[Senate Hearing 112-131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-131
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND
FORESTS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 233
S. 268
S. 375
S. 714
S. 730
__________
MAY 25, 2011
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-975 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
MARK UDALL, Colorado RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Anderson, Sherman, President and Owner, Sun Mountain Lumber, Inc.
& Sun Mountain Logging LLC, Deer Lodge, MT..................... 73
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 12
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 15
Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Alaska...................... 14
Burke, Marcilynn, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 35
Congdon, Walter E., Montana Cattlemen's Association, Dell, MT.... 76
Mallott, Byron, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau, AK... 52
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Poelstra, Myla, Representing Nine Alaska Towns, Edna Bay, AK..... 65
Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 25
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 20
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 89
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 91
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS BILLS
----------
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order. This
afternoon the subcommittee is going to receive testimony on the
remaining bills that have been reintroduced from the last
Congress. As was the case for the bills on last week's hearing
schedule, all the bills were considered by the subcommittee
last Congress. The purpose of today's hearing is to update the
record and to allow committee members an opportunity to ask any
questions they may have.
The bills on today's agenda include:
S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act
S. 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
S. 375, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act
S. 714, the Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act and
S. 730, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization and Jobs Protection Act.
Obviously the subcommittee's got a lot to cover this
afternoon.
In addition to statements from committee members, three of
our colleagues have asked to speak in support of their bills.
We'll have several witnesses testifying on behalf of the Obama
Administration. Finally we'll wrap up with a panel of witnesses
from Montana and Alaska, who have certainly traveled far to
speak on the bills that are of interest to them.
I know that these bills are important to my colleagues who
have undertaken a great deal of work on these issues. A few of
the bills are a little bit more complicated and a little bit
more controversial than the bills that the subcommittee
considered last week. But I want to re-emphasize my commitment
to continue to work with all of the bill's sponsors to find a
way to move these bills through the Senate and get them enacted
into law this Congress.
I know there are a lot of issues of concern on both sides.
But I think the fact there has been so much hard work put in.
Not just from the bill's sponsors but from many of the other
interested parties that we have an opportunity to address these
issues and to move forward.
I'm pleased that among today's bills is S. 714, to
reauthorize Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. I'm a
co-sponsor of this legislation that's been introduced by the
chairman of the committee, Senator Bingaman. This authority is
set to expire this summer, provides the Bureau of Land
Management the ability to dispose of properties that simply
don't any longer make sense for them to own. The funds then can
be used to acquire critical properties such as in holdings that
are surrounded by other Federal lands.
In my home State this fiscally responsible program has been
used to sell lands to ranchers, who are able to expand their
ranches with lands the BLM does not need. The funds from those
sales have then been used to acquire some truly magnificent
properties such as lands along the Rogue National Wild and
Scenic River and in our National Wildlife Refuges. So I'm very
much hoping that this legislation will be reauthorized.
At this time I want to recognize my colleagues, the Ranking
Member of the full committee is here today, Senator Murkowski
and then Senator Barrasso. I want to welcome my friends and
colleagues beginning with Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you
for holding this hearing on all of these bills. I will be
confining my remarks here to S. 730 which is what most Alaskans
refer to as the Sealaska Lands Bill.
First of all I'd like to welcome the two witnesses who have
come from Alaska to testify today.
Byron Mallott, who is a Board Member and former President
and CEO of Sealaska.
And also Myla Poelstra, of Edna Bay, who I know has
concerns about the bill and its impact to her community.
I welcome the proposals, what I know to be constructive
changes in the bill from Myla. To you, Byron, I certainly
understand the desire of Alaska natives to finally, after some
40 years, get their long promised land. So I thank you for
coming today. Myla, I thank you as well.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that I submit for the record a rather
lengthy statement and several of these documents that I have
that pertain to S. 730, if I can make them part of the record
as well.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Murkowski. I would like to just briefly summarize
why I continue to strongly support this bill. I appreciate the
support of my colleague, Senator Begich. I'm pleased that he's
here this afternoon to lend his comments as well.
Back in 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act which gave Sealaska, the corporation that
represents the region's nearly 20,000 native shareholders, the
right to select only about 375,000 acres in return for giving
up native Aboriginal claims to most of the 23 million acres
that make up Southeast Alaska. As I mentioned it's been 40
years. ANCSA will have its 40th anniversary coming up on
December 18 of this year. Forty years is a long time to be
waiting for these land issues to be resolved.
This bill allows Sealaska to select other lands to complete
its entitlement. These lands are not part of parks or
wilderness. The bill attempts to encourage Sealaska to
diversify, to reduce timber harvesting by giving the
corporation access to some sites where they can develop their
businesses whether it's in renewable energy, whether it's
tourism. In return the corporation has to give unprecedented
public access to their private property allowing hunters and
recreationalists to utilize their timber lands and cross their
development and sacred sites honoring all existing easements.
Now from an environmental standpoint, this bill is clearly
beneficial. It will likely result in Sealaska logging about
38,000 fewer acres of old growth timber than it could have done
initially if forced to stay within its original selection
boxes. It pushes Sealaska to focus on second growth, smaller
diameter timber, exactly what the Obama administration says it
wants to see happen in Alaska.
But without passage of this bill, Sealaska will likely be
forced out of the timber business. Frankly, that is why, I
believe, some groups may well oppose this bill. Because if
Sealaska totally leaves the timber business, then the rest of
the wood products industry in Southeast Alaska which is already
hanging by a thread will almost certainly collapse.
Sealaska is vital to helping fund the infrastructure
needed, not just by timber, but by the cruise industry, the
construction industry, and the heavy equipment repair firms.
The region's 16 percent unemployment rate will only rise
contributing to even worse social conditions in Southeast. This
is the only area in the State where we're continuing to see
falling populations, falling family incomes.
The economic situation is Southeast is difficult right now.
I know that. I was born in Ketchikan. I played as a child in
Wrangell. I know how precious every acre of the Tongass is to
all who live there even though this bill affects just three-
tenths of a percent of the entire forest.
Now we have worked. We have worked aggressively over the
past several years to really hear, to listen, to understand the
concerns that have been raised and to address them. We have
changed the bill markedly since last year, specifically to
protect the land closest to Edna Bay to remove all of the
acreage closest to the communities of Point Baker and Port
Protection where we heard so much concern.
The bill has been modified to meet the concerns voiced by
Tenakee, Sitka, Petersburg, Craig, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kake,
Thorne Bay, Hoonah, Naukati and Klawock residents just to name
a few. But have these changes satisfied everyone? No, they have
not.
But what this bill finally comes down to is that it was not
right. It was unfair to Southeast natives who lived in a region
the size of the State of Indiana, to have had their lands taken
away from them. We here in the Federal Government confiscated
millions of acres to form the Tongass Forest and to create the
Glacier Bay National Park early last century.
Natives fought for decades for compensation, finally
getting that compensation in the 60s. It was about 32 cents an
acre is what it came down to. When the larger Native Claims
Settlement Act finally passed in 1971, the Southeast natives
were basically told that they couldn't select very much land in
return. They should have gotten 9.6 million acres, but we told
them that they had to settle for 375,000 acres in State or
select it outside of Alaska, since the land by then had been
committed to long term timber sales to two regional pulp mills.
Mr. Chairman, those pulp mills are gone. But unless this
bill passes we do have, again, some very dire economic
situations within the panhandle region. I have listened hard. I
have worked with all sides to really try to make this bill more
fair to everyone in the region.
I've accepted more than 150 changes in the bill since 2008.
I've really tried to work to make sure that this bill doesn't
harm the wildlife, doesn't harm the environment or the economy
of the panhandle. I want to make sure that this legislation,
not only addresses the equity that is at stake here for the
Sealaska shareholders, but also for those who live and work and
raise their families in the region.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the comments today
and to continuing the work to finally and fully resolve this
land entitlement.
Senator Wyden. Senator Murkowski, thank you. We'll work
very closely with you. I know this legislation is important to
you. We'll be following up.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for holding this hearing on S. 730, what
most Alaskans call the Sealaska lands bill.
The Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs
Protection Act was first proposed by Alaska Congressman Don Young in
2007, and actually stems from talks between the Sealaska Native
regional corporation, and the U.S. Forest Service that started many
years earlier. The entire issue stems from legislation that Congress
approved four decades ago and the many intervening events in the
region.
In 1971, Congress approved the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) that provided Alaska Natives with 44 million acres of land and
$962.5 million to settle all aboriginal land claims. One of the largest
of those corporations in number of shareholders (about 20,000) was
Southeast Alaska's Sealaska Corp. The corporation, because of
preexisting land commitments (long-term pulp mill timber sale contracts
and the 1968 settlement of the Tlingit-Haida land claim suit), however,
received one of the smallest initial allocations of land, just over
290,000 acres. Under the Section 14(h) selection process, Sealaska was
given the right to select more land in the region once all historic
sites, allotments and municipal conveyances were finished statewide.
That is because while Sealaska--with 22 percent of all Natives in the
state in 1970--was the corporation with the largest percentage of
Native residents, it gained the second smallest land entitlement above
only the Aleut corporation's 70,000 acres--the Aleut corporation having
just 3,250 shareholders. Doyon Inc. gained 12.5 million acres and
Calista 6.5 million acres.
The disparity is shown in that Sealaska on population alone should
have received 9.6 million acres of the forest, if the land in the
region had been readily available for Native selection. Sealaska is
still guaranteed to select between 64,000 and 85,000 additional acres
in the Panhandle once the final audit of other land selections is
finished by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Sealaska Corporation, by ANCSA amendment provisions, was
limited to select that land from around 10 areas in Southeast: Yakutat,
Hoonah, Angoon, Kake, Klawock, Craig, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Hollis and
Ketchikan. The problem is that while there are 327,000 acres in the
areas still available for selection, 44 percent of that represents
saltwater and even more of that land constitutes village watersheds and
lands with high conservation values and environmental concerns. Based
on a 1976 amendment by Congress, Sealaska also does not have unfettered
selection rights to those 327,000 acres because of state gubernatorial
veto authority that can keep it from selecting any of the nearly 32,000
acres located in the Yakutat (Situk River) corridor. While Sealaska
does have 112,000 acres of old-growth timber still available within
those areas, about 61,000 of those acres are in old-growth reserve
areas--areas considered unacceptable for development on environmental
grounds and currently protected by the U.S. Forest Service--and much
are located in the 277,000 acres of land currently designated
``inventoried roadless'' areas by the Forest Service. Significant
acreage is also in municipal watersheds (notably around Craig), sharply
reducing the availability of economic lands without environmental
problems available for selection.
Estimates are that within the selection areas, Sealaska has 312.5
million board feet of commercial timber at current prices and another
39 million board feet available at far higher prices, but that all but
4.5 mmbf (one 1,600 acre tract on the Cleveland Peninsula sought for
protection by the environmental community) are unacceptable for harvest
on environmental grounds. Those grounds are that 32,000 acres (230
mmbf) are in the Situk River drainage, 4,600 acres (38 mmbf) are near
Essowah Lake and Eek Lake on Dall Island and near Hydaburg,
respectively, that are vital for commercial and subsistence fisheries,
that 19,500 acres (40 mmbf) are in the Craig municipal watershed, that
2,500 acres (30 mmbf) are in important viewsheds/watersheds at Hoonah,
important for the tourism industry, but also are economically marginal
lands at present, and that 3,100 acres (9 mmbf) near Kake are equally
economically marginal at present prices.
In an effort to help the Corporation select economically and
environmentally acceptable land, Alaska Congressman Young in 2007
proposed the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act.
I introduced a slightly different bill in the Senate in 2008 and
reintroduced, after extensive changes, in both the Senate and House, a
further modified bill in spring 2009. The bill as then introduced and
before a Senate hearing in October 2009, called for Sealaska to select
the bulk of its lands from a roughly 79,000-acre selection pool, nine
areas all located on Prince of Wales and nearby Kosciusko and Tuxekan
Islands. The corporation would also receive up to 5,000 acres of Native
``Futures'' sites--locations elsewhere in the Tongass National Forest
where only non-timber or non-mining-dependent businesses could be
developed, from eco-tourism to ocean/ hydro power generation. And
another 3,600 acres are allowed for sacred sites for cultural and
historic preservation. There were 46 futures sites and 206 sacred sites
proposed for transfer to the corporation, plus three customary trade
and migration routes. Most all of the timber sites in that bill were
located in areas already left open by the U.S. Forest Service for
commercial timber development.
In return for the economic development lands, Sealaska would
relinquish most all of its selection rights on the 327,000 acres of
original lands, keeping only the Future sites located inside any of the
original selection boxes.
Based on public comments following the October 2009 Senate hearing,
comments made by the public at 12 town meetings held in Southeast in
February and March 2010, more than 200 informational meetings held by
Sealaska, and hundreds of letters and verbal comments, in late June
2010, I proposed significant revisions in the bill. Concerning timber
lands, the revised bill proposes to remove all lands on northern Prince
of Wales Island to meet the concerns of Port Protection and Point Baker
residents. Harvesting on Koscuisko Island was reduced to meet the
concerns of Edna Bay residents, and harvesting was reduced by 26
percent at Keete to meet the concerns of some over wildlife impacts.
The bill proposed adding about 151,565 acres of lands into conservation
areas (make the areas congressional designated Land Unit Designation
IIs) to offset impacts from timber development in the southern Tongass
National Forest. The bill also proposed to eliminate 17 of the then 46
formally proposed Futures sites, and included nearly two dozen
amendments to protect continued public access among other purposes. It
also deleted two provisions that raised concerns among outdoor user
groups that the bill might somehow affect the definition of ``Indian
Country'' in Alaska, and it deleted all potential sites in Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve at the request of the National Parks and
Conservation Association. The February 2011 draft bill also made other
proposed changes, including changes in the selection process for sacred
sites, in access and easement language, in the conservation areas and
omitted 745 acres of timber development lands.
The current bill that I reintroduced in March 2011, (S. 730) has
removed 206 additional acres to protect fishery anchorages at Halibut
Harbor, at Cape Pole and north of Cape Pole on Koscuisko Island,
removed one Future site and added other provisions detailed below.
ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LANDS
Specifically the current bill calls for Sealaska to give up rights
to select lands in the Red Bay, Buster Creek and Labouchere Bay
drainages on northern Prince of Wales. The reduction of those 22,402
acres protects several old-growth preserves, protects beach fringe,
karst formations, subsistence hunting drainages and fishery areas of
importance to the island's northern communities. The bill seeks to meet
the economic concerns of Thorne Bay residents by maintaining the amount
of public lands available for logging in the Thorne Bay ranger
district, while it meets the need of Hydaburg residents by allowing
some additional logging on the central portion of the island to protect
existing Hydaburg jobs. It attempts to meet the concerns of Kake
residents by maintaining the potential for economic development on
northern Kuiu Island. The bill also addresses Koscuisko Islanders
concerns by reducing the timber harvest for Sealaska on the island by
6,079 acres, removing old-growth closest to Edna Bay to protect
subsistence hunting, removing lands on the southern island south of
Cape Pole and along the western coast to protect fishermen anchorages,
and on the northern island to protect Shipley Bay and Mount Francis
old-growth timber and karst formations. The change protects the town's
spring needed for potable water in dry weather, guarantees beach fringe
for personal use firewood and should protect areas used by nearby
Naukati residents.
The bill also removes two of five proposed harvest areas at Keete
on the central Prince of Wales Island, protecting 3,070 acres at Mabel
Bay and Kassa. In order to allow Sealaska to complete its entitlement
of commercial forest land, the bill increases harvesting on Tuxekan
Island, but reduces it by 745 acres by protecting lands near Karheen
Lakes on the island's southwest side. It increases selections in areas
south and west of Polk Inlet, at McKenzie Inlet to the east and in an
area south of 12 Mile Arm, all on the central part of the Prince of
Wales. The revised bill also calls for 13,000 plus acres of new land to
be permitted for logging on northern Kuiu Island between Saginaw and
Security Bays and allows selections to continue at Calder and North
Election Creek. In all, the bill will allow Sealaska to select from
80,852 acres of development lands to fulfill their likely entitlement
of about 72,000 acres of timber/development lands, when the final
reserve land pool acreage estimates are finished.
In all of the timber lands, the bill bars Sealaska from any logging
within generally 100 feet of major low-elevation fish streams (Class 1-
A streams), imposing a standard similar to the Forest Service's current
100-foot buffer standard. The prohibition, following a precedent in
ANCSA, however, runs for only five years to give sufficient time to the
State of Alaska to consider whether any change is needed in the Alaska
State Forest Practices Act standards governing timber operations on
state lands which generally requires only a 66-foot buffer.
CONSERVATION AREAS
The bill, in return for these changes in timber lands, creates
conservation areas to prevent logging on 151,565 acres on Kuiu,
Koscuisko, Prince of Wales Island and on Sukkwan and Goat Islands. The
bill specifically protects the 25,403-acre Sarkar Lakes area from
logging on Prince of Wales, protects the Honker Divide canoe route
along the Thorne River (15,586 acres), protects coho salmon habitat
near Eek Lake near Hydaburg, and protects key areas on Goat and Sukkwan
Islands (all totaling 34,644 acres). The bill protects 21,146 acres on
the south shore of the Bay of Pillars on Kuiu Island and 36,703 acres
in the Kushneahin Lake (Lovelace Creek) areas on southwest Kupreanof
Island. The Sarkar Lakes, Honker Divide, Kushneahin Lake and Lovelace
Creek areas all are highest rated for protection by fishermen and
environmental groups in the State. The bill also protects 12,543 acres
of karst formations on Prince of Wales and Koscuisko Islands--meaning
the revised bill protects nearly 18,000 more acres of karst compared to
the original legislation, and it impacts only a few hundred acres of
high value karst in the various selection areas.
ON FUTURE SITES
The amended bill deletes a host of sites to satisfy local and
fishery concerns: Lacy's Cove in Icy Straits, Crab Bay near Tenakee,
Bock Bight near Petersburg, Big Bay south of Sitka, Young Bay near
Juneau, False Island and Upper Tenakee Inlet near Tenakee, Behm Narrows
near Ketchikan, Tlevak Narrows/Turn Point, Port Refugio Village, Ridge
Island Village, Tonowek Narrows/Arena Cove, and Cordova Bay near Prince
of Wales Island, Port Houghton and Walter Island, Pybus Bay south of
Juneau, and in the current bill, Dog Cove near Ketchikan. These
deletions are in addition to previous ones at Kalinin Bay, Poison Bay,
Ellis Point Bay, Halibut Harbor, Security Cove, and William Henry Bay.
The bill leaves only the remaining sites open for Sealaska's
selection: Chicago Harbor near Yakutat, 258 acres; Khantaak Island
Group near Yakutat, 1,054 acres; Redfield Lake near Yakutat, 276 acres;
Cannon Beach near Yakutat, 280 acres; Upper River, south of Yakutat
near the Situk, 81 acres; Ahrnklin River, south of Yakutat, 81 acres;
Harlequin Lake, south of Yakutat, 128 acres; Dry Bay Village, north of
Glacier Bay, 59 acres; Eleanor Island, north of Yakutat, 48 acres; Crab
Island Village at Yakutat, 4 acres; Keku Island near North Kuiu Island,
806 acres; Coho Cove, southeast of Ketchikan, 29 acres; Turnabout
Island Village, south of Admiralty Island, 74 acres.
The bill includes several tidal, small hydro and geothermal sites:
South Inian Pass, Point Lavina side, 20 acres; South Inian Pass, Inian
East, 20 acres; Josephine Lake, near Keete, 40 acres; Spring Creek Hot
Springs on Cleveland Peninsula, 40 acres; and Pegmatite Mountain near
Pelican, 40 acres. This site is unique, in that in response to pleas by
Hoonah residents, Sealaska is being permitted to select the site, but
will be barred from its development for 15 years to give Hoonah,
Pelican and Tenakee time to develop alternative renewable energy power
sources, potentially negating its reason for development, and for there
to be time to determine permitted land uses in ``roadless'' areas of
the forest. For transportation it includes: Whitestone Harbor, NE
Chichagof Island near Hoonah, 315 acres. And for eco-tourism it
includes: Burnett Inlet, South Etolin Island near Wrangell, 16 acres;
Blake Channel near Petersburg, 23 acres; Rodman Bay, west of Angoon on
Baranof Island, 31 acres; Sinitsin Cove, south of Sitka, 46 acres;
Shrimp Bay, north of Ketchikan near Misty Fjords, 229 acres; Port
Camden Village on Kuiu Island, 104 acres; Jackson Island Seasons
Village on S. Sukkwan Island, 20 acres; Aston Island Village on north
Dall Island, 29 acres; Seagull Creek Village, south of Hoonah, 47
acres; Holkam Bay Village, near entrance to Tracy Arm, 44 acres; and
Saginaw Village on northern Kuiu Island, 89 acres. No commercial timber
or mineral development is permitted by the bill in any Future site
areas.
ON SACRED, TRADITIONAL, CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL AND CEMETERY SITES
The revised bill deletes all legislatively-mandated presumptions of
approval for any sacred sites, returning the selection process to
exactly the nomination-approval process created by the 1971 claims
settlement act regulations. The bill does alter the definition of such
sites to allow selection and uses of cultural and educational sites.
Another provision, however, restricts any use of the sacred sites to
historic or educational purposes and requires that they be managed in
the same way as surrounding lands. The bill also includes language to
guarantee that the use limitations for the sites in the bill aren't
permissive, but mandatory.
ACCESS
The bill always required Sealaska to provide the public access for
subsistence and recreational hunting, fishing and hiking across its new
economic development/timber lands, and to guarantee public access to
all roads and trails within its selection areas. The revised bill,
besides requiring public access on all existing (Section 17(b) and 14
(g) easements) also guarantees access across Future and migratory
trails for any legal purpose. The bill provides for access for utility
corridors on and across customary trade and migration routes. And the
bill provides additional access to sacred sites, not following an
existing trail or easement, when there is ``no reasonable alternative''
for access across the property without a new trail. It also clarifies
17(b) easements.
INDIAN COUNTRY
It removes the additional ability for Sealaska to gain grants from
the National Historic Preservation Act and from the Tribal Forest
Protection Act to manage its lands since the concern had been expressed
that making a Native corporation eligible for such grants could impact
the legal issues surrounding the definition of ``Indian Country'' in
Alaska. Sealaska likely will continue to receive NHPA grants for
educational purposes on its sacred and traditional sites, but not for
maintenance of the sites. The definition removes any possibility of the
bill making a change in how Indian Country and tribal sovereign rights
are currently interpreted in the State.
GUIDES
The revised bill guarantees that existing tour/boat, bear, fish and
other outdoor guiding services will receive an additional extension on
their current Forest Service permits to conduct commercial activities
on forest lands after Sealaska receives the lands--provided the
operator meets all current Forest Service requirements. That will
prevent commercial interests from facing the loss of business income
for up to two decades.
CONVEYANCES
To address concerns that Sealaska's conveyances might interrupt the
process for completing Alaska Statehood and ANCSA conveyances of other
corporations, the bill requires that Sealaska largely obtain its timber
land conveyances within two years, but subjects all of the Future and
sacred sites to a ``mutually agreeable'' timetable for government
conveyance between the corporation and the BLM.
Another amendment limits to 15 years the time for Sealaska to make
its final sacred site selections to use up the remainder of the 3,600
acres of such selections it is promised by the bill, except it will
retain selection rights for up to 10 percent of the lands in case of
future archeological finds. That gives the corporation time for future
work in the region to prove the location of currently unknown sites.
The bill requires that only sites that meet the historic definition of
sacred sites under ANCSA be conveyed to the corporation and that the
size of the conveyances be the smallest possible to protect the
historic nature of the sites.
Under the bill Sealaska will be selecting about 29,000 acres of
second-growth timber, which, in conjunction with sacred and Futures
sites, means that it will receive about 38,000 fewer acres of old-
growth forest lands, than if it had selected all of its remaining lands
from within the original ANCSA selection withdrawal ``boxes.'' The bill
protects all public road and trail easements (section 4(d)(1)(A) and
4(d)(1)(B) of the proposed Act. Sealaska will continue to share its
timber revenues with all Alaska Natives, regardless of where they live,
in accordance with the 7(i) revenue sharing provisions of ANCSA.
Sealaska already has shared more than $315 million with other
corporations under terms of the 7(i) requirements.
The final bill also adopts a number of suggestions to language made
by Southeast groups to clarify terms in the text. Those changes
include:
Acceptance of a comment that a conservation system unit
should be defined, and use of the group's suggestion of Section
102(4) of ANILCA as its meaning.
Acceptance that the bill should define a LUD II and use of
the definition in place when the most recent 14 LUD IIs were
created by the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990.
Correction of the references to sites with traditional and
recreational use values, changing the titles to sites with
traditional, recreational and renewable energy use value to
provide clarity.
Acceptance of a group's language to clarify that the right
of Sealaska to regulate public access for various reasons
specified in the language is limited to the right of Sealaska
to limit access granted by the legislation above and beyond
public access rights that would otherwise be granted under
ANCSA.
Removal of an incorrect reference to LUD I, since the term
is no longer valid under the Forest Service policy expressed in
the 2008 revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan.
And acceptance of a change by a resident clarifying language
on sacred site access in Section 4.
I have continued to work for passage of this legislation because I
am absolutely convinced that it is in the interest of all Alaskans to
see this bill approved to expedite the completion of land conveyances
in the Panhandle.
First, almost no one in the region says that Sealaska should not
promptly receive its final conveyances. Sealaska's more than 20,000
Native shareholders settled their aboriginal claims to their part of
the more than 325 million acres of Alaska in 1971 based on the promise
that the government would give them clear ``fee-simple'' title to lands
that they could use to better the lives of Natives, while protecting
their Native heritage. But many opponents of the legislation have
argued that Sealaska should be forced to select within the 10 selection
``boxes.'' The problem with that is that Congress has made that largely
impossible. Under the 1976 amendments to the settlement act, if
Sealaska presses to finalize its selection of 32,000 acres in the
Yakutat area, and if the Governor of Alaska opposes the selection as
past governors have said they would, then Sealaska will have to return
to Congress to seek new selections to offset that denial of conveyance.
That is especially the case after passage of the Alaska Land Conveyance
Acceleration Act in 2004 that required all corporations to finalize
their selections three years ago, the corporation now having no means
to replace the Yakutat selections should the prohibition against
ownership along the Situk River--America's premium Steelhead fishing
stream--be invoked.
Some have dismissed the importance of protecting acreages in the
selection boxes on environmental grounds. But that ignores that the
Forest Service has placed 63,484 of those acres into old-growth
Reserves for wildlife habitat protection, perhaps to deal with
Endangered Species Act concerns over the wolf and goshawk. And it
ignores that the fishing community has listed two of the drainages
inside the selection boxes among their top 100 priorities for fish
drainage protection: the Situk River corridor and Bostwick on Gravina
Island. Since it is literally impossible for Sealaska to select any
acreage in the Tongass to fulfill its land settlement that will not
impact any existing old-growth preserves, on net this bill is good for
the environment, especially when the eight new fishery conservation
areas created by the act are considered. If the bill passes Sealaska
will be selecting timber lands in just five of the top drainages as
listed by the Nature Conservancy and in four listed by Trout Unlimited,
but six of the top 100 drainages will be protected permanently by the
newly created conservation areas.
Some have complained that the bill breaks ``precedence'' and
perhaps allows the other 11 Native regional corporations to seek
revised land selections. But that ignores several facts. First, all of
the other corporation chief executive officers have acknowledged that
passage of this bill will not set a precedent for them, since none of
them have faced the land selection problems of Sealaska. While the
corporations still are awaiting tentative conveyance of more than 4
million acres, only Sealaska, which selected under Section 14, not
Section 12 of ANCSA, is awaiting such a relatively large percentage of
conveyance to complete its entitlement. While Sealaska may be waiting
to gain nearly 30 percent of its final land conveyance, most every
other corporation is awaiting conveyance of a tiny fraction of their
lands, since the reserve conveyance pool represents a far smaller
percentage of their overall selections. Secondly, land patterns in the
Interior of the state in 1971 were not nearly as complex as found in
Southeast (with the exception of the Anchorage Bowl) because there were
no long-term timber sale contracts and few national parks, largely only
Denali National Park, in place outside of Southeast, prior to passage
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980. The
timber contracts substantially complicated Sealaska's task of selecting
only 5,000-acre or larger tracts, while other corporations had less
difficulty with the 5,000-acre requirement given the greater size of
their selection areas.
Some have complained that the bill will complicate land management
in the Tongass. But there is no reason that conveyance of any of the
future, sacred or trail sites will do anything but lessen Forest
Service enforcement responsibilities in the Tongass, just as the
relinquishment of the 86 sacred sites that Sealaska has already taken
title to based on the 1971 act has freed the Forest Service from
responsibility for protecting cultural artifacts on those sites.
There have been complaints that conveyance of land to Sealaska will
damage the public's access to the land. But that ignores that for the
vast bulk of Sealaska's selections, all of the development/timber
lands, that Sealaska as part of this legislation has accepted firm
requirements to permit unfettered access for subsistence hunting and
fishing and recreation--something not required of any other regional or
village corporations by the 1971 act. Even on Future sites and sacred
sites, the public has access on all pre-existing trails as required by
the 17 (b) and 14(g) easement requirements of ANCSA. By the bill
Sealaska must permit access to any lands where access might be
``blocked'' by its selections. While there have been complaints that
Sealaska may try to close access unfairly--invoking the clause that
allows it to close access should public safety be impacted by active
logging operations--the bill likely will result in Sealaska not logging
more than about 2,500 acres a year on average since the corporation is
committed to putting these lands and its existing 189,000 acres of
previously logged lands (only 81,000 acres of which have been clear-
cut) onto a sustainable management regime that will allow annual
sustainable harvest in perpetuity, while protecting the forest
resources through the use of modern best-management practices. That
means that no more than one-hundredth of a percent of the Tongass could
ever be closed at any given time to public access. While there were
complaints that personal use firewood collections needed in villages
such as Edna Bay, Point Baker and Port Protection could have been
impacted, the timber boundaries have been rearranged to remove the
prime collection areas for each village from possible Sealaska control.
Opponents have argued that the bill has allowed Sealaska to
``cherrypick'' the best timber tracts, or conversely that the
corporation has selected the best second-growth tracts that could harm
the Forest Service's ability to transition to a ``young-growth''
strategy in the rest of the forest. While the bill is allowing Sealaska
to select from about 44,000 acres of old-growth timber, that is far
less than the 112,000 acres of old growth contained on the lands inside
of their selection areas. More importantly, should Sealaska harvest all
44,000 acres, it will be harvesting just 3 percent of the 1.13 million
acres of ``old-growth'' in the Tongass suitable for harvest under the
most recent Tongass Land Management Plan (2008), preferred alternative
11. Under the existing TLMP, while 2.5 million acres of the forest are
in the commercial timber base, only far less than 700,000 acres are
ever scheduled to be impacted (before consideration of implementation
of a roadless rule), while 10.8 million acres of the forest are already
fully protected.
Concerning the fear that Sealaska might be taking too much second-
growth, there are 428,972 acres of second growth of all age classes in
the Tongass, logged since the start of World War II. Under current
Forest Service land standards only 243,922 are ``suitable''/available
for timber harvest (57% of them), and of those only 65,518 acres are in
suitable areas for harvest and older than 40 years, and thus closest to
second-growth potential. Under this bill Sealaska will gain 28,576
acres of second growth and 17,536 acres of ``suitable'' second growth
that is more than 40 years in age. That means Sealaska is receiving
just 7 percent of all second-growth in the forest and just 9 percent of
the suitable second-growth that is over 40 years of age. That means the
Forest Service still has 91 percent of all of the suitable older
second-growth to use for its transition to a young-growth strategy.
There have been a host of concerns that the ability of Sealaska to
select Future sites will spoil the ability of Alaskans to access
cherished recreation sites. For years one of the leading complaints of
groups was that Sealaska was focusing on its timber operations. This
bill was specifically crafted with the goal of allowing Sealaska to
diversify and move into non-timber business ventures, such as eco-
tourism or renewable energy development, to reduce logging pressures on
the forest. But the ability of Alaskans to enjoy the forest should not
be impacted by the bill. The bill requires Sealaska to permit some
access across Future sites under terms of the 17(b) and 14(g) easements
guaranteed by ANCSA. More importantly, Sealaska's selections outside of
the original selection box areas are relatively small in size. While
more than 36 such sites have been deleted from the bill in response to
public concerns, of the 30 that remain only three at Whitestone Harbor,
Shrimp Bay and Port Houghton Village are larger than 100 acres in size.
All others are small enough not to impact public access to any of the
recreational features that Southeasterners have grown to love, and
there are seldom more than one site near any population center in the
region. Access for fishing up creeks should be protected.
Others have expressed concerns that the bill will harm the local
economies of smaller communities, generally on Prince of Wales Island
and the one town on Koscuisko Island. I truly do not believe that to be
the case. Admittedly the original version of the bill introduced in the
Senate in 2008 and 2009 did call for Sealaska to take private ownership
of more than 22,000 acres of timber on northern Prince of Wales Island.
The proposed logging in Lab Bay, Buster Creek and Red Bay might have
affected subsistence hunting and personal use firewood collection that
could have affected Point Baker and Port Protection residents. To meet
the concerns of those small communities the bill was revised last year
to leave those tracts in Forest Service control. With those lands still
open to Forest Service commercial logging efforts, the bill should have
little impact on Forest Service timber sale preparation jobs based in
the Thorne Bay ranger district. While there were concerns about the
bill's impacts on the economy of Thorne Bay, and it taking timber away
from Forest Service sales to the Viking mill at Klawock, the current
legislation should have minimal impacts on the community and numerous
small saw operations located there and no impacts on Klawock's mill, in
that many of the Sealaska selection areas are now located to the south
in the boundaries of the Craig ranger district.
Clearly there have been concerns about the bill voiced by residents
of Edna Bay, the tiny community on east Koscuisko Island that grew out
of its history as a logging camp. While most of the lands contained in
the bill are classified as LUD III's and open to logging by the U.S.
Forest Service and its timber program, at least under the terms of the
2008 Tongass Land Management Plan, Edna Bay residents feel that it far
more likely that the lands will be harvested by Sealaska than by
federal timber sale operators. To meet their concerns this bill dropped
more than 6,000 acres of potential selections by Sealaska, including
several thousand closest to the village's western and northern
boundary. While the bill does allow Sealaska to potentially select just
over 19,000 acres on the island, it only includes less than 7,500 acres
of old growth timber. The bill was adjusted to protect anchorages at
Shipley Bay, Halibut Harbor and at Cape Pole and the trolling grounds
at Hardscrabble and Trout Creek used by Edna Bay fishermen, and the
bill dropped lands north and east of the community to protect
subsistence hunting areas used by residents and the location of a
spring needed to provide potable water to the village's residents
during dry periods. The bill also provides for an alternate log
transfer facility north of Edna Bay at Van Sant Cove as alternatives to
the log transfer facility in Edna Bay reserved for future use by the
Forest Service. The bill affords Sealaska that same use and use of the
roads to access that facility as well. It is hard to understand how
timber operations by Sealaska could destroy the village's way of life
given that the community was the result of logging that occurred on
south end of the island in 1945, 46, 55, 56, 60, 62, 63, 70, 73, 75,
76, 77, 78, and as recently as 1997.
Some have argued that the bill should require primary manufacturing
of wood, rather than permit ``round-log'' export of timber, as allowed
from all private lands in the state. Given current timber market
conditions, some round-log export, is necessary for sales to be
economic from Alaska. And Sealaska has shown that the amount of total
timber jobs are nearly identical between an export operation and a
primary manufacturing industry format--the only difference being the
location of jobs, and perhaps how many jobs are held by Alaska Natives.
Now the bill has triggered new debate over the wisdom in 1971 of
Congress giving the Native corporations control over sacred sites,
compared to allowing tribes to control those lands. That decision was
made by Congress, apparently out of the believe that since the claims
act largely extinguished Indian Country in Alaska that the corporations
would have the greater economic ability to care for the sites than
tribes--especially given that the bill was specifically aimed at
lessening reservation status for Alaska Natives. This bill is simply
trying to fulfill the promise and spirit of the 1971 act. While it is
always possible that Alaskans will reach a new consensus on Native land
ownership and tribal authority and resources in the future, until that
crystallizes, it is only right that Sealaska have the ability that the
other 11 state Native corporations have had to select sacred sites
within their overall land conveyance allocations. The corporation has
offered to jointly manage such sites with all local tribes through
memorandums of understanding, but for Congress to mandate such an
action would violate the original aboriginal land settlement terms
where Native corporations received their lands ``fee-simple'' without
additional federal strings being attached. Given that Alaskans normally
do not like federal regulation, I have tried to follow the principles
of the original claims act in the drafting of this bill.
I have, however, required Sealaska to permit far greater public
access than required of all other Native regional and village
corporations on the new lands they will claim, have required them to
keep all roads and trails open for public access (except when safety is
a legal consideration during logging operations) and have followed a
precedent from ANCSA, requiring Sealaska to observe an 100-foot buffer
against logging along major salmon streams for five years. Admittedly
fishermen are concerned that a five-year limitation is contrary to
ongoing effectiveness monitoring nearly continuously since 1992, and
nearly 20 years of data that shows that the Alaska Forest Resources and
Protection Act is effective in protecting anadromous fish habitat and
is a violation of their freedom to utilize their lands promised in the
claims act and another sign of the federal government imposing
patronizing requirements. My hope is that the five-year prohibition
will give the public time to encourage the state's Board of Forestry to
review state standards and change those standards, if any new forest
research shows that changes are needed to protect the environment and
fish habitat. Clearly there is still unhappiness over past logging
practices in Southeast Alaska, many of the problems occurring more than
20 years ago, that continue to color perceptions over the ability of
timber harvesting to coexist without damage to fishery resources.
The bill, in my view, is required to allow Sealaska shareholders to
gain access to their lands in a timely manner. It is also vital for the
survival of a diversified forest products industry in Southeast, which
is vital for continuation of a diversified economy in the Panhandle.
Right now, Sealaska's existing timber operations are supporting more
than 40 percent of the support industries and infrastructure needed by
the rest of the private timber industry in the region, and some of the
non-timber industry. If Sealaska is forced to shutter its operations
over the next two years, there may not be sufficient economies of scale
left to permit Viking Lumber at Klawock or Icy Straits Timber at Hoonah
to be able to afford to continue operations given their need for
support services, from loggers and equipment operators and repair firms
to transportation and road construction workers.
Clearly the current timber industry is a shadow of its former self.
Where the industry once fueled 3,500 direct jobs, it now fuels a few
hundred from federal lands. But Sealaska's presence is vital not only
because it provides more than 360 direct jobs with a payroll of more
than $15 million from it operations--nearly 500 jobs and $21 million in
payroll when indirect employment is added--but because it funds the
very infrastructure that will be vital for the Forest Service to
attempt to transition to a series of habitat restoration and young-
growth timber sales in the future. Federal sales will be cost-effective
only if Sealaska is present to share road and support facility costs--
and the bill requires Sealaska to provide access to all log transfer
facilities and roads that it acquires as a result of the legislation.
Some have argued that the bill ``gives away'' the roads and the
timber infrastructure that federal taxpayers have paid to install. But
given the provisions for road easements in the bill and the current
Forest Service plans to cut timber harvests in the region from the up
to 267 mmbf a year called for the Tongass Land Management Plan in 2008
to a rumored level of perhaps just 50 mmbf, it is far more likely that
the roads will be better maintained for public access in private/state
hands than federal hands, especially given the proposed road closure
plans, where the Forest Service has proposed to close and decommission
hundreds of miles of logging roads in Southeast Alaska. In all
probability the State of Alaska will be more involved in maintaining
road standards in the Tongass regardless of the bill's conveyances.
And recently complaints have surfaced that renewable energy sites:
hydroelectric, geothermal or marine hydrokinetic sites should not be
transferred to private hands from federal ownership. While it is true
that holders of such sites on federal lands do have to pay a small
lease payment to the federal treasury, in general, it is more likely
that utilities and renewable energy developers will be able to raise
capital to build non-carbon emitting geothermal, hydroelectric and
ocean energy power sites if the lands are in private ownership than on
leased federal property, where development may require lengthy
permitting and approval processes. But such a transfer to Sealaska does
not lessen the environmental standards that such projects will still
have to meet under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requirements.
As I have often said the Sealaska bill has been controversial in
the region since every acre of the Tongass is precious to someone. But
Sealaska by law has the right to select additional acreage in the
Tongass for the benefit of its shareholders. And this bill completes
the settlement act conveyance process that has had major benefits for
all Alaskans. By settlement of aboriginal land claims, ANCSA paved the
way to construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline and the roughly
$160 billion that the State of Alaska has received in petroleum
revenues since 1977. According to the Institute for Social and Economic
Research, the average Alaska family of four between the Alaska
Permanent Fund Dividend, wage boosts and public spending fueled by
petroleum, gains about $50,000 in added revenues yearly. None of that
would have occurred without the claims act having settled aboriginal
land claims. It is ironic that without passage of this legislation, the
Trans Alaska Pipeline could run out of oil before completion of
Sealaska's ANCSA land entitlement.
It is long past time that Sealaska shareholders get the lands they
were promised nearly 40 years ago. I am supporting this bill as a way
to do that in the least environmentally and socially damaging way and
in the way to best protect the region's economy and the lifestyle of
all Alaskans who live, work and play in the Tongass National Forest.
If this bill doesn't pass--and soon--we, this Congress and this
Administration, will have set up a system that will impoverish
Southeast Alaska Natives and the region's economy as a whole for a long
time. Perhaps with the best of intentions: of trying to speed the
diversification of the Panhandle's economy, or of trying to protect our
artificially created old-growth preserves--when 96 percent of the
forest already is fully protected--we will have harmed the chances for
renewable energy development, or of a shift to a small-diameter second-
growth timber industry, since Sealaska is clearly in the best position
to lead such a dream to reality.
And if this bill doesn't pass we definitely will have proven, once
more, that this government should not be trusted to do what is right by
Native peoples. That is why I have stuck with this bill, and why I
continue to work for and urge its speedy passage.
Senator Wyden. Senator Barrasso, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for scheduling this hearing today. One of the
bills on the agenda, specifically S. 375, the Good Neighbor
Forestry Act, is legislation that we've considered during the
last three sessions of Congress. It's a bipartisan bill, a
common sense bill, bipartisan that our co-sponsors are Senator
Tim Johnson, as well as Orrin Hatch, Mike Enzi, Mike Lee and
John Thune.
S. 375 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with
State foresters. The bill authorizes State foresters to provide
certain forest, rangeland and watershed restoration and
protection services. They do it in collaboration with Federal
agencies. I call it the Good Neighbor Forestry Act because it
brings together State and Federal agencies to work
cooperatively.
We need to work together as neighbors to address land
management challenges. There are clearly challenges out there.
Wyoming forests, like those of all Western States are facing
unprecedented challenges. These challenges such as preventing
wildfires, removing invasive species, improving watersheds and
conserving habitat require cooperation across boundary lines.
The bill is very simple. The Good Neighbor Forestry Act
allows the Forest Service or BLM to work with Western States to
complete work that crosses ownership boundaries. This bill will
provide an on the ground management tool that our Federal,
State and private lands desperately need. Good Neighbor
authority has been enjoyed by the States of Colorado and Utah
for most of the decade and it works.
Good Neighbor projects have worked well in those States.
They've met environmental goals. They've provided benefits to
the local communities.
I'll just give you a brief example, Mr. Chairman. Leafy
Spurge has overtaken an entire drainage. The State owns the
land on one side of the creek. The Forest Service owns land on
the other side. We can't effectively manage this invasive weed
unless we cooperatively treat the whole landscape.
If the State clears out all the Spurge on its side of the
creek 1 year, but the Forest Service doesn't address the
problem that same year. Then the Leafy Spurge continues to
spread. So the State's work and money and resources will have
gone to waste. A year or two later then the Spurge will have
reclaimed the State land and many more acres further down the
mountain drainage, causing more and more problems.
So we need to have a coordinated effort. The problem can be
solved with this basic Good Neighbor authority. The Forest
Service could prepare a cooperative agreement with the State
for invasive species control. They should.
The State could then send workers to clear the entire
drainage area of Spurge. Good Neighbor authority allows us to
effectively address the problem and use management funds
efficiently. Both the State and Federal land management goals
are met. It's a win/win situation.
And I'm sure we're going to hear some concerns, though,
that this Good Neighbor authority could run astray. I believe
the concerns are overblown. This Good Neighbor authority simply
provides Federal agencies with the ability to enter into
cooperative agreements.
It doesn't cede decisionmaking authorities to the State. S.
375 does nothing more, nothing less than the authority already
in place in Utah as well as in Colorado. It would simply expand
the use of that authority to other States west of the 100th
meridian.
You know, last Congress, Mr. Harris Sherman, USDA
Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, was very
supportive of this authority in his testimony. In responding to
a question for the record he wrote, ``I further believe
national Good Neighbor authority is warranted to help address
forest health issues, that challenge Eastern forests across
diverse land ownerships.'' He went on to say, ``In these times
of limited resources, it's important to leverage work force and
technical capacities all within existing environmental laws and
regulations.'' That's the end of the quote.
So I'm pleased to see the USDA's support. I appreciate
Secretary of Interior Salazar's leadership in supporting Good
Neighbor authority. The Administration has the right idea here.
We're eager to work with them.
I'd like to welcome each of the witnesses. I look forward
to the questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. I know a lot of time
has been put in on this Good Neighbor forestry issue. We'll
continue to work with you and see what we can do to get this
worked out.
We want to welcome both of our colleagues, Senator Tester,
Senator Begich. I understand both of you have an interest in
perhaps sitting with the panel after you're done or at some
point in the afternoon. You're welcome to do that.
I guess Senator Tester, by virtue of seniority gets to go
first. Although Senator Begich may be under the gun in terms of
his schedule. Senator Tester, you're being a gracious soul,
would it be acceptable to you to let Senator Begich go first?
Senator Begich, welcome. We'll make your prepared remarks
part of the record. You go forth as you choose.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
Tester, for allowing me to go first. Thank you, Chairman Wyden,
Ranking Member Barrasso and my colleague Senator Murkowski.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today
on a bill important to Alaska. As you mentioned I have a
committee I have to chair at three o'clock in the Capitol, so I
will be brief.
I'm a co-sponsor of S. 730, the Sealaska Lands Entitlement
Act and support it and its speedy passage. Nearly 2 years ago I
appeared before you on behalf on an earlier version of the
bill. As you likely know, Sealaska Corporation, the national--
the native regional corporation for the native people of
Southeast Alaska has not completed its land claims. We made a
promise, as mentioned by my colleague, more than 40 years ago
to ensure that the Alaska Native Land Claims Act and Settlement
Act and we are far past due in keeping that promise.
The bill before you is an attempt by Sealaska to rebalance
their remaining land selections. It attempts to better balance
their responsibility as stewards of their lands with their
economic responsibility to shareholders and the communities of
Southeast, where their shareholders live. Over the past 2 years
Sealaska has done much of what I hope they would. They have
engaged Federal agencies, interest groups and local
communities.
I also want to recognize the hard work that Senator
Murkowski and her staff have put into this bill. They have met
with Alaskans all over Southeast to hear from folks on all
sides of the bill. The bill before you today, S. 730, reflects
a significant compromise and accommodation of those interests.
I will leave it to those with more time to catalog the list
of those changes as Senator Murkowski did in her statement. I
have no doubt you will hear testimony today suggesting it is
not perfect. It may not be. But it does reflect Sealaska's two
solid years of listening and working to make it better.
I hope you will respect Sealaska's efforts to resolve these
outstanding issues of land entitlements. Likewise, as the
Forest Service reshapes its management of the Tongass National
Forest, our Nation's largest at 17 million acres, the size of
West Virginia. I hope you will hear today the same level of
interest and compromise and working through their differences.
This region of Southeast Alaska faces enormous challenges.
Again, as mentioned by my colleagues, 16 percent unemployment,
little infrastructure and sky high energy costs. If we are
serious about the region's economy that effort has to come from
both the Forest Service, which owns most of the land and
Sealaska, the largest private landowner, working together. This
legislation can be an important piece to reinvigorate the
Southeast Alaska economy. It can aid in the transition of an
important industry and the management of a forest that serves
as the backbone for all the drivers of our Southeast economy,
wood products, tourism, commercial and sport fishing, mining
and subsistence.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this
opportunity to give you brief comments on my support for the
legislation in the hope that the subcommittee and the committee
in total will move the legislation in a speedy manner. Again,
thank you for allowing the record, my statement to be also in
the record.
Senator Wyden. Senator Begich, thank you. A very helpful
statement. I don't have any questions. Colleagues, any
questions?
We'll excuse you then at this time.
Senator Begich. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Alright. We're joined by the chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee. We are always glad to have the
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee here.
I would just point out to colleagues, one of the most
important measures that started in this committee was the
County Payments legislation. That law simply would not be on
the books today if it wasn't for the extraordinarily helpful
efforts of Chairman Baucus. So with it coming up again, he
knows we're going to be having another mountain to climb. I
just want to appreciate all his help and he is always welcome
in this subcommittee.
Chairman Baucus, please proceed as you'd like.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for that effort, frankly that was a joint Western States
effort, helping to get, explain, convince, some of our
colleagues in other parts of the country the importance of that
legislation. Thank you for your hard work to help make that
happen.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here to speak on behalf of S. 233. What's
that?
S. 233 is the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011.
I'm very pleased to be joined here by my good friend, Senator
Tester, who is also a co-sponsor in this legislation with me. I
might diverge slightly and say, I also strongly support the
bill that Senator Tester's going to be testifying on later
today. It's good for Montana, especially it's good for our
State's economy.
Jon has worked very hard on this legislation, spent a lot
of time all around Montana talking to all the groups. It's a
good step forward. I hope this subcommittee can look favorably
upon that bill because it's good for Montana and for the
country.
I might begin on this bill, S. 233, by explaining that when
the Glacier National Park was created back in 1910, Americans
enshrined an incredible natural resource in Montana and a
little bit up into Canada. I mean, it is incredible. Frankly, a
lot of people know about Yosemite. They know about Yellowstone.
They don't know a lot about Glacier.
I think Glacier is really the great treasure. In fact our
State, we call ourselves the Treasure State. It's always meant
more that gold and silver and forest products. When the
Waterton National Glacier National Peace Park was created in
1932 Canadians and Americans alike endorsed the further
principle of partnering to protect our outdoor heritage.
We are so lucky to be Americans. Other countries don't do
this. We have our national parks. We have our National Forest
Service. It is BLM lands and public lands which we protect and
manage in a way that makes most sense for our people. So we're
incredibly lucky to have these resources.
It's important, especially for our kids and for our
grandkids to be able to share all that too, in the same way
that we do. Properly, some of it has to be managed in a way to
produce. But some of it is managed in a way just to protect for
future generations.
Like many pioneering conservation efforts, all these
initial actions, that is, Glacier Park, were not the end of the
story. In the many decades since, this principle of endorsing
the outdoors has been tested. But it's been reaffirmed, but
risks remain. Today it falls to us once more to protect the
lands around Glacier National Park.
In this case I'm talking about the Western border. It's
called the North Fork of the Flathead River. It flows down from
Canada, one of the three forks into the Flathead Lake. This
North Fork as well as the Middle Fork and South Fork are just
as special.
You can't believe the number of people in Montana and
around the country, especially in the summer come to raft and
fish and hike, ride horseback in these tributaries and also
into the Flathead, main Flathead River and into Flathead Lake.
So it falls upon us once again to make sure that this is
properly protected. The million acres drained by the North Fork
of the Flathead River are simply magnificent.
It's very hard for me, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Murkowski, to really explain just how beautiful and special
this place is. We all know a lot of rivers. We see a lot of
rivers. But, you know, there are rivers and there are rivers.
This is really a special river. You have to almost be there to
understand what I'm trying to convey.
I sometimes float it myself and I'm amazed. It's a fast
flowing river. It reminds me a little bit of, Senator
Murkowski, of the Yukon.
Once I was on the Yukon. Just stunned by how fast flowing
it was. How cold and clear and deep it was. It's an amazing
river. The North Fork of the Flathead is very, very similar.
Snow and ice of the Northwest Glacier National Park melt
into it. The watershed, to this day, remains the way it was
centuries ago. Montanans and others from around the country
continually have enjoyed hunting and fishing and just
recreating in the area.
Back in 1975 I was a green behind the ears, mere Member of
Congress. I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River
as a wild and scenic river. That's kind of where I cut my teeth
on the North Fork. There were some folks, to be honest,
landowners, who didn't like that designation, wild and scenic.
I guarantee you, dollars to donuts, today they're very
happy we produced that legislation because it has helped
preserve that river. I began along that year to protect the
North Fork and the larger watershed of the Flathead that I
think it's among the most protected on the continent. No energy
development has reached production stages in either the U.S. or
in Canada along this watershed. It just hasn't happened.
And despite that tradition of conservation the North Fork
has remained vulnerable, especially as coal prices have been
high. It's across the border up into Canada. The temptation to
mine all that coal which was mined, I might say, years ago. As
recently as 2004, there's roadwork in exploration for coal
deposits in headwaters of the watershed in British Columbia.
But today we have a rare opportunity. Based on consensus
there's agreement here. All groups favor this. This is not a
controversial piece of legislation, the consensus about the
wisdom of keeping the North Fork pristine.
The challenge of doing so is twofold.
First, meaningful conservation requires parallel and
commiserate actions by Canada. Canada has done that. They're
protecting their portion up in British Columbia.
The Premier made a throne statement. That just means it's
pretty significant. That means it's serious. It means it's like
legislation, not just administrative action to be repealed.
This is, in effect, legislation, to preserve their portion of
the river that is in British Columbia.
Second, the complex history of Federal management requires
a lot of independent steps. They've all been taken. I've flown
up there, been up there, our Governor, to Vancouver, State,
province.
I've talked to Secretary Clinton about this. They've acted.
Secretary Salazar, all the relevant Federal and State and
provincial organizations have come together in agreement. In
fact an MOU was signed between British Columbia and Montana to
protect their side which is parallel with the Federal efforts
in Canada, the United States to protect our side.
Part of this really is working with the oil and gas
industry. Early this year oil and gas--and last year too, oil
and gas companies voluntarily relinquished 4 out of 5 leased
acres in the U.S. section of the watershed. That is, they just
volunteered without compensation. They volunteered.
It's important because we are then showing the Canadians,
we, on our side of the border are protecting. So we're ask you
on the Canadian side to protect. These are leases that energy
companies would never utilize. They leased the land up a long
time ago. But they knew there would be no production. That's
why they're relinquished.
I commend a couple of companies who took the lead. Conoco
Phillips, Chevron are two which owned--had most of the lease
acreage. There are a couple minor companies and individuals
left who haven't given up their leases yet. But for the most
part I think it's 80 percent of the leased acreage has been
voluntarily relinquished on the North Fork. I commend them.
Montanans of all stripes, from business owners, local
Chamber of Commerce, birdwatchers, hunters, anglers, all have
endorsed this bill. Given often contentious politics of public
lands, particularly the private endorsement of the bill by
businesses like Pole Bridge Mercantile on the historic KM
Building in Kalispell and energy companies, I mentioned Conoco
Phillips and Chevron, who could otherwise stand to benefit from
selling fossil fuels in the North Fork. The fact is this bill
is not controversial.
It is, to repeat, just all group supported. I don't know of
a single person or a single group that opposes it. Why? Because
this area is just so special. I mean, it's a no brainer.
So we're trying to get this legislation passed in
conjunction with the private actions just to show Canada and
others that by withdrawing, by prohibiting future leases on the
Federal land it does not stop energy involvement. There will be
no energy development. No company in its right mind would want
to develop along the North Fork of the Flathead whether it's
private acreage or whether it's leased in public lands. It
would just be opposed so much. It would just be such an
outrage.
A small anecdote. I was speaking in Montana a couple years
ago about environmental efforts. But taking just the other side
of the Rocky Mountains over in the East, we call it the Eastern
Front. I was speaking at a location near Kalispell. A lot of
people in Montana there, a lot of out of staters were there. I
talked about the Eastern Front. Nobody seemed to care.
I said, by the way, we're also going to protect the North
Fork River. Just an eruption of applause. People so want to
protect the North Fork of the Flathead River. It's that
important to them.
So, Mr. Chairman, the ranking member, thank you so much.
This is just one special thing that we could do for ourselves,
more importantly for our kids and grandkids. I just urge
favorable treatment. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator From Montana
Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for the opportunity to testify in
support of S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011. I
am pleased to be joined here by my good friend Senator Jon Tester, who
is co-sponsoring this important bill with me.
When Glacier National Park was created in 1910, Americans enshrined
an incredible natural treasure in Montana. The ``Treasure State'' has
always meant much more than mere gold or silver. When the Waterton-
Glacier International Peace Park was created in 1932, Canadians and
Americans alike endorsed the further principal of partnering to protect
our outdoor heritage. Yet like so many pioneering conservation efforts,
these initial actions were not the end of the story. In the many
decades since, this endorsement has been tested often--and re-affirmed
each time. But risks remain. Today, it falls to us once more to protect
the lands around Glacier National Park. The North Fork Watershed
Protection Act of 2011 is the next and necessary step.
The million acres drained by the North Fork of the Flathead River
are simply a magnificent place. The snow and ice of northwest Glacier
National Park melt into the North Fork. The watershed to this day
remains the way it was centuries ago. And Montanans have always enjoyed
hiking, rafting, fishing, and hunting in it.
In 1975, I introduced the bill to designate the Flathead River as a
Wild and Scenic River--it took one year, and I began a lifelong effort
to protect the North Fork. The larger watershed of the Flathead River
system is among the most protected on the continent. No energy
development project has reached production stages in either the U.S. or
Canadian portions of the watershed. Despite that tradition of
conservation, the North Fork in particular has remained vulnerable at
key points to energy development. As recently as 2004, roadwork and
exploration for coal deposits was undertaken in the headwaters of the
watershed in British Columbia.
Today, we have a rare opportunity to act based on a consensus about
the wisdom of keeping the North Fork pristine. The challenge of doing
so is two-fold: first, meaningful conservation requires parallel and
commensurate actions by Canada; second, the complex history of federal
management requires several independent steps to protect the watershed.
We are at historic moment on both fronts. First: as of last year,
at both the state-provincial level and the national level, Americans
and Canadians have committed to reciprocal conservation of the North
Fork. This level of international agreement is in keeping with the
grand history of cooperation in Glacier and Waterton. Second: as of
early this year, oil and gas companies have voluntarily relinquished
four out of five leased acres in the U.S. section of the watershed. I
commend these companies, whose testimony is in the record, for leading
the way. It is time for Congress to follow suit and withdraw these
lands from future leasing for all energy development.
Montanans of all stripes--business owners, birdwatchers, hunters,
anglers, and others--have endorsed this bill. Given the often
contentious politics of public lands, I note with particular pride the
endorsement of this bill by local businesses and chambers of commerce,
including the Polebridge Mercantile and the Historic KM Building in
Kalispell, as well as energy companies like ConocoPhillips and Chevron
who could otherwise stand to benefit from selling the fossil fuels in
the North Fork. Some places are simply too special.
On a continent rich in natural resources--whose extraction affords
us a high quality of life--Americans have retained the wisdom of self-
restraint. The North Fork of the Flathead River is the beneficiary of
that restraint. All Americans--we in this room as much as anyone--are
the beneficiaries of that wisdom. We are rich in more than just
resources. The North Fork is a testament to that. It is a treasured
landscape, and this bill would keep it that way.
Senator Wyden. Chairman Baucus, I strongly support your
legislation. When we had our markup previously I spoke out in
favor of it strongly. I will continue to do so. You have
convinced me that the Glacier and the North Fork are true
jewels of the West. We're going to get it done this time.
As a member of your committee, I know how busy you are this
time of year. What's your pleasure? I don't know if colleagues
have questions.
Senator Baucus. Oh, I'm here. I'm at your disposal, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Whatever is your pleasure? We can hear from
Senator Tester. I don't have any questions. I am strongly in
support of your legislation. We're going to pass it.
Would you like to be part of the discussion with Senator
Tester on his measure? What's your pleasure?
Senator Baucus. This is Senator Tester's bill. I'll let
Senator Tester handle his bill. I mentioned I strongly support
it.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Senator Baucus. I don't think any Senator has worked as
hard for good solid balanced legislation as he has.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Do colleagues have questions for Chairman
Baucus?
Alright, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, again. We're
going to get your bill out of this committee and get it on the
President's desk.
Senator Baucus. But if any of you have any individual
questions you want to ask me. I mentioned Senator, we talked
privately about this a little bit. If you have any follow up
questions, you know.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Senator Baucus. I'm available. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Alright. Thank you, Chairman Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Senator Tester, welcome.
Before you begin your presentation I just want you to know
how much I appreciate your effort to try to bring everybody in
Montana together on this issue. I think we are very much
kindred spirits. We've talked about this often because I think
Montana and Oregon are very much linked in our efforts to
really help forge a new path with respect to forestry, you
know, in the West.
In our States, people just cannot afford to wait any
longer. I mean, you have so many of these overstocked stands.
If you don't go in there and send them out they're just magnets
for fire.
I want you to know how committed I am to working with you
as you try to fine tune the legislation, work with the Obama
administration. Because I think Oregon and Montana have an
opportunity to pave a path to new forestry in the West.
Forestry that is going to help show that a healthy forest
equals a healthy economy that works for the mills that we have
left that we want to have a promising future in areas like
biomass.
It also helps us protect our treasures. So please proceed
as you like. Know that I am very much watching, you know, your
effort which resembles what we went through on the Eastside of
Oregon where for the first time we had timber industry and
environmental folks standing side by side.
So please proceed. We'll be working closely with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. Chairman Wyden
and members of the committee, I very much appreciate the honor
to be able to present the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act with
you today under the full scrutiny of Congress. Who knows,
Chairman Wyden, maybe we can get even more mills established if
we start thinking about how we can manage our forests in a way
that's more sustainable and better for our people.
I would like to welcome, first of all Mr. Sherm Anderson
and Mr. Wally Congdon, to the Senate, as well as Brian Sibert,
who is the Director of the Montana Wilderness Association.
Brian traveled here to stand by one of his partners in this
effort, Sherm Anderson. I'd also like to welcome Sherm's wife
and business partner, Bonnie. I want to thank you all for
making the journey.
I also want to thank Mr. Harris Sherman for coming here
today to testify on behalf of the Administration. Again, I
don't want to preempt his testimony. But I want to thank him
and Secretary Vilsack for their support of this jobs bill. I'd
like to request consent to enter a letter* affirming their
support from October 11, 2010, into the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Tester. Above all I would like to thank my friend,
Senator Max Baucus, for being here earlier and his support of
this bill. Senator Baucus knows firsthand the long history of
the timber battles in Montana. He has seen it all. I'm glad to
have him here today to talk about his support of this bill.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is an incredibly popular
bill getting more supporters by the day. Just in the last month
we've had the Chamber of Commerce of Missoula and the Montana
AFL-CIO sign on as supporters.
This bill was brought to me by Montanans who were tired of
fighting over forest management, recreation and wilderness
designation. For decades these folks, the mill owners, the
loggers, the conservationist and the outdoorsmen, have fought
one another. They fought and no one ever won. In fact, everyone
lost.
So a few years ago a few brave Montanans decided to sit at
the same table. Anyone willing to negotiate was welcome.
Working together they literally and figuratively mapped their
common ground. I am very, very proud to support their effort.
This is not a bill made by Democrats or Republicans. This
is a bill made by Democrats and Republicans. It is product of
three different collaborative efforts.
One from the Northwest corner of the State in the Yaak.
One from the Seeley District of the Lolo Forest.
The other from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest.
These groups brought me their ideas. I talked to a lot of
Montanans to help shape those ideas. In the summer of 2009 I
introduced the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
I said then that the bill was in its beginning phase. That
I wanted to hear from people about the bill and incorporate
their ideas. I heard feedback from thousands of Montanans. I
received thousands of letters, met for hours and hours with the
Forest Service staff and worked hard with the members of the
staff of this committee.
Secretary Vilsack was kind enough to visit Montana to
discuss the bill. He toured our mills and our forests. He held
a crowded community meeting.
Mr. Chairman, when you add all this up, I can see that no
bill from Montana has ever enjoyed the transparency of this
effort. It hasn't always been an easy process. But the bill
before this committee today is stronger as a result of all that
work. I'm proud of the bill that we shaped by working together.
Let me quickly recap what this bill does.
It will put people to work in the woods creating jobs for
the timber and restoration industry.
It will make our beetle killed forests healthier lowering
the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
It will help protect our communities from catastrophic
wildfires.
It will improve trout and big game habitat.
It will secure places for people and our kids and grandkids
to enjoy the land that they own.
The Forestry and Restoration components of the bill are
pretty straight forward. They reflect hours and hours of
thoughtful input that I have received since introducing this
bill. The Forest Service will kick off one large watershed
project per year using authorities and processes outlined in
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The agency will work with
collaborative groups to assess what is needed, what culverts or
roads need fixing, what weeds need to be treated, what trees
need to be harvested.
This will go on for 15 years. Over those 15 years the
Forest Service is required to mechanically treat 100,000 acres.
As Secretary Vilsack said, this goal is, and I quote,
``ambitious, but sustainable and achievable.''
The Congress often tells the agency what it cannot do. This
bill which is really a pilot project tells the agency what it
should--must do. I know that the mandate in this bill has made
some of my colleagues uncomfortable. But I can't see why
Congress wouldn't want to give the agency the full backing of
what the American people to say, we want you to go do good
work, go forth and do good work creating jobs and restoring our
National Forests because the status quo is not allowing that to
happen. This bill is a measure of our commitment to our rural
communities, our workers, our forests and the Forest Service
itself.
I'd like to take a moment to touch on what this bill will
not do.
It will not take away grazing permits in wilderness areas.
It will not impact existing water rights.
My bill clearly incorporates regulations ensuring that
ranchers continue--can continue to operate their businesses in
wilderness. Congress has been clear on this topic in the past.
My bill is clear on this now.
I not only listened to general concerns. I listened to
specific concerns when considering ranching issues. For example
there's language in the bill that ensures ranchers who graze in
the Snowcress will continue to have adequate access to their
off river watering facilities. Some of those ranchers still
don't support this bill. That's OK. I put the language in
because it's the right thing to do.
This bill will not shut down motorized recreation. There
are 6,600 miles of roads and trails on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
Forest alone. This bill closes fewer than 50 miles of them. Let
me repeat that. Out of 6,600 miles of roads and trails, this
bill closes less than 1 percent.
For the first time in Montana's history this bill creates
permanent recreation areas in places that have long been
enjoyed by snowmobilers. Up in Lincoln County, for example,
conservationists in the Troy and Libby Snowmobiling Clubs found
their zone of agreement, which is reflected on the maps that
accompany my bill. I'm proud of their work.
Let me, for a moment, touch on what the bill does once
more. I'm more interested in that.
It creates jobs.
It launches an important forest and watershed restoration
program.
It sets aside some lands for recreation.
For the first time in 28 years, the bill protects some of
Montana's wildest back country areas as wilderness.
We are blessed to have wild country in Montana with clean
water and great habitat. We should protect some of it. Not only
for today, but for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, this bill sets aside in transpositions and
bitter feelings that have crippled Montana for decades.
Montanans put down their fists and with great humility worked
together to create something big for my State.
It will put people to work in the woods.
It will make our forests healthier and more resilient to
fire.
It will protect our finest hunting and fishing lands.
Everyone gave a little and we'll get a lot. It deserves a
vote. It deserves to pass. It deserves to be signed into law.
There are two other bills before this subcommittee that are
important to Montana also. Senator Baucus' bill, in the
Northwest corner of Montana is the North Fork of the Flathead
River, one of the last untouched areas in the lower 48 States.
You know, there are just some places that we shouldn't develop.
The watershed next to Glacier National Park is one of them.
It's an honor to work with Senator Baucus to assure that
the North Fork of the Flathead is protected for future
generations by prohibiting future oil, gas and mineral leasing.
Senator Baucus has worked for literally four decades to protect
this watershed by stopping each new proposed mine from coal bed
methane to gold. In February 2010, this effort got a boost when
Montana and British Columbia signed an MOU to protect this
watershed. I applaud Governor Schweitzer for securing this
agreement.
We continue to work with the Governor, the Department of
Interior, business interests, mining interests and the Canadian
government to make the protection permanent. We've had some
great success. Since Senator Baucus and I last testified, over
80 percent of the leases have been retired in the North Fork of
the Flathead, at no cost to American taxpayers. I very much
appreciate the efforts of the companies that have agreed to
relinquish their leases and who support this bill.
This spring, Senator Baucus and I have nurtured an
agreement codifying permanent protection for this world famous
area between the Department of Interior, the governments of
British Columbia, Montana, Canada, as well as the Nature
Conservancy to retire, again at no cost to the taxpayer, the
mining claims on the Canadian side of the border. By the end of
the year the BC government will pass a statute restricting
development in the Canadian North Fork of the Flathead
watershed. Now it is time to codify those good steps by
upholding our commitment to prevent future leasing in an area
on the U.S. side of the border.
Protecting the crown of the continent just doesn't make
environmental sense, it makes economic sense. The Glacier
National Park is the core of Montana's 3.4 billion dollar
tourism industry, an economic engine, second only to
agriculture in our State. All kinds of businesses recognize
this from Conoco Phillips to the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce,
over 40 groups support this bill. I'm unaware of any who oppose
it.
People from all stripes support protecting this remote and
wild landscape. Now it is our turn to solidify our commitment
to these lands. The first step is by passing this bill.
Finally I'd just like to say a few words about the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act, another bill on the agenda
today that I have co-sponsored. FLTFA allows land agencies to
dispose of low priority land and acquire in holdings from
willing sellers. This helps the agency consolidate and manage
their lands more effectively increasing access for sportsmen
and protecting wildlife habitat.
FLTFA has had a number of success stories in my State of
Montana. This is common sense. It's good government. I urge the
committee to permanently extend this important administrative
tool.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the chance to testify
on these important bills. I look forward to working with the
committee on their passage.
Senator Wyden. Senator Tester, thank you very much. That's
very helpful to get, particularly on the major bill that you've
worked on and the effort to try to bring folks together. Your
assessment of how it's going.
As I say, we're going to work very closely with you so that
we can really look to the future. Say that right now, a couple
of States are willing to step out and show the way. Even though
we weren't rewriting all the forestry laws in America, a couple
States were able to break out, bring people together and show
the way to what I call, the new forestry of the West.
Colleagues, Senator Tester asked to sit in. I think that
was acceptable to both sides. Would colleagues like to ask
Senator Tester any questions about his measures?
Senator Risch. Jon, you know what's coming. Where are we on
Mount Jefferson? Is the Southern half of Mount Jefferson out?
As you know the only access to it is through Idaho and it's
very important to people snowmobiling in the wintertime in
Idaho.
Senator Tester. Yes. I appreciate the impact on your State
of the Mount Jefferson issue. We have talked as well as Senator
Crapo several times on the issue. I think that if you'd agree
to support the bill I think we'll agree to drop Jefferson.
Senator Risch. I can't go quite that far. However. However.
Senator Tester. All you've got to do----
Senator Risch. If Mount Jefferson is in, I have no choice
but to oppose the bill.
Senator Tester. Right. We intend on taking Mount Jefferson
out with--due to our conversations with you and Senator Crapo.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Tester. I would love to have your support on this
bill. I think----
Senator Risch. We'll talk some.
Senator Tester. A simple yes vote when the clerk calls the
roll will work.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. We'll talk some more, Senator.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Risch. Senator Tester,
please feel free to come on up at the dais. With that let's
bring forward Harris Sherman and Ms. Burke, representing the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior.
We're glad to have folks from the Administration here. We
welcome you.
Why don't you begin, Mr. Sherman?
STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. It's a pleasure to
be here. My name is Harris Sherman. I'm Under Secretary at USDA
for Natural Resources and the Environment. I understand that
our written statements will be included for the record.
Let me, with your permission, briefly comment on three
bills. Then focus the majority of my time on the Sealaska
legislation.
First, S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act.
USDA supports this bill and we would be happy to take any
questions later on it.
As to S. 375, the Good Neighbor bill, USDA generally
supports this bill. We wish to work with the sponsors on a few
modifications regarding contracting procedures, worker safety
and labor law issues, but overwhelmingly we believe that it is
an excellent program for my home State of Colorado. I've seen
how it works. We think it is a very helpful tool overall to
deal with these issues.
As to S. 286, Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act, I want to initially thank Senator Tester for his
outstanding leadership in preparing this legislation and
bringing the parties together. Much progress has been made on
this bill. The bill will bring important jobs to Montana. It
will allow significant mechanical and restoration work to be
done. It will bring new land into our National Wilderness
systems.
The legislation also promotes landscape scale restoration,
stewardship contracts. It is supportive of integrated resource
restoration. It fosters local collaboration.
We have a few concerns with the bill which are largely
technical which are set forth in my written testimony. We look
forward to working with Senator Tester and the committee on
language to address these issues.
Now turning my attention to S. 730, the Sealaska bill. At
the outset, we fully support Sealaska's finalization of all of
its land entitlements. To finalize all of the associated issues
that come with that.
This process has gone on too long. It needs to be brought
to closure. We believe closure will be helpful to virtually
everyone.
Want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership and her
resolve to solve a number of these issues from prior
legislative efforts. We appreciate that. We appreciate your
leadership in keeping the parties talking about this, along
with Senator Begich.
There remain a number of very important issues where we
need to find a common solution. A solution which will allow
Sealaska to pursue future opportunities and one which will
allow other important priorities to succeed, particularly the
transition away from old growth and road less forest to second
growth forest and restoration projects and the transition to a
more diversified, vibrant economy for Southeast Alaska
involving not only timber, but commercial fishing, recreation
and tourism and renewable energy. We're pleased that the
parties have been working together, all the parties, including
Sealaska on addressing these more diversified economic
opportunities.
All of these efforts will provide jobs, jobs both native
and non-native communities going forward. In that context our
concern with the bill are the following.
No. 1, the lands identified by Sealaska for timber
development overlap to a considerable extent with lands that
are critical to the success of the Forest Service's transition
strategy in the next 10 to 15 years. These lands are central to
providing local mills with sustainable, dependable wood for the
foreseeable future. These are lands that the Forest Service has
invested in the neighborhood of 50 million dollars to prepare
for second growth opportunities. Since Sealaska's intention as
we understand it, is to export most of the logs abroad, we are
genuinely concerned about how we will meet the needs of
Southeast Alaska's remaining mills and the value added products
that they contribute.
No. 2, a portion of the lands targeted by Sealaska for
development outside of the withdrawal areas are old growth
reserves which provide essential habitat to the goshawk and the
grey wolf, both species of concern. The Forest Service in its
Tongass land management plan committed to protecting these
areas. This commitment was an important factor in the Fish and
Wildlife Service support of the plan.
If these lands are developed by Sealaska, we are concerned
about the impact of the goshawk and to the grey wolf. We're
concerned about whether this would trigger new petitions for a
listing of the species. We're concerned about what the response
of the Fish and Wildlife Service would be.
No. 3, the Forest Service remains very concerned about the
possibility of 30 new in holdings, the so called future sites
within the National Forest. We know from experience nationally
that in holdings are often problematic. They present
significant access issues, boundary issues. They present
challenges to handling and controlling impacts on and off the
Federal lands as well as general management issues.
No. 4, we believe that the legislation will likely
necessitate amendments to the Tongass Land Management plan, a
process that has proved difficult in the past. Only recently
did the Forest Service complete the recent planning amendments
which we were very gratified was not challenged.
With all of this said, we are prepared to work with the
committee, with Sealaska, with all of the stakeholders to find
appropriate solutions to these challenges.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture
S. 233 AND S. 375
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Ranking Member and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of Agriculture on S. 233 to withdrawal land and mining
interests from the Flathead River Watershed in Montana and S. 375 to
enter into cooperative agreements with state foresters, also known as
the Good Neighbor Forestry Act. I will open my testimony by addressing
S. 233, followed by S. 375.
S.233: The North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011
S. 233 would, subject to valid existing rights, withdraw National
Forest System (NFS) lands located in the North Fork and Middle Fork of
Flathead River watersheds in Montana which are primarily managed as
part of the Flathead National Forest from location, entry and patent
under the mining laws and from disposition under the mineral and
geothermal leasing laws. S. 233 would also withdrawal a small amount of
land in the Kootenai National Forest. Currently there are 39 existing
leases or claims in the North Fork comprising 56,117 acres and 18
existing leases or claims in the Middle Fork comprising 8,595 acres.
The Department supports S. 233, however, I would like to clarify that
although the Department has surface management authority concerning
mineral operations, the management of the federal mineral estate falls
within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. We defer to
the Department of the Interior on issues related to the status of the
existing claims and leases.
BACKGROUND
The Forest Service administers surface resources on nearly 193
million acres of NFS lands located in forty-two states and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Forest Plan for the Flathead National
Forest blends areas of multiple uses in the North Fork and Middle Fork
with areas of specific or limited uses elsewhere on the Forest. Under
current law, NFS lands reserved from the public domain pursuant to the
Creative Act of 1891, including those in S. 233, are open to location,
entry and patent under the United States Mining Laws unless those lands
have subsequently been withdrawn from the application of the mining
laws. This bill would withdraw approximately 362,000 acres from the
operation of the locatable and leasable mineral laws subject to valid
existing rights. This includes approximately 291,000 acres on the
Flathead National Forest and approximately 5,000 acres on the Kootenai
National Forest in the North Fork watershed and 66,000 acres in the
Middle Fork watershed on the Flathead National Forest.
The majority of North Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead has low
to moderate potential for the occurrence of locatable and leasable
minerals. A portion of the Middle Fork does have an area of high
potential for oil and gas occurrence. Much of the North Fork and Middle
Fork was leased for oil and gas in the early 1980s. Subsequently, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service were sued and BLM
suspended the leases in 1985 to comply with a District Court ruling
(Conner v. Burford, 605 F. Supp. 107 (D.Mont.1985)). Presently, there
are no active locatable or leasable operations, including oil and gas,
in the North Fork or Middle Fork.
COMMENTS ON S. 233
We recognize the bill would not affect the existing oil and gas
leases because they would constitute valid existing rights. We also
recognize the bill would not change the court's order in Conner v.
Burford requiring the BLM and Forest Service to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act before authorizing any surface disturbing activities on the
affected leases.
The Flathead National Forest and Flathead County rely on the close
proximity of local sources of aggregate to maintain roads economically
and as a source of building materials. We are pleased this bill would
not preclude the removal and use of mineral materials, such as
aggregate. The ability to continue using those local mineral materials
would allow us to more easily maintain local roads, thus reduce erosion
related impacts to streams and lakes in the North Fork and Middle Fork
drainages. We appreciate Senators Baucus and Tester's strong commitment
to protecting Montana's natural resources.
S. 375: Good Neighbor Forestry Act
I'll now discuss S.375, which would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative
agreements or contracts with State foresters authorizing State
foresters to provide certain forest, rangeland and watershed
restoration and protection services in states west of the 100th
meridian. Activities that could be undertaken using this authority
include: (1) activities to treat insect infected trees; (2) activities
to reduce hazardous fuels; and (3) any other activities to restore or
improve forest, rangeland and watershed health, including fish and
wildlife habitat. The bill would authorize the states to act as agents
for the Secretary and would provide that states could subcontract for
services authorized under this bill. The bill would require federal
retention of decision making under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.). The authority to enter into
contracts or agreements under the bill would expire on September 30,
2019.
We support Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) and believe our Nation's
forests face forest health challenges, which must be addressed across
diverse land ownerships. In these times of limited resources, it is
important to leverage workforce and technical capacities and develop
partnerships for forest restoration across all lands. We believe
further study and analysis is needed to better understand the interplay
of needs, state and federal contracting and labor law and regulation
before expansion of the authority is authorized. Further, it is
important to recognize that all environmental safeguards, policies and
laws remain in place. To that end, we look forward to continuing our
work with the committee, States, and federal agencies to develop a
better understanding of the issues and make suggestions to improve the
bill in a manner that meets the needs of key stakeholders.
HOW WE USE THE CURRENT GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY
The Forest Service has gained valuable experience using GNA in
Colorado and Utah pilot programs over the past several years. In
Colorado, the authority has been successfully used on 37 projects
focused on fuel reduction activities, such as tree thinning, resulting
in the treatment of approximately 3,900 acres on the Arapaho-Roosevelt
and Pike-San Isabel National. Almost all of the projects in Colorado
included some form of hazardous fuels reduction within the wildland-
urban interface, including the creation of defensible space around
subdivisions and private residences, the creation of shaded fuelbreaks,
treatment and salvage of insect-infested trees, the creation of
evacuation routes and thinning. In Utah on the Dixie National Forest
the authority has enhanced, protected and restored watersheds,
particularly focused on rehabilitation and recovery of a burned area.
In all, we have completed 60 projects in both Colorado and Utah.
For example, in Colorado, Shadow Mountain Estates is a large
subdivision (several hundred acres) that directly borders National
Forest System (NFS) lands on the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado.
In 2006, Shadow Mountain Estates contracted the Colorado State Forest
Service (CSFS) to remove dead trees from within the neighborhood to
reduce fire risk and in 2007 the subdivision requested the Forest
Service to treat the adjoining public lands to enhance its fire
prevention efforts. As a result of this request, the Forest Service
entered into the Green Ridge Good Neighbor Agreement with the CSFS to
remove hazardous fuels and create a defensible space on federal lands
in this wildland urban interface.
The contract to remove the trees from both private and federal
lands was prepared, advertised and administered by the CSFS, and
resulted in the treatment of 135 acres of NFS land. The project was
completed in June of 2008. Shadow Mountain Estates is satisfied with
the result, as the treated area contributes to reduced wildfire damage
risk to the neighborhood and is aesthetically pleasing.
BENEFITS TO THE LAND AND RELATIONSHIPS
The GNA was the subject of a Government Accounting Office report in
February of 2009 (GAO-09-277). The report summarizes our experiences
and makes suggestions for improving use of the authority. The GAO
report found that the GNA has facilitated cross boundary watershed
restoration and hazardous fuel removal activities.
The GAO report notes the Forest Service's experience that the
authority has resulted in the accomplishment of more restoration and
protection treatments than would have otherwise been accomplished,
particularly within the wildland urban interface. On the ground
experience from Colorado and Utah indicates there is increased
efficiency for both state and federal agencies, because all project
work is done at one time, with one contract, making implementation more
consistent. Further, the authority enhances our ability to work with
private landowners through the State Forester to remove hazardous fuels
on adjacent NFS lands and, perhaps most importantly, it builds greater
cooperation among stakeholders.
The Forest Service will continue its review of the findings and
recommendations from the GAO and continue to improve its use of the
Good Neighbor Authority. The Good Neighbor Authority has produced great
results in Colorado and Utah. Its further expansion to states west of
the 100th meridian will help meet the department's ``All Hands-All
Lands'' approach. The USDA believes this bill has broader applicability
to all national forests, especially in dealing with mixed federal-
private lands as long as we are maintaining existing environmental
safeguards, polices and laws.
We look forward to working with the Committee, States and federal
agencies to continue to be a good neighbor and make suggestions to
improve the bill in a manner that meets the needs of key stakeholders
and all national forests.
This concludes my testimony on S. 233 and S. 375. I am happy to
answer any questions you may have on any of the bills.
S. 268
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Harris Sherman, Under
Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment. Thank
you for the opportunity to share the Department's views on S. 268, the
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2011.
S. 268 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and
implement forest and watershed restoration projects on 70,000 acres of
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and 30,000 acres of the
Kootenai National Forest within 15 years of enactment. The bill
prescribes treatment methods, annual acreage targets, and standardized
criteria to prioritize areas for restoration projects. It also requires
consultation with an advisory committee or collaborative group for each
restoration project implemented by the Secretary, and calls for a
monitoring report every five years. The bill designates twenty-four
wilderness areas totaling approximately 666,260 acres, six recreation
areas totaling approximately 288,780 acres, and three special
management areas totaling approximately 80,720 acres. Some of the
designations apply to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management
and we defer to the Department of the Interior on those provisions.
We appreciate the close work of the Senator's staff with the Forest
Service to refine legislation that would provide a full suite of
significant benefits for the people, economy, and forests of Montana
and the nation. The continuing commitment to bring diverse interests
together to find solutions that provide a context for restoration,
renewal, and sustainability of public landscapes is evident in the
legislation being considered by this Committee today.
The Department supports the concepts embodied in this legislation,
including collaboratively developed landscape scale projects, increased
use of stewardship contracting, the designation of wilderness areas,
and the importance of a viable forest products industry in restoring
ecosystems and economies. In fact, we are currently engaged in numerous
programs and activities on the National Forests of Montana and around
the nation that embrace the concepts in this bill. While we support the
concepts of the legislation, the Department has concerns regarding
Title I which I will address later in my testimony.
The President's FY 12 budget proposal includes an $854 million
Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) line-item. This integrated
approach, similar to the landscape scale efforts envisioned in this
bill, will allow the Forest Service to apply the landscape scale
concept across the entire National Forest System.
Three examples of the work we are carrying out in the spirit of
this legislation, which IRR is intended to help us replicate, are
underway as large-scale restoration projects on the National Forests of
Montana: the East Deerlodge Stewardship project on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, developed with a local collaborative group, which is
expected to substantially increase treated acres and harvested volumes
based on the President's FY12 budget request; a Region-wide Long-Term
Stewardship Contract, which will accomplish a wide range of restoration
priorities throughout the State; and the Southwestern Crown of the
Continent project, which will treat close to 200,000 acres on the Lolo,
Flathead and Helena National Forests with funding provided under the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.
Efforts such as these have helped the agency and stakeholders gain
experience in identifying the factors necessary for the success of
large-scale restoration projects, and I acknowledge the Senator's
incorporation of their input into this legislation. I offer our
continued support for further collaboration on addressing remaining
concerns to ensure that it can serve as a model for similar efforts
elsewhere.
Regarding the input from the Department that the Senator has
incorporated, there are three items in the new legislation for which I
would like to express the Department's appreciation in particular: (1)
the incorporation of the administrative review procedures in Section
103(d), which promote transparency and encourage proactive
collaboration, thus resulting in better decisions and more work done on
the ground; (2) the adjustments to wilderness area designations in
Title II, which now more closely reflect the extensive collaboration,
analysis and resulting recommendations of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge 2009
Forest Plan and other forest plans; and (3) the removal of the previous
bill's prescriptions for how the agency would meet requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which would have likely
resulted in greater controversy and complicated the agency's approach
to environmental review.
COMMENTS ON THE LEGISLATION
In general, and as the Department has testified to this
Subcommittee in the last Congress, we have reservations about
legislating forest management direction or specific treatment levels on
a site-specific basis because it could establish a precedent leading to
multiple site-specific laws in the future. We also recognize the
importance of collaborative efforts such as the one which helped
produce this legislation. These efforts are critically important to
increasing public support for needed forest management activities,
particularly in light of the bark beetle crisis facing Montana and
other western states. We believe these efforts can significantly
advance forest restoration, reduce litigation risk for these
activities, and make it easier to provide jobs and opportunities in the
forest industry for rural communities.
I will now point out several specific concerns that the Department
would like to work with the Committee and Senator Tester to address.
One concern is the definition of mechanical treatment in Section
102(6). The Department acknowledges the inclusion of language that
allows fiber to be left on the forest floor after treatment only if an
option for removal of the fiber was provided. However, while we
acknowledge the importance of encouraging the development of woody
biomass and other small-diameter timber markets, requiring that an
option be provided for removing the fiber creates a barrier to using
certain contracting methods that may be more effective in achieving the
objectives of the bill.
Another concern arises in Section 103(b). While the Department
believes the acreage targets for mechanical treatments are achievable
and sustainable, we are concerned about the precedent set by
legislating these targets given constrained Federal resources. Further,
the Department would not want to draw resources from priority work on
other units of the National Forest System in order to accomplish the
goals in this legislation. Finally, we do not want to create
unrealistic expectations by communities and stakeholders about the
quantity of treatments that the agency would accomplish.
The reporting requirements in Section 103(f) raise two concerns.
First, the requirements overlook an important opportunity to evaluate
whether the Act's prescriptions continue to provide optimal performance
in light of potential changes in budget trends, wood markets and forest
health conditions. Second, the analyses prescribed by this subsection
may be duplicative of reports required by other laws and regulations.
Regarding Section 103(g), we very much appreciate the Senator's
recognition of the need to maintain the agency's financial capacity to
carry out critical forest management activities elsewhere in the
National Forest System. We look forward to working with the Senator to
further refine this subsection in order to achieve that outcome.
Specifically, we are concerned that the provision as written could give
rise to potential litigation about the appropriate allocation of funds
among the Regions.
Finally, the Department is concerned about several prescriptions in
the legislation that codify scientific assumptions and value
determinations that, while consistent with our shared vision today, may
come to be recognized as undesirable or ineffective as new data and
circumstances arise in the future. These include the road-density
standards in Sections 104(a)(4) and 104(b)(3), and the INFISH
compliance requirement in Section 104(b)(1).
Regarding the land designations in Title II that pertain to lands
under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, we support the wilderness
recommendations made in each Forest's land and resource management plan
given the depth of analysis and public collaboration that goes into
them. Therefore we are pleased that many of the bill's wilderness
designations are generally consistent with those plans, and I
acknowledge the Senator's work with the Forest Service to resolve many
important issues that arose in this respect with the previously
introduced legislation. We would like to address some remaining
inconsistencies, however, particularly concerning the Mount Jefferson
Wilderness designation in Section 203(a)(11).
In closing, I want to thank Senator Tester once again for his
strong commitment to Montana's communities and natural resources. We
want to underscore our commitment to the continuing collaboration with
the Senator and his staff, the committee, and all interested
stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent manner to provide
the best land stewardship for our National Forests.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
S. 730
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Ranking Member and distinguished members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
about Native land claims in Southeast Alaska. I will open my testimony
by addressing the direction in which the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the Forest Service are heading regarding economic
sustainability in Southeast Alaska and how our vision for economic
diversification ties into S. 730, the Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act.
The USDA recognizes and supports the timely, equitable and final
distribution of land entitlement to Alaska Native Corporations,
including Sealaska, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA). The USDA understands Sealaska's interest in acquiring lands,
which have economic and cultural value. The USDA also recognizes and
appreciates the improvements made as a result of work on a similar bill
introduced last Congress. I wish to express our continued interest in
working collaboratively with Sealaska, the Alaska Congressional
delegation, this committee and other community partners to find an
equitable solution that is in the public interest.
While the USDA supports a number of the goals of this legislation,
we continue to have a number of concerns we wish to work through with
the involved parties. This will be the focus of my testimony.
BACKGROUND
When enacting ANCSA in 1971, Congress balanced the need for a fair
and just settlement of Alaska Native aboriginal land claims with the
need for use of the public lands in Alaska. The approach to resolve
Alaska Native claims in ANCSA is unique in its reliance on the creation
of Alaska Native Village and Regional Corporations, which generally
receive entitlement from lands located within the original Native
village withdrawal areas. Congress defined the land entitlements of
both village and regional corporations, but provided for some
differentiation among corporations to consider individual village or
region circumstances.
One such consideration was the reduction of land entitlement to the
village and regional corporations representing Alaska Natives in
Southeast Alaska. The Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Southeast Alaska
brought a ``taking'' lawsuit against the United States for land claims
and the U.S. Court of Claims awarded damages to the tribes shortly
before ANCSA was enacted. Recognizing this prior award, Congress
reduced the entitlement of village and regional corporations in
Southeast Alaska, with Sealaska receiving its entitlement only under
Section 14(h) of ANCSA.
Sealaska has thus far received more than 290,000 acres of 14(h)
entitlement, with approximately 63,605 acres of ANCSA entitlement yet
to be conveyed, based on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
estimates. Sealaska has prioritized its selections within the original
withdrawal areas as required by the 2004 Acceleration Act, with
approximately 138,000 acres of prioritized selections identified. The
selections identified by Sealaska within the original withdrawal areas
are more than sufficient to meet Sealaska's remaining ANCSA
entitlement, but were put on hold at Sealaska's request to pursue a
legislative alternative to select outside the ANCSA withdrawl area to
settle their remaining entitlements.
SOUTHEAST ALASKA TRANSITION STRATEGY
Since testifying last before this committee, the USDA has made
great strides in developing approaches to diversify and sustain the
economy in Southeast Alaska. Through a coordinated interagency effort,
USDA is focusing with local interests on ways to provide long-term,
sustainable support for a wide array of economic opportunities for
Southeast Alaska communities, including Alaska Natives around second-
growth timber production, ecosystem restoration, bio-energy, ocean
products and tourism and recreation. Tourism and recreation, as a
whole, has been the fastest growing industry in Southeast Alaska,
employing over 3,200 people and accounting for $109 million in wages
and benefits. Ocean products, including fisheries and mariculture, are
providing in excess of $234 million in wages and benefits. Furthermore,
we see an ecosystem restoration job sector providing more than 100 jobs
in Southeast Alaskan communities. Beyond traditional opportunities, the
Forest Service and other partner USDA agencies are working to
facilitate future opportunities and growth in job sectors beyond
forestry and forest products.
To support the communities and people of Southeast Alaska, the
Forest Service has developed a comprehensive 5-year plan focused on a
suite of integrated projects including timber projects in the roaded
base, pre-commercial thinning, integrated stewardship, road and
watershed restoration and fish and wildlife habitat improvements, all
designed to allow managers to mix and match and meet the local needs of
Alaska Native villages and Southeast Alaskan communities. Furthermore,
the agency issued a contract for asset mapping to identify economic
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to diversification
focused on the different economic clusters identified in our contract
with the Juneau Economic Development Council. The USDA agencies just
completed several months of meetings with working groups comprised of
key industry leaders, including participation by Sealaska
representatives. The groups addressed the integration of forest
restoration and broad economic development in the areas of forest,
ocean, visitor and energy products. Additionally, USDA has announced
and distributed more than $55 million last year in funding to
communities in Southeast Alaska for an array of projects and activities
that demonstrates our commitment to Southeast Alaska. I am optimistic
that the USDA can promote new economic opportunities for Southeast
communities, including Alaska Natives, beyond the traditional focus of
roadless old growth timber harvests.
In this broad context, the USDA has determined its stance on S. 730
and evaluated whether it facilitates or hinders the Administration's
goals for promoting job protection, creation, and economic
diversification in Southeast Alaska.
Conflict on the Tongass National Forest pertaining to the
harvesting of old growth in roadless areas has intensified over the
last 10-15 years. The forest has faced 18 lawsuits during this period,
many of which were resolved through settlements or adverse judgments,
but all of which cost valuable time and taxpayer dollars. The
Administration recognizes a balance must be struck between many diverse
and competing needs and we need to chart a course of action that moves
us away from old growth and roadless area harvests sooner rather than
later. To move us away from this conflict, we must operate on three
primary principles 1) provide timber for local value added products; 2)
keep the conservation strategy in the Tongas Land Management Plan and
environmental values intact and 3) stay clear of roadless areas.
We understand that Sealaska is interested in maintaining export of
round logs, using a local workforce generally found in the rural
communities of Southeast Alaska to do the harvesting and hauling. The
Forest Service's primary interest is maintaining adequate supply of
timber for local processing by existing mills and the jobs associated
with those mills. This is a central aim of the transition strategy that
the Forest Service has developed and one that is achievable if the
Forest Service has access to a sufficient quantity of timber available
on lands that have existing roads. The Forest Service and Sealaska have
an interest in maintaining the loggers and other forestry
infrastructure to support a local forest economy and both the Forest
Service and Sealaska have an interest in moving away from the
dependency on old growth and moving to harvesting young growth stands.
The lands identified in S.730 represent a significant part of the
Forest Service's roaded land base for Southeast Alaska identified in
the Tongass Land Management Plan as suitable for timber harvest. The
majority of the lands identified in S.730 are close to the only
remaining medium sized mill and several smaller, local mills in the
Tongass National Forest. The Forest Service has determined that
approximately 64-percent of the land withdrawn and available for
selection in section 3(b)(1) of S. 730 is within the project area for
projects listed on the Tongass' 5-year plan. Specifically, the
selections would impact six projects, which represent potential
profitable sales to the medium sized mill and smaller local mills in
the next five years. Additionally, the Forest Service has made
substantive investments in lands identified in S. 730 through
environmental analysis, stand management, roads, log transfer
facilities, maintenance, trails, fish habitat restoration and others
activities, totaling more than $50 million.
Approximately 6,900 acres of land identified for selection in
section 3(b)(1) support an older age class of second growth forests (50
years and older, on productive soils). These lands include more than
5,000 acres on Kozciusco Island and another 1,275 acres on Kuiu. These
selections cover areas that represent the Forest Service's best, first
entry into commercial second growth, including projects currently
listed on the Tongass' 5-year plan.
Ultimately, the transfer of these of these older second growth
stands from the Forest Service to Sealaska will reduce the available
timber supply for local mills and hamper the Forest Service transition
to second growth in Southeast Alaska. Removing these stands also means
that more old growth areas would be harvested longer, because it will
take more time for the second growth stands to mature into legally
harvestable ages. The Forest Service believes this will increase the
potential for litigation around timber sales and thereby create
significant uncertainty for the forest industry.
There are a number of ways this issue could be addressed, and USDA
is willing to work with Sealaska to find a solution that meets the
needs of all the affected parties and is in the public interest in
Alaska.
CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND OLD GROWTH RESERVES (OGR)
The Tongass Land Management Plan's conservation strategy was
formulated around Sealaska's selections within the original ANCSA
withdrawal areas. Old growth reserves found within the land pool
identified in S. 730 are central to the Tongass National Forest's
conservation strategy as outlined in its land management plan. The land
management plan includes a comprehensive, science-based conservation
strategy to address wildlife sustainability and viability. This
strategy includes a network of variable sized old growth reserves
across the forest designed to provide for connectivity and maintain the
composition, structure and function of the old growth ecosystem.
In 1997, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided not to
list Queen Charlotte goshawk and Alexander Archipelago wolf under the
Endangered Species Act, based on the protective measures incorporated
in the conservation strategy of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan, primarily
the network of old growth reserves and the positioning of the reserves
across the landscape, and the existence of forested corridors between
the reserves. The USFWS reaffirmed this finding regarding the goshawk
in 2007, and the Department of the Interior asked the Forest Service to
retain the Conservation Strategy in the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan
Amendment (TLMP). These were among the main reasons why the 2008 TLMP
Amendment kept all the major components of the conservation strategy.
Conveyance of land selections as proposed in S. 730 will decrease
the effectiveness of the Tongass' conservation strategy and could
hamper the plan's ability to maintain viable populations of plant and
wildlife species. This could lead to the need for USFWS to reconsider
its previous determinations regarding the goshawk and gray wolf.
Replacing the old growth reserve areas with an equal number of acres
from somewhere else within the forest does not resolve the effects on
the land management plan's conservation strategy; the location and
design of the old growth reserve network is critical to the success of
the conservation strategy. Distribution of the reserves across the
landscape and composition of the habitat within each reserve, were
carefully considered. Because of the potential Endangered Species Act
issues, the Forest Service is concerned that S. 730 could increase the
chances for litigation, which would increase uncertainty for all
parties, including Sealaska and local mills. The USDA is willing to
discuss mechanisms for maintaining these old growth reserves to ensure
they remain whole.
Although S. 730 provides that implementation of this legislation
will not require an amendment or revision to the Tongass Land
Management Plan (TLMP), this language would not prevent issues from
arising during TLMP implementation. If the significant management
assumptions and strategies that formed the basis of the plan are
modified through enactment of S. 730, the TLMP cannot be implemented as
currently intended.
FINALIZING SEALASKA ENTITLEMENT
As the title of this legislation suggests, any legislated solution
finalizing Sealaska's entitlement must actually resolve all of Sealaska
entitlement issues upon enactment, such as remaining entitlement acres,
resolve outstanding split estate issues, relinquish existing Sealaska
ANCSA selections and removal of the original ANCSA withdrawal areas.
This issue is significant to the Forest Service because without closure
the agency cannot identify a stable land base and ensure that
investments made today can be capitalized in the future.
In that context, we also have concerns about in-holdings. Selection
from the land categories in section 3(b)(2) (``Sites with Traditional,
Recreational, and Renewable Energy Use Value''), in section 3 (b)(3)
(``Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes'') and in
section 3(c) (``Sites with Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, or Historic
Significance,'') will result in a significant number of sites and
routes scattered throughout the forest, creating in-holdings that cause
significant management issues including access and boundary management
problems. It is agency policy to avoid the creation of in-holdings.
Likewise, the elimination of such in-holdings is, and has historically
been, one of the agency's foremost land acquisition priorities. The
Forest Service has extended considerable public resources to acquire
the types of in-holdings that S 730 would create. We have concern over
the 33 in-holdings created by the new land categories in S. 730. The
Forest Service estimates that surveying and boundary management for new
Sealaska land selections under S. 730.
Additionally, the escrow provision included in the legislation does
not address the relinquishment of any rights Sealaska may have to
escrow funds from lands within the original withdrawal area. In
addition, S.730 is also not clear on what right Sealaska may have to
claim escrow on the new parcels identified, which have previously been
harvested. The USDA advocates clearly articulating the escrow account
provisions to relinquish Sealaska's right to escrow within the original
ANCSA identified withdrawal areas.
ALASKA LAND TRANSFER ACCELERATION ACT
In line with the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004, the
USDA supports a reduced conveyance timeline. S. 730, however, only
provides for selections under section 3(b)(1) and would penalize
Sealaska only if it had not made its selection under section 3(c)(2)
within 15 years. Sealaska has previously provided copies of maps, which
identify their sites of preference. Settling on those land selections
prior to passage of S. 730, could resolve one of USDA's primary
concerns with S. 730.
PUBLIC ACCESS
We continue to believe S. 730 will affect the Forest Service's
ability to provide for continuous public access for subsistence uses
and recreation on the Tongass National Forest. The legislation provides
Sealaska the right to regulate access on certain lands where the public
use is incompatible with Sealaska's natural resource development, as
determined by Sealaska. The ability of the Forest Service to provide
for access, subsistence activities and public and commercial recreation
and tourism and will be limited by enactment of the legislation.
SPECIAL USE PERMITS: LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
The USDA supports Sealaska's willingness to continue to allow
outfitting and guiding permits on lands identified in section 3(b)(2)
(``Sites with Traditional, Recreational, and Renewable Energy Use
Value'') for the remaining term of the existing authorizations and for
a subsequent 10 year renewal. However, the legislation should clearly
specify that the existing Forest Service permits authorizing these uses
would be revoked upon conveyance of the land, that Sealaska would allow
continued use under the same terms and conditions as provided in the
Forest Service permits, and that the United States would not be liable
for the actions of these permittees. As it currently stands, the
legislation specifically exempts Sealaska from liability, but provides
for Sealaska to negotiate terms of the permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION, INCENTIVES AND CREDITS
Section 5(b) of S.730 would expressly authorize environmental
mitigation and incentives for land conveyed to Sealaska. The USDA
supports these provisions, which would allow any land conveyed to be
eligible for participation in carbon markets or other similar programs,
incentives or markets established by the federal government.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while USDA supports the goals of this legislation,
we remain concerned about the consequences of the legislation,
including its ability to actually finalize the entitlement and current
outstanding split estate issues and the potential for the legislation
to bring to closure the question of Sealaska's entitlement under ANCSA.
More broadly, USDA is concerned about the impact of S. 730 on the
supply of timber for local mills; the transition to a sustainable
timber harvest regime focused on second-growth forests; and the
overarching conservation strategy outlined in the Tongass Land
Management Plan.
However, the Department will continue to work with Sealaska and all
the parties involved resolving these concerns and finding solutions
that work for everyone.
This concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Sherman, thank you. We'll have some
questions I know in a moment.
Ms. Burke.
STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Burke. Good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Land Management. I will provide a brief summary of
our written testimony on each of the five pieces of
legislation.
S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011
withdraws approximately 430,000 acres within the North and
Middle Fork watersheds of the Flathead River from all forms of
location, entry and patent under the mining laws and from
disposition under all laws related to mineral and geothermal
leasing. The Department of the Interior supports this
legislation and is committed to maintaining the ecological
integrity of Glacier National Park, one of the most noteworthy
national and cultural treasures of our Nation. This legislation
will help protect and preserve the important resources of the
greater Crown of the Continent ecosystem.
S. 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act designates five
wilderness areas on lands administered by the BLM in
Southwestern Montana. The BLM supports these designations, and
we appreciate the sponsor and the committee working with us
over the last year to refine boundaries. Title I and the
majority of title II of this legislation apply solely to
National Forest System Lands. Accordingly, we defer to the
Department of Agriculture on those provisions.
S. 375 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into cooperative agreements or contracts with a State forester
to provide forest, rangeland and watershed restoration and
protection services on lands managed by the BLM. We welcome the
opportunity to engage in efforts that can advance cooperation
across all landowners, improve the effectiveness of
restoration, fuels treatments and provide cost effective tools
for managing natural resources. To date the BLM has used this
Good Neighbor Authority to help us meet our mission on some BLM
parcels in Colorado where we had fuels treatment work across
the BLM, U.S. forest service lands, and private lands all under
a single contract. The Department supports Good Neighbor
authority and would like to continue to work with Senator
Barrasso and the committee on the bill.
S. 714, which would reauthorize and amend FLTFA, the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. The Administration
strongly supports this legislation. Over the past decade the
Department of the Interior has used the provisions of FLTFA to
sell lands through a process that is anchored in public
participation and sound land use planning. Using the FLTFA
proceeds, the BLM, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service have acquired
significant inholdings and adjacent lands from willing sellers,
which enhance and preserve America's special places.
For example, in November 2009, the BLM used funds from this
program to acquire approximately 4,500 acres within the Canyon
of the Ancients National Monument in southwest Colorado. These
in holdings encompass 25 documented cultural sites, and
archeologists expect to record an additional 700 significant
finds. At Zion National Park in Utah, FLTFA and LWCF moneys
were used to acquire two, five-acre inholdings that overlook
outstanding geologic formations that make for some of the most
striking viewsheds in the park. These two parcels have been
previously considered for private development.
Finally, S. 730 would amend the Alaska Natives Claims
Settlement Act, ANCSA, to allow the Southeast Alaska Native
Corporations, Sealaska, to select and receive conveyance of
Federal lands from areas of Alaska outside of the originally
designated withdrawal areas. The Department supports the goals
of completing ANCSA entitlements as soon as possible so that
Alaska Native Corporations, including Sealaska, may each have
the full economic benefits of the lands that they're entitled
to under ANCSA.
On behalf of the Department I'd like to thank Senator
Murkowski and Senator Begich for their continued dedication and
commitment on this complex issue. While the legislation
currently as is drafted addresses several concerns that the
Department raised during consideration of earlier legislation,
the Administration continues to have some concerns. We look
forward to continuing to work with Congress, Sealaska,
community partners and all other stakeholders in order to
fulfill the ANCSA entitlement on this very important issue. We
defer to the Department of Agriculture on the important policy
issues affecting the management of the National Forest lands.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'll answer
any questions.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Burke follow:]
Prepared Statements of Marcilynn A. Burke, Deputy Director, Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior
S. 233
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 233, the North Fork
Watershed Protection Act of 2011. The Department of the Interior
supports S. 233, which would withdraw Federal lands within the North
Fork watershed of Montana's Flathead River from all forms of location,
entry, and patent under the mining laws and from disposition under all
laws related to mineral or geothermal leasing. Enactment of S. 233
would mark an important milestone in the work occurring across multiple
jurisdictions to help preserve the remarkable resources in the Crown of
the Continent ecosystem.
Background
The Flathead River Basin, a key portion of an area known as the
Crown of the Continent ecosystem, spans the boundaries of the United
States and Canada. It includes part of the United States' Glacier
National Park and borders Canada's Waterton Lakes National Park. These
two parks comprise the world's first International Peace Park as well
as a World Heritage Site. The U.S. Forest Service's Flathead National
Forest is also located within the Flathead River watershed. The Bureau
of Land Management manages the Federal mineral estate underlying the
Flathead National Forest.
Running along the west side of the Continental Divide, the North
Fork of the Flathead River enters the United States at the Canadian
border and forms the western border of Glacier National Park until its
confluence with the Middle Fork of the Flathead River near the southern
end of Glacier National Park. The North Fork watershed, a sub-basin of
the Flathead River watershed, includes areas currently managed by the
National Park Service, the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service,
and some private landowners.
The Flathead River Basin is recognized for its natural resource
values, including wildlife corridors for large and medium-sized
carnivores, aquatic habitat, and plant species diversity. The area is
rich in cultural heritage resources, with archeological evidence of
human habitation starting 10,000 years ago. Several Indian tribes,
including the Blackfeet, the Salish, and the Kootenai, have a well-
established presence in the area. The area also has celebrated
recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, and backcountry
hiking and camping.
There has been interest in protecting the Crown of the Continent
resources for some time. On February 18, 2010, the State of Montana and
the Province of British Columbia executed a Memorandum of Understanding
which addresses a myriad of issues related to the Flathead River Basin
on both sides of the U.S.--Canada border. The intention of Part I.A. of
that memorandum is to ``[r]emove mining, oil and gas, and coal
development as permissible land uses in the Flathead River Basin.''
The Flathead River Basin contains Federally-owned subsurface
mineral estate under National Forest System lands that the Federal
government has leased for oil and gas development. At the time
legislation was proposed in 2010, there were 115 oil and gas leases in
the North Fork watershed that the BLM issued between 1982 and 1985. The
leases, which cover over 238,000 acres, are inactive and under
suspension as part of the 1985 court case Conner v. Burford. At the
request of Montana Senators Max Baucus and John Tester, leaseholders
have voluntarily relinquished 76 leases consisting of almost 182,000
acres. The BLM has not offered any other leases in the Flathead
National Forest since the Conner v. Burford litigation suspended the
existing leases in 1985.
The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for the surface management
of National Forest System land; however, as noted earlier, the
Secretary of the Interior and the BLM are responsible for administering
the Federal subsurface mineral estate under the Mining Law of 1872, the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and various mineral leasing acts. With
respect to locatable minerals and oil and gas resources, the Forest
Service has authority to regulate the effects of mineral operations
upon National Forest System resources. The BLM only issues mineral
leases for locatable minerals and oil and gas resources upon
concurrence of the surface management agency and always works
cooperatively with the agency to ensure that management goals and
objectives for mineral exploration and development activities are
achieved, that operations are conducted to minimize effects on natural
resources, and that the land affected by operations is reclaimed.
S. 233
S. 233 withdraws all Federal lands or interest in lands, comprised
of approximately 430,000 acres of the Flathead National Forest, within
the North and Middle Fork watersheds of the Flathead River from all
forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and from
disposition under all laws related to mineral or geothermal leasing. We
note that National Park acreage within the watershed is already
unavailable for mineral entry. S. 233 does not affect valid, existing
rights, including the 39 leases in the North Fork watershed that are
suspended under the Conner v. Burford litigation. The Department fully
supports S. 233 as it furthers the goal of preserving the important
resources of this region.
The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which extends from
Canada into the United States, is one of the great protected ecosystems
on the North American continent. A 2010 World Heritage Center/
International Union for the Conservation of Nature Report noted that
the International Peace Park is ``one of the largest, most pristine,
intact, and best protected expanses of natural terrain in North
America. It provides the wide range of non-fragmented habitats and key
ecological connections that are vital for the survival and security of
wildlife and plants in the Waterton-Glacier property and the Flathead
watershed.'' Retaining this expanse of natural landscape in the Crown
of the Continent ecosystem is of vital importance for providing
ecosystem connectivity, which is essential for the growth and survival
of plants and animals in the region. S. 233 will help accomplish this
goal.
The Department of the Interior is also committed to maintaining the
ecological integrity of Glacier National Park, one of the most
noteworthy natural and cultural treasures of our Nation. Preserving the
region's and the park's water resources is also critical. The rich
aquatic ecosystems provide breeding and feeding habitats for a variety
of important species, and the Department recognizes the importance of
maintaining critical habitat corridors when planning for resources
uses. S. 233 will help protect and preserve the important resources of
the greater Crown of the Continent ecosystem, including those within
Glacier National Park.
Conclusion
The Department supports S. 233 and commends the many parties
involved in protecting the North Fork of the Flathead River and the
important resources shared by the United States and Canada. We hope
that this legislation and the efforts of the federal and state/
provincial governments add to the important legacy of conservation in
the Glacier/Waterton Lakes area and Flathead River basin.
S. 268
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2011. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) supports the wilderness designations on BLM-managed
lands included in S. 268.
The vast majority of the designations and other substantive
provisions of S. 268 apply to activities on National Forest System
lands. We defer to the Department of Agriculture on those provisions.
Background
The southwestern corner of Montana is a critically important
biological region. Linking the Greater Yellowstone Area and the
Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho and Montana, these areas include
important wildlife corridors that allow natural migrations of wildlife
and help prevent species isolation. The Centennial Mountains are
particularly noteworthy in this regard. The diversity of wildlife
throughout this area is a strong indicator of its importance. Elk, mule
deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, as well as their predators, such as
bears, mountain lions and wolves, travel through this corner of
Montana.
Outstanding dispersed recreational opportunities abound in this
region as well. A day's hunting, hiking or fishing may be pursued in
the splendid isolation of the steeply forested Ruby Mountains or in the
foothill prairies of the Blacktail Mountains, areas largely untouched
and pristine. For the more adventurous, Humbug Spires offers 65 million
year-old rocks now eroded into fanciful spires, appreciated both for
their climbing challenges as well as their scientific value.
S. 268
Title I of S. 268, applies solely to National Forest System Lands.
Accordingly the Department of the Interior defers to the Department of
Agriculture on those provisions. The majority of the designations in
Title II of the bill are also on National Forest System Lands, and
again we defer to the Department of Agriculture.
Section 203(b) of S. 268 designates five wilderness areas on lands
administered by the BLM in southwestern Montana: the Blacktail
Mountains Wilderness (10,675 acres), Centennial Mountains Wilderness
(23,700 acres), Humbug Spires Wilderness (8,900 acres), East Fork
Blacktail Wilderness (6,125 acres), and Ruby Mountains Wilderness
(16,300 acres). The BLM supports these designations and we appreciate
the Sponsor and the Committee working with us over the last year to
refine these boundaries. All of these areas meet the definitions of
wilderness in that they are areas where the land and its community of
life are untrammeled. These areas have retained their primeval
character and have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature,
with outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation or solitude. We
continue to encourage the Sponsor and the Committee to consider
expanding the boundaries of the Centennial Mountains Wilderness in
order to protect this area as a single coherent corridor, thereby
providing enhanced benefit for the genetic diversity of the fauna
inhabiting the Greater Yellowstone Area and the Bitterroot Range.
Furthermore, we support the transfer of administrative jurisdiction
over the 660-acre Farlin Creek area to the Forest Service for inclusion
in the adjoining 77,000 acre East Pioneers Wilderness Area.
Section 205 of S. 268 proposes to fully release four BLM-managed
wilderness study areas (WSAs) in Beaverhead and Madison counties from
WSA management thereby allowing the consideration of a full range of
multiple uses. In addition, in five other WSAs, some areas would be
released from WSA status and other areas would be partially designated
as wilderness, as noted above. In all, over 66,000 acres of WSAs are
proposed for release, and nearly 66,000 acres are proposed for
wilderness designation; we support these provisions.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to
working cooperatively with the Congress to designate these special and
biologically significant areas in this dramatic corner of Montana as
wilderness.
S. 375
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 375, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act. The bill authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements or
contracts with a state forester to provide forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration and protection services on lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Administration supports Good
Neighbor Authority, but we believe further study and analysis are
needed to better understand the interplay of state and federal
contracting and labor law and regulation before expansion of the
authority is authorized. We look forward to working with the committee,
States, and federal agencies to develop a better understanding of the
issues and to improve the bill in a manner that meets the needs of key
stakeholders. We welcome opportunities to enhance our capability to
manage our natural resources through a landscape-scale approach that
crosses a diverse spectrum of land ownerships.
Background
The BLM is increasingly taking a landscape-scale approach to
managing natural resources on the public lands. Recent drought cycles,
catastrophic fires, large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, the
impacts of global climate change, and invasions of harmful non-native
species all threaten the health of the public lands. They also tax a
land manager's ability to ensure ecological integrity, while
accommodating increased demands for public land uses across the
landscape. The BLM engages in land restoration and hazardous fuels
reduction activities with interagency partners and affected landowners
to expand and accelerate forest ecosystem restoration. The ``Good
Neighbor'' concept provides a mechanism to facilitate treatments across
the landscape, inclusive of all ownerships, and enhances relationships
between Federal, state, and private land managers.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, Congress authorized the U.S. Forest
Service to allow the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) to conduct
activities such as hazardous fuels reduction on U.S. Forest Service
lands when performing similar activities on adjacent state or private
lands. The BLM received similar authority in Colorado in FY 2004, as
did the U.S. Forest Service in Utah.
The BLM used this ``Good Neighbor'' authority beginning in 2006 in
the agency's Royal Gorge Field Office. Through an assistance agreement
with the CSFS, the BLM accomplished a fuels reduction and mitigation
project within and adjacent to the Gold Hill Subdivision of Boulder
County. The Gold Hill Project treated a total of 372 acres of wildland
urban interface consisting of 122 acres of BLM land, 27 acres of U.S.
Forest Service land, and 223 acres of private land. All of these acres
were identified as priorities within the Gold Hill Community Wildfire
Protection Plan. Through the assistance agreement, the CSFS delineated
the areas to be treated within the Gold Hill Project, managed the
project, administered contracts, monitored firewood removal, and
monitored forestry and fuels projects on BLM and U.S. Forest Service
lands. No timber was harvested or sold from the BLM lands. The BLM and
the U.S. Forest Service conducted the project planning and fulfilled
NEPA requirements on their respective lands.
The project area consisted of small parcels of Federal lands
interspersed with state and private lands. Since all the landowners
used the same State contract, treatments were accomplished concurrently
and with consistency in treatment methods, thereby achieving hazardous
fuels reductions across a larger area to reduce the risk of wildfire.
Efficiencies were also realized by utilizing a single contractor to
treat one large project area. The BLM also realized savings in
personnel resources. Although the project area was located nearly 200
miles from the BLM field office, CSFS personnel were in the immediate
vicinity and were able to conduct the field work for the BLM. In
addition, the CSFS regularly worked with private landowners in the area
and easily gained access through the private lands to conduct work on
the Federal lands, which allowed the work to begin quickly. Simplified
state contracting procedures also expedited the project. The project
was completed in 2008.
A February 2009 GAO report examined state service contracting
procedures regarding transparency, competitiveness, and oversight, and
found that the state requirements generally addressed each of these
areas. (GAO-09-277). The GAO issued two recommendations to the BLM: 1)
To develop written procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales in
collaboration with each state to better ensure accountability for
federal timber; and 2) To document how prior experiences with Good
Neighbor projects offer ways to enhance the use of the authority in the
future and make such information available to current and prospective
users of the authority. The BLM's Forest and Woodlands Division
completed the final corrective action plan incorporating these
suggestions in September of 2010.
S. 375
S. 375 provides for the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
enter into cooperative agreements and contracts with state foresters in
any state west of the 100th meridian, to provide forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration and protection services on National Forest System
land or BLM land. The success that the BLM experienced in using the
Good Neighbor authority in Colorado as a cross-boundary management tool
would be available under S. 375 to all BLM-managed lands throughout the
west. The authority provided by the bill is discretionary; each BLM
office could determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not the Good
Neighbor authority is a desirable option. All Good Neighbor projects
would be undertaken in conformance with land use plans and comply with
the National Environmental Policy Act, if applicable.
Section 3(a) of the bill would authorize the Secretary to enter
into a cooperative agreement or contract with a state Forester. For
clarification, the BLM suggests an amendment to the language to add
``notwithstanding the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act.''
The provisions in section 3(b) authorize services to include
activities that treat insect-infected trees; reduce hazardous fuels;
and any other activities to restore or improve forest, rangeland, and
watershed health, including fish and wildlife habitat. There is no
requirement that the BLM-managed lands be adjacent to state or private
lands to be eligible for services. This expansion of authority could be
beneficial in watershed restoration projects where state and Federal
lands might not be immediately adjacent to one another, but are within
the same watershed. Accordingly, this expanded authority could enhance
the effectiveness of landscape-scale treatment.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about Good Neighbor
Authority and S. 375. The Department of the Interior and the BLM
welcome opportunities to engage in efforts that can advance cooperation
of all landowners, improve the effectiveness of restoration and fuels
treatments, and provide cost-effective tools for managing natural
resources. I would be happy to answer any questions.
S. 714
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 714, the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) Reauthorization of 2011. The
Administration strongly supports S. 714 and encourages the Congress to
move swiftly to reauthorize the FLTFA. Over the past decade, the
Department of the Interior has made a number of important acquisitions
using the FLTFA's provisions. Reauthorization of the FLTFA will allow
us to continue to use this critical tool for enhancing our Nation's
treasured landscapes.
Background
Congress enacted the FLTFA in July of 2000 as Title II of Public
Law 106-248 (formerly referred to as the ``Baca Bill''). FLTFA expired
on July 25, 2010. At that time, the balance in the FLTFA account
(approximately $50 million) was transferred to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. FLTFA was reauthorized through July 25, 2011, by the
2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (PL 111-212). Since the one-year
extension became law, approximately $3 million from the sale of 800
acres of public lands has been deposited into the FLTFA account.
Under the FLTFA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may sell
public lands identified for disposal through the land use planning
process prior to July 2000, and retain the proceeds from those sales in
a special account in the Treasury. The BLM may then use those funds to
acquire, from willing sellers, inholdings within certain Federally
designated areas and lands that are adjacent to those areas that
contain exceptional resources. Lands may be acquired within and/or
adjacent to areas managed by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service (FS), and the
BLM. To date, approximately 26,600 acres have been sold under this
authority and approximately 18,000 acres of high resource value lands
have been acquired.
The 2012 Budget includes a proposal to eliminate FLTFA's July 2011
sunset date and allow lands identified as suitable for disposal in
recent land use plans to be sold using the FLTFA authority. FLTFA sales
revenues would continue to be used to fund the acquisition of
environmentally sensitive lands and the administrative costs associated
with conducting sales.
The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides
clear policy direction to the BLM that public lands should generally be
retained in public ownership. However, section 203 of FLPMA allows the
BLM to identify lands as potentially available for disposal if they
meet one or more of the following criteria:
Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that are
difficult or uneconomic to manage; or
Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and are no
longer needed for that purpose; or
Lands that could serve important public objectives, such as
community expansion and economic development, which outweigh
other public objectives and values that could be served by
retaining the land in Federal ownership.
The BLM identifies lands that may be suitable for disposal through
its land use planning process, which involves full public
participation. Before the BLM can sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose
of these lands, however, it must undertake extensive environmental
impact analyses, clearances, surveys, and appraisals for the individual
parcels.
Before the enactment of the FLTFA, the BLM had the authority under
FLPMA to sell lands identified for disposal. The proceeds from those
sales were deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury. However,
because of the costs associated with those sales (including
environmental and cultural clearances, appraisals, and surveys), few
sales were undertaken. Rather, the BLM relied largely on land exchanges
to adjust land tenure. This can often be a less efficient process.
Once the FLTFA was enacted, the BLM developed guidance, processes,
and tools to complete the FLTFA land sales. Working cooperatively, the
BLM, NPS, FWS, and FS then developed guidance, processes, and tools for
subsequent FLTFA land acquisitions. The BLM markedly increased sales
under the program over the last few years. Recent market conditions,
however, have led to less robust sales than earlier in the life of the
program.
Since it was enacted, the BLM utilized FLTFA to sell 327 parcels
previously identified for disposal totaling 26,437 acres, with a total
value of approximately $116.3 million. Over the same time period, the
Federal government acquired 36 parcels totaling 18,135 acres, with a
total value of approximately $49.2 million using FLTFA authority.
Some lands identified for disposal and sold through the FLTFA
process are high-value lands in the urban interface. For example, in
2007 the BLM in Arizona sold at auction a 282-acre parcel in the
suburban Phoenix area for $7 million. However, many of the lands the
BLM identified for disposal prior to July 2000 that are eligible under
FLTFA are isolated or scattered parcels in remote areas with relatively
low value. Frequently, there is limited interest in acquiring these
lands, and the costs of preparing them for sale may exceed their market
value.
Since the inception of the FLTFA, the BLM has deposited $111.7
million into the Federal Land Disposal Account. That figure represents
96% of the total revenues from these sales. Approximately $4.6 million
has been transferred to the states in which the sales originated, as
provided for in individual Statehood Acts (typically 4% of the sale
price).
Using the FLTFA proceeds, the BLM, NPS, FWS, and FS have acquired
significant inholdings and adjacent lands from willing sellers,
consistent with the provisions of the Act. For example, in November
2009 the BLM used FLTFA funds to complete the acquisition of 4,573
acres within the BLM's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in
southwest Colorado. These inholdings encompass 25 documented cultural
sites, and archaeologists expect to record an additional 700
significant finds. The acquisition also included two particularly
important areas: ``Jackson's Castle,'' which is archaeologically
significant; and the ``Skywatcher Site,'' a one-of-a-kind, 1,000-year-
old solstice marker. The following are a few additional examples of
important FLTFA acquisitions:
Elk Springs Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC),
New Mexico/BLM.--This 2,280-acre acquisition protects critical
elk wintering habitat.
Hells Canyon Wilderness, Arizona/BLM.--A 640-acre parcel
constituting the last inholding within the Hells Canyon
Wilderness, located just 25 miles northwest of Phoenix.
Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming/NPS.--This small (1.38
acres), but critical inholding within the Park was acquired and
protected from development.
Zion National Park, Utah/NPS.--A combination of FLTFA and
Land and Water Conservation Fund monies were used to acquire
two 5-acre inholdings that overlook some of the Park's
outstanding geologic formations. These areas were previously
target for development.
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon/FWS.--This 92-
acre dairy farm on the outskirts of Pacific City, Oregon, was
slated for residential development and was acquired to protect
a significant portion of the world's population of the Semidi
Islands Aleutian Cackling Goose.
Six Rivers National Forest, California/FS.--Over 4,400 acres
were acquired within the Goose Creek National Wild and Scenic
River corridor, preserving 4 miles of the river known for dense
stands of Douglas fir, redwoods, and Port Orford cedar.
S. 714
S. 714 would both extend and enhance the original FLTFA through
four major changes.
First, the bill extends the program for 10 years to July 2021. This
change would enable the BLM to plan for and implement this program on a
long-term basis.
Second, under the original FLTFA, only lands identified for
disposal prior to July 25, 2000, were eligible to be sold. S. 714
modifies that restriction by allowing any lands identified for disposal
through the BLM's land use planning process by the date of enactment of
S. 714 to be sold through the FLTFA process. The Department supports
this change, which recognizes the usefulness and importance of the
BLM's land use planning process. However, we would recommend
eliminating this restriction rather than simply moving the date
forward.
The BLM currently oversees the public lands through 159 Resource
Management Plans (RMPs). Since 2000, the BLM has completed 75 RMP
revisions and major plan amendments. Additionally, the BLM is currently
involved in planning efforts on 45 new RMPs, all of which the agency
expects to complete within the next three to four years. Planning
updates are an ongoing part of the BLM's mandate under FLPMA. In this
process, the BLM often makes incremental modifications to the plans,
and identifies lands that may be suitable for disposal. All of these
planning modifications or revisions are made in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, and are undertaken through a process
that invites full public participation. If the enactment date is again
utilized as the cut-off date, the BLM may, in a few years, face the
same challenges it does with the program today. Many of the high-valued
lands have been sold and the remaining eligible lands are isolated or
scattered parcels in remote areas with relatively low value.
Eliminating the restriction to provide more flexibility on the lands
eligible for FLTFA will allow the BLM to maintain a more consistent
program over time.
Third, the original FLTFA allows acquisitions of inholdings within,
or special lands adjacent to Federal units only if those units existed
prior to July 25, 2000. S. 714 eliminates this limitation as well, and
we support this change. In March of 2009, President Obama signed the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) into
law, which designates or expands numerous wilderness areas, wild and
scenic rivers, national park units, and other units of the BLM's
National Landscape Conservation System. S. 714 will allow the use of
FLTFA funds to acquire inholdings within these areas and areas
designated by other legislation enacted after July 2000.
Finally, S. 714 adds exceptions to the FLTFA in recognition of
specific laws that modify the FLTFA with respect to some particular
locations. The FLTFA does not apply to lands available for sale under
the Santini-Burton Act (P.L. 96-586) and the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act (P.L 105-263). S. 714 additionally exempts lands
included in the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act (P.L. 109-432) and the Lincoln County Conservation,
Recreation and Development Act (P.L. 108-424). Finally, a number of
provisions of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-
11) modify FLTFA at specific sites or for specific purposes. These
exceptions are also captured by S. 714.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of S.
714, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization of
2011. By extending the FLTFA, the Congress will allow the BLM to
continue a rational process of land disposal that is anchored in public
participation and sound land use planning, while providing for land
acquisitions to augment and strengthen our Nation's treasured
landscapes.
S. 730
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 730, the Southeast Alaska
Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act. My
comments are limited to the programs administered by agencies of the
Department, including the administration of the Alaska Land Conveyance
Program by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Department defers
to the U.S. Forest Service on the important policy issues affecting the
management of National Forest System lands.
S.730 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
to allow the Southeast Alaska Native Corporation (Sealaska) to select
and receive conveyance of federal lands from areas of Alaska outside of
originally designated withdrawal areas. The Department supports the
goals of completing ANCSA entitlements as soon as possible so that
Alaska Native corporations, including Sealaska, may each have the full
economic benefits of completed land entitlements. While the legislation
addresses several concerns the Department raised during consideration
of earlier legislation, the Administration continues to have concerns.
We look forward to working with the Congress, Sealaska, and community
partners and interests to fulfill entitlements. Over the past year, the
BLM has maintained an accelerated pace in administering the ANCSA land
conveyance program; at mid-Fiscal Year 2011, the BLM has surveyed and
patented to Native corporations 61 percent of ANCSA entitlements and
has granted interim conveyance (all right, title, and interest of the
federal government) on an additional 34 percent of entitlements.
Background
The BLM is responsible for expediting federal land conveyances to
individual Alaska Natives, Native corporations, and the State of Alaska
under four major statutes: the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906, the
Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act
of 1998, and ANCSA. When these land conveyances are completed, about
150 million acres, or approximately 42 percent of the land area of
Alaska, will have been transferred from federal to State and private
(Native) ownership.
ANCSA established a framework under which Alaska Natives formed
private corporations to select and receive title to 44 million acres of
public land in Alaska and receive payment of $962.5 million in
settlement of aboriginal claims to land in the State. Sealaska is one
of 12 regional corporations formed under ANCSA.
S. 730
S. 730 would amend ANCSA to allow Sealaska to select and receive
conveyance of lands outside of the original withdrawal areas
established by the Act in 1971; specifically, to select and receive
conveyance of lands in the Tongass National Forest other than those
that were originally available for selection.
The legislation also establishes timeframes for Sealaska to
identify and select the lands it desires and for the Department to
substantially complete the conveyance. The Department interprets this
as meaning an interim conveyance of the lands could be issued. Section
4(a) of S. 730 directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with
Sealaska to develop a ``mutually agreeable'' schedule to finalize
conveyance.
The Department notes that S. 730, if enacted, may set a precedent
for other corporations to seek similar legislation for the substitution
of new lands. We also note that the if S. 730 is enacted as proposed
and the Tongass Forest Management Plan is modified, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service may have to review its findings not to list the
southeast Alaska distinct population segment (DPS) of Queen Charlotte
goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf.
Conclusion
The BLM in Alaska has made significant progress since the enactment
of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, which gave the BLM tools
to expedite land conveyances. We look forward to continuing to work
with all of the Alaska Native corporations, other agencies and
interests to fulfill the ANCSA entitlements. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer any questions.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Burke, thank you. Let's begin with
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank both of
you for your testimony here this afternoon.
Mr. Sherman, let me start with you. Before I begin the
question I appreciate that both of you have committed clearly
to finally and fully resolving the issue of the entitlement of
Sealaska lands. I think we all recognize that this must happen.
You state, Ms. Burke, that it is complex. We appreciate
that. We know that full well, as do many of the folks from
Sealaska that are seated behind you today. But I think it is
important to recognize that it is in everyone's best interest
that we finally come to closure on this issue and move these
entitlements forward.
Mr. Sherman, let me ask you. Because you have stated in
your testimony and in your written testimony that you're
concerned that the bill as drafted is going to take away too
much second growth timber, that timber that is age 50 and older
and thus, somehow or other hamper the Forest Service ability to
transition to this young growth harvesting strategy that we're
certainly working toward. You maintain that these lands are
critical to this.
If you look at the suitability standards that are out
there, if Sealaska were able to select every single acre within
the 80,000 acres of selection area that's outlined in the bill
currently and we recognize that they're not going to have that
ability because we've got acreage that is set aside for future
sites, sacred sites and the like. But even if they were to have
access to the full 80,000, Sealaska will still get just 13,266
acres of old second growth which is about 9 percent of the
149,000 acres of age 40 and older second growth that's
currently in the forest. So in other words, the Forest Service
retains about 91 percent of the old second growth.
So the question is how does your plan, this transition
plan, not have enough timber remaining to support this
transition to the second growth strategy?
Mr. Sherman. Senator Murkowski, just for clarification.
You're talking about the selection outside of the withdrawal
areas, is that correct? You're talking about Sealaska.
Senator Murkowski. That is correct. As outlined in the
draft that we have before us today.
Mr. Sherman. In my discussions with the Forest Service, the
lands that they have been targeting, targeting for suitability
for the next 10 to 15 years for the current milling
opportunities in Southeast Alaska are certain forests. These
are forests which, from an older growth standpoint, may be
older than 40 to 50 years. They may be in a range beyond 50
years. These are the best areas for older second growth that we
were trying to make available to local mills. They also contain
areas of productive old growth that they were targeting for the
next 10 to 15 years.
These areas that they were targeting to meet the needs of
local mills significantly overlap with those areas and what
Sealaska has identified. So you have to be very careful in
looking at which old growth areas and which productive--excuse
me, which older, young growth areas you're talking about and
the ages within that, because typically trees that are 80 to
100 years old under the CMAI index are capable of being
harvested. So if a tree is 40 to 50 years old that may not be
an area that we are yet looking at. That may be an area that
would be targeted 20 or 30 years from now.
Senator Murkowski. What I'm still struggling with is the
reality that under this proposal even if Sealaska were able to
harvest the full 80,000 acres that we are talking about, which
again, we concede we are not because we're taking off the table
a fair amount of acreage due to the future site and the sacred
sites. Again, it still leaves the Forest Service with 91
percent, 91 percent of the older, second growth.
You say, you know, I need to appreciate the overlap.
Believe me, we appreciate the overlap because we've been
pouring over these maps for months, if not years at this point.
I understand the position that the Forest Service has taken
that we want to try to transition to this second growth.
But again, in just understanding what the Forest Service
will have available to them even after this legislation moves
forward and Sealaska is able to select within these areas. It
stuns me to think that we're still in a position where you are
saying you can't implement your plan. It causes me to wonder
whether or not your plan is feasible in the first place.
Let me ask you about the old growth preserves. Because you
bring up the commitment to protect the land and mention the old
growth preserve areas to protect the habitat for the goshawk
and for the Alexander Archipelago wolf. The question that I
have here, again, it seems almost basic to me when we're
talking about protection of habitat. Within the proposal that
we have before us now, if Sealaska selects inside their
existing box, they're going to be disturbing about 34,000 acres
of existing old growth, reserve habitat LUDs.
Now you've got 34,000 acres there. But under the bill that
we're proposing now and working through, the timber development
areas that are open to Sealaska selection is just over 10,500
acres contained in the old growth LUDs. So the question is,
isn't it better from an environmental perspective and certainly
for the critical habitat perspective to allow the proposal that
we have before us?
Because if Sealaska were limited to selecting within the
box there would be more critical habitat that would potentially
be disturbed than under the scenario that we are putting
forward with this legislation. Would you agree?
Mr. Sherman. Senator Murkowski, all old growth reserve
areas are not necessarily the same. It's important that we
first emphasize that the old growth areas within the box were
reviewed very carefully by a team of wildlife specialists,
State, Federal, and so forth, to anticipate if those areas were
developed what would be the impact on these species. That was
evaluated very carefully.
In the meantime, with the Tongass Land Management plan, the
areas outside of the box which were chosen for old growth
reserve were also evaluated very carefully. Now the problem is
within the box, as I understand it, if you develop certain old
growth reserve areas there, there are alternate sites to which
you could go to designate as old growth reserve which would
help to protect the species. When you go outside of the box,
you have very key parcels of habitat and connectivity of
habitat which the Fish and Wildlife service have placed great
importance on. In many of these areas we do not have
alternative locations that we can go to, to provide comparable
habitat that would work for the purposes that are intended.
So we have to look very carefully at what parcels were
focused on. What those parcels do in terms of protecting the
species or not. Again, I think this is a subject that needs
greater attention. It's a subject that we need to sit down and
review very carefully with Sealaska and with wildlife experts
because the worst thing that could happen here is that the
species would be listed or we would have litigation over this
issue.
Senator Murkowski. We would certainly agree. I would have
hoped that you would have had those full discussions as I
believe we absolutely have this issue. I take it back toyou.
You've got a situation where you're either disturbing 10,000
acres or 35,000 acres.
It would seem to me that the compromise that Sealaska has
put forward in an effort to protect these old growth preserves,
the proposal that Sealaska is advancing is one that, in fact,
would provide for greater habitat protection. Thus, that should
keep the lawsuits at bay or the listings at bay, which of
course, is something that we would all hope that we're going to
do.
Mr. Sherman. If I could just respond briefly. I again would
just urge this committee to look at this issue carefully
because I do not believe this question of the development of
old growth reserves outside of the box, the sites that have
selected, there could be very significant consequences from
doing this. We need to study this carefully with Sealaska and
with this committee to understand what the effect of that would
be.
Senator Murkowski. Again, I'd like to go into the extent
that the studies have already been conducted. It's my
understanding that there has been significant time and effort
to do just that. You also mention, if I may with your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman, just a couple more questions. Because
I know that others want to speak as well.
The impact on the existing mills. It is one of the concerns
as we talk about this transition from second growth to the
young growth strategy. It is an issue that has come up. I have
brought it up with the Secretary of Agriculture. We have had
discussions about it.
But our reality is that if, in fact, we are not able to
come to a resolve with this Sealaska legislation the existing
remnants of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska are just
not going to survive. They won't be able to transition to this
new strategy that we are talking about putting in place. This
is why I think you hear the continued plea for urgency in
resolving this because as I mentioned in my opening, the timber
industry in Southeast Alaska is hanging on a thread.
It's imperative that we figure out how we allow for
Sealaska to keep working because as they keep working, they
keep all of the other operators working too, whether it's the
folks that are putting the explosives in or building the road
or milling the logs. I mean, there is an effort there that is
very, very tenuous right now. I think we all appreciate that.
So we talk a lot about transitioning but the reality is we
might not have anybody who makes it through that transition.
I want to ask one last question for you. This is about the
in holdings. This is apparently the first time that the Forest
Service has expressed some concerns about the increase of in
holdings within the forest. But given that the Forest Service,
as I understand it, controls four-fifths of the Tongass, the
Park Service has most of the remaining fifth.
You've got 1 percent then that essentially is in private
holdings. You've got 1 percent in native corporation holdings.
How can Sealaska get any remaining lands under ANCSA without
producing in holdings?
Then, again, to take it back to either the proposal before
us or what you would have if they were just limited to
selecting within the existing selection boxes, if they stay
within the existing box they've identified more than 53 tracts
to take. But under this bill it would be 33 tracts to take.
You bring up the issue of in holdings and yes, there are
going to be in holdings. But there would be more if we don't
resolve this through the suggestion that we have with this
legislation. Again, when you're dealing with almost 100 percent
of the area that is owned by the Federal Government, one way,
shape or form or another, it's pretty difficult to provide for
these entitlements without creating an in holding.
Mr. Sherman. Senator, I think it is very important for
Sealaska and the Forest Service to continue their dialog on
these issues. They have been talking about these issues.
Senator Murkowski. When you say that we continue the
dialog, how long do we need to dialog?
Mr. Sherman. We need to continue this. I can't set a time
but I do think we are prepared to actively work on these issues
with Sealaska. These inholdings typically around the country
have proven very problematic to the Forest Service. We try to
discourage inholdings rather than creating inholdings.
I do think that within the box there were earlier
evaluations of those sites, to some extent, that were
undertaken. The Forest Service has done certain planning around
that. I'm not an expert on which sites were selected or not.
But we need to have a ongoing dialog with Sealaska about
which of these sites could work or not work. Where do we have
access issues? Where do we have boundary and liability issues?
There's a range of questions that do come up when you
consider in holdings. Again, I think it's important to do this
correctly. Because if we don't we will face certain
consequences down the road.
Senator Murkowski. I would just suggest to you--and I have
taken twice my time, I appreciate the indulgence of the
chairman and the ranking member here--that we have been working
aggressively on this legislation for the past year. It's kind
of you to say that we need to continue the dialog. But at some
point in time there has to be a resolve to this issue.
You have acknowledged that. Ms. Burke has acknowledged
that. We cannot keep just talking this to death because 40
years have passed. Sealaska has not been able to deal with
their entitlement issue.
So I think the time for talking was this past year when we
were out there seeking comment, not only from within the
communities but from within the agencies themselves. So if
you're truly committed to resolving this as an issue let's make
this happen. But let's not allow this to drag out because I'm
not going to be here 40 years from now. It's not the direction
that we need to take.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me continue.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. We will be
working with you on your legislation.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman, I stated in my opening comments that I
appreciate your support of the Good Neighbor authority. In your
testimony you said the Good Neighbor authority has produced
great results in Colorado and Utah. The GAO report you spoke
about identifies numerous good things happen on the ground in
those two States.
You had the qualifier. You said that you believe further
study and analysis is needed to better understand the interplay
of needs, State and Federal contracting, labor law regulation
before expansion of the authority is authorized. So, I mean,
I'm puzzled here.
Given the proven, positive results what specific,
additional analysis is really needed and what don't we know
that we need to find out?
Mr. Sherman. Senator Barrasso, I don't think this will
involve an extensive analysis. But I think there needs to be
some further discussion. These are Federal lands. They're
Federal contracts. They're Federal agencies that are involved.
Yypically when we do work on Federal land we utilize
Federal labor and wage and safety mechanisms and regulations
and so forth. So the question arises as to how we would apply
those in these types of cases. We need to review.
As we take a pilot program and move it from two States to
16 States, this question comes up. We need to sit down with you
and others and talk about how we would incorporate these laws
and regulations into whatever work we do with State foresters.
Senator Barrasso. Is that analysis being done now? There
are things happening on the ground in Wyoming. We would like to
get this addressed immediately. It just seems that delay after
delay with the pine beetle and other issues that----
Mr. Sherman. I think it's incumbent upon us to work
actively with you in the immediate future to address these
questions.
Senator Barrasso. We'd appreciate that. Because I don't--do
you know of any labor law violations or contractual concerns
that have taken place in either Utah or Colorado?
Mr. Sherman. I am not aware of any specific situations that
have come up. I haven't contrasted their State laws with
Federal laws. But I think we can get to the heart of this
quickly and come up with a solution.
Senator Barrasso. I'd appreciate that so we can move ahead
in a quick way. I don't want to be in the same situation as
Senator Murkowski, talks about the years of delay even though
that the discussion continues.
So I'd have the same question for you Deputy Director
Burke. Your testimony, I kind of came to the same conclusion.
You were very positive about the program but you said further
study and analysis is needed to better understand the interplay
of some of these things.
I'm trying to find out why we're keeping a successful
program from being a useful tool in landscape management today.
So any additional thoughts on what your time would be and it
would all work together on this?
Ms. Burke. Senator Barrasso, it is not our intent to delay.
What we do believe is a very useful tool. I mean, our ability
to manage the landscape effectively.
While we echo the concerns that the Department of
Agriculture has noted, we are eager to work with you to move
this Authority forward.
Senator Barrasso. This is, kind of, the third Congress that
I brought this piece of legislation. So I'd hope that we could
truly move ahead in an expeditious manner.
Some of the bills that we're looking at today and looked at
last time we considered previously, in previous Congress, and
so most of the testimony we heard last week or this week is
somewhat repeated. Could both of you just provide me with some
analysis of each of today's bills showing how they may have
changed from the last session? Because there have been some
changes in the bills from the last session.
Not right now, but get some written response on that.
I wanted to ask also about the issue of wilderness
designation. That has a significant impact on local economies
and the way of life in Western communities. So, Mr. Sherman, I
want to talk to you about S. 268, based on a collaboration.
It was written in a collaboration between the timber
industry, environmentalists. You know, I always have concerns
that there may be other groups out there. Such as snowmobilers,
ranchers, who may have strong reservations about S. 268 and the
impact that it will have on the local economy.
I know in the third panel we're going to hear testimony. I
was reading through the testimony of Walter Congdon from
Montana Cattlemen's Association in Southwestern Montana. It's
interesting testimony because he actually goes through the bill
line by line and said, you know, add these words or take these
words. It was very impressive work done.
He has some suggested changes. I'm wondering if the agency
sees a need to reach greater consensus before the bill moves
forward?
Mr. Sherman. I think it's important to try to find
consensus and collaboration where we can. My understanding is
that progress has been made on that. This exchange between
Senator Tester and Senator Risch seems to indicate that there
has been progress there. Hopefully that eliminates some of
these ongoing concerns.
Senator Barrasso. Then a final question has to do with
costs of implementing both S. 268 and S. 220, which was the
chairman's bill from last week. The impact that may have on
other National Forests because both of these bills include
large authorizations to pay for the timber sales to be produced
by the Forest Service. The bills also include language stating
the funding can't be taken from other forest regions to pay for
the new timber to be produced.
So last week Mary Wagner testified that the Forest Service
had budgeted approximately 13 million dollars a year, I think,
for the timber sale program in Eastern Oregon. But S. 220
called for a $50 million authorization to pay for the timber
sales. Then S. 268 calls for, I think, 7,000 acres of
harvesting a year for 15 years.
So I'm trying to picture this and figure out how much
funding does the region receive for the current timber sale
program on the forests involved? In these bills, if they're
signed into law as currently written, how is the agency going
to meet commitments it's making by testifying in favor of this
bill verses that bill? How is the money going to work, you
know, are there other non timber programs which will be used to
fund this new timber sale commitment that you're agency has
testified in favor of?
I'm just trying to see if you've, kind of, pictured the
whole thing together?
Mr. Sherman. We obviously will need to have appropriate
budgetary allotments to do the work that is intended in these
bills. In the case of 268, it does provide that the resources
are not going to be taken from other regions. But it is our
hope that through the President's 2012 budget with the Forest
Service that we will get sufficient resources to do good work
under both of these bills.
But it is dependent upon our receiving sufficient budgetary
allocations to make this work happen.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. Just so we're clear on
this point. We got into it with respect to my legislation as
well, the Eastside Forest bill has exactly the same language
that we're talking about with Senator Tester.
What I think is particularly important as we try to go
forward with a couple of these major demonstration efforts.
Mary Wagner outlined this, I think, very clearly, very
succinctly. We are going to be building on work that is already
being done.
In other words this is not an effort to somehow unravel a
variety of projects that are already taking place in a
collaborative area. This is an effort to in effect build on
what is already taking place. I know you share that view, Mr.
Sherman. Mary Wagner laid it out very well.
We'll be working very closely with Senator Barrasso on that
point. It's an important one for the West.
We've got Senator Tester here. We welcome him. Please go
ahead with the questions that you'd like to ask, Senator
Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
flexibility. Before I ask, Mr. Sherman, a question I would just
to respond to Senator Barrasso's concerns.
It's been a session or two since I was on this committee,
but the last time I was on this committee the Forest Service
spent about half their budget fighting fires. I would submit
that this bill, enacted properly, could actually save money.
Not only from a management standpoint, but also we have gone in
the last 20 years from 26 mills, down to seven. That's a loss
of an economic base that's critical for an area that's between
15 and 25 percent unemployment. So we've got some opportunities
to move the ball forward.
Mr. Sherman, appreciate both of you and Ms. Burke being
here today. Appreciate your testimony from both of you.
Mr. Sherman, from what I've heard in your testimony from
the Secretary's letter that I talked about in my opening
statement. From the Secretary's visit to Montana last year
would it be fair to say that the USDA is supportive of my
effort in Senate bill 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act?
Mr. Sherman. Senator, we are very supportive of the
concepts and the goals in this bill. We are excited about
moving forward on a number of these projects, as we are doing.
A lot of the work that we're doing in 2011/2012 is in the
spirit of what you're talking about in this legislation. We
want to continue to complete our work with you on these few
remaining issues that there are.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that. Just kind of a follow up
because you brought up a follow in to my next, a lead to my
next question and that is, is it the Forest Service is starting
to work toward some of the goals of this bill as we speak. Can
you give me a little more information about what kind of region
wide, long term stewardship contracting you folks are moving
toward as we speak?
Mr. Sherman. Yes. For example, in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
area during FY 2012 we are projecting work on a 5,200 acre
parcel which is a 42 percent increase in restoration acreage on
the forest and a 67 percent increase resulting in the volume
that would be coming off that forest. With the Southwest Crown
of the Continent we would be, through the CFLRA moneys that
have been allocated, we would be more than tripling the
restoration acreage and resulting volumes.
So that's the scale and the scope of work that we are
hoping to do under the President's FY 2012 budget.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. As I said in my opening remarks I hope we can get
this bill through this committee. I know you have a bill with
some of the same goals.
Hopefully we can get that through at the same time. Get it
to the Senate floor. Get a good solid vote on both of them.
Hopefully get them to the President's desk and give the Forest
Service some tools by which to manage our forests in a more
realistic way.
Thank you.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Tester. Mr. Sherman, I
would only say and we've discussed this that there is no
question that the challenges of new forestry are going to be
nationwide. There's no question about that.
If we were starting from scratch, if we were sitting there
with a fresh slate. There wasn't anything on the books one
would look at the organic, you know, statute and one would seek
to write a bill with sufficient flexibility so that Montana
could go forward with its approach and Oregon could go forward
with its approach. The challenge, of course, is we don't have
that kind of time.
You look at the Eastside of Oregon. I think Senator Tester
feels the same way. We have a handful of mills left on the
Eastside of Oregon.
If we lose that infrastructure it is lights out on much of
the rural economy of my State. We won't have the
infrastructure, for example, to go forward with the ground
breaking opportunities we have in terms of environmental
protection. I said this morning it was a program on alternative
fuels. People wanted to talk mostly about vehicles. But I'm not
going to go to any program on alternative fuels and not talk
about biomass.
Oregon is part of this project. We're looking to be the
Saudi Arabia of biomass. We're going to have some opportunities
by, in effect, bringing forward this new, sort of, approach. I
call it a healthy forest can equal a healthy, you know, economy
that I think is going to be very, very helpful for the agency
in the years ahead.
So we'll be following up with you on that, both the Montana
bill and the Oregon bill. We've appreciated your working with
us. Let's let you have the last word on these issues should you
choose to.
Mr. Sherman. Senator, I think all of us at USDA and the
Forest Service share your feeling about the urgency of moving
forward in the areas that we're talking about. So we look
forward to working with you. I'm sure we'll be discussing many
of these issues in the near future with the committee and
moving these bills forward in a way that works for everyone.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Ms. Burke, did you have anything
you wanted to add?
Ms. Burke. No, thank you.
Senator Wyden. Alright. We thank you both. We'll excuse you
both at this time.
Let's see. We have one panel of folks from Alaska and
Montana. We want to welcome them.
Mr. Mallott, Ms. Poelstra, I hope I'm pronouncing that
right, Mr. Sherman Anderson and Mr. Wally Congdon.
We're glad all of you are here. Folks from other parts of
the country often don't understand what a long trek it is to
make it from the West to the Capitol. I was home last weekend
and I was counting it up on Monday. I spent almost as much time
in the air as I was able to spend on the ground at home. so we
really appreciate everybody coming out.
We're going to make your prepared remarks a part of the
hearing record in their entirety. So if you could summarize
your principle views. I know my colleague from Alaska and my
colleague from Montana are going to have questions for folks.
We'll make your prepared statements a part of the record.
So why don't we begin with you, Mr. Mallott.
STATEMENT OF BYRON MALLOTT, BOARD MEMBER, SEALASKA CORPORATION,
JUNEAU, AK; ACCOMPANIED BY JAELEEN ARAUJO, SEALASKA GENERAL
COUNSEL
Mr. Mallott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to mention
joining me at the table is Jaeleen Araujo, who is Sealaska's
General Counsel, who is also a tribal member shareholder and
she'll be able to assist me.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Mr. Mallott. OK. You can't help but be influenced by what
one hears during a hearing already like this that has mentioned
legislation that is truly important to you. So my remarks are
going to be a bit different than I had originally planned.
I attended, this past weekend, the gathering at the mouth
of the Alsek River in the Tongass National Forest and the
Glacier Bay National Park. The river essentially bisects Forest
Service and National Park lands. The purpose of the gathering
and I must say, hosted by the National Park Service and the
U.S. Forest Service, who are very gracious and supportive and
provided significant assistance, was to celebrate the finding
after a century of loss of a clan village, the people of Dry
Bay, the Delta of the Alsek River.
In the past 5 years, five tribal houses, clan houses, were
found, at least the archeological remains. The houses were
identified by name. The stories that relate to them are still
extant within our oral tradition, our oral history. The
celebration was to recognize that something hugely important
had been brought back.
I mention that because in past hearings I have had the
opportunity to appear and I have worn, for example, this vest
and this pendant which is indicative, which represents my clan
symbol. Some have jeered at that and said why is that done in
this day and age and done so in the press in relation to the
Sealaska bill.
There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when in 1908 the U.S.
Government created the Tongass National Forest. Just this
Sunday, we had one of our revered leaders, Walter Soboleff, who
was born in 1908 pass away. He lived that entire span.
I've had the opportunity to sit with him many, many times
and discuss the history of our people on this land. We say that
the Tongass is native land. When we say that, we do not say
that it is exclusively native land. We would not say that.
We are citizens of the United States. We recognize that. We
take that obligation very seriously. We have a huge sense of
responsibility to our place and our commitment to this Nation.
We know that we share the Tongass.
But at a powerful fundamental level the Tongass is a native
place. Centuries and generations and literally millennia of the
history of our people live in that land. We have seen our
people, particularly from 1900 on, literally ripped from that
land, the creation of the Tongass National Forest, the passage
of a territorial, much ballyhooed, citizenship bill for Alaska
native people relating largely to Southeast in which a native
could become a citizen of the United States only if he or she
gave up, consciously, all vestiges of who they were as native
people.
That has been replete in our history. Mr. Chairman, I was
there during the 1970s when ANCSA was created. It is no
accident that Sealaska has only received some 300,000 acres
available for selection within the Tongass National Forest
because at the time there was a thriving timber industry which
I wish that we had today. But there was no room for native
interests other than that very miniscule, modest, less than 1
percent, at the time.
Over the years the circumstances have changed. They've been
modified. What we seek today is lands that are in recognition
of a current reality. To be responsive, not just to our own
needs, but to the needs of this country when we talk about
transitioning to second growth, when we talk about meeting the
needs of the timber industry which very soon could disappear
without an infusion of timber. To us, as native peoples, the
Tongass is a native place in which our true worth, the
fundamental respect, the fundamental recognition of the fact
that we were there first. It's not by way of saying do
something special for us, but just a simple recognition, a
sense of respect.
I was at a gathering in Hawaii very recently. In every
instance, principle speakers, Mr. Chairman, recognized and
acknowledged and thanked the host culture.
Senator Wyden. I don't want to interrupt you at this point.
Mr. Mallott. Right.
Senator Wyden. But I know you're over time. We've got these
other witnesses.
Mr. Mallott. Then I'm going to close very quickly.
Senator Wyden. Wonderful.
Mr. Mallott. OK.
Recognize that host culture and thank them. A fundamental
sense of respect and recognition that I believe is powerfully
involved in this legislation. If passed will allow us to move
on in ways that we never, thus far, been able to do. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Byron Mallott, Board Member, Sealaska
Corporation, Juneau, AK, on S. 730
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Byron Mallott, and I am a Board Member for Sealaska
Corporation, as well as a former President and CEO of Sealaska. I am
from Yakutat, an Alaska Native village, and I am Shaa-dei-ha-ni (Clan
Leader) of the Kwaashk'i Kwaan. My Tlingit name is K'oo deel taa.a.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
Sealaska, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska,
regarding S. 730, the ``Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization Act,'' a bill that we refer to as Haa Aani in Tlingit,
which roughly translates into ``Our Land'' or ``Our Place''. ``Haa
Aani'' is the Tlingit way of referring to our ancestral and traditional
homeland and the foundation of our history and culture.
Sealaska is the Alaska Native Regional Corporation for Southeast
Alaska--one of 12 Regional Corporations established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (``ANCSA'') of 1971. Our
shareholders are descendants of the original Native inhabitants of
Southeast Alaska--the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people. Our
ancestors once used and occupied every corner of Southeast Alaska and
our cultural and burial sites can be found throughout the region. This
legislation is a reflection of the significance of Our Land to our
people and its importance in meeting our cultural, social and economic
needs.
Forty years ago, as a young man, I traveled to Washington, DC as an
advocate for the land claims of Alaska's Native people. Here I am
again, forty years later, advocating for the equitable completion of
Sealaska's land entitlement.
This legislation involves less than 85,000 acres from the Southeast
Alaska region, a region with almost 23 million acres of land; 85% of
that land is already in some form of conservation, wilderness or other
protected status. Putting the Sealaska legislation in perspective,
Sealaska's remaining land entitlement represents about one third of one
percent of the total land mass in Southeast Alaska.
Yet this legislation also represents a significant opportunity for
the public, Congress, the Administration, communities, environmental
organizations and others to get it right for once in the Tongass. S.
730 achieves environmental balance, sustains jobs, ensures that Native
people are viable participants in our economy, and returns important
cultural and economic lands to Southeast Alaska's Native people.
S. 730 fulfills the promise of ANCSA because it:
allows Sealaska to finalize its ANCSA land entitlement in a
fair, meaningful way;
redresses inequitable legal limitations on Sealaska's land
selections by allowing it to select remaining entitlement lands
from outside of withdrawal areas that, among the regional
Alaska Native Corporations, uniquely constrained Sealaska;
allows for Alaska Native ownership of sites with sacred,
cultural, traditional and historic significance to the Alaska
Natives of Southeast Alaska;
creates the opportunity for Sealaska to support a
sustainable rural economy and to support economic and job
opportunities throughout Southeast Alaska;
results in environmental benefits to the public because high
conservation value lands important for sport and commercial
fisheries, old growth wildlife reserves, areas important for
local subsistence use and municipal watersheds will remain in
public ownership; and
provides a platform for Sealaska to continue to contribute
to the Southeast Alaska economy, a region that is struggling
overall, especially in our rural Native villages.
As discussed in detail in my testimony below, there is a
compelling, equitable basis for supporting this legislation. There is
no dispute that Sealaska has a remaining land entitlement, and this
legislation does not give Sealaska one acre of land beyond that already
promised by Congress. Sealaska has worked closely with the timber
industry, conservation organizations, tribes and Native institutions,
local communities, the State of Alaska, and federal land management
agencies to craft legislation that provides the best possible result
for the people, communities and environment of Southeast Alaska.
One thing has become extremely clear in our effort to resolve
Sealaska's land entitlement--that every acre of Southeast Alaska is
precious to someone. With the vast array of interests in Southeast
Alaska, there is simply no way to achieve an absolute consensus on
where and how Sealaska should select its remaining entitlement.
However, we truly believe that this legislation offers a balanced
solution as a result of our engagement with all regional stakeholders.
OUR DILEMMA
Alaska Native Corporations were tasked by Congress in 1971 with
supporting the economic future of the Alaska Native community, in part
by utilizing lands returned by the United States to Native people to
develop resources that would advance the social, economic and cultural
well-being of our tribal member shareholders.
We believe that Congress' core promise to Alaska Natives in ANCSA
was that Alaska Natives would be able to develop sustainable economies
so that we could work to achieve, for ourselves, economic parity with
the rest of America. Socio-economic parity was a focal point of Alaska
Natives and the Land, a congressionally-mandated study published in
1968, which was a foundational predicate for Congress to act on Alaska
Native land claims.
Sealaska has utilized some of its land base to develop timber
resources. Of the 290,000 acres Sealaska has received under ANCSA,
Sealaska has harvested timber on 189,000 acres in accordance with
modern forestry and forest engineering best management practices that
protect water quality, anadromous fish habitat, wildlife habitat,
forest soils, and the long term productivity of the forest. Selective
harvesting and even-aged harvesting has been employed. Less than half
(81,000 acres) of managed forest lands have been clear cut (even-aged
harvest). Sealaska's timber business has been a powerful economic
engine that has helped to support the regional economy for 30 years,
and seventy percent of Sealaska's timber revenues have been shared with
more than 200 Alaska Native Corporations, as required under sections
7(i) and 7(j) of ANCSA. Sealaska and its subsidiaries and affiliates
expended over $45 million in 2008 in Southeast Alaska. Over 350
businesses and organizations in 16 Southeast communities benefit from
spending resulting from Sealaska activities. Sealaska provides over 363
full and part-time jobs with a payroll of over $15 million. Including
direct and indirect employment and payroll, Sealaska in 2008 supported
490 jobs and approximately $21 million in payroll. Wherever it selects
the land, Sealaska may choose to utilize some of its remaining
entitlement to support sustainable forestry with a timber rotation that
could sustain hundreds of jobs in our region, in perpetuity, while
protecting important forest resources.
Unlike the other eleven Regional Native Corporations, Sealaska was
directed to select the entirety of its entitlement lands only from
within boxes drawn around just ten of the Native villages in Southeast
Alaska. Forty-four percent of the ten withdrawal areas is comprised of
salt water, and multiple other factors limit the ability of Sealaska to
select land within the boxes. This has made it difficult to make
equitable selections. No other Regional Corporation was treated in this
manner under ANCSA.
To date, Sealaska has selected 290,000 acres of land under ANCSA
from within the withdrawal boxes. Based on Bureau of Land Management
(``BLM'') projections for completion of the Section 14(h)(8)
selections, and our own estimates, the remaining entitlement to be
conveyed to Sealaska is between 65,000 and 85,000 acres of land. The
only remaining issue is where this land will come from. Of the lands
available to Sealaska today within the ANCSA withdrawal boxes:
270,000 are included in the current U.S. Forest Service
inventory of roadless forestland;
112,000 acres are comprised of productive old growth;
60,000 acres are included in the Forest Service's inventory
of old growth reserves; and
much of the land is comprised of important community
watersheds, high conservation value areas important for sport
and commercial fisheries and/or areas important for subsistence
uses.
The Sealaska legislation allows Sealaska to move away from
sensitive watersheds and roadless areas, to select a balanced inventory
of second growth and old growth, and to select most of its remaining
ANCSA lands on the existing road system, preserving on balance as much
as 40,000 acres of productive old growth, much of which is inventoried
``roadless old growth''.
WHY IS SEALASKA CORPORATION DIFFERENT?
A common misperception of the Sealaska bill is that Sealaska is
required to select its Native lands from within the 10 withdrawal areas
in Southeast Alaska because Sealaska ``asked for it''. This perception
is reflected in opinion pieces in Alaska newspapers and has been shared
with Members of the House and Senate Committees of jurisdiction. We
therefore believe this misconception should be addressed here.
ANCSA authorized the distribution of approximately $1,000,000,000
and 44,000,000 acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the
establishment of 12 Regional Native Corporations and more than 200
Village Corporations to receive and manage the funds and land to meet
the cultural, social, and economic needs of Native shareholders.
Under section 12 of ANCSA, each Regional Corporation, other than
Sealaska, was authorized to receive a share of land based on the
proportion that the number of Alaska Native shareholders residing in
the region of the Regional Corporation bore to the total number of
Alaska Native shareholders, or the relative size of the area to which
the Regional Corporation had an aboriginal land claim bore to the size
of the area to which all Regional Corporations had aboriginal land
claims. While each other Regional Corporation received a significant
quantity of land under section 12 of ANCSA, Sealaska received land only
under section 14(h) of that Act.
Sealaska did not receive land in proportion to the number of Alaska
Native shareholders, or in proportion to the size of the area to which
Sealaska had an aboriginal land claim, in part because, in 1968, some
compensation was provided to the Tlingit and Haida Indians by the U.S.
Court of Claims, which determined that the Tlingit and Haida Indians
were entitled to recover $7.5 million for the taking of the 17 million
acre Tongass National Forest and 3.3 million acre Glacier Bay National
Park.
The 1968 Court of Claims payment should be viewed in context with
the universal settlement reached by Congress just three years later
that allowed for the return of 44 million acres to Alaska's Native
people. With a population that represented more than 20 percent of
Alaska's Native population in 1971, Southeast Alaska Natives ultimately
will receive title to only 1 percent of lands returned to Alaska
Natives under ANCSA.
Moreover, the 1968 settlement provided by the Court of Claims did
not compensate the Tlingit and Haida for 2,628,207 acres of land in
Southeast Alaska also subject to aboriginal title. These lands became
an important basis for the participation of the Southeast Alaska
Natives in the settlement in 1971. The court also determined the value
of the lost Indian fishing rights at $8,388,315, but did not provide
compensation for those rights. These rights were pursued through a
property claims action before the Indian Claims Commission, originally
filed in 1954, but there was no decision on the merits when ANCSA
passed in 1971. The Commission subsequently ruled that ANCSA
extinguished such claims and the proceeding became a moot.
Sealaska ultimately would be entitled to recover as much as 375,000
acres of land under ANCSA. However, under the terms of ANCSA, and
because the homeland of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people had
been reserved by the U.S. government as a national forest, the
Secretary of the Interior was not able to withdraw any land in the
Tongass for selection by and conveyance to Sealaska. The only lands
available for selection by Sealaska in 1971 were slated to become part
of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park or consisted essentially of
mountain tops.
For this reason, in the early 1970s, Sealaska requested that
Congress amend ANCSA to permit Sealaska to select lands in Southeast
Alaska, particularly located near its villages. Congress accomplished
this by offering to Sealaska and the Southeast villages the opportunity
to make its selections from within 10 withdrawal boxes established
under ANCSA for the 10 Southeast Native villages recognized under that
Act. In 1976, Congress granted that right.
In short, in the 1970s Sealaska sought areas from which to make
selections because, at that time, Southeast Alaska's Native people had
no other place to go in the Tongass, the very homeland of Southeast
Alaska's Native people. The suggestion that Alaska's Native people
invited their own exclusion from their Native homeland is an idea that
any compassionate witness to our history should find repugnant. It was
a choice between something limited or nothing at all. Hardly a choice.
S. 730 addresses problems associated with the unique treatment of
Sealaska under ANCSA and the unintended public policy consequences of
forcing Sealaska to select within the existing ANCSA withdrawals. The
legislation presents to Congress and to this Administration a
legislative package that will result in public policy benefits on many
levels. S. 730 allows Sealaska to select from alternative, well defined
withdrawals areas in Southeast Alaska. The legislation enables the
conveyance of the final acres to which Sealaska is entitled--and not
one acre more.
Historic pressures resulted in the political marginalization and
spatial confinement of Native people in Southeast Alaska, documented in
``A New Frontier'' (discussed directly below), including federal
pressures to prevent Native claims from impacting the timber industry.
These pressures no longer (we hope) restrict the decisions of either
the Congress or the Forest Service in pursuing a legislative solution
that will enable Sealaska to finalize its Native entitlement in a
manner that is both equitable and results in minimal impacts to other
interests in the Tongass.
Observers unfamiliar with ANCSA sometimes suggest that the Sealaska
legislation might somehow create a negative precedent with respect to
Alaska Native land claims. This seems odd in the context of the history
of the Tongass and its impact on the Southeast settlement. Moreover,
ANCSA has been amended more than 30 times. ANCSA was and remains a
congressional undertaking, and as a statute, it is organic. As observed
by Senator Mark Begich at a hearing on this bill before the Senate
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests in October 2009, Congress has,
on multiple occasions, deemed it appropriate to amend ANCSA to address
in an equitable manner issues that were not anticipated by Congress
when ANCSA passed.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS: WHY NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ARE UNIQUE IN THE
TONGASS
Two documents attached to this written testimony present an
historical perspective on the long struggle to return lands in the
Tongass to Native people: (1) the draft document funded by the Forest
Service and authored by Dr. Charles W. Smythe, ``A New Frontier:
Managing the National Forests in Alaska, 1970-1995'' (1995) (``A New
Frontier''); and (2) a paper by Walter R. Echo-Hawk, ``A Context for
Setting Modern Congressional Indian Policy in Native Southeast Alaska
(``Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska'').*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The findings and observations summarized below are to be attributed
to the work of Dr. Smythe and Mr. Echo-Hawk. For the sake of brevity,
we have summarized or paraphrased these findings and observations. We
encourage people with an interest in the history of the Tongass
generally, or in this legislation specifically, to take the time to
read these documents in full.
Dr. Smythe's research, compiled in ``A New Frontier'', found, among
other things:
By the time the Tongass National Forest was created in 1908,
the Tlingit and Haida Indians had been marginalized. As white
settlers and commercial interests moved into the Alaska
territory, they utilized the resources as they found them,
often taking over key areas for cannery sites, fish traps,
logging, and mining.
The Act of 1884, which created civil government in the
Alaska territory, also extended the first land laws to the
region, and in combination with legislation in 1903, settlers
were given the ability to claim exclusively areas for
canneries, mining claims, townsites, and homesteads, and to
obtain legal title to such tracts. Since the Indians were not
recognized as citizens, they did not have corresponding rights
(to hold title to land, to vote, etc.) to protect their
interests.
For decades prior to the passage of ANCSA, the Forest
Service opposed the recognition of traditional Indian use and
aboriginal title in the Tongass National Forest. As late as
1954, the Forest Service formally recommended that all Indian
claims to the Tongass be extinguished because of continuing
uncertainty affecting the timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
On October 7, 1959, the U.S. Court of Claims held that the
Tlingit and Haida Indians had established their claims of
aboriginal Indian title to the land in Southeast Alaska and
were entitled to recover compensation for the uncompensated
taking of their lands, and for the failure to protect their
hunting and fishing rights.
The efforts by the Interior Department in the 1930s and
1940s to establish reservations in Southeast Alaska greatly
alarmed the Forest Service--which at the time opposed the
principle of aboriginal rights and its serious conflict with
Forest Service plans for a pulpwood industry in Alaska.
The policy of the Roosevelt Administration, with Harold
Ickes as Interior Secretary, was to recognize aboriginal rights
to land and fisheries in Alaska and to support efforts to
provide a land and resource base to Native communities for
their economic benefit. Following hearings on the aboriginal
claims related to the protection of fisheries in the
communities of Hydaburg, Klawock and Kake, Secretary Ickes
established an amount of land to be set aside for the three
village reservations: Hydaburg--101,000 acres; Klawock--95,000;
acres Kake--77,000 acres.
The judgments of the Department of the Interior were
troubling to the Forest Service. If realized, the whole timber
industry in southeast Alaska would be jeopardized. The Forest
Service's ability to make timber sales would be in doubt.
The Department of Agriculture later expressed its agreement
with the efforts of the U.S. Senate to substantially repeal the
Interior Secretary's authority to establish the proposed
reservations in Southeast Alaska.
Walter Echo Hawk's paper, ``Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska'',
observes, in part:
The creation of the Tongass National Forest was done
unilaterally, more than likely unbeknownst to the Indian
inhabitants.
The Tongass National Forest was actually established subject
to existing property rights, as it stated that nothing shall be
construed ``to deprive any persons of any valid rights''
secured by the Treaty with Russia or by any federal law
pertaining to Alaska. This limitation was essentially ignored.
A Tlingit leader and attorney William Paul won a short-lived
legal victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller
v. United States, 159 F. 2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947), which ruled
that lands could not be seized by the government without the
consent of the Tlingit landowners and without paying just
compensation.
To combat this decision, federal lawmakers passed a Joint
Resolution authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to sell
timber and land within the Tongass National Forest,
``notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights'' based upon
``aboriginal occupancy or title.'' This action ultimately
resulted in the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States decision,
in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that Indian land rights
are subject to the doctrines of discovery and conquest, and
``conquest gives a title which the Courts of the Conqueror
cannot deny.'' 348 U.S. 272, 280 (1955). The Court concluded
that Indians do not have 5th Amendment rights to aboriginal
property. The Congress, in its sole discretion, would decide if
there was to be any compensation whatsoever for lands stolen.
S. 730: A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION WITH SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC POLICY BENEFITS
Alaska's congressional delegation has worked hard to ensure that
the fair settlement of Sealaska's Native land claims is accomplished in
a manner that may have the greatest benefit to all of Southeast Alaska
with the least possible impact on individuals, communities, federal and
state land management agencies, and other interested stakeholders.
Thanks to the hard work of Alaska's congressional delegation, this
legislation largely is in symmetry with the goals of the Obama
Administration for the Tongass, which has worked to protect roadless
areas and accelerate the transition away from forest management that
relied on old growth harvesting. The Administration has been clear that
it wants to help struggling communities in rural Alaska. The
Administration also has dedicated unprecedented resources to working
with American Indian and Alaska Native communities nationwide. This
legislation helps to finalize Sealaska's Native entitlement in an
equitable way, while supporting a transition by Sealaska to second
growth harvesting and maintaining rural Southeast Alaska jobs.
Without legislation to amend ANCSA, Sealaska will be forced either
to select and develop roadless old growth areas within the existing
withdrawals or shut down all Native timber operations, with significant
negative impacts to rural communities, the economy of Southeast Alaska,
and our tribal member shareholders. This legislation proposes an
alternative: S. 730 would permit Sealaska to select its remaining
entitlement lands from outside of the ANCSA withdrawal boxes. The
alternative land pool from which Sealaska could select under S. 730
includes forestland suitable for timber development, but commits
Sealaska to select a great deal of second growth in lieu of the old
growth available to Sealaska today. In fact, the legislation ultimately
would preserve as much as 40,000 acres of old growth, and even more
inventoried roadless acres.
S. 730 would permit Sealaska to select 3,600 acres of land as
sacred and cultural sites, and 5,000 acres of small parcels of land
sometimes referred to as ``Native futures sites''. Under the terms of
the legislation, no timber or mineral development would be permitted on
sacred sites or Native futures sites. Because Sealaska would be
permitted to select these sites in lieu of timberlands, these
provisions reduce overall timber acres available to Sealaska by 8,600
acres.
Although Sealaska would thus give up ``economic'' assets under the
proposed legislation, we believe the Southeast Alaska Native community
will benefit because 3,600 acres of sacred sites will be returned to
Native ownership. The community will also benefit from the 30 smaller
selections (Native futures sites) that would be made available for
development as green energy (tidal, geothermal, or run-of-river hydro)
sites, bases for ecotourism or cultural tourism, or simply to exist as
sites in Native ownership; in fact, several futures sites are
traditional village sites. By permitting Sealaska to select a handful
of small parcels for such alternative uses, S. 730 helps to preserve
Native culture in perpetuity, ensures that the Tongass remains a Native
place, and provides the catalyst for creating new sustainable economies
within the Tongass.
The public benefits of this legislation also extend far beyond
Sealaska Corporation and its shareholders. Pursuant to a revenue
sharing provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes 70 percent of all
revenues derived from the development of its timber resources--more
than $315 million since 1971--among all of the more than 200 Alaska
Native Corporations.
As discussed throughout this legislation, Sealaska's land
legislation strategy was driven in large part by conservation
organizations' stated public goals of ``protecting roadless areas'',
``protecting old growth reserves'', ``accelerating the transition to
second growth'' and creating alternate economies for Southeast Alaska.
Finally, movement toward completion of Sealaska's ANCSA land
entitlement conveyances will benefit the federal government. This
legislation allows Sealaska to move forward with its selections, which
ultimately will give the BLM and the Forest Service some finality and
closure with respect to ANCSA selections in the region.
the forest service's plans for the tongass: impact of s. 730 on tongass
MANAGEMENT
The U.S. Forest Service has, in the past, expressed concern that S.
730 could impact its ability to harvest second growth to support
Southeast Alaska mills, and could impact other goals laid out in the
2008 Amendment to the Tongass Land Use Management Plan.
We believe Sealaska's offer to leave behind roadless old growth
timber in the Tongass is significant; it is a proposal we believe this
Administration should support based on its goals to protect these types
of forest lands. We also believe that the lands proposed for conveyance
under S. 730 conflict minimally with and may ultimately benefit the
Forest Service's Transition Framework for the Tongass.
The Forest Service uses various classifications to define the
condition of its second growth. The term ``suitable'' means that
forestland is available for harvest. The term ``unsuitable'' refers to
lands that are not available for harvest under normal harvest
prescriptions. For purposes of our calculations, unsuitable lands
exclude second growth in conservation designations, but include second
growth available for restoration and stewardship contracting. Based
upon our calculations, the following conclusions can be made:
There are 428,972 acres of second growth on the Tongass
National Forest.
--57% is available for harvest--suitable acres
--43% is not available for harvest, except through restoration and
stewardship contracts--unsuitable acres
Of the oldest second growth (over 40+ years):
--44% is suitable for harvest
--56% is unsuitable
Sealaska selection of second growth would include
approximately (an approximation is made due to differences
between the bills introduced in the Senate and the House):
--7% of the total second growth
--9% of the suitable second growth
--4% of the unsuitable second growth
Sealaska selections of age 40+ second growth include (an
approximation is made due to differences between the bills
introduced in the Senate and the House):
--12% of the total 40+ second growth
--9% of the 40+ second growth is from suitable acres
--4% of the 40+ second growth is from unsuitable acres
For the Forest Service, the most significant limitation to an
accelerated transition to second growth is the large number of acres of
older second growth that is in restricted timber use status. If these
restrictions were modified or removed, there could be an acceleration
to exclusive second growth harvesting.
If S. 730 were to pass today, under current standards and
guidelines, the Forest Service would retain at least 223,000 acres of
suitable second growth. In addition, it retains 177,000 acres of
unsuitable second growth that is available for stewardship and
restoration. We believe the total pool of lands available to the Forest
Service is more than sufficient to support log demand for the Forest
Service's Transition Framework.
We also believe that Sealaska and the Forest Service agree that, to
achieve a successful transition to second growth, the Forest Service
needs Sealaska to remain active in the timber industry in the Tongass,
because Sealaska's operations support regional infrastructure
(including roads and key contractors), development of markets
(including second growth markets), and development of efficient and
sustainable second growth harvesting techniques. In short, the likely
success of the Forest Service's transition to second growth is
significantly improved if Sealaska second growth operations are in
close physical proximity to Forest Service second growth operations.
Sealaska has 30 years of experience developing and distributing
Southeast Alaska wood to new and existing markets around the world.
Sealaska recently has pioneered second growth harvesting techniques in
Southeast Alaska and is active in this market. Partnership between
Sealaska and the Forest Service, collaborating to build new markets
based on second growth, will have a better chance of success.
This legislation, which moves Sealaska into some older second
growth, ensures that Sealaska will engage as an early partner with the
Forest Service in second growth market development, while continuing to
provide local jobs and supporting the local economy.
It is also important to note that regardless of whether Sealaska
selects within the existing ANCSA withdrawal boxes or outside of those
boxes, Sealaska must select its remaining entitlement lands from within
the Tongass National Forest. In other words, by selecting Native
entitlement lands, whether under existing law or the proposed
legislation (S. 730), Sealaska's land selections will incorporate lands
suitable for timber development and may require the Forest Service to
adjust land management plans to account for such selections. However,
the ability to make minor management adjustments is built into the
revised Tongass Land Management Plan.
LOCAL IMPACT OF S. 730: SAVING JOBS IN RURAL SOUTHEAST ALASKA
The Southeast Alaska region lost about 750 jobs in 2009, the
largest drop in at least 35 years. In January 2011, the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development reported the unemployment
rate for the Prince of Wales--Outer Ketchikan census area at
approximately 16.2 percent. In October 2007, the Alaska Department of
Labor and Workforce Development projected population losses between
1996 and 2030 for the Prince of Wales--Outer Ketchikan census area at
56.6 percent. Official unemployment rates severely underreport the
actual level of regional unemployment, particularly in our Native
communities.
While jobs in Southeast Alaska are up over the last 30 years, many
of those jobs can be attributed to industrial tourism, which creates
seasonal jobs in urban centers and does not translate to population
growth. In fact, the post-timber economy has not supported populations
in traditional Native villages, where unemployment among Alaska Natives
ranges above Great Depression levels and populations are shrinking
rapidly.
We consider this legislation to be the most important and immediate
``economic stimulus package'' that Congress can implement for Southeast
Alaska. Sealaska provides significant economic opportunities for our
tribal member shareholders and for residents of all of Southeast Alaska
through the development of our primary natural resource--timber.
Sealaska and its subsidiaries and affiliates expended over $45 million
in 2008 in Southeast Alaska. Over 350 businesses and organizations in
16 Southeast communities benefit from spending resulting from Sealaska
activities. We provide over 363 full and part-time jobs with a payroll
of over $15 million. Including direct and indirect employment and
payroll, Sealaska in 2008 supported 490 jobs and approximately $21
million in payroll.
We are proud of our collaborative efforts to build and support
sustainable and viable communities and cultures in our region. We face
continuing economic challenges with commercial electricity rates
reaching $0.61/kwh and heating fuel costs sometimes ranging above $6.00
per gallon. To help offset these extraordinary costs, we work with our
logging contractors and seven of our local communities to run a
community firewood program. We contribute cedar logs for the carving of
totems and cedar carving planks to schools and tribal organizations. We
are collaborating with our village corporations and villages to develop
hydroelectric projects. We do all of these collaborative activities
because we are not a typical American corporation. We are a Native
institution with a vested interest in our communities.
Our shareholders are Alaska Natives. The profits we make from
timber support causes that strengthen Native pride and awareness of who
we are as Native people and where we came from, and further our
contribution in a positive way to the cultural richness of American
society. The proceeds from timber operations allow us to make
substantial investments in cultural preservation, educational
scholarships, and internships for our shareholders and shareholder
descendants. Through these efforts we have seen a resurgence of Native
pride in our culture and language, most noticeably in our youth. Our
scholarships, internships and mentoring efforts have resulted in Native
shareholder employment above 80% in our corporate headquarters, and
significant Native employment in our logging operations. To create
jobs, Sealaska has sponsored new initiatives in Southeast Alaska like
mariculture farming.
ANCSA authorized the return of land to Alaska Natives and
established Native Corporations to receive and manage that land so that
Native people would be empowered to meet their own cultural, social,
and economic needs. S. 730 is critically important to Sealaska, which
is charged with meeting these goals in Southeast Alaska.
local impact of s. 730: diversification of the southeast alaska economy
The proposed conveyance of sacred and cultural sites and the Native
Futures sites offers new economic, cultural, and educational
opportunities for our region. Our legislation would allow Sealaska to
pursue a more diversified economic strategy and would support new jobs
by empowering Sealaska to preserve and share with others the richness
of Southeast Alaska's natural and cultural history. Both the forest
ecosystem and the people it supports define the Tongass. The Tongass
has supported Alaska Native people for 10,000 years.
Sealaska is embracing a healthy, alternative paradigm for the
cultural and economic revitalization of our Native and rural
communities by selecting sacred and cultural and Native Futures sites
as part of this legislation. As part of our commitment, Sealaska has
established the following principles for the use and management of
these sites:
Sacred sites.--These sites will be selected and managed to
ensure an active Native role in the preservation and
celebration of the rich Native fabric and history of Southeast
Alaska. The sites are purely for sacred, cultural, historic and
anthropologic preservation, research and education. Any site
improvements would be in alignment with the historic and
cultural purpose for which a site was selected, and such
improvements must be consistent with the management plans for
adjacent public lands. Public access would be preserved under
sections 17(b) and 14(g) of ANCSA and the provisions of S. 730.
Native Futures sites.--These sites will be selected and
managed to promote activities with minimal land use impacts. A
few of these sites could be developed for their tidal,
geothermal, or small hydroelectric potential, as sources of
much needed alternative energy for the region. Some may simply
be preserved as Native places, supporting children's cultural
camps or traditional subsistence activities. Some sites might
be used as a base for ecotourism and cultural tourism
activities. Public access would be preserved under sections
17(b) and 14(g) of ANCSA and the provisions of S. 730.
CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS
We were disheartened last year when a handful of environmental
groups disseminated blatant misinformation about this legislation. We
think these groups must view this legislation as a part of a larger
compromise between development and conservation, and by publishing
statements like ``Stop the Corporate takeover of the Tongass'', these
groups chose to ignore the Native equitable and other public benefits
of this legislation. This only hurts our communities and the people who
live there, including those who survive on jobs created by Sealaska.
This legislation is fundamentally about the ancestral and
traditional homeland of a people who have lived for 10,000 years in
Southeast Alaska. For 145 years, people from across the western world
have traveled to Southeast Alaska with an interest in the rich natural
resources of the region--an area the size of Indiana. In the mid-1800s,
Americans came to Southeast Alaska to hunt for whales. In the late-
1800s, gold miners arrived. In the first half of the Twentieth century,
the fishing industry built traps at the river entrances, depleting
salmon populations. In the 1950s and 1960s, two pulp mills signed
contracts with the United States that gave the mills virtually
unlimited access to Tongass timber. In the meantime, Natives from the
late-1800's through the 1930's often were being moved from their
traditional villages and territory to central locations, in part for
BIA schooling.
Some conservation groups represent the latest influx of people with
an idea about what best serves the public interest in the Tongass. In
fairness, the conservation community writ large has long fought to
preserve the Tongass for its wilderness and ecological values, and
often I have appreciated the balance that the conservation community
seeks for the forest.
What I do not appreciate is environmentalism that does not
recognize the human element--that people have to live in this forest. I
do not accept environmentalism that does not recognize that the Tongass
is a Native place. We welcome people to our homeland--but we do not
appreciate the assault by some on our right to exist and subsist in the
Tongass.
There are groups that consistently agree with us that we should
have our land, but wish to decide--to the smallest detail--where that
land should be. We have been asked to place as much as two million
acres of conservation on the back of our legislation as the price for
selecting lands that make cultural and economic sense to our people.
Native people have always been asked to go second. Let's not forget
that S. 730 addresses the existing land entitlement of the Native
people of Southeast Alaska.
In attempting to resolve Sealaska's unfortunate dilemma in an
equitable manner, the Alaska Congressional delegation has been careful
to draft legislation to be in alignment with the current
Administration's stated objectives for the Tongass and other national
forests; specifically, to protect roadless areas, reduce harvesting of
old growth, and accelerate transition to second growth management.
Moreover, while original withdrawal limitations make it difficult
for Sealaska to meet its traditional, cultural, historic and--
certainly--economic needs, these original withdrawn lands are not
without significant and important public interest value. For example,
approximately 85 percent of those lands now designated for withdrawal
by Sealaska are classified by the Forest Service as designated roadless
areas. A significant portion is Productive Old-Growth forest (some
112,000 acres), with over half of that being Old Growth Reserves as
classified under the 2008 Amendment to the Tongass Land Use Management
Plan. S. 730 allows these roadless old growth lands to return to public
ownership, to be managed as the federal government and general public
sees fit. On the other hand, if forced to select from the existing
withdrawals, Sealaska will find itself in the insensible position of
possibly building expensive roads into sensitive watersheds and
pristine areas in order to continue even limited timber operations, an
action contrary to our principles.
Some groups claim that ``the lands that Sealaska proposes to select
. . . are located within watersheds that have extremely important
public interest fishery and wildlife habitat values.'' They are correct
in a general sense. We agree that all lands in our region are valuable;
our federal lands and our Native lands should be managed responsibly.
We acknowledge the need for conservation areas and conservation
practices in the Tongass. This bill meets those goals.
More fundamentally, this is not a bill about timber. This is not a
bill about how much land Congress chose to give to the Native people of
Southeast Alaska. This legislation fundamentally recognizes that the
Tongass National Forest is a Native place--that it can support our
Native community.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ON NATIVE LANDS AND SEALASKA'S SUSTAINABLE FOREST
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Sealaska has a responsibility to ensure the cultural and economic
survival of our communities, shareholders and future generations of
shareholders. Sealaska also remains fully committed to responsible
management of the forestlands for their value as part of the larger
forest ecosystem. At the core of Sealaska's land management ethic is
the perpetuation of a sustainable, well-managed forest, which supports
timber production while preserving forest ecological functions.
Significant portions of Sealaska's classified forest lands are set
aside for the protection of fish habitat and water quality; entire
watersheds are designated for protection to provide municipal drinking
water; and there are zones for the protection of bald eagle nesting
habitat. To be very clear, Sealaska has harvested 189,000 of the
290,000 acres of land it owns; of which 81,000 acres have been clear
cut over the last 30 years. The decision to clear cut or partial cut is
not taken lightly, and is always based on the best science and best
forest practices.
Sealaska re-plants, thins and prunes native spruce and hemlock
trees on its lands, thereby maintaining a new-growth environment that
better sustains plant and wildlife populations, and better serves the
subsistence needs of our communities. In fact, Sealaska has invested a
great deal of resources in improving its forest sustainability program,
including investing in ongoing silviculture research, and reaching out
to organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council to ensure best
possible management practices. All of Sealaska's even aged second-
growth forest that is ripe for precommercial thinning is managed
accordingly, creating healthy young forests that provide wildlife
habitat. Sealaska maintains a silviculture program that rivals the best
of programs implemented by the Forest Service or private landowners.
Our harvesting program as well as thinning and planting investments
provide jobs for our shareholders and others in the region, and help
maintain the ecological value of our forests.
In asking for your support for this legislation, we implicitly
agree to assume a major economic risk by foregoing assured revenue from
the harvesting of old growth timber on original withdrawal lands. We
are also removing 8,600 acres from our timber base by selecting
cultural sites and Native futures sites subject to timber harvest
restrictions. We are committed to investing the time, money and hard
work in progressive management of second growth stands, to capture
alternative economies from forest management and to ensure that our
place in the timber industry remains a sustainable, although realigned,
component of the region's economy.
Finally, Sealaska is committed to using its land base to create
alternative economies, revenues, and jobs through forest management
strategies that include engagement in markets for the purchase of
ecological services. To that end, we are monitoring developments
related to carbon sequestration and incorporating this effort into our
forest management and strategic plans.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
Timing is critical to the success of the legislative proposal
before you today. Without a legislative solution, we are faced with
choosing between two scenarios that ultimately will result in dire
public policy consequences for our region. If S. 730 is stalled during
the 112th Congress, either Sealaska will be forced to terminate all of
its timber operations within approximately one year for lack of timber
availability on existing land holdings, resulting in job losses in a
region experiencing severe economic depression, or Sealaska must select
lands that are currently available to it in existing withdrawal areas.
This legislation is consistent with President Obama's commitment to
preserving more roadless areas, while immediately stimulating the rural
economy in a severely impacted region.
SEALASKA RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS
The alternative selection pool identified in the Sealaska bill is a
product of an exceptional public process, including three previous
Congressional hearings, more than a dozen meetings held by Senator
Murkowski's staff in Southeast communities, and hundreds of community
meetings held by Sealaska with the State of Alaska, mill owners and
industry representatives, conservation groups, the Forest Service, the
BLM, and Members of Congress and staff.
The Sealaska bill has the support of the full Alaska delegation and
many residents, communities and tribes throughout Southeast Alaska and
statewide:
The legislation is supported by the National Congress of
American Indians, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Alaska
Federation of Natives, the ANCSA Regional Presidents & CEOs,
the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of
Alaska, and numerous local tribes throughout Southeast Alaska.
The Alaska Forest Association--which works with and
represents Southeast Alaska's remaining timber mills--fully
supports the Sealaska legislation.
The Sealaska bill represents a net gain to the U.S. Forest
Service of roadless and old growth timber in the Tongass
National Forest. The legislation is fundamentally aligned with
the goals of the Obama Administration.
In autumn 2010, Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. (DHM
Research) conducted two telephone benchmark surveys to assess
the values and beliefs of Southeast Alaska residents, and
measure awareness of and support for Sealaska's land bill. 90
percent of Southeast residents describe the economic health of
Southeast Alaska as either poor, very poor or in a crisis. 88
percent of Southeast residents agree that the Tongass should be
managed in a way that balances job creation and the protection
of fish and wildlife habitats. Support for Sealaska's land
legislation significantly outweighed opposition, with Southeast
resident responding in support outweighing those opposed by 58
percent.
Some critics of this bill want to shut down this legislation
because it might mean that Sealaska selects lands on ``their'' islands,
in ``their'' backyard, near ``their'' favorite spots. At some level,
this is understandable. But every acre of the Tongass is precious to
someone and we need somewhere to go to fulfill our entitlement.
Sealaska has been careful to select lands that are part of the Forest
Service's timber base. Sealaska has compromised and adjusted its
legislation several times on the basis of community and even individual
concerns.
SENATORS LISA MURKOWSKI AND MARK BEGICH HAVE WORKED TO RESOLVE FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL CONCERNS
As discussed above, this legislation has been subject to an
exhaustive public process over the course of many years. To address
federal, state and local community concerns, Senator Lisa Murkowski and
Senator Mark Begich have re-introduced revised legislation in the 112th
Congress that includes significant amendments to legislation introduced
in the 111th Congress:
Economic lands.--The land selection pool on northern POW has
been removed. The land pool on Koscuisko Island will be reduced
by 6,079 acres. Selections at Keete/Kassa/Mabel will be reduced
by 3,070 acres. A new selection area has been added on Kuiu
Island, and the Polk Inlet and Tuxekan withdrawal areas have
been expanded. Commercial guides are granted an extended right
of access--specifically, one additional permit term of ten
years--to economic lands.
Conservation Package.--The revised bill designates more than
150,000 acres of forestland, much of which is roadless old
growth, for new conservation in the Tongass.
Native futures sites.--The revised legislation removes
several Native futures sites, leaving 30 futures sites in the
legislation. Sites removed include those for which specific
concerns were raised in community meetings. The legislation has
been amended to clarify that public access ``across'' futures
sits is permitted, and that commercial guides are granted an
extended right of access to the sites.
Sacred sites.--The revised legislation authorizes Sealaska
to select 3,600 acres of new sacred sites, 90 percent of which
must be selected within 15 years after passage of the bill. The
revised legislation clarifies that these conveyance are subject
to the procedures applicable to the selection of such sites
under ANCSA.
Public access across sacred sites.--The legislation has been
amended to provide that public access across sacred sites is
permitted if ``no reasonable alternative access'' to adjacent
public lands is available.
Use of sacred sites by Sealaska.--The legislation has been
amended to clarify that, although Sealaska may utilize sacred
sites for a broad array of reasons listed in the bill, Sealaska
is limited to ``site improvement activities'' that are
consistent with the sacred, cultural, traditional, or historic
nature of the site and are not inconsistent with the management
plans for adjacent public lands.
Glacier Bay.--The revised bill drops language that would
require the National Park Service to enter into a memorandum of
agreement with Sealaska and other Native entities in Southeast
Alaska for the management of cultural resources in Glacier Bay.
Technical amendments.--The revised bill drops the Tribal
Forest Protection Act and National Historic Preservation Act
amendments.
OUR FUTURE IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA
Our people have lived in the area that is now the Tongass National
Forest since time immemorial. The Tongass is the heart and soul of our
history and culture. We agree that areas of the region should be
preserved in perpetuity, but we also believe that our people have a
right to reasonably pursue economic opportunity so that we can continue
to live here. S. 730 represents a sincere and open effort to meet the
interests of the Alaska Native community, regional communities, and the
public at large.
It is important for all of us who live in the Tongass, as well as
those who value the Tongass from afar, to recognize that the Tlingit,
Haida and Tsimshian are committed to maintaining both the natural
ecology of the Tongass and the Tongass as our home. We therefore ask
for a reasoned, open, and respectful process as we attempt to finalize
the land entitlement promised to our community 40 years ago. We ask for
your support for S. 730.
Gunalcheesh. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. You've given a very eloquent statement.
We're going to work closely with you and the tribe.
Ms. Poelstra.
STATEMENT OF MYLA POELSTRA, REPRESENTING NINE ALASKA TOWNS,
EDNA BAY, AK
Ms. Poelstra. I'd like to thank the committee members for
allowing me to be here today. I really appreciate the
opportunity and I hope you accept my testimony.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it will be entered into
the record in full.
Ms. Poelstra. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. As will happen with all of you.
Ms. Poelstra. My family moved to Alaska because of one
creature, the Spotted Owl. My father and uncles worked as
loggers in the woods of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana
as did my grandfather, whose father came to this country to
farm and work in the woods in Idaho. When we moved to Edna Bay
my family put our savings into the lodge and general store that
I run where I am, in my spare time, the Post Mistress and also
known as mom to my sons.
Today, I represent the nine Alaska towns. Here's their
perspective.
Most of the residents of the nine towns are salt of the
Earth, folks who built their lives around the forest. Our
people log, run small mills or lodges, like the one my family
owns, some guide or fish commercially for salmon which return
by the millions to our islands. Almost everyone puts meat on
the table in the winter by hunting deer or fishing. Many cut
wood from the forest to build the structures we use.
Our towns range from Hollis in the South, Point Baker and
Port Protection to the North and Southwest to my community of
Edna Bay. Whale Pass is an old logging camp, as is Thorne Bay,
the largest in the country at one time. So too is Naukati, Cape
Pole and Edna Bay, then there's Kupreanof. Many in the towns
feel like an endangered species, threatened to the core by S.
730 which we view as a land grab by Sealaska Corporation.
Our business investments in varied communities are
imperiled by this legislation. For us to survive we have to end
the cycle of boom and bust. Sealaska created a boom when they
decided to liquidate almost all of the 290,000 acres acquired
from Congress via ANCSA without a thought for future jobs.
It took them 30 years to cut from mountain top to the sea.
Now facing a bust, Sealaska returns to Congress asking for the
best forest lands, never contemplated by ANCSA. If Sealaska
represents the worst logging practices in the country, there
must also be a line between pure preservation and Sealaska's
devastation.
Sustainable logging is the answer. Logging small enough to
support families who rely on the woods without creating the
crisis we see coming if this bill passes. Over many years the
Forest Service created a rational plan which balances uses of
the forest as required by law. S. 730 will destroy that plan.
Not long ago a Federal judge was asked to list the
Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered species, but
decided the listing was not necessary. Why? Because of the
Tongass Land Management Plan. This plan recognized that old
growth reserves was vital, old growth forests was vital for
deer to survive long winters. So it wisely set aside old growth
reserves containing very large trees.
The judge refused to list the wolf as endangered because he
recognized OGRs adequately protect deer, the food source for
the wolf. So what land do you suppose Sealaska wants in this
bill? They want OGRs, big stands of timber and the most
productive second growth stands too.
This reduces winter range for deer. The wolf population
plunges. Then the door opens for a lawsuit.
S. 730 will trigger the Endangered Species Act by giving
Sealaska old growth reserves. We know there are organizations
who will sue the Forest Service immediately to get the wolf
listed as endangered if these OGRs are given to Sealaska. And
they will very likely win.
Any ESA listing will occur soon after passage of S. 730
followed by a cascade of dire consequences.
No meat on the table when hunting season closes.
Empty hunting and fishing lodges.
Reduced government support staff.
Sawmills out of timber.
Closed schools.
Abandoned towns.
Moreover, this bill will affect the whole State. This will
set a precedent. It's unprecedented to get economic development
sites outside ANCSA boundaries. If Sealaska can do this, so can
the other 12 native corporations.
The access issues raised by this bill for sportsmen will
become a huge statewide issue. The cultural sites are a red
herring. Sealaska refuses to commit in writing that cultural
sites will not be commercialized. We believe cultural sites
will be exploited for exclusive economic gain when all users
now enjoy them.
Since Federal law now protects these sites there is no
justification for a new category which could be used to modify
ANCSA statewide. Another category called future sites, will
affect the whole State, unjustly giving native corporations far
more than was bargained for 40 years ago. One future site is an
incredible grab of a rich resource.
Icy Straits, according to the Electrical Power Research
Institute, has the potential to produce as much power as all
the Columbia River dams, 28,000 megawatts. Icy Straits is far
removed from Sealaska's remaining allotments. This one site
could be worth more money than all of Sealaska's selections.
Sealaska is absolutely opposed to inclusion in this bill, a
permanent, federally mandated, 100 foot bumper strips on Salmon
Creeks so the streams they log, like around Calder will be
irreparably harmed. Sealaska should not be getting the roads,
bridges and log dumps to taxpayers built for hundreds of
millions of dollars. We have a logical solution. S. 730 should
be torn up.
Three years ago----
Senator Wyden. Ms. Poelstra, excuse me again. Just to be
fair to all the panel members and----
Ms. Poelstra. I just need a few more seconds, sir. I'm
almost to the end.
Senator Wyden. That would be great. Thank you.
Ms. Poelstra. Three years ago Sealaska submitted selections
to the BLM requested by their President in 1975. BLM needs to
finalize the 2008 submissions. The towns asked BLM to do so
last year, but were brushed off.
BLM cannot act until Congress, as it should, washes it
hands of trying to enable a land grab. Please, do not let our
towns become ghost towns. Tear up this bill.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Poelstra follows:]
Prepared Statement of Myla Poelstra, Representing Nine Alaska Towns,
Edna Bay, AK
Senators Wyden and Bingaman, thank you for inviting me here today
to testify on a bill the towns I represent view as a threat. I also
appreciate the opportunity to see Senator Murkowski and communicate
with her face to face for the first time in the four years since this
legislation surfaced.
I HAVE EXPERIENCED UNSUSTAINABLE LOGGING
My name is Myla Poelstra.
I have the honor today of representing Nine Towns in Alaska.
Nearly all of these towns are on Prince of Wales Island, our
nation's third largest.
All but one of the huge chunks of land in this bill are located on
the Prince of Wales Archipelago, which include the islands immediately
off shore the long coast of Prince of Wales, such as Tuxekan and
Kosciusko Islands. I live on the latter island.
In the 1790's, Captain George Vancouver named our Archipelago after
the Prince of Wales, so striking an impression did our islands make
upon him.
I personally know full well what happens when more trees are taken
than can maintain sustainable long term employment.
Boom turns to bust.
And then issues like the spotted owl are raised and tear
communities apart.
I know because my family going back three generations worked as
loggers in every state in the Pacific Northwest. And we are in Alaska
because of the spotted owl.
When we moved to Edna Bay, my family put our savings into the lodge
and general store that I run, where I am, in my spare time, the Post
Mistress--and also known as mom to my sons.
NINE TOWNS--WHO WE ARE
Even though I have never been east of Montana, the towns had faith
I would represent their views and so passed the hat to get me here.
Here's their perspective.
Most of the residents of the Nine Towns are salt of the earth;
folks who build their lives around the forest. In our towns, people
log, run small mills, or lodges like the one my family owns. In Thorne
Bay alone there are at least five small lumber mills producing between
one half to a million board feet of lumber a year each. (Personal
communication)
Other small mills are scattered in many of the towns. Some people
guide, or fish commercially for salmon which return by the millions to
our islands. And there are employees of the agencies who manage the
forest. (See Letter May 18, 2011-City of Thorne Bay, attached)* As well
as postmasters and store owners, while others are loggers. We also put
meat on the table that comes from the forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II for attachments to this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our towns range from Hollis to the south, Point Baker and Port
Protection to the north, and southwest to my community of Edna Bay.
Whale Pass is an old logging camp, as is Thorne Bay, the largest in the
country at one time. So too, is Naukati, Cape Pole and Edna Bay. Then
there is Kupreanof.
Since the forest is our provider, many in the towns avow cut and
run practices of former days, in favor of a rate of cut that can
maintain a reasonable work force in the mills and woods. (See Letter--
City of Thorne Bay--May 18, 2011, attached)
S. 730 is a bill the towns regard as an unprecedented land grab for
the benefit of one Native Corporation, Sealaska. (See numerous letters
and clippings in committee files for S. 881 (2009-10), and S.730.)
Looking at this legislation, we feel like deer staring into
headlights. Our business investments and very communities are in
danger. We made business decisions based upon the land around us
remaining in the National Forest. No one could have anticipated the
land being transferred to a private party for boom and bust style
logging.
EACH PROVISION DRAWS PASSIONATE OPPOSITION
Each provision has its opponents.
As I write this, I imagine myself for the first time packed on a
Washington subway jammed like a sardine with nowhere to turn. Sealaska,
of course, is no sardine locked into a can. It had and has other
options than this legislation.
I will shortly show the cause of why we are here, and then go into
the options Sealaska has rejected to avoid their ``crisis''. I will
also suggest the solution to the ``crisis''. But first I want to
outline the key provisions which are drawing opposition.
Buffers
The Alaska Trollers Association (and numerous other fishermen)
thinks the proposed five year 100 foot buffer strip protection must be
permanent. As do we. There is no way the State Legislature is going to
make buffer strips 100 feet wide on private land, when Sealaska spent
huge sums defeating this provision in 1990. Five years could expire,
and lower state standards be applied, before the market recovers enough
for logging to resume at the pace of other booms. (Letter May 18, 2011
ATA; opinion piece by Paul Olson, Juneau Empire May 21, 2011: Murkowski
Bill Bad for Fish.)
Moreover, Sealaska refuses to put in writing or endorse permanent
100 foot buffers. 100 foot buffers prevent irreparable harm to salmon
streams. This finding of irreparable harm without 100 foot buffers was
a basis for the decision in Stein v Barton (Alaska, FD Court) 1990.
With the width of stream buffers firmly established on federal
land, it is hard to understand the refusal of Sealaska to agree to this
provision in writing.
It is important to note that even if the proposed 100-ft. buffers
in S.730 were permanent, they still would fall far short of standards
on Federal lands in Alaska, because federal regulations protect not
only salmon streams, but upstream resident fish habitat, and headwaters
important to downstream fish water quality.
The five year buffer in the bill is therefore a net loss to fish,
streams, and those who enjoy them.
(See also letters from Mickey Knight, 35 year Petersburg resident
as well as letters from the United Fishermen of Alaska, and Petersburg
Vessel Owners Association, already in the committee files.)
Access across Cultural Sites and Future Sites
The Guides, Eco Tour Boat Operators, and Sportsmen, and frankly
many ordinary Alaskans who enjoy the great outdoors, worry about access
across the mysterious trail corridors, through as unidentified Cultural
Sites, and in and across Future Sites. We share their concerns.
(See letters from Territorial Sportsmen, Alaska Outdoor Council,
and Eco Tour Boat Operators already in the committee files on both S.
730 (2011) and S 881 (2009-10).
One 30 year Sitka resident, Bart Hamburg, wrote this committee,
``Sealaska has 10 years to claim 3,600 acres. . .to be a cultural site
with no right of protest by the public.'' ``The law actually precludes
public access for the harvest of fish and game, and only allows for
public access easements ``across'' and not ``on'' the property. The
public's access would be at the whim of the corporation.'' ``Nor shall
public easements be reserved to hunt or fish. . .'' 2011 in the
committee file, 42 CFR 2650.4-7
Our take is people can walk across but not hunt or fish should this
bill pass.
Taxpayers wondering how the Federal Budget is going to be reduced
will notice an additional loss of nearly ten square miles of highly
valuable public land to a private corporation in this one unique
provision alone.
Apparently, Sealaska rejects the Koniag language which allows for
hunting and fishing.
In short this language provides:
(5) The lands on Afognak Island required to be conveyed
pursuant Afognak Island to paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall remain open and available to recreational and sport
hunting and fishing and other recreational uses by the public
commercial uses. under applicable law (but without liability on
the part of Koniag Incorporated or any Koniag Village
Corporation, except for willful acts, to any user by reason of
such use), subject only to such reasonable restrictions which
may be imposed by Koniag, Incorporated and the affected Koniag
Village Corporations for the purposes of limiting or
prohibiting such public uses in the immediate vicinity of
logging or other commercial operations which may be undertaken
by the corporations upon the affected lands. Such restrictions
shall comprise only those restrictions necessary to insure
public safety and to minimize conflicts between recreational
and commercial uses. Koniag, Incorporated and the affected
Koniag Village Corporations shall permit access to the lands on
Afognak Island conveyed to them by employees of the State for
purposes of managing fish and wildlife and by other State
officers and employees, and employees of political subdivisions
of the State, for the purposes of carrying out this subsection.
In other words, only during dangerous activity could access be
denied. Dangerous is the only grounds for denial and it is clearly
limited to logging activity. Commercial activity would not include an
eco-tour or a lecture.
Finally, Trail Corridors are unnecessary. They are protected under
federal management. Possible purposes for them could be to stop energy
power corridors, for which the tariff over Sealaska land could be quite
high, or block individuals from walking from one side of an island to
the other.
Everyone I know thinks it is unfair and unjust to bail out Sealaska
by giving them better land that they bargained for in 1971 and 1975.
Give away: public infrastructure--hundreds of millions of dollars
A quick look at the maps shows many existing roads and log dumps
will be available that were developed by the US Forest Service at a
cost to taxpayers that we estimate to be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. Will there be an accounting for this loss of public property
that will be available to the committee prior to consideration?
No other ANCSA corporation got the benefit of expensive public
infrastructure. We do not believe public property should be taken
without just compensation.
Location of land selections
Sealaska land requests are like throwing a can of sardines against
a wall. The one hundred square miles now consolidated within the
confines of one area becomes well over a hundred square miles, but now
affecting far more users throughout the Tongass National Forest.
It wants square mile after square mile of long, wide tracks
stretching over many shoreline miles from the upper mountain slopes of
many ocean bays to the sea.
The Tuxekan selection is as long as Lake Shore Drive on the North
Side of Chicago, or the distance from Ronald Regan Airport in Virginia
to Silver Springs, Maryland.
The Polk and McKenzie Bay request follows the shoreline of these
sausage shaped bays for seven and five miles, or from Arlington,
Virgina to Catholic University (according to Google maps).
Kosciusko is eleven miles long, a little shy of the length of
Manhattan Island.
There are eight of these mega grabs in all. (See attached maps 1-6
for some parcels).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Maps have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding these maps, we are disappointed that the boundaries
superimposed upon the value of the timber in the areas reserved for
wildlife were not made available on Senator Murkowski's web site,
although they were created by the Forest Service in February. We trust
this was an oversight and the attachments we provided will be made
available to the public on her web site soon.
What is obvious is that Sealaska chose the best remaining trees.
Cultural sites a red herring
Sealaska refuses to commit in writing that cultural sites will not
be commercialized. We believe cultural sites will be exploited for
exclusive economic gain by Sealaska, when all users currently enjoy
them.
Since federal law now protects these sites, there is no
justification for a new category, which could be used to modify ANCSA
statewide.
Future Sites conflict with existing users
Another category called future sites will undermine ANCSA
throughout the state, unjustly giving native corporations far more than
was bargained for 40 years ago.
One future site is an incredible grab of a rich public resource.
Icy Straits, according to the Electrical Power Research Institute,
has the potential to produce as much power as all the Columbia River
Dams, 28,000 megawatts. (Ocean Renewables Coalition--May 20, 2011,
estimates world tidal power at 63,000 megawatts)
This one site could be worth more money than all of Sealaska's
selections. There are other hydro land grabs. Why should the public
loose this benefit to a private corporation?
These sites, spread throughout SE Alaska, are highly controversial,
affect diverse communities, and are not in ANCSA but will be unwelcome
precedent Before we look at how these provisions affect us, let us look
at a key assumption: Sealaska's past actions are a predictor of future
behavior.
HOONAH'S LEGACY
NATIVE MOVIE PICTURES UNSUSTAINABLE LOGGING
We know sustainability was an old Native value. But the Board of
Directors of Sealaska valued profit over job retention.
Thus square mile after square mile was cut from mountain top to the
sea.
Boom has now become bust. The reason appears simple.
Sealaska never intended to sustain jobs, but used its land as a
cash cow, when it liquidated its most valuable trees to start
profitable subsidiaries; such as a plastics and environmental cleanup
businesses.
If you want to see the face of unsustainable logging, you have to
see the movie that Alaska Natives made about how Sealaska logged land
near their community.
When Natives condemn the Board of Directors of Sealaska themselves
for short term profits vs. long term employment and use of local
resources, you know there are huge problems.
Please watch Hoonah's Legacy: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=oRQre80IVj4
While Sealaska claims they will not repeat cutting every tree in
vast swaths in the future, no law bars them from doing so. Just as no
law prevented them from letting many of the trees they cut rot in the
woods.
SEALASKA ADMITS LOGGING UNSUSTAINABLE
See Chris McNiel's presentation to Natives in which he makes
contradictory claims, ``We cannot sustain our current level of harvest
and jobs.'' And, ``We have managed our lands sustainably.'' (p.2
(November 14, 2005) attached)
In 2006, the year after McNiel's statement that they were cutting
too much, the rate of private logging increased.
The following chart* illustrates the rate of private logging in SE
Alaska--the vast majority of which was Native logging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Chart has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the rate of logging sky-rocketed upward after 2001, even
though Sealaska admitted the rate could not maintain jobs. Some of this
logging was village logging and some Sealaska logging.
It appears Sealaska increased its logging after 2005 even after
telling its shareholders the rate of logging was not sustainable.
Why worry about sustainability when their intent in 2005 was to put
the land in the Tongass National Forest into a ``Native Stewardship
Trust'', led by Sealaska, so they could manage it ``better.''
In the editorial, McNiel claims, ``Sealaska has demonstrated the
commitment and ability to properly manage our forests.'' (McNiel
editorial: A New Vision For Our Forests and Our Future, November 21,
2005.)
This in the same year he told his shareholders their operation was
not sustainable.
If over the first 20 years of operation, management of Sealaska was
unaware their operations were ``unsustainable'', should the public bear
the cost of bailing them out now with some of the most valuable lands
in the Tongass?
We argue the public should not bail out another mismanaged
corporation.
We have been unable to find a public audit of how many square miles
has been cut. Is it approximately 200 square miles as the tables in
appendix E of TLMP suggest or 450 square miles, which is their land
base per McNiel's 2005 statement? Will the committee request from
Sealaska, the State, or the FS numbers to evaluate how many square
miles there are for Sealaska to cut at this time within their present
holdings and requested selections.
The committee also could direct the FS to analyze--for Sealaska's
present ownership, the 100 square mile remaining uncut 1975 ANCSA acres
conveyed, and the proposed selections in S-730--the same breakdown used
by the FS in TLMP EIS 2008; that is, how many acres are in the seven
size density classes (using the SDM methodology-model) or strata. In
addition, the FS should analyze proportions between POG, unproductive
old-growth,non-forest, second growth (or ``young growth,'' which also
includes natural even-aged stands), and freshwater per TLMP FEIS page
3-134 or thereabouts . McNiel stated in 2005 that they would request
another hundred square miles or 64,000 acres to complete their
entitlement in this bill. The current legislation appears to exceed
McNiel's 2005 figure by 25 square miles assuming future site acerage is
5000 and 11,000 acres more in S 730 than McNiel's 64,000 figure in
2005. Ibid.
We argue that if Sealaska cannot sustain jobs on around 200 square
miles, why should the public now give it 100 square miles from the
Tongass National Forest?
It is better that Sealaska should reap what it sows, and log the
1975 lands which John Borbridge, its president, told Congress he
wanted.
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
S. 730 modifies the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in an
unprecedented way to give Sealaska much more valuable resource land
than it bargained for at the time ANCSA was negotiated in 1971--when
Native Corporations were blocking oil development in Alaska--and S. 730
nullifies 100 square miles Sealaska directed Congress to grant to them
in 1975 when they asked for amendments to ANCSA.
It is the unharvested land they directed Congress to grant them in
1975 that they no longer want in 2011.
Now they ask Congress for a far richer 100 square miles.
What is unjust with that?
Plenty--
First, Southeast Alaska Natives got a seven million dollar
settlement for all their land claims before ANCSA (1971). That was when
a millionaire was kinda a billionaire.
Second, Congress in ANCSA (1971) then granted them approximately
554 square miles more of the Tongass in areas that had good timber and
a share of a roughly billion dollar settlement with all Natives--a 1971
billion to benefit about 70,000 Natives.
A third settlement is S. 730--adding more than the 100 sq miles
granted in 1975 into catagories unique to Sealaska (like the Icy
Straights hydro site), more valuable acreage, and granting several
hundred million dollars in the public's roads and bridges.
It is bad policy to give Sealaska three bites at the public's apple
each bigger than the last.
S. 730 breaks Sealaska's acceptance of ANCSA and its 1975 amendment
to finally and forever settle all land claims.
The cause of this legislation is bad business decisions by
Sealaska's management team and Board of Directors who chose to maintain
levels of harvest which they knew, or should have known, would exhaust
their timber before new trees could attain commercial size.
McNeil argued in 2005 he just learned it would be more than 50
years before new trees could be cut again. Didn't the FS know way
before then that the rotation was longer?*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge you not to allow yet another for profit corporation to seek
a government bail out that rewards management for their mistakes.
Consider the consequences of passing any modification to Sealaska's
1975 ANSCA lands areas, which the Corporation requested BLM convey in
2008, but then put a hold on--pending the attempts to get a better deal
in Congress.
S. 730 WILL BE DISASTEROUS
Not long ago a federal judge was asked to list the Alexander
Archipelago Wolf as an endangered species, but decided a listing was
not necessary.
Three high officials in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game who
have over 75 years collective experience in the Department, and 50
years of experience dealing with the Endangered Species Act, sent a
letter to Senator Murkowski warning of serious consequences of
proceeding with S. 881, last year's version of the bill before you.
They wrote:
The referenced legislation would allow the Sealaska
Corporation to select several of the old-growth reserves in
southern Southeast Alaska and the corporation's representatives
have stated that they intend to log the-lands selected for
economic development. If these reserves are conveyed to
Sealaska by Congress it will almost certainly lead to a new
petition to list the goshawk and wolf as endangered species and
the distinct possibility that they will be so designated. (Page
1 Letter Reglin, Somerville, Robus--April 28, 2010, attached.)
Emphasis added.
They added:
We have concluded that the proposed land ``exchanges'' being
proposed in S. 881 have huge endangered species ramifications
for the Alexander Archipelago wolf and the Queen Charlotte
goshawk. (Page 2)
They cited the testimony of Under Secretary of Agriculture,
Jay Jensen, before this committee on October 8,2009 who found
that the land in the proposed selections ``contained 12 old
growth reserves'' and represent a ``significant component of
the TLMP conservation strategy'' three out of four we believe
are still targeted on my island. (Page 2 Reglin)
If the S 881 selections proceeded, Reglin et al noted that
``radical environmental groups will once again file petitions
to list both wolf and northern goshawk as endangered.''(Page 3
Reglin)
Finally, the Fish and Game officials noted that in fact the
wolf and deer had ``experienced significant declines'' on
Prince of Wales Island(s). (Page 3) They requested a thorough
analysis and evaluation of the proposed selections be conducted
by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the ADFG. (Page 3
Reglin)
We are unaware if their recommendation was followed. But we do wish
to concur in their alarm. ``If either species is listed as threatened
or endangered the effect will be the elimination of any logging
industry in the region. . .Remember when Weyerhauser Corporation said
`the spotted owl' will never affect us.'' (Page 4 Reglin)
When these experts cite the Albert Study comparing the value of the
timber in the 1975 ANCSA sardine can to the S. 881 bill selections for
the finding that the proposed selections had the highest wildlife
habitat in SE Alaska, I can't help wondering whether my family fled
fallout from the owl only to be nuked by the wolf and goshawk.
If a judge is ready to list these species as soon as this bill
passes--because passing the bill will pull the rug out from the Forest
Service Plan called TLMP, which he said had Old Growth Reserves to
protect them--I can tell you there would be a lot of townspeople sent
packing.
These OGR's are big stands of timber. Satellite studies show some
of the deer spend whole storms protected from deep snow under the limbs
of the trees of the OGR's. S.730, it is clear targets many of them--
three out of four on my island alone.
Wolves, as I hope people on the East Coast know, prey on deer.
Lower deer numbers mean lower wolf numbers.
If this bill passes, our lodges close, saw mills run out of lumber,
support staff move, schools close, and meat on the table will be
scarce. In the end, towns could be abandoned.
OPPORTUNITIES LOST
After 2005, Sealaska attempted to negotiate with the Forest Service
for an alternative to its ANCSA 1975 allotment. The Forest Service
offered numerous parcels, many of them off of Prince of Wales
Archipelago.
One of these sites was in Yakutat, home to the President of
Sealaska at the time.
That site contained high volume timber that was profitable and near
Yakutat, a sea anchorage for transport of round logs to Asia, and would
create new employment for Mr. Mallot's townsmen.
Even with a one mile buffer on the Situk River, there was almost
enough timber to fill the remaining hundred square mile land needed to
complete its entitlement.
Sealaska withdrew from the negotiations rejecting every parcel that
was offered to them by the Forest Service.
Shortly thereafter, Sealaska approached Senator Murkowski, and a
four year battle began.
SOLUTION
We have a logical solution; 730 should be torn up.
Three years ago, Sealaska submitted selections to BLM requested by
their President in 1975. BLM needs to finalize the 2008 submissions.
The towns asked BLM to do so last year, but were brushed off. BLM
cannot act until Congress, as it should, washes its hands of trying to
enable a land grab.
Please do not let our towns become ghost towns. Kill this bill.
ADDENDUM
At page 10, after the third to last paragraph, insert:
It surprising McNiel claims the corporation assumed a 50-75 year
rotation between logging the trees when there was substantial published
material suggesting longer.
Management agencies long considered the time period to be at least
a 75 year plus
In 1979, for instance, the US Forest Service used a 100 or more
rotation, which my family, with their three generations in the woods,
thinks is more reasonable.
A 100-year rotation was used for site indexes of 100 or more; 120-
year rotation for site indexes of 90 or less. On sites with indexes
greater than 100 (or greater than 90 at Yakutat) and slopes less than
40 percent, one commercial thinning was programmed for stands between
the ages of 70 and 90 years.'' (1979 TLMP DEIS at 37).
In 1928 Frank Heintzleman estimated an 85-100 year rotation.
In 1934 the Department of Agriculture's ``Yield of Second-Growth
Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Stands in Southeastern Alaska'' stated
that rotation periods had not yet been determined for the region, but
suggested 75 years for pulpwood.
The 1937 ``Report of the Alaska Resources Committee,'' cited
studies that indicated a rotation period ``which should be about 75 to
80 years.''
In 1949 Heintzleman estimated an 80-85 year rotation.
Source Jim Makovjak's book http://www.adn.com/2006/06/24/187046/in-
tongass-timber-writer-sorts.html
Senator Wyden. Thank you. We will be working closely with
you. I can see that there are strong and differing views.
That's our job is to find a way to bring folks together.
Mr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF SHERMAN ANDERSON, PRESIDENT AND OWNER, SUN
MOUNTAIN LUMBER, INC. & SUN MOUNTAIN LOGGING LLC, DEER LODGE,
MT
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senators, I'm very pleased to have been able to have been
invited and made the trip here to testify on behalf of S. 268.
My name is Sherm Anderson and I'm accompanied by my wife,
Bonnie, who is here today with me. We live in a small town in
Deer Lodge, Montana, located in Southwestern Montana.
We own and operate a small family business of logging and
saw milling. All of our family members are involved in the
business along with 350 direct and contracting jobs. Our
survival will depend on a more reliable supply of timber from
our National Forest.
Our business utilizes approximately 50 million board feet
or 12,500 truckloads of logs per year. Currently we acquire 80
percent of those off of private lands, 10 percent off of State
lands from Montana as well as Idaho and only 10 percent off of
National Forest. In Montana over 60 percent of our forested
land is on National Forest.
In Montana we now have five to six million acres of dead
and dying timber on our National Forest. Our industry is
shrinking in Montana. We've lost 40 mills, the last one being
Smurfitt-Stone, our paper facility in Missoula that employed
600 employees. We only have ten remaining.
Still we are 17 percent of the total economy of Montana.
Ten years ago we were 35 percent. Twenty years, we were 50
percent of the economy of our State. Other States have lost all
of their infrastructure, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona
and Utah.
A year ago Secretary Vilsack visited our mill and saw the
dead timber surrounding our valley within 15 miles of our
facility. He looked straight at me and asked, why can't we use
this dead timber for lumber and biomass? Why don't you have a
co-generation facility on your site?
The answer is very simple, poor forest management for a
variety of reasons. One being, as you have stated, Mr.
Chairman, moving at a snail's pace. If you look at the anatomy
of a snail, they move not only very slowly, but they're able to
sleep for years at a time. That's what's happening here.
Creating no reliable long term timber supply we have been
working with industry, conservationist and other partners, one
of which is I'd like to acknowledge here in the room from the
Montana Wilderness Association, Brian Sibert. We have spent six
long years of collaboration, collaborative efforts, to help
develop solutions. The very thing that now the Forest Service,
now advocates must happen.
We firmly believe that Senator Tester is proposing with
this bill attempts to resolve gridlock on some of the National
Forest. Bringing together very diverse groups with many
different interests to resolve problems and to create and
retain jobs through managing our net forest resources in a more
responsible way by performing needed restoration work,
preserving our high mountain back countries, guaranteeing
recreational opportunities, protecting our clean water,
hunting, fishing, grazing for livestock, protecting our
communities from catastrophic wildfires, while preserving the
wood products infrastructure that still remains. We see this as
a win/win for all Americans who believe in the wise use of our
National Forests.
I thank Senator Tester for his undying support and his
effort, his willingness to give it all for the betterment of
Americans. I ask the members of the subcommittee to support him
and to move this forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sherman Anderson, President and Owner, Sun
Mountain Lumber, Inc. & Sun Mountain Logging LLC, Deer Lodge, MT
Senators, Chairman Wyden, Members of the Sub-committee on Public
Lands and Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources:
I would like to submit written testimony in support of the Forest
Jobs and Recreation Act, S268, sponsored by Senator Jon Tester and co-
sponsor Senator Max Baucus from our state of Montana
I live in the small community of Deer Lodge, MT with a population
of 3,500 people, located in southwestern Montana. My wife Bonnie and I
own and operate Sun Mountain Lumber and Sun Mountain Logging, small
wood products manufacturing businesses in Deer Lodge. When in full
operation prior to the recession, we employed 275 full-time employees
and another 50 to 75 subcontractors.
We have been working with others in our industry and also the
conservation community for the past six years in a collaborative effort
to develop solutions that would resolve our differences and promote
better forest management on our national forests. In our state where
over 60% of our forested land is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest
Service, it is crucial to all Americans that we find ways to give the
forest service the necessary tools they need to better manage our
forests.
We have been watching our forests each year die from insects and
disease, creating a serious threat of catastrophic wildfires that are
sure to come. When these fires do occur they not only destroy the
timber that we rely on for our businesses but also the habitat that is
connected to it: wildlife, fisheries, recreation, livestock grazing,
domestic water supplies, energy supply (power, gas and oil transmission
lines), homes, communities and people's lives, not only those who live
in and around the forest but the many who are put at risk as they fight
the fires, in their efforts to protect the communities and resources.
We believe that this bill that Senator Tester is proposing gives
the Forest Service additional tools they need to help them manage our
forests. Management of our national forests currently is driven by two
factors: controversy and budgets. These two factors often times are
overlapping each other as we see project after project tied up in
appeals and litigation, which in turn causes a drain on the budgets.
Fire also is playing a major role in budgets as 50% of the Forest
Service budgets are now being utilized for wildfire suppression.
We now in Montana alone have between 5 to 6 million acres of dead
and dying timber, timber that is vitally needed to maintain our
remaining industry infrastructure, timber that still has a useful value
to all Americans but stands waiting for the fires that are sure to
come, while we as an industry continue to shrink from lack of timber
supply. Montana has lost over 40 of our wood products manufacturing
facilities, which employed over 15,000 workers, with only 10 facilities
remaining, which utilize 10 million board feet or more annually,
employing 5,000 workers. The latest closure was Smurfitt-Stone
Container in Missoula, which employed 600 workers. The wood products
manufacturing industry now comprises 17% of Montana's total economy,
second only to Petroleum at 20%. Ten years ago wood products were at
35% and 20 years ago we were at 50% of Montana's economy. So it is easy
for to see where the industry is headed. We in the wood-products
industry as well as our conservation partners know of the need for our
infrastructure to remain viable as a management tool for healthy
forests. We have witnessed in other states what happened when the
infrastructure left. We need only to look at Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, Utah and Wyoming who have all lost their basic system of
harvesting timber and manufacturing wood products. Now they are faced
with massive wildfires that destroy the resources that the forests had
provided. When the wood products infrastructure is gone you lose all
the trained work force and the facilities that can provide the needed
restoration work. This has and will continue to cause a need for higher
budgets as more money from the U.S. taxpayers goes to pay for fire
suppression and forest restoration.
We all know that weather events are uncontrollable, as we are
witnessing the massive destruction caused by hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods and more. Wildfires are no different; however, with proper
forest management, we can have an effect on the severity and results of
these wildfire events.
Let me share a few statistics with you: Our facility of Sun
Mountain utilizes 50 million board feet or 12,500 truckloads of logs
per year. We currently acquire 80% of those logs from private land-
owners, 10% from State Lands both Idaho and Montana, and 10% national
forests both U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands (Bureau of Land
Management). In Montana, remember, over 60% of the forested lands are
located on U.S. Forest Service lands. Our private and state lands
cannot continue to sustain us and all other wood products manufacturing
in Montana.
In Montana, we are also beginning to feel the pressure from the
Chinese and Japanese export markets occurring on the Pacific Coast. As
that giant need continues, companies have been reaching further inland
to secure the wood fiber from private and state timberlands; thus the
growing demand for our national forests to provide for our domestic
markets. We are certain that as our economy rebounds, as it is
beginning to do, that our domestic markets' demands for wood fiber will
far exceed the supply capabilities of both our domestic manufacturers
as well as the Canadian suppliers. But the infrastructure we currently
have cannot grow without some form of secure timber supply.
This bill attempts to resolve gridlock on some of our national
forests, bringing together very diverse groups, with many different
interest, to resolve problems and to create and retain jobs through
managing our forest resources in a more responsible way: by performing
needed restoration work, preserving our high-mountain backcountry,
guaranteeing recreation opportunities, protecting our clean water,
hunting, fishing, grazing for livestock, protecting our communities
from catastrophic wildfires, while preserving the wood products
infrastructure that still remains.
We see this as a win/win for all Americans who believe in the wise
use of our national forests.
I thank Senator Tester for his undying support of this effort and
his willingness to give it his ``all'' for the betterment of all
Americans. I ask the members of this sub-committee to support him and
to move this bill forward.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. We'll be
working with you as well.
Mr. Congdon.
STATEMENT OF WALTER E. CONGDON, MONTANA CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, DELL, MT
Mr. Congdon. Good day. It is nice to be in Washington, DC,
and to see people who have gene of cattle pools. I buy cattle
and sell cattle too. Your cattle in indirect in Sand Point are
one of the closest there is. We send cattle to Oregon on
Saturday, the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from
Idaho as well.
It's fun. So the West is the same.
Senator Wyden. Right.
Mr. Congdon. There's no doubt about it, a simple thing.
Thank you for the chance to be here. What I would say is
this.
First, to Senator Tester and all of you who have the same
problem with the ruralism in mass. The whole rural economy is a
mess. Thank you for looking at this bill. Thank you for
addressing a problem and doing something that incorporates
multiple use and at the same time it protects and saves and
preserves all the lands we value a lot which is really
significant to all of us.
Part of what's in the bill is out the front window of my
house. Other parts of it are not. I've walked through a lot of
it. We've seen it and there it sits.
My family originally set chokers and farmed in Idaho and
Montana and Wisconsin. There they go. So we come by it
honestly. There it says.
The things I put in the bill that I wish. My suggestions
are simple and I wish Senator Barrasso were here.
One I ask that you add the preparatory language from
numerous acts that I put in the first sentence. Those things
read as follows.
Very simply, what they say is the policy of the Federal
Government and it says that in the law, it is the policy of the
United States that arrangements with local government,
conservation districts, etcetera and similar cooperative
agreements should be utilized to the fullest extent
practicable. Local has a vote. Local makes a choice. Local
should do it with Forest Service and BLM. This bill will
succeed a lot better if you have a local incentive for success.
So the S. 375 arrangement that Barrasso was talking about
implements exactly what the existing policy is. We really would
like you to add it to this bill in those languages in the
beginning because local gives us a vested interest in having
success. The more we care on the ground about it working,
whether it's Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, the better it's going to
do. Frankly we have a vested interest in all of it. So that
would be very good if you could make those sorts of changes.
Second, we thought the bill should acknowledge simply,
multiple use, which is what Mr. Anderson talked about. Frankly
multiple use is wilderness. It is cows grazing. It is forestry.
It is fisheries. It is wildlife. It is hunting. It is all of
those.
So putting the multiple use language in does a little
better job of adding that and what we ask for there simply is
in terms of monitoring we ask for a list, not just a talk about
economic impact, not talk about social impact. They're nice
words that give us a warm feeling. But frankly what are they?
So what we ask for was simply this. Talk about things like
RVDs which is Recreational Visitor Days, fish and wildlife
population, grazing AUMs, forest products productions, i.e.
numbers, 52 million board feet verses 47 million whatever they
are. Those mean a great deal to yourself in Alaska.
Those would mean a lot in Eastern Oregon etcetera. So give
us a number that on the ground, for those of us that are using
it, know what an AUM is, what an RVD is, what a million board
feet is or what a log truck load is. Simple changes we ask for
them for a specific reason. You see why.
The crisis of the whole bill is the one that you've all
talked about today. It's delightful to be here and hear this.
All of you have said, our infrastructure is in trouble. And
frankly our infrastructure is gone.
I am only 53. In the first grade there were 9 sawmills in
Missoula, Montana. Today there are none.
There was one in Victor. Today there is none.
There were two in Stevensville. Today there are none.
There were two in Hamilton. Today there are none.
There were two in Darby. Today there are none.
There was one in Conner. Today there's none.
There were two in Ronan. Today there are none.
There were two in Superior. Today there's none.
There were two in St. Regis. Now there's a small one.
That's it.
There were two in Thompson Falls. Now there's one.
Two in Plains, there's none.
Hot Springs, there's none.
Go through the list.
The infrastructure is basically gone. A lot of it is. So
aside from saying we need to restore. The other thing we need
to probably add is a language that says, add, restore, to
preserve. Because having SBA loan money, having whatever money
available to say, look, we are restoring our infrastructure.
Whether it's a mechanic shop. Whether it's a mill that
works on log trucks. Whether it's material or plants that build
logging equipment, fine. But the company that built the mills
in Oregon and the company that built the mills in Alaska was
Mill Supply Company in Missoula, Montana until 1972.
I remember it well. It is now under a mall. It is gone,
hasn't been there for 30 years. If you look at your old
planners, stamped there is Mill Supply Company, Missoula,
Montana. The infrastructure is gone. So to restore it, it
really means a lot.
So I would conclude simply with this. I would read you
three sentences.
It is the continuing responsibility of the Federal
Government to use all practicable, important, historic,
cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and
maintain wherever possible an environment which supports
diversity and a variety of individual choice.
Those three sentences say a great deal. This bill does
that. It is the best chance I've ever seen after 30 years of
somebody doing wilderness, doing multiple use and that's three
sentences is the prefatory language to the National
Environmental Policy Act.
It is Section 16 USC, 43/31. This bill does precisely that.
I would ask that you please support Senator Tester because a
great deal of work went into this. It's 30 years after NEPA got
adopted. It's a heck of a deal. It took 30 years to get that
language in something that looks like this bill.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Congdon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter E. Congdon, Montana Cattlemen's
Association, Dell, MT, on S. 268
Ladies and Gentlemen;
This testimony is submitted on behalf of myself, numerous other
southwest Montana persons and the Montana Cattlemen's Association.
The suggested changes are minimal in text but are substantial in
issue and effect.
(1) Section 101, 3--add ``while incorporating the policies
set forth in 16 USC Section 2003 (b), 16 USC, Section 2008, 16
USC, Section 1508, and 16 USC, Section 3411(5)''. This
recognizes and encourages local participation and a vested
interest in success, locally. (see attached)
(2) Section 101, 5--add ``in a manner incorporating multiple
use strategies where practicable''. This acknowledges the
planning-management mandate that applies to USFS lands.
Multiple use is very important on the ground and seems
consistent with forest jobs and sustainable management.
(3) Section 105 (c), Biomass--add ``firewood'' after ``small
diameter materials''. Rural communities depend on this biomass.
Of 92 households in Lima, Montana, 78 heat with wood--not oil,
gas or electric. This is important environmentally and
economically, as much of the community is very low income.
(4) Section 204 (i), page 31, Livestock--add ``(4) to
facilitate the purposes set forth in this Section and Act,
grazing may be allowed as a management tool.''
This may be goats or sheep grazing for weed control, cattle
grazing for fuel reduction, or livestock for wildlife habitat
improvement, like the Fleecer Mountain project of Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks and the Wisconsin Oak Savannah Restoration
project--Wisconsin DNR.
This tool may eliminate the need for mechanical or chemical
control or activities to achieve the purposes of this Act.
(5) Section204 (L), page 33, (1) before water storage, add
``water rights'' A ditch with no water right is not useful,
just as a water right with no ditch is not useful. This
addition seeks to remedy this problem.
(6) Section 204 (L)(1)(B) (i)--delete ``on the non-Federal
land'', as the water rights and structures are often for use on
both private and public lands, for grazing, fire protection,
etc. The land use and management are integrated, and the water
that facilitates this should be recognized and used and managed
similarly.
(7) Section 103 (f) (2) (B) inclusions, IV, add ``resources
produced , maintained, and reduced or increased, including
RVDs, Fish and Wildlife populations, grazing aum's, forest
products production and other quantifiable commodities or
products''.
This provides users, the agency and all participants with an
inventory of how and what was produced--not produced, or
impacted by the activities conducted hereunder. These numbers
are very real to persons on the ground and should facilitate a
commitment to success. They will also facilitate a broader
evaluation of the total impact of this bill and related
management activities.
(8) Section 101 (1)--add ``restore'' after ``preserve'',
Management is a needed activity to accomplish the benefits
contemplated by this Act and other Federal laws. Utilization of
the forest products produced requires infrastructure. Much of
the infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, and recognizing this
should help facilitate doing so. This may be rebuilding small
sawmills that no longer exist machine shops that manufacture
equipment for processing forest products, or machine shops to
maintain rolling stock.
I appreciate, on behalf of myself, Montana Cattlemen's Association
and others, the opportunity to comment. We also appreciate the changes
you have made on this bill since last year, and believe that you have
all responded to many of the concerns we expressed. With these or
similar changes, we support this act and hope that this will facilitate
a local, on the ground commitment to success. We believe this is the
first effort to address Wilderness issues with consideration of
multiple uses and hope for the success of this management strategy.
ATTACHMENT
16 U.S.C. Section 2003 (b)
``Recognizing that the arrangements under which the federal
government cooperates through conservation districts with other local
units of government and land users have effectively aided in the
protection and improvement of the nation's basic resources, it is
declared to be the policy of the United States that these arrangements
and similar cooperative arrangements should be utilized to the fullest
extent practicable''
16 U.S.C. Section 1508
``The Secretary [of Agriculture] shall, in addition to appropriate
coordination with other interested federal, state, and local agencies,
utilize the services of local, county, and state soil conservation
committees.''
16 U.S.C. Section 3411 (5)
Congress finds solutions to ``chronic erosion-related problems
should be designed to address the local social, economic, environmental
and other conditions unique to the area involved to ensure that the
goals and policies of the federal government are effectively integrated
with the concerns of the local community . . .''
16 U.S.C. Section 2008
``In the implementation of the Act, the Secretary [of Agriculture]
shall utilize information and data available from other federal, state
and local governments.''
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Congdon. You make a number of
very important points. A big, big part of our challenge is now
as we look to this fresh approach in forestry in trying to deal
with the remaining infrastructure.
What a presentation to go town by town by town to describe
what it was like before. What it's like now in terms of mills
is to get some of the references that you are making in those
last three points. That in effect touch on this new approach in
forestry and link it to some of the issues of the future. So
very helpful.
I want to let my colleagues ask questions. All of you have
been an excellent panel. I thank you for making the long trek.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
follow on the chairman's comments here in noting your remarks,
Mr. Congdon. Having gone to school as a young girl in Wrangell
and remembering the mill there and knowing what our situation
is now.
Again, I think we look back on what we had and where we are
now and wonder what is it that we can do to make a difference.
Senator Tester, you clearly have done a lot of work in this
area. I appreciate your efforts there, but to take it back to
our situation in Alaska, in Southeast where we did once have a
vibrant timber economy, an economy that sustained our
communities and our families.
We are, again, approaching that place where those Alaska
communities that once hosted mills and operations and jobs for
our families will be victims of where we are. What we're trying
to do with this Sealaska bill is to try to keep the timber
industry hanging on. From all accounts, whether it's through
the Alaska Forest Association and I note that Mr. Owen Graham
is with us today listening. I mean, we recognize that what we
have with the Sealaska legislation is one way that can help us,
perhaps the only way that can help us maintain a small movement
forward to retain some of this industry.
Mr. Mallott, I'd like you to address the issue of urgency.
You hit upon it just very briefly in your comments. I mentioned
it in my opening statements that the economy right now in
Southeast is difficult.
We've been working on this bill now for several years. It
was urgent at that time to address how Sealaska can not only
help its shareholders, but help the regional economy. We're 3
years beyond that time when we introduced this bill.
Can you speak to the impact that this legislation will have
on the private timber industry and the other economic
activities within Southeast and why it is that we need to move
on this sooner than later? Not taking Mr. Sherman's approach
and keep talking about this.
Mr. Mallott. The industry just this past January lost one
of its final, the timber industry, lost one of its final
players with the closure of the Seeley mill near Ketchikan. To
my knowledge there is just one significant mill remaining. That
mill has continued to have a very difficult time with timber
supply.
Sealaska's harvest is diminishing. We had hoped that with
the bill that was introduced three Congresses ago that we would
be at a point now where we could be at a harvest level that
would allow the regional timber industry to continue if at
least to survive, if not prosper. Virtually all of, as has been
mentioned by a prior speaker on another bill, but certainly
germane to this topic, all of the infrastructure is, to a large
degree, gone.
Sealaska, itself, in the past several years has had a
difficult time retaining contractors, retaining the materials,
the supplies, the expertise necessary to sustain even a small
harvest level at this time. If a bill is not passed soon, if
the Forest Service in conjunction with Sealaska does not move
more vigorously, we could well see the last mill in the Tongass
close within the next year or so.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you a question that has been
raised by the opponents to this bill. It has been suggested
that Sealaska is essentially cherry picking, that they're
taking the best areas, the best timber lands through this bill.
I guess I look at this differently. I recognize that within the
legislation with the future sites, with the sacred sites,
you're barred from timber development, mineral development on
there. You have essentially, as my count, about 39,000 fewer
acres of old growth timber that you would otherwise be entitled
to.
Can you speak to the assertion that somehow or other you
are cherry picking the best lands?
Mr. Mallott. One of the reasons, Senator Murkowski, that I
made the opening statement that I did and did not speak
directly to the elements of the legislation is based upon some
of those comments. It seems like when it comes to dealing with
the kinds of issues with the ownership by natives that we're
talking about that somehow there's always another impediment.
Somehow you have to take second place, that somehow there are
other intervening and overriding public policy circumstances
that inhibit any meaningful action on your behalf.
But we were part of what is called the Tongass Futures
Roundtable, a gathering of all of the many interests in the
Tongass National Forest, convened for the purpose of trying to
wrestle with all of the issues that we have talked about here
and in the past. One of the clear early discussions was about
the need to begin thinking about second growth harvest and
management in the Tongass. Sealaska has already been managing
its harvest areas. We could well have selected old growth
within our current withdrawal areas and had quite large
harvests of that growth.
But we, wide eyed, said let's become involved with this
larger public effort to create a sustainable, long term, second
growth industry. We knew that it would cause Sealaska to give
up early profitability for long term sustainability. We were
willing to do that.
We have no desire to be old growth harvesters. We want to
have a sustainable industry over time. I'd just like to make a
quick comment on the notion about export----
Senator Wyden. Let me interrupt only to say I've been
called to the Capitol for a meeting. Senator Murkowski has
graciously said that she is going to stay with it now until she
has her questions answered. Then Senator Tester I know has some
questions as well.
So let me hand this to Senator Murkowski. Just tell our
witnesses again, our thanks for making the trip. We're going to
follow up with all of you.
It's our objective to try to bring folks together.
Certainly there is a wide divergence of views on some of these
questions. But this committee has a good track record of trying
to find common ground on contentious natural resources issues.
That's what we're going to try to do again.
So, Senator Murkowski, thank you for taking it at this
point. My apologies to witnesses, but Senator Murkowski will
ask her questions and Senator Tester will have some as well. I
thank my colleague.
Mr. Mallott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So the movement to select second growth was not about
cherry picking it was trying to be responsive to what we
believe was an appropriate public policy imperative. With
respect to sacred sites there had been concern within the
native community about public management of sites that are
identified and understood then recognized by all to be sacred
in the truest sense of the word. We were wanting, moving into
the long term future, to have the ability to manage those sites
in a way that was appropriate to our ownership as native
peoples.
We have made it clear and in writing, not necessarily in
the legislation, but in writing, that sacred sites would not be
used for any purposes other than for those identified in the
designation. It was not cherry picking. It was consciously
looking at specific sites that were of utmost importance to the
native community by way of history, by way of tradition, by way
of culture, by way of past occupancy. Ultimately it was
serendipitous, even for us to some degree, to find and to
identify some of those sites.
With respect to future sites, there were multiple reasons.
One of the critical ones for me was having lived in the forest
for all of the years that I have and seen long term forest
management, short term forest management, was to try to create
the way for local residents, local citizens, who lived in the
region, to have a seat at the table of Federal management
decisionmaking over time. We believe that those sites could
help us gain that.
Also, our presence in the Tongass National Forest is
pervasive. It extends from Yakutat to South of Saxman, in the
South, Yakutat, on the North. There is not a single place in
the forest that has not, at one time, been ours and impacted by
our presence and hugely important to us.
So the notion of future sites was built around that basic
value structure. That philosophy and the idea then in addition,
was to how can we, when we have villages scattered throughout
the region, have sites that were relatively close to each of
them that could impact them in a positive way either
culturally, through the development of energy sites, through
the use for cultural and traditional and recreational purposes.
But it was that simple and that straightforward.
If looking at the region and saying these sites are
important to us and they would meet these values, is called
cherry picking, then we're guilty. But to us it was not that at
all. It was trying to create the opportunities that we've
discussed clearly in the bill.
We also have Sealaska has met time and again with every
single community, every single interest that has voiced a
concern within the region, as has your staff, virtually. Much
modification has been made to the full range of future sites.
The number has decreased since the first bill was introduced.
Even some of the sacred sites have been moved.
So it has been a very iterative to, in my judgment, a very
responsible effort to try to gain what we believe is important
to us while still being responsive to the other interest within
the forest.
Senator Murkowski. I have more questions that I would like
to direct to you all. But recognizing Senator Tester that we've
got a series of votes coming up shortly, I'd like to defer to
you for your questions. Then I'll come back, but----
Senator Tester. You're way kind, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. No.
Senator Tester. I'll add 5 minutes from the clock there if
I'm not done on time.
Senator Murkowski. No, no. Please, you get double time
because I have taken twice mine. So it's all yours.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your
testimony. I very much appreciate everybody who testified today
on different bills.
Sherm, Mr. Anderson, we've talked before about how some 20
years ago that you hauled around anti-wilderness signs at
various rallies. I know emotions run high when people look at
you and they're trying to proceed and take away your business,
your livelihood. But then here 6 years ago you sat down with
the very folks you had been fighting with.
Could you tell me what it was like to try and find common
ground? What made you do it?
Mr. Anderson. OK, Senator Tester.
What it was like was very tense, very tense. Obviously I do
remember those 15 to 20 years ago when we had fierce
discussions. Our unwillingness to bend and the conservation
group's unwillingness to bend has brought us to where we are
today. That's nowhere for any of us.
Our forests are not being managed. Our conservation
partners see that as well as we see that. We see the potential
of what is sure to come. That's catastrophic fires that no one
can control.
With that then we were able to sit down and inch by inch
per say, come to agreement on certain areas on our National
Forests. As you stated, this is somewhat of a pilot. We picked
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and the other two forests that in
Montana to see what we could do by working together verses
pulling at each other apart and getting nowhere.
Senator Tester. You know one of the objections that when
this bill was here 2 years ago, one of the objections was why
you doing this? There's no market for the wood anyway. Could
you give me kind of a state of the landscape as far as
marketability of your wood?
Mr. Anderson. I can. You know, that is often quoted--
misquoted, I would say that there is no market for the wood.
Even in these distressed times where everyone knows the housing
market is as bad as it gets. We, ourselves, never have any
problems moving the wood.
There's always a demand for lumber up to a certain point,
obviously. With the current situation with the Chinese exports
especially, but with also the Japanese exports coming on to
meet their needs, it is spreading inland and is affecting us
directly. Because anything that is not tied to the National
Forest, is going on the water and going overseas, if possible.
So there are markets that are developed. When that happens
and where we're located in the inland area of Montana. Then
what small domestic market is here, even in the recessed times,
we don't have any problems moving our wood.
The problem is obtaining a resource, timber, at affordable
prices that we can obviously continue to operate in distressed
times.
Senator Tester. Supply.
Mr. Anderson. Supply.
Senator Tester. Wally Congdon, I've read your testimony. I
very much appreciate your suggestions. As Senator Barrasso
said, great testimony. I'll take a close look at them.
Could you give me your general overall thoughts on the bill
just as you see it, just as a cattleman?
Mr. Congdon. My thoughts are this.
One, it's not just about the infrastructure for trees. It's
the infrastructure for outfitters and guides. It's the
infrastructure for grazing. It's the infrastructure for
recreation. It's the infrastructure for local economies who
have tourists, etcetera.
So what the bill overall does for the first time is it
truly takes all the things from multiple use that NFMA/FLPMA
talk about and you plug them all into a package. There were
times I was on the other side of the table from Sherm Anderson
25 or 30 years ago as well. He doesn't know it. But I do.
Be that as it may, what it did for the first time is it put
together that way. So my thoughts on the bill in some senses a
camel is a horse designed by a committee. At the other time,
this does not look like a camel. This looks like a very good
horse.
That being the case, I think overall, you couldn't have
done a better job. It does set up to preserve grazing, preserve
agriculture, preserve recreation, preserve outfitters and
guides. What that to me is is agriculture which is silviculture
and logging, Senator, are the same.
It is five letters that everyone forgets. It is the
practice, the process, the procedure, the science and the art
of producing something whether it's a substance, a food, a
fiber, a piece of wood, for use by society and people. The
problem is the guys who can drop a tree on a stake 70 foot away
are quickly falling by the wayside because that culture, that
ability is quickly going.
The people who can rope a cow are quickly becoming fewer in
numbers. The guys who can pack a mule to haul salt become lower
in numbers if we don't preserve, protect and provide the
opportunity for what your bill does. So my observation overall
is well done after 30 years. It took us a long time to get
here. I'm really happy to be here for it.
Senator Tester. We're happy to have you here.
One more question for you, Mr. Congdon. There have been a
number of accusations this bill was formed in secret. Some will
even claim that this hearing is not public. Can you talk about
the transparency this bill has experienced in Montana inclusion
of suggestions and even by the folks who oppose it?
Mr. Congdon. Yes.
No. 1, there were a number of meetings locally, etcetera.
County commissioners, city officials attended them, MWA,
etcetera. People all attended them and did drafts and comments
early on. It was public.
When the first drafts were done a year and a half ago, I
did comment on them. Frankly, your staff and you, did listen.
You made the changes we requested like save grazing, save water
rights, make an effort, unload some lands from the REPA,
etcetera. The need to be released for public use now, etcetera.
So it has been an open policy, an open thing. What I tell a
lot of those people who are complaining is very simply this:
there's a ball game. If you're going to play, bring a team. If
you don't show up, don't be surprised at the end score.
All the people I know of who complained and said, this is
private, this is not public, that you did this through back
doors, I ask every one of them show me your comments on the
first draft. Guess what I got back from every person. Nothing,
because they made no comments, Senator.
Those of us who did, it was public. It was open. Job well
done. I think that's really important.
Senator Tester. I want to thank, you know, we've got folks
from Alaska here. We know how far they travel to get here.
Montana is not exactly a hike across, well it's a pretty big
park, let's put it that way.
I thank you coming the 2,000 miles to Washington, DC, to
testify, both of you. I appreciate your being here, Bonnie. But
I really appreciate Senator Murkowski's openness in allowing me
to be a part of this committee when I don't sit on it. So thank
you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Tester. I appreciate
your comments. To both gentlemen I would echo the comments of
Senator Tester.
We know what it takes coming from Alaska to haul yourself
across country to be here for a very brief period of time. We
appreciate your appearance here today as well as the work that
you clearly have done on this. So thank you.
I just have a few more minutes. As I mentioned we've got a
series of votes that are starting in just less than 10 minutes
now. But I just wanted to follow up.
Ms. Poelstra, I convey to you the same appreciation. I know
it's not easy getting in and out of Edna Bay. So thank you for
your efforts in being here.
You have stated in your testimony and in your written as
well, the assertion that somehow or other Sealaska is unjustly
enriched. I think it is important to recognize that with this
legislation Sealaska doesn't get one more acre than they are
entitled to under the agreement in ANCSA 1971. So I guess I
would ask you to explain why you feel it is unjust?
You've also used the term ``land grab'' that assumes that
there is more that is made available to Sealaska than they
would otherwise be entitled to. Can you just clarify for me
what you mean when you say it is unjust that Sealaska should
receive this entitlement?
Ms. Poelstra. When I say it's unjust I'm referring not to
the total number of acres. I don't think anyone has ever
challenged the acreage that they still have due them. I know
that the amount is yet to be determined. But I've never seen
anyone really challenge that.
What I consider unjust is the acreage that they're taking.
What I use to base that opinion off of, I don't know if you're
familiar with the Albert Report. It was published in March of
last year.
In that report it was based off of Senate bill 881 at that
time. You know, at that time all ten parcels that Sealaska was
selecting were ranked in the top 10 percent of trees on the
Tongass. Those selection areas have large tree forests. It was
ten times more than the average on the Tongass.
They had tar spores that were 31 times more than the
average on the forest. Deer habitat that was 3.5 times more
than average and salmon habitat that was 1.2 times more than
average. Those are the things that I'm referring to that are
unjust.
The problem----
Senator Murkowski. But in fact we worked quite aggressively
to address many of those concerns that were raised in making
the changes between the legislation from the prior Congress to
this. Would you agree?
Ms. Poelstra. You know, I haven't seen any updated reports
in regards to this bill. It's only recently been introduced.
There's not a lot of information or details out yet. So, you
know, I would be interested in seeing just what those
adjustments did to change those figures.
In regards to the future sites I used Icy Straits as an
example. That is something that none of the other regional
corporations were given the opportunity for. That's one of the
things that makes people believe across Southeast Alaska and
even in other parts of the State that it has the potential for
people to ask to reopen ANCSA and to readdress a balance in the
difference in what Sealaska is being allowed to select.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask, and I will direct this
probably to you, Jaeleen, as counsel for Sealaska because this
is an issue that has been presented before that somehow or
other with this legislation and Sealaska being allowed to
select outside of the original entitlement areas that this
opens the door under ANCSA for the other 11 Alaska Native
Corporations to come back in and basically reselect. Can you
speak to that, please?
Ms. Araujo. Yes, Senator Murkowski. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide an answer to that question.
I guess I would have to point to the fact that Sealaska
region, the region that we are in, was treated very differently
in ANCSA. As was testified to before, there were very strong
political interests restricting us to small areas from which to
make our selections. We had 10 boxes drawn around 10 of our
villages. Congress said that is where you make your selection.
That is not the same limitation that was put on the other
regions. In fact, I know that other regions were basically
told--I mean, their villages were restricted, but not their
regions. They could select basically any unappropriated, any
unreserved areas in their region.
If they couldn't find land they could actually
administratively petition the Secretary to help them find
alternative lands. We don't have that same right in Southeast
Alaska. We were limited to certain boxes. So I don't think
allowing us to go outside of those withdrawal areas opens up
some box for other communities.
But I would also----
Senator Murkowski. That is correct to note then that
Sealaska is the only corporation situated that way.
Ms. Araujo. Yes. But I would also note that ANCSA has been
amended more than 30 times since it was enacted. It was, as we
all know, a Congressional experiment to not create more
reservations. But to do something different to promote economic
development so that native people could provide for themselves.
But, you know, with this legislation being so different
there have been a number of inequities and problems that have
been identified over the years and corrected. We think that
this is one of those. I also would submit that if other regions
have similar inequities or problems in their region, then they
should present those to Congress and have the similar public
process that we're going through to have their issues, I guess,
judged and identified and to determine if they have a right to
have some congressional action as well.
Senator Murkowski. Is it not accurate though that Sealaska
is the last native corporation to finalize their selections?
Ms. Araujo. I don't know about the exact situation of all
the others. But I think we are one of the last. I know that all
the other regions support us in getting our remaining
selections.
I haven't heard from any other regions, and I've met with
them many times, that they have similar circumstance and need
to come to Congress. So based on the information I have now I
don't think any others are similarly situated.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
I wish that we could spend more time here this afternoon
just in putting out on the record the information that I think
has been critical in developing this legislation as we have
advanced. As I mentioned and as has been mentioned by several
of you, this has been years in the making and an
extraordinarily open process throughout. I wish that I had been
able to be in every of the affected communities but I simply
was not able to do that. I was fortunate enough to be able to
have staff that went and listened to the concerns.
We have earnestly tried to address as much of the competing
concerns and issues as we possibly can. But at the end of it
you recognize that you cannot make every interest 100 percent
happy. So in an effort to get to where I was suggesting to Mr.
Sherman that at some point in time you've got to get to the end
of the talking process and actually resolve the issue, bring
closure, finalize the entitlements, work to address the
situation with the Sealaska shareholders while at the same time
doing it in a prompt manner so that we can help a struggling
Southeastern economy.
So it's not something that I think can continue to drag on
for additional years. Because I think then, you get yourself in
a situation where these gentlemen are talking about where there
is no infrastructure within the industry to hang on to, to
rebuild. It is gone.
So I heard the chairman of the subcommittee indicate that
he is interested in working with us. We will continue in this
process. But it is my hope that we will be able to move the
bill, this Sealaska legislation, through the committee, move it
to the Floor.
I would anticipate at that time the process is what the
process is. But it is important that we finally get to that
point where we are able to bring a resolution to this issue. It
is one that I admit has brought controversy between neighbors.
That is unfortunate.
But at the end of the day, we are all still neighbors
there. We need to figure out how we remain in our communities.
I'm hopeful that with passage of this legislation the strength
of the Southeastern economy can continue in an upwards
trajectory. We can move on in a way that's good and healthy for
all of us.
So I thank you for your efforts. I thank you for your
testimony. I thank you for coming all this way. For those of
you that have joined from Alaska, I also thank you for your
efforts.
Mr. Mallott. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. With that, ladies and
gentlemen, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Marcilynn Burke to Questions From Senator Murkowski
S. 233
I understand there are approximately 300,000 acres involved that
are currently leased. Some of the companies have indicated a
willingness to relinquish their leases without any compensation. Other
leaseholders have not reached that agreement. These are valid, existing
lease rights.
Question 1. Can you help me understand what percent of the leased
acreage is held by companies who are willing to give up their leases
without compensation?
Answer. The BLM processes relinquishments when the leaseholders
submit them to the BLM. The Department has not requested any
relinquishments. To date, the BLM has processed voluntary
relinquishments on 79 leases in the withdrawal area covering
approximately 184,000 acres (76 of those leases are in the North Fork
Watershed of the Flathead National Forest). This amount represents
about 75 percent of the acreage leased for oil and gas development in
the withdrawal area.
Question 2. How much money has the government received in bonus
bids and rents on these leases?
Answer. The Federal government received about $911,000 for the
leases within the withdrawal area. These leases are all simultaneous
and over-the-counter (no bonus bids). Additionally, leaseholders do not
pay rent while leases are under suspension. The Federal government
received almost $708,000 for the 79 leases that have been relinquished.
Question 3. Are there steps that could be taken to ensure the
government is not liable for a takings claim?
Answer. Because the relinquishments that are voluntary and
processed at the request of the leaseholder under procedures set forth
in 43 CFR 3108.1, there is no basis for a takings claim.
S. 268
As written, this legislative proposal includes releasing some
Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) from Wilderness
Study Area status.
Question 4. Other than the moratoria imposed in the recent
Continuing Resolution preventing any funds being spent on implementing
Secretarial Order 3310; what would prevent the released Wilderness
Study Areas from being administratively protected under the Wild Land
Policy?
Answer. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar confirmed that,
pursuant to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, the BLM will not designate
any lands as ``Wild Lands.'' The Department will work in collaboration
with Members of Congress, states, tribes, and local communities to
identify public lands that may be appropriate candidates for
congressional protection under the Wilderness Act.
The BLM's open, public land use planning process determines how
lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) are to be managed. Through
this process, LWCs may be managed to protect their wilderness
characteristics or for other multiple uses.
Question 5. Have there been any meetings at the Council for
Environmental Quality or the White House attended by any Department of
the Interior or Bureau of Land Management personnel regarding the Wild
Land Policy, or Secretarial Order 3310 since the Continuing Resolution
was signed into law on March 15, 2011?
Answer. I am not aware of any such meetings.
Question 6. Have there been any internal meetings in the Department
of the Interior or within the Bureau of Land Management to discuss
where the Secretarial Order 3310 was discussed or how to move forward
with the Wild Land Policy once the moratorium is lifted?
Answer. There have been a number of discussions within the BLM and
the Department about Secretarial Order 3310 and Section 1769 of Public
Law 112-10 prohibiting the use of funds during fiscal year 2011 ``to
implement, administer, or enforce that order.''
(If yes)
Question 7. What was the nature of the meetings?
Answer. The meetings and discussions in which I participated
involved how the Department would comply with applicable law, including
both P.L. 112-10 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA).
Question 8. Please also provide a list of the names of the
individuals in those meetings and what agency or organizations they
represented.
Answer. These internal meetings included representatives from the
Department of the Interior. I did not keep any lists of participants in
these discussions.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
[Due to the large amount of materials received, only a
representative sample of statements follow. Additional documents and
statements have been retained in subcommittee files.]
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, October 11, 2010.
Hon. Jon Tester,
U.S. Senate, 724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Tester: The Obama Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) have laid out a vision for forests in
the United States that emphasizes the importance of restoring our
forests to conserve water; to ensure our forests are resilient in the
face of insects, disease and climatechange; and to provide for vibrant
local economies. Over the last several months, your staff has worked
closely with the Forest Service to refine legislation to manage and
restore forests on three National Forests in Montana that, if enacted
and adequately funded, would not only be consistent with our vision,
but would provide significant benefits, including a full suite
ofrestoration activities for the people, economy, and forests of your
state.
When I visited Montana with you last winter, I was impressed by the
challenges facing Montana's forests as a result of the mountain pine
beetle epidemic and by the need to maintain forestry jobs and
infrastructure in order to restore our forests. I was also greatly
impressed with the partnership among former adversaries
nvironmentalists, members of the forest industry,recreationists, county
commissioners, and others-who have joined forces to address the threats
facing Montana's forests, to support local communities, and to promote
the designation of new wilderness areas in Montana for the first time
in 27 years.
With a limited number of legislative days remaining in this
Congress, I know you are considering a number of approaches to enacting
legislation that would codify the work of this partnership into a
region-specific pilot project. No matter which approach is taken, I
understand the legislation would establish performance standards for
70,000 acres of mechanical treatment on the Beaverhead Deeriodge
National Forest and 30,000 acres on the Kootenai National Forest over
the next 15 years. I believe these goals are ambitious, but sustainable
and achievable. As with any new program or pilot, providing sufficient
funding will be critical to allowing the Forest Service to prepare and
implement mechanical treatments using stewardship contracts,
timbersales contracts, and other means, Since there are many high-
priority programs throughout the National Forest System, we cannot
shift funding from other regions to fund these treatments. Thus, I
support the inclusion of language in this proposed legislation that
states it will not impactfunds from other regions.
Our nation's forests are changing due to forest health issues,
effects of climate change, and other influences. These changes require
that we develop and implement proactive measures for land management.
Further, USDA and Congress must work together to help industries
explore viable wood power generation and other biomass facilities so
that we can maintain viable wood marketsfor the future. Markets for
woody biomass could be critical in financing treatments in areas with
beetle-killed timber. Since timber impacted by beetles will deteriorate
over time, I believe an ambitious ramp up to perform mechanical
treatment would be beneficial. I also believe legislation needs to
allow for an evaluation of the treatments in light of the development
of woodmarkets and the continuing budgetary requirements after 5 years
to ensure that the purposes and vision of the bill can be successfully
implemented.
As the Administration expressed in testimony on S. 1470, we have
reservations about legislating specific treatment levels and other
aspects of our forest plans. However, the holistic package of
mechanical treatments, wilderness designations, and job creation, along
with the collaborativeapproach and hard work of the stakeholders in
Montana, and your work directly with the Forest Service, ensure that
this legislation can serve as a model for similar efforts elsewhere.
Let me conclude by thanking you for your leadership in forest
management issues and I, my staff at USDA, and Chief Tidwell stand
ready to assist you in moving this legislation forward.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Vilsack,
Secretary.
______
The Wilderness Society,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of The Wilderness Society, I am
writing to offer our views on the bills indicated below that were the
subject of the Committee's hearing on May 25, 2011. The Wilderness
Society is the leading public-lands conservation organization working
to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild
places. Founded in 1935, and now with more than 500,000 members and
supporters, TWS has led the effort to permanently protect 110 million
acres of wilderness and to ensure sound management of our shared
national lands. I ask that this letter be made a part of the hearing
record.
S. 233--NORTH FORK WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT OF 2011
The Wilderness Society (TWS) supports without qualification S. 233
and urges its speedy passage. Glacier National Park, the North Fork
Flathead River, as well as much of the national forest land addressed
in this bill, are of national significance and generate substantial and
renewable economic benefits to both local communities and the state of
Montana. In addition, passage of this bill ensures that the United
States ``acts by example'' and fully engages in the coordinated,
partnership approach requested by the province of British Columbia when
they agreed in early 2010 to take action to protect the Canadian side
of the North Fork Flathead from coal, oil and gas, and mining
development.
First introduced last Congress, this bill has received significant
public review and media coverage. Yet, there is almost no active
opposition in Montana to this legislation, as to our knowledge, no
organized group, relevant elected official, Montana newspaper, or
affected constituency has spoken out against the North Fork Watershed
Protection Act. Instead, there has been an impressive outpouring of
diverse and formal support from local businesses, civic groups,
Chambers of Commerce, City Councils, sportsmen and conservation groups,
and others. Consider that in a 4/5/2010 letter to the Montana
delegation, the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce praised this legislation
as ``being good for business'' further stating, ``The Chamber wishes to
ensure that Glacier Park, the North Fork River Valley, and Flathead
Lake remain as economically productive as they are today. We think that
oil and gas development in the Whitefish Range would be inconsistent
with our interest to see the entire watershed protected from upstream
(Canadian) pollution.''
Indeed, passing S. 233 would not only help protect the United
States side of this trans boundary and ecologically rich watershed but
also help ensure resolution of the threats on the upstream, side. Swift
passage of this bill is a critical step toward implementing the
International Flathead agreement that was signed in 2010 by Montana
Governor Brian Schweitzer and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell.
It banned all types of mining and oil and gas extraction in the entire
Transboundary Flathead and committed each country to take action to
protect its respective portion of the watershed. It should be noted
that since signing of this agreement, over 80% of the federal leases in
the area covered by S.233 have been voluntarily donated back to the
government in recognition that this is an inappropriate place for oil
and gas development.
TWS enthusiastically supports S. 233 and sincerely thank Senators
Baucus and Tester for their leadership on this issue and their ongoing
dedication to protecting this nationally important portion of the Crown
of the Continent Ecosystem.
S. 375--GOOD NEIGHBOR FORESTRY ACT
Summary of Legislation
S. 375, the ``Good Neighbor Forestry Act,'' would allow State
foresters to undertake a variety of forest and rangeland management
activities on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands
in the West through ``Good Neighbor'' contracts and cooperative
agreements. Good Neighbor authority could be used for a variety of
``restoration and protection services'' such as removing insect-
infested trees and reducing hazardous fuels. The bill would permit the
State foresters to subcontract those services to private companies and
would exempt Good Neighbor projects from certain timber sale
contracting requirements of the National Forest Management Act.
Projects implemented by the States through cooperative agreements would
also be exempt from federal contracting laws, including federal wage
and liability requirements. However, the Forest Service and BLM would
still be responsible for making project decisions under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Under S. 375, the Good Neighbor authority
would apply to National Forest System and BLM lands in all of the
western states and would last for 10 years.
GAO Report
In February 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued
a detailed report evaluating the use of the Good Neighbor authority.
The GAO concluded that the authority can help land managers efforts to
improve forest conditions and help prevent severe fires by allowing
federal and state agencies to work more closely together to treat lands
across ownership boundaries. However, the GAO raised concerns about
potential problems with ``timber accountability,'' especially if the
Good Neighbor authority is extended to additional states. The GAO
recommended that the Forest Service and BLM ``first develop written
procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales . . . to better ensure
accountability for federal timber.''
Analysis
The timber accountability problem with the Good Neighbor authority
provided by S. 375 stems largely from the legislative exemption from
important requirements in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
that are aimed at avoiding fraud and conflicts of interest in federal
timber sales.
First, the legislation exempts Good Neighbor projects from Section
14(g) of the NFMA, which requires that Forest Service employees conduct
the designation, marking, and supervision of timber sales and that
those employees ``shall have no personal interest in the purchase or
harvest of such products and shall not be directly or indirectly in the
employment of the [timber sale] purchaser.'' This exemption is
especially problematic because S. 375 also allows state foresters to
subcontract the timber sale preparation to private companies.
Therefore, unless prohibited by state or local laws, the legislation
could allow subcontracting timber industry employees to select what
trees are cut from federal lands.
Second, the legislation exempts Good Neighbor timber sales from
Section 14(d) of NFMA, which requires the Forest Service to advertise
timber sales before awarding contracts. Thus, a Good Neighbor timber
sale could be awarded at minimum appraised value to the same timber
company that laid out the sale.
A third significant concern with S. 375 is that it vastly expands
the potential use of Good Neighbor authority. The original Colorado
legislation only allowed Good Neighbor authority to be used ``when
similar and complementary watershed restoration and protection services
are being performed by the State Forest Service on adjacent State or
private land.'' This limitation makes good sense, since the legislation
is intended to benefit the ``neighbors'' that are adjacent to federal
lands. In contrast, S. 375 would allow ``Good Neighbor'' authorities to
be used anywhere on Forest Service and BLM lands, irrespective of
proximity to non-federal lands. This vast geographic expansion of the
Good Neighbor policy raises serious questions about the potential for
excessive control of federal land management by State foresters and
private industry subcontractors throughout the West.
In addition to the concerns over environmental impacts of expanding
this authority, some have questioned whether forestry worker rights,
including protective federal wage and overtime standards and
requirements would be undermined by ceding contracting authority to
states. The specter of non-competitive sole-source contracting is seen
as particularly disconcerting.
S. 375 proposes a vast and unwarranted expansion of the potential
use of that authority beyond its original purpose. Furthermore, the
legislation lacks important safeguard against timber sale abuse which
would become increasingly likely if the Good Neighbor authority were
extended to other states. The Wilderness Society opposes S. 375 as
currently drafted.
S. 714--Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
The Wilderness Society supports S. 714, which is authored by
Senator Jeff Bingaman and co-sponsored by Senators Tester, Wyden,
M.Udall, and T.Udall. It would reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act for 10 years before it expires in July 2011. The
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) of 2000 authorizes
Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service to use the
proceeds from sales of BLM lands to acquire inholdings in federally
designated areas such as BLM areas, national forests, national parks
and national wildlife refuges. FLTFA provides federal agencies in the
eleven Western states and Alaska with an important new funding source
to complement the Land and Water Conservation Fund, land exchanges,
other federal grant programs, and state and private funds.
Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
(FLTFA) will provide opportunities for economic growth, sportsmen's
access and wildlife protection in the western states. FLTFA is a
fiscally responsible land tenure tool for the West. Through a ``land
for land'' approach, the BLM can sell land to private land owners,
counties, companies and others for ranching, community development and
various projects. These sales create jobs and generate funding for BLM,
USFS, NPS and USFWS to acquire critical inholdings and edgeholdings
from willing sellers. The sales revenue allows agencies to acquire
high-priority lands with important wildlife habitat value, recreational
access for hunting and fishing and other agency priorities. Because of
FLTFA's great benefits for local communities and the outdoors, we hope
to see this important western program reauthorized before it expires in
July 2011.
S. 730--THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE LAND ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION AND
JOBS PROTECTION ACT
The Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs
Protection Act (S. 730), commonly called the Sealaska Bill, would
destabilize southeast Alaska's economy, frustrate the U.S. Forest
Service's transition away from the old boom-and-bust old-growth
dependent logging economy to one based on sustainable land management
and healthy local communities, and threaten many of the most popular
and productive areas of the Tongass National Forest. For these reasons,
The Wilderness Society opposes the Sealaska Bill.
Sealaska Corp.'s land entitlements can be settled without new
legislation. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) granted
355,000 acres of land from specific areas to Sealaska Corp. in 1971
while providing certain protections, in the form of '14(h)(1)
covenants, for areas of cultural and historical values. While The
Wilderness Society recognizes and supports Sealaska Corp.'s right to
claim its outstanding entitlement, Sealaska Corp. should not be allowed
to rewrite the rules to seek land that was not allotted to it in the
original agreement and undue important protections for cultural and
historic sites.
The Sealaska Bill targets some of the most important and productive
lands in southeast Alaska. It would transfer 79,000 acres of the best
forestlands in the Tongass to Sealaska Corp. Additionally, many of the
futures sites slated for privatization under the bill are on the edge
of designated Wilderness areas, or are hunting and fishing hotspots
utilized by local outfitters and subsistence and recreational users.
The Tongass is one of the last remaining intact temperate rainforests
in the world, supporting all five of North America's Pacific salmon,
steelhead and resident trout, brown and black bear, Sitka black-tailed
deer, bald eagles, wolves and various other fish and wildlife species.
The lands targeted in this bill comprise many of the most important and
popular forestlands in the Tongass, and would threaten important fish,
wildlife and forestland resources for the benefit of a select few at
the expense of the majority of southeast Alaska's residents and
families.
The Sealaska Bill would destabilize southeast Alaska's economy and
lead to a significant loss of local jobs in the fishing, tourism and
recreation industries--the real economic drivers of the region.
Multiple recent economic studies have shown that stable and diverse
local economies in southeast Alaska depend upon the long-term
productivity and sound management of forestlands and fish and wildlife.
Fishing, one of the region's most valuable industries, accounts for
more than 10% of local jobs and contributes an estimated $986 million
annually to the local economy. In contrast, the Tongass timber industry
currently provides less than one percent of local jobs and ``has cost
U.S. taxpayers a quarter billion dollars over the last eight years and
over a billion dollars since its inception.'' If the bill passed,
current protections--such as permanent stream buffers and the
requirement for sustained yield management--will no longer apply and
the transferred lands would be logged for foreign export while long-
term sustainable jobs and economic security for the region would be cut
from southeast Alaska communities.
The Sealaska Bill would frustrate the Forest Service's efforts to
transition away from the old boom-and-bust old-growth dependent logging
economy to one based on restoration and renewable resources. The long-
term economic viability of southeast Alaska communities depends on
sustainable management of the region's renewable natural resources and
a shift away from short-term old-growth dependent clearcutting.
Recognizing this, in May 2010 local Forest Service leadership announced
that it was working to develop a program to ``help communities
transition to a more diversified economy by providing jobs around
renewable energy, forest restoration, timber, tourism, subsistence, and
fisheries and mariculture.'' The Sealaska Bill is a giant step
backwards in terms of stabilizing southeast Alaska's economy. It cherry
picks the most productive remaining timber lands, taking advantage of a
U.S. taxpayer-funded road system for the gain of a select few. Without
these accessible forest lands, the Forest Service does not have the
resources necessary to follow through on its goal of transitioning the
region to a stable, restoration-based economy. This bill would undercut
the agency's efforts to create dependable, good-paying jobs and
economic stability in the region.
The future of southeast Alaska's forest-dependent rural
communities, and the Tongass' unique temperate rainforest, lies in
moving away from intensive boom-and-bust logging practices of the past
to an economy based on fishing, recreation, tourism and sustainable
management of forestlands. If passed, the Sealaska Bill would threaten
the region's long-term economic stability, make it impossible for the
Forest Service to establish a restoration-based industry through its
transition framework, and clearcut much of the most productive and
important remaining forestlands in southeast Alaska at the expense of
southeast Alaska's major job-producing industries: fishing, tourism and
recreation. Because the Sealaska Bill is not in the interest of local
jobs and families, and undercuts regional economic stability, The
Wilderness Society opposes the Sealaska Bill.
Sincerely,
William A. Meadows.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Arlington, VA, May 25, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
RE: Trout Unlimited Supports the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and
North Fork Watershed Protection Act
Dear Chairman Bingaman, On behalf of Trout Unlimited (TU) and its
140,000 members, I write in support of S. 268, the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act and S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act.
These two bills are subjects of your hearing on Wednesday, May 25th. S.
268 will permanently protect nearly one million acres of Montana's
spectacular backcountry and establish 670,000 acres of wilderness, the
first new wilderness designations in Montana in over twenty-five years.
The forest restoration projects created by this bill will focus on
restoration of degraded forest lands and reduction of overall road
density and the legislation strives to protect the integrity of
roadless areas while complying with all existing laws, policies,
regulations, and forest plans.
More than 2,000 TU members live and work in communities around the
National Forest and BLM areas in S. 268, including Butte, Anaconda,
Deer Lodge, Sheridan, Twin Bridges, Silver Star, Philipsburg, West
Yellowstone, Cameron, Dillon, Ennis, Bozeman, Missoula, Drummond,
Ovando, Bonner, Whitehall, Libby and Troy. Most members in these areas
are long-time or native Montanans and they fish, hunt, hike, camp,
drive, snowmobile, ski, ride horses, and collect firewood, berries and
Christmas trees from these lands. A number have livelihoods directly
tied to these lands, working as guides and outfitters, loggers, ranch
hands, staffers in natural resource agencies or operators of small
businesses.
More than five years ago, spurred by the recognition that National
Forests in western Montana were not living up to their potential to
support healthy fish and wildlife and provide jobs and recreational
opportunities for local communities, TU and other local stakeholders
came together to develop a shared vision for forest management. The
resulting compromises provided the basis for an important part of S.
268, which would protect fish and wildlife habitat through the
designation of 670,000 acres of new wilderness and more than 300,000
acres of special management and national recreation areas, restore
degraded habitat through the removal of old roads and blocked culverts,
reduce the risk of wildfire through targeted fuel reduction projects,
and create jobs for local communities through stewardship contracting.
If implemented, the bill could yield significant benefits to fish and
wildlife, water resources, and nearby communities.
TU has a long record of working with farmers, ranchers, industries,
and government agencies to protect and restore trout and salmon
watersheds nationwide. In recent years, TU has bought gas leases in
Montana to help protect the Rocky Mountain Front, helped to establish a
successful roadless area plan for the National Forests of Idaho, and
helped to establish and fund historic, broadly-supported dam removal
projects from the Penobscot River in Maine to the Klamath in California
and Oregon. Finding solutions to vexing resource problems is a hallmark
of what we do.
Drawing on these cooperative experiences, we have worked to develop
the solutions contained in S. 268 with a diverse group of stakeholders
in Montana. Bruce Farling, Montana TU's Executive Director, has led
TU's efforts on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and TU volunteer Tim Linehan
has been a leader in the Kootenai initiative. The partners in the
region have done courageous, outstanding work. TU strongly supports S.
268, we deeply appreciate the work of Senator Tester and his staff for
introducing it, and we urge the Subcommittee to support it.
We realize that some people have concerns about some of the
provisions of this bill. We do not claim to have all the answers and
look forward to working with the Subcommittee, the Forest Service, the
Obama Administration, and all others who share the goals of the bill.
We urge others with criticisms to provide alternatives that will
achieve the goals of the bill, namely protecting vital fish and
wildlife habitat, restoring forests, and sustaining local communities.
BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF S. 268
In an August 14, 2009 speech in Seattle, Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack stated that Americans must move away from polarization and ``.
. .work towards a shared vision--a vision that conserves our forests
and the vital resources important to our survival while wisely
respecting the need for a forest economy that creates jobs and vibrant
rural communities.'' Through a collaborative grassroots effort dating
back more than four years, a broad range of partners has done just
that, and the resulting vision has provided the basis for the
legislation introduced by Senator Tester.
Prior to this collaborative process the forests were mired in
stalemate that failed to protect and restore fish and wildlife.
Wilderness has not been designated in the state of Montana in over 25
years, despite the broad recognition of the need to protect quality
fish and wildlife habitat and public support to do so. There are
hundreds of impassible culverts on the forests that fragment trout
habitat. Dense networks of obsolete roads restrict elk security and
movement, and contribute heavy loads of sediment to streams.
Due in part to these impacts, native salmonids, some of which are
listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act,
occupy but a small fraction of their historic range. Decades of fire
suppression has produced homogenous even-aged stands of forests, which
along with climate change and the pine bark beetle infestation increase
the risk of unnaturally intense fire. The Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act will enable the Forest Service to address these long-neglected
needs.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act results from three grassroots
efforts in which TU in Montana was a principal in two efforts
(Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Three Rivers) and a supporter in the third
(Blackfoot-Clearwater). The bill is Montana-made, and it has generated
unprecedented consensus among many Montanans of different stripes that
validates the notion that collaboration is vital to developing long-
term popular support of public lands management.
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE BENEFITS OF THE FOREST JOBS AND RECREATION ACT
Now more than ever, as changes in climate increase the challenges
faced by forest managers and ecosystems, it is imperative that national
forests are managed in ways that promote resiliency. At its heart, S.
268 is a climate change adaptation strategy. By federally protecting
the highest quality landscapes and then reconnecting them to adjacent
areas through watershed restoration, S. 268 will help to maintain
abundant fish and wildlife populations while providing multiple
benefits to human communities through good paying jobs. This can be
done through the following actions:
1. Protect the highest quality lands and waters
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would protect as federal
wilderness 670,000 acres of undeveloped country in 25 areas, as well as
create over 300,000 acres of special management and national recreation
areas. By doing so, it will protect crucial sources of clean, cold
water as well as essential habitats for wild and native trout in the
headwaters of some of the nation's most storied trout waters, including
Rock Creek and the Madison, Beaverhead, Ruby, Jefferson, Big Blackfoot,
Clark Fork and Kootenai rivers. Protection of wilderness and special
management areas in the bill will also help secure habitats for Canada
lynx, a listed species, as well as wolverines and mountain goats--all
species that need undisturbed habitats. Finally, it will provide vital
habitat for elk security.
The protection of high quality habitat, along with the reconnection
and restoration projects described below, will help secure populations
of one ESA listed fish species, bull trout, and three additional fish
species that are candidates for listing: westslope cutthroat trout,
arctic grayling, and interior redband trout. All of these species now
inhabit only a small portion of their historical ranges on the lands in
the bill. The wilderness and special area designations serve as
critical sources for fish that are necessary for re-populating restored
habitats downstream.
2. Reconnect landscapes so that fish and wildlife can survive habitat
disturbances
Restoration projects will be focused on areas of high road density.
Obsolete road networks in Montana forests cause habitat fragmentation
that prevents fish and wildlife from dispersing to intact habitats when
faced with disturbances such as fire, drought or intense storms. The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would address the problems caused by
these road networks by (1) prohibiting the construction of new,
permanent roads; and (2) requiring that road densities be reduced. (For
example, in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, the road standard
is to leave post-project landscapes with a road density that averages
no more than 1.5 linear road mile per square-mile.) The scientifically
based standard recommended by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks for elk security is no more than 1.5 linear miles of road per
square-mile, which is the minimum needed to provide enough security for
elk so that Montana can maintain its annual 5-week general big game
hunting season. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Seeley
Lake Ranger District include some of the most productive lands anywhere
in Montana for large, trophy elk.
The road standards in S. 268 will also protect high quality habitat
and improve wildlife security for a host of popular game and non-game
species, including mule deer, black and grizzly bears and mountain
goats. The road standards will also greatly benefit fish by reducing
erosion-prone road surfaces and road crossing structures such as
culverts that are currently harming habitat and impeding movement of
fish into and out of important habitats. Agency surveys indicate, for
example, that at least 240 road culverts on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest are currently complete or partial barriers to fish
movement, and the frequency of road crossing barriers on the Seeley
Lake and Three Rivers Districts are even more severe. The result is
reduced habitat availability for species such as bull trout and
cutthroat trout. The restoration projects called for in this
legislation will improve habitat connectivity by removing roads and
replacing or removing blocked culverts.
3. Engage communities in restoration
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act directs the Forest Service to
use stewardship contracting to meet vegetation management goals, which
ensures that the value of trees removed is invested back onto the same
landscape in habitat restoration, elimination of pollution sources,
protection of key habitats from livestock, or suppression of weeds on
winter ranges, as well as improvement of recreational features such as
trails used by hunters, anglers and other recreationists.
By focusing stewardship projects on previously developed landscapes
with high densities of roads, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will
help address impairments on landscapes that are prone to unnatural
rates of erosion, and related effects such as exotic weed invasion,
after fires. When large fires sweep through developed landscapes such
as those on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest or the Three
Rivers Ranger District, they significantly increase the risk of erosion
from road systems after snowmelt or severe rainstorms, and subsequent
colonization by exotic weeds. Similarly, post-fire storms can block
road culverts with debris and mud, causing these structures to fail and
resulting in channel scouring and large amounts of sediment entering
into trout streams. Fire is a natural part of these forest systems. In
fact, on undeveloped landscapes it can play a beneficial role, one that
fish and wildlife have adapted to for eons. On densely roaded forests,
the effects of fire can cause intense erosion, water quality
degradation, and extirpation of local populations of fish and
wildlife--not to mention the risk to nearby human communities.
S. 233, THE NORTH FORK WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT
The North Fork Flathead watershed in Montana provides habitat for
two native trout species that have been eliminated from much of their
historic range: westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. TU strongly
supports the North Fork Watershed Protection Act (S. 233), which would
protect the watershed from negative impacts of mining on federal lands
in the area.
CONCLUSION
The collaborative effort undertaken by local Montana groups is on
the verge of overcoming years of controversy and delay to protect and
restore Montana forests in ways that benefit fish and wildlife
resources and local communities. There are challenges ahead, but S. 268
represents a new way of doing business for the Forest Service, and we
urge the committee to pass it.
TU supports S. 268 and S. 233, and urges the Committee to approve
the bills and to send them on to the floor for consideration by the
Senate.
Sincerely,
Steve Moyer,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
______
Office of the Mayor,
Missoula, MT, June 8, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Senator, 219 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
Senator, 724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, Thank you for introducing
S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011. The City of
Missoula supports this important piece of legislation and its goal of
protecting public lands and water quality by withdrawing future mining,
oil and gas drilling, and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service
land. However, we urge you to expand the scope of the legislation
beyond the North Fork to include all lands in the Flathead National
Forest.
A significant portion of property owners in the Flathead region are
residents of and voters in Missoula. These citizens own cabins, second
homes, or land along the lakes and streams and in the forests and
mountains of the Flathead watershed. Like the North Fork watershed, the
public lands throughout the Flathead also contain oil and gas leases
that have been suspended since the mid-1980s.
We believe that the irreplaceable lands within the Middle and South
Forks of the Flathead River watersheds that are now unprotected from
mineral development would also benefit from this legislation. The land
and water resources in the Flathead National Forest provide vital
economic benefits and ecological services for Montanans, including
drinking water for several communities, as well as unparalleled public
recreational opportunities beloved by Missoula residents and cherished
by people nationwide.
Please consider protecting all of the headwaters of the Flathead
River--the North, Middle, and South Fork drainages--by expanding the
scope of S. 233. By passing a ``complete package,'' this legislation
will ensure that the headwaters of the Flathead River can sustain our
communities for future generations of Montanans.
Thank you again for introducing S. 233. We fully support this
legislation, and appreciate all of your work on behalf of Missoula's
residents and natural resources.
Respectfully,
John Engen,
Mayor.
______
Polson Chamber of Commerce,
June 4, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Baucus and Tester: Thank you for introducing Senate
Bill 233, to withdraw Federal land and Interests in that land from
loca-tion, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition
under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. The Polson Chamber of
Commerce supports this legislation which withdraws future mining, oil
and gas drilling, and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service
land in Montana's North Fork Flat-head River watershed.
We also support slightly expanding the boundary of S. 233 to
incorporate the remainder of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River
corridor to complete the protection of Glacier Park, the south flank of
the Whi-tefish Range and Haskill Basin to protect recreation assets and
Whitefish City's water supply, and the Co-ram Canyon area to protect
the Flathead River and recreation. The attached map shows the proposed
boundary.
Flathead Lake is an important asset to Polson, its economy and our
businesses. S 233 will help protect Flathead Lake water quality and the
economic health of our city from upstream threats of industrial ener-gy
development. S. 233 is a critical step towards implementing the
Montana--British Columbia agree-ment signed by Governor Schweitzer and
Premier Campbell that bans mining and oil and gas extraction in the
trans-boundary North Fork Flathead Valley.
The United States and Canada have a historic opportunity to protect
the North Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park, and
Flathead Lake for future generations. S. 233 represents a crucial
component of this legacy. Thank you for your efforts to protect
Flathead waters.
Sincerely,
Jackie Cripe,
President.
______
Board of Lake County Commissioners,
Polson, MT, May 24, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Baucus and Tester: The Lake County Commission
supports Senate Bill 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of
2011, which withdraws future mining, oil and gas drilling, and
geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land in Montana's North
Fork Flathead River watershed.
We also support slightly modifying the boundary of S. 233 to
incorporate the remainder of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River
corridor to complete the protection of Glacier Park, the south flank of
the Whitefish Range and Haskill Basin to protect recreation assets and
Whitefish City's water supply, and the Coram Canyon area to protect the
Flathead River and recreation. The attached map shows the proposed
boundary.
The Flathead Watershed is a unique and special place, and Flathead
Lake is an important asset to Lake County, our communities, our economy
and our local businesses, as well as to the greater Flathead region,
the state of Montana and beyond. The quality of Flathead Lake is
dependent on the quality of the waters that feed it. The headwaters of
this unique resource are inappropriate for mining and oil and gas
development, which could significantly degrade its quality. S. 233 will
help protect Flathead Lake water quality and the economic health of our
communities from these upstream threats. S. 233 is an important step
towards implementing the Montana--British Columbia agreement signed by
Governor Schweitzer and Premier Campbell that bans mining and oil and
gas extraction in the transboundary North Fork Flathead Valley.
The United States and Canada have a historic opportunity to protect
the North Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park, and
Flathead Lake for future generations. S.233 represents a crucial
component of this legacy. Thank you for your work to protect Flathead
waters.
Sincerely,
William D. Barron,
Chairman.
Paddy Trusler,
Member.
Ann Brower,
Member.
______
May 24, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Baucus and Tester: On behalf of our millions of
members who cherish America's national parks, public lands and wild and
scenic rivers, we are writing to express our enthusiastic support for
S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011. Your bill
helps protect the North Fork of the Flathead River Valley by
withdrawing U.S. Forest Service land from future mining and energy
development.
As a UNESCO World Heritage site and the world's first International
Peace Park, Waterton-Glacier is regarded around the world as the
premier example for international collaboration in protecting
outstanding transboundary natural resources. With its headwaters in
British Columbia and its downstream reaches in Montana, the Flathead
River Valley encompasses much of Glacier National Park and forms the
core of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. This ecosystem supports
an unmatched diversity of wildlife including the greatest density of
grizzly bears in interior North America and some of the continent's
healthiest runs of native bull trout and cutthroat trout.
Since your legislation would keep the U.S. portion of the Flathead
Valley pristine and preserve the region's vibrant tourism industry, it
enjoys strong support from local businesses and chambers of commerce,
Montanans, and the broader American public. It is also supported by
ConocoPhilips and other companies who have already voluntarily
relinquished more than 233,000 acres of oil and gas leases.
Enactment of your legislation would complement the law passed
recently in British Columbia (B.C.) prohibiting mining in the Canadian
portion of the Flathead Valley as well as the memorandum of
understanding signed by Montana and B.C. agreeing to ``remove mining,
oil and gas, and coal development as permissible land uses in the
Flathead River Basin.'' All of these successes are due in large part to
your shared leadership and passion for preserving one of America's last
great wild places.
Our organizations look forward to working with you to pass this
important legislation. You have our commitment to assist you however we
can in forever protecting this incredible place.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Kiernan, President, National Parks
Conservation Association; Margie Alt,
Executive Director, Environment America;
Karen Berky, Western Division Director,
North America, The Nature Conservancy;
William Meadows, President, The Wilderness
Society; Trip Van Noppen, President,
Earthjustice; Rebecca Wodder, President,
American Rivers; Gene Karpinski, President,
League of Conservation Voters; Will Rogers,
President, The Trust for Public Land; David
W. Hoskins, Executive Director, Izaak
Walton League of America.
______
May 24, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Baucus & Tester, We the undersigned organizations
represent hundreds of thousands of hunters and anglers from across the
country and right here in Montana are writing to express our full and
strong support for S. 233 the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of
2011, to withdraw US Forest Service land in the North Fork Watershed
from future oil and gas leasing activities. Our memberships represent a
diverse group of the American public for who hunting, fishing and
outdoor recreation is a way of life.
The North Fork of the Flathead is one of Montana's most special
places to hunt and fish. Public lands in this valley provide unique and
unparalleled opportunities to access our nation's rich natural
heritage. The watershed provides critical habitat for bull and
cutthroat trout and since the days of Theodore Roosevelt, hunters have
been coming to the valley to pursue world class mule deer, elk and
moose opportunities. This valley truly is one of the wildest valleys in
the continental United States, and we believe the next generation
should have the same opportunity we have to experience this special
place.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is an important step in
ensuring that traditional land-uses, such as timber and outdoor
recreation are protected in this valley. Oil, gas and hard rock mineral
extraction in the North Fork would forever change this special place
and cause serious harm to water and air quality, native trout, and big
game populations. That means big business in Montana, where hunters and
anglers contribute $1 billion annually to the state economy.
In addition to impacting sportsmen and women, oil and gas
extraction would have negative impacts on the regional economy--as
millions of tourists spend over $150 million dollars each year to
experience the clean water and wildlife of Glacier National Park.
We understand our need for fossil fuels and hard rock minerals, and
we believe that part of responsible development is recognizing that
some places are too special to be industrialized. The North Fork of the
Flathead is one of these places.
A final reason we support S. 233 is to be a good neighbor. British
Columbia has now banned mining in the Canadian Flathead and asked us to
do the same. For decades, proposals for massive coal strip-mines in the
Canadian headwaters of the North Fork have threatened the water quality
of the Flathead River, Flathead Lake, and Glacier National Park.
Today there is a unique and special opportunity to protect the
North Fork of the Flathead and Glacier National Park forever,
preserving our sporting traditions for those unborn generations. S. 233
is a necessary and essential piece of legislation to complete this
legacy. Our organizations look forward to working with you to pass this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Big Blackfoot
Chapter Trout Unlimited, Bitter Root
Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Flathead Valley
Chapter Trout Unlimited, George Grant
Chapter Trout Unlimited, Hellgate Hunters
and Anglers, Izaak Walton League of
America, Joe Brooks Chapter Trout
Unlimited, Kootenai Valley Trout Club,
Lewis and Clark Chapter Trout Unlimited,
Madison-Gallatin Chapter Trout Unlimited,
Magic City Fly Fishers, Medicine River
Canoe Club, Montana Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers, Montana River Action Network,
Montana Trout Unlimited, Montana Wildlife
Federation, National Wildlife Federation,
Pat Barnes Missouri River Chapter Trout
Unlimited, Snowy Mountain Chapter Trout
Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, Trout Unlimited, West Slope
Chapter Trout Unlimited, Wild Sheep
Foundation.
______
ConocoPhillips Company,
Federal & State Government Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus: I am writing to express ConocoPhillips'
support for S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, which
would withdraw from development an area of Montana that has important
economic and recreational qualities and is a gateway to Glacier
National Park.
ConocoPhillips was pleased last year to voluntarily give up its
interest in 108 federal oil and natural gas leases, covering 169,000
acres in the watershed. ConocoPhillips is confident that it could have
developed those leases in a safe and environmentally responsible
manner, but relinquished the acreage after considering the unique
characteristics of the area and your request for the withdrawal.
We hope that the Senate will act expeditiously in its consideration
of S. 233.
Sincerely,
Jim E. Ford,
Vice President.
______
Northwest Healthcare,
Kalispell, MT, June 1 , 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Senator, 511 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus: Thank you for introducing Senate Bill 233, the
North Fork Watershed Protection Act, a bill that protects Glacier
National Park as well as the ecological and economic future of our
Flathead Valley communities.
Conservation affects the attractiveness of the area and the kinds
of people we can recruit to the Flathead Valley. V/e have been able to
attract and retain an outstanding medical staff because this is such a
nice place to live. Those qualities that make the region a nice place
to live--clean water, air quality, Glacier National Park, Flathead
Lake--are assets we need to conserve.
Glacier is a big part of why I choose to live here, and why many of
our high-quality professional medical staff chooses to live here. The
park is a huge part of our valley's quality of life, and that quality
of life is why our economy is growing.
Our challenge is to make sure we protect these qualities for the
long term, and Senate Bill 233 meets that challenge by safeguarding
Glacier Park and the Flathead's waterways for future generations.
Sincerely,
Velinda Stevens,
President and CEO.
______
Statement of Oliver Meister, the North Fork Hostel & Inn and the Square
Peg Ranch
As individual business leaders from Montana's Flathead Valley, we
understand that the traditional values of our community, coupled with
our spectacular natural setting, help attract and retain our region's
highly qualified workforce and the kinds of investments that keep our
community strong. We recognize the importance of our scenic landscapes
and clean water to future economic vitality.
Glacier National Park, the scenic Flathead River system, Flathead
Lake and the slopes of Whitefish Mountain Resort are among the many
assets that make western Montana a wonderful place to live, work and
invest. They are a powerful economic engine driving local jobs and
prosperity. It's simply good business to take care of our greatest
assets, and to pass this inheritance on to the next generation of civic
and business leaders.
As a small business we depend on the protection of this watershed
for our livelihood, people from all over the US and many international
visitors come here just because of the pristine quality and unspoiled
grandeur of this area lost in so many other places. I cannot emphasize
more the importance of this place!
In the words of Kalispell Chamber of Commerce president Joe
Unterreiner: ``The Chamber wishes to ensure that Glacier Park, the
North Fork River, and Flathead Lake remain as economically productive
as they are today.''
We join the Chamber, as well as local municipalities, in support of
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act (Senate Bill 233), which would
limit mining and oil and gas drilling on lands immediately adjacent to
Glacier National Park, including two Wild and Scenic River corridors,
the destination ski resort and drinking water supply of Whitefish.
Major energy companies recognize the common sense behind this bill and
have already voluntarily relinquished existing leases there; this bill
ensures that those voluntary retirements are honored into the future.
This bill maintains our Valley's traditional and long-term economic
engines by:
Ensuring the Flathead's clear water by keeping headwaters
pristine. (The value of Flathead Lake to the broader regional
economy is estimated at up to $10 billion dollars.)
Safeguarding the integrity of Glacier National Park. Glacier
Park draws more than 2 million visitors to the Flathead Valley
annually, where they spend more than $150 million each year,
even amid a global recession.
Protecting Whitefish Mountain Resort and Haskill Basin, the
water supply for the city of Whitefish
This bill also preserves our heritage and way of life by:
Defending traditional fishing, hunting, wildlife-viewing and
camping. These activities bring in more than $1 billion to
Montana annually, and contribute to Montana's rural way of
life. SB 233 is endorsed by several hunting and fishing groups,
including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Billings Rod and Gun
Club, Magic City Fly Casters and Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership.
Respecting property rights. SB 233 applies only to federal
lands.
Importantly, this bill costs taxpayers nothing, and is supported by
several major energy companies, which already have voluntarily
relinquished their development leases in the area.
Those include ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, XTO Energy (subsidiary
of ExxonMobil Corp.), Anadarko, Allen and Kirmse, Ltd., Pioneer Natural
Resources, USA, Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., and Forest Oil Corp.
While there are places in Montana where mining and energy
development are highly appropriate, there are also places where other
values should prevail. Safeguarding the Flathead's traditional economic
engines will require conservative stewardship of our shared natural
inheritance, and we thank you for assistance in protecting our
community assets and future well being.
______
Glacier Guides, Inc.,
Montana Raft Co.,
West Glacier, MT, May 18, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Senator, 511 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
Senator, 724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: S233
Dear Senators Max Baucus & Jon Tester, First things first: Thank
you. Congratulations on the recent announcement of a longterm agreement
between the State of Montana and Province of British Columbia to
protect the Transboundary Flathead River Valley from all types of
mining and oil and gas extraction. It took decades, but we got here
together.
Our business relies on the pristine natural values of the Wild &
Scenic North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River to provide our
customers with unique recreational experience that they are seeking. We
serve thousands of individuals each year and employ 80 people during
peak operating season.
I thank you for introducing S233, and are highly encouraged that
this will implement an oil and gas lease and mining withdrawal for
Flathead National Forest that includes not only the North Fork but the
non-wilderness and non-national park public lands surrounding the Wild
& Scenic Middle Fork of the Flathead River, as well. We are requesting
for several specific reasons:
1) Protect the business-operating model of the entire
business community of Glacier National Park gateway communities
in the Hwy 2 corridor. This area is reliant on tourism dollars
and already faces existing congestion challenges. Oil and gas
exploration activities would have adverse impacts.
2) Protect the existing water quality and fishery values of
the Wild & Scenic Middle Fork of the Flathead. Additionally,
this area would also include the Nyack Flats Region. A unique
micro-ecosystem in the Flathead Drainage. It is also logical to
bring the area under lease withdrawal in this region to connect
with the upper reaches of the Middle Fork, which are already
withdrawn by the good Rocky Mountain Front legislation.
3) Prevent future land-use conflicts due to traditional
surface usage that is incompatible with sub-surface energy
extraction. For example, one area that is currently leased is
the USFS parcel directly adjacent to West Glacier that contains
the West Glacier Bridge river access point, one of the most
popular take-outs on the entire river corridor. Another example
is the existing leases that underlay the Coram Experimental
Forest, an important forestry research facility.
Protecting these corridors is the right action for Glacier National
Park and the hundreds of small businesses that currently operate in the
Columbia Falls, Hungry Horse, Coram, Apgar, and West Glacier area.
Once again, thank you for a truly historic accomplishment.
Sincerely,
Cris Coughlin,
Owner.
______
Fields Construction Services, Inc.,
Whitefish, MT, May 24, 2011.
Hon. Senator Baucus,
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus: Fields Construction Services, Inc. is a
residential and commercial building contractor located in Whitefish,
Montana. As the owner, I write you today in full support of SB 233, the
``North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011''.
SB 233 accomplishes several important outcomes important to me. It:
Balances the commitment made by British Columbia, Canada, to
ban mining and energy extraction industry from the North Fork
Flathead watershed;
Protects the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park and
World Heritage Site from the potentially devastating
consequences from such industrial activities;
Ensures that the leases given up voluntarily by oil and gas
companies will not be re-lent in the future;
Ensures that the tourism and recreation economy of this part
of Montana is not compromised by inappropriate mineral and
energy development in a place that ALL Montanans regard as very
special place; and
Protects our clean water at the source and our wildlife
populations that crisscross the international border.
I very much appreciate that SB 233 costs the US taxpayer nothing,
while accomplishing so much in just 190 words. This is federal
legislation at its very best.
Fields Construction Services wishes you success in your efforts to
move SB 233 through the committee process and on to affirmative action
by Congress. We appreciate you vigilant defense of the North Fork
Flathead River. Please do not hesitate to call on me personally if I
may be of any direct assistance with this or future measures needed to
protect the North Fork and Glacier National Park.
Best Regards,
Edwin Fields,
Owner.
______
Glacier Park, Inc.,
East Glacier Park, MT, June 8, 2011.
Hon. Senator Baucus,
via email: [email protected].
Hon. Senator John Tester,
via email: [email protected]
The Great State of Montana
Dear Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, It is with great concern I
write this letter to you both encouraging the passing of this vital
bill, SB233. Glacier National Park was founded upon the love of the
incredible beauty of this land, the pristine lakes and waterways, the
wildlife that has survived for centuries and the willingness of a
people devoted to protecting all it has to offer. We need to preserve
this land as it is now and has been for years for all of our generation
and those to come.
As individual business leaders from Montana's Flathead Valley, we
understand that the traditional values of our community, coupled with
our spectacular natural setting, help attract and retain our region's
highly qualified workforce and the kinds of investments that keep our
community strong. We recognize the importance of our scenic landscapes
and clean water to future economic vitality.
As the operator of Many Glacier Hotel, Lake McDonald Lodge, the
Village Inn, Rising Sun Motor Inn, Swiftcurrent Motor Inn and the Two
Medicine Campstore inside Glacier National Park, and Owner/Operator of
Glacier Park Lodge in East Glacier Park, Grouse Mountain Lodge in
Whitefish and the Prince of Wales Hotel in Waterton National Park, we
have a vested interest in insuring that Glacier National Park, the
scenic Flathead River system, Flathead Lake and the slopes of Whitefish
Mountain Resort remain a wonderful place to live, work and invest. They
are a powerful economic engine driving local jobs and prosperity. It's
simply good business to take care of our greatest assets, and to pass
this inheritance on to the next generation of civic and business
leaders.
We join the Chamber, as well as local municipalities, in support of
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act (Senate Bill 233), which would
limit mining and oil and gas drilling on lands immediately adjacent to
Glacier National Park, including two Wild and Scenic River corridors,
the destination ski resort and drinking water supply of Whitefish.
Major energy companies recognize the common sense behind this bill and
have already voluntarily relinquished existing leases there; this bill
ensures that those voluntary retirements are honored into the future.
This bill maintains our Valley's traditional and long-term economic
engines by:
Ensuring the Flathead's clear water by keeping headwaters
pristine. (The value of Flathead Lake to the broader regional
economy is estimated at up to $10 billion dollars.)
Safeguarding the integrity of Glacier National Park. Glacier
Park draws more than 2 million visitors to the Flathead Valley
annually, where they spend more than $150 million each year,
even amid a global recession.
Protecting Whitefish Mountain Resort and Haskill Basin, the
water supply for the city of Whitefish.
This bill also preserves our heritage and way of life by:
Defending traditional fishing, hunting, wildlife-viewing and
camping. These activities bring in more than $1 billion to
Montana annually, and contribute to Montana's rural way of
life. SB 233 is endorsed by several hunting and fishing groups,
including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Billings Rod and Gun
Club, Magic City Fly Casters and Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership.
Respecting property rights. SB 233 applies only to federal
lands.
Importantly, this bill costs taxpayers nothing, and is supported by
several major energy companies, which already have voluntarily
relinquished their development leases in the area. Those include
ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, XTO Energy (subsidiary of ExxonMobil
Corp.), Anadarko, Allen and Kirmse, Ltd., Pioneer Natural Resources,
USA, Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., and Forest Oil Corp.
We urge you to keep the area alive for years while protecting one
of Montana's finest natural resources. The strength of this state and
economic foundation depend on its preservation.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Ognjanon,
President and General Manager.
______
The North Fork Compact,
May 23, 2011.
Hon. Senator Jon Tester,
Dear Senator Tester, On behalf of the members of the North Fork
Compact, a civic organization composed of landowners in the North Fork
of the Flathead Valley, Montana, I write to express our enthusiastic
support for S233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011 which
would eliminate the possibility of future mining, oil and gas
exploration and geothermal development on US Forest Service Land in
Montana's North Fork Flathead River watershed.
Our organization has worked for nearly 30 years to protect the
uniquely pristine ecology of the North Fork River which is a
Congressionally designated Wild & Scenic River Corridor.
We strongly commend your efforts to protect the North Fork River
and its surrounding habitat and appreciate your cooperation with the
Governor's office to quickly implement the provisions called for in the
British Columbia/Montana Memorandum of Understanding. We view S233 as a
vital step in the protection of Glacier National Park, the Wild &
Scenic North Fork of the Flathead River and surrounding ecosystem. This
largely empty wild area is one of the few remaining unspoiled
ecosystems in the lower 48 states, home to the greatest diversity of
carnivores in the country.
Please let me know if there is anything the North Fork Compact can
do to help you in the passage of S233.
Sincerely,
Donald Sullivan,
Chairman.
______
Flathead Lakers,
Polson, MT, May 24, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senate, 511 Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Max: Thank you for your leadership and perseverance in
protecting the Flathead Watershed from upstream coal mines. Your work
on this threat to clean water in the North Fork Flathead River on
downstream to Flathead Lake has been instrumental in protecting
Flathead waters for three decades and led to the landmark agreement
between Montana and British Columbia that will greatly benefit
priceless waters, wildlife and scenic beauty on both sides of the
international boundary for many generations to come.
The Flathead Lakers strongly support your bill, S 233, the North
Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011, to withdraw public lands from
leasing for mining and energy extraction in the North Fork Flathead
Watershed, the area adjacent to Glacier National Park along the Middle
Fork Flathead River, and areas in the Whitefish River headwaters, which
drain into the mainstem Flathead River and Flathead Lake, one of the
cleanest large lakes in the world. The Flathead Lakers is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to protecting clean water, healthy ecosystems
and lasting quality of life in the Flathead Watershed. Our organization
was founded in 1958 and currently has over 1,500 members.
Passage of this bill will not only protect Flathead waters and
natural heritage for the future, but will also demonstrate Montana and
the United States' commitment to implementing the Montana-British
Columbia agreement and protecting Flathead waters. We applaud your
dedication to transboundary cooperative natural resource management in
the Flathead and believe it will be rewarded with long-term dividends.
Sincerely,
Robin Steinkraus,
Executive Director.
______
Headwaters Montana,
Whitefish, MT, May 17, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Senator, 511 Hart Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
Senator, 724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Baucus and Tester: Thank you for re-introducing the
``North Fork Watershed Protection Act'' this year to help meet the
challenge of balancing transboundary management of the North Fork
Flathead River with our British Columbian neighbors. As you know too
well, getting to this point has taken over 36 years of effort on the
part of many citizens from both the U.S. and Canada. We cannot
overemphasize how important all western Montanans feel this legislation
is to protecting our clean water and Flathead Lake.
Without SB 233's passage, the delicate pact with B.C. that would
eliminate the future threat of mining and energy development in this
pristine, international watershed, would be seriously jeopardized.
Waterton--Glacier International Peace Park is a World Heritage Site and
Biosphere Reserve. The IUCN/WHO determined in 2009 that industrial
mining and energy proposals in the B.C. portion of the watershed could
lead to the site being listed as ``in danger''. The premier of B.C. has
committed to legislation that would ban mining and energy development
in their part of the watershed; SB 233 accomplishes the same,
reciprocal commitment.
Headwaters Montana has been in on the effort to protect the North
Fork Flathead. In fact, we and NPCA suggested to Senator Baucus' office
the idea of SB 233. We've talked to every conceivable interest group in
the Flathead Valley to garner support. Universal support exists for
this legislation... among Republicans, Democrats, liberal,
conservatives, motorized and quiet recreationists. People understand
that their clean water and the future integrity of Glacier National
Park ride on this legislation.
We look forward to the Senate Public Lands and Forests Committee's
favorable vote on SB 233 so that Montanans and U.S. citizens can know
that Glacier Park will be protected long into the future.
Thank you for your sponsorship of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Dave Hadden,
Director.
______
Clark Fork Coalition,
Missoula, MT, May 17, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Senator, 219 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
Senator, 724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, Thank you for introducing
S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011. The Clark Fork
Coalition fully supports this important piece of legislation and its
goal of protecting public lands, rivers and streams in the North Fork
Flathead watershed by withdrawing future mining, oil and gas drilling,
and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land.
The Clark Fork Coalition, founded in 1985, is a non-profit
representing 2,700 members united behind the cause to create healthy
rivers and vibrant communities. The Flathead River is the largest
tributary to the 22,000 square-mile Clark Fork River basin. The land
and water resources in the Flathead provide vital economic benefits and
ecological services for Montana as well as the Northern Rockies and
Cascadia ecosystems.
Its headwaters flow through some of the richest and most
diverse habitat in the lower 48, and supply clean, cold water
to Flathead Lake, one of the most pristine lakes in the world.
The groundwater and streams provide drinking water for
several communities in western Montana.
The trout streams, magnificent forests and towering peaks in
the Flathead watershed offer unparalleled public recreational
opportunities beloved by the Coalition's 2,700 members and
cherished by people nationwide.
The Clark Fork Coalition believes that S. 233 is an important piece
of legislation that will ensure the headwaters of the Flathead River
can sustain our communities for future generations of Montanans. It
also offers immense conservation value nationwide.
Thank you again for introducing S. 233. We appreciate all of your
work on behalf of Missoula's residents and natural resources.
Respectfully,
Karen Knudsen,
Executive Director.
______
Whitefish Lake Institute,
Whitefish, MT, May 19, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Senator, 511 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Tester,
Senator, 724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: Support for Senate Bill 233
Dear Senators Baucus and Tester: The Whitefish Lake Institute
enthusiastically supports Senate Bill 233 to provide resource and water
quality protection in the ``Crown of the Continent.''
The Whitefish Lake Institute is a science and education based non-
profit corporation designed to protect and improve the Whitefish,
Montana area lake resources.
Thank you for including the Haskill Basin Watershed in the proposed
protection area. Haskill Basin supplies part of the drinking water for
the City of Whitefish. The Whitefish Lake Institute recommends that the
Whitefish Lake Watershed be included in this bill, considering
Whitefish Lake also supplies drinking water to the City of Whitefish
and serves as a very popular recreational waterbody.
Thank you for your time and consideration in processing this
request.
Sincerely,
Mike Koopal,
Executive Director.
______
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Nation,
Tribal Council,
Pablo, MT, May 25, 2011.
Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senate, 511 Hart Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
RE: Senate Bill 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act
Dear Senator Baucus: On behalf of the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), I am writing to offer our wholehearted support
for Senate Bill 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act.
For thousands of years, the Flathead drainage system--from the
headwaters in British Columbia through Flathead Lake and down to the
confluence with the Clark Fork River--has been an artery running
through the heart of the tribes' territories. Our elders have
documented dozens of traditional place names along these vital
waterways, where the tribes have lived for countless generations,
drinking the pure waters, gathering plants for food and medicinal use,
fishing, hunting, canoeing, bathing, swimming--and praying. The
anthropologist Carling Malouf wrote that ``the density of occupation
sites around Flathead Lake, and along the Flathead River...indicates
that this was, perhaps, the most important center of ancient life in
Montana west of the Continental Divide.''
From time immemorial, in short, these waters have sustained our
people, and we in turn have taken care of them. Among the many actions
taken by the CSKT in recent years to protect these resources was our
adoption, in 1993, of the Lower Flathead River Management Plan, which
states that the river's ``natural and cultural values shall be
preserved for present and future generations of the Tribes.'' And each
year, we host hundreds of area school children at our annual, three-
day-long ``River Honoring'' event, the largest environmental education
effort in Montana.
For over thirty years, however, the CSKT have been deeply concerned
about the threat to these irreplaceable cultural and natural resources
from the industrial and energy development projects proposed for the
North Fork headwaters. We were therefore relieved and hopeful when we
learned of the agreement between Montana and British Columbia to ban
these activities on both sides of the border. The state and the
province, as well as both nations, have recognized that the Flathead is
an environmental asset of the very highest order, and we all have an
obligation to see that it stays that way.
Yet the promising recent steps to set aside lands on the Canadian
side of the river still compel the United States to take prompt,
commensurate action on our side. Senate Bill 233 meets this need by
protecting more than 400,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service lands along
the North Fork. With passage of your bill, this area will be placed off
limits to hardrock mining, oil and gas development, and geothermal
leasing. S. 233 thus helps ensure the future integrity of the natural
values not only of the North Fork of the Flathead River, but also the
waters downstream in Flathead Lake and the lower Flathead River. Those
natural values, in turn, are also the basis of the region's economy. S.
233 not only does the right thing for this unique environmental
resource; it also makes good economic sense.
All the land encompassed within S. 233 is part of CSKT aboriginal
territories, ownership of which we ceded to the United States in the
Hell Gate Treaty of 1855. Under the terms of this treaty, however, the
Tribes reserved the right to continue using open and unclaimed ceded
lands for traditional uses. Protecting this land while also providing
for continued public use under Forest Service management will be a
benefit to all Americans.
Thank you for bringing forward this important, timely, and much
needed legislation. We urge all members of the Senate to support its
passage.
Respectfully,
Ernest T. Moran,
Chairman.
______
Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association, on S. 233
Dear Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of
the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding
S. 233, The North Fork Watershed Protection Act--an important piece of
legislation that will help preserve the international legacy of
Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. We thank Senators Baucus and
Tester for introducing this legislation and take particular note of
Senator Baucus' 30-year commitment to protect Glacier National Park and
the North Fork Flathead River Valley from industrial mining, in both
the Canadian headwaters and the Montana portions of the watershed.
Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has
been the leading voice of the American people on behalf of our national
parks. Our mission is to protect and enhance America's National Park
System for current and future generations. On behalf of our more than
340,000 members, we urge the Committee's support and passage of S. 233.
Our national parks are home to some of the nation's most iconic and
sacred landscapes, monuments, and historic sites. They are among the
most recognizable places in the world. One year ago, on May 11th, our
nation commemorated the 100th Anniversary of Glacier National Park. The
passage of S. 233 represents a historic opportunity for today's
Congress to build upon this historic legacy in its own right.
Protecting more than one million acres of public lands in northwest
Montana, Glacier National Park is a crown jewel of the national park
system. Established a century ago ``for the benefit and enjoyment of
the people of the United States,'' Glacier's sculpted peaks, mountain
valleys, and clean waters are enjoyed by more than two million people
each year, and provide crucial habitat for threatened species including
the grizzly bear, bull trout and Canada lynx.
The natural and ecological benefits provided by Glacier National
Park extend beyond the park's boundaries. From the snow-fed streams and
mountain rivers of Glacier flow the headwaters of North America, the
source of rivers that run through 16 states and four Canadian provinces
before flowing finally into the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and
Hudson Bay. Glacier's snow-covered peaks serve as a natural reservoir
and essential source of clean water--which is one of our continent's
most important and essential resources.
The park also plays a significant role in the regional economy of
many Montana communities. More than two million travelers visit Glacier
each year, providing a direct economic impact exceeding $150 million
dollars. The Chamber of Commerce in Kalispell, Montana, estimates that
20 percent of the Flathead Valley's economic activity is the direct
result of Glacier National Park. The economic value of protecting
Glacier's unique and pristine waters and surrounding public lands
through this legislation cannot be overstated.
S. 233 WILL PROTECT THE WORLD'S FIRST INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK, AND
STRENGTHEN US RELATIONS WITH CANADA
In 1932, acts of the US Congress and Canadian Parliament designated
Glacier National Park and Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta,
Canada, as the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park--the world's
first international peace park. This relationship of transboundary
peace and goodwill has served as a source of inspiration for nations
around the world, and today there are more than 100 international peace
parks on five continents.
The exceptional natural values of Waterton-Glacier International
Peace Park are of global significance. National Geographic magazine has
deemed it ``one of the most diverse and ecologically intact natural
ecosystems in the temperate zones of the world.'' In 1995, Waterton-
Glacier was added to the list of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) World Heritage sites,
in recognition of the peace park's unique geology, abundant and diverse
plant and animal communities, and glacial landscape. In 2010, the IUCN/
World Heritage Center delivered a report to the governments of Canada
and the United States supporting a prohibition on mining in the
Flathead Valley, and recommending that a conservation and wildlife
management plan be developed for the peace park.
Also in 2010, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and British
Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) and Cooperation on environmental protection, climate action, and
energy. The two-page document identifies broad areas for cooperation
and partnership; and, most importantly, the MOU also contains some very
specific language regarding the North Fork Flathead River Valley: ``BC
and Montana commit to remove mining, oil and gas, and coal development
as permissible land uses in the [North Fork].'' The MOU still must be
implemented by passage of applicable legislation in both countries. In
British Columbia, the Premier amended three different laws to ban
mining in the Canadian Flathead, the day after the signing of the MOU.
For the US, S. 233 is a crucial step forward in meeting the State of
Montana's responsibilities under the MOU, and enjoys strong support
from many business and community groups, including the Kalispell Area
Chamber of Commerce. Other supporters include energy majors such as
Chevron and ConocoPhillips, which already have relinquished lease
options in the region at no cost to taxpayers.
TO BETTER SAFEGUARD GLACIER NATIONAL PARK AND THE CROWN OF THE
CONTINENT ECOSYSTEM, THE WITHDRAWAL BOUNDARY HAS BEEN DRAWN TO INCLUDE
LANDS ADJACENT TO GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
NPCA strongly supports S.233, not only for its protections of the
North Fork Flathead River Valley but also for its protections of public
lands that provide a drinking water supply for the City of Whitefish,
as well as public lands located in the Congressionally designated Wild
& Scenic River corridor of the Middle Fork Flathead River, which forms
the southwestern boundary of Glacier National Park. These lands are
important to the area's economy, recreation and municipal development,
as reflected by S. 233 support provided by Whitefish's Mayor, the
owners of Whitefish Mountain Resort, and local companies doing business
on the Middle Fork Flathead River. From its British Columbia headwaters
downstream to Flathead Lake, the Flathead River system forms the core
of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem, supporting an unmatched
diversity of wildlife and human communities.
With S. 233 you have a tremendous opportunity to make a lasting
contribution to the international legacy of Glacier National Park.
Americans love our national parks, and this legislation affords the
opportunity for our generation to bequeath to our children and
grandchildren the opportunity to experience a wild and scenic Flathead
River--just as we have.
This concludes NPCA's written testimony. Please feel to contact us
with any further questions you or your staff may have. Thank you.
______
American Rivers,
Northern Rockies,
Bozeman, MT, June 7, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Testimony in Support of S. 233
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski: On behalf of
American Rivers, I am pleased to present our written testimony in
support of S. 233, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2011
introduced by Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. After
carefully reviewing the bill, and having personally spent a
considerable amount of time visiting the landscape it would affect,
American Rivers believes S. 233 offers substantial conservation
benefits for one of North America's most spectacular watersheds, the
local communities that are sustained by it, and the millions of
tourists from across the nation and around the world who visit Glacier
National Park and the surrounding area. This vital legislation is
strongly supported by a broad cross-section of Montanans including
local residents and elected leaders, small businesses, chambers of
commerce, hunters and anglers, conservation organizations and energy
companies. To our knowledge, no organized group in Montana has spoken
out in opposition to this extremely popular bill.
ABOUT AMERICAN RIVERS
American Rivers is the nation's leading river conservation
organization, with more than 65,000 members and supporters from all 50
states--including hundreds of Montanans--who share a commitment to
protecting and restoring our nation's rivers for the benefit of people,
wildlife and nature. For decades we have worked with local partners in
Montana to permanently protect the North Fork of the Flathead River
from various forms of mining and oil and gas drilling. In 2009,
American Rivers included the North Fork on its annual list of Most
Endangered RiversTM due to threats from industrial-scale
coal mining, gold mining, and oil and gas drilling in its headwaters
along the Montana-British Columbia border.
GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT FISH & WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Due to its remoteness, lack of development, and pristine water
quality, the North Fork serves as a globally significant stronghold for
native fish, wildlife and plant species. Among the native fish species
found in the North Fork are bull trout, a federally threatened species,
and westslope cutthroat trout, which have been petitioned for listing
under the Endangered Species Act and are considered a Species of
Special Concern by the U.S. Forest Service and state of Montana. Both
fish species migrate from Flathead Lake in Montana up to 150 miles
upstream to the headwaters of the North Fork in British Columbia where
they spawn in some of the cleanest, coldest water in North America. The
migratory bull trout of the North Fork can reach over 15 pounds and
three feet in length.
Thanks to its status as the last remaining undeveloped low-
elevation valley in the Northern Rockies and its unique location at the
crossroads of five major ecosystem types, the North Fork supports an
unparalleled diversity of wildlife species including grizzly and black
bears, gray wolves, wolverines, Canada lynx, elk, mule deer, whitetail
deer, moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goats. Among its superlatives,
the North Fork is believed to contain the greatest density of
carnivores in North America and the greatest diversity of plant species
in Canada including over 1,000 species of wildflowers.
WILD & SCENIC RIVER STATUS
The North Fork, along with the Middle Fork and South Fork of the
Flathead, were added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in
1976 in order to protect their ``outstandingly remarkable values,''
which include recreation, scenery, historic sites, and unique fisheries
and wildlife. In passing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Congress
stated:
``It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that
certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar
values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and
their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that
the established national policy of dams and other construction at
appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be
complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or
sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water
quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation
purposes.''
In addition to the North Fork already being designated as a Wild
and Scenic river, the U.S. Forest Service has found 113 miles of its
tributaries to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. These tributaries, all of which flow into the
North Fork from the Whitefish Range, include Big Creek, Coal Creek,
South Fork Coal Creek, Cyclone Creek, Gateway Creek, Hallowat Creek,
Langford Creek, Mathias Creek, Moose Creek, Red Meadow Creek, Shorty
Creek, South Fork Shorty Creek, Trail Creek, and Whale Creek (see
Appendix B for map showing all designated and eligible river reaches in
the Flathead watershed). Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the
Flathead National Forest's current Forest Plan, these eligible
tributaries are supposed to be managed as it they were already
designated.
OIL & GAS RESOURCES NEGLIGIBLE
While some public lands in the North Fork watershed were leased for
oil and gas drilling in the 1980s, the Department of the Interior
subsequently suspended all of those leases due to legal deficiencies
pertaining to National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species
Act compliance. Consequently, no oil and gas drilling has occurred on
public lands in the North Fork watershed, and no economic impacts would
occur if these leases were permanently withdrawn. In fact, since the
North Fork Watershed Protection Act was first introduced in the 111th
Congress, energy companies including Conoco Phillips, Chevron,
Anadarko, Allen and Kirmse, Ltd., Exxon Mobile/XTO Energy, and BP have
voluntarily relinquished oil and gas leases on 200,000 acres in the
Flathead watershed at no cost to American taxpayers. This represents
80% of the leased acreage on the Flathead National Forest.
There is recent precedent for Congress withdrawing certain
outstanding public lands from mining and oil and gas leasing due to
unacceptable impacts to water quality, air quality, fish and wildlife,
scenery, and archeological sites. For example, in 2006 Senator Baucus
sponsored legislation that withdrew 500,000 acres of public lands along
the Rocky Mountain Front from oil and gas leasing. In the Omnibus
Public Lands Management Act of 2009, Congress withdrew 1.2 million
acres of the Wyoming Range in northwest Wyoming from oil and gas
leasing, and another 101,000 acres in New Mexico's Valle Vidal.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN MONTANA & BRITISH COLUMBIA
Following more than three decades of highly contentious battles
over proposed mining and oil and gas drilling in the headwaters of the
North Fork, British Columbia announced in February 2010 its intention
to withdraw its portion of the Flathead watershed from all forms of
mining and oil and gas drilling. Shortly thereafter, Montana Governor
Brian Schweitzer and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell signed an
international agreement that committed the U.S. and Canada to, among
other things: ``Remove mining, oil and gas, and coal development as
permissible land uses in the Flathead River Basin.'' By passing S. 233,
Congress can uphold the promises Montana made in the agreement, while
also increasing the likelihood that British Columbia will follow
through on its commitments.
CONCLUSION
Given the globally significant environmental values of the North
Fork watershed including its pristine water quality, wild rivers, and
unparalleled abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife; the non-
existent role that mining and oil and gas drilling in the North Fork
plays in the local economy; the widespread local support for
permanently protecting the watershed from such activities; and the
recent agreement signed by Montana and British Columbia; American
Rivers strongly supports passage of S. 233 and commends Senators Baucus
and Tester for taking a leadership role in introducing it. In the wake
of the 100-year anniversary of Glacier National Park in 2010, Congress
could give the nation no greater gift than to protect the pristine
waters that form its western boundary.
Thank you for taking our testimony into consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott Bosse,
Director.
______
Missoula Area Chamber of Commerce,
Missoula, MT, May 4, 2011.
Hon. Senator Jon Tester,
724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Tester, The Missoula Chamber of Commerce has tracked
the progress of the Forest Jobs and Recreation since its introduction
in July of 2009. Recently, after several educational presentations and
a great deal of conversation, our Governmental Affairs Committee voted
unanimously to recommend that we endorse the bill and on April 20th,
our Board of Directors accepted this recommendation and we're pleased
to announce our endorsement of this important legislation.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act represents a turning point in
the long and tense debate over the management of federal land in
Montana. This legislation offers Montanans the opportunity to move
beyond the false choices of Wilderness conservation, forest recreation
or active timber management. Instead, this legislation aims to advance
each of these objectives at the same time by managing a 'land of many
uses' in a manner that increases timber production, guarantees
recreational access and protects some of our last best places.
By ensuring timber supply to local mills, protecting wildlife
habitat that is vital to Western Montana's tourism industry and
guaranteeing recreational access for all Montanans, the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act opens the door to new and sustained economic
productivity on Montana's forests. We encourage you and your colleagues
in the Senate to do all that you can to pass this legislation.
Thank you for all that you and your staff are doing for Montanans.
Sincerely,
Gary Clark,
Chairman.
Kim Latrielle,
President/CEO.
______
Broadwater County,
Broadwater County Commissioner,
Townsend, MT, June 7, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Re-Support for Forest Jobs and Recreation Act from Montana
Dear Senator Bingaman and Distinguished Members of the Committee,
Thank you for taking the time for this very important hearing.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is important to Montana and
important to Broadwater County.
In Montana, we've lost too many lumber mills and, by extension, too
many jobs. Currently we are dealing with record flooding due, in large
part, to lack of forest management. Forest fires from a decade ago left
tree skeletons that do nothing to alleviate spring runoff resulting in
nearby streams filling with silt and debris.
In Broadwater County, RY Timber is one of the few lumber mills
left, not only in Montana, but in this western region. They have been a
good neighbor and a good partner with agencies like the Forest Service,
and through their work have aided in Forest Management, when allowed.
RY Timber provides work for 100 direct employees and 200 indirect
employees and they contract with another 200 individuals. These are
good paying jobs with full benefits and needed for our community and
our local economy. Their business plan is to log private land and
harvest that timber, along with working on federal lands. Those managed
private forests have been healthy as compared to Forest Service land
where trees have had to complete with over growth and for water through
draught, this has left them vulnerable to the Pine Bark Beetle, which
has resulted in mountains of federal forest that are red, dead and
decaying.
With spring rains and runoff there is nothing to stop the top soil
from flowing down the mountain into streams which fills up culverts and
result in flooding over roads, onto fields and into homes.
Please support and vote for the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. It
is indeed a jobs bill, an economic development opportunity and a
responsible compromise that positively supports the west, Montana, our
forests and our communities.
Thank you,
Laura Obert,
Chair.
Elaine Graveley,
District 2.
Gail M. Vennes,
District 3.
______
Statement of Mark Anderlik, Local Union 427, Union Executive Officer,
Missoula Area Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, President, Missoula, MT,
on S. 268
By a majority vote, the Missoula Area Central Labor Council (MACLC)
Executive Board voted to endorse U.S. Senator Jon Tester's ``Forest
Jobs and Restoration Pilot Initiative,'' previously known as the
``Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.''
The bill was slightly modified from the previous version, with the
major difference being, according to the Missoulian, is that a logging
mandate that called for 100,000 acres of ``mechanical treatment'' over
10 years has been extended to 15 years. See the 12/15/10 Missoulian
article by Rob Chaney at http://missoulian.com/news/local/
article_7037921e-07c8-11e0-a539-001cc4c002e0.html.
The MACLC involvement has included both the bill's proponents and
opponents addressing our Council. We had been waiting for bill language
that would strengthen the creation of good sustainable jobs. The
language of the bill now includes ``best value contracting'' language,
and, as a Federally-funded project, it will require that prevailing
wages (Davis-Bacon Act) be paid. The ``best values'' have not been
determined yet and is not written into the bill. That will be done
administratively, and is a process that we will help influence. However
the commitment to create good sustainable Montana jobs is clearly
there.
We applaud Sen. Tester and his staff for all of the work they put
into finding common ground among very diverse interests within Montana
in crafting this bill. As union members we know that we don't always
get everything we want in negotiations. Yet this bill overall is a big
step forward for working Montanans and for our environment. And we are
encouraged that the open and collaborative process used in creating the
bill will be used elsewhere in the state. We hope this bill will be
passed in the near future.
Please visit Sen. Tester's website at http://tester.senate.gov/
Legislation/foresthome.cfm for more detailed information about the
bill.
______
Seeley Lake Rural Fire District,
Seeley Lake, MT, May 26, 2011.
Montana Congressional Delegation.
Hon. Sen. Jon Tester,
Hon. Sen. Max Baucus,
Hon. Rep. Denny Rehberg.
Dear Sirs, The Seeley Lake Rural Fire Department wishes to express
its support for Senator Tester's Senate Bill 268, Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act of 2011. This bill is a made-in-Montana solution for our
economic and environmental woes as seen in our loss of timber mills,
beetle epidemic, and lack of protection for some of the most pristine
portions of our state. It is the culmination of the work of three
collaborative groups across the state--the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
Partnership, the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project, and the
Three Rivers Challenge--who have taken the initiative, with local input
and support across a wide range of perspectives, to develop plans for
wise resource management, create jobs in the woods, and protect forever
some of the most beautiful landscapes in Montana. We encourage you to
support this well-balanced legislation.
In all three project areas, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
proposes stewardship logging and forest restoration projects that will
result in healthier watersheds, enhanced wildlife habitat, and working
forests while concurrently providing good paying jobs for local
residents. In addition, the bill encourages biomass energy production
in all project areas. This will provide an outlet for local forest
products well beyond those provided by the stewardship projects as well
as place Montana as a leader in energy independence.
The bill also sets aside some of Montana's most pristine
backcountry so that future generations of Montanans can camp, hunt,
fish, and recreate with their families just as we do today. These areas
are set aside without negatively affecting motorized or mechanized use.
Our forests are big enough for everyone, and the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act embodies this philosophy.
The Seeley lake Rural Fire Department has thoroughly reviewed and
discussed the various components of this legislation. We believe the
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will significantly improve the safety of
communities and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire by mitigating
fuels in the forest, making use of small wood, and reducing the risk of
beetle infestation in the future. Fuels mitigation projects are already
taking place in the Clearwater and Blackfoot valleys, but these
projects need to continue for our forests to be healthy and our
communities safe. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will help put more
projects on the ground to reduce the risk of wildfire.
Thank you for your consideration of this important legislation. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
Frank Maradeo,
Chief.
______
June 8, 2011.
Hon. Senator Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee Office, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator Wyden, and members of the Subcommittee: The undersigned
members of the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Project steering
committee request that the following comments be submitted for the
Congressional record concerning Senate Bill 268, the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act of 2011.
We greatly appreciate the time and attention given this legislation
by the Subcommittee for Public Lands and Forests, as well as the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee as a whole, since this
legislation was first introduced in July of 2009. For several reasons,
we encourage you and your Senate colleagues to do all that you can to
ensure the passage of this legislation at the nearest opportunity.
For more than five years, local communities in the Blackfoot and
Clearwater River watersheds have worked together to establish and
promote a vision for wilderness, snowmobile recreation, and increased
forest management for commercial timber harvest and restoration on the
Seeley Lake Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest. Senator Tester
took this vision one big step closer to reality when he included our
legislative ideas as part of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
While we cannot speak to the provisions of this legislation that
pertain to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge or Kootenai National Forests, we
can state for the record that passage of the Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act is a critical step toward realizing the goals championed by this
steering committee in the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project. We
hope to see this legislation pass very soon.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Orville Daniels, Former Supervisor, Lolo National
Forest; Jim Stone, Rolling Stone Ranch--
Ovando, MT; Bill Wall, Sustainable, Inc.--
Seeley Lake, MT; Smoke Elser, Wilderness
Outfitters--Missoula, MT; Jack Rich, Rich
Ranch Outfitting--Seeley Lake, MT; Loren
Rose, Comptroller, Pyramid Mountain Lumber;
Jon Haufler, President, Clearwater Resource
Council; Gloria Flora, Executive Director,
Sustainable Obtainable Solutions; Brian
Sybert, Executive Director, Montana
Wilderness Association; Scott Brennan,
Northern Rockies Forest Program Director,
The Wilderness Society.
______
Montana High Divide Trails,
June 7, 2011.
Hon. Senator Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington,
DC.
Re: Urge Passage of S-268, Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
Dear Senator Bingaman, Montana High Divide Trails is the nation's
largest partnership between horseback riders, mountain bikers, hikers
and conservationists. Five years ago, representatives from nine Montana
outdoor organizations met for the first time to begin negotiations
resulting in a cooperative agreement for conserving wild lands and
backcountry trails along 240 miles of the Continental Divide and Flint
Creek Range.
We are very pleased that Senator Tester included joint
recommendations from Montana High Divide Trails in the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act.
The nine partner organizations listed above strongly support
passage of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S-268, as amended. S-268
includes seven wilderness and backcountry recreation areas endorsed by
Montana High Divide Trails in the Flints and along the Continental
Divide.
Lost Creek Protection Area
Dolus Lakes Wilderness
Thunderbolt Creek Recreation Area
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Additions
Humbug Spires Wilderness
Highlands Wilderness
Electric Peak Wilderness
This bill combines years of collaborative work by Montanans into a
transformative vision of conservation stewardship. Passage of the
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will protect and pass on outstanding
areas of wilderness and backcountry recreation of great value to our
diverse members and their families and communities across Southwest
Montana.
In December 2009, the nine groups that comprise Montana High Divide
Trails submitted the attached testimony which we again submit to
committee members and staff in support of passage of S-268 which will
permanently protect seven outstanding wilderness and recreation areas
endorsed by our partners.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act was recently amended in response
to public and agency comments. One change converts 5,000 acres of
proposed wilderness into the Highlands Special Management Area with
provisions to protect municipal water and transmission facilities and
continue mountain training from time to time with helicopter support.
We support the amended Highlands Wilderness and Special Management
Area and applaud Senator Tester and the committee staff for listening
and responding in a way that fully protects this majestic range of
snowcapped mountains south of Butte.
Other changes clarify management of proposed Recreation Areas
including the proposed Lost Creek and Thunderbolt Creek Recreation
Areas of great interest to Montana High Divide Trails. We support these
improvements. We also respectfully suggest to avoid confusion, the
reference under Section 207 (b) Administration (4B subparts i and ii)
to ``mechanized vehicles'' (mountain bikes) be preceded by the word
``non-motorized.''
We wish to express our deep appreciation for Senator Tester's
visionary leadership in sponsoring the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
and urge passage by the Committee.
Please include these comments and attachments from Montana High
Divide Trails Partnership in the hearing record for S.268, the Forest
Jobs and Recreation Act.
Attachment.--Unified Support for Highlands Proposed Wilderness
January 8, 2010.
In reviewing USDA testimony we were surprised to find a suggestion
that the Highlands Crest may be dropped from wilderness consideration.
The proposed Highlands Crest Wilderness forms a majestic mountain
backdrop for the community of Butte, towering above the surrounding
Continental Divide and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
The rugged 10,000 + foot peaks of the Highlands Recommended
Wilderness with its deep canyons, archeological sites, mountain goat,
moose elk and bighorn sheep habitat are central to a unique
collaborative partnership endorsed by mountain bikers, back country
horsemen, hunters, hikers and conservation groups known as Montana High
Divide Trails.
Due to outstanding wilderness characteristics, the Highlands
Wilderness was recommended for wilderness by the U. S. Forest Service
in the 2009 final Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan.
The committee should be aware the forest plan recommendation to
designate the Highlands Wilderness is one which all nine of our
organizations recommended in the draft forest plan and supported in the
final.
The rationale cited in USDA testimony is related to an issue that
had been carefully worked out collaboratively in advance of the
introduction of S. 1470.
Here is an excerpt from Under Secretary Harris Sherman's Testimony:
Highlands: This area was recommended for wilderness in the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Land and Resource Management Plan.
Specifically the bill allows for helicopter landings for
military exercises. When the Forest Service made its wilderness
recommendation it envisioned the military flights being
relocated to a different location when the special use
authorization expired, and thus viewed them as temporary in
nature. S. 1470 would permanently authorize helicopter landings
for military training within the Highlands area. We are not
aware of a military landing being legislatively authorized in
wilderness before and we are concerned that a precedent may be
established by this legislation. We would like to work with the
committee to either remove this requirement or explore
alternative designations for the Highlands area.
Background
Several times a year the U. S. Forest Service permits a Montana
national guard helicopter to briefly land on a small level area atop
10,223-foot Table Mountain. No personnel or supplies are off-loaded.
The purpose of the landing is simply to be readily available in the
event that any of a small group of wilderness skills trainees dropped
by parachute miss the summit and drift onto surrounding cliffs.
With all due respect, we don't believe this sets a damaging
precedent. The U. S. Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau
of Land Management currently authorize (limited) helicopter landings
for a variety of purposes within designated wilderness areas.
While we agree finding an alternative location outside wilderness
is desirable, we are also aware from our collaborative work on the
Highlands Wilderness that Table Mountain presents circumstances that
may not be readily duplicated.
We would like to suggest that the USDA look for reasonable options
that don't require loss of this outstanding recommended wilderness.
The nonconforming use cited by USDA only takes place in one very
specific location of perhaps 100 acres on Table Mountain. No other
locations within the proposed wilderness are affected.
If changes are necessary we respectfully request the committee
consider a alternative designation ONLY for the specific area where
nonconforming use is an issue, while acting to keep the remaining
proposed 20,000 acre Highlands Wilderness intact -as recommended in the
new forest plan.
Please include this as a special addendum to Dec 16, 2009 letter of
support for S 1470 submitted for hearing record on behalf of the above
listed southwest Montana outdoor and conservation organizations.
Montana High Divide Trails is the nation's largest conservation
agreement between mountain bikers, backcountry horsemen and women,
hikers, and conservationists. http://www.wildmontana.org/programs/
quiettrails2.php
______
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, SD-
304 Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S.
Senate, SD-304 Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski: Montana's
legendary hunting and fishing and outdoors heritage is closely tied to
our public lands legacy. As such, Senator Jon Tester's Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act (FJRA), S. 268, provides the best chance in a generation
to ensure that Montana's highquality sporting traditions endure for
generations in several important regions of the state.
FJRA maps out a plan of protection for some of Montana's most
critical intact wildlife and fisheries habitat with the designation of
more than 600,000 acres of popular wild country into the nation's
Wilderness System, and another 300,000 acres-plus into undeveloped
recreation areas. These tracts, in western and southwestern Montana,
contain critical security habitat for big game such as elk, bighorn
sheep, mountain goats, moose and mule deer. These areas are also vital
for conservation of rare species such as wolverine, sage grouse and
grizzly bears. Headwater tributaries of some of Montana's most critical
and famed blue ribbon trout rivers, including Rock Creek and the Big
Hole, Missouri, Madison, Jefferson, Beaverhead, Kootenai, Blackfoot and
Clark Fork Rivers are contained within proposed Wilderness areas in
FJRA. This bill would protect critical species such as bull trout and
westslope cutthroat trout while ensuring that future generations of
anglers and hunters will have places to fish and hunt.
This bill also includes a mechanism for restoring many miles of
damaged trout stream and thousands of acres of forest through
stewardship projects that trade the value of timber removed through
environmentally responsible logging and thinning for restoration
activities, such as reducing erosion sources and barriers to fish
movement. By harvesting a renewable resource in previously developed
areas that are being attacked by insect infestations, FJRA partners and
the Forest Service can better reduce fire risk to communities, private
property and important public infrastructure that adjoins national
forests.
Moreover, FJRA will help ensure that steady, good-paying jobs
working in the woods stay in Montana. The jobs will be in local logging
companies and mills, outfitting and guiding services, businesses that
specialize in habitat restoration and improving recreational sites.
Security habitat for elk will be restored through FJRA's tools, as will
creeks that have been damaged by extractive practices of generations
before.
FJRA also ensures that the responsible sportsmen and women who use
motorized vehicles off highway to access public lands designated for
that use will continue to have access. By designating more than 300,000
acres of motorized areas to the national recreation system, FJRA
ensures that the existing, legal motorized access, such as snowmobile
use, in these areas continues.
As sportsmen and women with a passion for the outdoors and for the
Montana way of life that depends so much on a public lands tradition,
we are in full support of Sen. Tester's bill. It represents balance and
a protection of the customs and culture that characterize our outdoor
legacy.
Sincerely,
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, MT, Backcountry
Hunters and Anglers, National, Big
Blackfoot Chapter, Trout Unlimited, Bitter
Root Chapter, Trout Unlimited, Flathead
Backcountry Horsemen, Flathead Valley
Chapter, Trout Unlimited, Hellgate Hunters
and Anglers, Joe Brooks Chapter, Trout
Unlimited, Kootenai Valley Trout Club,
Lewis and Clark Chapter, Trout Unlimited,
Madison Gallatin Chapter, Trout Unlimited,
Magic City Fly Fishers, Montana Backcountry
Horsemen, Montana Trout Unlimited, Montana
Wildlife Federation, National Trout
Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation,
Pat Barnes-Missouri River Chapter, Trout
Unlimited, Snowy Mountain Chapter, Trout
Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, West Slope Chapter, Trout
Unlimited.
______
Statement of Jenn Dice, Director of Government Affairs, International
Mountain Bicycling Association, on S. 233, S. 268, S. 375, S. 714 and
S. 730
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide input on S. 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act of 2011. The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
appreciates the effort by U.S. Senator Jon Tester and his staff to
maintain an ongoing dialogue regarding the concerns of the mountain
bicycling community. IMBA supports many of the proposed Wilderness
areas and applauds the senator's desire to include Special Management
Area (SMA) and Recreation Management Area (RMA) designations that will
protect the undeveloped nature of these areas while embracing the
recreational values for which these lands are cherished.
Founded in 1988, IMBA leads the national and worldwide mountain
bicycling communities through a network of 80,000 individual
supporters, 750 affiliate clubs, and 600 dealer members. IMBA teaches
sustainable trail building techniques and has become a leader in trail
design, construction, and maintenance; encourages responsible riding,
volunteer trail work, and cooperation among trail user groups and land
managers. Each year, IMBA members and affiliated clubs conduct almost
one million hours of volunteer trail stewardship on America's public
lands and are some of the best assistants to federal, state, and local
land managers.
Wilderness designations are a difficult issue for IMBA and mountain
bicyclists. On the one hand we want to preserve the beauty and
experience of wild landscapes for future generations. On the other
hand, federal land management agencies interpret the Wilderness Act of
1964 to prohibit the use of mountain bicycles. Our decision to support
a Wilderness proposal or bill is not one we take lightly. Only when we
have worked with the Wilderness proponents to develop win-win solutions
can we fully support the designation.
BENEFITS TO THE MONTANA RECREATION ECONOMY
Of the thirty-five (35) units, totaling 1,019,764 acres, IMBA
supports thirty (30) in their entirety. We request boundary adjustments
in the remaining five (5) units. The changes would lead to a net
reduction of Wilderness of 23,419 acres and a net increase in
Recreation Management Area acreage of 16,319. Thus, IMBA supports 97.7
percent of the acreage in the current draft of this bill.
Rural communities around the West can no longer depend entirely on
resource extraction. Many small towns have diversified and now reap the
benefits of a recreation goods and services economy. The recreation
industry creates jobs through increased visitation, which drives retail
sales and services across multiple channels. Locations with valuable
recreational assets also attract outdoor and cycling industry companies
that have employees and owners who prefer to live and work close to the
places they play.
This bill includes many provisions that support the recreation
economy by opening trails to cyclists through the release of more than
66,815 acres of Wilderness Study Area (WSA), and the creation of more
than 369,500 acres of Recreation Management Area or Special Management
Area. Some trail examples are:
Tobacco Roots RMA: Lost Cabin Trail and the Tobacco Root
Trail totaling roughly 30 miles
Axolotl Lakes former WSA: Proposed Virginia City Trails
estimated at 30 miles
West Pioneer RMA: West Pioneer Loop and additional trails
totally potentially 220 miles
Lost Creek RMA: 15 miles of existing trail
Thunderbolt Creek SMA: 40 miles of proposed trail
IMBA does not agree with the Forest Service Region One (R1)
decision to ban bikes from Recommended Wilderness, however, we applaud
Senator Tester's efforts with this legislation to move this issue
forward by proposing a permanent solution for these world-class Montana
landscapes.
CONTINUED MOUNTAIN BICYCLE ACCESS TO THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE NATIONAL
SCENIC TRAIL AND OTHER TRAILS
Since the deliberations for S. 268 have evolved over many years, it
is important to note that the USDA Forest Service recently released
their new directives for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
(CDNST) which states, ``Bicycle use may be allowed on the CDNST (16
U.S.C. 1246(c)) if the use is consistent with the applicable land and
resource management plan and will not substantially interfere with the
nature and purposes of the CDNST.''
Cycling on the CDNST in Southwestern Montana is a unique and
important recreational asset. While there are some sections of the
trail not appropriate for mountain biking, many portions of the trail
are. IMBA places high priority on the CDNST and has asked for several
small adjustments to keep this important trail open to mountain
bicycling.
Anaconda/Pintlar Wilderness Additions: IMBA requests
boundary adjustments for the CDNST, Bender Point, and Trail #44
to Twin Lakes. This boundary adjustment would result in a
reduction of Wilderness of less than 3,000 acres.
Italian Peak: A boundary adjustment of roughly 4,000 acres
is requested here to allow continued access to the CDNST.
Centennial/ Mt Jefferson: In several extremely short
sections along the southern border of the proposed Centennial
Wilderness, the CDNST crosses the boundary. We request that the
trail become the boundary to maintain the possibility of future
bicycle access. We further request that the boundary between
these two units be a non-wilderness corridor, allowing non-
motorized access to the existing CDNST with no net loss of
Wilderness acreage.
IMBA requests several other important adjustments:
Lima Peaks: We request that this area become two units
divided by a non-wilderness corridor, allowing non-motorized
access on the Little Sheep Creek Trail. The resulting
Wilderness units would both be roughly 17,000 acres and the
Wilderness reduction would be less than 1000 acres.
Scapegoat Wilderness Addition: We request the enlarging the
Otatsy Recreation Management Area to encompass the Falls Creek
Trail and allowing non-motorized access to this trail. This
would expand the RMA to roughly 15,289 acres and reduce the
Scapegoat Wilderness addition to 18,178 acres. The result would
be a net increase in protected lands of 2,500 acres.
West Big Hole Recreation Management Area and Wilderness: We
believe this important Recreation Management Area should allow
bicycle access to the trails within the north and south
Wilderness units. We believe non-motorized trail corridors
would be the best way to maintain this access, which would
result in less than a thousand (1000) acre reduction of
Wilderness and is still protected by the Recreation Management
designation. These two proposed Wilderness units within the
West Big Hole RMA were not Forest Service Recommended
Wilderness.
STEWARDSHIP TRAIL PROJECTS AND ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONS
Finally, the Act stipulates that forest and watershed restoration
projects will be designated each year. These stewardship projects use
new best management logging practices with regard to timber sales, road
densities, wildlife habitat, trail development, and allow for revenue
from timber sales to remain in the district. IMBA hopes the USDA Forest
Service and Senator Tester will consider directing potential funding to
trail building in order to replace trails where mountain bikes are no
longer allowed. IMBA will participate at the local level to aid in the
creation of new trails. IMBA appreciates that the legislation has
suggested road to trail conversions in some cases, and offers our
professional trail building expertise in creating an environmentally
sound, sustainable trail systems.
IMBA and the Montana mountain bicycling community welcome the
opportunity to join with others to protect Montana, to ensure current
and future generations can enjoy high-quality outdoor experiences away
from development, noise, and poorly planned resource extraction. We
look forward to continued discussion of how best to meet the needs of
mountain bikers and other trail users for these very special regions of
Montana.
______
Back Country Horsemen of Montana,
Butte, MT, June 8, 2011.
Hon. Jon Tester,
Senator, 724 Hart Senate Building, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Tester, The Back Country Horsemen of Montana are
committed to helping with the solid endorsement and support of your
newly introduced bill S.268, The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of
2011.
We have in the past endorsed the Beaverhead Partnership and the
Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Projects. And it should be no great
surprise that we endorse any new wilderness designations suitable for
our great state.
Beyond the wilderness issue is the jobs issue which we have been
equally concerned about over the past few years as we have watched our
timber industry disintegrate here in Montana. The cooperative efforts
exemplified in such initiatives as the Beaverhead and Blackfoot
projects are grand representations of what Montanans can do when they
sit down together to solve their problems together.
Our pine forests are in desperate need of attention and while we
certainly wouldn't want to log it all, the establishment of a
sustainable timber base coupled with stewardship projects that return
harvested areas to productive use quickly, and provide for protected
water and wildlife sanctuaries, represents sound thinking that will
serve Montanans for many generations to come.
S.268 stands to greatly aid Montana in preserving its timber
processing infrastructure, an industry we cannot afford to loose. At
the same time it will help preserve, protect and enhance some of the
best wildlife and fisheries habitat in North America. It also ensures
that traditional activities such as fishing ,hunting, horse packing,
camping and hiking will continue for generations. It also guarantees
access for every outdoor pursuit.
Back Country Horsemen of Montana applaud you on these complex
matters and will stand beside you as partners through this legislative
process.
Sincerely,
John Chepulis,
Chairman.
______
Statement of Bill Hallinan, President, the Wild Divide Chapter of the
Montana Wilderness Association, Helena, MT, on S. 268
As the Wild Divide Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association
based in Helena, Montana, we represent over 500 members in an area
encompassing lands to be included in the Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act. As such, we strongly support the creation of this Act to both
preserve pristine wild lands and ensure resource jobs for future
generations in Montana. The Act is truly a grassroots, Montana made
initiative, as local as any proposal can get in the United States
representing a broad range of groups from hunters and anglers, to
hikers, bikers, horsemen, ranchers, and loggers.
As Montanans we feel strongly about deciding what is in the best
interest of our state and our backyard. The FJRA is a Montana
initiative made in the state, for the future generations of the state
and not created by Washington lobbyists. We appreciate the approval of
the Committee to uphold our right to do what is best for our own
backyard, and to preserve what is best about America.
Many of the lands included in the FJRA will be utilized for off-
road vehicle enthusiasts, timber sales and other multi-use purposes.
The wilderness component of the legislation is a very small portion of
the lands included in the Act, and will preserve some of the most
pristine and inaccessible environments of the United States, which host
some of the most dynamic and vital ecosystems in the world. The timber
sales included in the act will ensure the creation of new timber jobs
in towns hard hit by recent economic times such as Townsend, Hamilton,
Libby, and Deer Lodge Montana.
None of the areas identified as potential wilderness in the FJRA
have abundant mineral extraction potential, nor do they possess any
other need for development such as abundant water resources or even
large scale timber extraction. These lands represent a small fraction
of the wild West--just three-quarters of one percent of Montana
(0.74%). They are important for Montanans to protect for future
generations because they are beautiful, irreplaceable locations: they
encompass key wildlife habitat, important watersheds, opportunities for
quiet recreation, and a source of economic stability and growth. We of
the Wild Divide Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association are
committed to protecting both jobs and the environment in our state, and
we urge the committee to pass the Act, and allow us to self-determine
what is best for our land and our backyard.
______
Statement of Steve Seninger, Ph.D., Economist, Missoula, MT
Public lands, wilderness areas, and road less backcountry play an
active and important role in Montana's economy creating jobs and
stimulating economic growth. Wilderness lands are sources of clean air
and water, provide wildlife habitat and are a sustainable base for some
of Montana's major industries, such as tourism/recreation and forest
products. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act's creation of both new
wilderness lands and increased timber harvests focuses on jobs &
economic viability in two important economic sectors, tourism/
recreation and forest products.
Jobs in Montana's outdoor recreation and tourist industry are based
on the attractive power of our scenic outdoors, mountains, forests and
the highways providing access to these attractions. Annual surveys of
out-of-state visitors to Montana show that the state's most important
attracting attributes were clean waterways, clean air, wildlife viewing
opportunities, scenic vistas, open space, opportunities to view the
night sky, and access to public lands and waters. Survey data also show
positive out-of-state visitor perceptions of Montana, giving our state
high scores for road conditions and environmental stewardship [Bureau
of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana,
www.bber.umt.edu ].
Missoula County's tourism and outdoor recreation sector is a major
employer representing 3,200 jobs annually making this one of the top
five employment sectors in the county. Annual spending by out of state,
non-resident visitors to Missoula County in 2009 was approximately $227
million dollars and spending by residents on all forms of outdoor
activity and recreation was $61 million dollars for a total of $288
million dollars in expenditures annually within the county. At the
state level, in 2009, travel expenditures by nonresident visitors
totaled over $2.3 billion, which generated over $153 million in state
and local taxes within Montana. Nonresident visitor spending generated
25,480 Montana jobs and contributed $661 million in total personal
income for Montana households [Institute for Tourism and Recreation
Research, University of www.itrr.umt.edu ].
Montana's wilderness areas support the state's outfitting industry,
composed of guided hunting, fishing, and wilderness trips. In 2005,
319,000 people took guided trips, and only 10 percent were from
Montana. Using non-resident visitation and expenditure data for
Missoula County yields estimates of 260 full time jobs in the
outfitting industry as part of the non-resident visitation employment
base within the county.
State and federal forest lands are an important part of Montana's
primary wood and paper products industry with total sales of $325
million, employment of over 6800 workers in 2010 and important tax
payments to our state and local governments. Forest products firms are
major employers in many towns and rural communities throughout Montana
[Montana Department of Labor and Industry, www.ourfactsyourfuture.org;
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, www.bber.umt.edu ].
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act provision of guaranteed timber
acreage from federal forest lands offers long run sustainability of
many local lumber mills and employment for restoration contractors and
foresters for private and public land management. Establishment of a
more reliable lumber supply for local lumber mills is especially
critical in the next several years as improving wood products markets
recover and experience increased softwood lumber exports creating new
jobs and alleviating unemployment in rural communities throughout
Montana.
Wilderness and protected public lands also affect economic growth
in other sectors such as business and professional services. People
come to business conferences and meetings in Montana attracted by
opportunities to float and fly fish a river, pack into wilderness back
country, or simply get out and recreate in scenic public landscapes.
These experiences serve as a `magnet' to new businesses and jobs in
sectors such as financial services, health care, and information
technology. In the new economy, a quality environment is a key economic
asset. Protecting and enhancing environmental qualities has been
essential for economic prosperity throughout the larger Rocky Mountain
West region--Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Communities
in this region with quality businesses and quality workers will
likewise grow and prosper. When people are asked why they are moving to
these areas, they say ``for the quality of life, the open lands and the
natural environment''. Wilderness areas and public lands are an
integral, sustainable part of Montana's economy and major reasons why
we live, work, and recreate in this state [.Center for the Rocky
Mountain West, www.crmw.org/MontanaOnTheMove; Sonoran Institute,
www.sonoraninstitute.org].
SOURCES
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Outlook 2011: Paying for
the Recession Rebalancing Montana's Economy, University of Montana,
Missoula, Montana, 2011, pp. 18, www.bber.umt.edu
Center for the Rocky Mountain West, University of Montana, 2003,
www.crmw.org/MontanaOnTheMove .
Headwaters Economics, Energy Development and the Changing Economy
of the West, Bozeman, Montana, September 2008-revised 06/24/09,
www.headwaterseconomics.org/energy .
Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The Economic Review
of the Travel Industry in Montana: 2010 Biennial Edition, University of
Montana, Missoula, Montana, July 2010; www.itrr.umt.edu .
Montana Department of Labor and Industry,
www.ourfactsyourfuture.org.
Niche News: Montana's Outfitter and Guide Industry 2007,
www.itrr.edu.
Sonoran Institute, (Ray Rasker, Ben Alexander, Jeff van den Noort,
and Rebecca Carter) Prosperity in the 21st Century West: The Role of
Protected Public Lands, July 2004, http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/
library/reports .
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
www.bea.doc.gov .
Western Montana InBusiness Monthly, May, 2010 vol. 8, no.5.
______
Statement of Jennifer Lazo, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Los
Angeles, CA, on S. 268
I am writing to express my support for S. 268, the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act of 2011.
We need this bill to protect and restore the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem's natural heritage because it is one of the last remaining,
nearly intact ecosystems left in the world.
S. 268 will protect some of the last and best unroaded backcountry
habitats in SW Montana. These core habitats are vital to the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem's iconic wildlife. The bill will put people back
to work in the woods fixing damaged landscapes and reducing wildfire
hazards near our rural communities. This bill offers a new vision for
the management of our public lands, and I wholeheartedly support this
bill not only for Montana, but for all Americans who enjoy wild places.
I also support the wilderness designations in this bill. Places
like the Snowcrest Range, Centennial Mountains and the East Pioneers
have long deserved permanent protection. It has been almost 30 years
since a Montana wilderness bill has passed; in that time we have lost a
lot of wilderness quality lands. Now is the time to act, before we lose
more of our pristine backcountry lands.
This bill will help build new restoration jobs and strengthen
Montana's timber infrastructure. We need to maintain sawmills and
infrastructure to address the restoration needs on our national forests
and the wildfire hazards surrounding our communities.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will benefit people across the
country by ensuring healthy forests and clean water for future
generations. It will add 650,000 acres of new wilderness, and it will
create jobs. Please support S.268. Americans will benefit from it
today, and for years to come.
______
American Rivers,
Northern Rockies,
Bozeman, MT, June 7, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Testimony in Support of S. 268
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski: On behalf of
American Rivers, I am pleased to offer our written testimony in support
of S. 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2011 sponsored by
Senator Jon Tester and co-sponsored by Senator Max Baucus. After
carefully reviewing this legislation, attending several public meetings
on the bill, and visiting all the landscapes it would affect, we
believe S. 268 offers substantial benefits for some of western
Montana's most storied rivers and streams and the people, fish and
wildlife, and communities which depend on them.
American Rivers is the nation's leading river conservation
organization, with over 65,000 members from all 50 states--including
hundreds of Montanans--who share a commitment to protecting and
restoring our nation's rivers for the benefit of people, wildlife and
nature. In 2009, we opened a Northern Rockies office in Bozeman in
order to play a more active role in protecting and restoring Montana's
unparalleled collection of free-flowing rivers and wild trout
fisheries.
American Rivers believes S. 268 will result in substantial net
benefits for several nationally renowned rivers in western Montana
including the Beaverhead, Big Blackfoot, Big Hole, Clark Fork,
Jefferson, Madison, Red Rock, Ruby, Swan, Yaak, and Rock Creek. These
benefits will come primarily in the form of 666,260 acres of federally
designated wilderness at the headwaters of these rivers and an
additional 369,500 acres that would be protected as Special Management
Areas or National Recreation Areas. We are particularly pleased to see
that S.268 includes nearly 66,000 acres of new wilderness on BLM lands
in the Dillon Resource Area. Moreover, S. 268 would create a new
revenue stream for much-needed fish and wildlife habitat restoration
projects on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Three
Rivers Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest.
Congress has not passed any major public lands legislation in
Montana for several decades, largely because historically competing
interests--particularly conservation groups and the timber industry--
have been unable to come to the table and arrive at reasonable
compromises that satisfy a broad array of interests. Recent polling
clearly shows that S. 268 enjoys support from a strong majority of
Montanans of all demographic backgrounds because it is Montana-grown,
it protects some of western Montana's best fishing and hunting grounds,
and it would create good-paying jobs in the timber industry by
encouraging the harvest of beetle-killed timber in already-roaded areas
and at the urban-wildland interface.
Normally, American Rivers would be reluctant to support any federal
legislation that mandates timber harvest on a specific amount of
acreage on public lands. However, after carefully reviewing S. 268, we
believe that any adverse impacts from logging would be minimal for the
following reasons:
1) The bill orders timber to be harvested on only a very
small portion (.2 percent) of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and
Kootenai national forests;
2) Timber harvest would be directed to areas that are already
roaded, with an emphasis on the urban-wildland interface;
3) All timber sales would still have to comply with all
environmental laws including the National Environmental Policy
Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act;
4) All landscapes where timber harvest would occur must be
left with road densities of less than 1.5 linear miles per
square mile in order to provide wildlife security;
5) Revenue generated by these timber sales would be used to
pay for fish and wildlife habitat restoration projects on the
same forests where they occur.
As it was made clear at the May 25 subcommittee hearing, S. 268 is
not supported by everyone in Montana, or in neighboring Idaho. Some
special interest groups (e.g. snowmobilers and other motorized users)
believe it protects too much land as wilderness, while others believe
it does not designate enough wilderness and no public lands bill should
ever mandate any amount of timber harvest. American Rivers encourages
the Committee to focus on S. 268's bottom line: It protects more than 1
million acres of pristine lands and waters in western Montana as
wilderness or other special management areas, while requiring a minimal
amount of timber to be harvested in already developed areas, the
receipts from which will be used to pay for fish and wildlife habitat
restoration projects in those same areas.
For these reasons we strongly and unequivocally support S. 268, and
ask the committee to look favorably upon it when it comes to a vote.
Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott Bosse,
Director.
______
Statement of David Dreher, the PEW Charitable Trusts, on S. 268
In the mid-1980s the Montana congressional delegation struggled to
reach a compromise on forest wilderness in the state. After six years
of strife Congress ultimately passed a statewide wilderness bill
despite opposition from both ends of the political spectrum. It has
been twenty-two years, six months, and sixteen days since President
Ronald Reagan responded to some of that opposition by vetoing the
legislation. Some of those who supported, and indeed pushed for, that
veto now support Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. It
took more than two decades for Montanans to get where they are now--
working together to move beyond the divisive debates of the past and
craft a common vision for the future--but they have arrived, and they
will not go back. I am honored, on behalf of the Pew Environment
Group's Campaign for America's Wilderness, to join them in support of
this legislation.
Different people support this legislation for different reasons.
Some people love that it designates almost 700,000 acres of wilderness,
the first such designation for Montana in thirty years. As an
organization supportive of wilderness conservation, that is certainly
our primary policy interest in the legislation. Other people like that
the bill directs the Forest Service to treat the forest and produce
wood products. However, in Montana there are many people that do not
necessarily care about either of those things. What they care about is
civil dialogue, people working together to solve problems, sustaining
rural jobs, protecting clean water, and conserving and restoring their
favorite places to fish and hunt. That is why when this proposal was
first rolled out it garnered support from nearly 70 percent of
Montanans. There are many things in Montana to disagree about, but
people working together to solve problems is not one of them.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is about so much more than
wilderness or wood. It is about the people of Montana and the common
values they all share.
The wilderness areas that would be protected by Senator Tester's
bill are spectacular. From Roderick Mountain in the northwest corner of
the state, to the Snowcrest and Centennial Mountains in the south,
these areas truly represent some of the best wild places the West has
to offer. We should not allow another congress to pass without
protecting these majestic landscapes.
Too often with this legislation the wilderness and wood components
get the lion's share of attention while the fish and wildlife benefits
the bill would provide get overlooked. Groups like Montana Trout
Unlimited and Montana Wildlife Federation have been strong supporters
of this legislation from the beginning. Sportsmen see the effects of
decades of road-building, unfettered motorized use, and indiscriminate
logging first hand on the habitats of fish and elk.
The work to reverse these trends and mitigate past impacts takes
cooperation and collaboration. It requires conservationists, mill
owners, ranchers, and parts of the broader public all coming to the
table with the agency to design and implement projects. The Forest Jobs
and Recreation Act rewards the collaborative efforts already underway--
in the Yaak Valley, with the Blackfoot Challenge, and the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge Partnership--and provides a foundation to greatly expand this
vital work.
It is not often that people get a second chance like this one.
After decades of arguing over natural resource management in Montana,
there are special wild places that still need wilderness protection,
small towns with people who need jobs in the woods, and an ever-growing
need to better manage off-road vehicles. None of these things will be
done perfectly, but they will all be done better with the Forest Jobs
and Recreation Act and the people behind it.
Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is an opportunity
that we, and the United States Congress, cannot let pass. Thank you for
the opportunity to express our support.
______
National Parks Conservation Association,
Yellowstone Field Office,
Bozeman, MT, June 7, 2011.
Dylan Laslovich,
Office of Senator Tester, 724 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Dylan, Please accept this letter of support for the Forest
Jobs and Recreation Act of 2011, S.268, from the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA), Yellowstone Field Office.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for Montana and good for
Yellowstone National Park's wildlife. The legislation takes a
comprehensive approach to managing and protecting National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management lands in southwestern Montana outside of
Yellowstone National Park. These lands, specifically the Snowcrests in
Madison County and the Centennial Mountains in Beaverhead County, play
a key role in maintaining wildlife connectivity for Yellowstone's
wildlife such as grizzly bear. We encourage the inclusion of these two
landscapes in final passage of the bill.
Yellowstone National Park's wildlife depend on healthy landscapes
outside of the park. By creating wilderness on lands in the Beaverhead
Deerlodge National Forest and the Dillon BLM, these landscapes will be
permanently protected, ensuring a place for Yellowstone's wildlife to
roam now and in the future.
NPCA fully supports Senator Tester and his common-sense endeavor to
pass legislation that creates jobs in Montana's forests, protects clean
water and safeguards Yellowstone's wildlife habitat for future
generations.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Patricia Dowd,
Yellowstone Program Manager.
______
Montana Wildlife Federation,
Helena, MT, June 8, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
RE: Montana Wildlife Federation Support for the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act
Dear Chairman Bingaman, Thank you for the opportunity to submit
written testimony supporting S. 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
(FJRA).
The Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) is Montana's oldest and
largest hunter/angler conservation organization with approximately 7500
members and 23 affiliated Rod and Gun Clubs. Formed in 1936, MWF has
strongly supported sensible land use policies that enhance and improve
wildlife habitat and support increased fair chase hunting and angling
opportunities for our members. MWF's heritage of supporting wise
management of the forest resource leads us to continue to support
Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
S. 268 is the culmination of years of hard work by the
collaborators who, through an open and honest process, showed that
ending gridlock was possible and it was possible to get Montanan's back
in to the Forests both to play and work. We commend the Collaborators
for their forward thinking approach and Senator Tester for continuing
his support of goals and processes that bring all sides to the table to
achieve important successes.
For MWF and our members, FJRA means several things. First and
foremost, it will result in improved habitat for many species that are
important for the future of the hunting and angling heritage that the
Montana Wildlife Federation has supported t for 75 years. Of special
note, the Act will serve as a vehicle to help both preserve and restore
elk security habitat while providing good jobs for our members and
their families and freinds.
Secondly, the stewardship requirements to be accomplished along
with the logging and other vegetation management activities will help
ensure clean water for imperiled aquatic species such as Bull Trout and
West Slope Cutthroat. These stewardship acomplishments will also
increase available spawning habitat for other wild populations of cold
water fish and increase the opportunities for our members to enjoy
their angling heritage.
Third, the common sense wilderness additions in the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act will provide protection for future supplies of clean
water for fish and important habitat for elk, deer, bighorn sheep and
mountain goats. It will also ensure that areas that truly deserve
wilderness protection are finally protected and help keep what we have
today for tomorrow. MWF has a long history supporting these same kinds
of well thought out inclusions in to the Wilderness System. While the
final product is often times different than what was started out with,
the necessary and critically important dialog and final consensus will
benefit Montana's wildlife and to her generations of hunters and
anglers.
In conclusion, this is the right bill coming at the right time.
This kind of visionary leadership and willingness to work with all
sides on contentious matters has been lacking from many important
Natural Resource Conservation issues for some time. For these and other
reasons MWF strongly supports Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act, and believes that passage of S. 268 will only lead to
improved management of our public lands, better support the diverse
outdoor recreational activities for our members, while providing the
jobs that they so desperately need.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Tim Aldrich,
President.
______
Statement of The Wilderness Society, on S. 268
The Wilderness Society (TWS), representing over 500,000 supporters
and members, supports S. 268, the ``Forest Jobs and Recreation Act''
introduced by Montana Senator Jon Tester, and co-sponsored by Senator
Max Baucus. Many of the national forest lands addressed in this bill
are of national significance and passage of this legislation would
benefit Americans from current and future generations. This bill has
diverse, bi-partisan support from across Montana and we commend Senator
Tester and his staff for their effort and leadership in developing this
important bill and tirelessly engaging with Montanans on its
provisions. We are committed to working with Senator Tester, the
committee, and the administration to address concerns, seek creative
solutions and to ensure the final version of this bill is the best
possible legislation for Montana and the nation.
TWS strongly supports the provisions of S. 268 that would designate
677,000 acres of wilderness. We also support this bill's twin goals of
enhancing ecological restoration on appropriate national forest lands
while aiding a struggling timber industry in western Montana. We also
respect the diverse, collaborative efforts that developed many of the
provisions embodied in this bill. Conservationists, hunters, anglers,
timber industry representatives, recreation interests, and many others
have engaged in countless meetings over many years in a sincere effort
to address forest management conflicts that have remained unresolved
for decades while advancing the restoration of degraded forest lands.
Montana's communities, forests, fish and wildlife all deserve a
chance to see this bill work. While we have identified some concerns
and specific areas for refinement, we want to be clear that we support
the bill's overall goals and stand ready to work with Senator Tester,
the committee and the administration to ensure this bill can fulfill
its promise and become law.
MONTANA'S WILDERNESS CONTEXT
It has been over a decade since any member of Montana's
congressional delegation has introduced a bill addressing wilderness in
the state and more than 25 years since Congress last passed legislation
designating Montana wilderness. The last time a new wilderness area was
successfully added in Montana was 1983. Since that time, every other
western state has seen areas added to the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Today only 4% of Montana's total land base is
protected as wilderness--the lowest relative amount of any western
state. The percentage of other western states designated as wilderness
ranges from 5% for Wyoming and Nevada to 15% and 16% for California and
Alaska, respectively.
Thus, while S. 268 is much more than just a wilderness bill, it is
nonetheless critically important that this bill addresses a
longstanding need and backlog of areas deserving of the protections
that wilderness designation brings. Indeed, many of the 677,000 acres
designated as wilderness in this bill (whether on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, Lolo, or Kootenai National Forests or on BLM lands within
the Dillon Resource Area) have been formally recommended by the
agencies for wilderness protection and are already mostly managed to
maintain wilderness values.
S. 268 is also noteworthy because it represents a new approach to
addressing disputes over natural resources management and land
protection, which have a long and bitter history in Montana. While
collaboration is an often overused word, this bill is truly ``bottom-
up'' and represents the product of neighbors and even adversaries
sitting down long enough to get to know one another, learning to
respect one another, and forging a common vision for the management of
our public lands.
Indeed, we are seeing other collaborative efforts involving
wilderness designation and forest restoration in Montana and throughout
the west. Perhaps most noteworthy in Montana is the ``Rocky Mountain
Front Heritage Proposal'' (www.savethefront.org) for the Forest Service
and BLM lands east of the Bob Marshall Wilderness which includes a
noxious weed restoration component. Passage of S. 268 will help provide
the momentum and model for consideration of other Montana wildlands
deserving of protection that have for too long been in a holding
pattern.
THE PROMISE OF THE BLACKFOOT CLEARWATER LANDSCAPE STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
While S. 268 addresses three forest landscapes (the Three Rivers
District of the Kootenai National Forest, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest and the Seeley Lake Ranger District of the Lolo
National Forest) TWS was only involved in the development of the
Blackfoot Clearwater Landscape Stewardship Project (BCSP) on the Lolo's
Seeley Lake Ranger District. We believe the BCSP model is a blueprint
for success because it promotes pre-NEPA collaboration, ensures
adequate funding for forest restoration, and promotes the development
of forest biomass infrastructure while respecting the integrity of all
existing laws and regulations.
The BCSP proposal recognized that the Blackfoot-Clearwater Valley
is a unique ecosystem with significant forest, wildlife and wilderness
resources. It was made possible by the culture of cooperative
conservation common throughout the Blackfoot-Clearwater Valley and
informed by lessons learned from the recently completed Clearwater
Stewardship Project. Several years ago residents of the Blackfoot-
Clearwater region expressed interest in forest restoration, sustainable
logging, ranching, recreation and wilderness uses across the landscape.
The BCSP proposal emerged from a three-year dialogue among key
stakeholders and it demonstrates that wilderness and wildlife can be
protected alongside historic and traditional activities.
As a demonstration project for cooperative public-private
stewardship across a landscape area, the original BCSP was intended to
facilitate cooperative stewardship via Congressional funding for forest
restoration and for a biomass cogeneration facility in Seeley Lake,
Montana as well as inclusion of recommended tracts within the Bob
Marshall-Scapegoat and Mission Mountain wilderness totaling 87,000
acres. The project addressed the 400,000-acre Seeley Ranger District of
the Lolo National Forest within the Blackfoot watershed as well as
lands within the public-private 41,000-acre Blackfoot Community
Conservation Area.
The BCSP vision would maintain traditional wilderness pack trails
on the Seeley Lake Ranger District as well as all of the existing
groomed snowmobile trails and areas. Groups have agreed to additional
snowmobile opportunities in the area between East Spread Mountain and
Otatsy Lake. The participating groups agreed to a revision in the
proposed Lolo Forest Plan to allow an approximately 2,000 acre ``winter
motorized use area'' in this area. The BCSP identifies a management
approach that allows for most active management such as livestock
grazing, logging and restoration work in the roaded lands found at
lower elevations. All the activities envisioned by the BCSP would be
consistent with all existing laws and regulations, including proposed
revisions to the Lolo National Forest Management Plan.
The original proposal included a funding request to allow the
Forest Service to plan and implement landscape stewardship and
restoration projects on 400,000 acres in the Lolo National Forest
portion of the Blackfoot-Clearwater watershed. It calls for restoration
logging to protect large trees and restore pre-suppression old growth
conditions, with the receipts from the logging being used for
restoration work on the ground including watershed improvements, road
rehabilitation work and weed eradication.
Within the 41,000 acre Blackfoot Community Conservation Area,
cooperative management of timber, grazing lands, weeds, hunting and
other recreational uses is being planned. BCSP supporters have long
believed this proposal represents a new model for landscape-level
conservation in Montana. This proposal would help keep historic and
traditional activities as part of the landscape, add diversity and
sustainability to the local economy with both recreation and forestry
jobs, and enhance watersheds and the landscape.
The spirit of the original BCSP proposal is captured in S. 268 in
the form of wilderness designations, utilization of stewardship
contracting, and support for forest restoration and biomass
infrastructure.
TIMBER SUPPLY PREDICTABILITY
The Wilderness Society has concerns over S.268's provision that
calls for a mandatory number of acres to be mechanically treated on the
Beaverhead and Kootenai National Forests. The Society strongly endorses
the overall goals of the bill to provide a more predictable supply of
timber to mills, and we have been quite vocal in stating that Montana
needs a viable, diverse wood products manufacturing infrastructure to
meet our forest restoration and fuel reduction goals. The question is
how to best meet the goal of a more predictable supply while achieving
restoration goals. We do not support Congressionally mandated treatment
levels in the bill as we do not believe they will work on the ground.
While the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship proposal was being
crafted we deliberately avoided mandatory mechanical treatment language
because we, and our partners, believe strongly that a strategy based on
inclusive, diverse, pre-NEPA collaboration, adequate funding and a
clear Congressional and agency commitment to ecological restoration
will produce far greater positive results on the ground. The BCSP
participants, including TWS, made a clear decision to let the landscape
analysis dictate what restoration treatments are appropriate. One of
the reasons we included a biomass provision in the original proposal
was to help create a market for small diameter material that did not
have value as commercial saw logs, but were important to remove as part
of the restoration strategy. We want to avoid situations where
landscape analysis areas are gerrymandered to ensure that a certain
number of acres are available for mechanical treatment.
While we were crafting the BCSP proposal, TWS conducted a review of
collaborative efforts between conservation and timber interests
throughout the West. The collaborative efforts that successfully
completed projects had in common strong pre-NEPA collaboration and
adequate funding. In examples where mandatory targets were created,
they were never met, even in cases where adequate funding was provided.
THE MONTANA FOREST RESTORATION COMMITTEE AND PRINCIPLES
The Wilderness Society is engaged in a number of collaborative
forest restoration efforts around the country and we believe that the
Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) offers a promising model
that we should consider as we work together to refine and advance S.
268. The MFRC, founded in early 2007, has developed 13 restoration
principles that define a ``zone of agreement'' regarding the
restoration of national forest lands in Montana. The Wilderness Society
has played a leadership role in this effort from its inception to the
present day and these principles, coupled with pre-NEPA collaboration
and consistent agency engagement, have resulted in strong consensus and
significant progress regarding the development of on the ground
restoration work on the Lolo, Helena and Bitterroot National Forests
over the past four years.
We believe strongly that the MFRC principles, highlighted below,
coupled with adequate funding and diverse, inclusive, pre-NEPA
collaboration at the project level can provide a viable model for
forest restoration in Montana, including areas affected by this bill on
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests.
The Montana Forest Restoration Principles (available online at
www.montanarestoration.org) address the following:
Restoring functioning ecosystems by enhancing ecological
processes;
Applying an adaptive management approach;
Using the appropriate scale of integrated analysis to
prioritize and design restoration activities;
Monitoring ecological restoration outcomes;
Reestablishing fire as a natural process on the landscape;
Considering social constraints and seeking public support
for reintroducing fire on the landscape;
Engaging community and interested parties in the restoration
process;
Improving terrestrial and aquatic habitat and connectivity;
Emphasizing ecosystem goods and services and sustainable
land management;
Integrating restoration with socioeconomic well-being;
Enhancing education and recreation activities to build
support for restoration;
Protecting and improving overall watershed health, including
stream health, soil quality and function and riparian function;
and
Establishing and maintaining a safe road and trail system
that is ecologically sustainable.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF S. 268
The Wilderness Society appreciates the openness and constructive
attitude that Senator Tester and his staff have shown in considering
the questions and concerns Montanans from all walks of life have raised
regarding S.268. We applaud the Senator and his staff for their
proactive efforts to inform groups and individuals about the bill
through community presentations, creation of a dedicated section on the
Senator's website, meetings with many organizations and local
businesses, and other means.
In this vein, many of the issues we raise below have been
previously shared with the Senator and we are heartened by his
commitment to address them at some level. We share the concerns raised
by USDA that certain components of the legislation carry national
implications for the management of the National Forest System and
should be reviewed and modified by the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources when it reports S. 268 to the U.S. Senate.
Forestry Projects
We support many of the goals of the environmental analysis and
administrative review provisions, such as encouraging more
comprehensive environmental analysis at a landscape scale, engagement
of local multi-stakeholder advisory groups, more efficient NEPA
reviews, and the continued implementation of project components that
have not been challenged or enjoined. We also support prioritizing
forest restoration projects in impaired landscapes, and the application
of INFISH guidelines to restoration projects. Further, we support the
overall reduction in road density envisioned by the legislation, as
well as the limitations on road-building in restoration projects.
Wilderness Areas
It is worth noting that much of the wilderness acreage in S. 268 is
not small, isolated, high alpine areas but instead represents diverse
and critically important habitat types for both important game
populations and rare species. For example, the Snowcrest Wilderness,
the largest wilderness area in the bill includes rolling sagebrush
foothills, whitebark pine stands, aspen, and alpine grasslands. It
offers some of the highest quality wolverine habitat in southwest
Montana, with grizzly bears, mountain lion and large elk herds also
roaming these remote mountains. Due to the abundance of big game, the
Snowcrest Mountains are among the most heavily hunted areas in Montana.
Streams on the eastern side of the Snowcrest Mountains feed the famed
Ruby River which is noted for both trout and grayling fisheries. It is
also noteworthy that S. 268 includes both BLM and USFS wilderness areas
in Southwest Montana with several of them connecting to existing
protected areas, as well as supported by contiguous newly designated
Recreation Areas in some cases.
Our detailed recommendations regarding wilderness areas follow:
1) Mount Jefferson: While only encompassing 4,500 acres, this
proposed wilderness area on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
Forest near the Idaho state line and adjacent to the BLM's
28,000-acre Centennial Wilderness Study Area (which S. 268
would also designate wilderness) has nationally significant
ecological values and has attracted vocal, out-of-state
opposition. The Wilderness Society supports the current
boundaries in S. 268 for Mount Jefferson. Moving the boundary
from the state line, which is also the drainage divide (and the
continental divide), would only continue and exacerbate an
existing illegal snowmobile trespass problem in the Mount
Jefferson recommended wilderness area and into the adjacent
BLM's Centennial Wilderness Study Area and also harm existing,
locally owned Montana businesses (Hellroaring Ski Adventures
and Centennial Outfitters). The Forest Service has documented
repeated snowmobile trespass into adjacent lands that would be
designated wilderness under S.268. Further, the agency
estimates that at most one job in Island Park would be impacted
by managing all 4,500 acres of the Montana side of Mount
Jefferson for non-motorized recreation. This job loss is more
than offset by the gains in employment in Montana's human-
powered recreation industry. Thus, we hope to see S. 268
continue to include all 4,500 acres in the Mount Jefferson
Wilderness Area.
2) BLM wilderness areas: We support Senator Tester's
inclusion in S. 268 of appropriate BLM lands including the
6,200-acre East Fork Blacktail Wilderness. The East Fork
Blacktail Wilderness Study Area sits in the heart of a
landscape managed for conservation purposes. It is contiguous
on two sides with the proposed Snowcrest Wilderness in S. 268
and adjacent to two state Wildlife Management Areas.
3) Lee Metcalf Wilderness addition: For the north unit of
this wilderness addition we support the revision that
eliminated the non wilderness corridor (Trail #315) that was
part of the original legislation. This would have bisected this
proposed wilderness addition into two units. This trail
corridor was originally added to the bill to accommodate
mountain bike use, but it was then determined that the western
portion of this trail crosses onto private land with a public
use easement that is clearly limited to only foot and horse
traffic. Hence it made no practical sense to include this
corridor and it was appropriately dropped from S. 268.
4) East Pioneers, West Pioneers, and West Big Hole areas: The
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership Agreement negotiated larger
wilderness areas for these three areas. Given the wild values
and ecological importance of these areas (as well as the fact
that the expanded East Pioneers acreage is recommended
wilderness by the Forest Service), we suggest reconsideration
of S. 268's boundaries for these areas, with expansion of some
of them to more closely follow what the Partnership originally
proposed.
5) Peet Creek/Price Creek: We recommend that the Peet Creek/
Price Creek parcel in the Centennial Mountains be added to the
proposed Centennial Mountains Wilderness with a cherry stemmed
boundary to accommodate the existing improved logging road in
the E. Fork of Peet Creek. This is the largest of the five
parcels recommended for release from the BLM Centennial
Wilderness Study Area (approximately 3,800 acres). This parcel
has significant conservation value for big game, wolverine,
bears and westslope cutthroat trout. Its protection as
wilderness enhances the Centennial Mountains wildlife linkage
area and connectivity between greater Yellowstone and central
Idaho.
WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE
While we are not opposed to continued grazing in the Snowcrest
proposed wilderness area, we believe S. 268's language providing for
continued motorized access for sheep trailing and maintenance of water
impoundments is unnecessary. The Congressional Grazing Guidelines,
incorporated in S. 268 at Section 204(i), provide time-tested guidance
for the managing agency to effectively balance existing grazing related
motorized and mechanized use with the Wilderness Act's management
provisions.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMPONENTS FOR REVIEW
The Wilderness Society strongly supports the wilderness designation
and forest restoration goals of S. 268 and we respect the diverse
collaborative efforts that have worked for years to chart a new path
forward. We also agree with Secretary Vilsack, who said in his
groundbreaking speech in Seattle in August of 2009, that our shared
vision for the national forests begins with restoration.
We also recognize and respect the concerns of our partners in the
timber industry regarding the fact that the Forest Service does not
have the capacity to address all of the forest restoration needs that
exist today and thus the importance of maintaining some timber
infrastructure in the state. If we hope to complete these forest
restoration needs, we believe we must take the following steps:
Ensure adequate funding for Forest Service restoration
programs in Montana and nationally;
Sustain a right-sized timber industry infrastructure
adequate to carry out much-needed forest restoration
activities;
Protect the integrity of all existing laws and regulation
including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered
Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and others;
Examine other forest restoration models to ensure the final
version of S. 268 is modeled after approaches that have worked
on the ground while avoiding the pitfalls of failed attempts at
forest management.
Consider the impact of S. 268's provisions on other
collaborative efforts under development or those that could
arise in the future, given the growing interest in tackling
forest protection, logging, restoration issues outside of the
regular national forest planning process and the tendency to
incorporate approaches already ratified by Congress.
Finally, as many have noted, the specific components of the Forest
Jobs and Recreation Act were not intended to be replicated nationally
or to resolve the longstanding calls for review and reform of the many
mandates driving national forest management.
CONCLUSION
The Wilderness Society's vision for our National Forests is to
maintain and restore healthy and sustainable natural forests that will
be resilient in the face of climate change while providing multiple
benefits, from recreation to jobs for future generations of Americans.
We share Secretary Vilsack's view that forest restoration represents
the Forest Service's future. We agree that the Montana Forest
Restoration Committee and the Southwestern Crown of the Continent FLRA
effort are viable models that deserve further study and support. We
believe it is appropriate to continue managing the forests for
recreation, timber, livestock forage, and other commodities, but only
when doing so is consistent with ecosystem integrity, is economically
sound, and benefits from citizen participation. Our experience has
shown that conservationists, hunters, anglers and the timber industry
can find common ground regarding national forest management.
Participants in the MFRC define this common ground as a ``zone of
agreement'' and we believe that operating within this zone of agreement
is the most likely path to success.
In conclusion, TWS supports S. 268 and is committed to working with
Senator Tester, the committee and the administration to address
concerns, seek creative, workable solutions and to ensure the final
version of this bill is the best possible legislation for Montana and
the nation.
______
Statement of Matthew Koehler, Executive Director, WildWest Institute,
Missoula, MT, on S.268
My name is Matthew Koehler and I'm the executive director of the
WildWest Institute, a Montana-based conservation group. Our mission is
to protect and restore forests, wildlands, watersheds and wildlife in
the northern Rockies. We help craft positive solutions that promote
sustainability in our communities through jobs restoring naturally
functioning ecosystems and protecting communities from wildfire. We
also ensure that the Forest Service follows the law and best science
when managing our public forests by fully participating in the public
decision process and through on-the-ground monitoring.
SUMMARY OF S. 268
S.268 affects over 3 million acres of National Forest System and
Bureau of Land Management lands in Montana and contains a nearly
bewildering list of new definitions, designations, management
practices, required studies, reports and publications. Approximately
680,000 acres are designated as new Wilderness Areas, another 336,000
acres as National Recreation Areas, Protection Areas, Recreation Areas,
and Special Management Areas, each with their own management language.
Nearly 3 million acres are designated as Stewardship Areas where
logging is expressly allowed and encouraged. It mandates that at least
100,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Three
Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest be logged within 15
years as well as an undetermined amount on the Seeley Lake District of
the Lolo National Forest.
The findings, purposes and subsequent sections of S.268 clearly
define it as a bill whose primary purpose is promotion of commercial
logging through localized management of National Forest System lands.
Touted as a bill that is good for the environment, S.268 would
accomplish several conservation goals, including the designation of new
wilderness areas and headwaters protection for several streams
important to native fish.
S.268 does contain admirable language for restoration of fish,
wildlife and watersheds, and there is a potential to lower road density
in some watersheds. However, these restoration goals are optional,
unlike the mandated logging, and S.268 effectively jeopardizes these
goals through its action provisions and the methods dictated.
The various sections of the bill have been carefully constructed to
affect a desired outcome that would be difficult to challenge through
citizen appeals or litigation. For example, Sec. 2(a)(2)(A)
``encourages the economic, social, and ecological sustainability of the
region and nearby communities.'' Sec. 2(a)(2)(B) ``promotes
collaboration,'' 2(b)(2) declares a major purpose ``to reduce gridlock
and promote local cooperation and collaboration in the management of
forest land.'' It does this through use of ``advisory committees'' or
``local collaborative groups.'' Again, this seeks the localization,
through private interests, of National Forest System lands. 2(b)(3)
states a purpose is enhancement of forest diversity and production of
wood fiber to accomplish habitat restoration and generation of a more
predictable flow of wood products for local communities. This purpose
is later matched with the definitions of the bill to establish
commercial logging as the primary means of fish and wildlife habitat
restoration. For example, one of the definitions S.268 uses for
restoration is ``maintaining the infrastructure of wood products
manufacturing facilities.''
S.268 is not a budget-neutral bill. It authorizes practically
unlimited expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and other sources, and
empowers ``Resource Advisory Committees'' or ``Local Collaboration
Groups'' to spend federal funds, including on private, non-National
Forest System lands. This provision and others in S.268 give the
``Resource Advisory Committees'' or ``Local Collaboration Groups''
sweeping powers that could effectively, if not officially, usurp
management and budgetary authority from the Forest Service and grant it
to private interests. Professional staff from the Forest Service will
be replaced with citizen committees whose members are mandated to
include industry groups. S.268 also authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to expend taxpayer funds for Fiscal Year 2010 to pay a
federal share in construction of ``combined heat and power biomass
systems that can use materials made available from the landscape-scale
restoration projects.''
The different funding provisions of the bill raise a real potential
for other National Forests and Forest regions to have their funds
transferred to projects under S.268. Pitting one forest against another
for funding is unhealthy and does not promote a wholistic, ecosystem
approach to public lands management in the Northern Rockies.
It is important to note that in legislation there is specific legal
meaning to terms such as ``shall'' versus ``may'' or ``can.'' The word
``shall'' has the force of law, once a bill is enacted and signed into
law by the President. Thus, when S.268 states the Secretary ``shall
generate revenue,'' ``shall maintain the infrastructure of woods
products manufacturing facilities that provide economic stability to
communities in close proximity to the aggregate parcel (timber harvest
unit) and to produce commercial wood products,'' it means just that. It
will be the law that the Secretary must keep specific, private timber
mills open and fed with timber from public lands, at least through the
term of authority, if not indefinitely. This is not only an open-ended
subsidy, it interferes with free enterprise.
Ultimately, where there is a question of ambiguity, Courts will
review a bill's purposes and its legislative history to divine
Congress' intent. When purposes conflict, the overall goals of the bill
will prevail. When wilderness and ecological restoration are
consistently listed last, as they are in S.268, a Court can be expected
to conclude the logging provisions take precedence.
In summary, the S.268 is a significant departure from traditional
wilderness bills. It contains several major precedent-setting
provisions potentially detrimental to national public lands management
that may be repeated in future bills. These include:
1) Localizing of National Forest management by private, local
entities for private profit. Other members of Congress may seek
to exploit similar special management for national public lands
in their states. This could represent the fragmentation of
National Forest system management and regulations to a serious
degree and ignores the basic principle that national public
lands belong to all Americans, not just those in nearby local
communities.
2) Mandated logging of National Forest land is an
unscientific override of current forest planning by
professional Forest Service staff. The logging mandates greatly
exceed the average levels since the 1950s on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge and are an unbelievable 14 times the sustainable
level recently calculated by the Forest Service. The mandated
logging area includes the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai
National Forest, where the endangered grizzly bear population
is nearly extinct due to very heavy logging and roadbuilding.
3) Numerous unfunded mandates and blank check spending
authority for the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the
Interior. Gives ``Resource Advisory Committees'' or ``Local
Collaboration Groups'' spending authority and allows funds to
be drawn from other forests and Forest Service regions to
implement S.268, pitting forests against another for funding.
This creates hard feelings and mistrust rather than
cooperation. Authorizes the Secretary to build heat and power
generating facilities, a new expansion of authority. Mandates
numerous studies, reports, plans and publications, and numerous
10 year contracts, competing with other forests in the region
for staff time, printing and distribution. Dedicating staff to
the numerous reports and planning removes them from other
management duties.
4) Contains several provisions that abrogate the Wilderness
Act by allowing non conforming uses including motorized access,
and other intrusions.
5) Releases numerous Wilderness Study Areas protected by law
under S. 393, sponsored by the late Senator Lee Metcalf (D-MT),
and releases BLM-administered Wilderness Study Areas that have
been protected for more than 30 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. If
you have any questions, feel free to contact me at
[email protected] or 406-396-0321.
______
Statement of Denise Boggs, Executive Director, Conservation Congress,
Livingston, MT
We are adamantly opposed to Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act. It sets a terrible precedent that mandates logging
directed by Congress rather than by the Forest Service. If this bill
passes other states will likely follow and the Forest Service will no
longer have any authority over public lands. The role of Congress is
not to manage public lands. In addition, as someone who personally
supported Senator Tester I am dismayed at how dishonest he has been
regarding the development of this bill. The process was exclusionary;
was not open or transparent; and the majority of the public knew
nothing about it until it was finished. Senator Tester has been
terrible on the environment and when he can't get what he wants he
attaches riders. I suspect he will do the same with FJRA. Mr. Tester is
attempting to appease rural voters who didn't support him and never
well, while going back on his word to those of us who did support him.
Regardless, FJRA is a bad bill and it should never see the light of
day. I hope we can count on the Committee to make certain it does not
pass.
______
Statement of Arlene Montgomery, Program Director, Friends of the Wild
Swan, Swan Lake, MT
Please accept into the hearing record the following comments on
Senate Bill S268, the ``Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2011''
introduced by Senator Jon Tester. Friends of the Wild Swan is a non-
profit environmental organization that has been involved in state and
federal projects and policy issues dealing with the protection and
restoration of Montana's aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems for over 24
years. We have serious concerns about S268 and the impacts this bill
will have on the management of federal lands.
S268 mandates logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai
National Forests at unsustainable levels. While the bill says that the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act will be followed it is counterintuitive
to mandate logging before an environmental analysis has been completed.
These forests are home to threatened and endangered species such as
grizzly bear, Canada lynx and bull trout as well as sensitive species
such as wolverine, northern goshawk and westslope cutthroat trout. This
bill puts the habitat needs of these species behind logging and road
building and facilitates the spread of noxious weeds.
Under the Endangered Species Act federal land management agencies
are charged with recovering threatened and endangered species. The
National Forest Management Act directs National Forests to develop
Forest Plans based on multiple factors including the needs of ESA
listed species and protecting water quality. By mandating a set acreage
to be logged this bill sets aside our bedrock environmental laws.
The ``wilderness'' proposed by S268 would be fragmented and
unconnected islands of largely ``rocks and ice,'' with no biological
integrity and no potential for sustaining biodiversity. The minimal
``wilderness'' designated would fail to protect different elevation
habitats and their dependent species with core areas, buffer zones, and
connecting biological corridors. The bill authorizes numerous actions
that are clearly incompatible with the 1964 Wilderness Act, including
motorized access into and through ``wilderness,'' military aircraft
landings, possible ``wilderness'' logging, and other intrusive
violations.
Management decisions on the National Forests affected by this bill
will be weighted heavily to local collaborative interests. The bill
ignores the fact that these public lands belong to ALL Americans, not
just those who live near them.
S268 will cost taxpayers by subsidizing ``below-cost'' timber sales
and biomass power plants. This ``logging bonus'' for a few timber
companies near the three National Forests will deny other federal lands
the financial resources for needed restoration activities.
The bill ignores the financial realities that the United States is
still in an economic downturn and a lumber ``depression.'' Demand for
timber and new home construction continues in a downward spiral.
Putting more timber on the market when there is no demand will further
depress prices placing more of a financial burden on taxpayers. The
United States government is deep in debt and cannot afford to subsidize
the timber industry at the expense of social security and medicare.
This bill increases spending by mandating below cost timber sales.
S268 specifically eliminates from mandated protection large
portions of the late Senator Lee Metcalf's wildlands legacy.
Congressionally-designated Wilderness Study Areas will be opened up for
roading, logging, and other development without any assessment of their
habitat values for wildlife. Roadless wildlands are scarce and once
developed their wild character is irretrievably lost.
Friends of the Wild Swan supports wilderness that fully complies
with the Wilderness Act and our country's environmental laws. We
believe that protecting biological diversity in the Northern Rockies is
paramount to recovering imperiled species and leaving a wildlands
legacy for future generations. S268 undermines our environmental laws
and fragments our precious wildlands. Please vote against this short-
sighted and damaging legislation. Thank you for considering our
comments.
______
Statement of Rick R. Sandru, President, Ruby Valley Stock Association,
Twin Bridges, MT
As President of the Ruby Valley Stock Association (RVSA) located in
Madison County Montana, I feel obligated to convey to this Committee
our opposition to S.268. RVSA does not believe additional wilderness is
needed or warranted and certainly do not feel our grazing interests are
protected in the scant verbiage pertaining to grazing that is included
in this bill.
RVSA is deeply concerned that if this bill passes as written
extreme environmental groups will sue to have cattle removed from
grazing in wilderness or severely restrict our management abilities. We
have no confidence in the ``strong language'' in the bill to protect
our right to graze. Let me remind you about strong language in
legislation ten years ago that called for thirty breeding pair or 300
wolves mainly confined to Yellowstone Park and if livestock predation
occurred wolves would be dealt with swiftly. Extremist groups have this
in court continually. We now have 2000 wolves or more and they still
don't have enough. Another example is the Missouri River Breaks
National Monument. Environmental groups are suing over original
management plans to remove cattle grazing and access rights previously
agreed to. Another case in the Gallatin Forest created a wilderness
area and snowmobiling was recognized as an historical use of the area.
A district judge recently sided with environmental groups denying
access to snowmobiles. Wilderness designation just gives these
extremist groups a leg up in their quest to eliminate man from the
landscape. We cannot give them that advantage.
RVSA believes that most people, including this committee, don't
realize what is at stake here or that the lands proposed for wilderness
do not even fit the definition of wilderness. RVSA is sickened that the
people of southwest Montana that make a living and recreate on these
lands are being sold out for Senator Tester's political paybacks.
Eight Ruby Valley ranching families comprise the RVSA, a closely
knit group of progressive stockmen that graze some of the finest
commercial cattle in the U.S. on the Upper Ruby Three Forks Allotment.
The proposed Snowcrest Wilderness would encompass half our grazing
allotment. We sternly reject the argument that these proposed
wilderness areas will protect watersheds or expand recreational
activities. RVSA is proud of its many accomplishments on the Three
Forks Allotment that do protect the resources. With the Forest Service,
the RVSA has implemented a very successful rest rotation grazing system
that ensures a healthy plant community and succulent fed for livestock
and wildlife, a massive water distribution system to disburse cattle
away from creeks and allow utilization of upland grasses, documented
improved riparian function and stream bank improvement, increased aspen
regeneration multi-agency hardened crossing and corral relocation
project to further reduce sediment in the Ruby River, voluntary
trailing guidelines, voluntarily agreed to embrace Fish Wildlife &
Parks reintroduction of Arctic Grayling to the Ruby River. This is the
only successful reintroduction effort to date. Grayling need extremely
cold and clean water to thrive. I ask you, how can designating
wilderness, basically no management, improve on this record of
exemplary management.
The proposed Snowcrest Wilderness will include 20 of our water
tanks, miles of pipeline, roughly 25 miles of seasonal roads used by
the public for hunting, wood gathering, camping or sightseeing and the
permittees to maintain this costly and critical infrastructure. Miles
of fence also needs constant repair and occasional replacement. Salt
and mineral needs to be scattered to distribute the cattle evenly and
to avoid death losses from larkspur poisoning. 250 pound protein tubs
are used to draw cattle to underutilized areas or in dry years to pull
the cows off the creeks to the uplands.
RVSA believes they provide a bargain to the American public by the
outstanding stewardship they provide both on the Three Forks allotment
and their deeded or ``base'' properties that lie in the Alder to Twin
Bridges area. Driving through this beautiful mountain valley it is
apparent the vast majority of open space is directly tied to summer
grazing in the Upper Ruby. It is imperative for the survival of our
ranching heritage in this valley that summer grazing in the Upper Ruby
is not jeopardized.
The public's loss of recreational access due to road closures would
be substantial, but would pale in comparison to the amount of
recreational opportunities on the base properties in the Ruby Valley
that could potentially be lost. If summer grazing is curtailed or
disallowed, these base properties would likely be sold or subdivided.
Net result--less open space--less recreational opportunities--less
wildlife.
Senator Tester's Jobs and Recreation Act is not a jobs or
recreation bill but a poorly disguised wilderness bill that was crafted
around the partnership plan promoted by Sun Mountain Lumber, Montana
Wilderness Association, Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation,
and a couple other lumber companies. Senator Tester ignored input from
the Madison/Beaverhead County Commissioners, ranchers, and local
outdoors associations. The counties that will bear the burden of
additional wilderness were totally left out of the process.
Roughly 600,000 acres in the Beaverhead/DeerLodge National Forest
are proposed wilderness. These areas are now managed for multiple use
so all Americans can enjoy and recreate on them and benefit from the
natural resources that they may provide. If they become wilderness, 97%
of the American public will not recreate and 100% of the American
public will not realize any benefit from natural resources harvested
from these lands.
This bill calls for treating 7,000 acres per year for ten years for
a total of 70,000 acres. Treating could be selective thinning, urban
fire hazard reduction, road reclamation or prescribed burns. It does
not mean merchantable timber will be harvested. I see no benefit to the
timber industry.
Stewardship contracting is mentioned by Tester as a dazzling new
way of doing business. In fact, stewardship contracting is a tool that
has been available to the forest service for years, but not often used.
To have a successful stewardship project you have to be working with a
product of high value. Timber prices are so low that after the
administration of a timber sale there is rarely money left over for
stewardship projects. The jobs portion of this bill could expire before
profitability returns to the timber industry.
The largest obstacle to managing our Forest Service lands is the
endless litigation by extremist groups and judges with an agenda. No
Senator Tester, I don't believe a judge will care if this is an act of
Congress. Montana has 15 wilderness areas comprising 3.4 million acres,
do we need more? To manage for healthy forests, the laws must be
changed so extreme groups cannot delay or dismantle management
activities in court. Second, they must not be reimbursed for legal
expenses. Third, we must get back to managing forests for multiple use.
Locking more land up as wilderness, effectively no management, is
exactly the wrong way to be headed.
______
Statement of Scott Bunge, Stevensville, MT, on S. 268
Four generations of my family have called Montana home and we've
all hunted, fished, recreated and enjoyed her enormous beauty. For
several of us, our livelihood was derived from the land and natural
resources. We love this place. We don't want to see Montana's land,
water, or air destroyed but our right to access public lands and its
resources must be protected.
In proposing S268, Senator Tester may be attempting to balance
protection, access, and economic benefit. It might be well intentioned
but we believe creating more wilderness and tighter federal control is
not the answer. With the federal government's obvious propensity to
manage-by-closure, common sense tells us that this law would probably
not result in enhanced access or economic benefit. History and common
sense tells us this law would simply result in another closure.
Further, there appears to be several legal issues with S268 making
the law unconstitutional as well as unwise. The attached document may
be of interest.
In spite of Senator Tester's claim, S268 does not provide the
management most Montanan's want. It is certainly not the approach our
family or friends want.
Thank you for your time.
______
Statement of Patti L. Rowland, Representing Beaverhead Water Company,
on S. 268
Please accept this letter as a comment to the Forest Jobs, and
Recreation Act of 2011 S268, on behalf of the Beaverhead Water Company
(hereinafter ``BHWC''). The BHWC, by and through the West Bench
Irrigation District, provide over 6,000 acres of land with water for
irrigation. The sources of water for irrigation are generally Birch
Creek, Willow Creek, and their tributaries with the various associated
reservoirs located in the East Pioneers. BHWC is opposed to designation
of the East Pioneers Wilderness Area included in S268.
The water language eventually included in S. 1470 was an attempt to
alleviate the concerns that BHWC had with a wilderness designation in
the East Pioneers. Although the language did not go far enough to
protect the historic rights of BHWC to access, inspect, operate,
maintain, repair and upgrade its water storage and water conveyance
systems, the language did provide some protections to the existing uses
of BHWC. The discretionary provisions in Section 204(1) of S268,
provide less than a minimum of protection needed by BHWC for its water
use, storage, and conveyance system; use which existed prior to the
Forest Service in this area.
S268 as written does not recognize existing State water rights,
water use, or the easements applicable to that use. Instead S268 puts
State based water right authority and access under the discretion of a
line officer. The 1964 Wilderness Act clearly states there are no
exemptions in the Act to exempt the Federal Government from State water
laws.
Apparently, the language now included in S268 is similar to
language in Idaho legislation. This language is not workable for
Montana, generally, and is not an acceptable situation for the BHWC as
it severely limits the existing and historic use of BHWC. BHWC would
strongly urge inclusion of the following specific language to S268 or
any other bill which designates wilderness:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting or
limiting in any manner Montana's authority or jurisdiction over
water resources. Congress expressly recognizes and confirms
that nothing in this act shall be construed to limit any water
rights arising under Montana law, or to affect the jurisdiction
of the state of Montana to allocate water resources associated
within any area designated under this act.
Nothing in this act shall affect in any manner the right to
use quantities of water under water rights arising under or
protected by state law. Such protection shall include the right
to divert and use water for beneficial use under state law, or
otherwise use water for beneficial purposes as determined under
state law. Such protection extends to rights to use water
existing on [effective date] and to those rights granted or
authorized by th e state under state law arising after
[effective date]. Such protection extends to the right to use,
maintain, construct, repair, and upgrade existing ditches, head
gates, conveyance systems of any type, dams, reservoirs, and
the ability to ingress, egress, and utilize motorized means for
these purposes is expressly protected and recognized.
Nothing in this act shall affect, preclude, or limit in any
manner construction and use of new water storage facilities or
access to same.
Beaverhead Water Company stores and utilizes water from Boot Lake,
May Lake, Chain Lake, Tub Lake, Pear Lake, Anchor Lake, Bond Lake, and
Deerhead Lake. In addition, BHWC has water rights from Bond Creek,
Birch Creek, and Willow Creek which are utilized for irrigation
purposes. These are headwaters that need protected from the devastation
that fire in a wilderness area could create. Removal of dead and
diseased timber from this area should be a priority.
S268 also ignores historic use by BHWC of motorized vehicles for
ingress and egress to its reservoirs and conveyance systems and makes
this use discretionary. BHWC must have access to its impoundments and
conveyance structure by motorized vehicle in the future. If BHWC is not
able to adequately maintain the safe operation of all of its structures
because the area is designated and managed as wilderness, someone other
than BHWC must accept the liability associated with not being able to
maintain the safe operation of the dams and reservoirs. BHWC should not
be required to get a permit for access and access should not be limited
to non-motorized use.
Finally, I express concern that there has been no public input or
local community input on this bill. Now the hearing is being held out
of the public view and without outside testimony. This action lacks
openness and transparency. We do, however, thank you for consideration
of these written comments.
______
Statement of Citizens for Balanced Use
Citizens for Balanced Use completed a legal review of S268 and has
found that it violates the following laws and our U.S. Constitution.
National Environmental Policy Act
National Forest Management Act
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act
Endangered Species Act
Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act
Data Quality Act
Council on Environmental Quality regulations
Administrative Procedure Act
Federal Advisory Committee Act
Separation of Powers requirements of the U.S. Constitution
Fifth Amendment to the U.S Constitution
Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
LEGAL DEFECTS IN S268
The Bill surreptitiously alters the Coordination requirements of
the Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
To the detriment of every county, city, and local district of
government in Montana, this Bill provides the federal agencies with a
means to evade and avoid the requirements in the Forest Management Act
and the National Environmental Policy Act that the agencies
``coordinate'' with local government.
A. The National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act mandates that the Secretary of
Agriculture ``Shall develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land
and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System,
coordinated with the land and resource management planning processes of
State and local governments and other Federal agencies.'' To local
governments this mandated coordination is critical. In 1982, the first
rules issued by the Secretary of Agriculture after the statutory
mandate was created, the Secretary directed Forest Service line
officers to assure that forest service personnel ``coordinate'' federal
planning efforts with local governments. 36 C.F.R. Section 219.7
provides:
``The responsible line officer shall coordinate regional and
Forest planning with the equivalent and related planning
efforts Of other Federal agencies, State and local governments
and the Indian tribes.''
The Secretary then defines what he means by ``coordinate'' by
requiring the following actions:
1. give early notice of preparation of federal plan;
2. review plans and policies of local government, the review
to include:
a. consider objectives of local government
b. assess interrelation of impacts between local and federal
plans and policies
c. determine how Forest should deal with the impacts
d. consider alternatives for resolution of conflicts between
local policies and federal
e. meet with local government at beginning of planning to
develop protocol for coordination
f. seek input from locals to resolve conflicts
g. monitoring and evaluation to consider impacts
This level of coordination is critical to local governments which
are responsible for the economic stability of public health and safety
of its constituents.
Senator Tester's Bill provides an escape mechanism for the Forest
line officers by requiring in section 103(c) that as to stewardship and
restoration projects, the Secretary shall coordinate with ``applicable
advisory committees or local collaborative groups''. There is no
mention in S 268 of the duty to coordinate with local government.
So, does this amount to a repeal of the National Forest Management
Act's requirement of coordination? The answer to the question is
debatable. It is a valid argument to say that under S 268 the Secretary
does not have to coordinate with local government as to any ``
restoration projects'' because S 268 specifically requires
``collaboration and consultation'' only with non-governmental
committees. Even those who would argue that S 268 does not strictly
repeal the coordination requirements of the Forest Management Act, must
admit that it provides ``weasel room'' for line officers to evade and
avoid the coordination requirements. The impact of this provision of S
268 strikes at the very heart of the protection to local government for
which counties and special interest government districts have worked so
hard for the past twenty years. Through coordination, local government
has been able to hold the agencies at bay when trying to put down local
ranchers and recreation users.
Whether intentionally, or accidentally, S 268 strikes a potentially
deadly blow to every local government associated with the national
forests subject to this Bill.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
Senator Tester's S 268 has the same impact on NEPA which provides
that ``it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practicable means, consistent with other essential
considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources...''
In bringing about this coordination, all federal agencies are
directed to cooperate with local government. 42 USC Section 4331 (a)
and (b).
S 268 either specifically amends NEPA as to ``restoration
projects'' in the wilderness areas designated by the bill, or provides
the evasive path for forest personnel to ignore and avoid the
coordination requirements.
Intentionally and maliciously, or unintentionally and ineptly, the
impact of S 268 is the same: the language of Section 103 (c) will undo
years of progress made by local governments to get the Forest Service
to the table on an equal discussion basis.
Senator Tester's Wilderness Bill, S. 268 Removes Management
Discretion Given to the Secretary by the National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and its predecessor acts
endow the Secretary of Agriculture with a vast amount of discretion to
plan for and administer the forests for the public good. The Act
provides that the Secretary shall take into account the newest and
highest quality information regarding management of the Forests. It
also provides that he will take input and advice from local government,
state government and all members of the public. There is no provision
of the Act that provides for the Secretary to just arbitrarily apply a
particular management technique to the exclusion of alternatives.
The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, of course,
provide that the Secretary will seek public input under NEPA before
adapting and applying a technique to the exclusion of others. In making
his decisions, he must take into consideration all management acts
relating to the forests, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water
and Clean Air Act and the Data Quality Act.
But, S. 268 just arbitrarily dictates to the Secretary that he WILL
apply each standard ``described in the inland native fish strategy
relating to the conservation and management of riparian habitat'' to
each restoration project. Section 104 (b) (1) (A & B). There is no
exception. It is a mandate, no matter what the Secretary might find
that would negate the usefulness of the standards.
Thus, the Senator, with limited input, in a bill written behind
closed doors and with input from a very select group of special
interests, has mandated the application of native fish strategy
REGARDLESS OF THE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT WHEN THE PROJECT
IS PLANNED----AND REGARDLESS OF THE DETERMINATION OF BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE---AND REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC INPUT.
This provision is not only contrary to the discretion granted by
the National Forest Management Act, it violates the National
Environmental Policy Act by evasion, and it violates the Separation of
Powers requirements of the United States Constitution.
As to the latter point, Congress is indeed the manager of the
federal lands including the forests. The Constitution so provides. But,
Congress can delegate, and has delegated, to the executive branch the
authority to manage the forests and other federal lands. That having
been done, Congress has no authority, under the separation of powers,
to meddle in the authority it has granted. Congress, no doubt, could
reclaim the authority it delegated. But, it cannot have it both ways.
It cannot delegate management authority, and then meddle by requiring
the managers to apply an arbitrary rule that negates the general
authority granted.
By requiring that the native fish strategy be applied, without
question and without regard to the circumstances, Congress would also
be taking away from local government access to management techniques
through coordination.
C. Senator Tester's Wilderness Bill denies due process of law by
allowing parties otherwise not having standing to become
parties to appeals and litigation
Section 103 (d) provides for the current court process for
``Administrative Review'' which is in place today. Anti access and
management organizations will continue to litigate timber projects. All
proposed stewardship contacts in S 268 will most likely continue to be
challenged in court.
S 268 also bestows standing on committee and organization members
who might have no standing at all. The Bill thus changes the process
that is available to adversely effected persons through the
Administrative Procedure Act and through the appellate rules of the
Service.
Due process of law guarantees to all citizens the protection of
statutory processes which have been established. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act, and under Administrative rules issued by
the Secretary, an appellant is entitled to a process uniquely styled to
his/her facts, and open to only those who have been previously
identified as having standing. This Bill provides standing to the
world, regardless of the issue and regardless of adverse impact.
D. Senator Tester's Wilderness Bill severely limits the full impact of
the National Environmental Policy Act
The Bill grants exclusive input to the special interest groups who
have helped the Senator to draft this Bill behind closed doors, without
public meetings or public hearings, without input from or coordination
with either the State or local government. This provision violates the
provisions of NEPA, the process established by Council on Environmental
Quality regulations, the coordination requirements of the Forest
regulations and National Forest Management Act, and the requirements of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act by allowing select special interest
groups to exert undue influence on the agency.
Subsection 103 (c) (1,2 & 3) further compounds the violation by
MANDATING that the Secretary ``consult with advisory committees or
local collaborative groups'' before any environmental analysis is
conducted to reduce conflict and expedite project implementation. This
provision also cuts out the entire rest of the public from any
meaningful input to and on the environmental issues and concerns
related to the project.
E. Senator Tester's Wilderness Bill violates the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution
Section 204 (c), (d), (f), (i), (l) (m) violates the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution by restricting private
property in such a way as to interfere with investment backed
expectations. The measuring test established by Penn Central
Transportation Company v. City of New York, provides that a taking can
occur when an investment backed expectation of a property owner is
taken or so severely restricted as to constitute a taking.
This Section places the use of private property totally in the
discretion of a line officer of the Forest Service--one of the least
qualified protectors of property interests in the world. It does not
provide for exclusion of private property from wilderness designations,
and it does not provide for payment for private property surrounded as
an in holding by the wilderness designation. Rather, it provides that
the Secretary shall provide ``adequate access to the private property
to ensure the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property by the
owner.''
The term ``adequate'' leaves it totally to the discretion of a line
officer as to what type of access to permit. It provides no basis for
the owner to have any input into the determination of ``adequate''
access; it provides no arbiter for determining whether the access
allowed is truly ``adequate''. it leaves it to a bureaucrat to
determine adequacy, and to determine when to change any definition of
access. It also leaves it to a line officer bureaucrat to determine
what is ``reasonable use and enjoyment'' of the owner's property.
Specifically in Section 204 (l), the Secretary or appointed line
officer determines whether to allow existing water rights to be
delivered to right holder. Line officer also determines whether
existing water impoundment and storage structures will be allowed to
remain in place or continue to be used by water right holder. No longer
would a property owner have a valid Montana State water right but this
right would be under the discretion of the line officer. The 1964
Wilderness Act clearly states there are no exemptions in the Act to
exempt the Federal Government from State water laws.
1964 WILDERNESS ACT
Sec 1133 use of wilderness areas (d)(6) State water laws exemption
``Nothing in this chapter shall constitute an express or implied claim
or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from
State water laws''.
Portions of Section 204 takes from the owner that element of
control of his property which would assure protection of his investment
backed expectation, and which would assure him any practical use of his
property. The section is a move by Congress to ``take'' control of an
owner's property, put it in the hands of a bureaucrat and make no
compensation to the owner.
This Bill in no way is comparable to the method of designating
wilderness in the Owyhee Public Lands Management Act passed in 2009. In
that bill, no private land was included in wilderness except on a
voluntary basis, with the owner agreeing to inclusion or, in the
alternative, receiving compensation for his property.
The spirit, and letter of the Fifth Amendment is violated by the
provisions of this section. It allows for a taking without compensation
of any type. It allows for that taking without even allowing a basis
for the owner to file a takings claim. The jurisdictional basis for
establishing a taking will always be held in abeyance by the Forest
Service's line officers through simple manipulation of access.
In providing a basis for depriving an owner of virtually all
practical use of his property, without establishing the base line for a
taking claim, the Bill deprives an owner of private property of due
process of law. The owner can seek, and should seek, compensation
pursuant to the Monterey Dunes Case in which the U.S. Supreme Court
allowed a land owner to sue for damages in a jury trial.
This is a blatant attack on the property rights of owners of
private property engulfed by wilderness decided on by select special
interest groups working with the Senator behind closed doors, outside
the public scrutiny.
F. Senator Tester's Wilderness Bill Evades the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Coordination Requirements of the National
Forest Management Act by Establishing Special Use Areas in
Sections 205-210
The Bill establishes special protective areas and recreation areas
in section 207 without any public input, meaningful or otherwise, in
violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Only a very select group of forest users were allowed to
participate in the drafting of this Bill. Neither the groups involved
in the drafting, nor the Senator himself, will attend public meetings
to discuss the contents of the Bill and answer questions regarding its
drafting and its purposes.
The policy which Congress itself established in the National
Environmental Policy Act has been violated by this Bill. In NEPA,
Congress declared it to be in the national interest to involve the
public through meaningful participation in reviewing and analyzing
proposals for land use projects. This Bill evades that policy
completely by arbitrarily designating special interest areas, the
boundaries thereof, and the rules for administration thereof.
Senator Tester, his staff, and his self appointed and designated
drafting organizations have refused to meet with multiple use
organizations, grazing organizations and all but a very limited
representation of timber and logging interests to even discuss the
contents of this Bill.
Public claims that this Bill is supported by and was drafted by a
great cross section of users of the forest lands are simply not
accurate. Local governments impacted by the special area designations
have been ignored and kept outside the circle of drafters. Montana
elected officials including commissioners, mayors, representatives and
senators have been ignored and kept outside the circle of drafters.
This is a special interest bill, designed to cater to and serve the
whims of a very select group of organizations.
Not only is the lawful policy of the National Environmental Policy
Act violated by the Bill, so is the statutory mandate that land use
decisions affecting local government be coordinated with those units of
local government. The counties and cities adversely impacted by the
Bill's designations and land use restrictions have been ignored in the
drafting of the Bill.
In short, this Bill represents a statement that Congress can ignore
policy and law which it has created. This Bill puts Congress itself
above the executive department and above the people of the United
States by violating statutes that bind the public, that bind local
governments, that bind private business.
G. Senator Tester's Wilderness Bill, S. 1470 violates the Tenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution By Restricting
Access of Public Safety and Health Emergency Services through
Memoranda of Understanding
The tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to
local jurisdictions the authority to exercise the police powers related
to public safety and health, without restriction by the federal
government. There is no provision in the Constitution which allows the
federal government, Congress or otherwise, to restrict access of law
enforcement authorities to carry out their duties to protect the public
health and safety.
For Congress to assert an authority to restrict access by the terms
of this wilderness bill is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.
The Congress oversteps its constitutional bounds by ignoring local
authorities in making sweeping land use designations which may hamper
provision of local police services to the citizens of a state. S 268
makes no mention or grants no authority to local governments to provide
access for health and safety.
H. S 268 violates the 1964 Wilderness Act
Sec. 1133. (d)(2) `` Use of wilderness areas such areas shall be
surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of
wilderness preservation by the United States Geological Survey and the
United States Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral values, if any,
that may be present; and the results of such surveys shall be made
available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress.''
Congress clearly intended for all mineral resources to me
inventoried and mapped prior to these lands inclusion into the
wilderness preservation system. Senator tester has repeatedly refused
to comply with this requirement under the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Professor Robin McCullogh from the Butte School of Mines is quoted
as saying ``to lock away land in wilderness before identifying the
location of mineral reserves present is like cutting off your nose
despite your face.''
The areas of the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest targeted by
Senator Tester for wilderness designations are known to be the most
mineral rich lands in the United States. Designation of wilderness
which would remove availability of these resources from the citizens of
the United States today and for future generations would pose a threat
to our national security.
______
State of Alaska,
Office of the Governor,
Juneau, AK, May 24, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate, 304
Darken Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate,
304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs
Protection Act (S. 730)
Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso, The State of
Alaska provides the following comments on the Southeast Alaska Native
Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act (S. 730) for the
subcommittee's hearing on May 25, 2011.
The State commends the subcommittee's attention to the important
issue of resolving Sealaska Corporation's land entitlement, due under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. Nearly 40
years since the passage of ANCSA, the equitable satisfaction of
Sealaska's remaining entitlement is long overdue.
It is the State's view that lands conveyed to Sealaska must be
suitable to meet its cultural, traditional, and economic needs. Lands
currently available to Sealaska are inadequate, particularly for
economic purposes. In contrast, the new acreage proposed under S. 730
offers greater timber harvest potential.
Southeast Alaska's remaining timber industry, which is a vital
sector of the economy, is on the verge of collapse. Currently, the
industry is at its lowest level of production since Alaska became a
state in 1959. This is due in large part to the fact that only 144,000
acres of the 17 million acres in the Tongass are currently considered
``roaded suitable'' by the Forest Service. The remaining timber
industry of Southeast Alaska relies on Forest Service timber contracts;
contracts provided by the State of Alaska, which manages limited State
lands in Southeast; and harvests on Sealaska's lands. Combined timber
from these three sources supports the industry's logging, manufacturing
and export infrastructure. Each of the timber sources is critical to
the log supply and stability to the current industry, and allowing the
industry to rebuild and create new jobs in the region. The population
for virtually every village and community in Southeast Alaska has
fallen over the last ten years. This alarming trend is forecast to
continue over the next 25 years, unless significant steps are taken
now.
Sealaska states that without the passage of legislation, the
corporation will run out of commercially viable timber to harvest from
its lands and will be forced to shut down its timber operations in
2012. In contrast, with passage of this legislation, Sealaska forecasts
being able to support a sustainable forestry program from its lands,
indefinitely, allowing the corporation to continue its essential
economic contribution to the region.
Furthermore, the proposed selections contain stands of young-growth
forest, whereas the remaining valuable timber areas in current
selections include only old growth forest. The ratio of young to old
growth in the proposed selections will help accelerate the region's
transition from old growth to young growth harvest and encourage
investment in domestic wood processing and bioenergy facilities.
The State endorses the objectives of S. 730 and recognizes the
improvements to this latest version of the Sealaska legislation.
However, certain provisions in this legislation raise concerns. The
State's primary concerns are described below.
First, we oppose the designation of new conservation lands (151,565
acres in this bill). The lands identified in this section already are
provided with sufficient protection under the current Tongass Land
Management Plan. Placing these lands in a more restrictive land use
designation further reduces the lands available for economic
development and iobs and upsets the balance reached as part of the
Tongass Land Management Plan.
Second, in certain circumstances, 5.730 raises concerns regarding
public access across conveyances. Certain provisions in the bill lack
standards for regulating public access, would delegate to Sealaska
broad discretion to determine when and where public easements are
necessary, and would preclude challenges to decisions by Sealaska
regarding public access. In this regard, it does not appear that
Section 17(b) of ANCSA applies in all circumstances.
Third, some concern persists regarding the large number of small
parcels involved in the bill. For example, certain local communities
object to sites proposed by Sealaska. The inclusion of strong
provisions related to public access would significantly diminish our
concern.
Fourth, the State questions the puipose of language proposing to
terminate restrictive covenants on historic and cemetery sites. This
would represent a fundamental change to how the newly selected, as well
as previously conveyed sites are treated under ANCSA. We believe the
relevant ANCSA language, which applies to all regional corporations,
strikes a reasonable balance between site protection and possible uses.
Fifth, the State would like clarification that parcel transfers
will not disrupt the Division of Forestry's beach log salvage program
for most of the coastline from Dixon Entrance to Cape Yakataga. If the
selected upland parcels are transferred from federal ownership to
Sealaska Corporation and are within an established Beach Log Salvage
Area, we believe Sealaska Corporation should continue the tradition of
granting permission to recover logs in the area between the mean high
tide line and mean higher high tide line with no associated charges.
Finally, S. 730 proposes to transfer roads to Sealaska for timber
harvesting and other development and a right to construct a log storage
facility on state tidelands, apparently without the requirement of a
State tidelands permit. It is important that these roads and future
improvements are available for other timber owners to use including the
State, the Alaska Mental Health and University of Alaska land trusts,
other Native corporations, and private landowners.
The State requests clarification that a State tidelands permit is
required for log transfer facilities. The State of Alaska is eager to
work with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator
Murkowski, and Sealaska to address our concerns. Thank you for the
oppornmity to comment on S.730. We respectfully request that this
letter be included in the hearing record.
Sincerely,
John W. Katz,
Director of State/Federal Relations and Special Counsel to the
Governor.
______
Statement of Owen Graham, Executive Director, Alaska Forest
Association, on S. 730
My name is Owen Graham. I am executive director of the Alaska
Forest Association. The AFA is the statewide association representing
companies engaged in forest practices including support companies. We
have 115 members and represent timber companies, loggers, trucking and
towing companies, suppliers, and other members who have a stake in the
future of a vital and hopefully healthy timber economy in Alaska.
AFA strongly supports the passage of S. 730 without delay. Passage
of this bill is critical to the future of our remaining industry.
Alaska Native timber is in decline in part because ANCSA land
entitlement has not been fulfilled, even though ANCSA was passed over
three decades ago. The Native lands represent only about 3% of the land
in Southeast Alaska, but Sealaska's timber operations, currently
support about 40% of the forest industry employment in the region
because of the inappropriate reductions in timber harvest from federal
lands.
Drastic reductions in the federal timber sale program since 1990,
after the Tongass Timber Reform Act was enacted, have been disastrous
for our industry and our communities. The federal lands comprise about
94% of the total land in the region and, as a result of the dramatic
decline in federal timber sales; our industry has declined over 90%. If
Sealaska is unable to continue their forestry operation, we will not be
able to maintain much of our industry support infrastructure--
transportation companies, fuel barges, equipment suppliers, etc.
Even though the Forest Service has a timber plan in place which
claims to provide up to 267 million board feet annually, the agency has
only offered about 15 mmbf of new timber sales annually. Because the
timber sale program on federal lands is so unreliable, it is critical
that private timber be available to support our industry. In most
states, there is a mix of federal, state, and private timber which
provides more opportunity to compensate for periodic declines in the
federal timber sale program. We do not have that diversity of land
ownership in Southeast Alaska, but it is vitally needed. This
legislation will move the region a little closer to balance.
From today's struggles described above, AFA hopes our industry can
be restored to a level closer to what we had in 1990.That is why the
passage of this bill is so vital and so timely, and why this Committee
and Congress need to act immediately.
Please do not be persuaded by those who claim the passage of this
bill will threaten wildlife viability or plant diversity. This is
simply not correct. There are millions of acres under complete
protection in the Tongass including nearly 7 million acres of
wilderness or legislated LUD II areas where development is statutorily
prohibited. These legislatively set-aside areas include about 2 million
acres of commercial timberland. The Tongass Land Management Plan
administratively sets aside more than 3 million additional acres of
commercial timberland. The commercial lands that are the subject of
this legislation total less than 85 thousand acres--less than 2% of the
commercial timberlands in Southeast Alaska.
Sealaska is a good steward for their lands. They comply with the
State Forest Practices Act regulations and they put an effort into
managing their young-growth timber for the future. In addition, their
lands are managed to allow timber, wildlife and fish to all prosper on
the same acres. I have seen this with my own eyes.
Some of those who speak against this legislation are the same
people that have used administrative appeals, litigation and political
pressure to drive down the timber supply from federal lands.
A number of small communities have expressed concerns about
potential impacts on the timber supply for local processors. Further,
these communities fear a loss of recreational and subsistence access to
the lands that Sealaska has selected. Sealaska has addressed these
concerns; land selections have been modified to avoid the most
contentious areas and Sealaska has agreed to provide public access to
their lands. Further, the Forest Service timber sale plans for these
areas indicate no conflict over the next few years and the agency has
ample opportunity to adjust the forest plan to account for potential
future timber sale impacts. After all, the forest plan has about three
million acres of commercial forestland held in reserve that could be
put to use if needed.
Fish streams, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities are
already well protected in this region; what is not assured is the
future of our timber industry. We have lost 90% of our employment due
primarily to a decline in the availability of timber from the federal
lands in the region. We cannot afford to reduce the timber supply from
private lands as well.
Sealaska has agreed to provide access to their lands for both
subsistence and recreational hunting and fishing and Sealaska's
operations will provide continued jobs and other economic benefits to
both regional and local communities.
This bill does not finalize the total acres that Sealaska will
receive under ANSCA, so we also recommend that the Committee instruct
the BLM to work with Sealaska to negotiate the final entitlement.
However, the AFA does have suggested changes to the bill in the
Senate. AFA strongly urges that the Committee adopt the recommendations
of the State of Alaska to eliminate the ``new conservation areas''
which are in the draft bill. These are not necessary and will provide
very negative effects on the ability of the AFA and its members to
conduct timber operations in these areas. Each of the areas is
sufficiently managed under existing state and federal law. As with the
State, AFA does not support the designation of ``new conservation
lands.''
Additionally, the AFA strongly urges the deletion of any new ``100
no cut buffer'' on any streams conveyed to Sealaska. These will b e
private lands and the State Forest Practices Act fully protects these
streams with its existing management regime. It is unnecessary and an
unfunded mandate for Congress to impose this additional burden on the
State and a private landowner. This provision should be deleted from
the final bill.
Thank you again. The AFA urges immediate passage of this bill to
help keep our industry alive and our communities healthy.
ATTACHMENT.--REGIONAL IMPACTS
Sealaska employment and its contractor employment combined
is the largest for-profit sector employer in Southeast Alaska.
Many Southeast communities, including Juneau, experience
some level of economic impact from Sealaska timber harvest
operations.
In 2008 Sealaska Corporation, Sealaska Timber Corporation
and Sealaska Heritage Institute spend $45 million in Southeast
Alaska.
Sealaska and its contractors directly employed 363 workers
in 2008
Including both direct and indirect employment, Sealaska-
related employment totaled nearly 490 workers and $21 million
in payroll in 2008.
Summary
The timber industry and the communities in Southeast Alaska
need the continued economic activity provided by Sealaska's
operations.
The only impacts on the federal timber supply for local
sawmills in the next 5-years are two commercial thinning
projects proposed on Kosciusko Island (both of which have
questionable economic viability). Beyond the next 5-years,
there is a potential 2% impact, but that impact can easily be
avoided by minor schedule changes.
We need to sustain all of our timber employment--both from
private and public lands--and there is more than adequate
timber available to do so. The maximum timber harvest rate on
the federal timberlands in Southeast Alaska over the next 100-
years would still leave about 90% of the existing old-growth
commercial timberlands untouched.
______
Alaska Outdoor Council,
Anchorage, AK, May 24, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
RE: Senate Bill 730--Transfer of National Forest Lands to Sealaska
Corporation
Dear Senator Bingaman and Members of the Senate Natural Resources
Committee, As the largest statewide outdoors organization in Alaska,
since before statehood, the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) advocates for
equal access for all Alaskans to public resources. AOC's memberships,
of over 10,000 Alaskans, are dependent on regulations that allow public
access to federal lands. The ``Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization and Jobs Protection Act'', S.730 is an unwarranted attempt
by the, for profit, Sealaska Corporation to seize National Forest Lands
that have been designated as multiple-use through a laborious public
process.
Transfer of lands selected by the Sealaska Corporation in the 2008
letter to Ms Ramona Chinn, Deputy State Director, Conveyance
Management, can be achieved without further federal legislation.
Section 403 of the ``Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004''
established a deadline of June 10, 2008 for Alaska Native Corporations
to select remaining entitlement. Sealaska Corporation complied and
submitted prioritized land selections. AOC finds no compelling reason
to open up further amendments to the ``Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act of 1971'' (ANCSA) in order to complete Sealaska's land conveyances.
S.730 has the potential of igniting years of further ANCSA amendments
and possible litigation regarding land conveyances already agreed upon
by the other Alaska Native Corporations created by ANCSA. Such actions
could lead to years of negotiations and cost to individuals, public
conservation organizations, and the State of Alaska as it tries to
complete ANCSA lands transfers once and for all.
Alaska's congressional delegation continues to ignore the concerns
of outdoors people and the residents of coastal communities in
southeast Alaska by re-introducing legislation that was strongly
opposed in 2010, S.881. The divisiveness among Alaskans created by the
introduction of S.730 far outweighs the economic advantages that could
be realized by shareholders in the Sealaska Corporation. AOC does see
merit in having BLM complete the transfer of the remaining ANCSA lands
to the Sealaska Native Corporation pursuant to the Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act of 2008.
Sincerely,
Rod Arno,
Executive Director.
Bill Iverson,
President.
______
Statement of Mike Daulton, Vice President of Government Relations,
National Audubon Society, on S. 730
The National Audubon Society opposes S. 730 as the legislation is
presently proposed.
S. 730 is a controversial proposal that would allow the Sealaska
Corporation to select and take title to valuable lands within the
Tongass National Forest that are currently open to the public for
fishing, hunting, and recreation. Much of the land sought by Sealaska
would be subject to intensive clear-cut logging. Although a relatively
small total percentage of the forest acreage has been logged on the
Tongass National Forest, half or more of the large-tree old growth
forest has already been logged in Southeast Alaska. The very largest
trees--the individual ``giants'' greater than 10 feet in diameter--were
largely eliminated in the last century. Forest stand diversity in the
Tongass National Forest has already been substantially altered due to
past logging.
The National Audubon Society fully respects the right of the
Sealaska Corporation to obtain its full land entitlement as provided
for by law under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and
supports the prompt conveyance by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
of the lands already selected by Sealaska Corporation. S. 730 is not
needed to satisfy Sealaska Corporation's entitlement and would convey
public lands in the Tongass National Forest from scores of new areas
ranging in size from a few acres to several thousands of acres and
create numerous land use conflicts with local communities and other
forest stakeholders.
All aboriginal Alaska Native land claims were settled under ANCSA,
historic legislation that required a complicated balancing of private
and public interests. S. 730 would bypass ANCSA for the benefit of a
single, private for-profit business, the Sealaska Corporation. S. 730
would provide the Sealaska Corporation a unique ability to obtain
dozens of large and small parcels of high-value public lands
strategically sited throughout the Tongass National Forest in Southeast
Alaska.
Sealaska has targeted some of the most biologically
productive public lands in the Tongass for logging and other
kinds of development, including some inventoried roadless
areas. Lands that Sealaska Corporation seeks to obtain includes
areas that are heavily used and highly valued as public lands
by southeast Alaska residents, commercial fishermen, local
outfitters/guides, and visitors to Alaska's Inside Passage.
No further Congressional action is needed for Sealaska to
obtain its land entitlement. In fact, Sealaska Corporation has
already made its final land entitlement selections of
approximately 65,000 acres with the BLM. Sealaska Corporation
is itself responsible for the delay in acquisition of its
remaining entitlement as it has asked the BLM to hold off on
conveyance of its remaining land selections while it seeks to
get more valuable lands by lobbying Congress.
Sealaska has previously received a significant claims
settlement. Sealaska received a substantial settlement under
ANCSA, including more than $90 million and approximately
354,000 acres of land to be selected in ``compact'' and
``contiguous'' tracts within the vicinity of nine Native
villages in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska's past selections have
included large tracts of valuable old growth timber that have
since been harvested.
Sealaska supported designation of the land selection areas
that it now seeks to modify. Sealaska Corporation supported
legislation that established the selection areas that the
corporation is now seeking to modify. As reported by Alaska
Congressman Don Young, the selection areas established in 1976
``embodies a compromise negotiated and supported by Sealaska,
the State of Alaska, Native villages in the region and various
environmental groups.'' (Congressional Record, Dec. 16, 1975)
The land selection rights Sealaska Corporation now seeks to
change are exactly what the corporation requested previously.
Sealaska now wants to override ANCSA so the corporation can
select more valuable lands in a combination of large and small
parcels scattered across the Tongass National Forest.
S. 730 would establish a new precedent for the privatization
of public lands. As proposed, the legislation could predictably
result in additional small parcel claims on public lands being
proposed throughout Alaska by other Alaska Native Corporations.
The lands that Sealaska has proposed to obtain are
substantially more valuable than the lands it is entitled to
under current law. The proposed acquisition is not based on a
value-for-value exchange of the lands currently selected by
Sealaska Corporation. The lands that Sealaska Corporation now
seeks are disproportionately valuable relative to the forest
overall including old growth timber values that are
substantially greater than the forest average.
In conclusion, S. 730 would severely impact the national interest
in the balanced management and conservation of public resources within
the Tongass National Forest and should not be enacted.
______
Statement of Clarice Johnson, Sitka, AK
I am a Sealaska shareholder and a member of the Sitka Tribes of
Alaska and I am writing to oppose the Sealaska Lands Bill (S.703 and HR
1408). Please accept this testimony as part of the official record.
Sealaska has created a bill that is causing division across
Southeast Alaska. By selecting lands which are most valuable for local
residents for fishing, hunting and recreation and with no guarantees
for continued access to these lands this bill is causing unnecessary
turmoil.
Sealaska has a history of poor land management and also is often
insensitive to need the local communities and tribes. There is a
history of conflict between Sealaska and tribes in Southeast Alaska. In
the 1980's, residents of Hoonah protested Sealaska logging of the land
surrounding their village. Residents of Kake won a lawsuit against
Sealaska valued at over $30 million, in part to recover damages for
misrepresentation and fraud and to rescind and/or reform multimillion-
dollar timber sales transactions. Currently the tribal organizations of
Kake and Craig are on record opposing the Sealaska selections of
cultural sites near their villages.
Recently Sealaska has been referring to its shareholders as
``tribal member shareholders'' in an attempt to blur the lines between
a for profit corporation and tribal governing body in the minds of the
public and elected officials. Sealaska is a corporation in name and
spirit and should never be confused with a tribe.
I cannot state this strongly enough. Sealaska does not speak for
all Alaska Natives living in the Tongass. Villages have tribal bodies
which address their individual concerns. Sealaska's mandate is to make
a profit, which can conflict with what is best for towns and villages
in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska has developed a voting system which
ensures that the current board members are kept in power. Many Sealaska
shareholders are intimidated by the power Sealaska wields. They are
reluctant to speak out against Sealaska, for fears that their children
may be denied Sealaska college scholarships. Whether this fear is real
or perceived, the silencing effect is the same. Certainly Senator
Kookesh's behavior in Craig, Alaska in 2010, shows the lengths Sealaska
is willing to go to obtains the results they want.
Sealaska has portrayed this bill as a native rights issue. By using
this strategy, it allows supporters to dub any opponents of the bill as
racist. Many Southeast residents who care deeply about the land are not
comfortable speaking out on this issue due to the inflammatory nature.
There has not been a Sealaska board member from Sitka in decades,
even though we are the 3rd largest city in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska
did not consult with the Sitka Tribes of Alaska prior selecting
cultural sites near Sitka. Sealaska has not had any economic presence
in Sitka, and the City of Sitka Assembly passed on May 24, 2011
``RESOLUTION NO. 2011-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH
OF SITKA OPPOSING PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION RELATED TO
SEALASKA CORPORATION ANCSA LAND SELECTION TO THE EXTENT THE
BILLS PRIVATIZE VALUABLE AND POPULAR PUBLIC LANDS WITH
OUTSTANDING SUBSISTENCE, RECREATION AND ECONOMIC VALUE LOCATED
IN OR NEAR CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA, AND RENDER THOSE LANDS
INACCESSIBLE TO AVAST MAJORITY OF SITKA'S CITIZENRY
Sealaska representatives promised over 2 years ago to consult with
the mayor of Sitka and the City Assembly as the legislation moved
along. This promise was not kept.
SACRED AND HISTORIC SITES
This bill essentially hands Sealaska a 3,600 acre shopping basket
in which to put our most treasured public lands and privatize them. The
Southeast Alaska topography concentrates use in limited areas and the
bill would allow Sealaska to select lands carte blanche and without
public comment. Sacred sites are best protected under the current
federal guidelines with the government to government relationship with
the local tribes.
While Sealaska may say that they will allow access to their lands
once privatized, this is contrary to their policy stated on their
website which states.
COMMERCIAL AND NON-SHAREHOLDER ACCESS
``Access and usage of Sealaska Corporation property for any
commercial use and for any non-shareholders requires prior written
authorization. When authorization is granted, Sealaska will place
necessary conditions to protect all natural and cultural resources and
the safety of those using our property. Sealaska is not obligated to
provide access to non-shareholders and may deny access to our property
at our discretion. ''
Sealaska General Counsel, Jaleen Araujo is on record stating that
access will be allowed on a ``case by case basis''.
Although as a shareholder, I may be eligible for special access to
the many fishing, hunting and recreation areas which will be selected
by Sealaska as sacred or historical sites, this brings me no pleasure.
My wish is to retain open public access, so I can enjoy them alongside
all my neighbors. The only way this will happen is if you vote no on
Sealaska Lands Bill (S.703 and HR 1408).
______
Statement of Judy Magnuson, Secretary, Port Protection Community
Association, Port Protection, AK
Port Protection Community Association is on record as being
strongly opposed to S730, which will privatize already encumbered
public lands, and give them to a private corporation for their
exclusive use. Despite the outcry from many of Southeast Alaska's
citizens, both native and non native, public resolutions and opposition
from many communities, opposition from sportsman's groups, guide
hunters, tourist groups, fishermen and fishing associations, National
and Alaskan Cave groups. Fish and Game Officials, the USFS, and BLM.
Despite all this opposition, Sealaska and our Senators are still
supporting this bad legislation, for a Private Corporation that has
invested heavily in their campaigns.
To also include the title of `Jobs Protection', in light of the
jobs this legislation has the potential to negatively impact is
misleading. Though it sounds good on the surface it is only protecting
a few hundred jobs that Sealaska says they will lose if they don't get
their land exchange. In fact Sealaska will still get their land despite
this legislation, and if they take care of it instead of abusing it
like they did with the last 291,000 acres, they should still produce
those jobs.
This legislation is also unfair to the taxpayers who have paid for
the infrastructure, maintenance, thinning of second growth, expensive
roads, and years of forest planning. Many communities such as ours have
invested decades in our surrounding forest plans, in countless meetings
with the USFS, protecting valuable wildlife habitat from clear cut
logging. Much of this valuable timber is still here today because
communities fought for it during the time of the 50 year timber
contracts, this legislation aims to wipe out all the work of thousands
of public citizens and the communities they represent.
Salmon is truly Southeast Alaska's greatest resource, salmon
habitat has been hard hit over the years from timber harvest. Streams
rely on the forest canopy sheltering the streams to keep them cool
during summer drought and hot weather, both situations we see more
often of late. Timber harvest on Karst land around Salmon streams is
particularly destructive. There are salmon streams and karst included
in some of these selections. Salmon streams in Karst cannot be
protected by stream buffers as the debris from logging is carried under
ground for many miles, clogging and plugging up the entire hydrological
area and negatively impacting the streams ability to support a healthy
fish population. Our community is primarily a fishing community with a
strong subsistence tradition in our surrounding forest, the impact of
this legislation on fish and wildlife habitat is of particular concern.
These are things that should be determined by experts in the field ,
NOT by legislators in Washington D.C.
The significant loss of Old Growth Reserves included in this
legislation could trigger the Endangered Species Act. These reserves
were created in response to species that were petitioned to be included
in the lists, and were only rejected because of planning by the USFS to
provide habitat needs with these Old Growth Reserves. Lands in this
legislation have some of the highest value old growth forests, wildlife
habitat, and karst formations in Southeast Alaska .
This legislation is not based on a equal exchange. Besides the
inclusion of valuable infrastructure, paid for by the taxpayer.
Valuable old growth and wildlife habitat and fish streams. Work done
for decades on second growth stands, intended for small mills on POW
Island, to produce jobs in the future are at risk. A professional
assessment was called for last year of the various lands in this
legislation by the agencies involved, to determine how this legislation
would impact fisheries, wildlife, jobs, forest planning, subsistence,
recreation and communities. In this legislation Sealaska Corporation is
trying to get what they are not entitled to, land already encumbered by
others, infrastructure paid for by others and the work of others. To
allow them to just select wherever they want after 40 years have gone
by is wrong and we are strongly oppose to it.
This legislation will also set a precedent in the future for giving
public lands away to private corporations. Many communities were
concerned with this precedent setting possibility during Senator
Murkowski's meetings last year, and even though the Senate
representative assured all present that this would not be so, Ms
Kookesh Araujo stated in the Wrangell meeting, that if this bill passes
it could serve as precedent in the future for other Native lands
issues. Are we to have this same fight into perpetuity? Will we have to
always be on the look out for any corporation that has the money to
promote legislation in it's favor and at the expense of the public and
taxpayers? We have jobs to do and business to attend to, we cannot
spend years fighting off corporate influence and incursion such as this
without it taking it's toll.
Port Protection Community is opposed to this legislation for the
above reasons and many others. This legislation is very complex, with
many possible negative side effects. The lack of community and public
support being just a part of it. Without this legislation Sealaska will
still have their land they have their 80,000 acres already selected
within their chosen boxes, they will still have their other 291,000
acres previously harvested, and their other investments and no bid
contracts. If this legislation is passed, the people and communities
will never have their land back, taxpayer investments will be given
away. Vital habitat for fish and wildlife will be lost as Sealaska
clear cuts valuable Old Growth Reserves, and ship's the timber and jobs
overseas.
______
Resource Development Council,
Anchorage, AK, May 23, 2011.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Senator, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Supporting Sealaska Corporation's Land Entitlement Legislation,
S.730
Dear Senator Murkowski: The Resource Development Council is writing
to express its support for S. 730, the Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act.
RDC is a statewide, non-profit, business association comprised of
individuals and companies from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, timber,
tourism and fisheries industries. Our membership also includes Native
regional and village corporations, local governments, organized labor
and industry support firms. In fact, all of Alaska's 13 Native Regional
Corporations are members of RDC. Our mission is to help grow Alaska's
economy through the responsible development of the state's natural
resources.
S. 730 is the result of more than 225 community meetings and
reflects the needs and concerns of Southeast Alaska residents. RDC
appreciates the efforts of the Alaska Congressional Delegation to
fulfill the 40-year old promise of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) and convey to Sealaska Corporation its final 85,000 acres
of land.
In 1971, Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the
aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to their traditional homelands by
authorizing the establishment of Alaska Native corporations to receive
and manage lands and funds awarded in settlement of the claims. The
purposes of ANCSA were not only to settle the land claims of Alaska
Natives, but also to provide them with a means to pursue economic
development and create sustainable economies for the benefit of
Alaska's Native people. However, more than 35 years after the passage
of ANCSA, the land conveyances have yet to be completed.
Since 1971, many Alaska Native corporations have become successful
and powerful economic engines within their regions and throughout the
State of Alaska. Sealaska is the single largest private employer in
Southeast Alaska, providing hundreds of part-time and full-time jobs
annually, and contributing as much as $90 million each year to the
Southeast Alaska economy. Sealaska also provides a significant benefit
to Alaska Natives across the state through its annual 7(i) revenue
sharing contributions, which have totaled over $300 million.
In recent years, Sealaska has engaged in a comprehensive land
entitlement and conservation initiative, allowing it to complete its
land entitlement by making cultural and economic land selections
outside of original ``withdrawal areas.'' ANCSA limited Sealaska land
selections to withdrawal areas surrounding certain Native villages in
Southeast Alaska. The problem is that in Sealaska's case, there are no
lands remaining in these withdrawal areas that meet the corporation's
traditional, cultural, or socioeconomic needs. Forty percent of the
original withdrawal areas are salt water. Selection from the withdrawal
areas would not fulfill the promise of ANCSA--to create sustainable
economies for the Native people of Southeast Alaska.
In return for selecting lands outside the withdrawal areas,
Sealaska would allow removal of the encumbrance created by the
withdrawal of lands for Alaska Native selection in Southeast Alaska.
These lands have significant public value as 85 percent are roadless
areas containing some of the highest value intact watersheds important
to local communities, have over 112,000 acres of productive old-growth
timber and 125,000 acres of core biological and high value areas.
Benefits of this legislation to the federal government are clear.
Passage will enable the federal government to complete its statutory
obligation to the Natives of Southeast Alaska, as promised under ANCSA.
Sealaska would relinquish selection rights on 327,000 acres of land in
the original withdrawal areas, which results in management efficiency
and certainty for the U.S. Forest Service. Completion of ANCSA
conveyances would also be significant for the Bureau of Land
Management.
Benefits to others are also clear. For Alaska Natives throughout
Alaska, sustainable Sealaska timber operations means continued revenue
sharing distributions to other Alaska Natives under ANCSA Section 7(i).
For some Alaska Native corporations, 7(i) revenues are vital to their
survival. For supporters of roadless designations, Sealaska would
relinquish selection rights in areas that are largely roadless and of
high value fish and wildlife habitat. More than 70 percent of the acres
identified in the bill for selection are in roaded areas. Most
importantly, the legislation fulfills Sealaska's final entitlement of
85,000 acres--no more land than is originally owed to the corporation
under ANCSA.
If Sealaska does not receive conveyance of all of the lands to
which it is entitled in the near term, the primary economic activity of
Sealaska will soon cease, which will impact Southeast Alaska's Native
people, the Southeast Alaska economy, and Alaska Native corporations
throughout the state that have come to rely upon Sealaska's 7(i)
contributions.
The Resource Development Council strongly supports the enactment by
the United States Congress of S.730 to complete Sealaska's ANCSA land
entitlement to allow the corporation to continue to help meet the
economic needs of our Native people and their corporations throughout
Alaska. Moreover, the Alaska Federation of Natives and the CEOs of all
of Alaska's regional Native corporations endorse Sealaska's land
legislation.
Thank you for introducing S. 730 and standing up for the Native
people of Southeast Alaska. RDC stands ready to assist your efforts in
Congress on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Carl Portman,
Deputy Director.
______
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council,
Juneau, AK, June 9, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate, 304
Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate,
304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs
Protection Act (S.730)
Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso: We understand that
the official hearing record remains open until June 9, 2011, following
the Subcommittee hearing on S.730 held May 25, 2011. We respectfully
request that the following testimony and attached supporting material
be added to the Subcommittee's official record for S.730 and shared
with all the members of the Subcommittee.
The day following your Subcommittee hearing, Chairman Don Young of
Alaska held a hearing in the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native
Affairs on the House-version of the Sealaska lands bill, H.R. 1408. At
that hearing, Chairman Young leveled some outrageous charges at SEACC--
all of which were wrongheaded. As we noted in our Supplemental
Statement on H.R. 1408, Chairman Young's tirade was eerily reminiscent
of the conspiracy theories alleged by Alaska's Congressional Delegation
and the timber industry back in 1995 as part of an all-out attack
during the 104th Congress on the Tongass Timber Reform Act, Pub. L.
101-626, 104 Stat 4426-35 (1990) (hereinafter ``Tongass Reform
Law'').\1\ Given the changes in Senate membership, most of the leaders
in this landmark legislative effort are no longer serving in the U.S.
Senate. Please accept copies of our Supplemental Statement on H.R. 1408
and accompanying materials, along with this testimony for the official
hearing record on S.730.\2\ We hope these materials set the record
straight and help educate Subcommittee members about the nationally and
internationally significant Tongass National Forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In total, beginning in the fall of 1994 until the end of 1996,
the Alaska Delegation held 15 hearings on 17 pieces of legislation
aimed at rolling back the Tongass Reform Law, increasing clearcutting,
and giving away the Tongass.
\2\ Instead of including our statement on H.R. 3659 as we did in
SEACC's Supplemental Statement on H.R. 1408, the version of SEACC's
Attachment K submitted here for the Senate Subcommittee's official
hearing record on S.730, is SEACC's July 10, 1996 hearing statement on
S.1877, the Senate companion to H.R. 3659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of everything said at the Senate hearing, the exchange between
Senator Murkowski and Jaeleen Araujo, Sealaska Vice President and
General Counsel, regarding whether S.730 would ``somehow or other this
open[s] the door under ANCSA for the other 11 Alaska Native
Corporations to come back in and basically reselect . . . '' is most
telling. See Hearing Webcast at 159:15--159.24. Ms. Araujo's response
was, at best, inconsistent. She first stated ``I don't think that
allowing us to go outside those withdraw areas opens up some box for
other communities.'' Id. at 160.28--160.34. Next, she said ``I also
would submit that if other regions have similar inequalities or
problems in their region then they should present those to Congress and
have a similar public process.'' Finally, when Senator Murkowski asked
whether ``Sealaska is the last Native corporation to, to finalize their
selections,'' id. at 161:37--161:47, Ms. Araujo admitted that ``I don't
know about the exact situation of all the others, but I think that we
are one of the lasts (sic).'' Id. at 161.46-161.53. We submit that
neither the public nor members of this Subcommittee can know how other
Alaska Native Regional Corporations may respond to the fundamental
changes proposed in S.730 to ANCSA, including changes:
In the scope of access across ANCSA Corporation lands and
who manages the easements;
That create new categories of selections not available to
other regional corporations;
That authorize the selection of a number of individual small
parcels instead of large blocks as other regional corporation
were required to do;
That abolish restrictive covenants on cemeteries and
historic sites conveyed to Sealaska but not to the other
regional corporations;
That conveys lands outside of the withdrawal areas
designated by Congress in ANCSA.
SEACC has participated diligently and in good faith through this
legislative process over the past four years, including weeks of
intense discussions with Sealaska last year trying to resolve key
issues. As we explained to this subcommittee in 2009:
SEACC supports completion of Sealaska Corporation's remaining
land entitlement under ANCSA. We respect the history and
traditions of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people who are
Sealaska Corporation's shareholders. It is not necessary,
however, for Congress to take any action for Sealaska to
complete its remaining ANCSA land entitlement. We oppose S.881
as introduced because of the significant changes to ANCSA and
other federal laws it proposes and its impact to the Tongass
National Forest and the communities and residents that depend
on it. We fear that S.881 will not redress any inequities but
create new ones among forest users and communities within
Southeast Alaska and with other regional corporations across
Alaska.
SEACC submitted extensive comments to Senator Murkowski in response
to the ``discussion draft'' of the Sealaska legislation circulated in
Southeast Alaska in February 2011. We respectfully request that those
comments, dated March 17, 2011, be entered into the official record of
the Subcommittee hearing on S.730.
We recognize and appreciate the improvements made by Senator
Murkowski in this latest version of the Sealaska legislation, but
continue to have major concerns and believe more changes to the
legislation are needed. In addition to the fundamental changes in ANCSA
and how it is implemented noted above, additional primary concerns are
described below.
First, the title of S.730 continues to claim it will ``finalize''
Native land claims in Southeast Alaska. Last Congress, Senator
Murkowski introduced S.784, a bill to recognize 5 new Native urban
corporations in communities that did not meet the criteria set for
village status under ANCSA and grant each of these corporations 23,040
acres of land--nearly 180 square miles of public lands--from anywhere
on the Tongass. She has not chosen to introduce similar legislation
this Congress, so far. If Congress chooses to recognize these
communities, how much, if any, Tongass lands are conveyed to these
unrecognized communities, necessarily implicates how much land Sealaska
is actually entitled too. If you intend to address the claims, the best
time to do so is now.
Second, the lack of legal descriptions and individual maps for all
the parcels Sealaska seeks in Section 3 makes it impossible for
Congress and the public to know with specificity what public lands are
being withdrawn for potential conveyance to Sealaska. We also remain
concerned about losing the valuable wildlands near Hydaburg, Hollis and
Edna Bay to clearcut logging if they are conveyed to Sealaska. For
example, instead of conveying any part of the Keete, Kassa, and Mabel
watersheds to Sealaska, these lands deserve permanent protection as
additions to either the Nutkwa Legislated LUD II or South Prince of
Wales Wilderness because of their critical importance for fish and
wildlife habitat and their high value to tourism and recreation. There
are also other potential locations for possible 2nd growth timber
selections, like lands north of a line running west from the head of
Warm Chuck on Heceta Island that could alleviate stress on communities
like Edna Bay.
Third, the provision imposing salmon stream buffers under Alaska
law for state lands on lands conveyed to Sealaska ``for a period of 5
years beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,'' just doesn't
cut it. While the 100 foot buffer was considered ``state of the art''
back in 1990 when enacted, in a 1995 report to Congress, federal
scientists concluded that 100 foot buffers in Southeast Alaska ``are
not fully effective to prevent habitat degradation or fully protect
salmon and steelhead stocks over the long term.'' See USDA Forest
Service, Report to Congress, Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment at 10
(Pacific Northwest Research Station and Region 10, R10-MB-238 (1995).
While current management on the Tongass reflect most of the
improvements recommended in the Assessment, the State of Alaska's
habitat standards do not. Worse, the short term this ``requirement''
would be applicable, makes any salmon habitat protection illusory at
best.
Fourth, the provision allowing Sealaska to select a new category of
lands--not enjoyed by other regional corporations--outside of existing
withdrawal areas remains highly problematic. Paradoxically, Sealaska
several of these sites are slated for ecotourism development at the
same time it wants to place exceptional fish and wildlife watersheds,
like Shipley Bay, Calder Creek, Old Tom's Creek, and Keete Inlet on the
chopping block of industrial logging development. Some of these sites
directly conflict with existing small businesses and community plans,
and all block future investment by any other party. Sites, like
Pegmatite Mountain, Spring Creek, and Blake Channel are actively
opposed by local communities. See http://m.juneauempire.com/local/2011-
05-07/tenakee-springs-opposes-sealaska-and-ipecgeothermal-site-
selection.
Fifth, because an easement, whether exclusive or not, is an
interest in land that may be conveyed, the bill should clarify that BLM
will survey the boundaries of the easement and deduct the acreage from
Sealaska's remaining entitlement.
Sixth, while S.730 no longer authorizes the encroachment on the
Hoonah Indian Association's unique government-to-government
relationship with the National Park Service in managing Glacier Bay
National Park, significant tribal concerns remain with provisions
relating to conveyance of sites with sacred, cultural, traditional
historical significance to Sealaska. See e.g., Letter to Senators Wyden
and Barrasso from the Organized Village of Kake (June 1, 2011).
Further, as written, S.730 does not guarantee access to the public or
Tribes to hunt, fish, or enjoy such lands.
Seventh, selection and conveyance of identified lands for intensive
logging development threatens to unravel the existing wildlife habitat
conservation strategy on Prince of Wales and surrounding islands. The
reality is that not all old-growth has the same fish and wildlife
habitat value. So, whether the lands Sealaska seeks to relinquish
contain more old-growth acres than the lands they are seeking is beside
the point. The question we hope the Subcommittee asks the Forest
Service to explain is what differences exist between the habitat values
of the lands Sealaska wishes to relinquish and the lands they seek for
intensive logging development.
Eighth, we are concerned with the provision designating certain
Tongass lands ``Conservation Areas'' because we think the management
requirements proposed fall short of safeguarding the significant
resource values these lands possess. In particular, all these and
existing LUD II lands should be withdrawn from mineral entry.
Finally, much was said at the hearing regarding how enacting this
bill is key to maintain the timber mill infrastructure in Southeast
Alaska and be a boon for the Southeast Alaska economy. We disagree.
This bill will keep Sealaska Timber Corporation running for a few more
years, but it will do nothing to support timber mill infrastructure in
Southeast Alaska. Clearly, the point of this bill is not how Sealaska
can provide a portion of the logs from its lands to local mills.
Sealaska does not have any mills and exports virtually all its timber
unprocessed to overseas markets. The stevedoring jobs Sealaska provides
in some local communities are sporadic at best. Sealaska populates its
logging camps mostly with loggers that come from all over the West
Coast and little of their wage income is captured in the Alaska economy
or local Native communities. A very small proportion of those working
on Sealaska timber lands are local residents.
Community leaders from across the political and economic spectrum
are actively working towards a different vision of the future for
Southeast Alaska than that proposed in this bill. Our salmon forest
supports the sustainable nearly $1 billion fishing industry, which
employs nearly 10 times the number of workers as timber. Our fish,
wildlife, and outdoor recreation opportunities support over a billion
dollars in direct, indirect, and induced visitor spending in Southeast
Alaska, and provide over 21 percent of the full and part time jobs in
Southeast Alaska. The critical foundation of the region's economy is
customary and traditional hunting, fishing and gathering; salmon is the
primary source of food for rural Southeast Alaskans. We acknowledge the
difficult times and economic desperation that our small communities are
facing, but logging watersheds vital to food gathering makes it even
more difficult for them.
SEACC is willing to work with the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, and Sealaska to address our
concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S.730.
Best Regards,
Buck Lindekugel,
SEACC Grassroots Attorney.
Bob Claus,
Forest Program Director.
______
Statement of Debbie Sease, National Campaign Director, Sierra Club
On behalf of the more 1.3 million members and supporters of the
Sierra Club, I am writing to express our opposition to S. 730, the
Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs
Protection Act. This legislation would transfer public lands in the
Tongass National Forest to Sealaska Corporation. While the bill has
made minor improvements from years past, if enacted as proposed this
legislation would have widespread and far-reaching impacts on the
Tongass.
While the Sierra Club respects Sealaska's right to secure its
remaining land entitlement consistent with the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA), the proposed legislation would alter the terms
of the original settlement legislation and effectively eliminate
previous boundaries defining the area from which Sealaska would make
selections. As you can appreciate, the ANCSA legislation of 1971
required a complicated balancing of public and private interests. The
land transfers proposed by S. 730 threaten this carefully crafted
balance and present a number of serious concerns:
The legislation will greatly hamper the U.S. Forest
Service's management of the region. The Forest Service manages
these public lands for multiple uses and has announced a
transition plan to phase out old-growth logging and ensure a
sustainable future for the Tongass. The agency is moving toward
long-term productivity and sustainable long-term management of
young growth and renewable resources. The Forest Service says
that it needs the lands that Sealaska is targeting to fulfill
that transition and help stabilize southeast Alaska. S. 730
would adversely affect that transition and only benefit a
select few.
The legislation authorizes Sealaska Corporation to cherry
pick 30 additional sites for commercial development. In
addition to allowing tens of thousands of acres outside of
Sealaska's original land grants to be selected for their
valuable old growth and second growth timber, the bill creates
a special new category of land--often referred to as ``futures
sites''--and would privatize scores of smaller parcels
throughout the Tongass for purposes other than logging and
mining, such as large scale commercial development. Many of
these areas adjoin designated Wilderness areas, or are hunting
and fishing hotspots necessary to local outfitters,
subsistence, and recreational users. Transfer of these parcels
not only pose immediate threats to the Tongass itself but also
create highly problematic precedent, as this is the first
instance that a native corporation has been granted such access
to these sites.
The legislation is extremely controversial within Southeast
Alaska, numerous local governments have expressed concerns and
opposition to the legislation, and despite claims to the
contrary, there has been no public process to engage
communities in Southeast Alaska that would be directly impacted
by the proposed land transfers.
While the total acreage involved may appear small relative to the
overall size of the Tongass, the legislation would have
disproportionate impacts on important conservation and public use
values throughout the region. The Tongass is by far our country's
largest and wildest national forest. Comprising misty fjords and old-
growth stands, the Tongass serves as unparalleled habitat for wildlife,
stores huge amounts of carbon, and provides exceptional recreational
opportunities. It is rightly considered the crown jewel of the national
forest system.
The Sealaska Corporation has a well-documented history of clearcut
logging in the Tongass, and S. 730 would allow for more of these
destructive logging practices in some of the most important and diverse
habitat of the Tongass, including roadless areas.
For these reasons, we oppose S. 730 and urge that you oppose the
bill. Again, our organizations respect the importance of fulfilling
Sealaska's unsatisfied land entitlement; however we believe this can be
done without additional legislation. Any future legislation regarding
the Tongass must consider the region's true economic engines including
the conservation and protection of fish and wildlife resources,
fishing, recreation, tourism, subsistence, and other public uses of the
Tongass National Forest.
______
Statement of Andrew Thoms, Executive Director, Sitka Conservation
Society
Southeast Alaska is an awe-inspiring place of glaciers, fiords, and
towering spruce trees. For all of its natural beauty, however, one of
the region's most remarkable characteristics is that its land is held
almost entirely in public hands as the Tongass National Forest. The
public not only has free access to the land, but the public has a say
in how the land should be developed while the Forest Service seeks to
find the best balance for all users and most significant social/
economic impact. The Sitka Conservation Society has over 1000 local
members who are all part of our organization because they value the
lands and waters of the Tongass. Our membership includes native and
non-native Alaskans and also includes shareholders of Sealaska and
other Native Corporations.
Our membership is extremely concerned about the the Sealaska Lands
Bill (S.703 and HR 1408). We are scared of this legislation because, if
passed, some of the most important and beloved places in Southeast
Alaska will be taken from public hands and placed in those of a private
corporation. The public will need special permission to access the
land, and the public will have no power to determine whether and how
the land should be developed. For these reasons, we oppose the Bill and
request that you do as well.
The Tongass National Forest is enormous, but its richest natural
resources are concentrated in a small handful of places, many of which
have been identified as Sealaska selections. Most of the acreage in the
Sealaska Bill is timber land. A transfer to Sealaska would mean the
loss of some of the largest and oldest trees in Southeast Alaska as
well as crucial habitat, with only a short-term financial benefit to a
limited number of people. It would also mean a loss of millions of
dollars of tax-payer investment in Forest Service infrastructure that
would be transferred to Sealaska Corporation. This infrastructure would
include roads, bridges, landings, and more. Taxpayer investments in
this land also has included timber stand management such as thinning
and pruning that significantly increases the value of many of the acres
that Sealaska has selected, and makes these acres critical for future
Forest Service land management plan actions. The land that Sealaska is
selecting in the bill is much more valuable than that in the original
agreement made under ANCSA. If Sealaska is allowed to select outside of
the originally agreed upon boxes, we would demand that it be a value-
for-value trade rather than an acre-for-acre trade.
While we are alarmed by Sealaska's timber selections, our largest
concern lies in the 3,600 acres of unidentified cultural sites. Under
the Bill, practically anything can qualify as a cultural site,
regardless of whether there is evidence of human habitation at the
site. Sealaska has yet to make its cultural site selections, but, based
on its previous ANCSA selections, popular subsistence salmon streams
appear particularly vulnerable. Sealaska selected Redoubt Falls, the
nearest subsistence stream to Sitka, as a cultural site under ANCSA,
despite no archeological evidence that the site had been historically
used by Native people. There are a few other subsistence streams within
a couple hours of town, which hundreds of Sitka families depend on to
fill their freezers each year. All of these streams would qualify as
cultural sites. We consider the selection at Redoubt to foreshadow the
conflicts that will occur over the next 10 years as Sealaska
strategically selects small parcels of critically important social/
economic/environment acres across the Tongass.
Once in private hands, cultural sites would have no federal
protections, such as the Native America Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act. This means Sealaska, which has a horrific land
management record, would be left to care for its newly acquired lands
with practically no oversight. Sealaska has not made it public among
tribes, clans, historical associations, and local governments that once
in their hands, important sacred and cultural sites will lose their
NAGPRA protections. We find it cynical that Sealaska is selling a story
of these sites being better protected in their hands than with the
already strict protections under NAGPRA as well as the taxpayer
investment and protection afforded by multiple federal agencies who
currently oversee these sites in collaborative agreements with local
tribes and clans.
We request that the 3600 acres granted to Sealaska to choose
throughout the Tongass be removed from the legislation and that
Sealaska work with local tribes and federal agencies to develop
cooperative co-management agreements for the sites so that historically
important acres remain a public resource and gain all the protections
under NAGRPA, the Antiquities Act, and other federal agency management
protections.
Finally, we are alarmed that Sealaska has not divulged to local
constituencies that the privatization of public lands would result in
the lands no longer offering the subsistence opportunities and
regulations that are provided to Southeast Alaska residents on public
lands. In many cases, the lands that Sealaska is selecting are
important for subsistence uses for local Native and non-Native
citizens. With these lands in private hands, the subsistence
regulations would change from federal land to state/private lands. This
would mean that extended seasons and bag-limits would not apply to
these lands which would further shut off subsistence access.
Overall, we are extremely disappointed in the way that the Sealaska
Corporation and its representatives have organized support for this
legislation. The most glaring case has been when Albert Kookesh, a
Sealaska Board Member who is also a sitting Alaska State Senator, made
an assertion to the Craig City Assembly in an official meeting that
they would not receive state funding for their needed projects if they
didn't support the Sealaska legislation. That Sealaska Board Member/
Senator was subsequently found in violation of state ethics policies.
This blazon threat was made in full public display in a City Assembly
forum. We have heard worse from local citizens of threats made for not
supporting the legislation behind closed doors. Locally, we have heard
Sealaska board members use race-based arguments to raise support for
the legislation when challenged with non-racial access and land-value
issues. It has gone so far as to make people feel that they can't
oppose the legislation based on its merits for fear that they will then
be branded a ``racist'' in the region. This dynamic is causing great
chagrin in a region that has worked to overcome a history of racial
conflict. If this legislation is causing so much divisive conflict, and
if the methods of building support are so divisive, we feel that there
is obviously a problem with the legislation. If the legislation was a
good thing for the region, it would not be causing so much controversy.
The Sealaska Lands Bill already has been divisive in Sitka and
other communities, but we may be seeing only the start. If the Bill
passes and Sealaska follows through with the land management practices
it has used in the past, communities will suffer far more than they
will gain. We want what is best for our community and the awe-inspiring
place that we live. The best thing for us would be that this Bill is
voted down and sent back to the drawing board.
On behalf of the membership of the Sitka Conservation Society, we
would thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
______
June 10, 2011.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
House Committee on Natural Resources.
RE: S. 730 and H.R. 1408
Dear Committee Members, The undersigned* lodge owners, guides and
outfitters, sporting goods companies, hunting & fishing groups, and
non-government fish and wildlife conservation organizations from Alaska
and across the country are writing to express our opposition to the
Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs
Protection Act (S. 730 and H.R. 1408, although the bills are far from
identical).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other signatures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not dispute the fact that Sealaska has legitimate claim to
acreage on the Tongass. However, the locations for selection were
clearly defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of
1971. Now, almost 40 years later, Sealaska is trying to change the
rules by picking high-value public lands outside these defined
selection areas. Sealaska has had the opportunity to select from these
areas for a number of years and absolutely no legislation is required
for the settlement of their claims.
Sealaska's land selections outlined in S. 730 and H.R. 1408 include
many of the best hunting, fishing, subsistence, and outfitter/guide use
areas on the Tongass. The sporting community has objected to prior
versions of this legislation because of concerns over threats to fish
and wildlife habitat from increased timber harvest, limits to public
access, increased commercial development, and displacement of existing
businesses and operators. Given these concerns have not been adequately
addressed in the current legislation, and there is no legal
justification for Sealaska to make selections outside the ANCSA areas,
we urge you to oppose S. 730 and H.R. 1408.
Thank you for your continued support for fish and wildlife
conservation on America's public lands.
Best regards,
Randi Swisher, President,
American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Westminster, CO.
Jim Martin, Conservation Director,
Berkley Conservation Institute / Pure Fishing Mulino, OR.
______
Statement of Carol Cairnes, President, Tongass Conservation Society
We are the Tongass Conservation Society (TCS). The majority of our
members live in the Tongass National Forest. We are writing to you
today because our members strongly oppose Senate Bill 730, cited as the
``Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs
Protection Act''. S730 proposes to transfer publicly owned lands in the
Tongass National Forest to a private corporation. Sealaska Corporation
has already selected its remaining lands inside the agreed upon
withdrawal areas in accordance with The Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act. We oppose allowing Sealaska Corporation to select
lands other than those already selected within the boundaries
established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
These outside selections would significantly compromise the unique
values of the Tongass National Forest for wildlife habitat, fish
propagation and recreational opportunities now available to all
Americans. Passage of S730 would undermine the Tongass Land Management
Plan and the Tongass Transition Framework being developed by the USDA.
S730 would authorize an exchange of low value timberland for some
of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the United States, if not the
world, so Sealaska Corporation can log these areas and ship the
unprocessed logs overseas. Our concern about this threat to the
ecological integrity of the Tongass National Forest comes from direct
observation of Sealaska's intensive logging practices (practices that
would be illegal on National Forest land) including: clearcutting
timber from the alpine edge all the way to the beach without leaving
any remnant old-growth stands of trees and leaving inadequate timber
buffers along waterways to protect resident and anadromous fish stream
habitat. While S730 includes a provision for 100 foot stream buffers
(state Class 1A riparian areas), but this provision would be in effect
for only 5 years and not enforceable even during the 5 year time
period.
Many of our members make their livelihood from fishing on the
waters of the Tongass National Forest. Still others are in visitor,
tourism and outdoor recreation businesses. S730 would privatize some 50
undeveloped coves, bays and streams currently publicly accessible for
recreational use. The ``enterprise/native futures'' sites are poorly
defined in S730, leaving valuable archeological sites of interest to
all of humanity at risk of unrestricted eventual development. For
example: The oldest human remains yet found in North America have been
found in the Prince of Wales Island Archipelago, the site of most of
Sealaska Corporation's selections in S730, and these human remains are
not genetically related to the Alaska Native peoples currently residing
in Southeast Alaska.
Congressional action is not necessary for Sealaska Corporation to
complete conveyance of its land entitlements under ANCSA. Finalization
of these entitlements should be a priority, but TCS does not agree with
any proposal that extends beyond the withdrawal areas agreed upon under
ANCSA and strongly opposes S730. We encourage you to oppose this bill
to ensure that the diverse values of the Tongass National Forest are
retained for all citizens of the United States and our visitors from
around the world.
______
Statement of mary Therese Thompson, Sitka, AK
Please work with the Energy Committee to ensure that section 3c
(Sacred and Historic Sites) is deleted from S730. Many southeast
Alaskans depend on the lands in 3c for recreation, subsistence, and
indirectly for part of their livelihoods.
I am opposed in general to putting public lands into private hands,
and especially into the hands of a corporation such as SeaAlaska, which
historically has not demonstrated good stewardship of land. I realize
that SeaAlaska is entitled to a land selection. However, 3c selects the
lands which are the most extensively used by the public. There is no
assurance that in the future I and other Alaskans would have access to
these lands, which we have long depended upon for subsistence and
recreation. SeaAlaska would be free to use these lands as they choose.
Piece mealing the Tongass Forest is a threat to the integrity of
the forest, the sense of wilderness important for tourism, and creates
the potential for destruction of salmon habitat and a negative impact
on fisheries.
______
Statement of Alan Stein
My name is Alan Stein. Over 40 years ago as a young man, I looked
through a seaplane window at Prince of Wales Island where today
Sealaska has stirred up great controversy by having Senator Murkowski
introduce S 730.
It was April, 1971 when I landed in Port Protection only to learn
Native Alaskans had blocked all public land transfers in the State of
Alaska pending a final settlement in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act ANCSA (December, 1971).
The US Forest Service told me I could not obtain title to the land
I homesteaded until the Natives settled their claims.
While building a cabin with a chain saw and hammer, I became the
President of the Point Baker Association to protect Northern Prince of
Wales Island. Our lawsuit resulted in the National Forest Management
Act (1976). I came before this committee in March of that year to
present oral testimony and I represented the United Fishermen of Alaska
and PBA.
I worked as a commercial logger at Dean Hiner's floating log camp
near Calder Bay and appreciate the bone weary work men of the woods do.
Dean and 50 other small outfits sued the two Pulp Companies for anti
trust violations that put them out of business and won in federal
court. But not before they were driven out of business.
I owned and operated many commercial fishing vessels during my 25
years in Alaska. I will always consider Alaska my true home.
In 1989, I organized a coalition of Alaskan Natives, commercial
fishermen, canneries ,and others into the Salmon Bay Protective
Association (SBPA). I was elected the Director. About 1,000 commercial
fishermen joined our organization. Republican cannery owners such as
Alec Brindle of Ward Cove and Bob Thorstenson's Icicle Seafoods to
Democratic owners such as Terry Gardiner of Norquest Seafoods made
substantial contributions. The United Fishermen of Alaska supported our
efforts. As did the major fishing organizations in SE Alaska.
Our law suit, Stein v Barton (1990) did two things.
First, it led to Congressional recognition and permanent
protection of some of the habitat Alaskan Natives and others
used to hunt and fish on some federal land on Prince of Wales
Island.
Second it won the first national permanent protections of
salmon streams during logging and the injunction put into place
was used as a model when Congress made 100 foot no cut buffer
strips permanent protection provisions in the Tongass Timber
Reform Act 1990.
SEALASKA NEVER ACTED TO PROTECT SUBSISTENCE HABITAT ON FEDERAL LAND
SPIRITUAL CONNECTION ARGUMENT WEAKENED BY ITS 40 YEAR INACTION
Sealaska's arguments of dispossession from their lands by a
colonial power would be laughable historically were the earnestness of
the claim not so great.
The Wrangell Natives in the SBPA included some whose relatives had
been the subjects of the Tee Hit Ton decision. 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
Byron Mallot attaches a report by Walter Echo Hawk claiming this
Supreme Court case is `` one of the worst decisions handed down.'' P4
Echo Hawk.
In Echo Hawk's view, the US Forest Service was a colonial power
over the SE Alaska Natives and Tee Hit Ton is the ``Law of
Colonialism.'' Echo Hawk p 7
Mallot's reliance on Echo Hawk--who invokes ideology steeped in
``genocide,'' ``marginalization,'' ``colonization,'' ``post
colonization,'' ``subjugation, dispossession, and exploitation'' to
urge a new Congressional policy toward the Tlingit and Haida ``in their
indigenous aboriginal habitats'' ( Echo Hawk p1-2)--strikes me as sheer
nonsense in light of the rest of the story on Salmon Bay.
Eddie Churchill, an Alaskan Native of blessed memory, who was the
head of the Wrangell Cooperative Association, sat on our board of
directors. I fought long and hard to make sure that he and his tribe (s
well as everyone else) could continue to hunt and fish in Salmon Bay by
protecting its fish and wildlife. Congress agreed with us when they
designated Salmon Bay a LUD II protecting it for all users, so long as
it remains in US Forest Service hands. Sealaska AWOL when it came to
protecting indigenous native habitat at Salmon Bay in 1990---undercuts
their argument they consider all wildlife sacred
Although I knew many of the members of the Board of Directors of
Sealaska Corporations at the time, never did any of them express any
desire to assist the Natives of Wrangell to preserve the land around
Salmon Bay Lake . Never did Byron Mallot or Al Kookesh ask to intervene
in this case on the behalf of Native subsistence users.
If Byron really believes Echo Hawk's ``statement that monetary
compensation does not protect a way of life (hunting, fishing),'' p 8,
then where was Byron and Sealaska when I was fighting to save that way
of life?
The absence of the Sealaska Board of Directors from the SBPA case
reinforced something that I heard from the Chief of the Chilkoot
Tlingit, Austin Hammond of blessed memory. ``There are those of us who
want to honor the land and take only what we need,'' he told me while
standing in front of his house on the shore of Lynn Canal. ``Some of
the young men in Sealaska only see money in the trees. Remember what I
tell you.''
If Austin were here today, I am sure he would disapprove of
Sealaska's bill S.730 to destroy the fishing and hunting grounds of
other tribes , other towns of men who grew up outside. Austin would get
Byron and Al to sit on the peace rock along the Chilkoot River and
talk, before they could get up, with all the leaders of the towns whose
lives they want to upset with this bill. Austin would tell them Echo
Hawk is sheer bull, a policy whose foundations falter on false
historical and legal interpretation.
SEALASKA SEEKS EXPANSIONS FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ANCSA, ANILCA
AND OTHER CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES
New land categories are unfair, unjust, and break previous
settlements hammered out over decades.
S 730 must be seen in the context of the substantial benefits
Sealaska has won from Congress over the last 40 years.
Since the 1960s, Sealaska has obtained multiple settlements of its
lands claims, all of which constitute what was fair and just. It has
also benefited from other special interest Native bills in Congress.
S 730 goes far beyond anything contemplated in ANCSA or subsequent
settlements.
A cash settlement of over seven million dollars in the late
sixties compensated Natives for lands they occupied or used
that had been placed into the Tongass National Forest. This was
a final settlement, but a few years latter, Natives sought more
compensation.
ANCSA gave Natives a total of 656,400 acres or 1,025.62
square miles. All but 65,000 acres or 100 square miles have
been transferred. Sealaska also got a fair share of one billion
dollars in cash. This land is among the most valuable
timberland in the United States.
--Villages got 286,400 acres or 447.5 square miles
--Sealaska got 370,000 acres or 578 square miles. Source: 2007
Annual Report Sealaska.
Natives then sought Subsistence rights to hunt and fish on
all federal land as a priority over all other users, arguing
that their spiritual needs were not met by ANCSA.
In 1980, Congress in TITLE 8 of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Act. gave Alaska Natives the subsistence hunting and
fishing they sought. This exclusive priority to hunt and fish
was a huge additional benefit that Natives had not won in
ANCSA.
Congress created huge tax benefit to Sealaska when it
allowed it to sell net operating losses (the value of the
timber in 1971 minus the value at a low point in the market,
such that ``Sealaska has not paid State or Federal taxes ) See
Sealaska Annual Report 2010 page 54 and may not pay taxes on
profits long into the future.
Sealaska shareholders get free medical care from birth to
grave even though the United States never subdued or conquered
Alaska Natives.
Finally, Sealaska and other Alaska Native Corporations under
the 8 (a) provision of a federal law were given a huge benefit
worth in excess of 25 billion dollars over the last ten years.
Alaska Native Corporations do not have to compete with other
corporations for federal contracting. They have exclusive
bidding rights. See last year's Washington Post article for
abuses under this scheme that Congress failed by one vote to
remedy this year. SEE http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100707217.html
--http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/030609rb1.htm
--http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/
lawmakers_cast_a_critical_eye.html
Despite these and other land, cash, tax, health benefits, and
hunting and fishing exclusive rights that taxpayers have given the
Tlingit and Haida to make them whole, the rationale in Byron Mallot's
testimony, in Sealaska 2010 Annual Report and in S 730 is that the
injustice of conquest was so great that only greater and more valuable
assets will bring peace to the soul of America's conscience.
Besides resting on false assumptions, the Sealaska approach raises
troubling issues.
When is final final?
When is enough enough?
Where will the 40 year history of hand outs end?
Will it be when all public lands in Alaska are tied up, access
blocked by Alaska Native Corporations, forever breaking the historical
compromises hammered out in 1971, 1975, 1980, and subsequent years? It
seems to me ANSCA was supposed to put Alaska Natives on their feet, not
establish an elite class of corporate officers who make high salaries
while shareholders get bupkees. This despite the trusts set aside for
elders and students filled not so much by timber money as 8(a) profits.
At some point Congress must put its foot down and tell Sealaska
they should spend their time figuring out how to make money rather than
take money from taxpayers.
I find this approach not only hypocritical but historically
inaccurate in that legal precedent and demographic movements have been
jammed into an ideological prism so out of wack with reality that the
goal of justice is distorted beyond recognition.
Specifically the Enterprise or Future Sites have extraordinary
value both in dollars and use. The Icy Straights site should be either
leased to a private corporation based on the projected revenue of power
generated from what is likely to be worth more than all the Columbia
River Dams. Sealaska should be allowed no Future or Enterprise sites.
Enough is enough with taxpayer give aways above and way beyond what
justice requires.
Cultural or Sacred sites such as cemeteries are adequately
protected under Federal Law as administered by the US Forest Service.
This to is nothing but a scam against taxpayers seeking to lock up land
now used by many for benefit of a few. The location of gravesites is so
closely held that the wilderness itself protects them.
I specifically object to what I have heard one of Sealaska
lobbyists who has told me that SE Alaska Natives were disposed of the
entire Tongass. This is contemporary myth making on a grand scale and
is false.
HISTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY BELIE SEALASKA CLAIMS
Over the ten thousand years of the archeological record of SE
Alaska that I have studied, several cultures have occupied the roughly
350 mile long coastline.
The 9,200 year old man found in a cave near Port Protection
has not been shown to be genetically akin to modern Tlingit or
Haida. Yet Tlingits claimed and obtained the remains as one of
their own.
A cultural shift occurred around five thousand years ago per
the research at Tebenkoff Bay by the University of California
Santa Barbara archeologists who found a transition from back
bay fish based economies to front bay deer hunting and war like
cultures at this period before Abraham left Bagdad.
Nevertheless, Tlingit occupation may or may not date from
five thousand years ago when they migrated out of Japan or
Korea and merged with previous cultures. If Tlingits assert
their occupation was from time immemorial, they draw on myth,
not the archeological record.
Haida migrations out of the Queen Charlotte Islands, which
displaced Tlingit villages northward on Prince of Wales, did
not occur until just before first contact around 1774.
While Tlingits may argue they occupied the entire Tongass National
Forest, the archeological truth is that there were winter villages in
major bays with a population estimated before the small pox epidemic of
the early 1830s at less than 10,000. First Coast Survey.
By the time of transfer to the United States, the population was
estimated to have shrunk by half.
The distribution of population continued to be winter villages with
smaller groups shifting over time during the summer to sockeye stream
to sockeye stream with a pattern of depletion and movement prominent.
So that in any one decade, use of the land was limited to shorelines at
productive salmon creeks. Of the 2500 salmon creeks in SE Alaska, very
small percentages were ever used during any decade. And never
continuously. The Tlingit and other prehistoric residents occupied a
very small part of the Tongass at any one time.
Per the Organic Act of 1884, use and possession of land was
required to establish ownership. Given the transitory use of a limited
amount of land, the more than 1000 square miles Sealaska has/will have
received alone is just reflection of scope of the land used and
occupied in any one decade prior to 1867. No future or sacred sites
need to be added to sweeten the deal.
I have studied the historical record extensively from the time of
first contact through the early 20th century and can find no record of
forcible ejection of Haida or Prince of Wales Tlingit from their lands
on any where near a systematic or extensive basis. ( I was trained in
the graduate school of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
I have published on the subject matter of Prince of Wales Archeology.)
So, a far different dynamic than the simplistic charge of Echo
Hawk's colonialism was at work
Abandonment of traditional villages by 1907 or earlier was the rule
and practice on the Prince of Wales Archipelago. Thus the migration
from the Kaigani Haida in Klinkwan, Sukwan, Koinglass, and the smaller
settlements south of Sukwan Island had been completed or were well
underway. Howkan had a post office and missionary provided school
teacher from about 1883. It inhabitants moved to Hydaburg, Craig,
Ketchikan, and other places after the turn of the century. The
abandonment occurred in response to opportunity--opportunity to make
money in the salteries and new canneries on the West Coast of Prince of
Wales; opportunity to get a better education; opportunity to be near
medical care.
A similar dynamic occurred for the village of Tukexan and Kareen,
Old Kassan, and the village near Cape Fox, which was abandoned when the
Harriman Expedition arrived with John Muir aboard at the fin de sicle.
It is offensive to the historical record to overlay Echo Hawk's
rigid ideological colonialism explanation for the conversion of the
Tlingit and Haida to Christianity and adoption of modern dress and work
ethic. The people who moved to Craig and Hydaberg and Klawock put meat
on the table. They were as far from chains and indenture as you and me.
As for the land ethic portrayed by Sealaska of respecting all
living things, we should not forget that between the first Boston men
who arrived in the 1780s and 1820, a vast herd of sea otter were hunted
nearly to extinction by Alaska Natives on Prince of Wales who wanted
rifles, blankets, and other trade goods. While the Russians did enslave
the Aleuts who they brought to finish off the sea otters after 1802,
the Haida and Tlingit on Prince of Wales were able to bring the
population of sea otter to near extinction by reason of zeal for modern
trade goods alone.
NORTHERN SEALASKA BOARD MEMBERS AND LOGGING IN SOUTHERN TRIBES'
BACKYARD, MOST OF IT IN ANCIENT HAIDA TERRITORY
Almost all the commercial selections in S. 730 are on the
southern Tongass where most of the heavy logging occurred in
the past.
Yakutat's Byron would rather concentrate logging onto Prince
of Wales Island Archipelago than allow any around his home
village at Yakutat and made sure Congress made the 100 square
mile ANCSA lands at Yakutat off -limits.
Angoon's Al Kookesh made sure logging for his town occurred
also in the south square in ancient Haida territory.
Kluckwan on the Chilkaat was all too willing to select lands
for logging off the West Coast of Prince of Wales in Haida
territory. The combined affect of these changes to ANCSA which
moved the selections away from their villages boxes designated
in 1975 amendments and concentrated them onto the Prince of
Wales Archipelago made sure the hunting and fishing of their
fellow Haida and Southern Tlingit were put into jeopardy. This
is a second example of hypocrisy on the part of Sealaska.
It is hard for me to fathom why the Tlingit would want to force
almost all the logging onto former Haida territory. Perhaps some
ancient grievance is at the bottom of it.
I am all for a settlement of Sealaska's claims in the areas it
selected in 2008 when it made submissions to the BLM which are inside
the boxes established in 1975 by request to Congress of Sealaska's
President.
Congress should walk away from S 730 and encourage Sealaska to live
up to the capitalistic goals which Byron Mallot helped create when he
worked as an aide to Ted Stevens forty years ago.
______
[The following documents and statements are attachments
submitted with the prepared statement of Myla Poelstra,
Representing Nine Alaska Towns, Edna Bay, AK.]
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Thorne Bay,
Thorne Bay, AK, May 18, 2011.
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 709 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC.
RE: Senate Bill 730--Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization and Jobs Protection Act
ATTN: Senators, The City of Thorne Bay, located on the eastern side
of Prince of Wales Island, does not support Senate Bill 730. We
question the reasoning and intent behind the request of Sealaska but
our main concern is the impact that will threaten the economic
viability of our community and other communities on Prince of Wales
Island and throughout Southeast Alaska. We continually work with the
state and federal governments to develop management plans that will
help balance the preservation and uses of our natural resources in
hopes to achieve sustainability for our communities and their citizens.
We see Senate Bill 730 not as a ``Jobs Protection Act'' but
legislation that has the real ability to eliminate natural resource
jobs, the mainstay of employment in Southeast Alaska. From Timber
Harvesting, to Lumber Milling, to Recreation Uses, To Tourist
Enjoyment, we see a direct impact to our communities. Removing
additional lands from the Tongass National Forest and placing them into
private hands will lead to loss of jobs and loss of revenues that are
vital in sustaining our economies. Local mills in Thorne Bay, and
throughout Prince of Wales (POW) Island, will be depleted of long term
timber supplies that are necessary to sustain their business. It is
these local mills, and their lumber, that provides building material to
POW Island and much of Southeast Alaska.
The plan as present has implications of eliminating 20 plus jobs
from the Thorne Bay Ranger District alone. This may sound small in the
scheme of things but for the City of Thorne Bay the loss of any jobs is
devastating. Most likely the Thorne Bay Ranger District will be reduced
from a district headquarters to a field office eliminating the need for
support staff and a District Ranger. This will have a direct impact on
Southeast island School District as these employees have children in
school. Less students, means less teachers, which means less funding, a
ripple effect that impacts the School District's ability to maintain
programs and schools. For the remaining students the loss of programs
and closure of schools means a decline in education, something that no
one wants to see in this day and age. The loss of these employees also
has the same ripple effect on our communities. Less jobs, means less
dollars being spent, means less goods being purchase, means less taxes
being collected for needed services adding, means the loss of secondary
jobs.
With a declining timber industry and struggling fishing industry
our communities cannot with stand another major impact form loss of
jobs being created by this plan. We worked hard and cooperatively to
develop programs like the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan and the
USDA Forest Service Master Plans that will build positive foundations
to replace the past economies. Senate Bill 730 in our eyes will set
these efforts back and in many ways and negate some efforts all
together. Again it conies back to the jobs. Our efforts over the past
years have been programs and plans that will sustain and build on our
labor force. This plan throws away all this effort along with existing
jobs.
We respectively ask that you vote no on Senate Bill 730. If that is
not an option please consider only those portions of the legislation
that will provide positive economic impacts to our communities today
and into the future. We are trying to plan generations out, as we
strive to maintain economic viability and sustainability to Southeast
Alaska.
Thank you for allowing the City of Thorne Bay the opportunity to
present our concerns.
Sincerely,
James A. Gould,
Mayor.
attachment 2
Alaska Trollers Association,
Juneau, AK, May 20, 2011.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: The Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) is
concerned about the terms of S. 730, which seeks to finalize land
selections promised to Sealaska under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). ATA appreciates your willingness to listen and
work with our industry to affect a number of good changes, however one
of the most important provisions, buffer strips, is still sorely
lacking. ATA supports conveyance of acreage to Sealaska as outlined in
ANCSA. However, without an unqualified minimum 100' buffer strip
provision, ATA simply cannot support a bill that alters the original
deal.
The Southeast troll fleet is one of the largest in the state.
Trollers fish in state waters from Dixon Entrance to Cape Suckling and
up to 50 miles into federal waters. Our fishery has three distinct
seasons and occurs in every month of the year. The troll fleet is 85%
resident and a great many of our members live in rural communities.
With over 2500 permit holders, roughly half of them fishing each year,
our boats cover a lot of area and fish almost every nook and cranny of
the Tongass.
Late winter and early spring are busy times for trollers. It was
only last week that our organization became aware of the new revision
and upcoming hearings. I would imagine that most fishermen and their
gear groups will not have adequate time to review the specifics of this
very complex bill and provide comment prior to the May 25 & 26
hearings. As you heard over the past year, the bill is of concern to
fishermen due to potential impacts on habitat, fishing areas, and
anchorages.
The terms of this proposed lands trade are far reaching and extend
beyond the bounds of the original ANCSA agreement. Significant
consternation has erupted from a great many community leaders and valid
concerns have been raised about the impact of this proposed lands
package on current and future decisions issued under the Endangered
Species Act. You have made obvious efforts to address some issues, but
given opposition that still exists in key communities, it appears there
is work yet to be done.
Sealaska does not need this legislation to finalize its land
entitlements. It can stay `in the box' and ask that the selections
requested in 1975 by then Sealaska President John Borbridge be conveyed
to the corporation. Since ANCSA was signed, multiple management plans
for the Tongass have been negotiated, all at great cost to the tax
payers. Federal rules require 100' buffer strips along all anadromous
salmon streams, except those on private lands, which fall under a
special state standard of 66' with variances to permit cutting within
the buffer. The lands traded to Sealaska will become `private'--and ATA
supports private property rights--but it is important to remember the
significant impact logging and other activities done on these
particular lands are likely to have on natural resources owned by the
public. ATA is not optimistic that the State of Alaska will widen the
66' buffers for private land currently allowed under the Forest
Practices Act (FPA), despite the fact that this standard has proven
wholly inadequate protection in many places. With the S. 730 buffer
strip provision relying on modification of the FPA, there is absolutely
no assurance that our habitat concerns will be addressed.
While ATA opposed the state's 66' standard for private land, we
respect that it is law and long ago accepted that the 1975 selections
were likely to be subject to that law. Decisions were made during
Tongass planning to balance those impacts on resident activities and
other Tongass-reliant industries. Why would we now support trades of
different `out of the box' public lands to Sealaska if the corporation
will be allowed to apply lesser conservation measures to that acreage--
much of which is in prime salmon rearing and/or fishing country? This
is unacceptable.
There must be a higher bar on lands that were not previously
designated part of the 1975 ANCSA lands bill. The lands in question
have been woven into the Tongass management plan according to their
various conservation and land use values. The public has a right to
demand better logging practices be part of any `out of the box' deal.
66' buffer strips are clearly not better than 100', which has always
been identified as the bare minimum necessary to safeguard anadromous
fish. Some vulnerable areas need 500' or more, so from our perspective,
100' is already a significant compromise.
Finally, many of the `out of the box' areas already have existing
roads or other publically paid for infrastructure. Where are the
analyses that would explain to the public what the 'out of the box'
trades will mean to the region? Is this new deal good for everyone, or
just one party?
In sum, ATA agrees that it is important to resolve the long-
standing ANCSA commitment to Sealaska, but the language currently
proposed for S.730 doesn't do enough to protect critical habitat that
will be slated for logging and other development. In addition, there
are remaining areas of local concern, with respect to area selections
and use of those selections, which we will not have time to fully
analyze prior to the hearing, or during the fishing season.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.
Best regards,
Dale Kelley,
Executive Director.
Attachment.--Alaska Trollers Association S.730 / H.2099: Issues of
Concern
LACK OF ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC PROCESS FOR SOUND DECISION MAKING
To date we have yet to see any scientific, legal, or socio-economic
analyses comparing the impacts of various lands trade options on
critical fish and wildlife habitat; onshore and nearshore fishing
areas/anchorages; communities; the state; existing Tongass management
plans; or any other important public considerations. If such analyses
exist, we encourage you to distribute them. If not, we ask that you
have them developed for public review. The affected public must be
better engaged in the selection process and provided the tools to do
comparative analysis to underpin their positions.
HABITAT
ATA's primary interest with respect to any commercial activity in
the Tongass involves ensuring protection of fish and wildlife habitat
values. We have long supported the current federal riparian habitat
standards and state Forest Practices Act as important mechanisms to
protect fish and game.
Nowhere in the draft language does it appear to require enhanced
habitat protection for lands proposed for conveyance that lie beyond
the previously negotiated ANCSA withdrawal areas. Why would the fishing
community support less habitat protection than is already there? ATA
was involved in the original buffer strip debate and we know full well
that the fishing industry supported the 66' buffer strip and variance
provisions on native lands only as a compromise based on a package
deal. Our industry anticipated that lands outside the original ANCSA
withdrawal areas would be protected by more restrictive federal and
state rules.
Many of the watersheds slated for logging in your draft inventory
are known spawning areas considered of high value by state and federal
biologists. With this in mind, ATA urges you to amend S. 730/H.R. 1408
with language requiring enforcement of riparian standards equivalent to
federal law for any lands selected outside the already agreed to ANCSA
withdrawal areas. Obviously, additional protections inside those areas
would be appreciated and strongly supported.
IMPACT ON FISHING AREAS
Our members want assurances that there will be no negative impacts
to traditional fishing areas, including safety at sea through loss of
anchorages. This concern is not based on idle speculation or paranoia
about what could happen; in fact, we have already seen many key fishing
areas and safe harbors compromised in previously logged areas. Seafood
is the biggest economic driver in the region and state; our industry
and communities rely on healthy fish stocks and safe, productive
fishing areas.
PUBLIC ACCESS AND TONGASS MANAGEMENT
Public access is a key consideration to those who live, work, hunt,
gather, and recreate in the Tongass. ATA does not support loss of
existing public access--now or in the future. A significant amount of
time and tax payer money has gone into planning and implementing
management regimes to secure multiple use of the forest. For instance,
LUD II designations have long been important tools to balance habitat
values and local use. Language in the bills does not do enough to
protect habitat and sends a mixed message about whether or not access
to transferred lands can ultimately be restricted or denied.
FUTURE SITES
The intent of these sites, and how they will be managed, remains
unclear. Many of the proposed areas are important both for local use
and to protect fish and wildlife; they have been afforded the
appropriate protections under the Tongass land use plan. How will those
values be protected if the lands are put into private ownership? Who
will pay to monitor streams and upland habitat? How will protections be
enforced? Will local use be permitted over time? ATA believes the
public should be afforded access comparable to what now exists and the
state must be maintain authority to enforce its fish and wildlife laws.
ATTACHMENT 3
JuneauEmpire.com
my turn: murkowski bill is bad for fish
Posted: May 21, 2011--9:57pm
Advertisement
By PAUL OLSON
Next week the Senate Natural Resources Committee will hold hearings
on U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski's Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization and Jobs Protection Act. The bill perpetuates a 40-year-
old history of efforts to solve the native lands claim issues with a
failed economic model--intensive old-growth clear cutting. This is bad
public policy and a rotten deal for salmon fisheries.
This transfer of public forests to a private corporation poses
significant risks to habitat. Bill proponents have not been candid
about these impacts. They say the bill ``protects'' some watersheds to
offset the habitat loss. They act like it is a good compromise to place
temporary riparian buffers on limited number of streams. But an
outdated and temporary buffer program and a few conservation areas do
nothing to mitigate the impacts of further industrial scale clear
cutting on Prince of Wales Island (POW).
The only issue the bill presents for people who fish relates to
mixed-stock fisheries management. Too much habitat loss in one area
causes population depletions or even localized extirpations. This then
triggers restrictive measures like shorter seasons or smaller bag
limits or closures of traditional fishing areas. To illustrate, there
are many healthy salmon populations up and down the west Pacific coast.
There are also nearly 30 salmon stocks listed under the Endangered
Species Act. It is those listed fish and other weak stocks that have
triggered the periodic or permanent closure of nearly every fishery
south of Dixon Entrance.
This means that it does not really matter how many acres the bill
allocates to some protected status. The acres that matter most from a
fishery perspective are those where fish habitat is at risk under
Alaska's lax forest practices rules. The new clearcuts spawned by
Murkowski's legislation will occur in the middle of an island with the
highest habitat related fish kill rates in the region.
High stream temperatures and poor stream flows are responsible for
many of these fish kills. Warm rivers are a significant problem for
salmon, including in Alaska. Scientists documented this problem on the
Kenai Peninsula, on the Yukon River and in this region, on POW in
particular. This is a serious issue. The overall global climate and
especially the Alaska climate are in a long-term warming trend.
Roads and logging directly contribute to stream temperature
problems. It is no coincidence that the worst fish kills occur in
heavily logged and roaded areas such as POW. In 2001, the Forest
Service reported 318 days of high stream temperature events at a number
of sites on the island. Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimated
fish kills there in the tens of thousands. The fish kills happened
again in 2003. Then, in 2004, record temperatures and record low levels
of precipitation occurred throughout the Tongass. Temperatures of some
small streams reached 82 degrees. In some cases, salmon even bypassed
their natal streams on islands for mainland streams cooled by glacial
runoff. Two years later, in 2006, the pink salmon run failed. Harvests
fell to their lowest levels since 1988--to 11 million fish. In 2008,
returns remained well below the long-term averages of 30 million fish.
The 100-foot buffers on class I streams will not add meaningful
protection to salmon that have to survive both habitat loss and the
periodic hot, dry summers that climate change scientists project for
this region. First, the buffers are temporary and Alaska's legislature
would never make them permanent. Many of them simply blow down after
the removal of the surrounding forest. Neither Murkowski's bill nor
Alaska law protects the countless miles of lower class streams that
influence water quality. The lack of protection for these headwater
streams is scientifically indefensible. And finally, Alaska's buffer
system ignores the relationship between temperature, water quality and
the surrounding landscape.
It is important for fishermen to let the committee know that this
legislation is poor public policy that poses unacceptable risks to
fishery habitat. Emails can be sent to [email protected]
and faxes to the committee at (202) 224-6123. The bill needs to go away
and not come back. There is no improving it when it comes to fishery
impacts.
Olson is a resident of Sitka.
ATTACHMENT 4
Letter from Barth Hamberg, Sitka, AK, 30-year resident
May 20, 2011.
To the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The
Sealaska Corporation's land selection of the falls at Redoubt Lake,
Sitka's most important sockeye subsistence fishing site, would give one
the town's most prized parcels of public land to a private corporation
and eliminate the public's right to fish there. Southeast Alaskans
better get used to the idea, because under Senator Lisa Murkowski's
Sealaska Lands bill, we will likely see this repeated over and over, as
Sealaska takes prized beaches, Forest Service cabins, trails, hot
springs, and just about any site they want by providing only the
thinnest evidence of cultural use.
Under this bill, Sealaska has 10 years to claim 3,600 acres
wherever their hired consultants deem to be a ``cultural site'', with
no right of protest by the public. Contrary to popular belief, these
sites don't have to be village or burial sites; they can be any site
with ``cultural use'' or ``cultural landscapes'' even if the nature of
that use is unknown and undocumented. Since virtually any site of
interest to the public today was likely used by people in the past,
Sealaska can claim about any site they want.
It gets even worse. Contrary to claims by Sealaska and Senator
Murkowski that public access to these sites would continue, the law
actually precludes public access for the harvest of fish and game, and
only allows for public access easements ``across'' and not ``on'' the
property. The public's use would be at the whim of the corporation.
Even if you aren't a recreationist, guide, or tour operator, you
should be incensed that all of this would be paid for by the US
taxpayer at the cost of many millions of dollars in planning, review
and survey costs. The Forest Service has invested millions of dollars
in infrastructure in docks, cabins, and trails and the like; the real
estate value of these prime parcels alone would be staggering.
The supporters of this bill imply that these lands are somehow
``threatened''. In fact, cultural sites are better preserved today
under the strong cultural resource protection laws on public lands than
they would be under a private corporation who could sell or lose them
in bankruptcy proceedings. Local tribes, who have a much more intimate
knowledge and connection with the land than the Corporation, already
have a strong role in any proposed activities on cultural sites.
This bill would change the unique lifestyle and economy of
Southeast Alaska forever. We would no longer manage our most important
lands through a public process. Instead, decisions would be made in the
corporate boardroom of the Sealaska Corporation. I strongly urge the
committee to table this bill once and for all.
ATTACHMENT 5
Letter from Chris McNeil, Jr., President and CEO, Sealaska Corporation
Today's summit is a very pivotal moment for all of us, as we take
measure of where we are.
Because the jobs and income from timber are crucial to our region's
economy, our decisions affect not only everyone in this room but also
the thousands not present who are stakeholders in our decisions.
This morning..
I will review the vital role that timber and Sealaska play
in our SE economy and how we impact both Native and non-Natives
citizens.
I have some very sobering information about the extent of
our timber resources.
I will talk about how we currently manage public and private
timber resources in Southeast.
And, finally, I want to share with you some new ideas that
can lead us all to a better future. (pause)
As most of you know, Sealaska Corporation is the leading private
provider of jobs and income in Southeast Alaska. We provide 700 direct
jobs with a $20 million payroll, and support more than 1,000 direct and
indirect jobs worth about $30 million a year in wages. In all, Sealaska
contributes $90 million a year to Southeast Alaska, benefiting some 350
businesses and organizations in the region.
In addition, Sealaska is the leading provider of revenues shared
with other Regional Corporations through the Section 7(i) of ANCSA.
Since revenue sharing began in 1982, Sealaska has contributed
nearly 300 million dollars to the other Regional Corporations. Think of
that: more than oil, more than minerals, the timber owned by Sealaska
has been the most abundant producer of revenue from the natural
resources owned by all Native Corporations.
This contribution--some 42% of all shared revenues under ANCSA--
comes from less than 1% of all ANCSA lands. And managed properly, this
resource can provide for a sustainable economy.
Many of you know our Board and management is guiding Sealaska
through a diversification strategy in which we are investing some of
our income in industries and places far from our base here in
Southeast. I believe this strategy will ultimately provide a measure of
security to all our people. But there is no question that timber will
likely always be the greatest source of local jobs and revenue for
Sealaska.
As you know, the most important aspect of any business plan is
reliability. That brings me to the most crucial part of my message to
you today.
To be painfully clear, we have new information that shows that we
cannot sustain our current level of harvest and jobs.
First, let me give you a little background. Sealaska has always
been committed to sustainable harvests. We believe in managing forests
for future generations. Our harvest rates were based on:
An estimate of our timber resources;
The assumption that our young forests would reach commercial
maturity 50 to 70 years after we began harvesting;
And the faith that we would gain title to all our lands in a
reasonable time period.
Based on these estimates and assumptions, we have managed our lands
sustainably.
But some of those assumptions were wrong--and this is a key point.
We assumed that that federal government would complete our land
entitlements in a timely manner. Further, we assumed that the federal
government would cooperate with Sealaska to exchange our most
environmentally sensitive lands for lands well-suited to timber
management.
Our expectations have not been met--and this forces us to
reevaluate our rate of harvest.
Before I continue, I am mindful of the irony of Sealaska
complaining about not receiving all our lands, when many of you
represent people who have never been granted any land. These problems
deserve resolution, as well.
My second key point involves new information.
As you can imagine, having accurate information about our resource
is vital to Sealaska. Recently, using the most technically
sophisticated analysis available, timber professions developed a far
more accurate assessment of our timber inventory than was available to
us in the past. We not only studied Sealaska lands, we also studied all
of the Tongass National Forest.
We believe we now know more about the state of the forest resources
in Southeast Alaska than anyone. I want to share those findings with
you today because we all have a stake in this information. And we must
all decide what we will do.
We discovered that our total inventory of un-harvested timber is
less than we believed, and given current economic conditions is about
400 to 500 million board feet.
The implications of this new understanding are sobering:
1. Sealaska will reduce its harvest by 25% in 2006, and
probably will reduce it further over time.
2. It is even more urgent that the federal government
complete its longstanding promise to Sealaska to transfer all
our entitlement lands.
3. It is now more urgent that Sealaska exchange its high
public value land for land in the Tongass.
4. Even if these matters were resolved, we would still need
to reduce harvest now in order to avoid an even greater
reduction in the future, because the lands we have previously
harvested will not have harvestable timber for another 25 to 35
years.
5. The reduced harvest will obviously lead to reductions in
employment, Sealaska income, and 7(i) revenue sharing money.
6. We estimate the total reduction in economic terms to the
state of Alaska would be in the range of 22+ million dollars.
This would reflect the reduction in net income to Sealaska, the
reduction in wages, benefits, and taxes, the reduction in 7(i)
revenues, and the associated multiplier effect.
There is another concern: the Tongass inventory may also be lower
than first thought.
I hasten to say this does not reflect on the Forest Service
management, any more than this new information should reflect on past
Sealaska management. The fact is this new information was not available
before now.
But, regardless of whether the information is welcome or not, we
cannot ignore it.
The implications are significant to SE Alaska. Although the
domestic processing of Forest Service logs produces fewer jobs than in
the past, it is still important in some communities, and it matters to
the contractors and their employees who build roads and harvest timber.
So, we are left with one conclusion: the quality and grade of
timber sales from the Tongass will have to change.
Currently, the majority of the Tongass--more than seven million
acres--is off limits to any development at all. This protected acreage
would not have been protected without the political support of the
Alaska Native Community. That said, the capacity of the Tongass
National Forest that is designated for harvest far exceeds the actual
production.
It is currently authorized to sell 267 million board feet per year.
In fact, the harvest plans typically call for cutting around 160 mmbf/
yr. But only about 50 mmbf/yr are sold and cut--about half of what
Sealaska itself has been producing on a fraction of that land base.
Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that the Tongass,
with a land base of over 16 million acres, would be producing lower
harvests than Sealaska, with a base of just 290,000 acres.
This is not due to market conditions, but the constant legal
challenges to Tongass sales as it is to harvest regulations. And as
Native leaders, we must be willing to point out the truth--that the
strategy of our friends in the environmental community to severely
limit harvest on the Tongass is hurting Native people
disproportionately.
The bottom line is this: The trend for timber sales on the Tongass
is not encouraging to those in Southeast who depends on or support the
industry.
The question before us now is, ``What will we do about it?'' That
brings me to the final point of my presentation this morning.
We need to think and act differently. We need new ideas--truly, a
new paradigm. And we need to do so from the perspective of how we can
help each other, rather than from a view of scarcity and win-lose.
At Sealaska, our goal has always been to protect and grow our
assets for economic, cultural and social benefits--today and in the
future. As stewards of our land, Sealaska spends over two million
dollars annually on silviculture. This is all for the future benefit of
our tribal member shareholders and the SE economy, for which there will
be no economic return for about 50 to 70 years. By extending this
philosophy to all of Southeast, I believe that through thoughtful,
focused, strategic management, we can extract greater value from our
forests.
Today, I want to offer to you--and to all the citizens of our
communities in Southeast Alaska--a new vision of Sealaska: a vision of
integrated management and marketing that can create greater benefit for
all Alaskans.
First, I see Sealaska as a true brand--a focused, aligned, and
powerful brand that itself creates value. Achieving this goal requires
a consistent vision for our future and flexibility in how we do
business.
As part of that flexibility, we need to fundamentally rethink our
core strategies. We need to evaluate the future of the forest products
industry in Southeast Alaska, and Sealaska's role in it.
As global competition increases, pressure for ever-cheaper timber
also increases and our margins decrease. When timber is viewed as a
commodity, our distance from markets and regulatory framework put us at
a distinct disadvantage.
Yet there is another way. If we build a brand and customer base
around our cultural and environmental stewardship, and deliver a
superior product, our timber can command a premium price.
This has been done may times before. For example, the seafood
industry is making the same shift.
Is Copper River salmon really so superior to other kinds? What
about Yakutat Wild, Yukon Wild or Rainforest Wild?
In today's market, delivering top quality timber is not enough. In
addition, we need to build the Sealaska brand to reflect our cultural
identity, community connections and environmental stewardship. And we
need to reflect these values in the way we operate.
For example, we must consider an independent certification of our
forestlands, as the fishermen did with the Marine Stewardship Council.
If we want to project our environmental stewardship, we must find
responsible environmental partners to endorse our forest management and
tell the world about the quality of our work on the ground.
These initiatives would be part of our overall strategy to align
the company's image and operations. Becoming a model of forest
management, community relations and cultural promotion would support
Sealaska's position as a company delivering value to our customers and
communities.
We are mindful that environmentalists have successfully stigmatized
any timber that comes out of the Tongass National Forest. This
adversely impacts all of Southeast Alaska, and disproportionately
impacts Alaska Native people. I believe that our branding approach,
together with the other ideas I will outline, can overcome and turn
this around. We hope all responsible groups will work with our
community to define and support this new brand.
Second, as part of Sealaska's continuing program to diversify its
income and investments, we are evaluating investing in non-ANCSA timber
enterprises that contribute to our economy and employment
opportunities.
The third major course of action is one I mentioned earlier. To
ensure that Sealaska's harvests do not decline more than necessary, we
must resolve two very fundamental and important issues:
First, the federal government must fulfill its commitment to
transfer at least 64,000 acres to Sealaska as entitlement
lands. And because we believe the original federal lands
``withdrawn'' for this transfer are not adequate, we propose
that the entitlement selections be made from outside the old
withdrawal areas.
Second, the federal government needs to complete a long-
contemplated land exchange with Sealaska. Sealaska owns some
very special lands that frankly would fit better in public
ownership.
All of these ideas, however valuable, are incremental in scope. We
also need to think bigger thoughts. This brings me to the fourth and
most important part of this new vision for all Alaskans.
I invite you to consider the possibility of consolidating all the
timber programs of Southeast Alaska--including that portion of the
Tongass designated for harvest--under one organization--a Native
Stewardship Trust. Consider the possible benefits of a unified timber
supply:
A single management team
Sealaska could provide valuable marketing and branding
capabilities to the timber produced--something that would be
virtually impossible with a Forest Service product
Timber could be managed to high standards, as both
organizations do now, but under Sealaska, it could be managed
with far more certainty and predictability--a great advantage
for anyone wishing to invest in domestic processing
A single ownership could manage the landscape more
effectively and efficiently.
With Sealaska as the steward, it is likely that more timber
could be produced at lower cost and with greater
predictability.
Under that model, it should be possible to generate more
jobs and income for both the processing side of the industry
and the round log side.
The public access now available on federal lands could be
continued on the lands shifted to Sealaska's stewardship.
All Alaskans, Natives and non-Natives, have shared values and a
shared future. Too often, we Natives continue to think in the old
paradigm of separateness. There are times when, as in sustaining our
cultural heritage, that is necessary and appropriate. But increasingly
in our economic lives, separateness may be self-limiting.
In creating value from the vast forest resources of Southeast
Alaska, Native people have something special to offer, not just to
Alaskans, but to the world. I ask you all to hold your heads high and
carry this conversation to all our fellow Alaskans.
Remember this: As Natives, we understand that a forest is a unified
community, a complex system that is greater than the sum of its parts.
The same is true for the human community of Southeast Alaska. Together,
we can produce something far better than we are doing separately.
Thank you.
attachment 6
Alaska Editorial: A new vision for our forests and our future
By CHRIS E. MCNEIL JR.
November 21, 2005.
Forest resources are vital to the future of Alaska and all its
people. In Southeast Alaska, after fishing, forests provide the most
private jobs. And income from Sealaska's timber harvest is the leading
source of revenue shared among over 80,000 Alaska Native tribal
shareholders, through the 12 regional corporations and over 200 village
corporations.
I invite all Alaskans to consider a new vision: a vision that
creates more jobs, stability, and value from the forests of Southeast
Alaska.
This vision centers on two primary ideas:
fulfilling all land entitlements promised by the federal
government to Sealaska, and;
unifying management of all harvestable timberlands in
Southeast Alaska under a Native Stewardship Trust, to be
operated for the benefit of all citizens.
It is critical we have this discussion right now.
Recently, I announced sobering news that, because our forest
inventory is smaller than previously understood and the federal
government has been slow to complete its promises of land, Sealaska
must reduce its timber harvests.
While the news coverage has understandably focused on reduced jobs
and expenditures, (some $22.5 million annually) the important question
before us is, ``What do we do now?'' I see three critical steps:
First, the federal government must quickly complete the land
transfers to Native corporations it promised 30 years ago under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. We kept our part of the bargain;
the federal government has not.
Sealaska is still awaiting transfer of 64,000 acres of land it is
entitled to under ANCSA--land that could help restore lost timber
revenue and jobs.
Second, the federal government should complete the long-
contemplated land exchange with Sealaska. Sealaska owns some very
special lands that frankly would fit better in public ownership.
Exchanging those lands for property better suited to timber harvest is
not only the right thing to do, it would ease our current crisis.
And finally, all Alaskans--indeed all Americans--would benefit from
more effective management of our existing public timber resources. In
Alaska, this is our elephant in the room, the thing everyone knows and
no one discusses.
The Forest Service is hamstrung at every turn by activist lawsuits.
The Tongass harvest is only about 20 percent of what's authorized in
the Tongass Land Management Plan. Why do Alaskans continue to accept
that?
I propose that management of the harvestable portion of the Tongass
be returned to its original stewards--Alaska Natives--through a Native
Stewardship Trust led by Sealaska. Under unified management, timber
could be produced more efficiently, with consistency and high
standards, generating more jobs and income for all Alaskans.
Of course, public access now available on federal lands would
continue on the lands shifted to Sealaska's stewardship. And, as part
of our program to position Sealaska as a provider of highly valued
``green'' products, we would pursue independent certification of our
forest lands to confirm the good work we do on the ground. This would
also help the mills these lands support.
While our ancestors were the original stewards of these forests,
Sealaska has also demonstrated the ability and commitment to properly
steward our forests. We're proud, for example, that peer-reviewed
scientific studies confirm our practices protect fish, streams and
other natural resources.
Over the last 50 years, the federal government has increasingly
assumed management of our timber resources, while creating social
programs to provide for Alaska Natives. And over time, Natives and non-
Natives have come to view natural resources as something to be divided,
rather than shared. We need a different vision--a win-win concept.
It is time Alaskans consider the benefits of acting together, and
time for Alaska Natives to once again assume responsibility for our own
future. The first step in that journey can be the Native Stewardship
Trust.
In creating value from the vast forest resources of Southeast
Alaska, Native people have something special to offer, not just to
Alaskans, but to the world. We understand that the forest is an ancient
yet renewable gift that, treated with respect and carefully managed,
will provide a better future for all Alaskans.
That is my vision. I invite you to become part of the discussion.
Seattle and Juneau resident Chris E. McNeil Jr. is the
president and CEO of Sealaska Corp.
attachment 7
From the desk of Wayne Regelin, Juneau, AK
April 28, 2010.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Senate Building, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski : Passage of the ``southeast Alaska Native
Land Entitlement Finalization Act'' (S.SS1) could have unintended
consequences that would cause severe economic problems for Southeast
Alaska.
Both the Queen Charlotte goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf
have been identified as distinct population segments for the puposes of
consideration under the Endangered Species Act. A vital part of the
conservation strategies contained in the Tongass Land Management Plan
to keep these populations from being listed as ENDANGERED SPECIES by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the creation of oldgrowth forest
reserves in the Tongass National Forest where logging would not occur.
The referenced legislation would allow the Sealaska Corporation to
select several of the old-growth reserves in southern Southeast Alaska
and the corporation's representatives have stated that they inteld to
log the-lands selected for economic development. If these reserves are
conveyed to Sealaska by Congress it will almost certainly lead to a new
petition to list the goshawk and wolf as endangered species and the
distinct possibility that they will be so designated.
After careful deliberations amongst ourselves and after consulting
with key members of the scientific community, the three of us have
concluded that this issue must be carefully examined from a political
and scientific point of view. It is also crucial that this examination
be conducted before any further decisions are made on land exchanges,
new land selections, or modifications to TLMP.
The scientific assessments and the politics surrounding proposal
such as this legislation is an arena in which the three of us have
spent considerable time and effort and have developed an expertise that
we feel qualified to exercise. Collectively, we have spent over 50
years dealing with all of the nuances of the Endangered Species Act and
the many attempts to defend against its abuses and to modify the Act
into a more workable and effective federal law. All three of us have
occupied the Wildlife Division Director position within the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game and two of us served as Deputy
Commissioner.
We have concluded that the proposed land ``exchanges'' being
proposed in S. 881 have huge endangered species ramifications for the
Alexander Archipelago wolf and the Queen Charlotte goshawk. Both
species have been petitioned to be listed as endangered or threatened
species in the past. These petitions were rejected by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for listing in Alaska, atthe time, because the
planning processes implemented by the U.S. Forest Service adequately
provided for the habitat needs of the species and as a result the
projected population decreases presented by the environmental community
were not imminent.
The November 8, 2007 News Release by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on their decision to NOT list the goshawk is relevant:
``We find that the best available information on biological
vulnerabilif and threats to the goshawk does not support
listing the Alaska population as threatened or endangered at
this time, in light of current conservation strategies being
implemented by the Tongass National Forest, including
designation of substantial areas of the forest in no-harvest
stafus and use of goshawk standards and guidelines in those
portions of the forest open to timber harvest.''
It is obvious that the selection of lands in southern Southeast
Alaska could substantially affect the conservation strategy implemented
on the Tongass National Forest. A quote from the October 8, 2009
comments by Department of Agriculture Under Secretary Jay Jensen to the
Senate Subcommittee on Public Land and Forests, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee says :
``The lands currently selected by Sealaska in the withdrawal
areas generally do not contain significant amounts of
economically viable old growth''
``The proposed selection areas on Prince of Wales, Tuxekan,
and Kosciusko Islands include approximately 55,000 acres of
productive old growth. They are within the Phase I lands of the
2008 TLMP Timber Sale Adaptive Management Plan and are suitable
for harvest, with the exception of portions currently
designated as old growth reserves. There are 12 old-growth
reserves within the above mentioned proposed selection areas.
All or part of thrce of the four old growth reserves on
Kosciusko Island would be removed from federal ownership, as
would two of the three on Tuxekan Island. These lands represent
a significant component of the TLMP conservation strategy area
for wildlife. Loss of these old-growth areas would likely
undermine the conservation strategy in TLMP and potentially
lead to threatened and endangered species listings.''
``Even though timber harvest in the proposed selection areas
may have been considered in TLMP, the Forest Service is
required to mitigate effects from such activities to avoid
species listings, whereas private landowners do not have a
similar requirement. ''
If Sealaska applies the same logging practices on the proposed
sites that it has applied to its previous selections, we can say
without reservation that radical environmental groups will once again
file petitions to list both the wolf and northern goshawk as
endangered. Due to the politics surrounding this controversial issue,
it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the eight small
communities that oppose the existing legislation would join the
environmental groups in filing a petition or file their own petition
for listing. They fear their communities will cease to exist if S.881
passes and will fight for survival.
Considering the fact that in 2009 the United States listed the
Queen Charlotte form of the Northem Goshawk as threatened throughout
British Columbia, except for Vancouver Island where it was listed as
endangered, it would seem reasonable to assume that the conditions
leading to these listings could be duplicated in Alaska. Certainly,
those areas identified in TLMP as necessary wildlife reserves should be
seriously considered for protection of some sort. Most certainly, the
State's Forest Practices Act does not provide the necessary oversight
or guidelines.
Wolf population flucfuations tied to deer population declines have
created concerns over intense logging practices which temporarily or
permanently cause deer populations to decline markedly. This is
especially true for Prince of Wales Island which has experienced
significant deer population declines and corresponding declines in the
wolf populations. State hunting regulations and federal subsistence
regulations have already significantly reduced opportunities to harvest
deer on Prince of Wales Island and surrounding areas. Additional
hunting restrictions are likely if large scale timber harvest occurs in
this area.
We have examined the listing petitions, records of decisions,
proposed rules, TLMP, Forest-wide Wildlife Standards and Guidelines and
the scientific information available to us. It is our professional
opinion that inadequate professional assessments of the potential
wildlife impacts of this legislation have been conducted. We believe it
is essential that athorough analysis of the various land selections
under consideration in S 881 and the selections made under the existing
law be evaluated. There are complex trade offs that would affect the
amounts of timber that could be harvested and the potential effects on
listings ofendangered species.
We strongly recommend that you immediately request the involved
agencies (U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game) conduct an emergency assessment of
the various land exchange options being considered. The assessment
should include how the various options would impact deer, wolf and
goshawk populations. It is essential that this analysis be complete
before any final decision is made on land exchanges or land selections.
Such an analysis can be completed in a few weeks if the agencies make
it a priority.
With adequate input from the agency professionals, modifications to
this legislation may be possible to dampen the potential listing
possibilities. If either species is listed as either threatened or
endangered the effect will be the elimination of any logging industry
in the region--either on private or public lands. Remember when
Weyerhaeuser Corporation said, ``the spotted owl will never affect
us.''
Currently, the only analysis of the tradeoffs between the currently
selected lands and those proposed in S 881 and FfR 2099 has been
conducted by David Albert of The Nature Conservancy. His preliminary
analysis of the ecological values associated with the various selection
options shows great disparity in timber value and wildlife habitat
between the currently selected areas and those proposed in S. 881 and
HR 2099. The analysis is complex and according to Sealaska it is
controversial. It shows that lands proposed for selection in
legislation have some of the highest value old growth forest, wildlife
habitat and karst formations in Southeast Alaska. This analysis, while
usefiJ, does not consider the ramifications of the Endangered Species
Act. An analysis of the ramifications for species listing conducted by
the federal and state agencies responsible for managing the Tongass
Forest is required in order that sound public policy decisions can be
made.
We wish to clarify that this correspondence is being submiued by
the three of us as wildlife professionals with over 75 years of
experience with the Alaska Deparfinent of Fish and Game and does not
reflect the position of anyone else or any organization.
We are willing to assist in the process of assuring that Sealaska
Corporation receives its land entitlement. We stand ready to
participate in any habitat and population assessments if we can help
expedite the process or contribute our experiences in dealing with the
Endangered Species Act.
Thank you for considering this recommendation.
Dr. Wayne Regelin,
Director, Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation 1995-2002.
Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2003-2006.
Ron Somerville,
Director, Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation 1979-1984.
Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1991-1993.
Matt Robus,
Director, Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation 2002-2008.
attachment 8
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC, October 15, 2010.
Ms. Heather Pichter,
President, Edna Bay, Alaska, General Delivery, Edna Bay, AK.
Dear Ms. Pichter: Thank you for your September 13, 2010, letter to
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar requesting immediate conveyance
of land to Sealaska Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. Secretary Salazar has asked me to respond to your
letter.
The Bureau of Land Management honors the responsibility of
finalizing land entitlements and claims due Native corporations, Alaska
Native individuals, and the State of Alaska under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), the Native Allotment Act of
1906, the Alaska Native Veteran's Allotment Act of 1998, and the Alaska
Statehood Act of 1959. Sealaska filed its final land selection on June
10, 2008, in compliance with the deadline set by the Alaska Land
Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004. In that letter, Sealaska requested
that the BLM delay conveyance of remaining entitlements, pending the
outcome of proposed federal legislation, S. 881 and H.R. 2099, the
Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. The BLM has
complied with the corporation's request.
I appreciate your concerns and the concerns of those who signed the
September 13 letter. I assure you the timely conveyance of Sealaska's
85,000-acre entitlement is important to BLM, as is the conveyances of
each remaining entitlement. We continue to work closely with our land
transfer clients to balance remaining work and meet client priorities.
We sent a copy of your letter to Sealaska and placed another in our
files If you have additional questions please contact Ramona Chinn.
Deputy State Director, Alaska Lands, at 907-271-3806.
Sincerely,
Robert V. Abbey,
Director