but it also
will help reduce the ecologic impact of the recent oil spill on
wildstock fish populations, and provide some cushion against the
potential for future errors. Between the oil spill and illegal
high seas drift-netting by some Asian countries, viable
populations of commercial fish may very well be in jeopardy.
C. LAND MANAGEMENT AND EXCHANGES
Finally, Congress must solve the land allocation issues that
continue to be in limbo eighteen years after passage of ANCSA.
Among these controversies are Admiralty Island and a host of
other Native exchanges that would implement ANCSA and create new
economic opportunities. We also support reallocating certain
461
lands for conservation, including the seven fisheries management
zones mentioned above.
One area that has become increasingly important, due to
recent developments in the world of physics, is the Brady Glacier
area. Brady Glacier may contain mineral deposits of world class
proportion. One of the important minerals in the area is
palladium, an important element used in the newly discovered
process of cold fusion. If the new discoveries prove accurate
after further research, a ready and reliable domestic supply of
palladium will be critically important. We have submitted to the
Committee a proposed amendment that would build on Title XV of
ANILCA and direct a study of this deposit and a report to
Congress.
III. CONCLUSION
Sealaska has been active in trying to develop a consensus
among the Southeast Alaska residents regarding the best overall
approach to Tongass reform. We are beginning to see that
consensus forming in the more recent testimony of the State, the
fine work of the Southeast Conference, the recent revisions
adopted by the Alaska Loggers Association to their Tongass policy
statement, and in some of the language added to H.R. 1368 in
mark-up by the House Agriculture Committee.
As a final point, I would like to refer you to one last
result of our attitude survey. When asked whether now is the
time for a compromise on the future of the Tongass Forest, which
balances employment opportunities and environmental protection.
462
84% agreed. The people of the Tongass are asking you, the United
States Congress, to move ahead swiftly on a Tongass compromise
that gives us some certainty about our future.
Thank you for giving Sealaska the opportunity to testify
today. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
463
Senator Wirth. Mr. Senna.
STATEMENT OF JAMES SENNA, SHEE ATIKA, INC.
Mr. Senna. My name is James Senna. I am President/CEO of
Shee Atika, Incorporated, which is a native corporation formed by
the Natives of Sitka under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, ANCSA.
The shareholders of Shee Atika and their families comprise over
24 percent of Sitka's total population, and we thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
The Tongass issues are important to us, and we support some
changes. S. 237 represents a balanced view. However, S. 346 poses
an unconscionable threat to Sitka and to Shee Atika shareholders.
Termination of the long-term timber sale contract with Alaska
Pulp Corporation would do away with 23 percent of all jobs in
Sitka. While this would devastate the community at large, the Na-
tives would be hardest hit.
Native unemployment here, at over 20 percent, is already higher
than the overall rate of 8 percent. Natives tend to have less educa-
tion, lower incomes, experience more social problems and already
lean heavily on government support.
Sitka is not like small towns in the Lower 48. We are isolated.
The road ends seven miles out of town. Arguably, Alaska Pulp
might recover, because of possible reparations. The more mobile
non-Native population will move, but the Natives, less economical-
ly mobile, already subjected to greater social and economic duress,
with deep roots and heritage here, will stay, and most likely will
require additional government support.
Sitka enjoys a reasonably balanced economy. Tourism and fish-
ing are important, but those and other segments are not growing
fast enough to ever replace the jobs the pulp mill provides.
We generally support the position of the Alaska Loggers Associa-
tion with respect to the other Tongass issues, but our gravest con-
cern is preservation of the timber contracts. We estimate that over
30 percent of all jobs held in Sitka by Natives and their family
members are attributable to the pulp mill. We want to save our
jobs, not more government support.
Whatever happened to the idea that a deal is a deal? In S. 346
you propose breaching the contract with the mill. If you get away
with this, all Sitkans will suffer, not just Alaska Pulp. The credibil-
ity of Congress will suffer, too.
One mill, in a town of 8,200 people, may not seem important to
senators and congressmen from the Lower 48, but I must ask,
would any of you support a bill that would cost 23 percent of the
jobs in your district?
We support S. 237. Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Sparks.
STATEMENT OF RONALD SPARKS, MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, KIUKWAN, INC.
Mr. Sparks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ronald
Sparks. I am a life-long resident of Southeast Alaska, having been
born and raised in Haines.
464
A very brief summary of my employment background will dem-
onstrate my commitment to the status quo operation of the Ton-
gass Forest. I spent a great deal of my youth working in sawmills
in the Haines area. I spent 24 years as a teacher in the Sitka
School District. Paramount in my life is my involvement as a
Southeast Alaska gillnet fisherman. I have been involved in this
fishery for 40 years. Hopefully, the latter gives me credibility in
overlapping of occupations. I have long advocated the viability of
fishing and logging, provided one group respects the other.
I am here today speaking as a director of Klukwan, Inc., an
ANCSA corporation. I am concerned about the long-term goals that
my corporation set years ago. These goals include acquiring timber
through the Tongass Small Business Set-Aside Sales Program. An-
other goal of our corporation is to build a primary manufacturing
facility. This will enable us to fully utilize the investments already
made in logging and road building.
An additional goal of our corporation is to fulfill the commitment
we have made to our employees concerning long-term employment.
As a fisherman, I feel that salmon resources should be protected.
If land withdrawals are needed to protect the major salmon river
systems, then land adequate for protection should be withdrawn.
As a director of a landowner and logging company, I am cogni-
zant of businesses that serve both fisheries and logging. Infrastruc-
ture is present and local investments have been made upon as-
sumptions that there will be a viable timber industry and contin-
ued fisheries at the present level.
The economies of Southeast Alaskan communities are diverse
and interdependent. I do not believe the economy of many South-
east communities would survive the loss of the timber industry. We
must have multiple use of our resources in order to sustain our di-
versified economy.
Any radical changes in the Tongass will not only hurt the econo-
my of Southeast, but could destroy the dreams of many people de-
pendent upon the Tongass.
In conclusion, there is a group of many people we call the "land-
less" who feel that they were left out. I would appreciate consider-
ation of resolving this issue through current Tongass election.
I know the protocol allows me to say that I am very proud of my
senator. What he was saying earlier this morning almost brought
tears to my eyes.
Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Sparks.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF CARLTON R. SMITH, SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE
LAND ACQUISITION COALITION
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to
you today. My name is Carlton Smith and on behalf of more than
2,000 Alaska Natives from Southeast Alaska, I extend to you a
warm welcome to the Tongass.
Teddy Roosevelt chose to rename the Tongass in 1902 after the
Tongass, Tlingit, people. So, we believe it is only fitting in your de-
465
liberation of this issue that the TUngit people officially welcome
you to the Tongass.
I speak to you today as the representative of the Southeast
Alaska Native Land Acquisition Coalition. My testimony will be a
departure from that you have heard previously and from testimony
which will follow.
I am from the community of Haines, Alaska, and was originally
enrolled under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act of 1971 as a Haines village enrollee.
The Tongass is home to us, is where we are born. It is where we
bury our loved ones. It is where we raise our children, and it is
where our grandchildren will live.
For some, the Tongass has become a battleground where outside
competing interests vie for control. To others, it is simply a scenic
landscape to be viewed from the decks of a tour vessel or from the
pages of a visitor's photo album. However, for us, from Fort Ton-
gass to Chilkat, we know this land as Tlingit Aani, "Human land,"
our land.
Our stake in the Tongass issue is appropriate because we hold
valid, existing claims to land entitlements fashioned by ANCSA.
However, the fulfillment of those entitlements remains incomplete.
Our membership of claimants from the five communities of
Wrangell, Petersburg, Ketchikan, Tenakee and Haines each have
factual, logical and valid claims for the reconveyance of five town-
ships of land from the Tongass.
We contend that these communities should be treated fairly and
equitably along with the other village corporations under the origi-
nal guidelines for village enrollees that Congress itself approved.
We have waited nearly 20 years for the promise of reconveyance
to become a reality. We have a strong conviction that the Tongass
legislation before you will provide the appropriate vehicle to re-
solve these claims, and we hope Congress will provide that legisla-
tive solution. We firmly believe that our claims should now be
acted upon through negotiation.
We believe that reconveyance of our entitlements will bolster
and secure important subsistence and cultural values while, at the
same time, creating balanced economic opportunities for all of our
region's residents.
However, we wish to state clearly our acute awareness of the
great complexities in the Tongass debate. We fully understand that
all interested parties, including this Coalition, will have to negoti-
ate a solution acceptable in view of the checkerboard of competing
interests at this table today.
The Coalition strongly supports the existence of viable timber in-
dustry in the Southeast, and we recognize that logging plays a
major role in providing jobs and income to residents throughout
the region. At the same time, we insist that our home-based indus-
tries accept full responsibility for the impact of their operations on
the environment.
First, we ask that this committee recognize the issue of land enti-
tlements which has been raised and determine the potential for
discussing the issue in future deliberations.
Second, we ask that Congress open a viable and structured dia-
logue for discussions of this issue.
466
Third, we ask for an examination by this committee and Con-
gress of several appropriate legislative options for resolution of this
issue.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
467
Tesiimony of Carlton R. Smith
on behalf of
The Southeast Alaska Native Land Acquisition Coalition
before the Senate Energy Subcomnrincc on Public Lands Conccniing the Tongass
April 25. 1989
S)ti;a, Alaskii
Thank you this opportunity to speak to you today. My
name is Carlton Smith, and on behalf of the more than 2,000
Alaska Natives from Southeast Alaska, I extend to you a
warm welcome to the Tongass.
Teddy Roosevelt chose to rename the Tongass in 1902
after the Tongass (Tlingit) people, so we believe it's only
fitting in your deliberation of this issue that the Tlmgit people
officially welcome you to the Tongass.
I speak to you today as the representative of the Southeast
Alaska Native Land Acquisition Coalition. My testimony
will be a departure from that you have heard previously and
from testimony which will follow.
I am from the community of Haines, Alaska and was
originally enrolled under the terms of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 as a Haines village enrollee.
The Tongass, as home to us, is where we are bom. It is
where we bury our loved ones. It is where we raise our
children and it is where our grandchildren will live.
468
For some, the Tongass has become a battleground where
outside competing interests vie for control. To others it is
simply a scenic landscape to be viewed from tlie decks of a
tour vessel or from the pages of a visitor's photo album.
But for us, from Fort Tongass to Chilkat....we know this
land as Tlingit Aani. "Human" land. Our land.
Our stake in the Tongass issue is appropriate because we
hold valid, existing claims to land entitlements fashioned by
ANCSA. However, the fulfillment of those entitlements
remains incomplete.
Our membership of claimants from the five communities
of Wrangell, Petersburg, Ketchikan, Tenakee and Haines,
each have factual, logical and valid claims for the
reconveyance of five townships of land from die Tongass.
We contend that these communities should be treated
fairly and equitably along with the other village corporations
under the original guidelines for village enroUees that
Congress itself approved.
Fair and equitable treatment means tliat these claimants
must be given their respective land entitlements which
remain pending.
469
The coalition which I represent today, as an Alaskan
corporation, has coordinated this effort and will serve to
achieve a settlement which is acceptable to its membership.
We have waited nearly twenty years for the promise of
reconveyance to become a reality. We have strong
conviction that the Tongass legislation before you will
provide the appropriate vehicle to resolve these claims, and
we hope Congress will provide that legislative solution. We
finnly believe that our claims should now be acted upon
through negotiation.
Resolution of these existing claims will have a U*emendous
impact both directly on all Alaska Natives in Southeast and,
indirectly, on the region's population and economy as a
whole.
We believe that reconveyance of our entitlements will
bolster and secure important subsistence and cultural values
while, at the same time, create balanced economic
opportunities for all of our region's residents.
However, we wish to clearly state our acute awareness of
the great complexities in the Tongass debate. We fully
understand that all interested parties, including this coalition,
will have to negotiate a solution acceptable in view of the
checkerboard of competing interests at this table today.
470
The creation of jobs, the opportunity to develop viable
industries in the region and protection of the environment are
all clear priorities for our future.
I wish to make clear that the coalition strongly supports
the existence of a viable timber industry in Southeast. We
recognize that logging plays a major role in providing jobs
and income to residents throughout the region
At the same time, we insist that our home-based industries
accept full responsibility for the impact of their operations on
the environment. Proper safeguards must be put in place to
ensure harvesting takes place safely and in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
Toward resolving these conflicts and addressing the
issues I have raised today, we urge Congress to execute the
following actions prior to making any decision on the
Tongass:
First, we ask that this committee recognize the issue of
land entitlements which has been raised and determine the
potential for discussing the issue in future deliberations.
Second, we ask that Congress open a viable and
structured dialogue for discussions of this issue; and
471
Third, we ask for an examination by this committee and
Congress of several appropriate legislative options for
resolution of this issue.
Again, welcome to Tlingit Aani. The Tongass. Our home.
We look forward to working with you toward the goal of
negotiating a fair settlement. Your attention and concern is
appreciated.
Contact- Carlton Smith
Southeast Alaska Native Land Acquisition Coalition
2600 Corduva Street #100
Anchorage, Alaska 99S03
Telephone: 276*2761
Hax: 276-4429
472
BACKGROUND PAPER TO THE STATEMENT OF
CARLTON SMITH.
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA ANCSA
LAND ACQUISITION COALITION, INC.,
ON S. 346 BEFORE THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS. NATIONAL PARKS. AND FORESTS.
SITKA, ALASKA APRIL 25, 1969
473
1 . What is the coaiitionV
The coalition consists of Alaska Natives who are
shareholders of Sealaska Corporation who are enrolled at the
conununities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee Springs,
and Wrangell. There are over 2,000 such enrollees at the present
time. This figure does not include those Alaska Natives born
since the passage of ANCSA in 1971. The coalition is incorporated
as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Alaska,
and has been approved under 501 (c) (4) of the Internal Revenue
Code by the Internal Revenue Service.
Each of the Alaska Native communities is within a ma.iority
white community in the Tongass National Forest. Each Native
community, however, has historical ties to the location of these
white communities, and is an American Indian fe'roup with a trust
relationship to the federal government. A brxef history of each
Native community shows the continuity of residence of Natives in
these areas.
The Haines area is a part of the traditional territory of
the Chilkoot Tlingit. The Tlingit name of the village was
"Deshu," meaning end of the trail. It was a trading post for
barter between the Chilkoot and Interior Indians. The Chilkoot
Indian Association of Haines is an entity formed under the Indian
Reorganization Act and recognized by the U.S. Department of the
Interior. The total population of Haines in 1985 was 1,151.
There are 274 Alaska Natives enrolled under the provisions of
ANCSA at Haines.
The Ketchikan area is a part of the traditional territory of
the Tongass Tlingit. The Tlingit name of "Kitschkhin" was used by
the German anthropologist Krause in 1881. Ketchikan was formerly
a Tlingit summer camp used in connection with the Tlingit salmon
fishery. The Ketchikan Indian Corporation is an entity formed
under the Indian Reorganization Act and recognized by the U.S.
Department of the Interior. The total population of Ketchikan in
1985 was 7,311. There are 1,278 Alaska Natives enrolled under the
provisions of ANCSA at Ketchikan. The Tlingit who reside at
Ketchikan are descendants of the Tongass people, but have long
had a separate history from those at nearby Saxman.
The Petersburg area is a part of the traditional territory
of the Stikine Tlingit. The original resident of the area was
John Lot, a Tlingit, and he was living in the area now occupied
by the town of Petersburg when Peter Buschmann arrived in 1897 to
start a cannery. The Petersburg Indian Association is an entity
formed under the Indian Reorganization Act and recognized by the
U.S. Department of the Interior. The total population of
Petersburg in 1985 was 3,145. There are 224 Alaska Natives
enrolled under the provisions of ANCSA at Petersburg.
The Tenakee Springs area was a part of the traditional
territory of the Angoon Tlingit, but, later, it was occupied by
the Wuckitan clan which probably originated from Auk Village.
474
That was the opinion of the anthropologist Walter Goldschmidt in
his 1946 study done for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (p. 112).
Accordingly, his map of the Angoon Territory depicts Tenakee
Inlet as the territory of the Wuckitan People, which was separate
from any existing village. The area later attracted white
residents on account of its hot springs and the construction of a
cannery in 1916. Tenakee was patented as a Native townsite in
1923. The total population of Tenakee Springs in 1985 was 142.
There are 73 Alaska Natives enrolled under the provisions of
ANCSA at Tenakee Springs .
The Wrangell area is a part of the traditional territory of
the Stikine Tlingit. Walter Goldschmidt described that territory
in his 1946 report as "a very large one." (p. 123) It extended
across the many islands in the Wrangell area into present British
Columbia. The Wrangell Cooperative Association is an entity
formed under the Indian Reorganization Act and recognized by the
U.S. Department of the Interior. The total population of Wrangell
in 1985 was 2,387. There are 370 Alaska Natives enrolled under
the provisions of ANCSA at Wrangell.
The objective of the coalition is to acquire a land base for
each Alaska Native community under an amendment to ANCSA.
These five communities of Alaska Natives did not receive
land under the provisions of ANCSA because of restrictive
entitlement provisions in ANCSA which controlled the eligibility
procedure. They were not listed villages under section 16 of
ANCSA, nor were they listed as urban corporations under section
14 (h) (3). Further, they could not qualify as Native groups
under section 14 (h) (2) because the definition of group m
section 3 (d) required that the group comprise a majority of the
residents of the locality, and each Native community is a
minority in the overall white community.
The coalition believes that Congress should rectify the
inequity of village eligibility in ANCSA, and that it is not too
late to act in this case. The problem is peculiar to these Native
communities in Southeast Alaska, and should not prompt requests
for similar consideration from other Native communities in other
regions. The final Congressional action in this matter was
contrary to the position of the Alaska Federation of Natives,
which in section 11 (f) of S. 835 and H.R. 7211, 92d Congress.
1st Session (1971) included the communities of Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, and Wrangell as listed villages. There is no specific
discussion in the legislative record on the deletion of these
villages from their listed status. but the committee reports
indicate the preference of some members of Congress to sacrifice
American Indian interests to National Forest interests. See
Senate Report No. 405, 92d Congress, 1st Session, page 160
discussion of Section 23, Tlingit-Haida Settlement: "The
Southeast region requires special treatment tor a number of
reasons. First, the Villages in this area are located in the
Chugach and Tongass National Forests and special treatment is
475
required to prevent conflict between the purposes for which lands
are granted by this Act and the purposes for which these National
Forests were established.
2 . Why should Congress deal with this matter in the Tongass
Timber Reforni Act '?
The timber problem which Congress is addressing now in The
Tongass Timber Reform Act began with a Congressional resolution
in 1947 which authorized the sale of timber from the Tongass
Forest to the pulp industry despite the objection of Tlingit and
Haida under the leadership of the Alaska Native Brotherhood. The
Tee-Hit-Ton, a Tlingit clan from the Wrangell area represented by
the Tlingit attorney, William Paul, Sr.. sued the United States
for the confiscation of clan property. In one of the most
unfortunate decisions of American Indian law, the U.S. Supreme
Court held in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 358 U.S. 272
(1955) that there was no Fifth Amendment taking of Indian
property because Congress had plenary authority to take any
action it deemed appropriate because it had not recognized Indian
title in this case. It was on account of the Tee-Hit-Ton case
that Congress was free to take any action it wished in the ANCSA
settlement. It is certainly ironic that the Tee-Hit-Ton received
no land under the ANCSA settlement because they were enrolled at
Wrangell.
It is not too late in the day for Congress to deal with the
problem of the five Native communities. In ANCSA, Congress
indicated that it expected to resolve whatever problems developed
under ANCSA until 1991. last year. Congress passed the so-called
"1991" amendments, but that did not prevent Congress from passing
another amendment to ANCSA several months later to resolve
certain problems relating to submerged lands. There have been at
least twelve amendments to ANCSA to date. The five communities
are bringing this matter to the attention of Congress at this
time because it has taken that long for the communities to
appreciate the significance of the loss of all of their
traditional lands.
3 . What does the coalition want from Congress ?
The coalition intends to present to the appropriate
committees in Congress as soon as practicable a draft amendment
to ANCSA which will set out the language necessary to convey a
land base to the five communities. Counsel has only recently
presented to us various options, and it is necessary for the
coalition to select that option which we believe will be
satisfactory not only to us but also other interested parties.
The reason for the testimony today is to give you notice
that representatives of the coalition will be contacting you in
the very near future with suggested amendments to ANCSA.
476
Senator Wirth. Mr. Hammond.
STATEMENT OF AUSTIN HAMMOND, CHILDREN'S CULTURE CAMP
Mr. Hammond. My name is Austin Hammond from Haines and
in Tlingit they call me Chief of the Walks. I head a children's cul-
ture camp; I am working with the children.
I would like to see all the loggers stay away from Chilkoot, be-
cause that is where the fish spawn, all the sockeye, in the lake. If
you clearcut I know it will end. I try to do all I can for my grand-
children. They need someone to do something for them.
I have been trying to talk to them for five years now, and they
told me they are going to cut the trees down. And I told them, "No,
you have got to keep away from it, 300 feet from the lake when the
fish spawn." After that they asked me, "What about way up
there?" I told them no. I know what was going to happen if they do
cut from way up they are going to keep cutting it down to the lake
again. In the winter time, they have to come down to shelter, the
deer. They come down to the shelter in the winter time, and where
the grass is still green and they eat it. Now, when you do clearcut,
you will have nothing left in Chilkoot for the brown bears that are
up there. I told them the brown bear is going to come close to us if
they do not watch, and the brown bear is going to walk around our
houses. It happens, it comes around.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Hammond, thank you.
To all on the panel, we thank you.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first com-
ment is to Mr. Bremner of the Alaska ANB. Now, is it your wish
that no further Forest Service sales be put up in Yakutat?
Mr. Bremner. Senator Murkowski, we see on the map there is a
Tongass Land Management Plan there, that acreage of 232,952
acres is beyond the Dangerous River Bridge to the Alsat River.
Northwest of that, there are Forest Service lands, and I believe
some of it is available for sale. What we are trying to prevent is
the land that is beyond the Dangerous River Bridge.
Senator Murkowski. Is that Forest Service land? Do you want
all Forest Service sales in that area cancelled?
Mr. Bremner. Beyond the Dangerous River Bridge. There are
Forest Service lands that have been cut over, and it is already up
for sale.
Senator Murkowski. I will ask the witness to identify for the
record the specific areas that he is talking about. Identify what the
ANB/ANS camps do not want cut up for sale.
Mr. Bremner. Senator, I have the map that we speak of here
and it is right on the public document, the Tongass National Land
Management Plan map, and we have that available here, but I did
not make copies.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we can get that. Do you know offhand
the acreage that would be eliminated from proposed Forest Service
sales by your recommendation?
Mr. Bremner. It is 239,962.
477
Senator Wirth. That is acreage that would be removed from any
sale?
Mr. Bremner. Not all of it is commercial forest land.
Senator Murkowski. What I am trying to get is a specific. How
much proposed commercial Federal Forest Service sales would you
want not put up for sale?
Mr. Bremner. For the record, 239,962.
Senator Murkowski. How many do you want put up for sale of
the remaining?
Mr. Bremner. I do not know what the exact amount is to the
north; I do not know west. I do not know what that volume is.
Senator Murkowski. It is greater or less than the 232?
Mr. Bremner. It is less than 232,000.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
If I can briefly go to Ms. Hanlon. In your testimony, which I read
and I think it is very well done, you indicated your concern about
the effect of floating logs on the fisherman at Hoonah and I can
assure you that it is not the intent of the government to destroy
the life styles of people at Hoonah. I have been over there several
times. I am familiar with some of the road systems. I know the con-
cern of the floating logs. It is my understanding that the Hoonah
Native Corporation owns about 23,000 acres of land near the
Hoonah Village. Do you know how much of that has been logged?
Ms. Hanlon. The [unintelligible] is completely cut and Sealaska
has seven more cuts to go. If you look on your map that you have
there, you are going to see that the percentage of the corporation
land versus the Tongass National Forest is a very small percent-
age.
Senator Murkowski. That is correct, but is the area immediately
near the Hoonah area going to get logged up? I was under the im-
pression that you had not quite lost all of the timber, but evidently
you have now. I was told that there were about 18,000 acres that
had been logged but not al] of it.
Ms. Hanlon. When the total is done.
Senator Murkowski. I think much of your statement refers to
concerns applicable to both Forest Service sales as well as private
sales, because you are rafting out of Hoonah, towing to Wrangell;
and that is a mixture of, obviously. Forest Service logs and your
own logs. I think we should have the record reflect that your con-
cern is primarily with Forest Service sales and not your own sales
from your own private land.
Ms. Hanlon. The reality is that there is already destruction, and
with Forest Service's EIS and others', it is included in the impact.
Senator Murkowski. My point is you have control over what you
do with your own lands, if you want to log therli, and Hoonah
native people do?
Ms. Hanlon. I oppose the native logging, too.
Senator Murkowski. Well, sometimes I am on the losing end,
and this seems to be one of them.
Let me go on and I will be very brief. I thought the testimony by
Mr. Carlton Smith, representing the landless areas, is really some-
thing that should be explored in the Tongass legislation and this is
the opportunity to do it. The landless natives of the five areas of
Wrangell, Petersburg, Ketchikan, Tenakee and Haines. I will be
478
very honest with you, I have asked — I was not in Congress at the
time — asked for an explanation of why they were left out, and I
have yet to get an adequate explanation of that. One of the difficul-
ties, of course, is that once we address the issue, the land has to
come from somewhere. It either has to come from land that is al-
ready designated in timber areas as part of the timber laws on wil-
derness. We all know we just do not make it anymore. But I assure
you that we will address your concerns. There is an awful lot of
interest in these communities to try and resolve this matter. So, I
commend you for your testimony as well.
I have also checked a little bit with Chief Hammond's statement,
and the area that you refer to as endangered and I would certainly
support the protection of the Chilkoot River area. This is state
forest; it is not Federal forest. It is under the jurisdiction of the
State of Alaska. I believe that it has been withdrawn. I will stand
corrected on that. My information is that there will be only a 160
allotment to be logged. I would hope that concern can be addressed,
because while this is not necessarily a full responsibility of the
Congress, inasmuch as we do not own that land, the State of
Alaska does, I would hope that is going to be addressed adequately.
And we will check on that because we want to give you the assur-
ances that you expressed concern over, Chief, and I wish you well.
My almost last concern is with regard to the statement by Mr.
Sparks. The mill in Haines has been up and down for years, I
mean, that is your only industry — outside of your seasonal tour-
ism— and they supplied the power for Haines for many years, and
now they are trying to start up again. What was it closed for? Sev-
eral years? It has been up and down, and people tried to get it
going so that the economy of the community could be stable and
John Schnabel was instrumental in making a veneer mill out of it.
Unfortunately that did not work.
Mr. Smith. It did not seem economically feasible.
Senator Murkowski. How important is it to your economy?
Mr. Smith. To the economy of Haines? I live in Sitka, sir, I really
should not answer that at this point.
Senator Murkowski. My last question pertains to Shee Atika
and again I will be brief. Is it a fact, sir, that the people of Angoon,
located on Admiralty Island asked for entitlements on Prince of
Wales Island south of Chichagof Sound rather than log their own
island?
Mr. Smith. That is correct.
Senator Murkowski. And is it a fact that Shee Atika, which is
the Sitka Natives' Corporation here in Sitka, Alaska, were given a
selection on Admiralty Island and Kuiu Cove of approximately
23,000 acres?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. And was there not an attempt made to
work out a compromise and move Shee Atika, the Sitka Native cor-
poration, off the island reserve, with the idea of trying to preserve
the sanctity of Admiralty because there had been no logging on
that island up to now and Congress had put a million acres of the
island into wilderness, permanent wilderness?
Mr. Senna. That is correct, and we appreciate the Senator's
effort on our behalf.
479
Senator Murkowski. I am trying to make a record here, as you
can obviously see. Was there not a discussion by Shee Atika of the
need to obtain approximately $75 million for its 23,000 acres in
Kuiu Cove, and did not they ask the Federal Government to pro-
vide that money?
Mr. Smith. Yes, or the government
Senator Murkowski. Both of which were impossible to do, unfor-
tunately. I was there when the attempt to research the possibility
of getting $75 million in cash from the government was made, and
I can assure you the government had deaf ears. So, the other alter-
native. Was it not a land exchange for part of the value or as the
value was proposed for the exchange?
Mr. Senna. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Murkowski. Was not extensive exploration done on pos-
sible land exchanges done by environmentalists and the SEALL
group refused to consider an exchange of wilderness land for the
Kuiu Cove land?
Mr. Mallott. I do not recall the Wilderness land or that particu-
lar issue. What we were concerned about was getting or obtaining
roughly corporate value, and we would have been more than will-
ing to terminate our interest on Admiralty Island.
Senator Murkowski. And go somewhere else?
Mr. Mallott. And go somewhere else for an equivalent value. I
want to explain. Senator, that during the period or at that time
when we were going through the exchange, Shee Atika was under
a great deal of duress because of lawsuits being brought by various
interests that were preventing us from logging on Admiralty Island
and, a point of fact, Shee Atika was very near the point of bank-
ruptcy. And I think it was the speculation on the part of many that
perhaps a land trade really was not necessary in order for Shee
Atika to disappear from Admiralty Island. The fact of the matter is
that we did persevere, meaning we survived.
Senator Murkowski. In other words, you are almost broke?
Mr. Mallott. That is correct.
Senator Murkowski. And I conclude that the difficulty here was
not that you were not willing for a land exchange of equal value
that had timber resources on it, in the same manner as the Angoon
effort was made with Kotzebue, exchanging value for value, getting
off of Admiralty and going down to Prince of Wales where there
was already logging. If you would have had valuable timberland,
you would have given up your 23,000 acres on Kuiu Cove?
Mr. Mallott. Yes, that is correct. It was like somebody holding a
gun to our heads in the form of terminal lawsuits, so to speak,
asking us to trade for a value that was significantly less than the
value of the property.
Senator Murkowski. So, basically, the talks broke down when
you could not get fair value in exchange on land, and since they do
not make land any more, the question of whose land would be
given — would it be land that had been set aside for the pulp mill
sales, would it be wilderness — that was never resolved. And I
always felt that we could have given up some less desirable wilder-
ness in an area not contingent to Admiralty Island to save Admi-
ralty Island from logging. Unfortunately, that did not happen. You
480
had 23,000 acres to log at Kuiu Cove, and how much have you
logged so far?
Mr. Mallott. A little over 10 percent of it.
Senator Murkowski. A little over 10 percent. So, you are going
to be on Admiralty Island logging for how much longer?
Mr. Mallott. We estimate 13 to 15 years.
Senator Murkowski. And that has a little over a million acres
set aside in wilderness that had not been previously logged. Thank
you very much.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Mr. Burns?
Senator Burns. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Just a few, if I might. I ask you first, Mr.
Bremner. We are talking about the areas and the 232,000 acres
versus 134,000. The 232 is in legislation that I sponsored, which you
referred to in your testimony, and the Southeast Conference has
134,000 acres. Have you discussed the differences in your perspec-
tive with them?
Mr. Bremner. No, Senator, I was surprised to hear that number
myself. Since I am so actively involved in the community, in the
politics of the region, I am surprised that nobody
Senator Wirth. I do not want to argue about this. What I want
to do is to ask if you would get together with the Southeast Confer-
ence and with the Mayor, who testified on a previous panel, and
maybe we can get the three of you together and see if we can
figure out where the agreement might be. And if you could possibly
do that, that would be very helpful.
Mr. Bremner. Yes.
Senator Wirth. Do you want to add anything else? I do not want
to interrupt you.
Mr. Bremner. Well, you got me going, Senator, but, no, thank
you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hanlon, let me see if I understand your statement in your
testimony. Am I correct in that you are saying that the Hoonah
have done a lot of timbering on their own land but do not want to
do that anymore, is that correct?
Ms. Hanlon. No, the land that was allotted was land that was
turned over instead. There was a certain amount that was turned
over as timberland for harvesting and Hoonah jumped right on it
and logged it off immediately, and so it is gone.
Senator Wirth. Is that land owned by Hoonah?
Ms. Hanlon. Yes, by the Hoonah Corporation.
Senator Wirth. When was that timbering done?
Ms. Hanlon. It was done about three years ago, maybe four.
Senator Wirth. There has been a change now in the Hoonah
community?
Ms. Hanlon. Oh, yes.
Senator Wirth. Tell me about the change. If you had this choice
again, do you think that the community would make that decision?
Ms. Hanlon. I am sure that
Senator Wirth. They would not make the decision?
Ms. Hanlon. It was not the peoples' choice to begin with. It was
like section 705.
Senator Wirth. Did Hoonah have to timber that land?
481
Ms. Hanlon. We did not make any money, so I do not see why
we had to, no.
Senator Wirth. Why did the community then decide — I am just
trying to understand what the dynamics were.
Ms. Hanlon. I did not understand the logic. I opposed it right
from the beginning, and it seems that it does not matter what we
feel as shareholders, because we feel that our fish and game is im-
portant and it is not viable.
Senator Wirth. Who makes the decision then? Is there somebody
else that comes in and makes the decision to timber the land?
Ms. Hanlon. From what I understand, it was the amount that
came to us, there was a certain amount that came as timber area.
Senator Wirth. It came with a requirement that the land be tim-
bered?
Ms. Hanlon. That was always brought out to the shareholders,
and that is the way I understood it.
Senator Wirth. Do any of the others of you know about this?
Ms. Hanlon. I do not know.
Senator Wirth. Any of the other members of the panel?
[No response.]
Senator Murkowski. Well, basically the land was selected by the
various native corporations, village corporations, in the settlement,
and the village corporations naturally selected the land that they
traditionally used. And I know it is very complex, but they were
simply given the land. And then they elected from their sharehold-
ers a Board of Directors and the Board of Directors were in the
usual corporate concept they were elected by the shareholders and
it is quite evident that the Board of Directors made the final dispo-
sition.
Senator Wirth. That is fine, I appreciate that, but what I am
trying to understand here is — what I am trying to understand here
is what kind of a change has occurred.
Ms. Hanlon. The basic change we are facing right now is that
we have a log dump, I think that is what it is called, a log dump,
right in front of Hoonah and we had five major strips right across
Hoonah that has been logged out and definitely damaged. This
winter, just before we got the snow, we had very severe high rain
and high wind, and as a result, everywhere you looked, the ocean
was muddy from the runoff.
Senator Wirth. And when was it generally decided that you do
not want to do any more timbering like this?
Ms. Hanlon. We cannot afford to lose any more.
Senator Wirth. Finally, let me, if I might ask you a little bit
about this trade, Mr. Senna, we were talking about before. When
did this trade — when did you first attempt to do this trade?
Mr. Senna. I think this was during the 1985 or 1986 time frame,
somewhere in there.
Senator Wirth. And Shee Atika came to somebody. Who did they
come to to do a trade for the land you had on Admiralty for other
land? Who did you come to?
Mr. Senna. Well, I do not think it was necessarily Shee Atika
going to somebody. I think what we were most interested in doing
is having the freedom to develop our land on Admiralty Island and
I cannot remember when the process of attempting to do that
482
Senator Wirth. Oh, you have always wanted to develop on Admi-
ralty Island?
Mr. Senna. Yes, that was our land.
Senator Wirth. The argument that was being made was that
somehow you wanted to trade off Admiralty Island and somebody
constrained you from doing that. That has never been your intent?
Mr. Senna. I think it was a consensus of people that this would
be a solution to a lot of problems, if we would be agreeable to trade
off Admiralty.
Senator Wirth. Why did you not trade?
Mr. Senna. Because we did not receive the terms that were any-
where near what
Senator Wirth. From whom?
Mr. Senna. From the legislation. As I say, there was no legisla-
tion enacted. It was in the final stages of the negotiations that the
amounts were finally proposed, and they fell far short of what we
needed to get.
Senator Wirth. By whom?
Mr. Senna. Not by us.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it just was not there. I can tell you, if
you want.
Senator Wirth. Well, I am just curious. The witness has said
that they did not really want to trade timber on Admiralty but
now he is saying, well, there was some legislation that was not ade-
quate. And I am just asking for the record whose legislation was it
and why was it not adequate so that you could trade?
Mr. Senna. It was not adequate because it only represented a
fraction of the value of our property on Admiralty Island.
Senator Wirth. Whose legislation and why was that?
Mr. Senna. Maybe the Senator can help me out. I do not know
exactly whose.
Senator Murkowski. Well, the difficulty is he was not running
the Shee Atika Corporation back then. My memory just goes back
to the mid 1980s. First of all, you have to understand that for rea-
sons unknown to me. Congress designated the selection for Shee
Atika on Admiralty Island. The will of Congress is something that
sometimes you and I find bewildering.
Senator Wirth. So, they had the land on Admiralty Island.
Either they wanted the timber on Admiralty or they wanted to
trade.
Senator Murkowski. Just a minute. They were tied up in law-
suits, as they proposed their logging program and their reading
program and, as the Shee Atika gentleman said, these lawsuits ex-
tended to a point in time where they almost broke their corpora-
tion. However, attempts were being made, and I was one of them
and Don Young was another, to try and work an exchange.
And it took the cooperation of all parties. Now, all parties, not
just the parties that had land. That means the Forest Service. That
means the native corporations that have their own land, and that
means the Federal Government, that had the control of the other
land with its various classification of wilderness or those areas that
were withdrawn pending TLMP.
Now, we urged those parties to get together and come up with a
resolution we could present before the necessary committee and get
483
the exchange accomplished, because it was the concern of many of
us that it was an opportunity to save Admiralty. His obligation is
to the shareholders of Shee Atika, first of all, not necessarily Con-
gress.
It was a very, very important situation all the way around and,
you know, you could point fmgers at everybody and everything and
it was the inability of the parties to get together and give up some
land for the exchange.
Senator Wirth. Well, I am just curious as to why there was not
legislation?
Senator Murkowski. They could not get together.
Senator Wirth. Why was not legislation introduced to allow the
land exchange to occur and who could not get together?
Senator Murkowski. Well, the negotiations involved Mo Udall,
the Alaska Congressional Delegation, the Forest Service, Sealaska,
Shee Atika, Environmental groups, the Wilderness Society, Sierra
Club. Maybe that is why they did not have it.
[General applause.]
Senator Wirth. I still do not understand. [Laughter.]
The only people on that list that are legislators are Udall and
Seiberling, and I assume there were people from the Senate side
introducing legislation as well Where was the land that you all
were trying to exchange. Admiralty to something else? Where was
the land that you all wanted to exchange for?
Mr. Senna. Senator, Shee Atika was perfectly happy with the
Admiralty Island property.
Senator Wirth. You all wanted the timber all along. The allega-
tion is in May somehow somebody was standing in the way of a
reasonable trade. I am just trying to understand what transpired
here.
Mr. Senna. There were certain public interest groups that
wanted Shee Atika out of Admiralty Island.
Voice. And I was one of them.
Mr. Senna. And we would have- been willing. It was not at our
initiation. We would have been willing, in order to go along with
the public interest, to get off of Admiralty Island if we would have
received full value in exchange for our interest on Admiralty
Island.
Senator Wirth. You wanted to trade your interest on Admiralty
Island for wilderness land, is that right?
Mr. Senna. I did not care — we did not care whether it was wil-
derness or any other kind of land. We wanted equal value.
Senator Murkowski. They wanted to do what Kotzebue was able
to do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. You could not pull it off?
Senator Murkowski. I just told you why. They wanted to do
what Kutzebue was able to do. All the parties were there and I
tried to pull it off.
Senator Wirth. And it did not happen?
Senator Murkowski. It sure did not and I just read you the list
why.
Senator Wirth. Well, I heard there were various unelected par-
ties who were involved, and where there are some unelected par-
ties, is that the reason why this trade did not occur?
484
Senator Murkowski. I do not know where, when the final deci-
sion came down that went into the final offer to Shee Atika, came
from, whether it came from unelected parties or elected parties.
Senator Wirth. It sounds to me like the great opportunity got
missed to save a lot of land, is that right?
Mr. Senna. If they had offered an adequate exchange, we would
have been very, very glad to exchange. But the point is the consid-
eration that was offered fell way short of the mark, and in justifi-
cation to our shareholders, we could not accept such an exchange
as was finally offered.
Senator Wirth. And the argument is made that that offer was
very low because the people making that offer thought you all were
desperate enough that you would have to accept that offer, is that
correct?
Mr. Senna. I am speculating that that is the way that they were
viewing the situation.
Senator Wirth. And "they" being whom?
Mr. Senna. Now, I think the primary driving force was the envi-
ronmental groups.
Senator Wirth. The environmental groups did not own any of
this land. They cannot make an offer, can they? The Forest Service
and the U.S. Government are the only people that own the land.
Did the U.S. Government make an offer to you that fell far short?
Mr. Senna. Yes, in the final proposal it did fall short.
Senator Wirth. It was the Forest Service offer that fell short, is
that right?
Mr. Senna. Well, I do not think it was the Forest Service.
Senator Wirth. Who else can make an offer?
Mr. Senna. Well, it was proposed in the act of Congress.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I would assume we have got
a feel for it as a consequence of the hearing yesterday and today.
There is no excess land that somebody does not have a classifica-
tion on for the Tongass. That is the difficulty. You can go designate
land for an exchange, but it is somebody else's land, either the
Forest Service's which is already in a sale or proposed to be in a
sale, or it is a wilderness or a designated area of non timber cut-
ting. There is simply no land.
So, what you have to do is you have to get the parties together
for an exchange. Now, the land that was proposed in sale, obvious-
ly there is an objection to that land going into the trade because
what are they getting in return? They are giving up. Trade implies
give and take, and we could not identify among the interested par-
ties a reasonable give and take. That was unfortunate. We could
not get the Federal money to just buy their position out. It was not
possible, and they knew it. And we tried, Don Young and I both
tried. There was an effort to try and get the Forest Service to give
up land, but that land was in sales or proposed sales. So, it was
objected to by various industry groups.
What we had hoped to do was try and identify value for value.
We wanted to put this in wilderness with the rest of the million
acres on Admiralty Island, and it just makes good sense, Mr. Chair-
man, to take another area of wilderness contingent to Admiralty
that was less desirable, because all wilderness areas have a priori-
485
ty. To take the lowest priority and make an exchange for 28,000
acres, and get out of it. That is what we tried to do.
Senator Wirth. Let me ask a fmal question. Who is "they" get-
ting in return in terms of, say, land that was put out for bid or
contracts, as has been suggested, from the Forest Service; why was
not this land traded for other land that was going to be timbered
and had not been timbered yet?
Mr. Senna. It was never offered.
Senator Murkowski. For the same reason that people objected to
further wilderness withdrawals; it takes away from the timber.
You only have so much timber here, and you are exchanging
timber land for timber land.
Senator Wirth. Because of the long-term commitments to cut
timber, is that right?
[Groaning from the crowd.]
Senator Wirth. That sounds to me like what we are saying. Be-
cause of the long-term commitment to cut timber elsewhere, there
could not be a trade to save the timber on Admiralty; is that right?
Anjrway, I think this may be a very interesting kind of a case study
as to why these long-term commitments ought to be not only re-
viewed but cancelled because it is precisely these very long-term
commitments that are driving a whole variety of other choices,
that the long term contracts in some cases may prove to be a bad
decision. It sounds to me like one was just made.
Anyway, thank you very much. I appreciate the comments of
this panel.
Senator Murkow^ski. I think you have the record and, as I said
before, you can say it any way you want to, but I do not believe
wilderness designations are not long-term designations. They are
long-term designations. If we look at what is basically occurring
here, and it is not a concept of not attempting to do the job but, by
the same token, why should not the departmental community sup-
port a high priority, which is maintaining the sanctity of Admiral-
ty by giving it up and, in exchange, a position on other wilderness
that is not contingent to Admiralty.
Now, that is the other side of the issue. You can interpret it your
way by saying that the problem is, in your term, sales, and I can
say it the other way. Let us take less priority wilderness, do the
exchange, because the highest value is the sanctity of Admiralty,
and that is where we failed.
Senator Wirth. I guess the problem — I guess I do not under-
stand, I did not know the environmentalists had been elected to
public office.
Senator Murkowski. If you do not know by now, I guess you
never will.
[Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Well, I thought there was an elective process,
and people got the benefit of an election.
Senator Murkowski. Wherever we come from, one will be classi-
fied in one general term and the other in another. You have to
wear those badges.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your
being with us. Thanks ever so much.
48e
Our fourth panel, Mr. Harold Thompson, the president of Sitka
Sound Seafoods; Mr. Gordon Williams, from the Alaska Trollers;
Mr. Sig Mathisen, the president of Petersburg Vessel Owners; Mr.
Peter Esquiro, NSE Aquaculture Association; and Mr. Phil
Wyman, the chairman of Sitka Fish & Game Advisory Committee.
The next panel might be prepared to be on deck: Mr. Tonkin, Mr.
Ward, Mr. Cronk, and Mr. Leghorn.
Thank you very much for being here. You know the rules of the
committee. We will include your statements in full in the record,
and each of you is aware of the time constraints under which we
are operating.
Mr. Thompson, why do not we start with you and just run right
down the line.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD K. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT, SITKA
SOUND SEAFOODS, INC.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators Murkowski
and Burns.
My name is Harold Thompson, the president of Sitka Sound Sea-
foods, a fresh and frozen fish processor and marketer. We are one
of the major employers in Sitka and Yakutat, employing a peak of
about 300 persons and an average of about 100 on a year-around
basis. I am a third generation fish processor, having been raised in
the timber /fishing town of Petersburg, where my father and my
grandfather bought and sold fish and where my father also had an
interest in a local sawmill. With that background, I feel that I can
comment fairly objectively on the proposed legislation.
As a businessman and member of the Sitka community, I can ap-
preciate the impact that Tongass reform legislation could have on
our community, affecting the jobs and security of many friends and
neighbors. I want to see responsible timber harvest continue in
order to support one of our most important basic industries. Oper-
ating a fish processing facility Sitka would be made significantly
more difficult without the support of our economy by the mill,
mainly as the consequence of higher electrical rates and loss of
combination timber/fishing related support businesses.
Having said that, I do not support business as usual any more
than I can support legislation that would cripple the timber indus-
try. I urge you to reach a middle ground that protects the interests
of all the users of the Tongass, such as the position expressed by
the Southeast Conference.
My particular concern is that fish and wildlife habitat are pro-
tected as best possible. Major untouched habitat areas, as identified
in the Southeast Conference proposal, such as the Yakutat Fore-
lands, Lisianski Valley, Upper Hoonah Sound, Kadashan and
Berners Bay, should be set aside for complete protection.
Our extremely poor fish returns of the last couple of years and
the wildly fluctuating returns during the last 30 years can be
blamed on a multitude of factors including high seas interception,
over-fishing, poor climactic conditions and adverse oceanographic
conditions, to name some. Logging cannot be blamed for all of our
problems, but it is increasingly clear that there have been some im-
487
pacts due to poor logging practices. It is not clear exactly which
practices are harmful under what circumstances. My feeling is that
the areas that are proposed for protection are too valuable and
fragile to risk logging within them.
This type of compromise that makes neither side completely
happy seems to me to be the only reasonable solution. We can have
jobs in the timber industry and still protect the interests of other
users.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Williams, would you follow on, please?
STATEMENT OF GORDON WILLIAMS, ALASKA TROLLERS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Williams. Thank you Senator and staff.
My name is Gordon Williams. I am a life long resident of South-
east Alaska. I have lived here for my 38 years. I am a commercial
fisherman and a subsistence sport and recreational user of the Ton-
gass.
I am here today on behalf of the Alaska Trollers Association, a
major fishermen's group of Southeast Alaska. We have a history of
concern for these issues because the majority of the spawning river
habitat for salmon is on the Tongass.
We ask for a meaningful reform out of a genuine concern for the
effects of our industry in the current Tongass timber program. A
key word in the discussions of effects of clear-cut logging on fish is
the word "cumulative." While there have been some obvious im-
pacts, it is the accumulation of the smaller, more subtle effects
that will have the greatest long-term impact on our industry.
Actions to protect the environment are often knee jerk reactions
to catastrophic events. There is no Exxon Valdez ground in the
Tongass but the long-term effects of habitat liquidation here on our
salmon resources have the potential to be just as dramatic.
Old growth forest provides a crucial balanced habitat for salmon
for their spawning and rearing. It provides a canopy for the tem-
perature in streams. It provides a ground cover to control erosion
and flooding. It provides the proper nutrients for large wooded
debris that controls streams. Second growth forest does not provide
this crucial balance. Research shows that in one stage or another,
the second-growth process, there may be benefits to fish, but these
are usually more than offset by the negatives of the succeeding
stage of the second growth.
Also, during the second growth period, areas are often more vul-
nerable to weather-induced events. Weather is very cyclical in
Southeast Alaska. The past two years have shown a return to
harsher conditions, which point out problems to habitat and fish.
We had a drought two summers ago that caused problems. The
largest of those problems was seen in areas that had had intensive
logging in the past. Heavy rains last fall resulted in many, many
landslides, and they were usually in or adjacent to intensively
logged areas.
We just finished a very cold winter, and it is too early to assess
the damage. We expect there will be damage from this winter and
488
the worst of those will probably be areas where the habitat has
been altered so that we cannot effectively mitigate such tempera-
ture extremes. Thus, cumulative impacts will continue to grow.
We continue to participate in local Forest Service planning and
we have become convinced that, without some changes, that proc-
ess is not a level playing field.
We ask for a package of things on the Tongass. Among those are,
one, we would like the multiple-use status areas mentioned in sev-
eral of the bills and, two, we also want you to realize that there are
over 3,000 streams on the Tongass and a wide percentage of those
are outside the areas that would be protected. They must have
greater protection.
If the 4.5 is maintained, areas will receive more intensive log-
ging.
The Marine Fisheries Service's management policy for Alaska,
we feel that ways should be found to implement this policy on the
Tongass.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak before you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
489
CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST
SITKA, ALASKA APRIL 25, 1989
TESTIMONY OF:
GORDON J. WILLIAMS
BOX 7, ANGOON, ALASKA 99820
REPRESENTING THE ALASKA TROLLERS ASSOCIATION
Senators, staff members: My name is Gordon Williams. I am a
third generation resident of southeast Alaska, having lived
here for all of my 38 years. I am a commercial fisherman, and
a sport, subsistence, and recreational user of the Tongass
Forest and its resources. I am here today on behalf of the
Alaska Trollers Association (ATA), a major fishermen's
organization here in southeast which represents commercial
salmon trollers. ATA has a history of concern with Tongass
management because this forest provides the vast majority of
the spawning and rearing areas for the salmon species upon
which we depend. We continue to ask for meaningful Tongass
reform not out of spite for another industry in southeast
Alaska, but out of genuine belief that the long term
detrimental effects of current Tongass management will
severely impact our industry.
The key word in the discussion of the effects of large scale
clearcut logging on our fisheries resources is the word
"cumulative. " While there have been some rather large obvious
impacts, it is the accumulation of the multitude of smaller
more subtle effects of habitat alteration that will have the
greatest negative impacts on fisheries resources. Actions with
regard to protecting the environment are too often knee-jerk
reactions to catastrophic events. There is no "Exxon-Valdez"
aground in the Tongass, but without changes in direction, we
in Southeast Alaska may face habitat degradation which will
have comparable long term effects on our salmon resources.
It's just happening at a slower pace.
The old growth forest provides for successful salmon spawning
and rearing in many, many ways. Among these are a canopy for
protection against temperature extremes, good ground cover to
control erosion and protect against flooding, provision of
nutrients to the streams, and provision of large woody debris
in streams at a natural rate to control stream flows and
provide spawning areas. Old growth forest habitat provides the
crucial combination of these elements that will sustain
healthy levels of salmon production and survival.
Second growth forests do not provide this balance. Research
shows that while at one stage or another of the second growth
process productivity might actually be increased, it is
usually a rather short term gain which is soon more that
offset by the negative impacts of succeding stages.
490
Additionally, the clearcut areas and associated road systems
greatly increase the chance of habitat degradation due to
weather-induced events.
The weather patterns in southeast Alaska are cyclical. While
we have just experienced a decade of rather mild weather, the
last two years have again begun to expose us to more extremes.
Thus while favorable weather conditions have combined with a
number of other factors to give us some record fish returns
during the past decade, the last two years are demonstrating
that a return to a harsher weather pattern is detrimental to
fish habitat. This is especially true in areas where extensive
logging activity has left the streams vulnerable. Drought
conditions two summers ago saw some major impacts on fish
resources in intensively logged areas. Heavy rains last fall
caused numerous land slides, a majority of which were in or
adjacent to logged areas. It is reasonable to expect that the
severely cold winter that we have just completed will result
in negative impact on salmon survival rates, and again, it
will likely be most serious in areas where nature's ability to
mitigate the conditions has been altered. The cumulative
impacts of events such as these are going to harm our fish
stocks and our industry.
What we seek in Tongass reform is a more balanced view of
multiple use management of our forest. The constraints of
language mandating 4.5 billion board feet of timber per
decade, and some of the provisions of outdated 50 year
contracts, do not allow for this to happen.
Fishermen continue to be active participants in Forest Service
planning in our region, but we have come to realize that we
cannot get the protections and assurances we need without
Congressional action. Quite frankly. Congress played a big
role in getting us into this predicament on the Tongass. Now
we need your help to get out of it.
A package of things is required for reform on the Tongass.
There are numerous watersheds and related areas within the
Tongass whose obvious multiple values are so high that they
need permanent protection from intensive logging practices.
The areas spelled out in Senate Bill 346 for special
consideration are such areas, and we would recommend that
Congress give them a LUD II status.
However, of the more than 3,000 streams in southeast currently
catalogued as fish streams, a large percentage fall outside of
the areas that are currently protected, or would be protected
under this bill. A continued mandate of 4.5 billion board feet
per decade will severely impact habitat in these areas of the
Tongass. We urge the removal of harvest goal language, and
urge the utilization of mandatory buffer strips along streams
in areas being intensively logged. The National Marine
Fisheries Service has developed a streamside management policy
491
that research indicates should be implemented in the Tongass.
We ask that a method be found for implementating this policy.
Successful multiple use management and stewardship of the
Tongass requires substantial funding. However, recent spending
has been skewed too much toward timber harvest activities. It
is important that funds be allocated in a more balanced manner
throughout the Tongass, with increased recognition and support
for the other user groups. Congress needs to adequately fund
the Tongass, and provide guidance for the proper allocation of
expenditures.
In summary, we feel very strongly that significnt changes need
to be made to the Tongass timber program. Removing the
barriers that hamper long term multiple use planning for our
forest will ultimately benefit all aspects of our diversifying
economy in Southeast. Again, we do not have a vendetta against
the pulp industry. We work hard in numerous forums to assure
that the salmon resources we depend on are not adversely
impacted, on state, federal, and private lands. We believe
that it is possible to achieve a viable and sustainable timber
industry which provides jobs and community stability WITHOUT
jeopardizing the future of the fishing industry. We welcome
the opportunity to work with others who share that goal.
Thank you for taking the time from your very busy schedules to
come to Alaska to talk with people who live in the Tongass
about this very important issue.
492
Senator Wirth. Mr. Mathisen.
STATEMENT OF SIGURD MATHISEN, PETERSBURG VESSEL
OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Mathisen. My name is Sigurd Mathisen. I am a third-gen-
eration resident of Petersburg. All my life has been spent in the
waters of Southeast Alaska. I am very aware of the fisherman's
need to steward his resource and to protect the fragile natural
salmon incubator that is the Tongass National Forest.
I represent the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, a fishing
organization involved with the Tongass and impacts of logging in
sensitive salmon spawning drainages since before statehood.
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association supports Senator Wirth's
Tongass Timber Reform Bill. We support dropping the 450 MBF re-
quirement. We support redirecting the $40 million Timber Supply
Fund, and eliminating the 50-year contracts.
We would like to see permanent protection for the important
sensitive salmon spawning drainages that are included in the bill,
such as the Kadashan, Lisianski, Nutkwa and Chuck Rivers — vital
systems that should never be logged. The present language fails to
do that.
I will use one prime example to convey our concerns and our
willingness to support this legislation. The Chuck River drainage in
Windham Bay has been over time one of the largest producers of
salmon in Southeast. It has steep slopes and very unstable soil. It
had a natural landslide in 1974 that nearly wiped out the salmon
run, and it took 10 years to rebuild, with record returns by 1985.
Yet, in 1985, the Forest Service began laying out timber sales and
planning to pre-road from 4 to 7 miles along the Chuck River even
though their environmental assessment said it was unstable and
could cause a landslide.
We objected. We could not possibly fathom why a deficit timber
sale should warrant creating the potential of a landslide that
would destroy the river. Their answer was the 450 mandated
timber requirement was forcing them into these sensitive drain-
ages, and not only that, they had to pre-road to justify and main-
tain their timber supply fund.
Even with emphatic opposition to this sale at hearings in Peters-
burg, they were going to go right on ahead with it. The only thing
that has held them back has been the State's Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation's decision on water quality, and that did
not stop it entirely. The Forest Service then spent $2 million on a
road share with Goldbelt Native Corporation that would access
both this sale and Goldbelt land in the upper reaches of the Chuck.
This heavy push to provide timber, no matter what the cost, unfair-
ly pits loggers versus fishermen.
I am not opposed to logging, nor am I opposed to pulp mills. I
think renewable resources like fish and timber should be strongly
fostered in Alaska because they will carry us through on the long
term. We are revising Alaska's Forest Practices Act with fisher-
men, loggers and conservationists represented and compromising
on solutions.
493
I think the Tongass Reform Bill likewise will be a positive force
for cooperation in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Mathison. I am
trying to identify Windham Bay on the map.
Mr. Esquiro.
STATEMENT OF PETER ESQUIRO, NORTHERN SOUTHEAST
REGIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mr. Esquiro. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and Senator
Burns. I am Peter Esquiro and thank you very much for the oppor-
tunity to appear before you.
I am a native Alaskan, born in Ketchikan. I have spent most of
my life, with the exception of a few years to go to school, here in
Alaska. I am currently Regional Manager of the Northern South-
east Regional Aquaculture Association, which is based here in
Sitka.
The Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association is a
non profit regional association established for the purpose of en-
hancing the salmon populations of Northern Southeast Alaska
from the Haines-Skagway area to the south end of Baranof Island.
NSRAA was established by the commercial fishermen of Southeast
Alaska in response to dwindling salmon stocks and has been con-
tinually funded by the fishermen for the 10 years it has been in
existence.
Generally, we favor the concept that co-existence is probably best
for the Southeast economy. We do, however, support the need to
totally protect certain critical fishery production habitat, as well as
implementing procedures for establishing buffer zones along
streams and around lakes which produce fish. In the 10 years we
have been in existence, we have become quite proficient and cost
effective in salmon enhancement, but it is doubtful that we will
ever come close to Mother Nature. It is my opinion that, if given
the chance. Mother Nature will always produce salmon at a lower
cost.
The NSRAA currently conducts enhancement projects both in
the National Forest as well as in wilderness areas. When lands
were withdrawn from the general National Forest here on the Ton-
gass and placed in a wilderness designation, it was agreed that fish-
eries enhancement would be an allowable activity in those wilder-
ness areas. I would urge that that remain the same no matter what
the outcome of this might be.
I would suggest to you that hazards, both natural and man made,
have no respect for boundaries, whether they be wilderness areas
or Tongass and our services could be helpful to either area.
Being mostly a group of scientists in our organization, we feel
that we have a very strong respect for nature. Our business is
trying to produce life and produce a means for people to make an
income and I urge your full consideration.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Esquiro.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Esquiro follows:]
494
NORTHERN ^<<uil>Nr^ ] SOUTHEAST REGIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION, IMC.
^'- ^». alfc^ i03 Moattmry Street SltJca, Almaka 99835 (907) 747-6850
The Northern Southeaat Regional Aquaculture Association Is a non-profit
regional association established for the purpose of enhancing the salnon
populations of Northern Southeast Alaska from the Halnes-Skagway area to
the south end of Baranof Island. NSRAA was established by the conaaerclal
fishermen of Southeast Alaska In response to dwindling salmon stocks and
has been continually funded by the fishermen for the ten (10) years It
has been In existence^
Generally, we favor the concept that co-existence Is probably best for
the southeastern economy. We do, however, support the need to totally
protect certain critical fishery production habitat, as well as Implementing
procedures for establishing buffer zones along streams and around lakes
which produce fish. In the ten years we have been In existence, we have
become quite proficient and cost effective in salmon enhancement, but It
is doubtful that we'll ever come close to mother nature. It is my opinion
that if given the chance, mother nature will always produce salmon at a
lower cost.
NSRAA currently conducts enhancement projects both in the National Forest
as well as in wilderness areas. When lands were withdrawn from the
general National Forest here on the Tongass and placed in a wilderness
designation, it was agreed that fisheries enhancement would be an allowable
activity in those wilderness areas. Over the years we have discovered
that proponents of wilderness areas are trying to say that "fisheries
enhancement may be allowed in wilderness areas if it can be proven that
we looked at all other non-wilderness areas for comparable opportunities."
Having to go out to do additional survey and site evaluation work is
extremely expensive and can be very time consuming. We should not have
to be burdened with these additional costs. Those additional costs could
very well tip the scale on a close economic cost/benefit analysis. If
consideration is given to more wilderness areas it should be made very
clear that salmon enhancement is allowable - period. If this were not
the case, I would oppose further wilderness designations.
Hatcheries and other enhemcement activities can be constructed and operated
in a manner which is unobtrusive to forest and/or wilderness values. The
Hidden Falls hatchery operated by our organization is an 80 million egg
hatchery capable of producing on the order of 1.8 million adult chum
salmon with a total ex-vessel value of approximately 10-12 million dollars
annually. Hidden Falls Hatchery can barely be seen from the water where
transiting Chatham Straits.
In summary, it appears to me that a compromise needs to be struck which
recognizes the need to: 1) protect fish producing habitat, 2) continue
to allow for fishery enhancement both in wilderness areas and the National
Forest in general, 3) permanently setting aside certain critical fish
producing areas while still providing a fair opportunity to the timber
industry to operate. As I stated early in my presentation co-existence
is probably the best thing for the Southeast Alaskan economy.
It would be very difficult to write a letter or sign a check printed on
the Bide of a salmon, yet It would be even more difficult to survive on
a steady diet of wood pulp. I believe that with some modifications to
the present program we can Insure the continued existence and good health
of all segments of the Southeast Alaskan econcoy.
495
Senator Wirth. Now, Mr. Wyman, the last member of this panel.
STATEMENT OF PHIL WYMAN, CHAIRMAN, SITKA FISH AND
GAME ADVISORY PANEL
Mr. Wyman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Burns and Sen-
ator Murkowski.
My name is Phil Wyman. I am Chairman of the Sitka Fish and
Game Advisory Committee and as Chairman of that Committee I
participate on the Southeast Alaska Regional Fish and Game Coun-
cil. I am here today on behalf of the Council to read into the record
their recommendations regarding the Tongass National Forest.
First of all, I would like to express our appreciation for the op-
portunity to testify before you.
The Southeast Alaska Regional Fish and Game Council is com-
posed of 21 local state fish and game advisory committees as estab-
lished by Title VIII of ANILCA to advise and recommend manage-
ment of fish and wildlife resources. The Southeast Regional Council
is presently in session in Anchorage and has drafted this testimony
for presentation. The Council unanimously recommends the follow-
ing actions.
One: The 450 million board foot annual timber harvest should
not be mandated. The mandated figure causes management to com-
promise true multiple use goals, such as fish and wildlife values,
subsistence, recreational and other resource uses. The Forest Serv-
ice should make the annual cut reflect a combination of true indus-
try needs, a comprehensive mix of market demand, environmental
and other resource protection concerns. We recommend the Forest
Service be directed to provide permanent habitat protection to sus-
tain and enhance the present populations of fish and wildlife.
Two: The 50-year timber contracts should be renegotiated to re-
flect environmental concerns, updated silvaculture information,
mitigation for resources impacted by the timber harvest, and local
economic needs.
Three: The $40 million Tongass timber supply fund should be ap-
propriated for multiple-use planning, which includes funding for
fisheries, habitat rehabilitation, recreational activities, fisheries en-
hancement, and pre-commercial thinning of second growth timber.
Four: The Southeast Regional Council is not convinced wilder-
ness designation is the best method of protecting high value recrea-
tion, fish, and wildlife habitats from logging. We favor legislated
LUD II designation for the 23 acres currently listed in legislation.
Thank you very much for coming to Southeast Alaska to hear
our concerns. Our Regional Council and the individual advisory
committees that comprise it stand ready to provide more informa-
tion and assistance to you as you deliberate this matter.
Senator Wirth. I thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Well, let me also include in the record at
this point that there is also testimony from Eric Jordan. We might
ask you to give us his view as well on these issues.
[The prepared statements follow:]
496
Honorable Senator TimWirth
United States Senate
Washington, D.C 20510
Dear Senator Wirth,
The Sitka Fish and Game Advisory Ccnmittee is made up of a 17-member body
elected by the public to represent a cross-section of fish and game users
in the Sitka area. The primary responsibility of the Ccrmittee is to
advise the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on regulations to conserve
and enhance fish and game resources. It became obvious to the Ccrmittee
several years ago that adequate protection of fish and game necessitated
working with the United States Forest Service, to ccmrient on timber harvest
plans in an effort to modify these plans in the interest of wildlife, and
associated subsistence, conrtriercial , and recreational opportunities.
(Attachment.)
We have studied the present issues and proposed legislation and have a
five-point ccrrment.
1 . Wi Iderness -
We are in favor of protecting several areas in our area of juris-
diction, such as Deep Bay, Finger Creek, tisianski River, and the
head of Hoonah Sound from logging and log dumps to protect fish and
wildlife habitat. Hcwever , we are not conv inced Wi I derness designation
should be the only method of protecting high-value recreation and
wildlife areas from logging.
2. $1*0 million annual appropriation -
We propose future annual appropriations be redirected to multiple
resource mitigation and enhancement, such as habitat improvement in
streams adversely affected by past logging (ie., Rodman Bay and
Katlian River), timber stand irrprovement , fisheries enhancement
projects (including hatcheries), subsistence research, and recreation
enhancement such as cabins and trails.
3. 50-year contracts -
We believe the 50-year Timber Contracts should be renegotiated to
reflect environmental concerns, updated silvaculture information,
mitigation for resources impacted by the timber harvest, and local
economic needs.
It. 450 annual timber harvest goal -
We believe the 450 million board foot annual timber harvest goal
should not be a predetermined political figure. We reccmrend that
the Forest Service be directed to redetermine by unbiased land
management planning the volime of timber that can be harvested on a
sustained-yield basis, which provides permanent habitat protection
to sustain and enhance the present populations of fish and wildlife.
The annual cut should reflect a comprehensive mix of market demand,
industry needs, environmental, and other resource protection
concerns. The mandated figure often unduly pressures managers to
compromise fish and wildlife values, subsistence, and recreational
opportunities to meet "mandates".
(cont inued)
497
Page 2.
") . While only 10% of the Tongass may ever be logged under current
projections, it often seems that fishermen, hunters, subsistence
users, and recreational users all want to use the same 10*. The
highest vo 1 ixne timber located in the big creek valleys and the
prettiest bays is also the best habitat for fish and wildlife.
The controversy over these most economically logged areas has
affected our Ccrrniittee to the point that we have demanded Tongass
Timber Reform since 1985. (Attachment). Reform should inlude
provisions for formal involvement in Timber and other forest
planning activities by I coal Fish and Game Advisory Comiit tee's
and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game habitat, game, and
fisheries biologists. Perhaps it is time for the Forest Service
to consider corrmunity advisory comnittees made-up of a cross-
section of forest users to assist Forest Service timber plans.
In conclusion, we want to state our support for efforts to reform Tongass
timber management. While not supporting any particular piece of legislation,
we hope our concerns will be incorporated into whatever legislation energes
from the congressional process.
Sincerely,
Ph i I Wyman , dha i r
Sitka Fish and Game Advisory Ccrrmittee
Attachment
498
U.S. Forester, Chatham District
Sitka, Ak
July 9,1985
Dear Sir, , „ ^
I am writing on behalf of the Sitka Fish & Game
Advisory Committee. The purpose of this letter is to
request an extension of the comment period on the proposed 5
year timber harvest plan for the Alaska Pulp Corporation,
and communicate the comments ue have after the limited
amount of study and discussion ue have been able to arrange
during this time of year. Ue are hopeful that the Forest
Service uill take our comments under advisement and contact
us about revisions in the harvest plan before the final
proposal is developed.
I want to communicatt: the appreciation of the uhole
committee for the efforts the Sxtka forest service employees
have made Lo uork with the committee and explain the complex
process of revieu and comment to us. Our key contact has
been Ken Uotring and 1 would like to commend him for his
assistance.
Ue unanimously voted to ask for an extension in the
comment period to December. The reason is not because of
the length of the comment period, but because of the timing.
Many of our committee members are active in Seasonal
occupations which consume nearly all of thier attention
during the summer months and which often take them away trura
Sitka. Ue feel we could make a more meaningful comment in
the fall, winter, or spring.
After a good deal of subcommittee uork, study of maps,
public and agency comment, and committee discussion we came
up with several motions which communicate the concern about
the scale and impact on wildlife and subsistence resources
under all of the proposed harvest alternatives. Ue were
repeatedly advised by the forest service represenati ves that
they were mandated by the 50 year contract and ANILCA to
offer huge amounts of timber at very low prices wether the
company was going to cut the timber or not. After
considering the situation we decided that the 50 year
contract and the huge timber harvest "mandated" by ANILCA
were creating a terrible problem for both the forest service
and the wildlife managers in trying ^^ protect fish &
wildlife values, Ue unanimously voted to advise the forest
service to renegotiate or cancel the 50 year contracts.
499
Recognizing the slim possibility of our previous
recomraendations being adopted ue made some specific comments
on the timber harvest plans in the Sittca area.
1. Ue unanimously recommended def feral of any cutting or
roading in the Hoonah Sound, Lisianski Inlet areas becouse
of the adverse affects on wildlife and subsistence values in
these areas.
2. If logging, over our strenuous objections, is still
proposed for this area, then ue request that the log
transfer facility and carap be located in Poison Cove uith
action proceeding from there in close consultation uith
ADF&G biologists, and Sitka Advisory Committee members.
It also has become clear after meeting uith several
ADF&G biologists that there is a great deal of frustration
uith the working relationship betueen the field and
management biologists of the ADF&G and the Forest Service
plan developers. There is a great deal of concern that do
to political pressures from above, many of the modifications
and measures needed to protect critical wildlife habitat and
subsistence values are being ignored or rejected. This is
of great concern to this committee. The follouing motion,
uhile specifically addressing fisheries, reflects our
concern for all uildlife values.
Ue urge the Forest service to maintain or improve fisheries
habitat, re--do not relax fish habitat protection. Ue are
concerned that the present plan may relax standards for
culverts, identification of fish habitat, & methods for
enforcement of protective regulations.
One of the primary functions of the advisory committee
system is to assist in the management and protection of
subsistence opportunities, harvest, and values. Contrary
to the statement in the plan that there will be little
affect on subsistence under the proposed and preferred
alternatives, ue are concerned that effects in particular
areas uill be substantial. For example: a carap & dump in
Ushk Bay uill have significant impacts on opportunities,
harvests, and values in that area.
In conclusion, 1 want to express again our appreciation
for the assistance by Ken Uotring and others of the Sitka
station. Something must also be said for the quality of the
maps and description of the activities. They were great.
Of course the easy part is drauing up the alternatives and
proposing an action. The difficult part is taking the
comments of the diverse groups and incorporating them into a
revised final proposal. The Sitka Fish & Game Advisory
Committee expects our comments to be seriously considered.
The protection of Fish & Uildlfe and associated commercial,
recreational, and subsistence values should be a concern
second to none.
Sincerely ,
Eric Jordan, Chairman
Sitka Fish & Game Advisory Committee
500
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sitting here listening,
it seems to me this comes up in all of this testimony and it sort of
bothers me a little bit, that in every case here you want to drop the
450 million board feet requirement. In that ANILCA legislation, is
that a mandated cut? When I say mandated, they are ordered to do
it.
Mr. Thompson. They have to offer that volume of timber and
that is kind of where we got into a hang-up, with the language
being interpreted differently.
Senator Burns. Mandated means you have to cut, but basically
the language says that the maximum has to be offered but it does
not have to be cut. Every time I come up with all of this and I
think in here it says "mandated" — mandated means you have to do
it. I do not know how we get hung up on words like this. I am not a
lawyer and they have been averaging about 3.7. And yet, in all the
testimony, we can find in this thing it is mandated and the man-
dated part is not mandated. So, I want to clear that for the record,
that some of this testimony is not right. I guess it is how you would
identify the problem.
I have a couple of questions here. Mr. Thompson, you stated in
your testimony or you stated your opinion of the environmental
rules and regulations, that addresses environmental concerns for
the Forest Service in the logging areas. You think that the Forest
Service has not done a good job in enforcing some of those rules?
Mr. Thompson. Senator Burns, I am not any means an expert on
logging practices, but I did have a chance to listen to the state bi-
ologists and listen to the Agriculture Association biologists, and I
get the impression that they are not entirely happy with some of
the practices that are occurring. Whether it is a violation of rules
or there are simply a lack of rules, I do not know.
Senator Burns. That is what I am getting to. Do we have to
change some rules or do we have to have to get high on enforcing
it? Anybody can address that.
Mr. Thompson. I think Mr. Williams here is more in touch with
that, can respond to that.
Mr. Williams. Well, we feel that some things need to be
changed. For one thing, I wanted to put into the record the Nation-
al Marine Fisheries policies on stream side management and devel-
opment from their research that came out last year, the 1988
policy. They call for 30-meter buffer strips on the salmon streams
in Southeast Alaska and the tributaries. We would like to see that
kind of thing incorporated.
There have been problems with both enforcement and interpreta-
tion. Unfortunately, a lot of things are left up to interpretation in
the Southeast and there are differences in the Forest Service dis-
tricts even the way things are interpreted.
Getting back to your 4.5, we are not the only ones that interpret-
ed it as a mandate. Unfortunately, the Forest Service kind of took
it as a mandate, at least initially, as well and if 4.5 were offered,
maybe 3.7 was cut, but there was some being offered at that 450 a
month. And that led to some conflicts with fishing by pre-roading
and things that our industry is real concerned about.
Senator Burns. But if you were concerned about it, you can
appeal that sale, cannot you? ^
501
Mr. Williams. We have done that, but we really hate to see the
thing be in Utigation. We are trying to get some things straight-
ened out so that we do not see the fisheries and logging manage-
ment through litigation so much. We are trying to come to grips
with those things through some legislation.
Senator Burns. Did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Mathisen. The mandated part of it goes hand in hand with
not just the amount of timber that is put up for sale but the dollar
value, $40 million plus for the timber supply fund. It all kind of
goes hand in hand and becomes more of a mandate by the Forest
Service to at least put up the sales and go on that pre-road. And
when it reaches us, that is the feeling we get, there is nothing they
can do, they have to go in and do it. We are fighting not only the
sales in some instances but pre-roading. I mentioned that Chuck
River has potential and that is totally damaged estuary before log-
ging begins.
Senator Burns. Okay. The thing there was I wanted to clarify
because it keeps showing up in testimony basically, I think, by
groups on both sides of the issue. But one of them seems like only
terminology that is defined in the dictionary. So, I took all these
good notes, and I lost them. I will readdress this. Thank you very
much. It has been a good panel.
Senator Murkowski. I want to compliment the panel. I think
you have an extraordinary group of Alaskans that know what they
are talking about and an industry that meets payroll, and it is re-
freshing to have their recommendation.
Sig, you and others know that part of the bureaucratic game to
get the budget is to indicate that you have a mandate for services.
It is convenient to use this by saying, "Hey, we have to have a
budget because it says here we put up 4.5 billion board feet per
decade and they go into your communities and say, 'We have to do
this, this is a dictate of your Congress.' "
So, obviously have some problems with the Forest Service and
those problems have to be corrected and it would be hoped that
your input in such things as TLMP, Tongass. Land Management
Plan, which I am sure you had an opportunity to participate in — at
least I know a lot of folks in Petersburg have, and it would be con-
sidered in the ultimate disposition of this legislation.
I would like to point out as well, Sig, that it is my understanding
that the Chuck River timber sales have been put on hold. The
Forest Service put the sales on hold because of the objections of the
state after the Environmental Impact Statement was completed.
The sales have never been advertised. And this information is sub-
ject to correction, but this is the information that I have.
One of the difficulties there, of course, is my conviction that the
state, in overseeing the native timber sales and goldbelts in this
area, and this road does connect to it and offers opportunities both
ways, but it does not have the necessary resources dedicated for the
oversight of timbering on private land. So, while we look at the de-
ficiencies of the Forest Service, and there are many, very many le-
gitimate ones, we also have the problem of overseeing the water
sheds associated with private lands. I am sure you will agree with
that. We just have to do a better job in that area.
502
I am wondering, gentlemen, if you hike and fish in the Peters-
burg area and other areas, Mitkoff Island, do you think that 30
meters is sufficient for the buffer strips along streams? Somebody
has got to say what is reasonable and what is unreasonable if we
are going to rewrite this legislation. Now, I do not know.
Senator Wirth. Senator Murkowski, regarding the recent re^^Tit-
ing of the State Forest Practices Act talking about a 15 and 30
meter retention on the salmon streams, a lot of input from organi-
zations and indiN-iduals has been for a 100 foot minimum xsith a
200 foot conditional han-^est area, or 300 feet total in any salmon
estuarv'. I think that the 30 meters is minimum.
Senator Murkowski. I think it is important that we already
have the danger of blow down. If it is a hundred meters and it
keeps blowing down, eventually it is going to fall in the creek. But
nevertheless something has to be determined.
Mr. Wyman, I was curious, in your recommendation on the sensi-
tive areas you recommended a LUD 2 designation rather than vdl-
derness?
Mr. Wyman. I think, you know, the Council came up with a
statement. 1 think it is a real concern, prior to locking up more
lands in wilderness and putting them away forever, I think with
this designation, we can still be able to do some things the Tongass
that most user groups can still do.
Senator Murkowski. Well, the record will remain open, but this
is a kind of issue that would become ver>- controversial in commit-
tee. I am sure that the general consensus is when we take some of
these area that are of concern, the immediate probability is to put
them in wilderness. You are saying, no, put them in LUD 2. We
encourage you. if you have a strong conviction, to give us a little
more definite reason why.
Mr. Wyman. I have the written testimony on behalf of myself
and have the wTitten testimony of our Advisory Committee, and I
would hope that if there is going to be any plan, especially \%'ith
regard to the Chichagof area, which is the largest section that Sen-
ator Wirth has in his bill that is set aside for moratorium, that you
give us a chance, the local Ad\'isory Committee, a chance to com-
ment on those areas.
Senator Murkowski. Let me just be a little brief here. What is
the wilderness designation due to the ability of the public to enjoy
it in relationship to LUD 2? There must be some line that you are
concerned about here in this designation. Can you take a boat up
the creek if it is a \\'ilderness and can you in a LUD 2?
Mr. Wyman. I think LUD 2 — well. I am not quite sure on all of
the pro\'isions of it. The thing about LUD 2, it still pro\'ides for
projects to happen, it still proWdes for money to happen, and I do
not know quite — well, I am not sure about the logging but I think
it still allows a certain extent of logging. Maybe that is a LUD 3
designation; I am not sure.
Senator Murkowski. No logging is allowed, it is my understand-
ing.
Mr. Wyman. Well, we do not have any problems ^;^-ith the LUD 2,
but sometimes we have problems v^ith the wilderness designation
that came about from ANILCA.
503
Senator Murkowski. Well, you have my train of thought, and
you can give us some more information.
Senator Wirth. I just want to remind my good friend from
Alaska that there is no reference to wilderness in the Wirth bill
and that, in fact, we do not even have the strong protections that
you all are recommending under LUD 2. It looks like LUD 2 is
pretty good stuff. Now, let me read what the Forest Service said
about LUD 2:
These lands are to be managed in a roadless state to retain their wild land char-
acter. This would permit wildlife and fish habitat improvement and primitive recre-
ational facility development. This designation will exclude, one, roads except for spe-
cifically authorized uses and, two, timber harvesting, except for controlling insect
infestation or to protect other resource value and, three, major concentrated-recre-
ational facilities.
The conference had suggested permanent LUD 2 protection for
the twelve areas that they suggested. The twenty-three areas in my
bill would be temporarily protected until the Forest Service plan is
revised, and obviously we are honing in here on some kind of an
agreement. It looks to me like a lot of this may end up in LUD 2
areas, which, I gather, you all suggested.
If I might, on the subject of the 4.5 billion I suggest that we read
the law. Section 705(a) says, "The Congress authorizes and directs
the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary
of Agriculture the sum of at least $40 million annually or as much
as the Secretary of Agriculture finds is necessary to maintain the
timber supply from the Tongass National Forest to dependent in-
dustry at a rate of four billion five hundred million foot board
measure per decade." That is a pretty inflexible requirement, 4.5
billion feet per decade. Again, for the purpose of the record here,
the Forest Service said in its 1987 report, talking about the Land
Management Plan, says, "the Tongass Land Management Plan an-
ticipated an average annual timber sale volume of roughly four
hundred and fifty million board feet, a sale level consistent with
the upper limit of the allowable sale quantity for the Tongass."
Then it goes on to say, "Since 1980 the volume of timber made
available from the Tongass to the timber industry has averaged ap-
proximately four hundred and sixty million board feet per year. Of
this approximately four hundred and ten million board feet was
sold." So, they are anticipating and using the four-fifty as the base
on which their whole forest plan is developed and that is one of the
issues in front of us. If you have this four hundred and fifty million
board feet per year requirement, 4.5 billion over 10 years, that
drives the whole rest of the process. That is why this is a particu-
larly crucial area, and I am pleased that you are focused on it.
Mr. Williams, may I ask you a question about your testimony?
On page 1, you talk about old growth forest and the importance of
that to salmon spawning. "Old growth forest habitat provides the
crucial combination of these elements that will sustain healthy
levels of salmon production and survival." Then you go on to say
that, "Second growth forest does not provide this crucial balance.
Research shows that in one stage or another of the second growth
process productivity might actually be increased, but the short-
term net gain, it is assumed, is more than offset by the negative im-
pacts of succeeding stages."
504
Now, is this very broadly understood by science?
Mr. Williams. Well, we are lacking a volume of research in
Alaska but the amount of research that has been done in B.C. and
other areas, what most of them show is that initially, and this
holds for game as well as our benefits in clearcut areas, to game
but it can be to the fish. By opening it up, you may provide more
life, and there may be more food. There may be an actual larger
production that comes in at that stage. Then if the weather is good,
it is not a problem.
Senator Wirth. But is it commonly understood — is there any dis-
agreement with the fact that, as you state, old growth forests are
important to successful salmon spawning?
Mr. Williams. Not in my mind. It is proven that old growth for-
ests will over time provide these things. Second growth forests,
unless they are intensively managed, do not in and of themselves
offer those things.
Senator Wirth. Well, I asked the question because we have been
hearing a lot of testimony yesterday that old growth forests are, in
fact, a waste and ought to be torn down because we are not using
the resource properly. And I just raise this because it seems to me
that was a pretty strong statement directly to the contrary, and I
wanted to know how firmly this was backed up.
Mr. Williams. It is backed up enough for the National Marine
Fishery Service to recommend that that old growth habitat certain-
ly be maintained at stream side to a 30 meter minimum, but we
realize that that is a minimum we are talking about, only.
Senator Wirth. I just have a few brief questions on that. In going
back to the Chuck River drainage issue at Windham Bay that you
raised, Mr. Mathisen, it seems to me that this is another good case
study of how targets of the Forest Service drive decisions that
might otherwise not be made. Is that the reason that you bring this
up?
Mr. Mathisen. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my point. That was
fairly explicit and one that I had very close hands on knowledge,
and the fish in the area can document anything I say on it.
Senator Wirth. Again going back to our earlier discussion about
the TLMP and the 4.5 billion board feet which drives other uses
and other priorities very strongly, which is why many of us want
to remove that, and why I think that kind of requirement does not
appear in any other national forest.
Mr. Williams, do you have any personal observation yourself on
the effect of logging on your fishing business?
Mr. Williams. Well, definitely our problems became quite obvi-
ous here in the last 10 years and in areas where logging was done
in the 1960s. The practices of logging in the 1960s is probably com-
parable to some of the stuff that is happening in South America
right now. We clearcut right dov/n to the sides of the rivers, and
we sit back and continue to hope that these rivers will continue to
produce salmon like they did. But 25 years later it does not appear
that Mother Nature is helping out the system much. In the studies
I read, it looks like it takes 80 to 200 years to start regaining a
sense of normalcy to these river systems, or at least provide some
kind of old growth characteristics in the national forests for the
river balance.
505
Senator Wirth. It seems to me this agrees with Mr. Mathisen's
case study and what others have said. Maybe what we ought to be
doing is asking the Forest Service to incorporate findings Hke this
and from the National Marine Fisheries Service. I am not quite
sure how to do it, but we are hearing from all of you, and we heard
yesterday, the great importance of forest riparian quality for fish
habitat and spawning and your industry. It seems to me that
maybe we ought to try to do more to encourage the Forest Service
to be looking at that and incorporating those values.
May I ask for specific recommendations in our legislation to re-
quire the Forest Service to do that, which other people have
thought were appropriate? It seems to me you are suggesting in
your testimony that these are very important and the Forest Serv-
ice ought to attempt more leverage than they have so far.
Mr. Wyman. Clearly, under the TLMP process, we are given a
chance to comment like a full advisory committee is, but when the
planning process calls for the mill to pick out maybe double what
they need for that current period and then we are asked to com-
ment on double what they need for the next five years and we as
an advisory committee, we only meet like twice a month, maybe in
the evenings in the winter months, and we do not have the staff.
We might make certain recommendations, but there is so much
area they are asking us to consider that we do not have the staff
and biologists to sit there and go through all of the data and sift it
out and follow through on our recommendations. We are just not
included in the process and the Fish and Game — Alaska Parks,
Fish and Game helps somewhat, but we still do not get all of the
input and all data and all of the staff that we need to follow
through on our recommendations.
Senator Wirth. I understand that. Maybe there is a way in
which we can help on that by putting some things in whatever leg-
islation passes that is going to make the Forest Service attend to
these issues a little more carefully.
Finally, I am struck by you being here, Mr. Williams, and all of
you being here, and I guess by the growing sense of concern. Is it
that you are all more active on this subject than you were five
years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago? And, if so, can you generalize
as to why that is the case? You might want to comment on that,
Mr. Wyman, Mr. Williams, any one of you.
Mr. Williams. It is not just as fishermen, or as far as the South-
east economy, it is not real easy to come up and say things that we
feel may have an effect on the industry. We do not have a vendetta
against the pulp industry or that kind of thing. There are a
number of fishing families involved in this and it has taken a long
time for people to realize that the volume of catch that we look at
over the long term, and the kind of effects we are going to see cu-
mulatively are going to have an impact. As Phil spoke about ini-
tially, we were told things like clearcutting would be good for deer,
clearcutting would not harm fish, and those kinds of things. And
now research has proven that that is not true, and we are realizing
that given the volume of major cuts that we have seen that was
not initially planned when the pulp mill contracts came out and
the extra land volume that is being impacted, it is going to affect
506
our industry. There are a lot of people joining groups and studying
issues and getting involved where we were not before.
Senator Wirth. Any other comments?
[No response.]
Senator Wirth. We appreciate you all being here. There are a
couple of things that came through loud and clear from your indus-
try. One- is an issue that Senator Murkowski has been so much in-
volved with, which I completely agree with him on, and he has
been very eloquent on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere on the
subject of drift nets and how very damaging this is to the fishing
industry, with its long-term effect on all of the species. The second
area is one that you all have been hitting on today, and that is the
relationship of old-growth timber to the fishing industry and that
we have really got to do some more to protect that. It seems to me
that those appear to be the two major areas of concern that you all
have. Is that a fair generalization?
Mr. EsQUiRO. Mr. Chairman, as you folks deliberate such things
as we are talking about today, it appears to me that — I was won-
dering, do you have people who come in and talk with you that you
can ask questions of and can perhaps get information from related
to life cycles of various species of salmon? What prompted this
question was you were asking Mr. Williams about the real value of
old growth timber. The real value of that old growth timber comes
in varying degrees, depending upon the species of salmon that you
are talking about. A couple of the species remain in the stream for
two years before they ever decide to go to south water. Another
species goes out as soon as it comes out of the gravel. Another one
does that or, if he chooses, he will stay up in the spawning water.
It occurs to me that somewhere along here it would be a value to
your committee to talk to some fish biology people and have a top
biologist and others to perhaps get some of these views into your
consideration.
Senator Wirth. I certainly agree with that. What happens, I
think, in a hearing like this is that your interest is pigued in an
area, or an issue gets brought out, and that is what these hearings
are about. A lot of that has happened here: it is very helpful and
we are going back looking at these issues in particular. That, of
course, is going to require that we get a lot more expertise sitting
at this table. We are asked to be, as you know, experts on every-
thing from the Alaska pipeline to Angoon and shipments to
Angola, and that is just the A's. We move right through and do the
best we can. We really appreciate all of you being here.
Just like last night, I had the privilege of spending some time
with Eric Jordan, whom all of you know, and he claims to have a
great deal of expertise on this issue, and who am I to argue? So, I
wanted to get you guys here today so maybe you could tell us a
little bit more. We appreciate it very much.
Senator Murkowski. Very briefly. I would ask this of Mr. Peter
Esquiro. With regard to aquaculture effort in the streams that are
somewhat barren for any number of reasons, whether it be logging,
runoff or slides, do you try and prioritize those streams to address
the release, you know, the need to bring those streams back, and
we put aside the issue of interception on high seas. We do not know
what is happening really out there. We know a lot of the fish are
507
being processed in Singapore and Hong Kong and Bangkok and
marketed over in France, because I have been there and I have
seen it. That is another hearing for another time. The Chairman is
quite right, I feel pretty strongly about that, but I am interested in
your scientific experience of trying to rehabilitate these streams.
Do you have evidence of what they were previously and what is the
successful process or is it successful at all?
Mr. EsQUiRO. We have some records that we were able to get
from the Department of Fish and Game as well as other organiza-
tions and also individuals who have local knowledge about the way
things were in any number of streams throughout Southeast
Alaska. We do have to prioritize the work that we do. I mentioned
very early in my presentation that we are funded by a 3 percent
tax that the salmon fishermen of Southeast Alaska imposed upon
themselves, in order to try and make a difference with regard to
this resource.
We do projects for a number of reasons. One reason is what you
have already stated, which is to mitigate some loss that occurred in
a stream whether it be by scouring a road or whatever. Another
reason we do salmon projects is to mitigage our losses that may
have occurred in other areas of our district. We have been very
limited, to be very truthful, in our ability to respond to litigation
work in many streams. In some cases, we have gone in and done
projects with the Forest Service, as well as other State organiza-
tions, and have assisted in — you know, it is sometimes valuable we
have those stumps in the streams rather than when we tend to
think about a stream it is, first of all, cleaning it out. In a lot of
cases, that is not the thing to do now. Juvenile fish need places to
hide. Many of these places are conducive to production of food for
them. What I am saying is that we have learned an awful lot about
the technology of what is good for a fish. We would be the first to
admit that there is a lot more that we need to learn.
Senator Murkowski. My question is, specifically, is there an ab-
sence of success or no success?
Mr. EsQUiRO. We have had varying degrees of success. I think
Alaska's hatchery program is probably one of the most successful
in the world.
Senator Murkowski. The Chairman recalled that with regard to
this legislation, the chairman of the full committee was quite ada-
mant in directing more reference go to wildlife habitat and other
things that were significant. The folks included those in Louisiana.
There might be some justification to consider putting some of the
stumpage into designated areas in order to enhance the fisheries in
other areas but, obviously, it takes money to do these things, but I
would just simply offer that.
In conclusion, I know we have a little different interpretation of
the virgin old growth, and I want to make sure that my colleague
does not misunderstand me. He used some terms like "waste" and
"torn down," and I want to make sure that we understand for the
record there is 1.7 million acres of old growth that is already set
aside, one-third of the commercial forest, in perpetuity. That might
not be in all of the right areas. There is another 1.7 that is set
aside for 10 years with the TLMP for fish and game and maybe
that is not right but there is 1.7 left for commercial timber.
508
Mr. Chairman, an extraordinary thing struck me, if you look at
the cut over the last decade, you see, as the witnesses have indicat-
ed, that the terminology the Forest Service is mandated to make
available each year, you see that the actual cut is much less, and
so what that means is there should be an excess unused that was
available and credited each year. For instance, in 1978 they cut
414. Well, they should have 23 excess, and then in 1979 another 20,
another 10 in 1980, in 1981 they cut 387. Well, that should have
given them 110,000 more than they needed.
By the time you get through with this whole thing, in 10 years
you find there was 750 million board feet short of what they were
required to make available. So, there are some funny games going
on. I wish we had a Forest Service witness here, because if they are
required to put this up and make it available, and that implies
roading, and have done this and the timber is available. But if the
industry has not cut it what has happened to it? Over 10 years, you
find that they have cut, instead of 4.5, 3.7. You wonder if they need
a budget at all.
Senator Wirth. That is a good point.
[Applause.]
Senator Wirth. They released a lot of timber that would have
been traded for the previously discussed area on Admiralty.
Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for being here. I am
struck by a final comment that juvenile fish need places to hide.
When talking about members of the Senate, we all need places to
hide. We thank you all very much for being here. It was very, very
good testimony.
The fifth panel, as we move along, will be Robert Tonkin, of the
Territorial Sportsmen, Robert Ward of the Sitka Convention and
Visitors Bureau, Les Cronk, Southeast Stevedoring, and Ken Leg-
horn, Tongass Tourism and Recreation Business Association.
We are going to take a break now. I have just been reminded by
the court reporter that it would be a good idea to get sustenance in
our systems and so why do not we do that. It is now 1:00 o'clock
and let us shoot for 1:25; can we do that?
[Recess taken.]
Senator Wirth. We are back on the record at 1:25. We ask the
witnesses to again join us at the witness table.
Gentlemen, thank you, for being with us.
The witnesses on the Fifth Panel this afternoon are Mr. Robert
Tonkin, of the Territorial Sportsmen; Mr. Robert Ward, of the
Sitka Convention and Visitors Bureau; Mr. Les Cronk, Southeast
Stevedoring; and Mr. Ken Leghorn, Tongass Tourism and Recrea-
tion Business Association.
Why do not we start with you, Mr. Tonkin, and we will just move
through. You are familiar with the procedures of the committee.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT TONKIN, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMEN
Mr. Tonkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Territorial
Sportsmen is a conservation organization with interests in sports,
fishing, hunting and wise use of natural resources.
509
We would like to thank you for holding these hearings on man-
agement of the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska.
It is the position of the Territorial Sportsmen that Section 705(a)
of ANILCA, which requires the Forest Service to make available to
the timber industry a supply of 4.5 billion board feet per decade
and the creation of a special fund of at least $40 million, is not in
the best interests of all resources and resource users and should be
altered to allow more diversified priority consideration to all uses
and users.
We want to clearly emphasize that the Territorial Sportsmen are
not opposed to logging and that we support sound development
which enhances the economy of Alaska.
In 1985 the Territorial Sportsmen produced a comprehensive
report on the effects of logging on wildlife, fisheries, and economics
in Southeast Alaska. We would like to make a copy available for
the record.
Sitka black-tailed deer are the most abundant and widely distrib-
uted recreational and subsistence hunting species in Southeast
Alaska. The main factor limiting populations is availability of food
in winter. Logging, with its removal of canopy cover provided by
old growth trees, allows much more snow to accumulate on the
ground and makes food unavailable. About 30 years after logging,
densely growing second growth shades out deer forage understory
plants.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest
Service have intensively studied effects of logging on deer. Predic-
tive models using new information developed since the Alaska Na-
tional Interest Lands Conservation ACT, ANILCA, indicate that,
under present cutting plans, deer numbers in many popular hunt-
ing areas will be reduced 60 to 80 percent by the end of the first
100-year rotation period. Forest-wide, after the first rotation period,
the deer number will be reduced by more than 40 percent. It is pos-
sible to modify cutting plans and carefully select areas to be logged
so that impacts to deer would be less severe.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has consistently been
on record for more protection of fish and wildlife habitat than is
provided at the present by the Tongass Land Management Plan,
which provides the same timber harvest base as ANILCA. During
the TLMP review period, the Department stated that economics of
timber harvest as it affects guiding, trapping and viewing of wild-
life should be analyzed, along with economics related to timber in-
dustry jobs. To obtain a balanced resource allocation, the ADF&G
recommended that one or another alternatives be adopted for
TLMP. Both alternatives were rejected for the final TLMP, and a
more intensive timber harvest plan was adopted.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game requested deferral of
logging in 70 management areas with exceptionally high fish and
wildlife values until TLMP is revised in 1989. The 70 management
areas are out of a total of about 820 on the Tongass Forest. This
request was not honored, even in a time of depressed timber mar-
kets and reduced harvests. This illustrates the severe conflict be-
tween existing cutting levels and habitat concerns of Alaska De-
partment of Fish and Game.
510
In summary, the Territorial Sportsmen wish to point out that
clearcut logging in Southeast Alaska is permanently converting
high-volume, old-growth forest with high wildlife values to second
growth of much less value to wildlife. Long-term effects of logging
on fish habitat and populations are unknown. Present planning
and management processes have not given adequate consideration
to values other than timber harvesting.
We believe the public, lawmakers and forest managers should be
fully aware of tradeoffs associated with present management prac-
tices on the Tongass National Forest. The question is not whether
logging should occur, but whether it should be concentrated in the
limited higher volume old growth stands at the expense of other
forest values, whether the mandated cutting levels can be sus-
tained and whether the existing planning systems and Federal sub-
sidies are being utilized so as to minimize the adverse effects to
other equally important forest values.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views.
[Report submitted by Mr. Tonkin was retained in subcommittee
files.]
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonkin. It was very
good testimony. I must say that you were reflecting what I have
heard elsewhere, that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
has been stepping out smartly in a lot of this recently, and I am
sure we all appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Ward.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. WARD, JR., SITKA CONVENTION
BUREAU
Mr. Ward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee. My
name is Bob Ward, and I am the Executive Director of the Sitka
Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Visitors to Alaska experience the Tongass from a wide variety of
conveyances: by kayak or cruise ship, airplane or automobile, back-
pack or bicycle. Each mode is an indicator of the demographic vari-
ety of Alaska visitors, as well as the variety of expectation of expe-
rience that each might hold for the Tongass.
Those who have been claiming to represent the Alaska visitor in-
dustry before Congress in fact speak only for that sector of the in-
dustry which caters to those Tongass visitors who experience the
region by kayak, canoe or back country trekking. Their expectation
of a Tongass experience is indeed one as pristine and untouched as
only Alaskan wilderness can provide. They tend to be younger than
the bulk of Southeast visitors, and their image of a frontier is lim-
ited strictly to the element of nature untainted by the presence of
man.
However, the vast majority of Southeast Alaska visitors are over
55 years old, have monitored the growth of the last frontier over
the decades, and share the broader understanding of the two ele-
ments of any frontier, which are wilderness and opportunity. The
fact that Alaska is a raw and rugged land is, naturally, an attrac-
tion for them. For them it is also an attraction that Alaskans are
able to scratch out an existence in this raw and rugged land. A
Tongass without thriving communities and industries would be no
511
more a major visitor destination for them than Chonos Archipelago
in South America, a region with which we are all very familiar.
We are the pioneers who grasped the opportunity that this last
frontier offered. We are the pioneers that many of our visitors
dream that they might have become. We are the loggers, the fish-
ermen, the miners, the shop keepers, the tradesmen who, for lack
of a better term, tamed this frontier and made it our homes.
I believe that we have done this with a far greater respect than
history shows was accorded to other frontiers. We have protected
substantial areas, which will remain pristine and untouched for
Alaskans, today's visitors and for future generations. We have also
demonstrated effective husbandry of the resources we have har-
vested, be they growing from the land, swimming in the sea or
buried in the earth. We have inhabited a forest which exemplifies
the most extraordinary that nature can offer, while providing a
living to those with the courage, fortitude and the sensitivity to
endure.
This is the attraction that is Southeast Alaska.
This does not license us to plunder the resources that the Ton-
gass offers. It must go without saying that unregulated harvest of
timber within the Tongass will upset this frontier balance of wil-
derness and opportunity. However, the harvest of timber from
public lands within the Tongass is the most highly regulated
timber industry in the world.
The organizations that represent the broadest base of visitor in-
dustry businesses in Alaska are the Alaska Visitors Association
and the Southeast Alaska Tourism Council. Neither feels that this
balance of wilderness and opportunity in the Tongass is in jeop-
ardy. Neither feels that the viability of the Tongass National
Forest as a visitor destination is threatened.
Senator Murkowski's Senate Bill 237 assures the continuation of
this balance. Senator Wirth's Bill 346 does not.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Ward.
Next is Mr. Cronk.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE A. CRONK, PORT MANAGER, SITKA, AK
Mr. Cronk. My name is Les Cronk. I am Port Manager for
Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska as well as Southeast Stevedoring.
The original intent of the long-term contracts issued by the U.S.
Forest Service was to attract investment to utilize the timber re-
source of the Tongass, provide jobs for U.S. citizens and subse-
quently establish a stable economic base for the communities locat-
ed here. This has been successful and today is largely responsible
for the infrastructure in Southeast Alaska that benefits almost
every aspect of the tourism industry.
In 1988, 65 percent of all visitors to Southeast Alaska came via
cruise ships. These ships can bring visitors here because there are
facilities and services available that would not be here or would be
reduced without the year-around needs of the timber industry.
Some examples are docks constructed for the handling of forest
products: tug boats that assist cruise ships in docking and spend
their winters assisting log, lumber and pulp ships; marine pilots
512
that work year around handling these cargo ships while the cruise
ships are here only four months.
Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska is able to provide more personnel
and equipment to support the cruise industry because it is a divi-
sion of Southeast Stevedoring Corporation, which has been loading
log, lumber, and pulp ships in Southeast Alaska for over 30 years;
air tour operators that also fly people and supplies to the logging
camps; and bus tour companies that also transport school children.
This list of interdependence can continue through all areas of our
economy in Southeast Alaska.
A reduction in the timber industry would result in a reduction in
the availability of services and subsequently the quality of the visi-
tors' experience and, ultimately, a reduction in cruise traffic.
The tourist industry is still expanding, and many facets have yet
to be developed. Access to many areas in the Tongass need to be
improved so that a much larger segment of the American popula-
tion can see and utilize this spectacular area. We heed to diversify
the types of recreational opportunities available in Southeast
Alaska, not limit it to those segments of people that can afford to
fly or trek to these remote areas. The timber industry has greatly
aided in this and, with their continued cooperation, we can help
more Americans see and enjoy their land. Let us not restrict this
resource to the selfish few who have the money and the loudest
voices.
The Tongass National Forest is different from the rest of the na-
tional forest system and cannot be successfully managed in the
same way. Large private and state timberland holdings in the
Lower 48 allow a diversity of timber supply and less pressure on
Federal lands. In Southeast Alaska, Federal lands are the only de-
pendable, long-term source of timber available. The pulp mills here
are challenged by some of the highest road building, logging and
transportation costs of any of the national forests. This, along with
higher wages and operating costs, makes it difficult to compete in
the world market. The only advantage these mills have is their
long-term contracts that guarantee a stable timber supply. The
intent of and need for these contracts still exists, and the stability
of at least one-third of our economy in Southeast Alaska depends
on them.
Senate Bill 346 endangers the timber industry, the tourism in-
dustry, and our economy needlessly. Senate Bill 237 will help main-
tain the stability of the industries within the Tongass National
Forest.
I encourage you to base your decisions on what is reality in
Southeast Alaska, not on the radical viewpoints you have been
hearing in Washington, D.C. We can and must work together to
promote multiple use management of the Tongass to benefit all
users of our national forest.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Cronk. We appreciate
your testimony.
The last member of this panel is Ken Leghorn.
513
STATEMENT OF KEN LEGHORN, TONGASS TOURISM AND
RECREATION BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Leghorn. I am from Juneau and have 11 years in tourism.
The Tongass Tourism and Recreation Business Association is a
coalition of over 90 businesses involved with tourism and outdoor
recreation in Southeast Alaska. Each company has recently agreed
to the following position statement in support of Tongass reform
legislation:
The Tongass Tourism and Recreation Business Association be-
lieves that in order to achieve balanced management of the Ton-
gass National Forest, the U.S. Forest Service must be relieved of
constraints imposed on it by ANILCA, Section 705(a), and by the
two 50-year timber contracts with the pulp mills. We also recognize
the importance of key fish and wildlife and scenic areas which are
now protected, and believe that further designation of selected
lands for permanent protection on the Tongass National Forest is
desirable. Therefore, the Tongass Tourism and Recreation Business
Association supports the Tongass Timber Reform Act and associat-
ed legislation which may be introduced.
The 90 businesses who support reform legislation include lodges,
fishing charters, retail stores, outfitter/guides, air taxi companies
and a variety of other businesses from towns such as Ketchikan,
Wrangell, Sitka, Juneau, Angoon, Pelican, Haines and Yakutat.
What we share in common is a commitment to the long-term eco-
nomic health of our region, including a diversified economy. We do
not believe Senator Wirth's bill is anti-development, nor antilog-
ging, nor is it strictly environmental legislation. Rather, we regard
the Tongass Timber Reform Act as giving all industry in Southeast
Alaska the same fair treatment and the same chance to compete. It
is time to stop pampering the pulp mills with unfair contracts and
to stop subsidizing the destruction of the best places this forest has
left.
Tourism here is a sunrise, not a sunset, industry. Our businesses
are growing. Many of us pay 3 percent of our annual gross revenue
into the Federal treasury for operating on public lands. We can
continue to grow for decades to come, and continue to pay our way,
but we cannot support having 85 percent of Tongass management
funding to only aid one industry, especially an industry that is at
odds with ours when it involves clearcutting coastal virgin forests.
The Tongass currently spends the lowest percent of management
funds on recreation than any other region in the country. Let the
timber program here compete with other user groups and industry
programs and give our businessmen a chance.
Finally, we urge you to realize that the same key areas for fish
and wildlife protection that are important to the fishing and con-
servation communities are also extremely important to the future
growth of tourism in this region. The 23 areas listed in Senator
Wirth's bill all need permanent protection. A temporary moratori-
um will not give tourism businesses the investment protection they
need in order to begin marketing and operating trips to these
areas. A 1985 tourism study found that the majority of operators
feel very positive about the influence of wilderness designations on
the Southeast tourism industry and their own personal businesses
514
and that the single, most frequently mentioned activity avoided by
operators was timber-related operations.
In closing, we need to emphasize that Senator Murkowski's bill
does not address our major concerns for tourism and recreation.
We do not want to bring these same issues before you again next
year. Therefore, the Tongass Tourism and Recreation Business As-
sociation urges you to pass the Tongass Timber Reform Act and to
include wilderness designation or some other kind of permanent
protection for all of the 23 areas listed. That permanent protection
could include wilderness — some kind of a roadless designation.
One additional point, although I am only representing this asso-
ciation, I do want to note that Alaska Visitor's Association has re-
cently supported the Southeast Conference.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Leghorn, I guess the Tongass Tourism
and Recreation Business Association does not support the South-
east Conference recommendation?
Mr. Leghorn. They have not stated they supported the South-
east Conference's position. They only presented the position state-
ment that I quoted.
Senator Murkowski. Do you know if they intend to address it
formally?
Mr. Leghorn. There is no intent at this time.
Senator Murkowski. The reason I ask is that you said the
Alaska Visitor's Association did support it, and I am curious to
know if the Tongass Tourism and Recreation did not?
Mr. Leghorn. I do not know.
Senator Murkowski. The Forest Service's presence in cabins and
trails and what they do in the form of welcome, and I think they
are still individually available on some of the ships to provide serv-
ices for tourists, is that still going on?
Mr. Leghorn. Yes, it is. That is a very successful program.
Senator Murkowski. The Forest Service makes some contribu-
tion to tourism, correct?
Mr. Leghorn. I think it is safe to say that the Tongass has some
of the most dedicated recreation staff in the Forest Service of any
forest. It is amazing what they do with the levels of funding that
they do get.
Senator Murkowski. You are aware that both bills do away with
any Federal funding of the Tongass?
Mr. Leghorn. Yes, sir. I believe Senator's Wirth's bill does pro-
vide language that directs the Forest Service to spend more of its
efforts on non-timber programs, and that is the real key to recrea-
tion and tourism.
Senator Murkowski. Well, that would have to be the responsibil-
ity of the Forest Service because they are managers of the Tongass,
and we would all like to see them do a better job to enhance tour-
ism. I think that is very important.
Just a couple of other brief observations. I notice that the testi-
mony of the Territorial Sportsmen, many of whom I know quite
well, but in the testimony of Mr. Tonkin, the statement was made
that the main factor limiting the population of Sitka black-tailed
deer, which are the most abundant and widel}' distributed recre-
515
ational and subsistence hunting species in Southeast Alaska, is the
availability of food in winter. Then it goes on to say, "Logging,
with its removal of canopy cover provided by old-growth trees
allows much more snow to accumulate on the ground and makes
food unavailable. About 30 years after logging, densely growing
second growth shades out deer forage understory plants." Are you
aware that the proposal is to leave 1.7 million, one-third of the wil-
derness, which is as it is now currently, in the Tongass National
Forest and one-third commercial forest in wilderness, and that is to
be set aside for 10 years as a fish and game habitat in TLMP and
that leaves 1.7 million acres for logging?
Mr. Tonkin. I think conflict arises in the specific areas of winter
consolations.
Senator Murkowski. I just wonder if there is not some conflict in
the reality that the deer often have the realization of predators.
Have you ever hunted on Kuiu Island?
Mr. Tonkin. No, I have been there, but I have not hunted there.
Senator Murkowski. Do you know what the deer level is on
Kuiu Island?
Mr. Tonkin. No, I do not. The season closed.
Senator Murkowski. What do the wolves eat?
Mr. Tonkin. Basically, they eat deer.
Senator Murkowski. How many do they eat a day?
Mr. Tonkin. I do not have any figures. Part of their diet does
consist of the understory vegetation and other wilderness food
sources.
Senator Murkowski. On Admiralty and Banoff and Chichagof
there is no erosion and the limitation is three, four, or five deer for
hunting.
Mr. Tonkin. I think if you read the report, and the State report
that is also submitted, addresses the exact things you are talking
about. It is part of the testimony.
Senator Murkowski I think it is important as testimony. All I
read was the four pages that you spoke from and to someone who
is not knowledgable about Southeast Alaska to assume that the
dwindling populations was due to availability of food in the winter
and then logging and since it is my understanding from expert wit-
nesses in Ketchikan yesterday that the wolf eats about 10 pounds
of deer a day, and that is about a deer a week — I do not know how
many wolves are here, but maybe somebody else does, but I just
want to point out that as we address all of the realities of our fish
and game that we do have the realization that the predators are
both wolves and men. I wanted to make that point, and I think
that I have.
I think that the testimony by Mr. Ward obviously reflects a long-
time observation of the tourist patterns, and I know Mr. Ward and
his association are known for their scheduling, taking a very small
community and making it identifiable as a tourist designation. I
would like to go in there and ski at White Pass, but I am not going
to have time for that this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Burns?
Senator Burns. No questions.
516
Senator Wirth. Very quickly. Mr. Ward, in your testimony you
said that the harvest of timber from public lands within the Ton-
gass is the most highly regulated timber industry in the world.
Where did that data come from?
Mr. Ward. Well, I would have to admit that is pure speculation
on my part.
Senator Wirth. That is not true. I just want to point that out.
Any forest that is near an urban area has more intensive forest
management.
Mr. Cronk suggests that our large private and state timberland
holdings in the Lower 48 allows a diversity of timber supply and
less pressure on public lands, which is another one of the reasons
why it was suggested the Tongass ought to be treated differently.
That is one of the questions we have been after all of the time, why
should the Tongass be treated differently? The suggestion here is
that it is because there are other timber sources available in the
Lower 48, is that right?
Mr. Cronk. That is what I am saying, yes. The Federal Govern-
ment and privately owned log the timber supply.
Senator Wirth. And in every other national forest there is avail-
able, therefore, a diversity of timber supply from large private and
state timberland holdings?
Mr. Cronk. Correct. In other states, as well as national forests,
they are not the only source of timber there.
Senator Wirth. Are there also national forests that do not have
available private and state timberland holdings?
Mr. Cronk. Not within the national forest, but within the states
they exist. I believe that there are the private and state holdings.
Senator Wirth. Well, I think there are a number of examples of
other national forests where those who timber on the national for-
ests do not have access to any other timber.
Mr. Cronk. There may be operators that focus their operations
specifically on Federal timber, be it Forest Service, National
Forest, or be it Land Management. They have the same opportuni-
ty to bid on state sales, if those are available in those areas. Many
of the private holdings are large timber companies that do cut for
their own use, but that means that they do not have to rely on the
Federal lands so heavily.
Senator Wirth. Seldom do you find a competitive situation in the
Rocky Mountain Region or the Pacific Northwest where there are
competitive situations and you do have smaller mills there. Very
seldom do those mills have access to anything but national forest
land. The point of that is that were there to be a more competitive
situation here, rather than two large companies having all of the
contracts who have effectively, as I understand it, driven everybody
else out, is that you would treat this in a more competitive way,
and there would not be any need for these kinds of long-term con-
tracts and commitments we have here today. The other forests
have gotten rid of those. The rationale was that there was not any
other market and, well, we have proved that there are other mar-
kets.
So, I am just asking again why should the Tongass be treated dif-
ferently and you are making one allegation as to why it should be.
517
In fact, I do not think it holds up and examines what other forests
have done. Does that make sense to you?
Mr. Cronk. Well, I see what you are saying but I still feel the
Tongass is unique in many ways and being that it is the only
timber supply available for the timber industry here, for the pulp
mills or sawmills, I do not feel that we have the ability to re-
strict— well, I do not think this national forest can be handled in
the same manner. I do not think the independent stump sales of-
fered in the forest, meaning the small operational stuff, could work
as well in Southeast Alaska without substantially increasing the
raw material cost to these mills and subsequently endangering
their ability to operate in the world market.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Leghorn, you said that the Tongass has the
lowest percentage of Forest Service funds spent on recreation.
Where did those numbers come from?
Mr. Leghorn. They came from the Forest Service. About 85 per-
cent of the Tongass annual budget, and it has been pretty consist-
ent for the last number of years, is spent on the timber program
and about 15 percent is spent on all of the other programs: recrea-
tion, fish and wildlife.
Senator Wirth. I understand that, but you said it was the lowest
percentage spent on recreation of any national forest.
Mr. Leghorn. Yes. I have checked that figure with the Forest
Service personnel.
Senator Wirth. Could you get for us or send in to us where those
data come from?
Mr. Leghorn. I would be happy to provide that for the record.
I would like to address your question about the issue of timber
regulations in the Tongass. I think it was an important one. I
would say that, at least in this country, the information I would
like to see pursued and put into the record, that perhaps the Ton-
gass is one of the least regulated forests in this country. As I am
aware, there are major sections of the 1976 Forest Practices Act
which are not in the forest on the Tongass and which have been
and are the subject of lawsuits because of that.
Senator Wirth. Just as a final point on all of this, if we look at
the Tongass, and I think we also discussed this yesterday in Ketchi-
kan, there is in the current law a waiver of the so-called "suitabil-
ity requirements," whether it is economically or environmentally
suitable for timber. Now, those requirements exist for every other
national forest in the United States but they are waived for the
Tongass. This would suggest to me that there is probably less regu-
lation and probably less management, therefore, in the forest. Does
it suggest that to you?
Well, I do not mean to pick on the statement you made that it is
one of the least-regulated forests, but I think you were probably
looking at that one provision of suitability, which is in there for
every other national forest. And for some reason, and I do not un-
derstand why, it was waived in the Tongass legislation. In the bill
which I have offered to get rid of that waiver there was wording
saying let us keep the Tongass consistent with the way in which we
treat other national forests.
Do any of you have anything further for the good of the record?
[No response.]
518
Senator Wirth. We appreciate your being here. We thank you
very much.
Now, our sixth panel consists of Mike O'Brien, Shop Foreman,
Whitestone Logging Company; Frank Roppel, Executive Vice-Presi-
dent, Alaska Pulp Corporation; Bud Stewart, Owner/Operator,
Whitestone Logging Company; Bernice Brown, a member of the
Alaska Women in Timber; Larry Beck, Mill Foreman, Chilkoot
Lumber Company and Dennis Jacobs, an employee of Chilkoot
Lumber Company.
If you all will come up and join us, please, at the witness table.
We thank you all very much for being here and if we could have
our final panel be ready to come up, give copies of their statements
to the staff, if you would. That would be Dixie Baade, Florian
Sever, Lee Schmidt, Alice Johnstone, Margaret Calvin, and K. J.
Metcalf.
Thank you all for being with us. And, Mr. O'Brien, we will start
with you.
[No response.]
Mr. O'Brien is not here and so we will start with Mr. Roppel.
STATEMENT OF FRANK ROPPEL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
ALASKA PULP CORP.
Mr. Roppel. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to ad-
dress the bills.
Alaska Pulp Corporation bid on its long-term timber sale in a
competitive bid offered by the U.S. Forest Service in 1957. It was
awarded the bid and proceeded with bid requirements, the main
one being construction of a pulp mill.
In the 1950s, many of our shareholders and others in Japan
really wanted to buy round logs rather than build a pulp mill. This
government could have made a lot more money then, as today, by
selling round logs from the Tongass, as compared to the longstand-
ing policy of the U.S. Forest Service which requires manufacture of
the logs before sale.
We have faithfully performed on our part of the contract for 25
years. The social infrastructure benefits, and other benefits, antici-
pated by the government appear to have been achieved. Many
thousands of man-years of employment have been provided. Mil-
lions in income taxes, stumpage payments, and property taxes have
been collected by various government entities during our nearly 30
years of activity in the area.
In addition to the original investments required, the company
has continued to invest in the operations to keep the mill modern
and meet changing government requirements. As an example, this
year alone we are midway into the construction of new pollution
control facilities at a capital cost of nearly $19 million — all bor-
rowed funds.
It is upsetting to our shareholders, bankers, management and
employees to find that now, half-way through our contract, the gov-
ernment is seriously considering legislation to walk away from its
part of the bargain. It is especially distressing because there are no
provisions to provide for the employees and communities adversely
impacted by S. 346.
519
The long-term contract was the key element which brought
Alaska Pulp to Sitka in the 1950s. Without the long-term contract
as collateral, it will be difficult to obtain financing. A pulp mill
without an adequate timber supply is not a good business risk.
Trying to run a plant such as ours with less than the necessary
volume of wood is out of the question. We are barely cost competi-
tive now, at full capacity. It is not feasible to operate at reduced
capacity, even if we could get sales contracts to supply pulp on and
if and when we get enough wood basis.
As a matter of fact, right now we are struggling to obtain enough
wood to operate at full production, even with a long-term contract.
The sawmill in Wrangell has been closed for three weeks this
month because it cannot get enough logs.
We are hopeful that the information you receive will convince
you to adopt the approach by Senator Murkowski in S. 237.
We appreciate the opportunity to give you our views.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. Mr. Stewart?
Evidently Mr. Stewart is not here.
STATEMENT OF BERNICE BROWN, ALASKA WOMEN IN TIMBER
Ms. Brown. My name is Bernice Brown, and I represent the
Sitka branch of Alaska Women in Timber, AWIT.
We support Senator Murkowski's Senate Bill 237. Obviously
there is a need for education, and highlighted is a multiple use for
the forest as opposed to a single use. We believe that it is evident
that the timber industry plays a big role in the nation's economy,
providing for jobs and contributing to the positive side of the U.S.
trade balance in both local, state and Federal coffers.
Locally, we have a reasonable utility and tax rate because of the
pulp mills contribution.
Earlier this month, I accompanied a witness to Washington, D.C.
to discuss the Tongass issue with members of the Congress and
staff members. We were asked what makes our forest different,
why is the logging more costly. It was difficult for them to compre-
hend the logistics required in setting up and operating a logging
camp in a remote island area. We explained what you have to have
to build a logging camp where no previous road has existed and
also that supplies are flown in or brought by water. Persons who
have never experienced this type of environment legislate this
area.
We furnished photographs to show the folks in D.C. For example,
the aerial photos of Sitka showed the land area behind town where
the trees were cut by the Russians a hundred years ago. They were
surprised to see there was no discernible line to show where the
Russians ended their cut.
We also had a photograph showing Muskeg and clearcut areas.
Trees never have grown in Muskeg. However, some magazines
have misidentified Muskeg as a result of clearcut.
Those individuals brought up the so-called $40 million subsidy
and the 50-year contracts. The $40 million was the cause of addi-
tional wilderness brought about when the loggers had to relinquish
commercial timber for noncommercial timber demanded by the en-
vironmentalists. Congress had added $12 million to the already ex-
520
isting $28 million budget to the Forest Service. The loggers did not
request the added $12 million.
The 50-year contracts were issued by the government in order to
encourage pulp mills to make the large investment needed to build
the pulp mills. The banks would not have loaned them the money
if they did not have a supply of timber.
The people of Southeast Alaska are anxious for industry to come
to their area and try to make it as attractive as possible. What new
industry is not given a helping hand when it locates in an area?
I was surprised to hear one staff member in D.C. say that the
government breaks contracts all of the time, and so there would be
no great impediment to get out of the long-term contracts. This
shows disregard for the people whose livelihood depends on the in-
dustry. It is impossible for them to load their station wagon and
drive to the next town.
Again, we reiterate that AWIT supports Senate Bill 237, which
provides for intensive management so that the maximum harvest-
ing of 4.5 billion board feet per day be achieved. We believe there is
already enough wilderness that has been set aside. We firmly be-
lieve in multiple use of the forest, and it is unnecessary to expand
the single use areas, which already comprise over half of the Ton-
gass forest.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
521
TONGASS TIMBER TESTIMONY
SITKA BRANCH
ALASKA WOMEN IN TIMBER
SUPPORT SENATOR'S MURKOWSKI AND STEVENS BILL S 237
522
INTRODUCTION
My name is Berniece Brown and I represent the Sitka branch of
Alaska Women in Timber (AWIT). My husband, Don Brown, and I
arrived in the Sitka area in 1966, where we owned and operated
Mud Bay Logging Company until his retirement in 1983. Previous
to coming to Alaska, we had lived in Oregon where we logged for
Evans Products and U.S. Plywood. I am a graduate of the
University of Oregon and my husband of Oregon State University
School of Forestry.
My husband has operated logging operations for over 40 years
and during this period has not had one on-the-job fatality among
our employees. I would credit this good record to our strong
respect for the power of Mother Nature and our emphasis on
safety. In our remote Alaska camps the men and women were given
First Aid and CPR training and we offered the added incentive
that the employees received extra pay for no time lost due to
injuries.
Alaska Women in Timber came into being in 1978 because we
realized someone needed to tell the story of those in the woods
whose lives would be most directly affected by the loss of
available commercial timber. It was a grassroots movement
organized by wives of the men working in the woods and the mills
who were too busy to take time off for political purposes. So,
rather than just agonizing over whether or not there would be
work the following year, the women pitched in. We consider AWIT
to be an educational effort — a means of getting our side of the
story told.
523
AWIT is comprised not only of persons working in the timber
industry, but also business people who recognize that the timber
industry is important for their respective businesses. In short,
AWIT members are trying to protect our jobs and the livelihood of
others in our communities.
TIMBER INDUSTRY ROLE IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA ECONOMY
AWIT asks that community economic stability be considered
when debating the future of the forest products industry in
Southeast Alaska. According to Alaska Department of Labor
records 8,200 direct and indirect jobs in Southeast Alaska are a
result of the timber industy. When you consider that the total
number of workers in Southeast is only 29,100, it is evident that
the timber industry plays a big role in the area's economic
wellbeing. In fact, over one-third of the Southeast Alaska
economy depends on this resource. Furthermore, Southeast
Alaska's timber industry accounts for aproximately 3,600 fulltime
workers with earnings of $110 million. Income tax from this
alone accounts for $25 million to the National Treasury.
In order to sustain our industry and jobs in Southeast Alaska
it is necessary to have available 4.5 billion board feet of
timber per decade. Congress recognized this when it passed
ANILCA in 1980 directing the U.S. Forest Service to make
available 4.5 billion board feet of timber per decade on a
100-year rotation basis.
Thanks to the foresight of Alaskans and the U.S. Government,
the Southeast Alaska economy has been mightily helped by the pulp
mills that were attracted to this area in the 1950's. There has
524
has been a lot of discussion about the 50-year contracts that
were a critical key to attracting industry. The contracts now
have 17 and 20 years respectively to run. The 50-year contracts
were necessary to secure financing for the multi-million dollar
investments in the two pulp mills in Southeast. AWIT believes
these contracts should be honored.
In the case of Sitka specifically, let me highlight some
economic impacts that would come about should the timber base
be further eroded and the Sitka pulp mill closed:
o Alaska Pulp Corporation accounts for 27.4% ($1,674,000 in
1986) of all electrical utility revenue to the City and Borough
of Sitka. They also pay nearly one-fourth of the municipal water
revenue ($100,000 in 1986). Should the mill close, the next day
utility rate increases would be a minimum of 23%.
o About one-fifth of all Sitka property tax revenue is
derived directly from APC ($211,495 in 1986). Not included are
property tax payments of households of the 23.4% of all area
employees attributable to Alaska Pulp Corporation.
o Alaska Pulp Corporation, its employees, and the pulp
mill's support labor force spent an estimated $30 million in
Sitka on goods and services during 1986.
o One seafood processing plant owner (there are two
processing plants in Sitka) has stated he would not be able to
afford the excess utility and property tax rates and would not be
able to remain in business.
o Not counting the Forest Service payroll, the economic
downturn from loss of payroll attributable to forest products
525
would be 27.1%.
THE COST OF WILDERNESS
A subject that is often mentioned is the so called "$40
Million Subsidy." This amount was not requested by the timber
industry during the ANILCA debate. Rather, industry asked that
Congress not trade commercial timber in areas designated for
timber harvest for timber located in wilderness areas. The
timber to be traded to the industry was not economically feasible
for harvest due to significant additional roadbuilding and
logging costs. The Congress, recognizing that it was unfair that
the better timber be taken away, added $12 million to the already
allocated $28 million Forest Service budget bringing the total to
$40 million.
Analyzing this supposed subsidy from another viewpoint it is
evident that the additional money required for the Forest Service
budget and the loss of commercial timber resources was the cost
of additional wilderness. Environmentalists complained about the
amount added to the Forest Service budget but said nothing about
the value of the wilderness maintained by giving up the good
commercial timber.
PENDING LEGISLATION
AWIT supports Senator Murkowski's bill, S. 237. It provides
for intensively managed forests so that a maximum harvest of 4.5
bbf/decade is achieved. This is the amount estimated necessary
to maintain the historical timber employment base. The bill also
retains the current 50-year contracts with Alaska Pulp
Corporation and Ketchikan Pulp Company. As noted earlier, these
526
contracts benefit Southeast Alaska. We believe there is already
enough wilderness that has been set aside. We firmly believe in
multiple use of the forest and that it is unnecessary to expand
the reach of nonmultiple use areas which already comprise over
half of the Tongass Forest.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Tongass National Forest comprises 16.7
million acres. 5.7 million acres are considered "commercial"
forest land — or land suited biologically for- growing and .
harvesting timber in a continuous cycle. Wilderness designations
contain approximately 1.7 million acres of this commercial forest
land. 2.3 million acres of the commercial forest land are not
available for timber harvesting because they are prime recreation
areas, critical wildlife habitats, sensitve fisheries streams
etc. That leaves 1.7 million acres of coimnercial forest land as
the current timber base. Only about 1% of that 1.7 million acres
is scheduled for harvest in any given year. At the end of the
first 100 year rotation, the same acres will be ready for harvest
a second time.
Alaska Women in Timber continues to support wise use
management of the timber resources of the Tongass. Wise use
forest management is crucial to community economic stability, to
providing a sound timber base, to assessing wilderness values
versus economic values and to the utilization of the forest for
the betterment of all — including people.
April 25, 1989
527
Getting a Handle on the Facts About the Tongass National Forest
s
<
■s
g
CO
-S
e
%
9
8
Jobs on the Tongass
(average monthly jobs)
About 28% of the jobs in
SoullKast Alaska depend
on a guaraiueed supply of
timber Crocn the Tongass,
Of these. 3400 are direct
timber jobs and 4800 are
indirect support jobs.
.2.-°
8|
Land Classification on the
Tongass National Forest
(16.7 million acres total)
, Commercial Forest Land
in the Tongass
(5 J mHUon acres total)
528
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.
STATEMENT OF LARRY BECK, GENERAL MANAGER, CHILKOOT
LUMBER CO.
Mr. Beck. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.
I am Larry Beck, the General Manager of Chilkoot Lumber Co.
in Haines.
Having spent my entire professional life, 24 years, in all facets of
timber harvest and lumber production, I feel entitled to speak on
the subject.
I am totally opposed to any verbiage which would allow anyone
to think that the 4.5 billion board feet allowable to be cut per
decade meant anything but that: allowable cut.
The industry has the capacity to utilize much more than its
much publicized "450 mmbf per year," but because of market de-
mands, the actual cut may not reach the 4.5 billion board feet of
potential harvest base. The industry needs the assurance that the
timber will be available so that we can plan for the future. The
Tongass will sustain much more than the 4.5 billion feet of allow-
able cut per decade.
All compromise agreements with groups opposed to timber har-
vest seem to be a one-way street, with the environmental groups
forgetting what they agreed to just a couple of years before. The
industry should not need to continue to lobby Congress for its
agreed-upon share of the forest. Congress should stand fast and
deny those that, with their proposed trades of land, loggable for
wilderness, would effectively stop many of the planned transporta-
tion corridors. These transportation systems are constructed to
allow all of the users of the forest access to their forest, not just
the logging industry. The setting of the boundaries should not be a
subject that the legislative branch gets involved with, but a matter
that is decided by a committee of all the groups involved in the
multiple use of the forest.
If all of the Nation's national forests are to be attacked as the
Tongass is, what is going to be the cost to the American consumers,
driven by their insatiable demand for forest products in the form of
lumber, paper, dissolving pulp products, and absorbent pulp for dis-
posable diapers and the like. The constant erosion of the basic in-
dustries that supply the raw materials to the American production
chain is causing these American jobs to be exported. Our own mill,
in the small business sector, is producing mostly finished products,
ready to go on the consumer's shelves, keeping these jobs and pay-
rolls here in America. Utilizing the Tongass is one of its best roles,
supporting the people of the Tongass.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Beck.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS JACOBS, CHILKOOT LUMBER CO.
Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Dennis Jacobs, and I am employed in the forest industry in the
Tongass National Forest. I have been involved and employed, di-
rectly and indirectly, in the forest industry my entire life.
I wish to address you members of the Congressional Committee,
and other concerned citizens in the audience, on my concerns re-
529
garding the reduction of the allowable cut of the timber base in the
Tongass National Forest.
We have been promised and guaranteed through legislation in
the past that we would receive an allowable cut that would sustain
the forest industry in Southeast Alaska. In the past, we have made
major concessions to maintain this allowable cut in order to pre-
serve our jobs and futures. How many more concessions must we
make?
We cannot tolerate a reduction in the allowable cut on the Ton-
gass. The effects on the entire economic base of Southeast Alaska
would be devastating. It would cause an economic collapse of pro-
portions unseen anywhere since the depression in the 1930s.
The major proponents calling for a reduction in the allowable cut
are the same people who live in wood houses, work in wood offices,
sit behind wood desks, cut or buy Christmas trees and use ream
upon ream of wood paper products, not to mention paper for more
personal uses — all this while inking legislation on these reams of
paper, reducing the source of these products and our jobs. Webster
has a word for these people. It is called "hypocritical."
Now, for the members of the Congress who support such ridicu-
lous legislation. You people recently attempted to give yourselves a
pay raise which was more than the average yearly income on the
Tongass Forest. Are you willing to compensate us, support our fam-
ilies, and re-educate us, as you did in creating the Redwood Nation-
al Park? I hope so, because we cannot if you take our jobs away.
I only hope you show some semblance of justice and sanity in not
deviating from the present allowable cut in our forest. I say "our
forest" because a vast majority of the people supporting this legis-
lation do not even live in our state and will be totally unaffected by
this legislation and economic disaster.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Jacobs.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. I am interested in a couple of things, Mr.
Chairman, brought up by Ms. Brown.
The cut timber behind Sitka that you referred to
Ms. Brown. I have a picture here that I brought that shows the
area.
Senator Murkowski. If the professional staff wanted to go out
and look it the mountain, how far would they have to go?
Ms. Brown. I think you could just — anywhere downtown you can
see it. It is very visible.
Senator Murkowski. We could go outside the door here and look
up at the mountain?
Ms. Brown. You could see it.
Senator Murkowski. You could see where the old growth was
cut maybe some hundred years ago?
Ms. Brown. A little over a hundred years, I assume.
Senator Murkowski. And the Russians, and others I assume, did
a lot of timber cutting around here. It is safe to say, probably, that
all of the accessible timber that one can see, and I hope that my
colleague. Senator Wirth, has an opportunity to look around the
area, is all second growth timber?
Ms. Brown. Right.
530
Senator Murkowski. And you see the V up on the mountain
where the second growth intercepts the original growth. Have any
foresters ever looked at the two and made any conclusions?
Ms. Brown. I do not know if they have or not.
Senator Murkowski. I think it is very important, Mr. Chairman,
to note that right here is this phenomena. Here we have evidence
of second growth from 100 years ago and next to it is original
growth. And on the mountain behind Sitka, from when the Rus-
sians came, you can see where there is second growth and in abun-
dance. I think Ms. Brown brought that out in testimony.
Ms. Brown. I think it is my understanding, too, that Kuna Park
was at one time cut, and you can see the stumps, but I did not
want to be quoted on that, I was not positive on that.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Roppel, there was conversation in the
Ketchikan hearings at some length that the Alaska Pulp Company
mill was owned by the Japanese and the final designation of the
product it produces. I was wondering if you could give us a little
brief orientation on where the products go and you also have a
sawmill, I believe, and that sawmill was shut down? As I recall, the
sawmill was originally opened by a Portland firm, Alaska Wood
Products, or something, from Portland and that was when they
had, I think, the Southeast divided into, theoretically, four pulp
mill blocks. One was going to go in Juneau, Berners Bay, and I
think Champion — U.S. Plywood and Champion got the timber sale
and that was going to be Admiralty Island that they were going to
cut. That was cancelled; there was a lot of opposition against it,
and as a consequence of that, the pulp mill block never came into
reality. There is Ketchikan, Sitka, the question of Wrangell and
that was not developed, I gather. The market was down; there was
. not enough timber. And so, to stimulate the economy of Wrangell
between 1962 and 1966 there was an effort made to stimulate some
sawmills. They always had a small sawmill, and then it went
broke. It was up and down, and you folks came in, and then what
happened? It went broke, too?
Mr. Roppel. There has been a sawmill operation in Wrangell for
many years. The current sawmill that is now operating there was
completely rebuilt in 1980. It is the old sawmill that belonged to
Pacific Northern Timber, the Portland firm that you spoke of. The
operation shut down, and I believe Alaska Pulp bought that oper-
ation and they already owned another mill in Wrangell. They even-
tually junked out the older of the two and rebuilt the current mill
at a cost of about $21 million, and that one was set up to sell sur-
face lumber into the export market because we saw a need for that
type of product going in that direction. The mill currently employ-
ees a little over 200 people working on a two-shift basis for about
the last three years.
We had the mill leased out to an independent operator, and
about six to eight months ago, he came to us and said that he was
no longer confident that he could get his timber supplies. And then
the money was going to run out, and he could not stand the finan-
cial risk. He wanted to know if we would take the lease back. So, at
that point, we did take the lease back and he is now operating on a
contract offer.
531
Last fall we had cut all of the timber that was available to us.
There has been a question of backlog, and to us that means timber
that is available and ready to harvest. Some of the timber that the
forester said was to be harvested was tied up in lawsuits and could
not be released to us, and so we just ran out of timber. There were
not adequate supplies. The mill should be starting up on a one-shift
basis and will run that way until we get an adequate timber supply
to operate the two shifts. The products from that plant are now
about 75 percent finished products that go directly into the housing
market and about 90 percent of those products go to Japan in the
form of 4 by 4s or cutting bridges for the musical instrument firms
primarily.
Senator Murkowski. That represents a change in the exports ob-
tained from the sawmill?
Mr. RoppEL. The export industry to Japan started in about 1965.
First, they did not want the finished lumber because they had a
large lumber industry of their own in Japan. The sawmill industry
there, more than 22,000 sawmills at that time, preferred to cut
logs. They could not get the logs and so they cut the next best
thing, which were switches or cants. With the change of the dollar
in relationship to other currencies, it is now cost effective for home
builders in Japan to buy finished lumber, as opposed to rough cut
wood, and the trend will continue that way. The Japanese yen
keeps getting stronger against our currency and, as a matter of
fact, now I think, and I saw a remark not long ago, in October, that
the average Japanese wage earner had surpassed that of the Amer-
ican wage earner. There have been a lot of changes. As far as the
products from Alaska Pulp, we produce basically textile rate pulp
that goes into the manufacture of non woven textiles, rayon, cello-
phane. We supply about 55 to 60 percent of that product out of this
plant, and it goes to Japan. We also sell significant quantities to
Korea, China, Mexico, Taiwan, and we have a substantial customer
in the United States in Virginia that uses our product to make car-
bonized fiber for the space industry. I think we are the only U.S.
supplier of the raw material for that particular plant. They do buy
some material from Canada.
Senator Murkowski. That is very interesting. This pulp then,
rayon type pulp, lends itself to installation on the space re-entry
vehicles?
Mr. RoppEL. They use it for the rocket motors as an insulative
material. I am not sure that information as to exactly how it is
used is public information. It has been used for quite some time.
We are told that every time a space shuttle goes up it takes about
20,000 pounds of pulp to make the carbonized fiber for that particu-
lar shot.
Senator Murkowski. And so some of that pulp goes from Sitka to
Virginia?
Mr. RoppEL. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. It goes from Sitka to Virginia, by water
first to Seattle and then by rail to Virginia.
And how much volume might that be?
Mr. RoppEL. Right now we are shipping about 10,000 pounds.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Senator Wirth and I had a
question that maybe you can answer. You made reference to an in-
532
adequate timber supply, and our dilemma is the realization that
the Forest Service is directed to make available up to 4.5 per
decade or 450 million each year. And we see from 1978 to 1989,
over that 10-year period, approximately 3.7 billion board feet was
cut, as compared to 4.5, which was mandated. And you said there
was a shortage of timber, and we go through the years — and I do
not have to repeat it — but in years like 1983 there were only 251
million instead of 450 million. It seems like they would have been
building up an excess each year of timber that they were required
to have available and that was not used, and that excess would
carry over. So, I have done figures on the difference between what
they were supposed to cut and what was actually cut. Over a 10-
year period, there is nearly 800 million board feet that would be
surplus. Now, I do not understand how you can say that you were
out of timber, when it shows that they have cut less than 450
during that period. And where is the surplus?
Mr. RoppEL. In order to understand the supply and demand in
the Tongass you have to understand that it is not just the Forest
Service timber in the last few years, particularly since 1980. It has
been the whole supply to the dependent industries. Since 1980 cor-
porations have started their operations and have been harvesting
anywhere from 200 to close to 400 million feet a year. About 75
percent of that wood goes into the export market in the form of
round logs. There are no export restrictions on their logs, just as
there are none for private owners in the Northwest or any part of
the United States.
The pulp component, or low-rate component of that wood, has
been going into dependent industries. I would say that probably 90
percent of that has been purchased by either Ketchikan or by the
Sitka mill. At one point, in 1985 and 1986, they supplied roughly 35
percent of our makeup required for wood chips. So, that is an ele-
ment.
The contract has built up a backlog of contractual obligation.
However, the timber backlog is on paper; it is not available for us
to cut because the Forest Service, even though it shows it to be
timber that may have been sold or in the sale program, the neces-
sary sale work or the environmental impact statement work and
the sale preparation work that lets it go or whatever, has not been
done. So, that timber may be known as a backlog and unsold or
available, but it is not available to us until all of that work is done.
That is the case with the short fall that we see now.
Senator Murkowski. The suitability requirements that have
been brought up, the reason for waiving it in the national forest.
National Practices Act, do you know that?
Mr. RoppEL. I am unaware. I know that is a matter that the
Forest Service can answer. Senator, I am just not aware of the
reason for that.
Senator Murkowski. Lastly, and maybe I will ask a question my
colleague would have asked, but from your perspective, why has
Congress supplied a permanent appropriation of $40 million and a
4.5 billion board feet per decade availability of timber supply,
making the Tongass obviously different than other national forests.
Why should the Tongass be different?
533
Mr. RoppEL. Well, as far as I know, the two pulp mills in Alaska
are the only pulp mills that have to rely 100 percent on national
forest timber for their makeup, and certainly on the West Coast.
Our competitors in Washington, as an example, in the Olympic Pe-
ninsula, have about 30 percent of their makeup from state timber
sales, from Federal timber sales, and from private. And many of
those companies own their own private timber lands to make up
their requirements. I think the Tongass is about the only forest
that I know that has a 40 percent pulp component.
Senator Murkowski. What does that mean?
Mr. RoppEL. The wood has no other economic use except pulp
chips. The trees are old, decayed, half rotten. The requirements are
that we take the log that has a very high percentage of rot in it. A
private land owner probably could not do that because it does not
have the economics. The Forest Service requires that is a part of
its total utilization program.
So, the Tongass has a very high component of decaying wood
suitable only for pulp. It is unique in that there are, or shortly will
be, very limited other supplies, private land owner supplies as well.
We have been fortunate in the last 10 years — it is a very down
market — the native pulp wood came into the market and supple-
mented the national forest market. So, we see the Tongass as being
unique in those respects.
Senator Murkowski. Is it safe to say that if the pulp mills shut
down, those that had Forest Service timber contracts would still be
required to take this 40 percent wood, out of the forest, that would
not go into timber. And I assume that the alternative would be to
simply chip product and export it out, which is really the exploita-
tion of jobs
Mr. RoppEL. I do not believe the Forest Service would be allowed
by the national policies to leave salable wood or usable wood in for-
ests. I think they would be required to take out that low-grade com-
ponent, and you would have to burn it or chip it. If you chipped it,
you could probably set up some sort of a contract going to the
export market. Two mills in Alaska now have that capability.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Burns?
Senator Burns. Mr. Roppel, you stated a little while ago that
some of the timber was tied up in lawsuits. Can you give us the
nature of those lawsuits, whether they are on appeal, or what is
the nature of those?
Mr. Roppel. They are in both forms. Senator. We have — the
Forest Service sets out timber the Environmental Impact State-
ment process. Their EIS was challenged, and I think Mr. Hanlon
mentioned that earlier, that they successfully sued the Forest Serv-
ice, and they did. The Forest Service was found to be inadequate
and, therefore, holds were put on that timber until it was adequate
and another Environmental Impact Statement could be prepared
and released. And that is tied up. I am pretty sure that is the
timber that we were anticipating operating on this past year.
Senator Burns. Let us kind of turn the other way. Do you have
any inventory report, or what kind of supply do you have or do we
have on logs that would be determined to go into conventional
lumber and pulp supply on native lands? Do you know? Do you
534
have any kind of an inventory figure of what is out there available
to harvest?
Mr. RoppEL. I can give it to you in relative terms. There were
about 500,000 acres of timberland that was transferred to native
corporations in Southeast Alaska, and they started receiving those
lands in 1979. Some of the corporations have now cut through,
roughly half of them, the timber allotments that they had received.
Others, several others, will be finishing up the timber plan that
they have in the next couple of years. The largest timber holder
has a plan that I have heard, and I hope I will not be criticized for
speaking, I have heard that their timber plan goes on for about an-
other 10 or 12 years, but it is on a reduced basis, compared to what
it was. Where it had been harvesting up to 400 million feet a year,
that harvest will gradually then go down to about 100 million in
the next couple of years. And then we will be back totally on a na-
tional forest supply at that time.
Senator Burns. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Senator Burns.
I was struck by the large welcome party that met us yesterday at
the airport, and I appreciated that warm Alaska welcome. I had an
interesting time talking to a number of people, a number of the
people that work for you. How many of the people that came work
for your company, Mr. Roppel?
Mr. Roppel. I do not know. Probably half of them. I am guessing.
Senator Wirth. And were the buses that brought them from the
plant to the airport and then back again rented by you all?
Mr. Roppel. Yes.
Senator Wirth. Were the people paid during the time they were
at the airport?
Mr. Roppel. Some of them, and some were not.
Senator Wirth. How were some paid and some not? Was it some
were working at the time and others were off and not working and
were not paid?
Mr. Roppel. That is correct. I just might answer that. I anticipat-
ed this question would be asked. I cannot imagine why it would not
be. However, it is a policy at our factory that if you go serve on
jury duty or have other public programs they do not suffer econom-
ic hardship because of that. Many of our people came to us and
said that they wanted to participate, they wanted to express their
views. Their views were very strong, they felt very strongly on
them. We did not coerce or ask anybody, and those that wanted to
went and those that did not stayed on at work.
Senator Wirth. How many people that came out to the Airport
are residents of Alaska? All of them?
Mr. Roppel. I would say probably right now outside of Alaska —
we have a factory shut down right now by the way. They have been
down for about a week doing maintenance work, and we have a
total of about 190 contract people that are there. I understand that
147 of those are in-state hires and the balance came from out of
state. So, there are probably 80 or 90, maybe, out-of-state employ-
ees that are working. How many of those came, I have no idea.
Senator Wirth. Where are the in-state hires from?
Mr. Roppel. Well, from Sitka
535
Senator Wirth. Do you get people from outside of Alaska be-
cause people are not available locally?
Mr. RoppEL. Certain skills are not available. We have a very rig-
orous Alaska hire program, and I met two weeks ago with the Com-
mission of Labor on this very issue.
Senator Wirth. Would you say, generally, that if there is anyone
from Sitka or from Southeast Alaska who wants a job, they will get
one?
Mr. RoppEL. If they qualify. If they meet the requirements of the
work that needs to be done.
Senator Wirth. And you have a contractual obligation with the
Forest Service to do that?
Mr. RoppEL. No.
Senator Wirth. To hire people from Aleiska?
Mr. RoppEL. No. We have an obligation in the contract to do
what we can. That provision is in the contract. You know what it
is; you have read it. And we have always been found to be in com-
pliance with that issue.
Senator Wirth. That is Section 12(K), that insofar £is it is practi-
cal to do so, labor for the conduct of logging operations of mills and
manufacturing plants conducted under this contract, the purchas-
er's affiliate, subsidiary, or subcontractor will be recruited from
residents of Southeast Alaska. That is that provision?
Mr. RoppEL. That is the provision.
Senator Wirth. I was struck by that, and some of the people I
was talking to yesterday, I asked where they were from. And a
number of them were contract people who were not from Alaska.
And, as you know, there is no reason why they cannot come out as
well. They are U.S. citizens and have a perfect right to express
themselves.
One of the areas I was concerned about as well, all of the discus-
sions that have been made on the contract, in the legislation that I
have proposed, I suggest that we ought to terminate those long-
term contracts, as they do not exist in a forest anywhere else
around the country. The Federal Government can terminate these
contracts at any time, particularly if there is cause that the con-
tract has been — that the conditions of the contract have not been
met by the people on the other side.
You said in your opening statement, "We have faithfully per-
formed our side of the contract." I have a variety of questions re-
lated to that. Information that was made available to all the mem-
bers of the committee said, "In recent years the long-term con-
tracts have been fraught with controversy. In 1981, Ketchikan Pulp
and Alaska Pulp were convicted of anti-trust violations, including
price fixing, collusive bidding, and forcing independent operators
out of business." Is that true?
Mr. RoppEL. That statement is true.
Senator Wirth. So, that was
Mr. RopPEL. That was a civil action, that was not a criminal
action.
Senator Wirth. I did not suggest it was a criminal action. I just
was wondering with regard to the contract being lived up to.
Second, we have available to us from the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation an April 5 letter that was sent to George
536
Miller, the Chairman of our subcommittee on various compliance
issues by Alaska Pulp. It says, one, "APC is not in compliance with
the Clean Air Act or State Air Quality Control Regulations. The
Bureau requires AFC to achieve compliance by December, 1989." It
goes on to say on water pollution, "AFC is not in compliance with
NPDES effluent and discharge requirements." On solid waste dis-
posal, the Department says, "AFC has two separate permits, and
both have received notice of violation." On hazardous waste pro-
gram, it says, "AFC was issued a notice of violation on November
9, 1988 for being out of compliance with the state's hazardous
waste regulations." That would raise issue, it seems to me, as to
whether or not your side of the bargain has been kept. Are those
accurate? Are those statements by the Department of Environmen-
tal Conservation, State of Alaska, accurate?
Mr. RoppEL. You notice a violation is a charge. It needs to be
proved. To the best of my knowledge, they have not been proved.
The state took an air action and they said we were in violation and
the Judge said the state was wrong. Interestingly enough, the
Sierra Club Legal Defense recently joined it. And I understand
after the Judge said the state was wrong about it, the state and the
Sierra Club jointly decided to appeal that. The purpose of that
cannot be to improve the environment; the purpose has got to be
harassment.
Senator Wirth. This is harassment by the State of Alaska?
Mr. RoppEL. No, by the Sierra Club defense counsel.
Senator Wirth. How did the State of Alaska then make these
statements in a letter of April 5th?
Mr. RoppEL. Well, we have a substantial amount of disagreement
with these people over whether or not we are in compliance with
our permits.
Senator Wirth. For them to make a flat statement, is not in
compliance, is not in compliance, is not in compliance, notices of
violation, notices of violation, I raise the question as it relates to
the other question of compliance with the contract, and I bring
that up because the Federal Government can terminate a contract
at any time and also is more likely to do so with cause. It has been
suggested that there is significant cause for doing so.
Let me ask you a couple of economic questions, if I might. In
your statement, you say or make a statement that the Wrangell
mill has been closed, "The sawmill at Wrangell has been closed for
three weeks this month because it cannot get enough logs." A good
deal of data has been made available to the committee about the
availability of timber to the Wrangell mill, and let me see if you
think that this is correct.
The following statements were made, "The mill is not getting an
insufficient timber supply. During the year 1988 AFC harvested 94
million board feet of timber from their long-term timber sale, of
which 50 million was supplied to the Wrangell sawmill." Second,
"AFC had the opportunity to purchase some amount of timber
from two sources, i.e. from new short-term timber sales and from
independent loggers having a backlog of 438 million board feet of
uncut timber." Third, "There was a surplus of available Tongass
timber last year. In fiscal year 1988, the Forest Service sold only 62
million board feet of 82 million of timber offered in short term
537
timber sale. For this fiscal year, 170 million to 180 million board
feet of timber is readily available from the APC long-term timber
sale, free from ongoing litigation, and to date, 100 million board
feet in short-term sales is fully prepared and ready for sale." Have
you seen those previously?
Mr. ROPPEL. I do not agree with this. We cut all of the timber
that was available to us last fall. The Forest Service does have
timber sales that no one has bought, not ourselves or anyone else.
Just because the Forest Service puts up a timber sale does not
mean it is a viable timber sale, and if they were such good timber
sales — other people were complaining and have complained to you
about a shortage of timber who surely would have bought those
sales themselves.
Senator Wirth. And if the Forest Service goes to the bother of
putting up timber sales and they are not viable timber sales — why
does the Forest Service do that?
Mr. RoppEL. That is a very good question. I suggest you ask
them. We have asked the same question, and we cannot get a good
answer.
Senator Wirth. Is that not because they are driven by — going
back over what we were discussing earlier this morning, the 450
million board feet per year or 4.5 billion per decade goal, that they
were desperately trying to get to that number? Therefore, they
were putting up a variety of timber for sale, some of which is not
viable?
Mr. RoppEL. I think that is a valid observation. When we first bid
on the contract in 1957, there was over 1.1 billion foot annually.
Now it has dwindled down, without the intensive forestry compo-
nent, someplace about 350 million feet. It is not unreasonable that
those people that heavily relied on being able to get faulty timber
are not able to get the faulty timber that they used to. It just is not
available for the Forest Service to put up. And so when they put up
scratchy sales or poor sales or sales that are very expensive, people
cannot afford to buy, but still they feel that they are satisfying
their obligation of putting up timber for the dependent industry.
Senator Wirth. Does that suggest anything to you about whether
the 4.5 billion per decade ought to be changed?
Mr. RoppEL. I think that what it suggests to me is that too much
timber has been put out of the commercial availability of the
Forest Service.
Senator Wirth. Why is that?
Mr. RoppEL. I think that too much timber has been taken out of
the commercial component of harvest and put into wilderness
areas and other non-commercial availability and what is left does
not give the Forest Service adequate timber to work with.
Senator Wirth. Well, We went through that analysis of after it
has been put into wilderness and that which is commercially
viable — well, we went through all of that this morning.
Mr. RoppEL. I was here, but I do not necessarily agree with your
analysis.
Senator Wirth. Well, let me ask you — I will make sure that you
get a copy of the Forest Service numbers. I would be happy to give
you a copy of those, if I could see where it is that you do disagree
with those numbers.
538
Mr. RoppEL. Well, I will tell you off the top that Admiralty
Island has close to one million acres of the best timber available
and there may only be 80,000 acres, 50,000 board foot to the acre
plus, but there are several hundred thousand acres over there that
are very commercial timberland and it does not necessarily have to
be a 50,000 board foot per acre. I think our timber sales for this
last four or five years have been something on the average of
around 29,000.
Senator Wirth. The cutoff point the Forest Service uses is 30 for
what is the high-grade, commercially most desirable timber.
Let me jump, if I might, to a couple of other points. Yesterday
we heard from at least employees of the other company that dis-
agreed with that company's policy and felt that there should be
dramatic changes on the legislation. I thought that that was kind
of remarkable that that kind of statement was made by those em-
ployees exercising their freedom of expression and freedom of
speech, and I hope without fear of retaliation. Will Alaska Pulp
provide the same opportunity to its employee groups to express
themselves if they believe the policy that ought to be carried by the
Federal Government was different from that espoused by manage-
ment?
Mr. RoppEL. You bet.
Senator Wirth. Let me then — I hope that that is the case, and
what I want to get to is your answer to the allegations made about
the treatment of one of your employees who testified before the
Congress in May of 1987. The Subcommittee on General Oversight
Investigations of the Interior Committee, the House of Representa-
tives, on September, 1988 said, "We conclude that the Alaska Pulp
Corporation terminated Mr. Florian Sever in large part due to his
Congressional testimony on May 19, 1987 on H.R. 1516, the Tongass
Timber Reform Act." And then they went on to say, "The termina-
tion of Mr. Sever for his Congressional testimony constitutes the
obstruction of proceedings before the Congressional Committee.
The subcommittee will refer this matter to the Department of Jus-
tice for criminal prosecution." That information in part came from
the testimony of a Mr. Kline, with whom you are familiar. He is
the Industrial Relations and Personnel Manager for Alaska Pulp.
The information available through the National Labor Relations
Board interview said, "Kline also stated that he discharged Sever
for damaging the image of product of the company which was one
of the points that the employer wanted to add to the new contract
when the parties met for negotiations in November. Kline states
that obviously Sever had no interest in continuing to work for the
company. Kline based this on testimony that Sever gave before the
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Tongass Wilderness Bill and
three letters to the editor, two of which were public."
Now, those are pretty serious allegations or serious statements,
as you know. One of things that we want to do, agreed or not, is to
make sure that there is consistent freedom of expression available
to individuals, and that people can express themselves without fear
of retaliation. And I know that those have all been made part of
the record. I do not think that you all had the opportunity since
then to respond to that, and I wanted to give you that opportunity
539
now either here or in the record, because I think probably you all
take it as seriously as we do and would like to respond to it.
Mr. RoppEL. We would appreciate the opportunity to respond on
that. You are aware perhaps — you read from the Majority Report
to the Justice Department part of that information. You are also
aware that the NLRB proceedings, from which some of this testi-
mony was taken, came to a conclusion in which the Judge made a
finding of fact that Mr. Sever was not fired because of his Congres-
sional testimony. I will make sure that you get a copy of that. I
think you will find it interesting reading.
Senator Murkowski. I would ask that that be inserted in the
record.
Senator Wirth. Anything else you want to add on that?
Mr. RoppEL. I think that because of the number of people that
you have that are going to testify that you are going to find some
of those people are currently employees who do not agree with how
the management of this company views Tongass issues, and they
are going to be treated like anyone else. We encourage people to
make their views known.
Senator Wirth. That is very important and very good and, as I
said yesterday, I admire people who are willing to come forward at
a controversial time and express their views. And that is thorough-
ly appropriate for citizens of this country.
Finally, let me ask you, would APC close its mill here if the long-
term contract was cancelled?
Mr. RoppEL. We testified at the House Interior Committee that it
was our opinion that the cancellation of the long-term contract
would result in a closure of the plant. We also testified that we are
going to do everything in our power to keep the plant in operation.
Just because the contract is cancelled does not mean that we are
going to roll over and go away.
Our belief is that if this contract had been cancelled years ago,
this plant would not be operating today. Without the collateral pro-
vided by the long-term timber contract, we would not have been
put in the position to have the continued support of the financial
institution from which we had to borrow the money in order to put
in the $19 million worth of environmental equipment at our facto-
ry. Without putting that equipment in, in spite of what the state
says, we would not be in compliance with the consent decrees and
our agreements to put in certain anti-pollution facilities. I would
also offer that as a pretty strong evidence of what we say is prob-
ably true.
Senator Wirth. Is there a difference? Now, I asked you if the
APC would close the mill if the long-term contract would be can-
celled, and your response was if the long-term contracts are can-
celled, it would result in the closure. Is there any difference be-
tween the meaning of those two statements?
Mr. RopPEL. I think so. I think the meaning is that we are not
going to voluntarily close up this plant if there is any way to keep
it open, but if someone else puts us in a position where we can no
longer continue to operate, it is not our decision to shut the plant
down. I think there is a distinguishing difference between those
two.
22-148 0-89-18
540
Senator Wirth. I think I know what you are saying. As I under-
stand you, if the bill were to cancel those long-term contracts,
would terminate those long-term contracts, that you would not the
next day close down the mill?
Mr. RoppEL. That is correct.
Senator Wirth. A final question. Do you expect that you will
remain here after the 50-year contract runs out?
Mr. RoppEL. Let us see, I am 52 years old. We have another 20
years to go. Whether I will be or are you speaking of the plant?
Senator Wirth. APC.
Mr. RoppEL. Well, I hope so, and we have not thought about that
far down the road, but we have a good strong market for this now
and they will still need paper products. I think so. I think we could
renew our contract or do something different.
Senator Wirth. Now, you operate under the standard kind of
contract that the Forest Service makes in other forests, the five-
year contracts. Why did you use a 50-year contract rather than a
five-year contract on the Tongass?
Mr. RoppEL. At the time that contract was made, no one would
come into Alaska.
Senator Wirth. We are looking at today.
Mr. RoppEL. At today? We probably would not need a 50-year
contract. You would probably not need one. You could probably
build it with a 20-year, or 15-year, 25-year contract in a pulp mill.
Senator Wirth. Why do you need a 15 to 25-year contract when
every other contract on the national forests is five years to eight
years?
Mr. RoppEL. If you look at where new pulp mills are being built,
they have an active timber supply. I can tell you that the track
record of the timber availability on the Tongass leads me to believe
that, without some sort of guaranteed contract, the Federal Gov-
ernment is not to be relied upon to supply that timber on a regular
basis for as long as you need to pay off that mill. You are looking
at a 20- to 25-year recovery in the pulp operation.
Senator Wirth. When are you planning to replace this mill?
Mr. RoppEL. Right now we have no total replacement plans in
mind.
Senator Wirth. When does it have to be replaced; what is a
useful time of the plant?
Mr. RoppEL. We have been putting as much as $4 million, to this
year, as much as $22 million, $23 million a year into upgrading the
plant as we go along. We keep it modern as we go, rather than
shut down the workings of it and replace it. But if that is neces-
sary, we will have to do that too.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Roppel, thank you very much. You are a
very good witness and you do a very good job explaining and advo-
cating your position, and I appreciate it, as I am sure does the com-
mittee.
Now, any questions?
Senator Murkowski. I just have a couple of follow-ups. If the
contracts were cancelled, would you seek damage against the Fed-
eral Government for breach of contract?
Mr. RoppEL. Yes.
541
Senator Murkowski. And how does that process — well, you must
have thought about it — how does it work? You have employees to
take care of and consider.
Mr. RoppEL. That is one part of it. The damage that we would
have to seek would be the damages on the part of our corporation.
I am not sure whether we can seek damages on the part of our em-
ployees. We do not think that we could seek damages on behalf of
the community, other than where we were involved in a long-term
contract with an obligation to supply a certain amount of funding.
So, the damages that we would seek would be for those the compa-
ny has, as it suffers financial damage as a result of the cancellation
of the contract.
Senator Wirth. In other words, if you have 15 years left, or 20
years, and you were making so much each year, theoretically you
would go in to negotiate from that point, plus an appreciated value
of your mill?
Mr. RoppEL. Plus, yes.
Mr. Murkowski. I wonder if we can get for the record. Senator
Wirth, the losses the company has sustained, roughly, since they
have been in business because it is my observation that the Japa-
nese have a little different philosophic application due to an invest-
ment than some of the more direct U.S. investment policies, like
corporations have where they lose money and they shut her off and
walk away. Do you think you could give us a little reference on it
as a result of the change while you stayed in business?
Mr. RopPEL. The company had a history of on and off profitabil-
ity from the time we started in 1960 until about 1979. 1979 was the
last profitable year the company had until this year, until the year
that just ended, and we will finish up this year with a modest
profit. We suffered losses that were well over $40 million in two of
the years that we operated. I think that was 1984, 1984, and 1985. I
do not remember the exact year, but it was within that period we
had losses. Most American corporations, in my experience, would
have said, "Enough is enough," and shut down.
Senator Wirth. Now, you indicated you had losses for 9 or 10 or
II years?
Mr. RoppEL. Since 1980 to 1988.
Senator Murkowski. And how much did you lose during that
period, roughly?
Mr. RoppEL. In excess of $150 million.
Senator Murkowski. Now, if you lost $150 million, Why did not
you shut her down?
Mr. RoppEL. That is a good question. I do not know. I would have,
if it been my decision.
Senator Murkowski. Obviously, for whatever it is worth, Mr.
Chairman, it is an emotional interpretation, but I have heard some
of the Japanese owners express an obligation to the people, not
only in Southeast Alaska but, more appropriately, to this communi-
ty. Just take that with a grain of salt, but I think it is appropriate
because if you are running that corporation I am sure, in looking
at losses of over $150 million in a 10-year period, you would decide
to do something else with your time and money.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wirth. Who are the owners of the mill?
542
Mr. RoppEL. We have 192 shareholders, but they listed 212 that
participated in the construction of the plant. The largest sharehold-
er has a little bit less than 7 percent of the issue which is held in
spinning companies, all kinds of Japanese corporations, through
trading companies. There are some banks involved. All kinds of
Japanese — shipping companies.
Senator Wirth. And they are all losing money too?
Mr. RoppEL. As far as I know, we have never paid any dividends.
They made their investment and, as far as I know, they never re-
ceived any dividends in return for them.
Senator Wirth. But, overall, all the companies are losing money?
Mr. RoppEL. I have no idea of what their profitability is.
Senator Wirth. There is no possibility that we are seeing a little
bit of an accounting operation in such a way that they are claiming
this in terms of losses in money for tax situations or whatever,
something like, of course, other corporations have never done?
Mr. RoppEL. They have been in this Company now since 1957 or
1958 and I am sure if they were taking losses on their investment,
they would have long since written them off. There are no taxes
due. They have a corporate accounting the same as the United
States.
Senator Wirth. If they are losing this much money, why are
they continuing this operation?
Mr. RoppEL. Well, I think they have the philosophy that they
started the corporation and they do not walk away as easily as
other people do.
Senator Wirth. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate very
much your being with us, and, Ms. Brown, and all, thank you very
much.
Our final panel today, if they come and join us, we would appre-
ciate it. Dixie Baade, Lee Schmidt, Alice Johnstone, Margaret
Calvin, K. J. Metcalf and Florian Sever. Thank you all. You are
familiar with our rules.
Mr. Baade.
STATEMENT OF DIXIE BAADE
Ms. Baade. Senator Wirth and members of the committee, I am
Dixie Baade. I am a resident of Kupreanof, Alaska, a small commu-
nity off of the coast of Petersburg, Alaska.
I came to Southeast Alaska in 1944 to work for the Territorial
Department of Health. My background is in public health laborato-
ries. I operated a laboratory in Ketchikan for 17 y2 years.
I am one of the founders of SEACC. I became involved in conser-
vation after I saw the devastation that occurred from the pulp mill
operations.
Some are led to believe that the pressure for reform is coming
from outside Alaska. I can assure you that it comes from those of
us who live here and have seen firsthand what is happening to our
land. We do welcome the help we are getting from outside.
Senator Murkowski's bill fails to address the problems of man-
agement of the Tongass. It considers the 4.5 billion board feet of
timber logging. It fails to protect key fish and wildlife habitat, and
it does not deal with the problems of the 50-year contracts.
543
As evidence of how the pulp mills put the independent sawmills,
the independent loggers, out of business, I submitted for the record
a copy of the Reid Brothers timber sale lawsuit brief. No one cried
when these people were put out of business. Among those was the
Ketchikan Spruce Mill which produced dimension, kiln dried
lumber, supplied throughout all of Alaska.
I thank you Senator Wirth for introducing your Tongass reform
bill. I support the repeal of the 4.5 billion board feet per decade
harvest, along with the $40 million a year of subsidy. I support can-
cellation of the 50-year contracts. Your bill does need to be
strengthened to give permanent protection to areas listed in the
bill. The Forest Service will not protect these areas.
I have just a few areas that I wanted to mention. The Yakatuat
Forelands is, I think, an area unique in Southeast Alaska.
There are two wilderness areas that I think should be expanded,
one is the Petersburg Creek-Duncan Canal, two areas that are
listed in your bill and were in the original proposal. The other one
is Tebenkof Wilderness and, if we do not get the additions to that
wilderness ,area, it is just a large body of water surrounded by a
little, narrow fringe of land.
The Naha River was our favorite steelhead stream, and my hus-
band's ashes are there. I would like to see it as wilderness.
I have tried to work within the system, and it has been a waste
of time. I have read hundreds and responded to hundreds of Envi-
ronmental Impact Statements. I filed appeals.
Thank you for this time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baade follows:]
544
Senator Tim Wirth and members of the committee:
I am Dixie Baade, a resident of Kupreanof Alaska, one o f the commun-
ities supporting Senator Wirth 's Tongasa Timber Heform bill.
I came to Southeaat Alaska in l<)kk to work for the Territorial I>epart-
ment of Health. My background is in Public Health Laboratory. Although
I have been a member of the Sierra Club for over 50 years, I was not invol-
ved in conservation until I saw the devastation resulting from pulp mill
operations. I am one of the founders of SEACC (the Southeast Alaska Con-
servation Council). We formed first as volunteers to coordinate the act-
ivities of, as I remember, 5 local groups. It became obvious that volun-
teers could not handle the work involved and we re-formed and hired a
staff. 3SACC now includes 13 local groups.
There are those who would have you believe that the pressure for re-
form is coming from outside Alaska. I can assure you t;.at it is from
those of us who live here and have seen first hand what is happening to
our land .
Senator .'Iur;;owski's bil fails to address the problems of manat;eL-ent .
. ther t..2n riiding us of t .e scandalous waste of -'ederal money, it does
not .ing to correct tr.e serious cverc':ttin-, the lack of protection for
fish and wildlife aabitat or tne probleis cai.ed by tne 50 .,-e3r oontrjcts.
.^e dc not nave .'.ultiole Use. All ot .er resources a.-e subordinate to
tir.,i,er. ,.nen trie Forest -ervice cc.sidcrs it has a ..iandate to cut 4.5
bi^lii.n ooard feet per decade, t:.is o:_ount will be ciiOred regardless of
the da.,_e to ot.er resources.
The Tongass is not only being managed for timber production, it is
managed for the two pulp mills. It is critical that the 50 year contracts
le ter...L . . , o:i . ..i-.I". tnc^e ir nl^ce t'.cro to '.o r^otrnti.] f.r n f.t.ire
545
2.
tiabar industry. The high volune old growth will soon be gone and nothing
left but marginal stands. The Forest is being high-graded and there is
little potential for a second growth industry in Alaska.
When the pulp mlllB came in, the Forest Service estimated the rot-
ation period at 30 years; at the and of the contract period there wnuld
be stands of merchantable timber. Now the rotation period is estimated
at between 100 to 120 years and even this is optimistic.
The pulp mills long ago violated the terms of their contracts and they
should have been cancelled at the tiae of the Reid Brotaers timber sale
lawsuit decision. I submit this copy of the lawsuit brief and ask that it
be made a part of the hearing record. It is interesting reading and des-
cribes just what these companys did to put independent mills and loggers
out of business.
I support Senator '.•birth's Tongass Timber '-ieform bill. Only congress-
ional action will reform management of the Tongass forest. .Repeal of
what is interpreted as a mandate to cut k.3 billion board feet per decade
is necessary along with the '+0 million dollar a year s ubsidy . Zhe 50 year
contracts should be terminated and perianent protection given our key fish
and wildlife habitat.
I nave tried to w ork within tne system. I have resd and responded to
hundreds of Environmental Impact stateii^ents. I have filed administrative
appe.Ji,*. 1 carticipated in a Jitizens croup during tae ooutr.east Area
juide planning process. r.y cautious optiiism at the ei.d of w.iat was a
Dositive experience wss short lived. .-~ev; of tl.e protective provisions of
the Guide were ever implementedpnd in 1905 it was replaced by tne Alaska
aegional Guide, probably the worst Forest Service document I have ever
reviewed. I do not expect anythinr; better from the revision of the Ton-
ss ." j.:j ..c iur.. ^onrrecr. si.ouii r.ot wait for ti.ic to .0 ccj;rleted
icfore eiiactin, reform ier;islat- on.
546
3.
Senator Wirth's bill needs atrengthenlng to give permanent protect-
ion to the key fish md wildlife habitat areas listed in the bill. I con-
sider these the absolute minifflum. Where wilderness is not desired, we need
a congressionally designated protective land classification. The Forest
Service is not going to protect these areas.
I feel strongly the need to protect the Yakutat Forelands. This is
an area unique in southeast Alaska.
Protection of Castle River, Salt Chuck and Towers Arm are needed to
round out the Petersburg Creek-Duncan Canal Wilderness Area. They were
included in the original wilderness area proposal.
Another wilderness area that needs rounding out is that of Tebenkof.
Port Malmsbury, Affleck Canal, Port Beauchere, Table Bay and Bay of
Fillers need to be Included. Otherwise we have just a large body of
water surrounded by a narrow border of land.
There is so little left of Prince of Wales Island that it is surely
not asking too much that areas such as Calder/Holbrook, Shakan Bay, Sar-
kar Lakes, Kart» River and Kegan Lake be given protection.
The Naha River was our favorite steelhead stream and my husband's
ashes are there. Obviously it is a very special place for me. It should
be wilderness.
By not mentioning all of the 25 special areas in the bill, I do not
imply t:;at tl;ey are less deserving of protection than my own special areas.
One final coniJ'.ent. I do feel that those of us wanting reform of the
i'ongass are up a^jaiust a stacked deck. I understand the pulp mills sub-
mitted hundreds o: applications at tne Isst ■ minute. -nis jjave few in a
conimunity such as Petersburg a c;;3nce tc te heard. This is basically a
fisning town and tne fis;ieraen have a larf;e stake in t:.e future of the
sal.Tion spawning strear.s of the Tongass. j-n the dry sunimer of 19^7 there
was an estimated Kill of over IC'iJOO pinK salaou in jtaney Oreek on Prince
of .'.ales Island. 'e ao not ne d more s^lr.on streams da:nar;ed by clearcuttinQ.
I also cuest-jn t.'.e selection of the 2 pulp mill tov.'ns 9s the locat-
ion for the hearings. To have chosen Just one of the mill towns along with
Juneau wouldhave given a more representative cross section of the southeast
pub..-ic i-i ci.ance tc Ve hc-rd.
-iial sail), i \a:-.'L tj . t.-iK \...e a.-.' rs fcr rA0..r. o i-crvunily to oe
heard and ask t;iat tnis statement be included in the hearing record.
547
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Baade.
STATEMENT OF FLORIAN SEVER
Mr. Sever. My name is Florian Sever. I am here today to speak
in favor of Senator Wirth's bill, S. 346. I would add that the mora-
torium areas in the bill should, and must, be strengthened to the
"wilderness" designation. The old growth rain forest is too rare to
squander on the production of dissolving pulp.
I was an employee of Alaska Pulp Corporation, a company owned
entirely by the Japanese. During the 1986 strike in Sitka, I was a
union negotiator. The 273 members of my union were permanently
replaced, and my union was decertified after a 10-month struggle. I
would like to submit a letter from my union in support of S. 346 for
the record.
A National Labor Relations Board Judge has ruled that we were
unfairly treated at the hands of APC, and that AFC had committed
many unlawful, discriminatory acts against us. I would like to
submit this NLRB ruling for the record, along with this statement.
The essence of the 50-year APC contract was to provide jobs for
Southeast Alaskans, as illustrated in Section 12(k) of the contract,
not to give a quick cash windfall to out-of-state interlopers, oppor-
tunists or scabs. The facts point to the charge that APC is the first,
and foremost, violator of the 50-year long-term contracts.
The 50-year contracts must be revoked if fair play and justice are
to return to the work place. Not only did the permanent replace-
ments take our jobs at the APC mill, their families have occupied
the majority of the remaining jobs that were available outside of
the confines of the mill. Many strikers and their families have
been forced to move away. This is contrary to the original intent
behind the contracts.
I was fired by APC for publicly speaking out against these very
excesses. On May 19, 1987, I testified before the United States
House of Representatives concerning the terrible conditions that
the workers had to endure before, during, and after the strike and
APC's blatant disregard for the environment. I believe this to be a
violation of my civil, and human, rights by a foreign-owned corpo-
ration.
I have also been fired from a subsequent job with an APC sub-
contractor because I continued to testify before Congress in favor of
the Tongass Timber Reform Act and to speak out publicly against
APC's unlawful, discriminatory labor practices and the continued
pollution of the environment.
Notwithstanding excellent qualifications and good job recommen-
dations, APC has conspired with others to "black list" me to the
point where I cannot obtain any kind of employment, not even as a
part-time dog catcher for the City of Sitka, even though I was the
only person who applied for that position.
These actions against me, and other working men and women,
have served only to further strengthen my resolve to stand up for
the cause of justice that is so sorely lacking in the Tongass, and,
indeed, throughout the State of Alaska.
I have formed a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, the Founda-
tion for the Protection of the Common People, my goal being to
548
protect the civil and human rights of the common people, to con-
duct testing for toxic pollutants and to initiate appropriate action.
The common people need much but only ask for fair representa-
tion.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Sever, we are at the three-minute mark
here. We will include your statement in full in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sever and other materials re-
ferred to follow:]
549
STATEMENT
Of
FLORIAN SEVER
before the
SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE on PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS and FORESTS
April 25, 1989
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Florian Sever. I am here today to speak in favor
of Senator Wirth's bill, S. 346. I would add that the
"moratorium areas" in S. 346 should, and must, be
strengthened to the "Wilderness" designation. . .the "Old
Growth" rainforest is too rare to squander on the production
of rayon and tissue paper. The Japanese will only demand
more and more of the "Old Growth" to sate their ever
expanding lust for profit.
I was an employee of Alaska Pulp Corporation, a company
owned entirely by the Japanese. During the 1986 strike in
Sitka, I was a Union negotiator. The members of my union
were permanently replaced and my union was decertified. I
would like to submit a letter from my union in support of
S.346 for the record.
550
A National Labor Relations Board Judge has ruled that we were
unfairly treated at the hands of APC, and that APC had
committed many unlawful, discriminatory acts against us. I
would like to submit this NLRB ruling for the record, along
with this statement.
The essence of the 50-year APC contract was to provide jobs
for Southeast Alaskans, as illustrated in Section 12K of the
contract; not to give a quick cash windfall to "out-of state"
Interlopers, opportunists or scabs. The facts point to the
charge that APC is the first, and foremost, violator of the
50-year federal contracts.
The 50-year contracts must be revoked if fair play and
justice is to return to the workplace. Not only did the
permanent replacements take our jobs at the APC mill, their
families have occupied the majority of the remaining jobs
that were available outside of the confines of the mill.
Many strikers and their families have been forced to move
away.
I was fired by APC for publicly speaking out against these
very excesses. On May 19, 1987, I testified before the
551
United States House of Representatives concerning the
terrible conditions that the workers had to endure before,
during and after the strike and APC ' s blatant disregard for
the environment. I believe this to be a violation of my
civil/ and human, rights by a foreign-owned corporation.
I have also been fired from a subsequent job with an APC
subcontractor, because I continued to testify before
Congress in favor of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, and to
speak out publicly against APC ' s unlawful, discriminatory
labor practices and their continued pollution of the
environment .
Notwithstanding excellent qualifications, an exemplary work
record and good job recommendations, APC has conspired with
others to "black-list" me to the point where I cannot obtain
any kind of employment, not even as a part-time dogcatcher
for the City of Sitka, even though I was the only person vho
applied for that position.
These actions against me, and other working men and women,
have served only to further strengthen my resolve to stand
up for the cause of justice that is so sorely lacking in the
Tongass, and indeed, throughout the State of Alaska.
552
I have formed a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, "The
Foundation for the Protection of the Common People" , my
goal being to protect the civil and human rights of the
common people, to conduct testing for toxic pollutants,
and to initiate appropriate action. The common people
need much, but ask only for fair representation.
The Tongass Timber Reform Act represents salvation for the
Tongass. I request that the Committee fully support S.346,
along with the designation of "wilderness" for the 23 key
areas.
In closing I would like to say that in the name of the
Foundation for the Protection of the Common People, I
protest the violation of the ground rules set up for the
selection of speakers before this Subcommittee, by Alaska
Pulp Corporation and others. This appears to be a corrupt
attempt to subvert the Congressional process and may very
well sink to the level of "obstruction of proceedings"
under 18 U.S.C. §1505.
Thank you.
Florian Sever
553
[^ UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL NO 962
April 15, 1989
P O, BOX 804
SITKA, AK 99835
The Honorable Timothy Wirth
Senate Energy Committee'
Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests
Dear Senator Wirth:
On beh
Intern
you f o
of you
displa
dire n
member
the ti
who wo
greed
alf
atio
r yo
r bi
yed.
eed
s of
mber
uld
of Log
nal Un
ur spo
11 and
The
of ref
Local
indus
stand
al 962
ion, I
nsorsh
comme
timber
orm.
962 1
try is
up and
, of the United Pap
would like to expr
ip of S.346. We ar
nd you for the fore
industry within th
Alaska Pulp's unjus
s a living monument
capable of perpetr
speak out against
erworkers
ess my gratitude to
e strongly in favor
sight that you have
e Tongass is in
t treatment of the
to the abuses that
ating against those
their corporate
Alaska Pulp Corporation has committed many unfair labor
practices against us, but our will remains strong. We do
not despair. What was done to us will be repaid, tenfold.
The 50-year contracts have no place or justification in the
modern age. They are simply dinosaurs looking for a place
to lay down and die. Logic and fairness cry out for their
revocation .
\#
^^
America must soon come to the realization that what is left
of her resources, she must treasure. Wilderness is the core
of the Tongass. Without it, all of the other resource
oriented industries will have a finite lifespan. The 23 key
areas must be put into "Wilderness" designation if the
Tongass is to ultimately sustain itself.
Again, I commend and congratulate you for your vision and
moral conviction regarding your stance on the issues
concerning the Tongass.
Please enter this letter into the record of the Subcommittee
hearing to be held in Sitka, Alaska, on April 25, 1989.
Thank you.
554
STATEMENT OF LEE SCHMIDT
Mr. Schmidt. I am Lee Schmidt. I have Hved in Alaska 21 years,
with almost 18 of them in Sitka.
Obviously, I support your bill. Senator Wirth, and my written
comments are available, but I would like to just go ahead and talk
off-the-cuff.
I was on the plane yesterday when members of the committee's
supporting staff got on, and it was interesting to me to observe the
various people's reactions as they looked out the window and saw
some of the Southeast. Even though I have made the trip many
times, it still always floors me. And yesterday was an extraordi-
nary beautiful day, with the opportunity to see things which nor-
mally people do not see because of the rain, the clouds and the fog.
Right before us was part of the Tongass and, of course, this is the
national forest that we in this panel so well identify with.
I support portions of your bill because it does look at public bene-
fit to the forest and causes it to be recognized as a national forest
rather than as a backyard tree farm.
You were able to see the mountains and the ice and the snow,
but what you were not able to see the real center of controversy,
which is the river valley. That is where the trees grow. That is
where the wildlife is and where the fishing streams are. There are
very few fish up on top of the mountains, but that is obviously
where people enjoy going also. So, I hope to have an opportunity to
get in a boat and tramp in the forest and see something of our
area.
We talked a lot about the acres as if that was the magic but the
magic is the ecosystems, the systems that surround that river
bottom that follows up into the slopes of the mountains.
Yesterday's approach to Sitka was particularly beautiful, and
part of it, of course, was because the mill had no smoke, although
much of it was due to the weather. This morning from my house I
watched eagles diving, and yesterday I was in an urban city dodg-
ing smog and working around cars. The contrast is overwhelming.
In fact, you probably had that same kind of feeling as you looked
out the window. Alaska is special, and the Southeast is especially
so.
In my written comments I have suggested to the committee some
yardsticks to evaluate some of the comments. One of them, I think,
is to ask what we are doing right. It is not a play upon words but
now enters the center stage in the national arena in the context of
judging actions against the standard. Is it ethically good, not expe-
diently convenient? I hope the committee is able to use that stand-
ard. I think that Senator Wirth's bill does.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt follows:]
555
Testimony Tongass Timber Reform Act
Senate Field Hearings
Sitka, Alaska April 25, 1989
Lee Schmidt
Box 1110
SI tka , Alaska
Members of the Senate Panel, Staff, Guests, and Fellow Alaskans
I am a 21 year resident of Alaska, with almost 18 years In
Sitka. That does not mean that my comments are any more valid
than people who live in another state, or less valid than people
who were born here. It merely establishes that my persplctlves
are based on changes I have observed In the Tongass over the
past two decades.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this
Committee and wish you stamina In listening to many hours of
concerned people; it will be a physical challenge just to
listen. I know that you are sincere in trying to go beyond the
words to reach a judgement on what to recommend to your Senate
colleagues about the Tongass. You will need some yardsticks In
evaluating the comments; I have several to suggest.
1. Try to deetermlne the motivation of the speaker. Is she or
he testifying out of personal convictions and knowledge - or Is
there an element of publicity seeking; what about financial gain
to the testifier. A gross test is whether the speaker Is being
payed to be here or whether he or she Is paying. Obviously, the
person who Is here on his or her own time or who has payed to
travel here demonstrates strong motivation. It might therefor be
more compelling testimony.
2. Another yardstick is the ethical right. We have recently
raised ethical conduct to the national center stage: the old
fashioned question "but is It right?" is being asked more
frequently. We are pushing for an ehtic that goes beyond the
hollow statement -"we did no technical wrong that anyone could
discover." It is critical to use that yardstick: Does the action
recommended by the speaker resonate with what you as a public
servant know to be right - right, in the sense of ethically
good, not expediently convenient
3. A third yardstick is whether there is public gain or
personal gain involved. At the crassest level this could be
considered as simply an argument over who is making money out of
the Tongass. Many, many comments today are made at this level:
some people claim that they have a personal right to Tongass
timber so that they have a job, others that they have a personal
right to salmon streams so they can harvest fish, and others
that they have a personal right to undisturbed habitat so they
can guide paying customers who want a bear trophy or a secluded
lodge experience.
556
I am not saying It Is wrong to consider personal economics,
but I urge the Committee to acknowledge It when It appears, and
then progress beyond that to a yardstick that measures a
societal economic benefit. As national statesmen you want to
hear people recommend changes that benefit many citizens: If It
Is not possible to benefit all Americans, then at least far, far
more than the few thousands who live In Southeast Alaska.
Statesmen who make laws for all Americans, who have as many
constituents In a few square blocks of concentrated urban high-
rises as live In all of Southeast Alaska, are going to be
susplcous of policies that seek to manage America's largest
National Forest as a private backyard for two Mills. It Is
logical and reasonable for the Committee members to ask, "How
are the citizens of my State benefitted by today's decisions
about the Tongass National Forest?" Testimony that addresses a
benefit for the general public should therefor receive special
attention.
By using these three yardsticks - what Is the speasker's
personal motivation; do the comments meet an ethical standard
for what Is right; and what is the benefit to the general public
- the Committee can more effectively deal with the larger
issues, which tend to become obscured during an Intense
parochial field hearing.
Persons on this panel represent SEACC - the Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council - certainly ther most visible
Southeast Alaska organization advocating management changes In
the Tongass. It Is both an organization of general members, and
a coalition of environmental, fishing and community groups.
For many years SEACC has held the point position for
habitat protection, wilderness designation, and logging
practices Improvement In the Tongass Forest.
During my elghteeen years In Sitka, I have seen an
evolution In people's thinking. Twenty years ago people
accepted, with little challenge, that the best thin for SE
Alaska was to enter Into long term Mill contracts and clear cut
all marketable timber. No long range thinking was done. Little
thought was given to how these contracts would effect the
resource base that fishermen, recreatlonls t s , hunters and
tourists use. No thought was given to the ehtlcal Issue of
whether we have a moral obligation to protect ecosystems inorder
to maintain species, or to preserve old growth forests as part
of the herrltage for our children and grandchildren.
Today there are hundreds of people testifying that the
management direction of the Tongass must be changed. Even the
most vigorous timber harvest advocate sees the handwriting on
the wall. Why else would Senator Murkowski have changed his own
position In the past year and introduced corrective
legislation? That monumental change is compelling evidence that
the conservationists were right; the open minded person will
listen carefully to their recommendations for additional
corrective action.
557
Many citizens and even some local governments have
recognized that the mandatory annual cut Is too much, that the
Forest Service single-use timber sales must be made economically
viable, that the subsidy must be abolished, and that the
monopolistic contracts for two favored Mills are untenable.
These existing conditions do not meet the yardsticks of
ethically right nor general public benefit.
In addition to addressing these negatives, the Tongass
Timber Reform Act highlights protection of selected areas -
areas of particularly rich fisheries or wildlife habitat, areas
of particular esthetic pleasure, and areas of high wilderness
recreation value. There is much more to the Tongass than being a
tree farm for two Mills.
Senate Bill 346 meets the yardstick of public benefit by
protecting ecosystems for multiple uses instead of single use
logging; it meets the standard of an ethical good by eliminating
special financial benefits for the Mills.
I favor the reforms in Senate Bill 346, sponsored by
Senator Wirth; I urge permanent protection - through wilderness
designation - of the 23 areas proposed for study.
Thank you for accepting my comments into the hearing
record .
i](M>.v:^
AoLS.
Lee M. Schmidt
558
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.
STATEMENT OF ALICE JOHNSTONE
Ms. Johnstone. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee
members.
My name is Alice Johnstone. I am a retired businesswoman and
an elected member of the Sitka City and Borough Assembly. I have
lived here in Sitka for 47 years. My husband and I raised our
family here and intend to spend the rest of our lives here. Sitka is
our home.
Senator Wirth, I heartily support your bill, the Tongass Reform
Act, S.346. Management reform is long overdue in the Tongass. I
would, however, ask you to make one significant change in your
bill. Please amend it to provide wilderness protection for the 23
areas identified by the Forest Service, the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, rural communities, commercial fishing groups,
conservation organizations and Sealaska Native Corporation as
having high values for fish, wildlife, recreation, tourism and sub-
sistence use.
Senators, if this bill is passed by Congress, Alaska Pulp Company
claims that they will no longer be able to afford to continue to
produce pulp.
They tell their employees that they will lose their jobs. In short,
they threaten to close their doors and go away. With a knee jerk
reaction, the Sitka Chamber of Commerce takes up the cry. They
devote their weekly programs to testimonies by local persons ex-
pounding on the impact mill closure would have on the community.
Ads supporting APC appear in the paper, on TV and radio. Peti-
tions are circulated. Soon the whole city is in an emotional turmoil.
Gentlemen, for more than 30 years this company has been
"crying wolf every time they have been requested to comply with
a regulation or law that is unpopular with them. However, they
are still operating. In 1988 the company produced more pulp than
they have since 1981. I understand this was also one of those rare
years when they admittedly produced a profit.
Alaska has, for all of the years since it was discovered by the
Russians, been abused by industry. The major theme has been "get
in, get all you can, and get out." History is repeating itself in the
Tongass Forest. According to figures that I got from the Forest
Service yesterday, APC pays $2.26 per 1,000 board feet of Sitka
Spruce sawlogs. That works out to only $45 for the same magnifi-
cent eight foot diameter tree that costs Ketchikan Pulp Company
$5,000. The timber industry is high grading the forest for greater
profits. Half of the high quality timber is already gone and the
other half is scheduled to be cut in the remaining years of the
timber contracts.
I request you approve the Tongass Timber Reform Act, S. 346,
amended to provide wilderness protection of the 23 crucial habitat
areas.
Thank you for your attention to my comments.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Johnstone.
559
STATEMENT OF MARGARET CALVIN
Ms. Calvin. Mr. Chairman, my name is Margaret Calvin, and
since I have lived in Sitka since 1947, I have seen its growth and
subsequent changes, some for the better and some I am not so sure
about.
For over 20 of those 40 odd years that I have lived here I was
involved in the municipal government, 15 years as a City Clerk of
the City of Sitka, a one-person position that included financial mat-
ters as well as those of a municipal clerk. With unification of the
City and Borough, I became first the Finance Director and later
Comptroller for a total of six years.
Early in my career with the municipality, the pulp mill was built
and the town doubled in size. We lost some of our small town
uniqueness, but we gained in many respects, one of which was the
Blue Lake Dam Joint Venture, which brought hydroelectric power
to the town and a water supply to the mill.
An able city administrator in following years expanded our eco-
nomic base so that Sitka would not be a one-industry town, and he
was successful to a large extent.
In 1972 I married Jack Calvin, an early ardent and active conser-
vationist, who brought out the latent conservationist in me. Can a
person involved in municipal finance in a mill town also be a con-
servationist without having a split personality? I believe the
answer is yes, since I have never had to seek psychiatric help and
am here to advocate that a healthy forest industry and wilderness
conservation can live and prosper together.
Jack and I did a lot of boating for pleasure in Southeast Alaska
and, in addition, for many years conducted charter trips to Chicha-
gof Island and Glacier Bay. When it comes to scenic areas, famili-
arity does not breed contempt. On the contrary, it makes those
areas all the more valuable and dear to you.
I think you can tell from the foregoing that I am not an advocate
of legislation that would close the APC mill in Sitka, because it is
important to the economic base of our community. On the other
hand, I believe the Tongass should be managed in a sound econom-
ic manner and at the same time having the areas Wilderness char-
acter in general and certain areas in perpetuity for the enjoyment
of future generations.
I believe that achievement of both of these goals is possible in
the Tongass through appropriate legislation and judicious manage-
ment. How best to achieve this? With all due respect to our senator
from Alaska, S. 237, the Murkowski bill, is not what is needed.
Granted it repeals the $40 million automatic appropriation, but
otherwise it perpetuates extensive and expensive mismanagement
of the Tongass and continues to waste precious public assets.
On the other hand, S. 346, the Wirth bill — and we thank you for
introducing it — by eliminating not only the $40 million annual al-
lotment but also the 450 million board foot allowable cut and by
cancelling the 50-year contracts would provide for competition in
the industry. Just as Russia is recently discovering, such competi-
tion would strengthen the logging industry in the long run. It
would allow for normal management flexibility for land alloca-
tions.
560
Lastly, a moratorium on logging in areas with exceptional fish,
wildlife, recreation and scientific values would protect the biologi-
cal integrity of the Tongass and give the public a chance to be
heard. I am personally very familiar with two of these areas, Chi-
chagof and Rocky Pass, and if the other 21 are similar, they are
worth every effort to give them a chance to survive unaltered.
In summary. Senator Wirth's bill, S. 346, would accomplish the
goals of sound financial basis for the logging industry and, second-
arily, the municipal government, as well as provide for a "stay of
execution" for 23 pristine areas of the National Forest.
I thank you for this opportunity to state my views and may you
enjoy your stay in Sitka as much as I have enjoyed living here the
last 42 years. Again, thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Calvin.
STATEMENT OF K.J. METCALF, SOUTHEAST ALASKA
CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
For the record, my name is K. J. Metcalf. I live in Angoon, and I
am a business person. I am speaking for the Southeast Alaska Con-
servation Council, plus a statement of my own.
SEACC is a grassroots coalition of 13 organizations in 11 commu-
nities. SEACC supports Senator Wirth's bill, S. 346, and believes it
would be strengthened by giving permanent protection to the key
fish and wildlife areas.
SEACC opposes Senator Murkowski's bill, S. 237, since it main-
tains the status quo and fails to address the problems facing the
Tongass.
The following comments are my own, and they are based on 20
years of employment with the Forest Service in the Tongass Na-
tional Forest. During this time, I worked on a number of public
land management issues. From 1973 to 1978 I was part of the Ton-
gass Land Management Planning Process. From 1978 to 1982, I was
manager of Admiralty Island National Monument.
A great deal has been said by the Forest Service and the timber
industry about the need to maintain the long-term contracts. We
have all heard the rhetoric concerning the obligation of the govern-
ment to keep its word and honor its commitment to the timber in-
dustry. We have also heard about the need for the Forest Service
to complete its planning process, the current Tongass Land Man-
agement Plan Revision, prior to any Congressional action.
I would like to offer a different perspective, a perspective based
on personal involvement with and observation of the Forest Service
on the Tongass for 20 years.
In the early 1960s the Forest Service felt they had a mandate to
cut 98 percent of the old growth forest, and that was its form of
multiple-use management. They approached that with a vengeance
and if anybody challenged them they simply said that this was a
professional decision and they were professionals. Not only were
they, by their own direction, going to donate the old growth, but
they were going to maximize the benefits to the timber industry.
561
I know of road locaters who laid out logging roads away from
salmon streams to protect those streams, only to have the logger
phone the Regional Forester to have the field decision overruled
because it caused the logger unwarranted expense.
I sat in a staff meeting in this very town and heard a forest su-
pervisor explain why a logger, who had illegally dumped a number
of trees in a salmon stream, did not have to remove those trees for
several weeks because of unwarranted expense to the logger.
I know that the Regional Office is aware that the pulp companies
had established phony independent logging companies in order to
bid on sales established specifically for the independent program.
These phony companies had no equipment, they had no history of
logging, and they were pure paper companies financed by the mills.
The Forest Service knew this, and they still awarded the sales to
them.
I have sat in a staff meeting where the Regional Forester said
that to have a logger enter a water shed several times to log would
create unwarranted expense; therefore, the logger should be al-
lowed to take all of the trees at the first entry. Prince of Wales
Island carries the legacy of that policy.
I could go on but I see my time is out. All I can say is that we
hoped, that ANILCA and the Tongass Management Plan would
bring a new fresh breath of air to the Tongass Forest and it failed
to do that and we think the Congress must act again.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Metcalf.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Metcalf follows, attachments re-
tained in subcommittee files.]
562
STATEMENT OF
K.J. METCALF
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL
BEFORE THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS,
NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS
APRIL 25, 1989
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY. FOR THE RECORD; MY NAME IS K.J.
METCALF, I LIVE IN ANGOON AND AM SPEAKING FOR THE SOUTHEAST
ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, FOLLOWED BY A PERSONAL STATEMENT.
THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL (SEACC) , IS A
GRASSROOTS COALITION OF 13 ORGANIZATIONS IN 11 COMMUNITIES. SEACC
IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO WORK AND LIVE IN THE TONGASS NATIONAL
FOREST.
SEACC SUPPORTS SENATOR WIRTH'S BILL, S. 346, AND BELIEVES IT
WOULD BE STRENGTHENED BY GIVING PERMANENT PROTECTION TO THE 23
KEY FISH AND WILDLIFE AREAS.
SEACC OPPOSES SENATOR MURKOWSKI'S BILL, S.237, SINCE IT MAINTAINS
THE STATUS QUO AND FAILS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS FACING THE
TONGASS.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE MY OWN. I BASE THESE COMMENTS ON 20
YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE FOREST SERVICE ON THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST. DURING THIS TIME I WORKED ON A NUMBER OF PUBLIC
LAND MANAGEMENT ISSUES. FROM 1973 TO 1978 I WAS PART OF THE
TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS. FROM 1978 TO 1982 I WAS
563
MANAGER OF ADMIRALTY ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT.
A GREAT DEAL HAS BEEN SAID, BY THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE TIMBER
INDUSTRY, ABOUT THE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE LONG TERM CONTRACTS. WE
HAVE ALL HEARD THE RHETORIC CONCERNING THE OBLIGATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO KEEP ITS WORD AND HONOR ITS COMMITMENT TO THE
TIMBER INDUSTRY. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE FOREST
SERVICE TO COMPLETE ITS PLANNING PROCESS, THE CURRENT TONGASS
LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, PRIOR TO ANY CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. A PERSPECTIVE
BASED ON PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT WITH AND OBSERVATION OF THE FOREST
SERVICE, ON THE TONGASS, FOR 20 YEARS.
THE FOREST SERVICE HAS HAD A VERY CLOSE ALLIANCE WITH THE TIMBER
INDUSTRY ON THE TONGASS, FOREST PLANNING AND DECISIONS HAVE
HISTORICALLY BEEN BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE INDUSTRY. OTHER
RESOURCES, WHEN LEFT TO THE AGENCY, HAVE RECEIVED ONLY TOKEN
CONSIDERATION. THE AGENCY HAS ADOPTED THE POSITION THAT THE
HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE TONGASS IS FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION.
WHENEVER THE FOREST SERVICE HAS DEPARTED FROM THIS POSITION IT
HAS BEEN BECAUSE OF PRESSURE FROM CONGRESS OR THE COURTS. THE
FOREST SERVICE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED, WHEN LEFT TO ITS OWN
LEADERSHIP, THAT IT IS ABLE TO MANAGE THE TONGASS SO THAT ALL
RESOURCES ARE GIVEN FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT.
IN THE EARLY SIXTIES THE FOREST SERVICE STATED THAT THEY PLANNED
564
TO HARVEST 96% OF THE OLD GROWTH FORESTS ON THE TONGASS. THE
FOREST SERVICE INSISTED THAT THEY WERE PRACTICING MULTIPLE USE.
WHEN THEY WERE CHALLENGED THEY PROCLAIMED THAT THEY WERE THE
PROFESSIONALS AND THIS WAS A PROFESSIONAL DECISION. THE FOREST
SERVICE MOVED AHEAD WITH ITS "PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES"
RESULTING IN WIDE SPREAD DESTRUCTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
AND THE DEGRADATION OF MANY OF THE TONGASS VALUES, ALL FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE TIMBER INDUSTRY.
I KNOW OF ROAD LOCATERS WHO LAID OUT LOGGING ROADS AWAY FROM
SALMON STREAMS, TO PROTECT THOSE STREAMS, ONLY TO HAVE THE LOGGER
PHONE THE REGIONAL FORESTER TO HAVE THE FIELD DECISION OVERRULED
BECAUSE IT CAUSED THE LOGGER UNWARRANTED EXPENSE.
I SAT IN A STAFF MEETING IN THIS VERY TOWN AND HEARD A FOREST
SUPERVISOR EXPLAIN WHY A LOGGER, WHO HAD ILLEGALLY DUMPED A
NUMBER OF TREES IN A SALMON STREAM, DIDN'T HAVE TO REMOVE THOSE
TREES FOR SEVERAL WEEKS BECAUSE OF UNWARRANTED EXPENSE.
I KNOW THAT THE REGIONAL OFFICE WAS AWARE THAT THE PULP COMPANIES
HAD ESTABLISHED PHONY INDEPENDENT LOGGING COMPANIES IN ORDER TO
BID ON SALES ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT THE INDEPENDENT LOGGER. THESE
PHONY COMPANIES HAD NO EQUIPMENT OR HISTORY OF LOGGING, THEY WERE
PURE PAPER COMPANIES FINANCED BY THE MILLS. YET THE FOREST
SERVICE AWARDED THESE COMPANIES INDEPENDENT SALES.
I HAVE SAT IN A STAFF MEETING WERE THE REGIONAL FORESTER
PROCLAIMED THAT TO HAVE A LOGGER ENTER A WATERSHED SEVERAL TIMES
TO LOG CREATED UNWARRANTED EXPENSE, THEREFOR THE LOGGER SHOULD BE
565
ALLOWED TO TAKE ALL THE TREES AT THE FIRST ENTRY. PRINCE OF WALES
ISLAND CARRIES THE LEGACY OF THAT POLICY.
I HAVE HEARD DISCUSSIONS ON HOW TO KEEP FISH AND GAME BIOLOGISTS
PROM INFLUENCING HOW TIMBER SALES ARE LAID OUT.
I HAVE HEARD A REGIONAL FORESTER PROMISE THAT THERE WOULD NEVER
BE AN ACRE OF WILDERNESS ON THE TONGASS.
I HAVE WITNESSED FOREST SUPERVISORS EXCLUDE AREAS FROM WILDERNESS
CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE THE AREA CONTAINED A FEW ACRES OF
COMMERCIAL TIMBER.
WHEN THE FOREST SERVICE TRIED ITS FIRST FOREST WIDE PLANNING
EFFORT IN 1973, THE PLANNER IN CHARGE TOLD ME THE PLAN HAD BEEN
WRITTEN TO PURPOSELY CONFUSE THE PUBLIC, SINCE WHENEVER THE
PUBLIC UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE DOING THEY CREATED TROUBLE.
THIS WAS THE BRAND OF MULTIPLE USE THAT WAS PRACTICED ON THE
TONGASS UNTIL THE MID SEVENTIES. THE ONLY CONSIDERATION DURING
THIS PERIOD WAS THAT THE LOGGER CUT AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE AND
MAKE THE GREATEST PROFIT. THE TIMBER INDUSTRY WAS CUTTING THE
HEART OUT OF THE TONGASS, HIGHGRADING THE BEST OLD GROWTH, WHILE'
ILLEGALLY CONSTRAINING TRADE AND KEEPING DOUBLE SETS OF BOOKS.
THE FOREST SERVICE WAS NOT UNAWARE OF THESE ACTIONS.
THE FOREST SERVICE ESTIMATED THAT THE PULP COMPANIES CHEATED THE
GOVERNMENT, YOU AND I, OUT OF SOME 80 MILLION DOLLARS, YET NO
566
EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO RECOVER THAT MONEY.
THE FOREST SERVICE WAS NOT UNCHALLENGED IN ITS SINGLE PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT OF THE TONGASS. FISHING GROUPS AND SMALL COMMUNITIES
WERE THREATENING COURT ACTION. THE STATE OF ALASKA WAS
CONSIDERING TAKING THE FOREST SERVICE TO COURT AS UNFIT LAND
MANAGERS. THE FOREST SERVICE HAD LOST THE COURT BATTLE TO
ESTABLISH THE U.S. PLYWOOD CHAMPION MILL. THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE MADE THE DECISION NOT TO IMPLICATE THE FOREST SERVICE,
DESPITE THE EVIDENCE, IN PROSECUTING THE INDUSTRY FOR CONSTRAINT
OF TRADE. THE FOREST SERVICE HAD ITS BACK TO THE WALL.
BY THE LATE SEVENTIES THE FOREST SERVICE PROMISED A NEW ERA IN
FOREST PRACTICES AND PLANNING. THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
SOUTHEAST AREA GUIDE ALL RESOURCES WOULD BE CONSIDERED. THROUGH
THE PASSAGE OF ANILCA THE FOREST SERVICE WOULD PROVIDE AN AVERAGE
OF 450 BILLION FEET PER DECADE WHILE PROTECTING THE OTHER
RESOURCES OF THE TONGASS.
ITS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE FOREST SERVICE WAS BAILED OUT
OF THE ENORMOUS CONTROVERSY BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. CONGRESS
SPECIFIED IN ANILCA THAT. THE 450 TARGET WOULD ALLOW FOR MODEST
GROWTH IN THE INDUSTRY, AND THAT HIGHGRADING WOULD BE LESSENED.
THE BILL ALSO DIRECTED THE FOREST SERVICE TO PROTECT SUBSISTENCE
ACTIVITIES, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. IF THE FOREST SERVICE
WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THAT IT WAS ASKED TO DO I T HAD
THE OBLIGATION TO REPORT BACK TO CONGRESS.
THE FOREST SERVICE HAS IGNORED THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTINUED
567
TO CLAIM THAT IT IS DOING A QUALITY JOB ON THE TONGASS. ONE HAS
BUT TO READ THE 86-90 ALASKA PULP CO LONG TERM SALE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT TO LEARN THAT LOGGING HAS NO IMPACT ON
SUBSISTENCE AND THAT WHILE DEER NUMBERS WILL BE DECREASED DUE TO
LOGGING OF OLD GROWTH, HUNTER EXPECTATIONS WILL BE MET BECAUSE
HUNTERS WILL NOT EXPECT TO HARVEST AS MANY DEER. MANAGEMENT BASED
ON THIS TYPE OF RATIONAL IS ASSURED TO END UP IN COURT. THE
FOREST SERVICE GOAL, IS ONCE AGAIN, TO GET THE CUT OUT AND IN
DOING SO IF LOGIC AND SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS HAVE TO BE IGNORED,
THEN SO BE IT.
THE PROMISED CHANGES IN TONGASS MANAGEMENT ARE STILL ONLY
PROMISES.
THE FOREST SERVICE HAS CONTINUED ITS LONG HISTORY OF SUPPORTING
THE TIMBER INDUSTRY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER RESOURCES. IF THE
FOREST SERVICE HAD FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION IN ANILCA AND SHOWN THE
LEADERSHIP TO PRACTICE TRUE MULTIPLE USE WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS
HEARING TODAY. THE ONLY PART OF ANILCA THE FOREST SERVICE HAS
CHOSEN TO HONOR IS THE 450 BOARD FOOT TARGET. THIS EFFORT HAS
BEEN AT A GREAT DOLLAR EXPENSE TO THE TAX PAYER AND HAS CONTINUED
THE HIGHGRADING THAT IS SO DESTRUCTIVE TO THE OTHER FOREST
RESOURCES.
THE FOREST SERVICE HAS FAILED TO CARRY OUT ITS MULTIPLE USE
MANDATE UNDER ANILCA, WHICH HAS CREATED A NATIONAL FIRESTORM OF
CONTROVERSY, YET THE FOREST SERVICE DENIES THERE ARE SERIOUS
568
PROBLEMS ON THE TONGASS. THE CURRENT TONGASS PLANNING IS IN
SERIOUS TROUBLE. WE ARE HEADED TOWARDS A PLANNING SOLUTION THAT
MAINTAINS BUSINESS AS USUAL AND ONCE MORE FAVORS THE TIMBER
INDUSTRY. SUCH A SOLUTION IGNORES THE ISSUES AND HISTORY.
THE CHIEF OF, THE FOREST SERVICE TESTIFIED IN CONGRESS, SEVERAL
MONTHS AGO, THAT THE FOREST SERVICE WAS OPPOSED TO A MANDATED
ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITY FOR THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION BECAUSE IT;
"TIED THE HANDS OF THE MANAGERS." ASSOCIATE CHIEF GEORGE LEONARD
TESTIFIED IN MARCH, IN A US HOUSE HEARING, THAT THE FOREST
SERVICE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITY FOR THE
TONGASS. THE ASSOCIATE CHIEF DID NOT HAVE AN ANSWER WHEN ASKED
WHY THE FOREST SERVICE WOULD OPPOSE THE PROVISION FOR ONE REGION
AND SUPPORT IT FOR ANOTHER.
AT THIS SAME HOUSE HEARING ASSOCIATE CHIEF LEONARD ADMITTED THAT
THE FOREST SERVICE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BRING TOGETHER THE
TONGASS FACTIONS FOR SOME TYPE OF COMPROMISE. YET WE ARE ASKED TO
TRUST THE FOREST SERVICE PLANNING PROCESS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES.
I CAN'T HELP BUT BE CYNICAL WHEN I HEAR THE TIMBER INDUSTRY TELL
CONGRESS THAT ALL THEY WANT IS TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. THAT WOULD
INDEED BE A PLEASANT CHANGE!
I BELIEVE ITS TIME THAT THE TONGASS WAS TREATED FAIRLY. TO
BELIEVE THAT THE FOREST SERVICE WILL SOLVE THE TONGASS ISSUES
THROUGH ITS PLANNING PROCESS IS TO IGNORE HISTORY. CONGRESS MUST
569
TAKE THE INITIATIVE. I FEEL THAT THERE MUST BE NO MANDATED TIMBER
SUPPLY OR SALE QUANTITY, THE TWO 50 YEAR CONTRACTS MUST BE
CANCELLED AND THE 23 KEY FISH AND WILDLIFE AREAS MUST HAVE
PERMANENT PROTECTION.
SUCH A SOLUTION BASED ON S.346 WOULD NOT BE CAUSE FOR THE MILLS
TO CLOSE. I RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR A TIMBER INDUSTRY TO BE PART
OF THE TONGASS ECONOMY. HOWEVER, THAT INDUSTRY CAN NO LONGER BE
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RECREATION AND FISHING INDUSTRIES NOR AT
THE EXPENSE OF THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES. IF THE TIMBER INDUSTRY IS
A VIABLE BUSINESS THEN IT WILL SURVIVE WHEN THE TONGASS IS
MANAGED LIKE ANY OTHER NATIONAL FOREST.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
570
Senator Wirth. Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. I want to compliment the witnesses. I know
some of them personally. I have a high regard for your commit-
ment to the life style that you and other Alaskans enjoy, and I
would like to spend a little more time pursuing it.
There was a reference to Ketchikan's spruce mills in one of the
earlier statements. I wonder you would care to elaborate a little
bit, Ms. Baade? It was owned by the Dailey family, and then Milton
Dailey died.
Ms. Baade. It was third generation, as far as I know. I knew
Milton Dailey.
Senator Murkowski. And then it was run by his son, John.
Ms. Baade. Yes, and his son John sold the mill. I remember the
timber sale lawsuit and it was quite detailed as to the whole pat-
tern of how they put the spruce mill out of business. I was saying
that — well, the equipment, I understand, was beginning to wear
out and they had a dry kiln which was bulldozed out to store the
kilns. That was after Ketchikan Pulp Company took it over. They
shipped the lumber all over the State of Alaska. Most of all Ketchi-
kan was built with the Ketchikan spruce mill lumber and it was
real nice to be able to go down to the mill and pick out some
lumber for your own building purposes. Now you cannot even buy
a two by four.
Senator Murkowski. I used to work that sawmill and John was a
personal friend of mine. They used to operate yards in Sitka and
Anchorage and Fairbanks and Palmer. The difficulty, of course,
was all the ships bypassed Southeast Alaska going up to pull the
charters. There was a small mill here in Sitka many years ago
when I first came here, and they used to produce for the local
market but one of the realizations that Mr. Dailey told me was the
reason that they had to sell the mill is they got a good offer from
Louisiana Pacific and then, previous to that, they had been out of
the dimensional lumber business for some time because they were
supplying their yards by rail barge because they could load up the
barges with dimensional lumber, all different kinds, fir, plywood,
and be able to sell what the market required and had the ability to
compete with the locally produced spruce and hemlock, even
though they had to dry kiln the lumber. It was more costly than
their competitors in Anchorage and Fairbanks, who had lumber
yards they were supplying out of the commercial diversified indus-
try out of Puget Sound. So, they simply went out of that business
in order to survive and went into the export business, which they
operated for several years before they sold it to Louisiana Pacific.
Then Louisiana Pacific had a labor strike where they could not re-
solve the negotiations, and they finally sold the land to the City of
Ketchikan and tore down the buildings. And it is a big parking lot
today.
Ms. Baade. Senator Murkowski, I know John Dailey testified
before Congress and I have all of his testimony, as you outlined
there, as to why the mill was put out of business. If you read the
Reid Brothers timber sale lawsuit there are not many who testified
under oath.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I will see him tomorrow in Anchor-
age.
571
Ms. Baade. Well, he did testify under oath.
Senator Murkowski. I am just adding some background informa-
tion. I appreciate your point of view and I thank you very much, I
assure you.
Mr. Schmidt, in your written testimony you mentioned why Sen-
ator Murkowski changed his own legislation. Well, it really was not
my legislation to start out but nevertheless it is Tongass legisla-
tion. I was not around when the legislation was put together. If I
had been around when that legislation had been put together, as
my friends in the native community are quite aware of, I would not
have stood still for a situation that allowed the export of round logs
from the native land selection because I feel, and have felt, that if
you are going to have a primary manufacturing policy to support
the local employment, why export the jobs by exporting the round
logs?
We were going to initiate a situation of encouraging primary
manufacture and that was the opportunity to do it because we had
appropriations on the Forest Service that they are not allowed to
export the round log and then when we opened up the private se-
lections, there was no prohibition on round logs and, quite appro-
priately so, the stockholders in the major village corporations
wanted to get the highest yield for their land sales and they could
do it by exporting the round logs. I do not think it helped employ-
ment based on the small sawmills and we had the two mills in
Haines and one in Petersburg and a mill in — two mills in Wrangell
and they had tough times. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to state
that when stumpage re-evaluation occurs, and it probably has oc-
curred in Ketchikan where stumpage has been raised up to $68, it
is my understanding stumpage will be revisited based on a formula
of some kind relative to when it comes up for renewal and it is
going to occur here in Sitka as well. So there will be undoubtedly a
substantial increase in stumpage. This is what I understand.
I think that basically concludes my questions. I will thank you
all again for your excellent testimony.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Johnstone. The information that I have from the Forest
Service is that the present price that APC pays is in effect until
December 31, 1990.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I am glad to get that information be-
cause I was under the assumption they were negotiating at this
time and the difference between stumpage in the Ketchikan area
and the Sitka area, the Ketchikan area, from the standpoint of spe-
cies, had basically better timber than the Sitka area just because
the further north you go there is less volume of acreage in general
but there's an expert that can testify to that. Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Burns?
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was concerned about one thing in making all of these notes and
Mr. Metcalf alluded in his testimony here that the regional office
was aware about the pulp companies using phony independent log-
ging companies in order to bid in sales established to protect inde-
pendent loggers. Then the Forest Service awarded them the sale. I
think that is pretty strong, a pretty strong comment. Were there
'\ '^ 1 A a
572
any charges filed because I think that is contrary to Forest Service
rules?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes. The Justice Department made the decision for
political reasons, I guess, not to involve the Forest Service in litiga-
tions with the two mills. I spoke to a Justice department investiga-
tor who told me that he was aware of that information and they
had made that decision.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
I have no further questions.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Senator Burns.
This is for Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Metcalf, you worked for the Forest
Service for some time?
Mr. Metcalf. That is correct.
Senator Wirth. How long did you work for the Forest Service?
Mr. Metcalf. About 24 years, 20 years on the Tongass.
Senator Wirth. What did you do on the Tongass?
Mr. Metcalf. I was a naturalist with the land use planner and
then I completed my career as manager of the Admiralty Island
National Monument.
Senator Wirth. What in your best estimate or what is the reason
that the Tongass is treated differently from other national forests?
First of all, do you agree that it is treated differently?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes. I think the Forest Service had their mind set
that they needed to convert all of the old growth here and they
were encouraged in that in the beginning and then as the economy
systems of the United States and Alaska changed the Forest Serv-
ice was unable to change and they continued to drive at being ma-
ternalistic towards the timber industry and the Forest Service, I
think, refused to change while ever3rthing else around them
changed and that is the excuse that they used for years. It is just
that, an excuse.
Senator Wirth. Then the excuse they use is that things are dif-
ferent here?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes.
Senator Wirth. Is there any validity in the fact that what they
do is driven by the 4.5 billion board feet ten-year requirement?
Mr. Metcalf. When the Tongass Land Management Plan was
completed there were a number of provisions in there, ANILCA 4.5
and a number of other provisions, and the Forest Service essential-
ly ignored those other provisions and strove to meet the 4.5 at the
expense of the other provisions, I think, provisions about habitat
and subsistence and so forth.
Senator Wirth. Is there any target like that for any other na-
tional forest in the country?
Mr. Metcalf. No, sir. In fact, the Forest Service in congressional
hearing, the Chief of the Forest Service said that that would tie
their hands and they would be opposed to it.
Senator Wirth. If that existed in any other national forest?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir.
Senator Wirth. Are there any long term contracts like on the
Tongass in any other national forest?
Mr. Metcalf. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Wirth. Do any other national forests have the automatic
appropriation?
573
Mr. Metcalf. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Wirth. Do you know anything about the Shee Atika
trade on Admiralty Island?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes.
Senator Wirth. Were you here during the discussion we had ear-
lier about that trade?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes, I was.
Senator Wirth. Is there anything else to that story that did not
appear in the discussion that we had here?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes, I think so. There was some very valuable land
that was identified for trade for Shee Atika. Some of that land was
around Sitka, some of it a LUD 2 in the Bay of Pillars. Essentially,
as I understand it, the parties that were in that discussion about
the trade said it, the LUD 2 and the area around Sitka, would not
be adequate to compensate Shee Atika.
Right at that point I believe Senator Murkowski either sponsored
or favored blindly wording that would have resulted in additional
road credits for the mill, some $41 million the first year and $20
million the second year, and it was felt by all parties that I was
involved with that that had absolutely no business in the Shee
Atika land trade bill and the parties walked away from the land
trade at that point. So, I guess there is a different perspective as to
why that agreement fell apart.
Senator Wirth. I have another question. You talked about phony
companies being set up by the two mills. When were those phony
companies
Mr. Metcalf. In the 1960s.
Senator Wirth. That doesn't exist anymore?
Mr. Metcalf. No, not that I am aware of.
Senator Wirth. When did they stop existing?
Mr. Metcalf. I am not sure.
Senator Wirth. Were those phony companies operating during
the long term contract?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes.
Senator Wirth. Has that been documented, that those phony
companies existed?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir.
Senator Wirth. Where is that documentation?
Mr. Metcalf. I am sure that it is in the Reid Brothers suit and
the Justice Department has that information and the Forest Serv-
ice has it.
Senator Wirth. Again, looking at these contracts and whether or
not those ought to be terminated and, if so, if they can be terminat-
ed for cause or terminated for public interest, there are categories
of termination and sometimes it is easier to terminate than others.
One of the easiest ways to terminate is to show that the parties to
the contract have violated the contract. Part of my discussion earli-
er, I had earlier with Mr. Roppel. Do you know of any other viola-
tions that ought to be part of the record?
Mr. Metcalf. There are a lot of alleged ones but none I personal-
ly know about.
Senator Wirth. None that are documented other than the ones
we talked about previously this morning, the three, the charges
earlier, and then the phony companies, and the Reid Brothers?
574
Mr. Metcalf. Not that is documented.
Senator Wirth. Let me ask you a final question that relates to
what I gather is called residual. The question goes something like
this, and I do not understand this and I would like you to help me
out on it. If a timber company has or agrees to a sale with the
Forest Service, say timber of 1,000 acres only the timber is 750
acres, the remainder is 250 acres or, to put it another way, if a
company agreed with the Forest Service to cut 100,000 board feet
and only cut 75,000 board feet what happens to that residual, that
residual of 250 acres or that residual of 25,000 board feet of timber?
Mr. Metcalf. I am not exactly sure. It would depend on the spe-
cific contract but a lot of that is — well, the term is "carry-over. '
Senator Wirth. That is called carryover. Who owns that carry-
over?
Mr. Metcalf. I am not exactly sure.
Senator Wirth. Do most contracts that the Forest Service makes
to these companies deal with the carry-over issue or is it not specif-
ically dealt with?
Mr. Metcalf. I do not know, sir.
Senator Wirth. It seems to me that we might be heading in one
direction with a piece of legislation and then could find that there
is an enormous bank of carry-over residual out here where compa-
nies could come around and say, "Hey, we have all of this that we
did not cut up," but I do not know. I guess one of our jobs is to say
"What if." What is in the pipeline out there?
Well, we can ask the staff to present that to the Forest Service. I
think that would be a very interesting question. Do either of you
have any final comments you would like to make?
Mr. Sever. Yes, I would like to bring a thought that one of the
previous panel members made as far as the issue of 12(k) in the
long term contract. That is the local hiring provision in the APC
long term contract. He said that they have been called on that
many times and met the test. What I would like to do, I would like
to read you an excerpt of a letter on information I sent to Ken Rob-
erts, the Forest Supervisor of Region 10, U.S. Forest Service. What
I would like to read is two of the questions that I asked him and
his reply to my questions.
My question was, "What efforts were made by APC and its affili-
ates, subsidiaries, or subcontractors to recruit individuals employed
in the conduct of logging operations, mills, and the manufacturing
process conducted under the contract of record in southeast
Alaska?" His reply was, "There is no Forest Service documentation
showing the effort APC or its affiliates made to recruit southeast
Alaska residents by use of newspaper advertisements, radio an-
nouncements, or Alaska job services."
My next question was, "Was there any reason it made it imprac-
tical to recruit these employees from the residents of southeast
Alaska?" Mr. Roberts replied to that question, "A search of our
records revealed no documentation showing the reasons why APC
could or could not recruit employees from southeast Alaska." The
conclusion I arrived at here was that the questions on local hiring
were never asked by the Forest Service and therefore they were
never provided to anybody.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Senator Murkowski?
575
Senator Murkowski. Very briefly, to make sure that we have a
complete record, I will ask you that I may be allowed to include
from my files information relative to this proposed effort to save
the Admiralty Island logging issue and the land exchange. These
things are hard to recall and Mr. Metcalf is correct, the general
agreement, it is my recollection, did involve the Bay of Pillars. As I
recall, Sealaska was awarded that. The environmental community
indicated that they were reluctant to accept what the Forest Serv-
ice had put in. A formal road I think was involved in it.
But, in any event, it is my understanding that Shee Atika was
not satisfied that it was equitable. They wanted more land. It is at
that point that we came in and the land came out of the timber
base. Then the question was that there would have to be an ex-
change of land from the timber base and some other consideration
and that is where the road credits came in. I think it is important
to point out that when Shee Atika asked for more cash than we
could possibly expect to get out of the appropriation process, we
never formally introduced the bill. Unfortunately, the negotiations
were not finalized. However, with your permission I would like to
include those for the files.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. I have a few questions about that
and perhaps you know the answers to them. During the discussion
between Senator Murkowski and Ms. Brown there was some collo-
quy that went back and forth related to second growth. You were
here at the time, Mr. Metcalf?
Mr. Metcalf. I believe so.
Senator Wirth. I can ask you a few questions about that, you are
a forester and knew about this thing. The discussion was that if
you look up on the map you see evidence of second growth. What
can you tell us about that second growth, you know, specifically
how large are the trees in the second growth, how long does it take
trees to come back, what is the quality of that timber versus what
was cut?
Mr. Metcalf. The amount of wood fiber that is produced per
acre is essentially the same. It cannot hardly improve that but we
do get less defect in the trees. The trees are larger in the second
growth after better than a 100 years.
Senator Wirtk. After 100 years the trees are larger than the
trees that were damaged?
Mr. Metcalf. Well, I would say on the average. In the old
growth stand you had many large old trees, you had a variety of
openings, and you have a variety of aged ones. In the second
growth you have— the same age class. There is more wood fiber
that is usable in the second growth but there is not the variety of
age class nor is there the understory that supports the wildlife that
is important, for instance, in the old growth kind of species. So, if
you looked at the second growth after 100 years, and as you go fur-
ther north it takes 150 years, in Ketchikan and that, but it essen-
tially can produce more wood, usable wood fiber, but it is limited in
its ability to provide other forest values.
Senator Wirth. Is there anywhere, in layman's language, a sort
of charter to base those on? It sounds to me like there are pluses
and minuses to second growth. You are going to have more wood
fiber and you are going to have better trees, is that right?
576
Mr. Metcalf. For some uses. Some of the old growth spruce, the
texture of the wood is much better compared to the second growth.
The second growth has more air in it.
Senator Wirth. Why does the old growth spruce have more den-
sity than the second growth?
Mr. Metcalf. The second growth grows much faster and so the
cells are larger.
Senator Wirth. Why does it grow faster?
Mr. Metcalf. Because it has less competition; there is more sun-
light.
Senator Wirth. When it is out in the open it tends to grow more
rapidly or a little more slowly, the rings are closer together, and,
therefore, the quality of the old growth is better than the quality of
the new growth?
Mr. Metcalf. It depends on what they are using the wood for.
Probably for pulp the second growth is much better.
Senator Wirth. If you are going for pulp the second growth is
advantageous. If you are going for quality
Mr. Metcalf. If you are going for a musical sound board, the old
growth is the best.
Senator Wirth. Now, in a mixed state, what difference does the
age class make?
Mr. Metcalf. It is complicated but to try and make it simple, the
old growth has natural openings. Trees die and fall over and new
trees start and you get patches of sunlight and you get a variety of
age, age classed trees, different trees at different ages, and a lot of
undergrowth that provides food for wildlife and so forth.
Senator Wirth. So, you are getting more wildlife in old growth
than in the second growth?
Mr. Metcalf. That is correct. A real good forest will sustain a
variety of wildlife and it will protect them during the winter. It
will keep out a lot of the snow and there will be food for them and
forage, going underground, that is available to them. The second
growth does not have that canopy, it does not have the openings.
The Forest Service now admits that 50 to 75 percent of the deer
will be finished in half the water sheds that they have left to log
because the growth will essentially disappear and there will be
nothing but woody stems to sustain the deer.
Senator Wirth. What is a woody stem?
Mr. Metcalf. Just young trees that do not have the soft, fleshy
limbs that you have in the old growth.
I wanted to get your sense of what to look for and be alert to
here.
Thank you. We appreciate your being here. Thank you very
much.
We will take a brief recess.
[Recess taken.]
Senator Wirth. We can resume.
I would ask if our six witnesses would please come up to the wit-
ness table, Ladonna Stafford, John Parton, Ralph Groshong, Ed
Oetken, Hayden Kaden, Joy Evers. Then in the first row down at
the right, Ruth Sandvig, John Murray, Gage Else, Carolyn Servid,
Linda Waller, Christine Pool.
577
While the first six witnesses are coming to the witness table I
would like to make a couple of announcements. The individuals, as
I pointed out, should take the appropriate seats. Please bring
copies of your written statements with you when you come up.
When you get to the first row the staff will collect your statements
and make sure that they are available to the members of the com-
mittee.
We had set the deadline of two minutes per witness. Unfortu-
nately, our court reporter has got a 5:30 airplane and we are going
to have to leave here at 5:00 o'clock. We will close the hearing at
5:00 o'clock. So, we are going to accelerate the rate just little more
rapidly and we ask all of you to speak real fast and do it in a
minute and thirty seconds. That way we can, I hope, get everybody
in who has been promised the opportunity to testify. Unfortunate-
ly, and I understand there has been some communication between
here and Washington, some people may have been inadvertently
omitted from the witness list. If you are on the witness list pub-
lished in the newspaper and do not see your name on today's wit-
ness list, please check with a member of the staff by coming over
here and raising your hand and we will see if we can get that
sorted out. We have already added Leo Gillings and Jim Stout, who
were inadvertently omitted, for this same reason.
So, let us move on very smartly, if we can. The staff will be keep-
ing a watch and we are going to go a minute and thirty seconds or
the best we can do.
Let us go to Ladonna Stafford first.
We saved a minute and thirty seconds because evidently she is
not here. Let us go to John Parton.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PARTON
Mr. Parton. My name is John Parton. I am an Alaska logger
and I live in Rowan Bay. I work for the Alaska Pulp Corporation
running a yarder.
In starting I might say that I do not see this just as something
happening here. I see this as the trend of things all over the coun-
try to stop the logging of the old growth in the forest by a one-sided
view.
I wish I had spots on my skin so that it would be physically ap-
parent that I too am an endangered species. Even as the small
creature is one of many types of owl, I am a specific type of
human, a Pacific Northwest logger. Will you give my mate and I
thousands of acres of timberland, for that is what I too need to sur-
vive.
Am I a destroyer of everything in my path or just a harvester of
the old and past prime, that the young and healthy might develop?
Do I perform an unnecessary task or am I not at the very center of
our existence just as the other farmers you subsidize? On the day
your children were born their very first contact other than the doc-
tor's hand was with the paper towels that wiped them clean. The
books that educate us, the money we spend, the laws you write,
even the pamphlets, magazines, and picket signs that protest me
are all made out of the products I provide, as is probably the home
that you live in.
578
How much greater loss than direct revenues will there be if me
and my kind not only quit having taxable income but are forced to
go on welfare? We have nowhere else to go. Driven from my home
state of Idaho by RARE II, from Oregon and Washington by spot-
ted owls, this is my only remaining habitat.
You have been chosen as men of wisdom and given authority not
only by man but by God in whom we trust, chosen to delegate lib-
erty and justice for all. I am one of that "all." Will I keep my life,
my liberty, or will you not see the forest for the trees and drive my
kind to extinction?
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Ralph Groshong.
STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSHONG, ALASKA PULP CORP.
Mr. Groshong. It would be great if loggers were 14 inches tall
and had spots and feathers. Then, instead of wanting to take
timber from us, the federal government and environmentalists
would give us more timber than we need.
The rules and regulations concerning fish creeks are strictly en-
forced by the company and the United States Forest Service. The
residents and APC have no desire to hurt the fishing industry. The
two industries together support southeast Alaska. Omission of
either one could be disastrous.
The cut and logged units in southeast Alaska reseed themselves
at an incredible rate. Most of the timber cut at Rowan Bay is past
maturity and starting to decompose. The second growth timber
that comes back is healthy and a beautiful sight to see, even from
a plane or Alaskan ferry.
APC's logging at Rowan Bay and its residents contribute
$3,481,227 annually to the local economy. An additional $40,000 is
spent per month for groceries, plus $24,000 a year for air taxi serv-
ice from the people living in family housing, who also help support
local doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies. In my written statement I
have included an explanation of the $3,481,277 contribution, Rowan
Bay expenses for 1988, which apply directly to the southeast
Alaska economy.
In closing, Oregon and Washington are expected to lose 17,000
logging and logging-related jobs to owls and environmentalists.
Therefore, if we lose our jobs there will not be anywhere for us to
go except for welfare lines. You will not be able to get any tax
money out of us there and there are too damn many people in
them already.
I am totally against Bill S. 346.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groshong follows:]
579
Alaska Pulp Corporation Logging
Rowan Bay, Alaska
Ralph C. Groshong
It would be great if loggers were 14 inches tall and had spots and
feathers. Then, Instead of wanting to take timber from us, the federal
government and environmentalists would give us more timber than we need.
The rules and regulations concerning fish creeks are strictly enforced
by the company and the United States Forest Service. The residents and
A.P.C. have no desire to hurt the fishing industry. The two industries
together support southeast Alaska. Omission of either one could be
disastrous .
The cut and logged units in southeast Alaska reseed themselves at an
incredible rate. Most of the timber cut at Rowan Bay is past maturity and
starting to decompose. The second growth timber that comes back is healthy,
'and a beautiful sight to see (even from a plane or Alaskan ferry).
A.P.C. 's logging at Rowan Bay and it's residents contribute
$3,481,227 annually, to the local economy. An Additional $40,000 is spent
per month for groceries, plus $24,000 a year for air taxi service from the
people living in family housing, who also help support local doctors,
hospitals and pharmacies .
Explanation of the $3,481,277 contribution:
Rowan Bay expenses for 1988
(which apply directly to southeast Alaska economy)
Fuel $465,002.32
Air Freight 91,196.23
Groceries (Cook house only) 129,941.93
Repair Parts (trucks, cat yarders, 139,759.41
camp upkeep, motors, etc.)
Supplies (linens, tires, saws.) 102,665.61
Air Taxi Service (employees/residents) 15,000.00
Air Taxi Service (for medical reasons) 2,500.00
Log Towing/Barging 900,000.00
Employer Provided Insurance:
Employee and dependents 70,987.53
Employee Retirement 48,753.96
Workers Compensation Coverage 425.530.71
Subtotal: $2,391,337.70
Direct Wages 1.089.940 n.s
$3,481,277.75
In closing, Oregon and Washington are expected to lose 17,000 logging
and logging-related jobs to owls and environmentalists. Therefore, if we
lose our jobs, there won't be anywhere for us to go except for welfare
lines; you won't be able to get any tax money out of us there, and there's
too damn many people in them, ^l^^ady . /.^ ^^^ .^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Thank you for your time. Ralph C. Groshong
580
Senator Wirth, Ed Oetken.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. OETKEN, ALASKA PULP CORP.
Mr. Oetken. I am employed as the Director of Environmental Af-
fairs at Alaska Pulp Corporation.
My family and I have spent ten years in Alaska and Sitka is our
home.
The passage of Senator Wirth's bill will lead to the shutdown of
the Alaska Pulp mill in Sitka. Every person in this community,
and many outside, will suffer an initial loss when the bill becomes
law and further losses when the mill shutdown actually occurs.
Why do I believe that the mill will be shut down by this piece of
legislation? Part of my job is to negotiate agreements with state
and federal regulatory agencies. Achieving an agreement with a
regulatory agency has never been easy, but always possible when
the two parties were intent on reaching a solution to the problem
under discussion. During the past few years these negotiations
have become many times a three-party affair with the Sierra Club
intervening as the representative of environmental groups, and the
negotiations have ended up in the hands of lawyers and judges. In
the process, construction projects are delayed or abandoned and
newspaper, radio, and TV reports cover the country. These situa-
tions, I believe, were caused by attempts to influence Tongass legis-
lation— and the hope that APC would not be able to survive the
economic impact of increased environmental costs. Fair minded
concern by the Sierra Club for all aspects of the environment has
not been demonstrated to me.
I see Senator Wirth's bill as the Sierra Club's "final solution" to
Alaska Pulp's existence.
In response to legitimate concerns, I support Senator Murkow-
ski's bill, S. 237, as one way of allowing the Forest Service to do its
job of managing the Tongass for all citizens, not just a select few.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Oetken. Mr. Hayden.
STATEMENT OF HAYDEN KADEN
Mr. Hayden. Thank you.
For the record, my name is Hayden Kaden. I have been a perma-
nent resident of southeast Alaska for 22 years. I am an attorney
and, in addition, for 16 years I have been involved in wilderness
recreation as a guide in the southeast and am familiar with
Alaska.
The social and economic development of rural southeast are
being crippled by Tongass management policies developed over 30
years ago. Since then our region has grown and diversified but fed-
eral policies have not grown and diversified with us.
The strongest cries for change are coming from the very commu-
nities which are surrounded by the Tongass Forest and from the
people most dependent upon its resources.
New timber operations have been prevented by the monopoly
contracts and the resulting limits on timber supply. Small mills
compete with one another for leftover timber in bid sales while the
pulp mills pay reduced rates and thereby eliminate their competi-
tion.
581
Commanity watersheds have been logged despite local protests
because communities have no status when the needs of the 50-year
contract holders conflict with those of Tongass communities.
Fishermen, tourism interests, guides, recreationists, and others
with a profound economic stake in the forest are seeing their
future stripped away under a management program which provides
its primary benefits to the Japanese.
The Tongass forest can provide timber to diverse local interests,
support the development of more timber manufacture, provide
habitat for commercial and subsistence fisheries, and allow for
local community self-determination, but only if major changes
occur in the management goals.
I support S. 346 and would ask that you strengthen the bill by
granting permanent protection to all of the 23 key fish and wildlife
areas.
I have in addition 19 letters that I would like to submit.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaden follows:]
582
STATEMENT OF HAYDEN KADEN, JUNEAU, ALASKA
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS HAYDEN KADEN. I HAVE BEEN A
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA FOR 22 YEARS. I AM
AN ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN LEGISLATION AND, IN ADDITION,
FOR 16 YEARS, I HAVE BEEN A WILDERNESS RECREATION GUIDE IN
SOUTHEAST. I ALSO LIVED WITH MY FAMILY IN A SUBSISTENCE
LIFESTYLE IN A RURAL SOUTHEAST ALASKA COMMUNITY FOR 11
YEARS. I AM APPEARING IN SUPPORT OF S. 346, THE TONGASS
TIMBER REFORM ACT.
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL SOUTHEAST ARE
BEING CRIPPLED BY TONGASS MANAGEMENT POLICIES DEVELOPED OVER
THIRTY YEARS AGO.
SINCE THEN OUR REGION HAS GROWN AND DIVERSIFIED, BUT FEDERAL
POLICIES HAVE NOT GROWN AND DIVERSIFIED WITH US.
THE STRONGEST CRIES FOR CHANGE ARE COMING FROM THE VERY
COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE SURROUNDED BY THE TONGASS FOREST, AND
FROM THE PEOPLE MOST DEPENDENT UPON ITS RESOURCES.
NEW TIMBER OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE MONOPOLY
CONTRACTS AND THE RESULTING LIMITS ON TIMBER SUPPLY. SMALL
MILLS COMPETE WITH ONE ANOTHER FOR LEFT OVER TIMBER, IN BID
SALES, WHILE THE PULP MILLS PAY REDUCED RATES AND THEREBY
ELIMINATE THEIR COMPETITION.
COMMUNITY WATERSHEDS HAVE BEEN LOGGED DESPITE LOCAL PROTESTS
BECAUSE COMMUNITIES HAVE NO STATUS WHEN THE NEEDS OF THE
50 -YEAR CONTRACT HOLDERS CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF TONGASS
COMMUNITIES.
FISHERMEN, TOURISM INTERESTS, GUIDES, RECREATIONISTS , AND
OTHERS WITH A PROFOUND ECONOMIC STAKE IN THE FOREST, ARE
SEEING THEIR FUTURE STRIPPED AWAY UNDER A MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHICH PROVIDES ITS PRIMARY BENEFITS TO THE JAPANESE.
THE DEBATE OVER STREAM PROTECTION WILL NOT GO AWAY UNTIL THE
FOREST SERVICE IS ABLE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE BUFFERS. HOWEVER,
THE OVER COMMITMENT OF THE FOREST REQUIRES CONSTANT
COMPROMISING OF COMPETING ECONOMIC USES.
THE TONGASS FOREST CAN PROVIDE TIMBER TO DIVERSE LOCAL
INTERESTS, SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE TIMBER
MANUFACTURE, PROVIDE HABITAT FOR COMMERCIAL AND SUBSISTENCE
FISHERIES, AND ALLOW FOR LOCAL COMMUNITY
SELF-DETERMINATION — BUT ONLY IF MAJOR CHANGES OCCUR IN THE
MANAGEMENT GOALS.
WE URGE YOU TO PROTECT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING
FOR ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION. DO NOT CONTINUE A POLICY
583
WHICH HAS BEEN OUT OF DATE FOR YEARS, AND PREVENTS LOCALLY
OWNED BUSINESS FROM GAINING A FAIR COMPETITIVE POSITION,
16 COMMUNITIES OF THE TONGASS, THE RESIDENTS OF THE TONGASS,
THE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF OUR REGION AND HUGE ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES CALL UPON YOU TO HELP US WIN THE
CHANGES WHICH ONLY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION CAN PROVIDE.
IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR AMERICANS TO PAY FOR THE
EXPLOITATION OF OUR NATION'S LAST RAIN FOREST, WHILE LOCAL
PEOPLE ARE READY TO USE THESE RESOURCES RESPONSIBLY AND
WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY.
THE FOREST SERVICE HAS MADE ITS GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SOLVE
THE COMPETITIVE PROBLEMS THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES, BUT
THEY CANNOT SUCCEED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CURRENT LAW. I
URGE YOU TO ACT NOW TO PASS S. 346, THE TONGASS TIMBER
REFORM ACT, ON BEHALF OF THE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF THE
TONGASS FOREST AND ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST.
IN ADDITION, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU STRENGTHEN SENATOR WIRTH'S
BILL BY GRANTING PERMANENT PROTECTION TO ALL 23 OF THE HIGH
VALUE FISH AND WILDLIFE AREAS RECOMMENDED FOR ONLY TEMPORARY
PROTECTION BY S. 346. I AM PERSONALLY FAMILIAR WITH AND
HAVE GUIDED CLIENTS IN, OR USED FOR SUBSISTENCE PURPOSES,
THE BERNERS BAY AREA, PLEASANT AND LEMESURIER ISLANDS,
POINT ADOLPHUS / MUD BAY, ROCKY PASS, THE YAKUTAT FORELANDS
AND YOUNG'S LAKE.
IF THESE HEARINGS HAD BEEN HELD IN A MORE REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLING OF TONGASS FOREST COMMUNITIES AND HAD THE WITNESS
SELECTION PROCESS BEEN MORE FAIR, YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD MANY
MORE SENTIMENTS, SUCH AS MINE, EXPRESSED.
HOWEVER, I DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY VIEWS
AND THOSE OF MANY OF THE UNREPRESENTED COMMUNITIES OF
SOUTHEAST ALASKA. .THANK YOU.
584
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Foy Nevers.
STATEMENT OF FOY NEVERS
Ms. Nevers. Mr. Chairman, my name is Foy J. Nevers and I sup-
port Senate Bill 237 and oppose Senate Bill 346.
The primary reason I have worked 29 continuous years for
Alaska Pulp Corporation and made Sitka my home is the steady,
dependable employment the 50-year contract has given me and my
family.
During these 29 years I have raised a daughter, two sons, and
seen them educated from kindergarten through high school gradua-
tion in Sitka. I have a son buried here and someday hope to be
placed next to him, if I am not forced to move because I lost my job
as a result of Senate Bill 346.
I have been a life member of the Sitka Sportsmen's Association
for 28 years and firmly believe that logging and wildlife do co-exist.
I used to hitch a ride in 1961 and 1962 on logging trucks in Katlian
Bay to go deer and goat hunting. I have taken deer home almost
every year from this Bay in the regrowth areas since then.
The new growth in Katlian Bay has come back so thick that I
believe my grandchildren will see it logged again. Katlian River
still has a good run of dog and pink salmon every year.
Please do not lose sight of the fact that southeastern Alaska is
blessed with a great many inches of rainfall which guarantees
almost no lost trees due to forest fires.
Let us keep our jobs here in southeastern Alaska so we will not
have to be retrained or relocated away from our homes.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much and we appreciate all of
you that have joined us today.
Would the next group please move in, Ruth Sandvig, John
Murray, Page Else, Carolyn Servid, Linda Waller, and Christine
Pool.
Moving into the on deck circle we have Joe Kilburn, Sandra
Craig, Frank Wright, Jr., Richard Bean, Jr., R. Bartlett Watson,
and Gordon Harang.
We will start with Ruth Sandvig.
STATEMENT OF RUTH SANDVIG
Ms. Sandvig. I am Ruth Sandvig of Petersburg, Alaska, a resi-
dent for 48 years. I have taught school, raised three children and
fished for over 30 years.
The Tongass National Forest is a multiple use area. We must
practice and protect more than one type of activity.
A former Republican Alaskan State legislator said, "The timber
industry does not need to log creek beds." That was in 1985. Now,
in 1989 creek beds are still being logged. We need large bumper
strips to prevent erosion and to preserve the habitat.
I support Senator Wirth's bill for permanent protection.
Let us speak of jobs. Remember the Tongass National Forest is a
multiple use area. We must share jobs among loggers, fishermen,
and others. If we continue to log at the present rate there will be
fewer jobs for both loggers and fishermen.
585
I have with me evidence of some 21 people from Petersburg who
wish to support Senator Wirth's bill for protection.
I thank you for this opportunity.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Murray.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MURRAY
Mr. Murray. My name is John Murray. I reside in Sitka, Alaska
where I commercially fish. I have been interested and somewhat
active in Tongass National Forest management plans since
ANILCA or the so-called Alaska Lands Bill days.
I support Mr. Wirth's S. 346 and wholeheartedly agree with SEC
201, Findings and Purpose as a good outline of problems on the
Tongass. I would like to reinforce these in my own words.
Since ANILCA's passage in 1980 many changes have come about,
with fishing, tourism, subsistence use and native logging operations
becoming more important to our southeastern communities and vil-
lages. With their continued growth and usage more conflicts and
frustration with current land use practices occur. Many feel as I
do, that these important values are being compromised. By "com-
promised," I mean that it is harder and I think not possible for the
U.S. Forest Service to manage, under the constraints of the long
term contract and the mandate cut, true multi-use, sustained yield
forest practices. The Forest Service is hard pressed to protect other
forest user groups to the extent necessary, thereby compromising
other values.
I would like to bring up some points which are important. Fish-
ing and fish processing is a large employer in southeast Alaska,
somewhere in the range of 4,000 to 6,000 jobs.
Mr. Wirth mentioned value added products. Job security in the
timber industry could be helped by it, with finished products, spe-
cialty lumber, filling our local needs. Instead, we send out cants
from Wrangell sawmill and let Japan's mills have the jobs. Then I
go to the hardware store and buy lumber from Oregon, while the
Wrangell mill stands idle. No saw logs, they say. Does not make
sense to me.
In closing, I feel the amendments in S. 346 will move us toward
better management and offer the Forest Service much greater
flexibility.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Page Else.
STATEMENT OF PAGE ELSE
Ms. Else. I am Page Else and I am the editor of a publication
entitled "A Manual for Oyster Farmers in Alaska." I am currently
living in Sitka and working on a mariculture research project.
Mariculture is a subject of controversy in Alaska. Many environ-
mentalists oppose it because they feel there are insufficient sites
available. Fishermen oppose it because they feel their livelihood is
threatened, but in this controversy lies the first point I would like
to make to this committee.
The Tongass should be managed for multiple resource use. We
must achieve balance. Current management is biased towards rape
586
of one resource, with little financial gain to the nation and great
cost to other resources.
I support S. 346. I think it answers some of the problems. Local
populations have increased with more development of fishing and
tourism. The pressure on the Tongass is so great now that we must
look at the whole of southeast Alaska in an attempt to determine
its fate. Areas must be protected for their foremost value. As wild
lands become more raped they become more precious. In the past
we looked at wild lands as empty lands that should be developed;
today we know the biological base they provide to our fisheries and
environment. What they produce we cannot come anywhere near
to imitating, with our bureaucratic, inefficient systems. We must
provide permanent protection to key wildlife habitat areas, like
Anan Creek and South Etolin Island. Their long term benefits are
too great for any other use of the resource to be economical.
The harvest mandate currently in place is placing intense pres-
sure on the forest and it may destroy it. This harvest figure is no
longer appropriate. It was computed at a time when there was
more wood available and less alternate uses of the ecosystem.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Ms. Else.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Else follows:]
Prepared Statement of Page Virginia Else
I am the editor of a publication entitled "A Manual for Oyster Farmers in
Alaska"; published by the Sea Grant Program and the State of Alaska. I am cur-
rently living in Sitka and working on a mariculture research project. Mariculture is
a subject of controversy in Alaska. Many environmentalists oppose it because they
feel there are insufficient sites available. Fishermen oppose mariculture because
they feel their livelihood is threatened by it. But in this controversy lies the first
point I would like to make to this committee. The Tongass should be managed for
multiple resource use. We must achieve balance.
Current management is biased towards rape of one resource, with little financial
gain to the Nation, and great cost to other resources.
The Tongass is presently being managed by an economic scheme that may have
been very appropriate 20 years ago but is no longer economically beneficial today.
Local populations have increased with more development of fishing, tourism, mining
and other forms of industry. This changes the relative value of the Tongass re-
sources. The pressure on the Tongass is so great now that we must look at the
whole of Southeast Alaska and attempt to determine its fate. Areas must be selected
and protected for their foremost value. As wildlands become more rare, they become
more precious. In the past we looked at wildlands as empty lands that should be
developed. Today we know the biological base they provide to our fisheries and envi-
ronment. What they produce we can't come anywhere near to imitating, with our
beauracratic inefficient systems. We must provide permanent protection to key wild-
life habitat areas, like Anan Creek and South Etolin Islands, where I have traveled.
Their long-term benefits to us is too great for any other use of the resource to be
economical. The harvest mandate currently in place is placing intense pressure on
the forest, and it may destroy it. This harvest figure is no longer appropriate. It was
computed at a time when there was more wood available and less alternate uses of
the ecosystem.
I have lived in several of the towns in S.E. Alaska and my friends include loggers,
fisherpeople, environmentalists, and business people. Some of these loggers would
have liked to have had their own businesses, but feel they were forced out of busi-
ness by the big corporations. It costs this nation more to prepare a timber sale than
it gains. Two-thirds of our timber is sold without competitive bidding. I don't believe
this is good capitalism. The longterm contracts should be abolished. Timber should
be managed as a normal business, controlled by the market and economic condi-
tions, not supported by an artificial subsidy. This actually results in undervaluing
the resource. In our rush to maintain the status quo we sell timber at a loss. The
timber supply in the world is steadily decreasing. Holding on to our timber is a good
587
investment. The true cost of supporting timber must include the air and water pol-
lution caused by the industry. I support Senate bill 346, sponsored by Wirth.
Senator Wirth. Carolyn Servid.
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN SERVID
Ms. Servid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Carolyn Servid. I have
been a resident of Sitka for nine years and have chosen this com-
munity as my home because of the opportunity it provides to live
in concert with the natural world. I have held jobs here in busi-
ness, education, and tourism and have been active in several com-
munity nonprofit organizations.
Senator Murkowski, as one of your constituents, I wish I could
support your Bill S. 237. However, I do not believe it is in the best
interests of the forest and the many people who live here and use
its varied resources. While S. 237 sustains the timber industry, it
does so at the cost of fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and tourism, for
if the current Tongass management practices continue, including
the 450 cut and the 50-year contracts, the degradation of these
other resources is guaranteed. The vision at the end of that narrow
road is frightening.
That is why I am grateful to you. Senator Wirth, for introducing
S. 346, which offers a more balanced approach to managing the
Tongass. By replacing the 450 cut with appropriate planning, by re-
placing the $40 million subsidy with annual appropriations, and by
replacing the 50-year contracts with short term timber sales, we
can sustain the timber industry in a way that is beneficial to more
people and reasonable for the forest. At the same time, we can
move toward true multiple use of the forest by granting special
consideration to critical fish and wildlife habitat and areas of high
recreation and subsistence use. The 23 areas listed in your bill are
particularly important in this regard and deserve not temporary
but permanent protection. I urge you to strengthen this provision.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge the delicate balance that
maintains life on the earth. We have come close to violating it
beyond repair. Political and economic motives will not save us.
They must be balanced by the internal dictates of the natural
world itself. We must use our intelligence to ensure that the
earth — and the Tongass National Forest — will continue to sustain
us.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Linda Waller.
STATEMENT OF LINDA WALLER
Ms. Waller. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Linda
Waller, I have lived in Sitka for 15 years and for 11 years have
been involved with various aspects of the fishing industry.
Senator Wirth, thank you for listening to the people of rural
southeast Alaska who do not want clearcuts and roads infringing
on their communities, and for introducing positive steps to bring
true multiple use to the Tongass.
588
Of all the wonderful things that came out of the 1950s, should we
be stuck with these archaic 50-year contracts? In fairness to the
native corporations and independent loggers, timber sales must be
competitive. Repeal of the $40 million subsidy, which has been
proven to be a waste of taxpayers' money; and repeal of the 450
requirement would allow the Forest Service to manage the Tongass
as they do all other national forests.
The fishing industry is southeast Alaska's largest private indus-
try, employing 3,993 people as compared to the timber industry's
1,781. Protecting lands from logging is comparable to the closing of
fishing areas to protect a species or a specific run of salmon. It is
just sensible management. Ninety percent of the salmon harvested
in southeast come from Tongass watersheds; seventy percent of this
high value habitat is not protected. The Forest Service does not
even require buffer strips along streams.
In the face of the Prince William Sound disaster and the Taiwan-
ese fishing fleet's interception of Alaskan salmon, please mandate
more than a moratorium on logging the fragile habitat of southeast
Alaska's rainforest. I would like to request this committee to
amend Senate Bill 346 to designate 22 areas as wilderness now,
with the Yakutat Forelands getting special consideration for its
present commercial and subsistence uses.
Thank you for all your time and consideration.
Senator Wirth. Thank you. Yesterday Senator Burns and I
awarded two green medals. You get the first one today.
Senator Burns. And I was wondering, if you have any spare
time, I have a lot of work for you making 1 minute and 30 second
commercials.
Senator Wirth. Christine Pool.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE POOL
Ms. Pool. My name is Christine Pool. I support Senate Bill 237. I
am originally from the State of Colorado and I moved to southeast
Alaska 12 years ago. I have lived in Ketchikan and Juneau and
with my family I am in the process of moving to Sitka. With the
uncertainty of the mill's future, we really do not know if we will
see some differences in the Sitka housing market or not.
As a family we have been involved with the fishing industry, the
tourism industry, and the timber industry in southeast Alaska.
Having traveled through the region, I see that all three of those
industries are critical to southeast Alaska and to the survival of
many of our towns. We rely on renewable resources for our income.
Just as the loss of the fishery in Prince William Sound will impact
30 communities beyond that region, loss of the timber industry can
impact many cities beyond just those with mills, like Wrangell,
Sitka, and Ketchikan, et cetera. I am concerned about their future
as well as our own
As you contemplate legislation, please do not forget that we Alas-
kans respect our land. Please keep in mind that we are using only
a small percentage of the national forest for timber harvesting. On
the other hand, we should not issue an industry blackjack to oper-
ate. We need to hold them to accountability. We have a God given
responsibility for the stewardship of our planet and wise manage-
589
ment of our local resources. I feel that Alaskans can manage their
responsibility.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much. Thank you all. You came
in under the deadline.
Next are Joe Kilburn, Sandra Craig, Frank Wright, Jr., Richard
Bean, Jr., R. Bartlett Watson, Gordon Harang. On deck we have
Mike Kaelke, Steve Brenner, Mike Elerding, Babe Stragier, Wayne
Pattison, and Frances Longshore.
Mr. Kilburn, please begin for us.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH KILBURN
Mr. Kilburn. My name is Joseph Kilburn. I am a veteran of for-
eign wars. I am here today to speak in favor of Senator Wirth's
bill, S.346, Tongass Timber Reform Act. I realize that in doing this
I may be jeopardizing any work I now have or hopes of full time
employment in Sitka, since I have been discriminated against prior
to this by APC and contractors and it is presently in the hands of
the NLRB.
This bill would not shut down APC or the logging industry as the
crying wolf APC would like the public to believe. This bill must be
strengthened for the benefit of all the taxpayers of the United
States of America. It seems that the taxpayers' money is being
used to subsidize the pulp mills timber. We, the taxpayers, lose
money every year on this operation. Isn't it time that we stop this?
Let the mills operate without all the giveaways. Regulations should
be followed by them, as the general public has to do. I am certain
that if I nitric washed equipment I could not dump it into the bay.
Yet, I am sure APC has done this. If APC wishes to continue oper-
ations, that is fine, but let them follow the same pollution laws
that the majority of Americans have to. They deserve no special
treatment just because it is a foreign owned company.
APC showed how little respect it has for law and order by its ac-
tions between 1959 and 1975. LPK and APC caused a government
loss of up to $81 million.
In the years ahead without the Tongass Timber Reform there is
a projected loss of up to $3 billion, depending on sale prices. This
loss would be paid for by all taxpayers, not just Sitka. I do not
know of any other private business in southeast Alaska, except the
pulp mills, that reap such benefits.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, very much, Mr. Kilburn. I am going
to be writing again to the company about yours and the Severs
case. Lydia George said that her son could not get employment
there and it is a fact that preference is supposed to go to people in
southeast Alaska. We do want to pursue that and make sure that,
in fact, that is happening.
Sandra Craig.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA CRAIG
Ms. Craig. I am Sandra Craig. I live in Elfin Cove. I have been a
commercial fisherman for the p£ist 10 years. I am also a charter
boat operator. I was raised in an Oregon logging family. My father
owned what was probably the first chain saw in Oregon. I have
590
worked five years in the wood products research and development
industry.
I oppose Senator Murkowski's bill.
We are subsidizing two pulp mills whose current practices are
not only unsustainable but will permanently reduce the sustain-
able major industries of the Tongass, fisheries and tourism. With
competitive timber sales, a more efficient timber industry would
develop that could more fully utilize the forests. This would result
in the export of value, added finished wood products, not just our
nation's raw materials. This would create more timber related jobs
at a sustainable level of timber harvest.
I am in strong support of Senator Wirth's bill.
Thank you for introducing it. Protecting the 23 areas is essential
for wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and subsistence. These areas were
well chosen and need permanent protection by law, not just a tem-
porary moratorium. Elfin Cove, a small fishing village, lies between
Port Althorp and Idaho Inlet, both within the proposed Chichagof
area. This old growth forest supports healthy and diverse fish and
wildlife population. I am raising my boy on those beaches and in
those forests. Please do not take that from us forever. The way of
life of all the people of Elfin Cove depends on this forest. In addi-
tion, our community asks you to include the nearby Inian Islands
for protection.
Industry claimed they could protect our environment in Prince
William Sound. Do not let it put our key fishery habitats at risk.
Old growth forests are not a renewable resource. Permanent pro-
tection of the 23 areas is essential to the economy of nature and
the people of the Tongass.
Thank you for this chance to testify.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wright.
STATEMENT OF FRANK WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. My name is Frank Wright. I am from Hoonah.
Hoonah is a traditionally organized Alaska Native Village recog-
nized by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The Hoonah Indian As-
sociation, IRA Council is the federally recognized tribal governing
body for the native community of Hoonah.
The Hoonah Indian Association is in support of Senator Wirth's
S.346, Tongass Reform Act. In addition, we strongly urge that you
amend S.346 to grant permanent protection to the 23 areas in the
Tongass, not just a temporary moratorium.
Hoonah is located on North Chichagof Island, and Pleasant
Island, Lemisuier Island, Port Althrop, Idaho Inlet, Point Adol-
phus. Mud Bay, and Lisianski River are very crucial areas to the
Tlingit people. The current Tongass management operations have
been permanently detrimental to our traditional and customary
way of life, now known as subsistence, and to plants, animals, and
seafoods in the area.
The negative impacts on fisheries and seafoods totally outweigh
the positive impacts. Salmon streams have eroded away so badly
during the past several winters they caused disastrous fishing sea-
sons for two years now. Log yards and dumps provide continuous
591
oil leakage into fishing waters which cling to all fishing gear, not
only damaging gear but discouraging a catch. Bark from trees
stored in the waters are creating irreparable acidity damage. It is a
common sight to see blemishes on the surface of herring and
salmon, a disintegration of food quality right before our eyes.
The forest is our provider through its rich life in plants and ani-
mals. Through the forest we have materials for food, medicines, he-
raldic poles, canoes for transportation, paddles to motivate the
canoes, tools, baskets, and boxes for storage of food, clothing and
other valuables, as well as gaff hooks, herring rakes, smokehouse
firewood for food preservation, household firewood for heat and
protection. The forest is an intricate part of the ecosystem which,
when upset, affects all the other major parts. Disintegration of one
part of the ecosystem will cause continued and uncontrolled imbal-
ance in the balance of nature from which our successful existence
has been based. We witness hundreds of hunters invade our island
every hunting season and with them the massacre of deer. The
State of Alaska has declared an emergency closure of brown bear
hunting on Chichagof Island due to the detrimental effects of the
sport hunter invasion.
There are five logging camps on North Chichagof Island today,
each one bulging at the seams now that the USFS is beefing up its
harvest operations as fast as they can while Congress is fumbling
to grasp the reins of sound management. Daily we see barge after
barge importing heavy equipment and living facilities for the log-
ging operations, barges that run right through both local fisher-
men's long-line and crab line operations.
The $40 million subsidy must be deterred from the timber indus-
try subsidy and be mandated for multi use of these lands to provide
land protection and opportunity for public usage and benefit. The
Hoonah Indian Association urges protection of traditional and cus-
tomary land usage. The land and its people cannot be separated. It
is our responsibility and commitment to co-exist and speak for the
land and the rich life it supports.
If the Senate subcommittee has not done so already, please take
this as an official invitation to set aside time to fly over North Chi-
chagof Island to see firsthand the destruction that U.S. mismanage-
ment of our forests has caused. It would be a shame and a waste of
money to come all the way from Washington, D.C. and not view
the very purpose of these hearings.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Mr. Bean.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BEAN, JR.
Mr. Bean. My name is Richard Bean, Jr. I am Tlinget from the
T-tudxtdientaan clan in Hoonah, Alaska, a Tlinget village on Chi-
chagof Island in southeast Alaska. I subsist on commercial fish for
a living.
I would like to urge the Senate subcommittee to help pass Sena-
tor Wirth's bill, S. 346. Senator Murkowski's bill does not do enough
to protect Tongass old growth, rain forests, and the salmon rivers.
592
I would also like to see the 23 areas listed in the bill protected so
that they continue to support life in abundance, specifically our
deer.
The impact of present cutting has already disturbed five major
salmon rivers in the Hoonah area and threatens many more. Hill-
sides cannot handle the rain run-off. This makes the rivers run
hard with a real muddy sediment. This disturbance of the salmon
spawn in these rivers and the state regulations are making it very
difficult for the Hoonah fisherman.
The state limits our fish time. For what? Preservation? While, on
the other hand, cutting is affecting the spawn and potential runs.
This does not make any sense to me. Are there two governing
bodies here that do not know what the other is doing? The U.S. has
to be the only place in the world that regulates the fishermen to
throw marketable fish back into the ocean, that are usually dead
anyway. This waste is causing a severe economic setback for the
fishermen.
The salmon rivers and the habitat provided by the old growth
timber and the rain forest are so important to us. I find it hard to
believe that the Tongass National Forest destruction is being subsi-
dized just to serve a few economically without really serving the
state or the nation.
I have a letter I brought from Hoonah called "Subsistence Users
of Hoonah Want to be Heard." This letter is signed by over 70
people, many of whom are boat captains, who have very strong
feelings of the seven areas mentioned for permanent protection.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Bean.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Just very briefly, I would like to ask Mr.
Bean: The rivers in question, do they not come in at the area of the
tidelands controlled by the Hoonah Native Association land selec-
tion?
Mr. Bean. For the most part, yes.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Watson.
STATEMENT OF R. BARTLETT WATSON, ARMSTRONG-KETA, INC.
Mr. Watson. My name is Bartlett Watson. I am the Executive
Director of Armstrong-Keta, Inc., which owns and operates a pri-
vate sector salmon hatchery on the southern end of Baranof Island
at Port Armstrong. I have lived in Alaska for 15 years, the past
eight years in southeast. Currently I am a resident of Juneau,
where Armstrong-Keta maintains its administrative offices.
I am here today to testify on behalf of both my corporation and
myself in support of Senator Wirth's Tongass Timber Reform Bill,
S. 346.
Our hatchery exists under state law for the benefit of the com-
mercial fishing industry, an industry significantly larger than the
timber industry in southeast Alaska. There is no question that the
quantity of clearcutting and road building activity currently
planned for the Tongass will have a significantly negative impact
on the productivity of wild salmon streams in this region.
593
Being in the business of attempting to augment the salmon har-
vest, I am not in favor of the continued subsidy of and lack of suffi-
cient constraints on the timber industry, whose impact on the fish-
eries is directly counter to what we are trying to achieve. Massive
clearcutting significantly reduces the ability of a watershed to mod-
erate fluctuations in both the flow and temperature of the runoff,
resulting in susceptibility of the salmon spawning and rearing
streams to the extremes of flood and drought and freezing and ex-
cessively high temperatures. In addition, increased siltation of in-
shore marine waters resulting from clearcutting can have a delete-
rious impact on the survival of our hatchery fry as well as the wild
salmon runs as they head out to sea.
Personally, I have chosen to live in southeast Alaska because of
the proximity of wilderness with its stunning beauty and unparal-
leled recreational opportunities. I spend a lot of my free time
hiking, kayaking, skiing and hunting. I want to be sure that the
Forest Service is able to give the recreational and aesthetic uses of
the Tongass the priority that they deserve, instead of being locked
into a rigid mandate to promote logging.
Finally, I would like to express my disappointment that the com-
mittee did not choose to hold hearings also in Juneau, by far the
largest center of population in southeast Alaska, where literally
thousands of people who use the Tongass heavily hold passionate
views on the current mismanagement of the National Forest and
where this committee would have heard testimony overwhelmingly
in support of Senator Wirth's bill.
Thank you for allowing me to testify.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Watson.
Mr. Harang.
STATEMENT OF GORDON HARANG, ARROWHEAD TRANSFER, INC.
Mr. Harang. My name is Gordon Harang. I am President of Ar-
rowhead Transfer, Inc., which operates throughout southeastern
Alaska with facilities in Ketchikan, Craig, Petersburg, Juneau, and
Sitka.
Our company employs approximately 75 people on a year around
basis, and several additional people seasonally.
I am strongly opposed to S. 346 for, several reasons. The bill is
unfair, unnecessary, and would cause extreme hardship on all of
southeastern Alaska.
I would estimate that without a healthy timber industry our
company would employ 40 percent to 50 percent less people. With-
out a healthy timber industry our property tax base would be dev-
astated. We would have to pay greatly increased taxes to maintain
the level of services we now enjoy. These increased costs spread
over a much reduced volume of business would equate to much
higher transportation costs in southeastern Alaska.
These are only two of many factors which would have an ex-
tremely negative impact on the entire area. These things impact
everyone, not just loggers, pulp mill people, and business people.
They affect everyone living in southeastern Alaska, and many from
outside Alaska who earn their livings supplying goods and services.
594
Please leave our communities healthy and our people working by
opposing S. 346 and, instead, supporting S. 237 as a very viable al-
ternative.
Thank you. '
Senator Wirth. We appreciated this panel. Thank you very
much and we would move to the next six, Mike Kaelke, Steve
Brenner, Mike Elerding, Babe Stragier, Wayne Pattison, and
Frances Longshore, who are prepared to come up, I hope. We will
have Donald Lancaster, Mildred Bernard, Larry Loitz, Pat Sarvela,
Francis Furrow, and Eric Wharton move to the on deck chairs.
Mr. Kaelke.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. KAELKE, PRESIDENT, SHELDON
JACKSON COLLEGE
Mr. Kaelke. Thank you. I spent a great deal of time trying to
stay within the time limit and I can do it in one minute and 54
seconds. I expect you can read it in one minute and 15 seconds and
I respectfully ask you to read my testimony.
Senator Wirth. Thank you for joining us here in Alaska.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaelke follows:]
595
Sheldon Jackson College
Office of ihe President
April 25, 1989
U. S. Senate Energy Subcommittee On
Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
Washington, D.C.
Dear Honorable Members,
I extend my sincere appreciation to you for holding public hearings on the
Tongass with the people who have the greatest vested interest in the issues.
Throughout Russian and U.S. history of Alaska there has been an excessive
cast of outside transients who have selfishly intervened for their own personal
gain at the expense of Alaskans. Hence, the act of listening by "cheechakos"
to the "sourdough caretakers" who have endured, protected and sustained this
great place is truly welcomed.
Indeed, on the surface the Tongass issue before us appears to be one of simply
economic development versus conservation. However, I submit that the theme
for decision-making should logically be striking a balance of use and values
through establishment of mechanisms to maintain harmony. In this regard, I
urge that your subcommittee take action to:
1) create a Tongass regional center for land management, economic
development, and scientific research in Sitka. Such action
assures regional decisions by the people who are most effected
by the planning, rather than those in Portland and other outside
locations.
and
2) support our Alaskan proposed Tongass legislation submitted by our
own Senators Murkowski and Stevens. The resultant reform will
still honor the long term congressional commitment to the timber
industry and our Southeast Alaska communities.
This testimony to you is prompted from the honor of serving as leader of
Sheldon Jackson College, the oldest educational institution in Alaska. For
the 111 years of service in Sitka our heritage has emanated from a priority
placed upon preservation of the past balanced with the economic and social-
political realities of the future. Two of our new academic majors. Natural
Resource Management and Development and Aquatic Resources, are designed to
help our future leaders work toward the critical harmonious balance across
special interest groups.
801 Lincoln Street • Sitka, Alask.i 99835 • 907/747-5222
22-148 0-89-20
596
U. S. Senate Energy Subcommittee On
Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
Page 2
April 25, 1989
For a century Sheldon Jackson College has adapted its programs to the needs
of the Alaskan people. We respectfully urge you to demonstrate the same
sensitivity and commitment. Over the years we have endured many grave threats
to our existence as a private enterprise, but none of these challenges equal
the devastating negative impacts which would result from legislation that
would reduce the economic benefits which we need and receive from our timber
industry.
Thank you.
Cordially,
Michael E. Kaelke
President
597
Senator Wirth. Steve Brenner.
STATEMENT OF STEVE BRENNER
Mr. Brenner. My name is Steve Brenner and I thank you for the
opportunity to address you on this important issue.
First of all, let me say I support Senate Bill 237 and I am against
Senate Bill 346.
I have lived in Alaska over 25 years and have lived in the com-
munities of Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Anchorage, and now Sitka.
We live in Sitka because we want to live here, not because we
have to. We love this community. My wife, Bonnie, was born and
raised here. She remembers well the dairy that was located on the
present site of the pulp mill.
One of the reasons we came back here to make our home is be-
cause Sitka has a balanced economy, one not dependent on just oil
or any one single factor. Sitka has a society in balance and is a
good place to raise a family. We have two children, who we believe
will also make Sitka their home when they are adults.
Right now my wife and I are faced with one of the largest eco-
nomic issues in our lives. After working for all our adult lives, we
have the opportunity to purchase the building she operates her
clothing store out of. The thought of buying the building and then
having one of the community's main economic engines shut down
is not a particularly happy one. This would probably cause us a lot
of grief, but we are not alone. It would also affect the people she
has working for her, as some would probably lose their jobs as busi-
ness is sure to be slower.
We feel we need a balanced economy with the timber industry
along with fishing, mining, and tourism. All of the industries can
co-exist, can work in conjunction with one another and can help
everyone in the process.
We implore you, do not destroy this place called Sitka, but allow
us to maintain our dignity and the lifestyle that we love.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brenner follows:]
598
Senate Energy Sub Committee
On Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
Senator Dale Bumpers-Chairman
Honorable Senators ,
My name is Steve Brenner and I thank you for the
opportunity to address you on this important issue.
First of all let me say I support Senate Bill
237 and I am against Senate Bill 346.
I have lived in Alaska over 25 years and have lived
in the following communities, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Anchorage,
and now Sitka.
Ke live in Sitka because we want to live here, not
because we have to. We love this community. My v;ife,
Bonnie was born and raised here. She remembers well
the dairy that was located on the present site of the
Pulp Mill.
One of the reasons we came back here to make our home
is because Sitka has a balanced economy, one not dependent
on just oil or one single factor. Sitka has a society in
balance and is a good place to raise a family. VJe have two
children, who we believe will also make Sitka their home
v/hen they are adults.
P.ight now my wife and I are faced with one of the
largest economic issues in our lives. After working for
all our adult lives, we have the opportunity to purchase
the building she operaters her clothing store out of. The
thought of buying the building and then having one of the
communities main economic engines shut down is not a
particularly happy one. This would probably cause us a lot
of grief, but we are not alone. It would also affect the
people she has working for her, as some would probably lose
their jobs as business is sure to be slower.
When is a deal a deal? Are "ethics" a word that is
in the dictionary but used only when it pertains to the
"other guy"? We think not, especially here in Sitka.
Many deals are consumated with a hand shake and people are
taken on their word and trust. This is a family town with
many of us going back two or three or more generations.
599
The 50 year contract should not be cancelled as it
is one of the corner stones to this Cities economic well
being.
The devestation to this city if Senate Bill 346 is
passed would be real and severe. Property values would
drop, homes could be worth less than their mortagage,
divorces would rise, the City would lose population and
on and on and on. What really thee is the issue here?
I believe it is one of fairness. By that I mean we have a
good ecomomy now, one that has taken years- of sweat and
toil to build up, and as the saying goes, "If it's not
broke why fix it?"
Trees are a renewable resource and around here they
grow back naturally and very abundantly. V7e feel we should
harvest them as they can be used to everyones benefit, not
just for a few. With our rain and climate we will have a
balance in the forest by harvesting them and not letting a
resource go to waste by non-use. All of this should be
done in an ecological safe fashion with an eye to the future
generations of trees and people.
Are jobs the only issue here? Ke think not, but what
is just one decent job worth to a persons self respect and
dignity? Our economy is strong here, but with this type
of loss of the timber industry, many people will be un-
employed. Do we want unemployment? I think notl
Bonnie and I do not intend to leave Sitka even if by
some pipe dream someone manages to shut down the timber
industry. We are going to live here for as long as the
good Lord lets us.
We feel we need a balanced ecomomy with the timber industry
along with fishing, mining arid tourism. All of the industries
can co-exist, can work in conjunction with each other and can
help everyone in the process.
600
We implore you, do not destroy this place called
"Sitka", but allow us to maintain our dignity and the
lifestyle that we love.
Thank ^You ,
Steve Brenner
Box 3032-3484 H.P.R.
Sitka, AK. 99835
601
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Brenner.
I have read Mr. Kaelke's testimony and I would like to note for
the record that one of his proposals is: "Create a Tongass regional
center for land management, economic development, and scientific
research in Sitka. Such action assures regional decisions by the
people who are most affected by the planning, rather than those in
Portland and other outside locations." I think that that maybe fits
in with some of the other economic development ideas that have
been discussed and we are going to try and build some type of a
section like this into the legislation. I think it is an interesting idea
and I thank you very much.
Mr. Elerding.
STATEMENT OF MIKE ELERDING
Mr. Elerding. Thank you for coming to Alaska to hear the testi-
mony of those affected by your legislation. My name is Mike Elerd-
ing. My family and I have lived in southeast Alaska for 29 years.
In 1960 my father moved our family to Ketchikan to take work
at the Ketchikan Pulp Company. I graduated from Ketchikan High
School in 1971 and attended college with the money I earned from
summer employment at the mill.
From 1976 to 1983 I was employed as a banker in this communi-
ty. During this time I financed homes and consumer goods for mill
employees. As a commercial loan officer I also financed local busi-
nesses which depend on commerce generated by mill employees.
In 1983 my wife and I bought a business with four employees. We
have doubled our business and increased our staff to 10 full-time
employees.
So, you see, the pump mill has formed a financial cornerstone
around which my social/economic life has been built. My business,
my family's lifestyle and the community of Sitka cannot survive
without the economic stability the mill provides to this region.
Section 104 of S. 346 calls for the termination of the long term
timber contracts. Without the assurance of a continuous supply of
raw materials the mill will certainly close, creating financial chaos
in this region. This is a reversal of earlier government policy which
promoted the development of southeast Alaska by entering into
long term contracts. Those contracts required the mill to make
long term commitments and long term financial investments. The
government recognized the construction and operation of these
mills in this area would entail unusually high rislis. To induce the
mills to take these risks the government offered 50-year contracts.
The mills have fulfilled their part of the bargain but the govern-
ment wants to renege on its contractual commitment. Woodrow
Wilson once said, "A government is only as good as its word." Our
government, our country, and our community deserve more than
S. 346.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Mr. Stragier.
STATEMENT OF BABE STRAGIER
Mr. Stragier. My name is Babe Stragier. I have lived all of my
life in Alaska and moved to Sitka from Fairbanks in 1980. One of
602
the reasons I moved to Sitka was because of its stable economy, a
feature which Fairbanks doesn't enjoy.
I own and operate two businesses here, a civil engineering busi-
ness and a refuse collection business. Both of these businesses re-
quired a considerable investment in terms of equipment purchases
and were made based on the stability of Sitka's economy.
The provisions of Senator Wirth's bill challenge the stability of
Sitka's economy by eliminating the contract between the Forest
Service and Alaska Pulp Corporation. The threat that the passage
of Senator Wirth's bill could cause the closure of APC is a very
real one to me, since I have such a great investment in the status
quo of the present economy. For this reason, I unconditionally sup-
port Senator Murkowski's Senate Bill 237.
History has shown that Alaska's destiny has been controlled by
either big government or big business. If the Wirth bill is passed
and the two pulp mills are forced to close, the employment of 3,400
people and a 485 million dollar annual industry will be in jeopardy.
Meanwhile, in Prince William Sound, Exxon Corporation has cre-
ated an ecological disaster with the worst oil spill in U.S. history,
affecting the lives of 3,000 people and a seafood industry estimated
at 200 million dollars annually. Isn't it ironic that between big gov-
ernment and big business the two major economies of Alaska from
Ketchikan to Cook Inlet have the potential of being seriously
threatened, one in the name of environmentalism and the other in
spite of environmentalism? It is obvious that Senate Bill 237, spon-
sored by Senators Murkowski and Stevens, is the only bill which
offers a balance between these two disparate extremes.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Stragier.
We are hanging off the edge and now moving on to Wayne Patti-
son.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE PATTISON, FOREST ENGINEER
Mr. Pattison. I am Wayne Pattison, a graduate forest engineer
with 12 years experience in the forest management of the Tongass
National Forest and another eight years as a small business owner
in Sitka, Alaska. I have seen the past effects of congressional med-
dling in what should be the professional management of our natu-
ral resources and I am not impressed.
I wish to express my support for Senator Murkowski's Bill 237
and adamantly oppose any further Tongass Land Reform action
such as Senator Wirth's Bill 346.
May I tell you a little personal story to show how irrational some
of the information provided by the outside preservationist group is?
Last week I was on Alaska Airlines in an aircraft headed to An-
chorage and the lady sitting beside me in the window seat gasped
as we headed out over the eastern channel and said, "My, God,
look at what the chemical disbursements and the oil spill have
done to this beautiful bay." She was looking at the herring spawn
along the shoreline. I spent the next hour and a half straightening
out some serious misconceptions this lady had about Alaska timber
harvesting and the oil spill. This lady was from northern California
and was a good, solid member of the Sierra Club. She had paid
dearly as a member of preservationists groups over the years and
603
had obtained some very poor information about what is going on in
Alaska. Every open area she saw was an example of the clearcut-
ting practice on the Tongass National Forest. She was convinced
that the oil spill wiped out the ocean beaches environments of the
entire state for 100 years.
Please do not let these ill-informed misguided souls stampede you
into a decision affecting many lives of the people who work live,
and play here.
The U.S. Forest Service
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Pattison.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pattison follows:]
604
TESTIMONY ON TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT
by Wayne Pattlson
I am Wayne L. Pattlson, a graduate Forest Engineer with twelve years
experience In the forest management of the Tongass National Forest and another
eight years as a small business owner in Sitka, Alaska. I have seen the past
effects of Congressional meddling in what should be the professional
management of our natural resources and I am not impressed.
I support Senator Murkowski's Bill #237 and adamantly oppose Senator
Wirth's Bill #346 because of the following rational. This controversy is not
just a debate between prodevelopment and antigrowth forces. For the record
the definition of a "Conservationist" is:
"A person who advocates the conservation and appropriate use of
natural resources — the official care and protection of natural
resources from loss, waste, etc."
The definition of an "Environmentalist" is:
"A person working to solve environmental problems, such as air
and water pollution, the exhaustion of natural resources, uncontrolled
population growth, etc."
The definition of a "Preservationist" is:
"A person seeking to preserve or protect and save from normal use
an area as a special domain of same person or group of persons."
I am proud to consider myself a "Conservationist" and firmly believe that
most U.S. Forest Service professionals would also fit this definition.
We have some good Sitka citizens who qualify as "Environmentalists" and
there are even some of our U.S. Forest Service friends who could probably fit
605
this definition. These people have valid and serious concerns and should
always be listened to.
Then we have the "Preservationists" who would like to qualify as
"environmentalists" because it sounds less threatening to our
local citizens. These are a small core of paid individuals -
receiving money, legal and moral support from outside the State
of Alaska and they in no way have the interests of the common
citizens of the State of Alaska on their agenda. The total purpose
in proposing Senator Wirth's Tongass Timber Reform Act is to continue
the further withdrawal of public lands from multiple use management
with the eventual goal of having Southeast Alaska as one big preserve.
It will them become a huge National Park that the average American
citizen would never have the opportunity to visit or take advantage
of.
When I worked for the U.S. Forest Service in the late 1970's
I was a member of the forest inventory team. It was through that
five-year cycle of inventory that we developed the commercial
forest land base and determined that there was not enough economically
viable timber base to support a third pulp mill contract as was
proposed for the Juneau area. It is good management information
such as this derived through professional techniques that allows
our National Forest managers to make valid decisions regarding
the multiple use management of our public lands — not emotional,
irrelevant and misguided debate in the hallowed halls of Congress.
What do we have professional managers in the field for if we
606
are not even going to allow them to complete the congress ional ly
mandated Tongass Land Management planning process before Congress
is again inviting itself into the management process. Please
allow the real forest management process to follow its natural
and informed course.
Sitka's economy is now well-diversified and well-balanced,
and we enjoy a style of life that no one can equal anywhere in
the United States. The pulp mill is vital to keeping our economy
stable and diversified. I have lived in Sitka for fifteen years,
and I love this town and my life here. I am very committed to
the retention of all these things that I care about.
This takeover of our public lands must not occur. Please
consider all the facts and let us keep our stability so that my
children and their children will be able to live properously in
this beautiful area.
Respectfully submitted,
^4
Wayne L. Pattison
Post Office Box 1675
Sitka, Alaska 99835
(907) 747-6562
607
Senator Wirth. Mr. Longshore.
STATEMENT OF FRANCES LONGSHORE
Mr. Longshore. Good afternoon members of the subcommittee.
First let me introduce myself. My name is Frances Longshore, a
life long resident of Sitka. I am a second generation mill employee
and I value my job. I am also a concerned Alaskan constituent who
strongly objects to any Congressional legislation that will cause a
recession in Alaska's timber industry.
Let me take you back to a time after the transfer of Alaska.
There were great hopes that a timber industry could be developed.
The Russians left three sawmills, one of which was in operation
sporadically for 60 years. By the end of 1870 the mainstay of south-
east Alaska's economy was the government payroll, logging was
not economically feasible. For the most part, those Alaskans who
were not on the government payroll had to depend on seasonal jobs
and subsistence living, a situation which continued until the
timber industry was developed in the 1950s.
Today, as 30 years ago, the market for timber exists. As I am
sure this Senate subcommittee is aware, the timber industry in
Alaska came about as a result of government contracts which
made investing in Alaska timber feasible. In that respect, nothing
has changed. In order for the timber industry to survive, those cur-
rently valid contracts must be allowed to continue. Members of this
committee, I am a mill worker, I cannot speak for the several thou-
sand people directly employed by the timber industry, I can only
speak for myself. Without my job I would have to leave Sitka to
seek employment elsewhere. I am an Alaskan. I live here because I
choose to and nobody loves this great state and her natural re-
sources more than I.
I feel we can use a small portion of our renewable forests and
still have ample wilderness for generations to come. I also believe
all of Alaska's resources are vital in maintaining a strong and
stable economy for all Alaskans. Moreover, I would not like to see
any Alaskan community experience a major economic setback due
to congressional politics.
As I said before, I am a mill worker. I realize many people are
much more qualified to quote facts £ind figures than I am. Howev-
er, it does not take degrees or expertise to see that a compromise
between the timber industry and the environmental groups needs
to be reached.
Please remember, a compromise is an agreement which all par-
ties can live with. Any legislation that cripples the timber industry
will cause severe economic repercussions, not only locally, but na-
tionally as well.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you all very much.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note
here Mr. Watson, I believe you had some water problems from time
to time with your hatchery, I believe and I hope that we can ad-
dress those adequately for you. I also want to thank you for sup-
porting the Tongass legislation as we submitted it.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Senator.
95-i4n n _ flo _ 51
608
Senator Murkowski. I wanted to tell Mr. Elerding that your
mother says hello, and I will tell her that you are looking well.
[General laughter.]
Senator Wirth. The next group coming up, Mr. Lancaster, Mil-
dred Bernard, Larry Loitz, Pat Sarvela, Francis Furrow, and Eric
Wharton. Moving into the on deck line is Tom Srna, James
Nylund, Barrel Ranger, Di Walker, Darryl Howard, and William
Gee.
The Chair would note that we have about 28 minutes remaining
and we have 30 witnesses remaining. The Chair is exercising the
usual discretion in an attempt to get everybody in. So, with 30 wit-
nesses and 28 minutes you each have about a minute and we are
moving fine. Mr. Lancaster.
STATEMENT OF DONALD LANCASTER
Mr. Lancaster. My name is Don Lancaster. I have been a resi-
dent of Sitka for two years and 10 months and I have worked at
the pulp mill ever since I have been here. I enjoy living in Sitka
and have my home here. If they shut the mill down I will go on
welfare, I guess, ,it is all I can do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lancaster follows:]
609
TESTIMONY
of
DONALD LANCASTER
MY NAME IS DONALD LANCASTER. : I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF SITKA,
ALASKA FOR TWO YEARS, TEN MONTHS. I HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED AT ALASKA
PULP CORPORATION AS A GENERAL MECHANIC FOR THE SAME LENGTH OF
TIME. MY WIFE HAS BEEN EMPLOYED AT ALASKA PULP FOR TWO YEARS,
SEVEN MONTHS, WORKING IN PRODUCTION.
I HAVE HELPED WITH SEVERAL ACTIVITIES OF A.L.P.E.R.A. (ALASKA
PULP CORPORATION EMPLOYEE RECREATIONAL ASSOCIATION). MY WIFE AND
I ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BUYING A HOUSE IN SITKA, BECAUSE WE FEEL
IT'S HOME FC« US. WE'VE LIVED IN A LOT OF TOWNS IN SEVERAL
STATES AND WANT TO SETTLE DOWN AND MAKE SITKA OUR HOME FROM NOW
ON. WE BOTH LIKE THE AREA AND THE PEOPLE REAL WELL. I ENJOY THE
RECREATIONAL AREA IT HAS TO OFFER, SUCH AS FISHING AND HiniTING.
I THINK ALASKA IS A BEAUTIFUL STATE. I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE HERE
TO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. IF I WAS TO LOOSE MY JOB I WOULD STAY IN
ALASKA AND LOOK FOR OTHER WORK, ALONG WITH 300 OR MORE OTHER
PEOPLE. IF I COULDN'T FIND ADEQUATE WORK I WOULD BE FORCED TO GO
ON WELFARE.
I FEEL THAT IF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WOULD TAKE HALF THE MONEY
THEY ARE USING TRYING TO FORCE ALASKA PULP CORPORATION TO CLOSE
DOWN AND USE IT TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY
SATISFY ALL PARTIES THEN EVERYONE WOULD COME OUT AHEAD.
IF CONGRESS WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON IN S.E. ALASKA
THEY WOULD REALIZE WHAT COULD HAPPEN. THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF
610
BUSINESSES THAT WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS AND OTHER
BUSINESSES WOULD HAVE TO DO DRASTIC LAYOFFS. NOT TO MENTION THE
HOUSES, AUTOS AND BOATS THE BANKS WOULD HAVE TO REPOSSESS AND NOT
BE ABLE TO RESELL THEM. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE PEOPLE FROM
THE EAST COAST CAN DECIDE ON THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE PEOPLE ON THE
WEST COAST.
I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR FOR CONGRESS TO RENEGE ON IT'S 50 YEAR
CONTRACT WITH ALASKA PULP CORPORATION. CONGRESS MADE THIS
CONTRACT TO SELL TIMBER TO THE PULP MILLS. APC PAYS THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THIS TIMBER. APC THEN IN TURN HAS TO PAY TO THE
IRS (WHICH IS ALSO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) TAXES FOR MONEY IT HAS
MADE FROM THE SALE OF OUR PRODUCT MADE FROM THE TIMBER BOUGHT
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NOW WHY WOULD CONGRESS WANT TO DO
SOMETHING TO LOOSE THAT MUCH MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT. BY CLOSING
DOWN ALASKA PULP CORPORATION WHAT WOULD THE GOVERNMENT GAIN.
I BELIEVE THAT ALASKA'S SENATORS SHOULD TAKE CARE OF ALASKA'S
BUSINESS AND LET WIRTH, MRAZAK AND ALL THE OTHER SENATORS WORRY
ABOUT THEIR OWN STATES.
DON'T DEVASTATE S.E. ALASKA. THE FISHING AND TOURISM DO NOT
BRING IN ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE JOBS FOR ALL THE THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE EFFECTED IF THE MILLS WERE FORCED TO CLOSE
DUE TO INADEQUATE TIMBER SUPPLY. I AM HOPEFUL YOU WILL LISTEN
TO OUR SENATOR MURKOWSKI AND SUPPORT HIS BILL.
THANK YOU,
DONALD LANCASTER .
4006 HALIBUT POINT KOMi/fcS^/^'eJ
SITKA, ALASKA
611
Senator Wirth. Ms. Bernard.
STATEMENT OF MILDRED BERNARD
Ms. Bernard. Thank you, Senators, for giving me the opportuni-
ty to address the Tongass bills before your committee. My name is
Millie Bernard. I moved to Sitka in 1975 and started work for
Alaska Pulp in 1979.
You had better believe that I care about my job. I enjoy coming
to work. I am the head cook in the mill cafeteria and I serve about
75 hard-working persons every weekday. It makes me feel good to
have made a small part of their day enjoyable.
You also better believe that I care about the other 400 mill em-
ployees, our loggers in the camps and the hundreds of Sitka resi-
dents and businesses that could be hurt by Senate Bill 346. The 50-
year contracts must not be cancelled. They are the backbone of our
industry. The contracts are the reasons the mills invested millions
of dollars in this land in the first place. They were not only con-
tracts with the pulp mills, I feel, but promises with the people of
southeast Alaska. Promises should not be broken.
I support Senator Murkowski's Tongass Bill S. 237.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Mr. Loitz.
STATEMENT OF LARRY LOITZ
Mr. Lorrz. My name is Larry Loitz. I am a tour foreman at
Alaska Pulp Corporation. We moved to Sitka in the fall of 1959
when a plant closure due to pollution problems shut down the mill
in Shelton, Washington, forcing my father to seek other employ-
ment out of state.
When I finished high school I went to work at APC in July, 1962.
That fall my parents left Sitka and returned to Shelton, Washing-
ton. I chose to stay and have been at the mill for the last 26 years
and eight months. My wife also has been employed at APC for the
past nine years, eight months.
I am a lieutenant in the volunteer fire department and have
been a member for several years. APC and the fire department
have worked together on training and for years had a mutual aid
program.
I own a 24 foot boat; I hunt, fish, camp, and have used the log-
ging roads for riding my snow machines.
I recently purchased a home, and am planning to have it paid for
by the time I reach retirement.
I feel if the mill were closed due to Tongass bills, I would lose
everything I worked for and be forced to leave my home, as my
father did, to seek emplojonent elsewhere.
Therefore, I support Senator Murkowski's Senate Bill 237.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Loitz.
Pat Sarvela.
612
STATEMENT OF PAT SARVELA
Mr. Sarvela. I am Pat Sarvela. For 13 years I have been em-
ployed at the Alaska Pulp Corporation and have lived in Sitka for
42 years.
I came to Sitka in 1946 after serving in the U.S. Army Nurse
Corps during World War II. My husband's family has lived in Sitka
for over 70 years and he and I have raised two sons here.
When I first heard of the proposed plan for the mill I was appre-
hensive of the changes the new industry would bring, but having
lived through the changes I can only say from my personal per-
spective that I enjoy the better standard of living, including medi-
cal services, lower property tax, lower utility rates, better shop-
ping, and all the things that come from the improved economic
conditions that the mill has helped bring.
Many young Sitka people, lately over 30 per year, are able to
continue their college education through the Aleiska Pulp Corpora-
tion summer hire program.
I hope to financially be able to stay in the community after re-
tirement but if the Wirth bill were passed and the mill was not as-
sured of an adequate supply of logs they would be forced to close. I
am sure that would have a drastic effect on the economy of the
town. The pulp mill needs a long time guarantee of timber and we
need the mill.
Although the idea of a sleepy little fishing village is appealing to
some, I would hate to see the economy of the town change so that I
cannot afford to spend my retirement years here.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Furrow.
STATEMENT OF FRANCIS J. FURROW
Mr. Furrow. My name is Frank Furrow. I work at the pulp mill
and have lived in southeast Alaska for a couple of years.
To shorten this, I am going to bypass part of my statement but I
do have some things that I would like to say. One of them is I did a
study of where the people of southeast Alaska chose to hunt. I ob-
served that most hunters prefer to hunt where there has been log-
ging activity. Of the areas with the highest hunting days there are
more than 90 miles of logging roads each. One of them happens to
be at Tetlahan after Fish Bay and back around that way and the
other one happens to be a unit up in Hoonah. Those areas are
highly logged. I think it is clear — we want more access, not more
wilderness. Wilderness that you cannot see and experience is like
sound to the deaf.
Thank you for your concern.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Furrow follows:]
613
Written Testimony of
Francis J. (Frank) Furrow
This testimony is a compilation of things that concern me.
The following page is a copy of my oral testimony which will
outline those things included in my written testimony and some of
my concerns.
I have included one other article, which I did not mention
in my oral testimony, entitled "The Star Key Project," by C.K.
Boone .
It is about a study underway in Oregon. I include this, not
because it has any particular relevance to the Tongass, but to
make you aware of this study, if you aren't already. It may help
us make intelligent and informed decisions in the future about
forest and wildlife management. I would like to see similar
studies done here in Alaska.
614
ORAL TESTIMONY OF FRANK FURROW
MY NAME IS FRANK FURROW. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THE
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO SOUTHEAST ALASKA.
I AM AN EMPLOYEE AT ALASKA PULP CORPORATION, I SUPPORT
SENATE BILL 237 AND I WOULD LIKE TO STATE MY CONCERN ABOUT THE
LIKELIHOOD OF THE MILL CLOSING DOWN IF THE PENDING LEGISLATION
SHOULD PASS. THAT EVENT WOULD HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECTS ON ME, MY
FELLOW EMPLOYEES AND SITKA RESIDENTS IN GENERAL. I HAVE INCLUDED
IN MY WRITTEN TESTIMONY A COPY OF AN EVALUATION, ENTITLED "THE
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE ALASKA PULP CORPORATION" PREPARED BY
THE MACDOWELL GROUP. SECONDLY, I HAVE INCLUDED A COPY OF A PAPER
ENTITLED "THE IMPACT OF THE LONG TERM CONTRACTS ON THE ECONOMY OF
SOUTHEAST ALASKA: 1954-1988" BY GEORGE W. ROGERS, PH.D.
PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA.
THIRDLY, I HAVE INCLUDED A PAPER ENTITLED "TONGASS-EXPLORING
THE MYTHS" BY ROLLO POOL.
FOURTH, I HAVE INCLUDED A STUDY OF MY OWN WHICH DOCUMENTS A
FIELD OBSERVATION, THAT MOST HUNTERS PREFER TO HUNT WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN LOGGING ACTIVITY.
THIS STUDY, DEVELOPED FROM DATA FURNISHED BY THE U.S. FOREST
SERVICE AND THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SHOWS THAT MY
FIELD OBSERVATIONS ARE CORRECT. OF THE 21 MINOR UNITS THAT HAD
1000 OR MORE HUNTER DAYS OF ACTIVITY ONLY FOUR ARE WILDERNESS
UNITS AND THREE OF THEM ARE AT THE NORTH END OF ADMIRALTY ISLAND
NEXT TO JUNEAU. THE TOP TWO UNITS WITH NEARLY 4000 HUNTER DAYS
EACH, ARE TWO OF THE MORE EXTENSIVELY LOGGED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST
615
ALASKA HAVING NEARLY 90 MILES OF ROAD EACH. I THINK IT IS
CLEAR-- WE WANT MORE ACCESS NOT MORE WILDERNESS. WILDERNESS THAT
YOU CAN'T SEE AND EXPERIENCE IS LIKE SOUND TO THE DEAF. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN AND ENJOY BEAUTIFUL SOUTHEAST ALASKA.
FRANK FURROW
910-26 HPR
SITKA, ALASKA 9983 5
616
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Furrow.
Mr. Wharton.
STATEMENT OF ERIC WHARTON
Mr. Wharton. My name is Eric Wharton and I am an employee
at the Alaska Pulp Corporation. I have not been an Alaska resi-
dent for long. This does not mean that I am not interested in what
is going on here in Alaska. I am very interested, especially in this
new, S. 346, legislation.
I am in opposition to this new bill for many reasons. I will not
give any statistics, nor will my words be elaborate. I want to voice
one of my many disagreements, that is the lives that this bill will
affect negatively. Let me start with my own.
My wife is due to have a baby any day now and we have plenty
of bills to pay. If this bill were passed it would be like pulling the
rug out from under me and my family. There are many families
just like mine but that are possibly in a worse position than us.
Many people have worked for APC for many years and have been
building their retirements and futures here; they have dedicated
their lives to the company. Some have larger families than myself.
Some have taken out loans or own homes in which they depend
upon the steady income of their present positions at AFC to keep
up monthly bills. What will happen to all of the families? To
uproot kids in school and destroy literally hundreds of peoples'
lives is going to be a very devastating effect on all of Sitka.
We are thankful for Senator Murkowski and his receptiveness to
the fact that one of the things this country is based on is stability
for the individual. What an upheaval it would cause to pass the
Tongass legislation. It is total opposition to what each president
has said, and that is more jobs and equal opportunity. I hope I
have well represented those that I know wanted to be chosen to
speak this day.
Thank you for your time in hearing the concerns of the people of
Sitka.
Senator Wirth. Thank you,
Mr. Srna.
STATEMENT OF TOM SRNA
Mr. Srna. My name is Tom Srna and I am employed as a mill-
wright at Alaska Fulp Corporation. I have been working there and
living in Sitka for a little over two years. I am a single parent rais-
ing two small children, ages 10 and 7. Sitka is a good place to raise
my kids, the school system is excellent and my kids are involved in
many activities and are learning about hunting and fishing and
about Alaska's wildlife and history. I have joined the Elks and
Moose Lodge and have made some good friends here. If the Wirth
bill is passed, then the mill will go down and we will be forced to
move like hundreds of other families. People will lose their homes,
others will go bankrupt. Most will have to go on unemplo)rment or
welfare or will have to move south in hope of finding work.
I will not try to dazzle you with stacks of facts and figures about
why you should not close the mills in southeast Alaska. I could not
if I tried. I will tell you that you are going to severely affect the
617
lives of a few thousand people in the timber and related industries
and their families if Congress passes the Wirth bill.
There is no reason for this to happen. People in other places
seem to think that we are out to cut down every tree in Alaska
when we are really cutting only a very small percentage of one
forest that is bigger than some states.
Why does not Congress find a way to get the true information to
the people so they will know what is really going on up here. For
that matter, why does not Congress find out the true facts before
they vote on southeast Alaskan's livelihoods and futures.
I am really convinced that Senator Wirth and Congressman
Mrazak do not have the faintest idea about the amount of timber
and land that are truly involved. They also do not seem to know or
care about how many lives they will be affecting. They seem to be
more worried about how many votes they are going to receive for
closing us down. Come on now, Senators, are those votes really
worth all the hardship you are attempting to bring down on us?
In my opinion, the Senators should take care of their own states
and let our Senators tend to Alaska's business.
Please support our Senator, Senator Murkowski and his bill,
Senate Bill 237.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Mr. Nylund.
STATEMENT OF JIM NYLUND
Mr. Nylund. Gentlemen, I am Jim Nylund and a carpenter mill-
wright for Alaska Pulp Corporation. I am also an artist who works
with nature. My paintings, my prints, and my photographs are as
real as you could want.
I was raised up in Washington and Oregon. I have seen the ef-
fects of large scale logging and of fire in our timberlands. With
good management, both will insure timber *"orever.
With nearly 40 percent of all of southeast Alaska already classi-
fied as wilderness, it is just plain simple to see that that is enough.
I consider myself an environmentalist. However, the worst thing
we can do for our forest is let it grow to overmaturity. Once a tree
reaches maturity, it starts to rot from the inside out.
I am 47 now and I have watched the cutover and the burned over
lands and the lands that have been replanted. All do better than
the old forests. An old forest is just that — old. These old forests are
not the best for deer. An example would be the size of the Sitka
deer, which is the same blacktail you have in western Washington
and Oregon. Open up the timber and the deer will get larger.
When I see and hear of the special interest groups that want
more wilderness, it makes me not want to be an environmentalist.
Like the term worm watcher, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I support Senate Bill 237 by Senator Murkowski.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Mr. Ranger.
618
STATEMENT OF BARREL RANGER
Mr. Ranger. My name is Barrel Ranger and I want to thank you
for the opportunity to speak before you.
What I would really like to talk about is the environment. Have
the environmentalists really told us the truth? The environmental-
ists told of the damage to wildlife when the Alaska pipeline was
put in. I worked at Prudhoe Bay for three years and had the privi-
lege to see a musk ox scratching his neck on the pipeline. I have
enjoyed watching Arctic fox chase and play with one another on
and around the oil pipe.
For 12 years I worked in the Longview, Washington area as a
field mechanic. I spent considerable time in the Mount St. Helens
area. On several occasions I had to stop my truck and wait for deer
and elk cross the road in front of me.
Man made logging did not drive the deer or the elk away. Even
when Mother Nature logged off Mount St. Helens, and she did a
good job of it; the wildlife is now returning to Mount St. Helens. At
the Weyerhaeuser plant in Longview, Washington they have devel-
oped or grown trees that are better, closer grained, faster growing,
35 to 40 years, compared to natural growth of 60 to 80 years and
more resistant to disease.
Trees are America's truly renewable resource and let us not pre-
serve them all because they will eventually die, but let us cultivate
and plant more.
Recently, it was stated on television that Congress had voted to
spend 14.1 million dollars per month on the contras in Nicaragua.
The contras, as I know them, do not pay income taxes, sales taxes,
gasoline taxes, Social Security taxes, or unemployment taxes. If the
Senators from New York, California, and Colorado can support the
contras — why cannot they support the people of southeast Alaska?
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Senator Wirth. Ms. Walker.
STATEMENT OF DIANE WALKER
Mr. Walker. My name is Diane Walker. I love Sitka. I enjoy my
job and I am very proud to be an employee of the Alaska Pulp Cor-
poration. I have lived here since 1976 and most of those years I
have worked in the pulp mill. I have quit APC twice in the past for
personal reasons and I have returned because I have not found
anything else that will compare to Sitka and APC.
We choose to live here because of the environment, hunting, fish-
ing, clean air, life style and our jobs.
I feel that we have more than an adequate amount of wilderness
in this area, in the U.S., for that matter. We as a family enjoy the
use of logging roads and wish there were even more to use.
Basically, I feel APC is 25 to 40 percent of Sitka, in terms of rev-
enue, income, people and community based efforts.
If the mill is forced to close it will be very detrimental to my
family, as my husband is also employed at APC.
I have very strong feelings about what my country is doing to my
employer and my family. I cannot believe my country would de-
619
fault a contract, that is being adhered to by APC, for the sake of a
few people who want a wilderness experience a few times a year.
I feel that if the government takes my family's livelihood away
they are committing economic genocide. If this occurs, I feel the
government should owe not only us but all the communities affect-
ed with some form of economic compensation.
I do not support any wilderness or anyone who does. As for the
50-year contract cancellation plan, that is an utterly contemptable
idea.
Senator Wirth. Thank you.
Mr. Gee.
STATEMENT OF BILL GEE
Mr. Gee. My name is Bill Gee. I am a maintenance foreman for
Alaska Pulp Corporation. I have been an Alaskan resident since
1975. I have worked in construction for about 25 years, mostly
short term jobs because that is the way construction usually is.
When I came to APC in 1986 due to economic failure in Anchor-
£ige, Algiska, I was astounded that there was a permanent year-
round job seemingly suited just for me in my field.
This brought me to relocate my family to Sitka in 1987 because
the future looked great. My wife quit a $36,000 per year job to be
with me in this grand area. I have advanced from carpenter to
foreman in this short period of time due to my own perseverance
and thanks to APC and their current policies.
I love my job and I try to do it well, I also support Senate Bill
237.
Along with working hard, I enjoy the outdoors with just as much
enthusiasm. I have fished and hunted this great state from Kodiak
to Valdez and Barrow to Sitka. Never, anywhere, have I seen wild-
life and sea life in such great abundance as I have seen here in
southeast Alaska. Past management has proven that it works.
Now, I am angry and hurt. Certain people and factions are
trying to ruin my family and many other families' futures here in
the great land of the Tongass.
The current Wirth legislation seems to be an issue to satisfy an
insatiable appetite of preservationists to meet their own desires,
giving little or no thought to countless cities, villages, families, and
businesses it would totally ruin.
From my life's knowledge of nature, and it has been proven, all
things that have been cultivated, whether by God or by man, have
come back better, stronger, and more plentiful than with no man-
agement at all.
My feelings are, if it isn't broken, do not mess with it.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Gee.
Mr. Kile.
STATEMENT OF LARRY KILE
Mr. Kile. My name is Larry Kile. I have worked 30 years in the
timber industry. I do not support the Senate Bill 346 which con-
cerns the Tongass National Forest. If Senate Bill 346 is put into
law, I would be out of work. My line of work as a millwright is all I
know how to do. I will have to be retrained in another suitable fi-
620
nancial job, with the same pay scale, in order to keep up with my
present monthly bills.
I feel the 50-year contract should stay the same for both south-
east Alaska pulp mills. I believe a deal is a deal and a contract is a
contract. I would think I could rely on Congress for their word, but
I guess I may be wrong.
In closing, please support Alaska Senator Murkowski's Senate
Bill 237 — the sensible way to manage the Tongass and keep valua-
ble jobs.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Villanueva, Mr. Fike, Mr. Gassman, Mr.
Blomberg, would you all please come up and move to the front row.
I hope we will see Mr. Alsup, Shelly Beltran, Larry Wright, Napo-
leon Milla, Yetvart Haciyan, and Terry Kobylus.
Mr. Villanueva.
STATEMENT OF PETE VILLANEUVA
Mr. Villanueva. My name is Pete Villaneuva. I am the current
president of Sitka Filipino community. I am also a member of the
Moose Lodge. I have worked for Alaska Pulp for 13 years and have
lived in Sitka for 14 years. I became a U.S. citizen in Sitka.
Our Filipino community here in Sitka has 35 to 50 families and
about one-third of them work in the mill. We do not know what we
would do without our jobs. Our paychecks are important.
Sitka is where I have raised my family. We chose Sitka because
it is a better place to live. Here you can go hunting, fishing, and
camping all the time. My wife works for the Pioneer's Home. My
youngest daughter is in the 6th grade. My oldest daughter is grad-
uating from high school next month and intends to go to college
and I want to help support her in college. To help her in college, I
will need to keep my job. I am concerned that some of the Tongass
Forest bills do not consider the people who work. Some bills want
to cancel the contracts and to stop the timber supplies and to make
more lands for wilderness.
We would like to see the mills stay open. We do not want the 50-
year contracts broken. We already have lots of wilderness.
I support Senate Bill 237 by Senator Murkowski.
Senator Wirth. Mr. Fike.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT FIKE
Mr. Fike. My name is Robert Fike and when I was notified that I
was picked by the computer to testify I thought I would not do it
but the more I learned about the two bills I thought I should at
least come down and put in my two minutes worth.
One of the bills could put me out of business, as I am a millwork-
er, and I have bought a home here in Sitka. I know what it is to
lose a home when you owe far more on it than you could ever sell
it for, having lived in Anchorage before moving to Sitka. Many
families were ruined and I do not want to see the same thing
happen here because the government decides to renege on a con-
tract. That in itself rankles me, as I come from a career military
family and grew up accepting the word of our government as
gospel.
621
I recently read in one of the Seattle papers that Washington and
Oregon export more trees, 5 billion board feet, each year than the
mill contracts call for in 10 years, 4.5 billion board feet, throwing
thousands out of mill jobs, because there is no added value to ex-
ported whole logs. Here in southeast we do not have that situation
and that is one reason our economy is the best in the state.
Fishing and tourism can be real "iffy," as we will likely see this
year, and the big money fishing has bypassed Sitka entirely. So, I
do not see our small boat fishery as picking up the slack if the mill
closes.
The tourism people probably know that we 161 locals that bring
our friends and families to Sitka for a visit spend a lot more than
the tour ship visitors who get off the ship for a few hours and then
move on. One big tour ship company is not even going to stop here
anymore. So, tourism is not going to pick up the slack either.
The original 50-year contract was made in order to develop the
economy of southeast, and I do not see much that has changed in
that need. As for those who say the industry is "subsidized," I
would ask what industry is not? We can start with the banks and
go right down the line to fishing. At least fishing and timber are
renewable resources.
Being a millwright I believe in the old saying, "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it," and I think that applies here. If the senators insist on
tinkering with something, the Murkowski-Stevens bill would do us
less harm and I think the Wirth bill would mean ruin for thou-
sands just here in Sitka. The first person that sold their house
would be the lucky one.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Fike.
Mr. Gassman.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. GASSMAN
Mr. Gassman. I am John Gassman.
I do not favor the passage of any of the bills now pending regard-
ing the Tongass National Forest. If one must be passed, I prefer
Senator Murkowski's.
As you will notice in my written testimony, I feel that if either
the bill introduced by Senator Wirth or the one by Congressman
Mrazek passes, I personally believe it will result in the closure of
both mills, resulting in disaster to the community and many people
would lose their jobs, homes, and dignity.
I have outlined four steps to help maintain people in the commu-
nity. These items would be expensive but how much more expen-
sive than unemployment benefits, welfare payments, government
insured mortgages, forced bankruptcy, and the loss of contributing
to the communities. The peoples' cost would be the loss of their dig-
nity and pride in themselves.
These steps must be included in the bill regardless of the cost for
the people who have been doing what the government and the
Forest Service envisoned over 40 years ago, to provide a stable,
year-round industry. We have built our lives, our futures, our sav-
ings on the long-term government plan.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Gassman.
622
I will thank all three of you. The next group might move down
here, Mr. Bill Alsup, Shelly Beltran, Larry Wright, Napoleon
Milla, Yetvart Haciyan, and Terry Kobylus. If we might have the
final group over towards the front row, Mr. Stretch Chatham, Rus-
sell Zeman, Nancy Eliason, Patricia Bickar, Chuck McGraw, Leo
Billings, and Ted Burns.
Mr. Alsup.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ALSUP
Mr. Alsup. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinions
in front of this subcommittee. I am strongly in favor of the Mur-
kowski bill which changes Tongass management practices less
drastically than the bill our friend from Colorado is supporting.
Currently I am employed at Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company
and would hate to lose my job due to a breach of contract by Con-
gress. A breach of contract would cause more hassles and embar-
rassment for Congress than fulfilling the pulp contracts which they
laid on the table to be sold. Lawsuits by employees being put out of
work could total to more than one billion dollars and could hurt
the economic standings of southeast Alaska, pushing people south
or north in search of employment,
I have lived in Alaska my entire life and am a sixth generation
timberman. I have seen the regrowth of forests. The timber in
those areas is just as healthy and abundant as the timber around
it.
My father works in the same department as I do. I also have two
brothers working in the pulp mills. What will become of their jobs?
Will you guarantee jobs in Alaska for them?
I am recently married and have a son that is nine months old. I
have house payments and support my wife through college. What
will become of her career which she is pursuing? Will you guaran-
tee her an education? Will you guarantee my education so that I
can relocate and support my family?
I would like to let you know that I will be in line with thousands
of men to sue the U.S. Congress if the timber is taken from us.
Thank you very much Senator Murkowski and members of the sub-
committee.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Bill.
Ms. Beltran.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE BELTRAN
Ms. Beltran. My name is Michelle Beltran. I was born in Peters-
burg and have lived in Sitka for four years. My husband works in
the power house at Alaska Pulp Corporation.
My husband, my son, Anthony, and I depend on the check my
husband brings home from the mill. We do not know what we
would do without it.
I support Senator Murkowski's bill. Senate Bill 237.
I enjoy Sitka and do not want to see the mills close.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Michelle.
Mr. Wright.
623
STATEMENT OF LARRY WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. I am Larry Wright. I am a lifetime Alaskan resi-
dent with the majority of time in southeast Alaska. I returned to
Sitka about two and a half years ago when I was hired by Alaska
Pulp Corporation.
I wanted to return because I enjoyed fishing and activities of this
area and did so with the knowledge of APC's 50-year contract and
the steady employment it guaranteed.
Since then I have acquired a commercial fishing vessel and
permit. For many years I have viewed the logging industry and its
effects on the fisheries and I can say that the industry has done all
it is aware of to improve fisheries and environmental quality.
I support Senator Murkowski's bill because it will allow the
area's economy to remain stable, as well as the lifestyle I enjoy.
I recently read an article from an environmental group com-
plaining about these hearings being at a time inconvenient to
them. I want to inform you that they are very inconvenient to me
and the other AFC workers as we are now in the process of restart-
ing our mill after our annual maintenance shutdown.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.
Mr. Milla.
STATEMENT OF NAPOLEON MILLA
Mr. Milla. Members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen,
I thank you for allowing me to speak before you this afternoon.
The lifeblood of the pulp mills in Alaska is in the continuous ex-
istence of wood to be manufactured into pulp. Any legislation that
denies these mills such harvest of timber for their raw material se-
riously threatens that industry as well as the livelihood of all its
employees.
If I lost my job at the mill I would be totally devastated, as well
as would my family. I have a wife and three kids to feed, clothe,
shelter, and educate. Bills, rents, fees, taxes and obligations come
with each passing month with unbroken regularity. In the face of
this, I entirely depend on my paycheck to defray all this cost of
keeping my family and myself alive. Loss of livelihood at my age of
50 will impose untold hardships and uncertain future for me and
my family.
The AFC has been very generous to us, giving me a well paying
job, regular bonuses, health, medical and retirement benefits, and
through enlightened management has provided a safe and satisfy-
ing work environment.
Should Congress legislate a restrictive Tongass reform, it would
adversely affect the ability of AFC to provide the salaries and bene-
fits it has thus far been able to extend to us. It would also threaten
the viability of its operations and jeopardize its millions of invest-
ments in Alaska's timber industry. Then the good life that we
know now will come to pass into just treasured memories of yester-
day. Every day after that will always be an uphill struggle to keep
body and soul together. After the last savings are gone, with deep
regrets, soon we have to depart from Alaska. This scenario will be
624
multiplied many times over, culminating in one great exodus out of
Alaska.
In this regard, I appeal to the conscience of all members of Con-
gress in both houses to incorporate in the Tongass Reform Act the
following:
Provide for a mechanism of compensation for all mill employees
that will be displaced or laid off because of such legislation, a com-
pensation package lasting for five years to enable the employees to
readjust their lives, relocate, and survive through after the closure
of the mills; provide for funds for the vocational retraining and
career change for such displaced mill employees; and compensate
the mills for the invested millions they stand to lose resulting from
the unilateral abrogation of their contract with the U.S. Bureau of
Forestry for a guaranteed harvest of timber for a period of 50
years. I thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Milla.
Mr. Haciyan.
STATEMENT OF YETVART HACIYAN
Mr. Haciyan. Mr. Chairman, Senators, members of the subcom-
mittee. My name is Yetvart Haciyan. I live and work in Sitka. For
the past two and a half years I have been employed by Alaska Pulp
Corporation as a lab technician.
I am glad to have the opportunity to testify today. I support
Senate Bill 237, sponsored by our Alaskan Senator Frank Murkow-
ski. I feel strongly the other Tongass bill before your committee
would have a devastating impact on our company and would even-
tually result in the loss of my job, along with the other 400 workers
at the mill.
I enjoy working for Alaska Pulp Corporation, I enjoy hunting
and fishing in the area and hope to be able to make payments on
the new boat I just bought until it is paid for and to be able to
hunt and fish here for a long time.
Thank you.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Haciyan.
Mr. Kobylus.
STATEMENT OF TERRY KOBYLUS
Mr. Kobylus. My name is Terry Kobylus. I am a native Alaskan
and I was raised in Juneau, Alaska. I work and spend 90 percent of
my time in Hawk Inlet on Admiralty Island. My family has
hunted, fished, camped, and enjoyed recreation in the Tongass for
four generations. My grandfather worked in the timber industry
during the war and then in the mining industry in Juneau, which
was that town's economic backbone before government.
The Tongass National Forest has always been our home and our
work place.
I live in one of the many communities surrounded by the Ton-
gass National Forest. It does not take an expert to realize the de-
pendency of these communities upon the forest resources. These re-
source industries, such as timber, mining, fishing, and tourism con-
tribute to the schools, roads, transportation systems, airports, boat
harbors, as well as local municipalities. By purposefully jerking the
625
rug out of any one of these resource industries is like pulling the
plug on any one of our southeast communities.
As an Alaskan and a citizen of the United States, I find it quite
unsettling how such an important decision can be made by people
3,000 miles away from the Tongass National Forest. People whose
primary concern should be with their own states are making bill
proposals and consequently are making decisions, people who have
never seen this state or perhaps have only made a short pleasure
visit. People such £is you, Senator Wirth, or Congressman Mrazek.
You are making a decision for me about my destiny and the desti-
ny of the people of the Tongass. For this reason I have gathered my
courage to come before you and speak of the things that are so im-
portant to me.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Kobylus.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kobylus follows:]
626
TESTIMONY OF ^F€m KOBYLUS
BEFORE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
OF TONGASS REFORM LEGISLATION
MY NAME IS TERI KOBYLUS. I AM NATIVE ALASKAN AND I WAS RAISED IN
JUNEAU, ALASKA. I WORK AND SPEND 90/< OF MY TIME IN HAWK INLET ON
ADMIRALTY ISLAND. MY FAMILY HAS HUNTED, FISHED, CAMPED AND ENJOYED
RECREATING IN THE TONGASS FOR 4 GENERATIONS. MY GRANDFATHER WORKED IN
THE TIMBER INDUSTRY DURING THE WAR AND THEN IN THE MINING INDUSTRY IN
JUNEAU, WHICH WAS THAT TOWN'S ECONOMIC BACKBONE BEFORE GOVERNMENT.
THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR HOME AND OUR
WORKPLACE. I WENT TO HIGHSCHOOL IN JUNEAU AND THEN ON TO COLLEGE IN
ANCHORAGE. MY FAMILY AND I HAVE LIVED OUR WHOLE LIVES IN ALASKA AND
PLAN TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS STATE OUR HOME.
: LIVE IN ONE OF THE MANY COMMUNITIES SURROUNDED BY THE TONGASS
NATIONAL FOREST. IT DOES NOT TAKE AN EXPERT TO REALIZE THE DEPENDENCY
OF THESE COMMUNITIES UPON THE FOREST RESOURCES. THESE RESOURCE
INDUSTRIES SUCH AS TIMBER, MINING. FISHING, AND TOURISM CONTRIBUTE TO
THE SCHOOLS, ROADS, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, AIRPORTS, BOAT HARBORS.
DSCKIi . AS WELL AS LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES. BY PURPOSFULLY JERKING THE
RUG OUT OF ANY ONE OF THESE RESOURCE INDUSTRIES IS LIKE PULLING THE
PLUG ON ANY ONE OF OUR SOUTHEAST COMMUNITIES.
627
fit4t> rr QUITE UflGcTTLiNG.
AS AN ALASKAN AND A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. I DQN-^T UI'JDCROTiaiHD
HOW SUCH A IMPORTANT DECISION CAN BE MADE BY PEOPLE 3,00 0 MILES AWAY
FROM THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST. PEOPLE WHOSE PRIMARY CONCERN SHOULD
ZE WITH THEIR OWN STATES, ARE MAKING BILL PROPOSALS AND CONSEQUENTLY
ARE MAKING DECISIONS. WHO HAVE NE^JER SEEN THIS STATE OR PERHAPS HA^E
ONLY MADE A SHORT PLEASURE ^ISIT. PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU SENATOR WIRTH OR
CONGRESSMAN MRAZEK. YOU ARE t^KING A DECISION FOR ME ABOUT MY DESTINY
AND THE DESTINY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE TONGASS. FOR THIS REASON I HAk^E
GATHERED MY COURAGE TO COME BEFORE YOU AND SPEAK OF THE THINGS THAT
ARE SO IMPORTANT TO ME .
;^SENATOR WIRTH'S BILL ^34^
y'^ SENATOR WIRTH'S BILL -'J'T(^ ADDS 23 MORE AREAS TO THE 5.4 MILLION
ACRES ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS WILDERNESS. TO THIS I AM OPPOSED.
ALREADY TO MANY VALUABLE RESOURCES HA^^E BEEN LOCKED UP. THIS HAS
DRASTICALLY REDUCED THE MULTIPLE USES OF THE LAND IN THE TONGASS.
ADDITIONAL LAND ALLOCATIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE BEFORE THE FOREST
SER^^ICE TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN REiv'lEW IS DONE. AT LEAST WAIT
AND SEE WHAT THE FOREST SERVICE PROPOSALS ARE. WITHOUT TRYING TO
INFLUENCE THOSE PROPOSALS BY LEGISLATION BEFORE THEY ARE MADE.
628
SENATOR WIRTH WANTS TO ELIMINATE A GUARANTEED 4.5 BILLION BOARD FEET
TIMBER HARVEST PER DECADE. I AM OPPOSED TO THIS. EVEN I CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT THE TIMBER INDUSTRY NEEDS AS ASSURED ALLOWABLE SALE
QUANTITY. TONGASS LEGISLATION AND THE FOREST SER<JICE SHOULD CONTINUE
TO RETAIN A SUFFICIENT COMMERCIAL 'fsW)GSE^MH& TIMBER BASE TO MAKE
AVAILABLE AN ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITY OF 4.5 BILLION BOARD FEET PER
DECADE TO MEET THE TIMBER INDUSTRY NEEDS BASED UPON MARKET DEMAND,
INDUSTRY CAPACITY AND ECONOMICS.
SENATOR WIRTH' S BILL WOULD ELIMINATE THE LONG TERM CONTRACTS. TO THIS
I AM OPPOSED. LONG TERM CONTRACTS WERE CREATED BETWEEN CONGRESS AND
THE TWO PULP COMPANIES. THESE CONTRACTS SHOULD BE HONORED. THEY
TRUSTED CONGRESS TO UPHOLD THESE CONTRACTS AND THEY BUILT THEIR
PULPMILLS HEREy BECAUSE OF THESE CONTRACTS. IT IS NOT RIGHT TO RENIG
IS WHAT
ON A DEAL THAT WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH. IT \jieS, MOST PEOPLE WOULD CALL
BAD BUSINESS. YOUR NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTS WITH THE MILLS.
YOUR TALKING ABOUT WHOLE COMMUNITIES. YOUR TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE.
YOUR TALKING ABOUT ME.
629
I HOPE YOU WILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER BY COMMENTS. I NE^^ER THOUGHT I
WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SUCH AN EFFORT TO PROTECT MY WAV OF LIFE. CONTRARY
TO POPULAR BELIEF THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST IS A GREAT AND THRIVING
FOREST. JUST LOOK AT ITIM THERE IS SUCH AN ABUNDANCE OF FOREST
HERE, THAT IT SEEM RIDICULOUS WE ARE EVEN CONSIDERING REMOVING MORE OF
IT FROM PRODUCTIVE USE. TO BELIEVE THAT ALL THE TREES ARE BEING CUT
DOWN. THAT THE LAND IS BEING RAZED OVER. THAT THE TONGASS CONTRIBUTES
TO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, THAT THE WILDLIFE IS SUFFERING, THAT THE
PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE CARE NOTHING FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENT IS LIKE ALASt>^,
THINKING THAT rTimnrr- TT I iiriiiminTni I r\;r r'\ niTiinr ri rnwc inrr urmi rrf^i r
TV-attefifeR€R .
THANK YOU
630
Senator Wirth. Thank you all of you. We appreciate that you
were here.
The final group, Stretch Chatham, Russell Zeman, Nancy Elia-
son, Patricia Bickar, Chuck McGraw, and Ted Larsen.
Mr. Chatham. [No response.]
Mr. Zeman.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL ZEMAN
Mr. Zeman. My name is Russell Zeman. I am the president of a
little logging company down in a place called Smith Cove, north-
west of Ketchikan. We have grown to approximately 70 people and
have 12 students in our little school which supports two school
teachers.
Our business is directly dependent on timber. Timber is our only
renewable resource. I have been in this business for about 26 years,
the business of harvesting trees. I also like to hunt and fish.
Like most of the loggers I know, we are not out there to destroy
the land. We go to a lot of trouble and a lot of expense to comply
with forest practices, which I have seen come a long way in the last
decade.
My view as a logger is let us get some wood without destroying
the land in doing it. We have to live here too.
Thank you and, Senator Murkowski, I support your bill.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Zeman.
Ms. Eliason.
STATEMENT OF NANCY ELIASON
Ms. EuASON. Thank you for the opportunity to give oral testimo-
ny on Senate Bill 346.
I am opposed to it and I support Senator Murkowski's bill, S.237.
I am a retired public health nurse and, as such, I care about
people, specifically my friends and neighbors who live and work in
southeast Alaska, right in the midst of the Tongass National
Forest.
The mills will be forced to close without a continued supply of
their raw material, putting people out of work. Because of our geo-
graphical location, it is not possible to find jobs in nearby towns.
People will have to move, but will be unable to sell their houses in
a depressed market. It also means pulling up stakes from the
places we have come to think of as home. For myself, on a fixed
income, I see a real budget crunch as prices rise because of less
volume and decreased demand.
More important than the economic hardship that APC's closure
would have on Sitka, I am concerned with the immorality of my
government cancelling a contract that was entered into in good
faith. Essentially, my government is considering going back on its
word. I firmly believe that a government's word should be sacred.
Because of my recent retirement I have been bombarded with
advice about how to safely manage my money. The bottom line is
always, "U.S. Treasury bonds are the safest place to put money for
they are backed by the United States government." How can I
trust my government in one area if it breaks contracts in another?
631
And it is all so unnecessary. There is a lot of misinformation
being spread in the national media about the Tongass. Contrary to
what some would have you believe, the logging practices of today
do not resemble those of the turn of the century. We Americans
have learned from the past. Our colleges and universities teach
forest management, including ways to provide a sustained yield
with the recognition that trees do grow back. The Forest Service
maintains a multiple use policy which requires public input in
order to define areas of value, whether for timber harvest, fish,
game, recreation, wilderness, et cetera. These professionals in the
Forest Service are empowered to enforce a myriad of rules and reg-
ulations and they do. If both industry and preservationists com-
plain about the Forest Service, can it be all bad? No. The Tongass
is not being raped and ruined.
To summarize, I favor Senator Murkowski's bill because I feel it
is immoral for my government to go back on its word, especially
when it is so totally unnecessary.
I have attached a fable, "God is Not Dead, He is Alive and
Healthy in the Tongass." ^ I hope you will enjoy it.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Ms. Eliason.
Ms. Bickar.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA BICKAR
Ms. Bickar. I am Patricia Bickar. I came to Sitka in 1960 with
my husband, Oliver, or better known as Porky, and our two chil-
dren. At that time he was a busheler, or faller, for Barton & Reyn-
vaan Logging, based in Katlian Bay. In 1964 the operation in Kat-
lian was completed and rather than return to Washington we de-
cided to stay in Sitka. We had established our home here, our two
older children were in school, we had a new baby, and friends had
been made. We had learned to love Sitka and we did not want to
leave. So, Oliver then started his own business, Porky's Equipment,
and we have operated it for the last 25 years.
Because we have made this our home we are very interested in
the future of Sitka. I was a teacher here for 20 years until I retired
two years ago. Our children went through school here. We feel that
the quality of education here has been excellent. Our oldest went
on to get his doctorate in biochemistry and teaches and does re-
search in the east. However, he still has ties here as he owns two
duplexes which are rented out. He invested in the property while
still in high school. Our daughter works at APC in the lab and
owns a duplex, living in one half and renting out the other. Our
youngest son built his house here and has gone into business with
his dad. In addition to the business we own several rentals. Four of
the rentals are occupied by local business, an auto parts store, a
restaurant, a liquor store, and a building contractor. Six units are
apartments.
As you can see, our future here depends on the economy of Sitka.
Porky and I are semi-retired and our income is mainly dependent
on the rentals. Our daughter's job at APC directly depends on the
' Retained in subcommittee files.
632
future of the mill. Our youngest son's opportunities for work in the
family business depend on a thriving community.
If APC is forced to close its mill, or even curtail its productivity,
we are going to lose people. Every member of our family will be
directly affected. Porky's Equipment will have fewer people to need
our services, our rentals will be less in demand, our incomes will go
down and our expenses will go up. Taxes and electrical rates are
just two examples of expenses that will jump if we do not have the
mill here in Sitka.
[The prepared statement Ms. Bickar follows:]
633
I am Patricia Bickaf. 1 came to Sitka in 1960 with my
husband, Oliver, or better known as Porky, and our two children. At
that time he was a busheler, or faller, for Barton t Reynvaan
Logging, based in Katlian Bay. In 1964 the operation in Katlian was
completed and rather than return to Washington, we decided to stay
in Sitka. We had established our home here, our two older children
were in school, we had a new baby, and friends had been made. We
had learned to love Sitka and we didn't want to leave so Oliver then
started his own business, Porky's Equipment, and we have operated it
for the last 25 years.
Because we have made this our home we are very interested in
the future of Sitka. I was a teacher here for twenty years until I
retired two years ago. Our children went through school here. We
feel that the quality of education here has been excellent. Our
oldest went on to get his doctorate in biochemistry and teaches and
does research in the east. However, he still has ties here as he
owns two duplexes which are rented out. He invested in the property
while still in high school. Our daughter works at APC in the lab
and owns a duplex, living in one of the units and renting out the
other. Our youngest son built his house here and has gone into
business with his dad. In addition to the business we own several
rentals. Four of the rentals are occupied by local business, an
auto parts store, a restaurant, a liquor store, and a building
contractor. Six units are apartments.
As you can see our future here depends on the economy of
Sitka. Porky and I are semi-retired and our income is mainly
dependent on the rentals. Our daughter's job at APC directly
depends on the future of the mill. Our youngest son/ opportunities
for work in the family business depends on a thriving community.
If APC is forced to close its mill, or even curtail its
productivity, we are going to lose people. Every member of our
family will be directly effected. Porky's Equipment will have fewer
people to need our services, our rentals will be less in demand.
Our incomes will go down and our expenses will go up. Taxes and
electrical rates are just two examples of expenses that will jump if
we don't have the mill here in Sitka.
The economy effects everyone indirectly also. Our schools,
which have been excellent, will have trouble financing the programs
which we have come to expect. Fewer students will mean less funding
from the state. New buildings have been constructed to handle our
current student population, we do not want to see them half filled
and half paid for.
Twenty five years ago we gambled our existence on the economy
of Sitka when we decided to stay here. We had fallen in love with
the beauty, the friendliness and the opportunity Sitka afforded us.
We staked everything in starting a business here. We have never
been sorry. Our children all have a stake in the future of Sitka
and time will tell if our grandchildren want to continue their life
here. We have no desire to live anywhere else but do give us the
opportunity to have that future in Sitka by the Sea. I do strongly
urge you to support Senator Murkowski's Senate bill 237.
634
P.S. I hope you stay in Sitka long enough to look around our
beautiful city. From our house, which is near the base of Gavin
Hill, I look out my dining room window at Harbor Mountain, right now
snow topped. From my bedroom windows I see the Sisters, Arrowhead
and Verstovia mountains, and from the front of the house we see Mt .
Edgecumbe out on the water. Where else in the world could one be
placed in the center of such panorama?
But as I look at Gavin Hill, which was logged many years ago
by the Russians, I see signs of death. Scattered throughout the
living trees are many dying, or dead, snags. Trees are living,
breathing objects. They have a life span just like people, a bit
longer but they cannot live forevc. Once they die they are of no
use to anyone. They are not good timber for logging--yes , they
could be used for firewood but single trees are usually inaccessible
to the firewood cutter, so they stand as dead snags until rot allows
them to fall over.
In contrast, take a trip out to Katlian Bay. This was logged
over a few years ago. Mao^ were counting on the miles of logging
roads built for that operation to give them access to hunting,
fishing, or hiking thru the Katlian Valley. I have not been out
there for several years but I am told that not only have the trees
grown up in the logging area, which is obvious from the water, but
the roads are gone. In many places the trees have already grown so
that you can not even recognize where the roads used to be. These
are living, breathing trees, using up carbon dioxide and releasing
oxygen at a much faster rate than old trees and certainly more than
the snags.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter that was in our local paper by
someone that can explain it better than I. No, I am not advocating
that we go right out and log Gavin Hill but sensible use of the
forest is certainly important.
Greenhouse Effect
Dear Editor: Lately (here has been a
lot of talk about the "greenhouse
effect" and how it relates to timber
harvest The Honorable Sen. Wirth has
introduced anti-timber harvest Tongass
legislation recently stating that preven-
tion of the greenhouse effect is one of
the primary reasons. Environmental
groups arc promoting this idea so that
it can be used as another tool to halt
timber harvest, both on the Tongass
and elsewhere. It seems that the Sena-
tor as well as a lot of other people have
gone for this story wholeheartedly
without bothering to do any research. . .
By talking to any silviculturist, hor- i
ticulturalist, or olJier knowledgeable
person you can get the real facts.
Young growth is mwe vigorous than
old growth, especially a decadent
forest with a declining growth curve
such as the Tongass. So when parts of
the Tongass are harvested the ensuing
second growth uses substantially more
carbon dioxide, as well as releasing
substantially more oxygen into the air
we breath than the old growth it
replaced. Look at any harvest area and
you will sec a very impressive patch of
second growth that often averages over
10,000 stems per acre (before thin-
ning) with a growth rate of over one
foot per year.
I think people should realize that we
do not use slash and bum technology
on the Tongass. The awful pictures we
are shown of dead soil where rain
forest once stood are real, but the
problem is occurring in largely under-
developed countries with a large farm-
ing population, NOT on the .Tongass.
Farming is what costs the^soil the
nutrients it needs to regrow a forest,
not timber harvesting.
Timber harvest on the Tongass is
highly regulated where environmental
impacts are concerned. Add to this the
industry's very good environmental
record and the fact that only 10 percent
of the Tongass is slated for logging,
EVER, and I don't see how anyone
could come to the conclusion that
timber harvesting on the Tongass will
hasten the arrival of the global warm-
ing problem or lead to the moonscape
that some groups refer to. ■ ■' '
Roger M. Ziesak
Ketchikan
635
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mrs. Bickar.
Mr. Larsen.
STATEMENT OF TED LARSEN
Mr. Larsen. I am Ted Larsen, owner of Computer Systems. I
have lived in Sitka for over 21 years and have been involved in the
timber industry for the first 15 years in various positions. I have
spent the best part of my life right here in Sitka and I own my
home, car, and boat.
If the economy of Sitka is lowered by any drsistic measure, such
as the passing of the Wirth bill, S. 346, it would reduce my life sav-
ings and leave me to be on the welfare rolls along with a lot of
people who have purchsised or built a home here with the idea that
all major businesses would be around for a significant amount of
time. I do not want to retire yet as I cannot afford to and I am sure
not ready to quit my lifestyle because some senators from other
states think they know more about Alaska than the majority of the
people who live here.
Senator Wirth, you have already been told by the majority of the
people at these hearings that your bill is not viable for the Tongass
National Forest, for the industries that use it, and mostly for the
people who have been depending on it for a livelihood.
Over 40 percent of my business has been directly with mill work-
ers and people in the logging industry and if I lose that business I
would have to shut my doors.
Senator Murkowski, your bill, S. 237, is not the best solution for
the timber industry but at least they can live with it. It shows that
the timber industry is willing to give up some things so they can
continue to provide jobs for the people of southeast Alaska.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak and I hope my words have
not gone on deaf ears.
Senator Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Billings.
STATEMENT OF LEO BILLINGS
Mr. Billings. Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
I would like to take this time to thank you for the opportunity to
testify here today.
I am Leo Billings. I am an owner and managing partner in a log-
ging firm in Ketchikan, Alaska. I have been in the logging business
in southeast Alaska for 35 years.
Presently my company is logging and road building up on Revil-
lagigido Island. We employ 90 people directly and 60 indirectly,
subcontracting. Our pa5T*oll and the subcontractors cost up to well
over $6 million annually.
We are an independent logger and we are working on native
land. However, this supply is limited and we are moving towards
the federal lands for our operations.
The mill is vital to our industry as it is a market for the low
grade timber. To make our operations economically viable we must
log all of the logs available, low and high grade wood. Cancelling
the remaining 15 years on the long term contract will not help but,
rather, will hurt our economy.
636
Like any good business we must be able to project and prepare
for the future. My local business, my logging operation, as well as
Ketchikan Pulp, has based our future on the promise of this
timber. Without it Ketchikan is at stake, pulp is at stake, and
without them our future is at stake.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Billings.
Mr. Burns.
STATEMENT OF TED BURNS
Mr. Burns. Thank you for this opportunity. I am Ted Burns and
a partner in a private industry in southeast Alaska and my com-
munication products serves the logging industry. Everjrthing is sup-
ported in some manner by the timber industry in southeast Alaska
as well as everyone in Alaska is affected by the timber industry in
some form.
I do support our Alaskan senators in Washington, D.C. They rep-
resent Alaska and the only voice in Washington, D.C. that are
qualified to speak for Alaska and Alaskans on issues of state, na-
tional, and natural resources.
I was reminded this morning of the beautiful garden that sur-
vived and flourished with cultivation and pruning. I do know you
cannot make a cake simply by reading a cook book or a garden by
reading a magazine, nor can natural resources be managed by
words. It takes work.
I do appreciate your interest in preserving the natural resources.
However, as you said, Senator Wirth, Americans are awakened to
their natural resources. Most Americans are surprised that Alaska
is a state. Alaskans are Americans too and we have not been asleep
all of this time.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Mr. Burns.
That brings the hearing to a close.
Senator Murkowski, everyone wants to thank you again for your
hospitality and that of all Alaskans. We thank the residents of
Sitka.
I thank all of the witnesses for both their patience and their un-
derstanding. We have scheduled an enormously productive hearing
and I think the best of the hearings on this issue came from Alaska
and I think is by far the best they ever had.
Senator Murkowski. I would like to congratulate you on the
manner in which you conducted this hearing. There were some dif-
ficult conditions, but we heard over 100 witnesses here. We certain-
ly thank the professional staff and my colleague from Montana,
Senator Burns, and I want to conclude my part by saying that we
respect your views and, hopefully, a compromise can be achieved. I
am committed to represent those of you who want to maintain the
lifestyle you have become accustomed to, and the reason you live
here. I realize that that in and of itself is a contradiction but that
is the way the process has to work. I am pleased to work with you
and my good friend over here.
Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Frank, and I want to also
add a word of thanks to the court reporter, who has done such a
thorough, complete, and exhausting job. We thank you all for
coming.
637
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
[Due to the voluminous nature of the materials submitted, addi-
tional documents and statements have been retained in subcommit-
tee files.]
O
22-148 (644)
<
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
RDTDDM MD7Mb
3 9999 05995 515 1
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11