    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           H.R. 1408, TO PROVIDE FOR

                           THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN

                               CLAIMS UNDER THE

                             ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS

                                SETTLEMENT ACT

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND

                             ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             Thursday, May 26, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-36

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    66-652                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, AK                        Dale E. Kildee, MI
    John J. Duncan, Jr., TN              Peter A. DeFazio, OR
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Rush D. Holt, NJ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    John Fleming, LA                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Mike Coffman, CO                     Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Dan Boren, OK
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Jeff Denham, CA                          CNMI
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Martin Heinrich, NM
    David Rivera, FL                     Ben Ray Lujan, NM
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      John P. Sarbanes, MD
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Betty Sutton, OH
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Niki Tsongas, MA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Kristi L. Noem, SD                   John Garamendi, CA
    Steve Southerland II, FL             Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Bill Flores, TX                      Vacancy
    Andy Harris, MD
    Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
    Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
        TN
    Jon Runyan, NJ
    Bill Johnson, OH

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                    Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
                     David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS

                            DON YOUNG, AK, Chairman
                     DAN BOREN, OK, Ranking Democrat Member

    Tom McClintock, CA                   Dale E. Kildee, MI
    Jeff Denham, CA                      Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Ben Ray Lujan, NM
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
    Kristi L. Noem, SD
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

                                     ------
                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

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

    Statement of Members:
        Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State
          of Alaska..................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Claus, Bob, Forest Program Director, Southeast Alaska
          Conservation Council, Craig, Alaska........................    31
            Prepared statement of....................................    33
        Graham, Owen, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association,
          Ketchikan, Alaska..........................................    36
            Prepared statement of....................................    37
        Mallott, Byron, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau,
          Alaska.....................................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
          Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5

    Additional materials supplied:
        American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Berkley Conservation
          Institute/Pure Fishing, Campfire Club of America,
          Federation of Fly Fishers, et al., Letter submitted for the
          record on S. 730 and H.R. 1408.............................    48
        Daulton, Mike, Vice President of Government Relations,
          National Audubon Society, Letter submitted for the record..    52
        Durglo, Joe, President, Intertribal Timber Council, Letter
          submitted for the record...................................    15
        Elfin Cove, Alaska, Resolution No. 11-02 on S. 730 and H.R.
          1408 submitted for the record..............................    53
        Katz, John W., Director of State/Federal Relations and
          Special Counsel to the Governor, State of Alaska, Juneau,
          Alaska, Letter submitted for the record....................    17
        List of documents retained in the Committee's official files.    47
        Organized Village of Kake, Alaska, Letters submitted for the
          record.....................................................    54
        Stein, Alan, Statement submitted for the record..............    58
        Thoms, Andrew, Executive Director, Sitka Conservation
          Society, Letter submitted for the record...................    62

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1408, TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF
     CERTAIN CLAIMS UNDER THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT, AND FOR
                                OTHER PURPOSES.

                                  ----------

                             Thursday, May 26, 2011

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Donald Young,
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Young, Denham, Kildee, and
    Hanabusa.
        Mr. Young. The purpose of today's hearing is to hear
    testimony on H.R. 1408, a bill that I introduced, along with
    the Ranking Member, Dan Boren, and the majority of the other
    Members of this Subcommittee.

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

        Mr. Young. H.R. 1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land
    Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act, will
    authorize Sealaska, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for
    Southeast Alaska, to finalize its 40-year-old land settlement
    due under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, of
    1971, by selecting Native lands from within a designated pool
    of land in Southeast Alaska.
        ANCSA allocated 44 million acres and nearly $1 billion to
    Alaska's Native people, to be managed by the 12 regional
    corporations, including Sealaska, and more than 200 village
    corporations.
        First introduced in 2007, this bill has undergone an
    extensive vetting process throughout the region that has
    resulted in meaningful changes, such as providing for continued
    public access to lands, and modifying certain land selections,
    among others.
        In addition, the legislation allows Sealaska to move away
    from sensitive watersheds, to select a more balanced inventory
    of second growth and old growth, and to select most of its
    remaining ANCSA lands on the existing road system, preserving
    on balance as much as 40,000 acres of inventoried roadless old
    growth.
        Further, Southeast Alaska communities face dire economic
    realities. Some communities have unemployment nearing 50
    percent, and many more are in the double digits. It was not
    always this way, but through the mismanagement of the forest by
    the Forest Service, and the continued siege from environmental
    groups, industry has suffered, and over the last couple of
    decades, the population has seen a consistent and steep
    decline.
        By permitting Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement
    lands from outside of the withdrawal boxes, the Sealaska bill
    would help Sealaska maintain jobs in rural and predominantly
    Native communities. Sealaska provides hundreds of jobs and is
    the largest private employer in the entire region.
        After nearly 40 years since the passage of ANCSA, Sealaska
    has still not received conveyance of its full land entitlement.
    It is critical that Sealaska complete its remaining land
    entitlement under ANCSA in order to continue to meet the
    economic, social, and cultural needs of its Native
    shareholders, and the Native community throughout Alaska.
        It is very, very important that this bill does pass, and
    welcome, Mr. Kildee. It is good to have you here, and do you
    have an opening statement?
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Young follows:]

                Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Chairman,
                Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs

        The purpose of today's hearing is to hear testimony on H.R. 1408, a
    bill I introduced with the Ranking Member, Dan Boren, and the majority
    of the other Members of this Subcommittee.
        H.R. 1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
    Finalization and Jobs Protection Act will authorize Sealaska, the
    regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska, to finalize
    its 40-year old land settlement due under the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 by selecting Native lands from within a
    designated pool of land in Southeast Alaska.
        ANCSA allocated 44 million acres and nearly $1 billion to Alaska's
    Native people, to be managed by the 12 Regional Corporations, including
    Sealaska, and more than 200 Village Corporations.
        First introduced in 2007, this bill has undergone an extensive
    vetting process throughout the region that has resulted in meaningful
    changes such as providing for continued public access to lands, and
    modifying certain land selections, among others.
        In addition, the legislation allows Sealaska to move away from
    sensitive watersheds, to select a more balanced inventory of second
    growth and old growth, and to select most of its remaining ANCSA lands
    on the existing road system, preserving on balance as much as 40,000
    acres of inventoried ``roadless old growth.''
        Further, Southeast Alaska communities face dire economic realities.
    Some communities have unemployment nearing 50% and many more are in the
    double digits. It was not always this way, but through the
    mismanagement of the forest by the Forest Service and the continued
    siege from environmental groups, industry has suffered and, over the
    last couple decades, the population has seen a consistent and steep
    decline.
        By permitting Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement lands
    from outside of the withdrawal boxes, the Sealaska bill would help
    Sealaska maintain jobs in rural and predominately Native communities.
    Sealaska provides hundreds of jobs and is the largest private employer
    in the entire region.
        After nearly 40 years since the passage of ANSCA, Sealaska has
    still not received conveyance of its full land entitlement. It is
    critical that Sealaska complete its remaining land entitlement under
    ANCSA in order to continue to meet the economic, social and cultural
    needs of its Native shareholders, and the Native community throughout
    Alaska
                                     ______

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

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
    patience with me. I had another hearing, but first of all, I
    want to thank you for calling this important hearing on H.R.
    1408.
        I have been in Congress now for 35 years, and it is great
    to find someone who is a soulmate, someone who believes that
    justice is very important, and that justice delayed is justice
    denied.
        We have obligations to the Native Alaskans, and we want to
    make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that
    we carry out the land entitlements which were promised them.
        People may disagree as to how and what, but this Congress
    has great authority, and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Young
    has been so diligent and in having this area, and I look
    forward to hearing from the witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Dale Kildee, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Michigan

        I thank the Chairman for calling this important hearing on H.R.
    1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and
    Jobs Protection Act.
        As we know, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA),
    the Sealaska Corporation is entitled to up to 375,000 acres of land to
    resolve long-standing native land claims. This land is for the benefit
    and ECONOMIC development of sealaska shareholders. To date, this land
    entitlement has not been fulfilled.
        H.R. 1408 would allow Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement
    land from outside the land borders designated by ANCSA. While there are
    differing opinions about this process, everyone on this Committee is
    dedicated to ensuring that Sealaska receives the land to which they are
    entitled.
        I thank the chairman for calling this important hearing and I look
    forward to the witnesses' testimony to help further the discussion. I
    am committed to Sealaska receiving the land it is entitled to and to
    working with the Chairman to resolve any concerns to see that this
    important matter is settled.
                                     ______

        Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman, and this is going to be a
    little bit awkward, because I just made my opening statement,
    and Mr. Kildee made his opening statement. I have to be on the
    Floor for about 15 minutes, and if I can, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
    Denham is on his way, and I will run over and get back as soon
    as I can.
        I have an issue on the Floor that I have to take care of
    under the Defense Bill, and I will recess until Mr. Denham gets
    here, and then he will call us back in, and we will hear from
    our witness from the Department of Agriculture.
        I do apologize to you for this. There is only one of us in
    Alaska, and when they are going to have this clone experiment,
    I say that you don't need two of us, but sometimes I wish there
    were two of us.
        So if you would excuse me for about 15 minutes, and I would
    like to hand you the gavel. I don't know how that would go
    over.
        Mr. Kildee. You wouldn't object, but some others may.
        Mr. Young. So with that in mind, we will stand in recess
    until Mr. Denham gets here, and as soon as he gets here, we
    will start the discussion with our first witness, and I will be
    back as soon as I can.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Don.
        Mr. Young. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Denham. [Presiding.] The Committee on Natural Resources
    will now come back to order. Thank you. We will now hear from
    our witnesses. On the first panel is Harris Sherman, the Under
    Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the
    Environment.
        Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will
    appear in full in the hearing record. So I ask that you keep
    your oral statements to five minutes as outlined in our
    invitation letter to you under Committee Rule 4(a).
        I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you
    begin to speak, our Clerk will start the timer and a green
    light will appear. After four minutes, the yellow light will
    appear, and at that time, you should begin wrapping things up.
    At five minutes the red light will come on, and you may
    complete your sentence, but at that time, we must stop you.

    STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES
            AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Sherman. Thank you very much. My name is Harris
    Sherman, and I am the Under Secretary at USDA for Natural
    Resources and the Environment. We are pleased to have a chance
    to comment on H.R. 1408.
        At the outset, I want to state that we fully support
    Sealaska's finalization of all of its land selections, and
    finalization of all associated issues that come from that. We
    fully recognize and appreciate, and respect the history and the
    connection of Native Alaskans to the Tongass.
        This process has gone on for too long. It needs to be
    brought to closure, and if we do, I think it will help all
    parties. We are also pleased that progress has been made by the
    parties to resolve a number of the issues that came up in prior
    legislation.
        And this progress has been seen in recent iterations of S.
    730, and I also should say that we are pleased about the
    ongoing dialogue between the parties. There remain a number of
    important issues where we need to find common solutions,
    solutions which allow Sealaska to pursue future opportunities,
    and ones which will allow other important principles to
    succeed.
        And in particular the transition away from old growth and
    roadless forests to second growth forests and restoration
    projects, and the transition to a more diversified vibrant
    economy in Southeastern Alaska, not only with timber, but it
    includes commercial fishing, and mariculture, tourism, and
    recreation, and renewable energy.
        Many parties have been working on these issues, and I want
    to say that we are particularly appreciative of Sealaska's
    efforts to assist us in this regard. All of these efforts will
    provide jobs both to native and non-native communities alike.
        Now, in that context, or concerns with the bill are as
    follows. First, the lands identified by Sealaska for timber
    development overlap to a considerable extent with lands that
    are critical to the success of the Forest Service's transition
    strategy over the next 10 to 15 years.
        These are lands that are central to providing local mills
    with sustainable, dependable wood for the foreseeable future.
    These are lands where we have invested over 50 million in the
    form of infrastructure and thinning efforts.
        And these represent some of the best lands for the
    transition period. Since Sealaska's intentions as we understand
    it are to export most of these logs abroad, we are genuinely
    concerned, however, how we will meet the needs of Sealaska's
    remaining mills, and the value added products that they
    support.
        Second, a portion of the lands targeted by Sealaska for
    development outside of the withdrawal areas are old growth
    reserves, which provide essential habitat for the Goshawk and
    the Gray Wolf, both species of concern.
        The Forest Service in its Tongass Land Management Plan
    committed to protecting these areas was an important factor in
    the Fish and Wildlife Service's support of the plan. If
    developed, we are concerned about the impact of the Goshawk and
    the Gray Wolf, and whether it could trigger petitions to list
    the species, and what the response of the United States Fish
    and Wildlife Service would be.
        Third, the Forest Service remains very concerned with the
    possibility of 30 new end-holdings of the so-called future
    sites within the National Forests. We know from experience that
    end-holdings are often problematic.
        They represent significant access issues, boundary issues,
    challenges to handling and controlling impacts on and off
    Federal land, and other general management issues. Fourth, we
    believe that the legislation will likely necessitate amendments
    to the Tongass Management Plan, a process that has proved
    difficult in the past years.
        So those are our concerns, Mr. Chairman, and with that said
    though, I want to emphasize that we are prepared to work with
    the Committee, with Sealaska, and other stakeholders to find
    appropriate solutions. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]

      Statement of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
              Environment, United States Department of Agriculture

        Mr. Chairman, Honorable Ranking Member and distinguished members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
    about Native land claims in Southeast Alaska. I will open my testimony
    by addressing the direction in which the Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) and the Forest Service are heading regarding economic
    sustainability in Southeast Alaska and how our vision for economic
    diversification ties into H.R. 1408, the Southeast Alaska Native Land
    Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act.
        The USDA recognizes and supports the timely, equitable and final
    distribution of land entitlement to Alaska Native Corporations,
    including Sealaska, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
    (ANCSA). The USDA understands Sealaska's interest in acquiring lands,
    which have economic and cultural value. The USDA has been working with
    Sealaska. Members of Congress and other community partners to find
    solutions to move forward the land entitlement and finalization, and
    recognizes the progress that is reflected in S. 730, the Senate version
    of the Act. I also wish to express our continued interest in working
    collaboratively with Sealaska, Congress and other community partners to
    find an equitable solution that is in the public interest.
        While the USDA supports a number of the goals of this legislation,
    we continue to have a number of concerns we wish to work through with
    the involved parties. This will be the focus of my testimony. The
    testimony will also convey a Department of the Interior concern with
    H.R. 1408 regarding a cooperative management provision of the
    legislation.
    Background
        When enacting ANCSA in 1971, Congress balanced the need for a fair
    and just settlement of Alaska Native aboriginal land claims with the
    need for use of the public lands in Alaska. The approach to resolve
    Alaska Native claims in ANCSA is unique in its reliance on the creation
    of Alaska Native Village and Regional Corporations, which generally
    receive entitlement from lands located within the original Native
    village withdrawal areas. Congress defined the land entitlements of
    both village and regional corporations, but provided for some
    differentiation among corporations to consider individual village or
    region circumstances.
        One such consideration was the reduction of land entitlement to the
    village and regional corporations representing Alaska Natives in
    Southeast Alaska. The Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Southeast Alaska
    brought a ``taking'' lawsuit against the United States for land claims
    and the U.S. Court of Claims awarded damages to the tribes shortly
    before ANCSA was enacted. Recognizing this prior award, Congress
    reduced the entitlement of village and regional corporations in
    Southeast Alaska, with Sealaska receiving its entitlement only under
    Section 14(h) of ANCSA.
        Sealaska has thus far received more than 290,000 acres of 14(h)
    entitlement, with approximately 63,605 acres of ANCSA entitlement yet
    to be conveyed, based on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
    estimates. Sealaska has prioritized its selections within the original
    withdrawal areas as required by the 2004 Acceleration Act, with
    approximately 138,000 acres of prioritized selections identified. The
    selections identified by Sealaska within the original withdrawal areas
    are more than sufficient to meet Sealaska's remaining ANCSA
    entitlement, but were put on hold at Sealaska's request to pursue a
    legislative alternative to select outside the ANCSA withdrawl area to
    settle their remaining entitlements.
    Southeast Alaska Transition Strategy
        Since testifying last before this committee, the USDA has made
    great strides in developing approaches to diversify and sustain the
    economy in Southeast Alaska. Through a coordinated interagency effort,
    USDA is focusing with local interests on ways to provide long-term,
    sustainable support for a wide array of economic opportunities for
    Southeast Alaska communities, including Alaska Natives around 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 H.R.
    1408 and evaluated whether it facilitates or hinders the
    Administration's goals for promoting job protection, creation, and
    economic diversification in Southeast Alaska.
        Conflict on the Tongass National Forest pertaining to the
    harvesting of old growth in roadless areas has intensified over the
    last 10-15 years. The forest has faced 18 lawsuits during this period,
    many of which were resolved through settlements or adverse judgments,
    but all of which cost valuable time and taxpayer dollars. The
    Administration recognizes a balance must be struck between many diverse
    and competing needs and we need to chart a course of action that moves
    us away from old growth and roadless area harvests sooner rather than
    later. To move us away from this conflict, we must operate on three
    primary principles 1) provide timber for local value added products; 2)
    keep the conservation strategy in the Tongas Land Management Plan and
    environmental values intact and 3) stay clear of roadless areas.
        We understand that Sealaska is interested in maintaining export of
    round logs, using a local workforce generally found in the rural
    communities of Southeast Alaska to do the harvesting and hauling. The
    Forest Service's primary interest is maintaining adequate supply of
    timber for local processing by existing mills and the jobs associated
    with those mills. This is a central aim of the transition strategy that
    the Forest Service has developed and one that is achievable if the
    Forest Service has access to a sufficient quantity of timber available
    on lands that have existing roads. The Forest Service and Sealaska have
    an interest in maintaining the loggers and other forestry
    infrastructure to support a local forest economy and both the Forest
    Service and Sealaska have an interest in moving away from the
    dependency on old growth and moving to harvesting young growth stands.
        The lands identified in H.R. 1408 represent a significant part of
    the Forest Service's roaded land base for Southeast Alaska identified
    in the Tongass Land Management Plan as suitable for timber harvest. The
    majority of the lands identified in H.R. 1408 are close to the only
    remaining medium sized mill and several smaller, local mills in the
    Tongass National Forest.
        The Forest Service has determined that approximately 64 percent of
    land withdrawn and available for selection in section 4(b)(1) of H.R.
    1408 overlaps projects listed on the Tongass 5 Year Plan. Specifically,
    the selections would impact six projects, which represent potential
    profitable sales to the medium sized mill and smaller local mills in
    the next five years. Additionally, the Forest Service has made
    substantive investments in lands identified in H.R. 1408 through
    environmental analysis, stand management, roads, log transfer
    facilities, maintenance, trails, fish habitat restoration and others
    activities, totaling more than $50 million.
        Approximately 6,900 acres of land identified for selection in
    section 3(b)(1) support an older age class of second growth forests (50
    years and older, on productive soils). These lands include more than
    5,000 acres on Kozciusco Island and another 1,275 acres on Kuiu. These
    selections cover areas that represent the Forest Service's best, first
    entry into commercial second growth, including projects currently
    listed on the Tongass' 5-year plan.
        Ultimately, the transfer of these of these older second growth
    stands from the Forest Service to Sealaska will reduce the available
    timber supply for local mills and hamper the Forest Service transition
    to second growth in Southeast Alaska. Removing these stands also means
    that more old growth areas would be harvested longer, because it will
    take more time for the second growth stands to mature into legally
    harvestable ages. The Forest Service believes this will increase the
    potential for litigation around timber sales and thereby create
    significant uncertainty for the forest industry.
        There are a number of ways this issue could be addressed, and USDA
    is willing to work with Sealaska to find a solution that meets the
    needs of all the affected parties and is in the public interest in
    Alaska.
    Conservation Strategy and Old Growth Reserves (OGR)
        The Tongass Land Management Plan's conservation strategy was
    formulated around Sealaska's selections within the original ANCSA
    withdrawal areas. Old growth reserves found within the land pool
    identified in H.R. 1408 are central to the Tongass National Forest's
    conservation strategy as outlined in its land management plan. The land
    management plan includes a comprehensive, science-based conservation
    strategy to address wildlife sustainability and viability. This
    strategy includes a network of variable sized old growth reserves
    across the forest designed to provide for connectivity and maintain the
    composition, structure and function of the old growth ecosystem.
        In 1997, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided not to
    list Queen Charlotte goshawk and Alexander Archipelago wolf under the
    Endangered Species Act, based on the protective measures incorporated
    in the conservation strategy of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan, primarily
    the network of old growth reserves and the positioning of the reserves
    across the landscape, and the existence of forested corridors between
    the reserves. The USFWS reaffirmed this finding regarding the goshawk
    in 2007, and the Department of the Interior asked the Forest Service to
    retain the Conservation Strategy in the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan
    Amendment (TLMP). These were among the main reasons why the 2008 TLMP
    Amendment kept all the major components of the conservation strategy.
        Conveyance of land selections as proposed in H.R. 1408 will
    decrease the effectiveness of the Tongass' conservation strategy and
    could hamper the plan's ability to maintain viable populations of plant
    and wildlife species. This could lead to the need for USFWS to
    reconsider its previous determinations regarding the goshawk and gray
    wolf. Replacing the old growth reserve areas with an equal number of
    acres from somewhere else within the forest does not resolve the
    effects on the land management plan's conservation strategy; the
    location and design of the old growth reserve network is critical to
    the success of the conservation strategy. Distribution of the reserves
    across the landscape and composition of the habitat within each
    reserve, were carefully considered. Because of the potential Endangered
    Species Act issues, the Forest Service is concerned that H.R. 1408
    could increase the chances for litigation, which would increase
    uncertainty for all parties, including Sealaska and local mills. The
    USDA is willing to discuss mechanisms for maintaining these old growth
    reserves to ensure they remain whole.
        Although H.R. 1408 provides that implementation of this legislation
    will not require an amendment or revision to the Tongass Land
    Management Plan (TLMP), this language would not prevent issues from
    arising during TLMP implementation. If the significant management
    assumptions and strategies that formed the basis of the plan are
    modified through enactment of H.R. 1408, the TLMP cannot be implemented
    as currently intended.
    Finalizing Sealaska Entitlement
        As the title of this legislation suggests, any legislated solution
    finalizing Sealaska's entitlement must actually resolve all of Sealaska
    entitlement issues upon enactment, such as remaining entitlement acres,
    resolve outstanding split estate issues, relinquish existing Sealaska
    ANCSA selections and removal of the original ANCSA withdrawal areas.
    This issue is significant to the Forest Service because without closure
    the agency cannot identify a stable land base and ensure that
    investments made today can be capitalized in the future. The Department
    of the Interior notes that H.R. 1408, if enacted, may set a precedent
    for other corporations to seek similar legislation
        In that context, we also have concerns about in-holdings. Selection
    from the land categories in section 4(b)(2) (``Sites with Traditional
    and Recreational Use Value''), in section 4(b)(3) (``Traditional and
    Customary Trade and Migration Routes'') and in section 4(c) (``Sites
    with Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, or Historic Significance,'') will
    result in a significant number of sites and routes scattered throughout
    the forest, creating in-holdings that cause significant management
    issues including access and boundary management problems. It is agency
    policy to avoid the creation of in-holdings. Likewise, the elimination
    of such in-holdings is, and has historically been, one of the agency's
    foremost land acquisition priorities. The Forest Service has extended
    considerable public resources to acquire the types of in-holdings that
    H.R. 1408 would create. We have concern over the 33 in-holdings created
    by the new land categories in H.R. 1408. The Forest Service estimates
    that surveying and boundary management for new Sealaska land selections
    under H.R. 1408.
        Additionally, the escrow provision included in the legislation does
    not address the relinquishment of any rights Sealaska may have to
    escrow funds from lands within the original withdrawal area. In
    addition, H.R. 1408 is also not clear on what right Sealaska may have
    to claim escrow on the new parcels identified, which have previously
    been harvested. The USDA advocates clearly articulating the escrow
    account provisions to relinquish Sealaska's right to escrow within the
    original ANCSA identified withdrawal areas.
    Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act
        In line with the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004, the
    USDA supports a reduced conveyance timeline. H.R. 1408, however, only
    provides for selections under section 4(b)(1) and would penalize
    Sealaska only if it had not made its selection under section 4(c)(2)
    within 15 years. Sealaska has previously provided copies of maps, which
    identify their sites of preference. Settling on those land selections
    prior to passage of H.R. 1408, could resolve one of USDA's primary
    concerns with H.R. 1408.
    Public Access
        We continue to believe H.R. 1408 will affect the Forest Service's
    ability to provide for continuous public access for subsistence uses
    and recreation on the Tongass National Forest. The legislation provides
    Sealaska the right to regulate access on certain lands where the public
    use is incompatible with Sealaska's natural resource development, as
    determined by Sealaska. The ability of the Forest Service to provide
    for access, subsistence activities and public and commercial recreation
    and tourism and will be limited by enactment of the legislation.
    Special Use Permits: Liability and Responsibility
        The USDA supports Sealaska's willingness to continue to allow
    outfitting and guiding permits on lands identified in section 4(b)(2)
    (``Sites with Traditional and Recreational Use Value'') for the
    remaining term of the existing authorizations and for a subsequent 10
    year renewal. However, the legislation should clearly specify that the
    existing Forest Service permits authorizing these uses would be revoked
    upon conveyance of the land, that Sealaska would allow continued use
    under the same terms and conditions as provided in the Forest Service
    permits, and that the United States would not be liable for the actions
    of these permittees. As it currently stands, the legislation
    specifically exempts Sealaska from liability, but provides for Sealaska
    to negotiate terms of the permit.
    Amendments to the Tribal Forest Protection Act and the National
            Historic Preservation Act
        This legislation includes amendments to the Tribal Forest
    Protection Act (TFPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
    to consider lands owned by any Alaska Native Corporation as tribal-
    owned lands for the purposes of these Acts, the implications of which
    are described below. The USDA is willing to discuss amendments to
    ANCSA; however, we view the amendments to the TFPA and NHPA as
    unrelated to fulfilling remaining ANSCA entitlement.
        The TFPA is intended to strengthen Forest Service relationships
    with federally recognized Tribes and to restore forested lands by
    authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into contracts and
    agreements with Tribes to carry out certain projects on the National
    Forests to reduce threats to adjacent or bordering lands owned by
    Tribes. The bill would extend the benefits of TFPA beyond those Tribes
    currently listed on the official list of federally acknowledged tribes
    in the contiguous 48 states and in Alaska. The Alaska Native
    Corporations are not Tribal Governments as recognized by the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and they do not have the capability of having the
    Federal government hold their lands in trust.
        H.R. 1408 would amend the NHPA to include Alaska Native
    Corporations. Tribal lands as now defined in the NHPA include those
    within the boundaries of American Indian Reservations, which are
    governed by a Tribal Council duly elected by the Tribal members. These
    lands are managed for the benefit of Tribal members. Alaska Native
    Corporation lands, however, are managed by a corporate board of
    directors to provide a for-profit benefit to its shareholders.
        The inclusion of Alaska Native Corporations as parties entitled to
    the benefits prescribed under both the TFPA and NHPA is at odds with
    the intent to provide tribes with certain benefits prescribed by these
    Acts. Granting tribal status to lands owned by for-profit corporations
    for any purpose could have wider implications than what may be
    intended. The Department would like to have more time to assess this
    potential impact of this provision before the committee takes any
    action on it.
    Cooperative Management of National Parks
        Although USDA defers to the Department of the Interior, USDA notes
    that DOI has expressed concerns with the cooperative management
    agreement provisions in sections 3(a)(2) and 3(c)(2) of H.R. 1408 would
    require the National Park Service (NPS) to offer to enter into
    cooperative management agreements with Sealaska and other corporations
    for activities in Glacier Bay National Park. This could confuse the
    execution of existing memoranda of understanding and concession
    contracts which are currently working well in the park. The NPS
    maintains a Memorandum of Understanding with the Hoonah Indian
    Association, a federally recognized tribe, as well as a cooperative
    agreement with the non-profit Huna Heritage Foundation to provide
    cultural learning activities in the park. Both entities are also
    partners in monitoring the condition of Tlingit historic sites in the
    park.
        In addition, requiring cooperative management agreements for such
    activities such as guided tours and establishment of visitor sites with
    profit-making corporations would be inconsistent with the open,
    competitive process currently provided under concession management law
    and regulation. Existing practices are already resulting in engaging
    Native Alaskans in the visitor experience: a subsidiary of Huna Totem
    Corporation has the Glacier Bay lodge and tour 2 3 contracts with
    Aramark Leisure Services through 2013, and Goldbelt Inc., a Juneau-
    based Native corporation, had the contracts between 1996 and 2004.
    Environmental Mitigation, Incentives and Credits
        Section 6(b) of H.R. 1408 would expressly authorize environmental
    mitigation and incentives for land conveyed to Sealaska. The USDA
    supports these provisions, which would allow any land conveyed to be
    eligible for participation in carbon markets or other similar programs,
    incentives or markets established by the federal government.
    Conclusion
        In conclusion, while USDA supports the goals of this legislation,
    we remain concerned about the consequences of the legislation,
    including its ability to actually finalize the entitlement and current
    outstanding split estate issues and the potential for the legislation
    to bring to closure the question of Sealaska's entitlement under ANCSA.
    More broadly, USDA is concerned about the impact of H.R. 1408 on the
    supply of timber for local mills; the transition to a sustainable
    timber harvest regime focused on second-growth forests; and the
    overarching conservation strategy outlined in the Tongass Land
    Management Plan. However, the Department will continue to work with
    Sealaska and all the parties involved resolving these concerns and
    finding solutions that work for everyone.
        This concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any questions
    you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. I will now recognize
    Members of the Committee for five minutes, and if necessary, we
    would be happy to entertain a second round of questioning. I
    think first to my left, Mr. Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sherman, your
    written testimony states that the USDA views the amendments to
    the Tribal Forest Protection Act, and the National Historic
    Preservation Act included in this bill, as unrelated to the
    fulfillment of Sealaska's remaining land settlement.
        You also state that you have concerns about imputing the
    Alaska Native Corporations, such as Sealaska, as beneficiaries
    of these statutes. Would the USDA be willing to work with
    Sealaska on changes to these statutes in another bill, or are
    you wholly opposed to them?
        Mr. Sherman. Congressman, we are always willing to sit down
    and talk to Sealaska about these issues. Our main concern here
    has been that these provisions that you cited give essentially
    tribal government status to what is a profit making entity, and
    that is a highly unusual procedure.
        It could affect government relationships, and it could
    affect how we treat various things, but we are happy to talk to
    them, and work with them, and see if there is some sort of
    common approach here. But it is an unusual departure from what
    has happened in the past, and it does raise some concerns for
    us.
        Mr. Kildee. I have in my State of Michigan 12 Federally
    recognized tribes, and most of them flow from the Treaty of
    Detroit, signed in the 1850s, and there of course we have a
    clear-cut government-to-government relationship. Article I,
    Section 9 of the Constitution makes that very clear.
        Do the tribes in Alaska enjoy that same type of sovereignty
    that the tribes, the Federally recognized tribes in the Lower
    48 have.
        Mr. Sherman. We have a government-to-government
    relationship with the tribes of Southeast Alaska. We do have
    that. In this particular case, we are not dealing with a tribe,
    per se. We are dealing with a profit making corporation. That
    is what its purpose is.
        So we have maintained a government-to-government
    relationship with the Southeast Alaska Tribes, but we believe
    that this is a somewhat different situation.
        Mr. Kildee. Is there something necessarily bad in this
    instance, this unique area of the United States, the land that
    we purchased from Russia, and it became a State, I believe,
    around President Eisenhower's time.
        Is there anything necessarily improper about a corporation
    also having a governmental status, or is that just an attitude
    or feeling, or a value judgment?
        Mr. Sherman. I believe it is unusual. Whether it is
    unprecedented, I don't know. I mean, we can get back to you on
    this issue, but it is unusual, and it is a departure from the
    way that we have handled things in the past.
        But again we would be happy to sit down and talk about what
    are the specific issues related to this, and whether it would
    make any sense to consider an exception to the general
    approaches that we have used in the past.
        Mr. Kildee. If you have existing some comparison between
    the status of the Alaskan Native Americans and the status of
    tribes in the Lower 48, and if you have something existing, if
    you could get that both to the Committee and to me, I would
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Sherman. We would be happy to do so.
        Mr. Kildee. And thank you very much. Thank you for your
    interest in this, and thank you for your good work over there.
    I appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        Mr. Kildee. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Sherman, in your
    testimony, the Forest Service expresses concern that the bill
    will take too much economically viable second growth timber of
    the 50 and older age class away from you, and that it will
    hamper the Forest Service's ability to transition the Tongass
    to a young growth harvesting strategy. Would you prefer to see
    Alaska receive increased old growth?
        Mr. Sherman. What I would prefer to see is a plan which
    would allow both Sealaska and the other entities to have an
    adequate source of timber to proceed in the future. Our concern
    here, Congressman, is that we have had a very delicate balance
    where the Forest Service has tried to target the next 15 to 20
    years by which we can provide wood to the local milling
    industry.
        And that has evolved, and identifying certain productive
    old growth areas outside of the so-called withdrawal areas that
    Sealaska was entitled to select lands in, and it has identified
    certain second growth areas, which would come on-line in order
    to meet these local needs.
        So our strategy and our plan has been to work on those
    areas, and set up those areas for the future. And unfortunately
    here what we are seeing is Sealaska having an equal interest in
    those lands that we were preparing.
        Now, what does that mean in terms of where Sealaska could
    go? I think that would be--I think we would have to identify
    within the withdrawal areas what lands are available to them
    for timber development on the remaining selections.
        There are some second growth areas within those lands.
    There is a possibility that we could discuss with Sealaska on
    their participation in timber sales for Forest Service lands.
    There may be some other options that we ought to be looking at,
    but again these lands were very critical to us to provide
    adequate timber to the local milling industry.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, and I know that the Forest Service
    is looking for more time to work out differences on the bill,
    and I know that the Chairman expects to have this bill done for
    the 40th anniversary, which is this December, but what is your
    time line for working issues out and resolving this?
        Mr. Sherman. We have been having productive conversations,
    I believe, with Sealaska. We have been identifying areas that
    need further examination. I think that the area that you just
    mentioned was one where we had to intensify our evaluation of
    which lands they are interested in, and how those overlap with
    our interests, and see if there is some sort of resolution of
    that.
        We are very focused on these old growth preserves outside
    of the withdrawal areas, because we need to protect those
    areas. But we can talk further with Sealaska about how to
    protect those areas.
        The in-holdings that Sealaska has identified as so-called
    future sites, these need further evaluation, and we have been
    working with Sealaska on those. All of these areas are
    fruitful, and future discussions that I believe we can have
    with Sealaska, and there is no reason not to continue actively
    with those discussions.
        I am reluctant to predict some sort of a time line because
    these are complicated issues. Nevertheless, we should roll up
    our sleeves and do our best.
        Mr. Denham. Well, it is understandable that they are
    complicated issues, but we definitely work on timelines here,
    and the Chairman has focused on again the 40th anniversary in
    getting this done by December. So do you have any kind of
    ballpark time? Are we talking a month, two months, 45 days?
    Could you commit to 45 days?
        Mr. Sherman. I don't believe I can commit to a particular
    timeline, but I can commit to you that we will continue
    actively our discussions with Sealaska and see what progress we
    can make.
        Mr. Denham. Are you confident that we can complete this
    then this year?
        Mr. Sherman. I am not either confident nor pessimistic
    about it. I think we have to see as we bore down on these
    specific----
        Mr. Denham. So you are having ongoing discussions, but you
    are nowhere close right now to any type of resolution?
        Mr. Sherman. I think we are getting closer to understanding
    what our respective concerns are, and we are working on
    solutions to address those concerns.
        Mr. Denham. You are getting closer to understanding what
    the concerns would be?
        Mr. Sherman. Closer to understanding, and I believe from
    that understanding, solutions may be forthcoming.
        Mr. Denham. OK. Thank you. Ms. Hanabusa.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sherman, as you
    probably know, I represent Hawaii, and so the issues regarding
    Native rights are very dear to my heart, and I do believe in
    self-determination of the Native peoples.
        Having said that, one of the concerns that I have with your
    testimony is really set forth in your conclusion, where you
    have concerns about the legislation itself, and the fact that
    it is changing the status of lands.
        I am also very concerned about when we try to right a wrong
    that we make it worse by buying litigation. So I would like to
    understand what is it about it that--and I assume that you are
    talking about the miscellaneous section of the bill itself,
    where it speaks to the status of the conveyed lands.
        And so I would like to understand from you what is it about
    the statements that are contained in this bill, which I believe
    talks about making them into tribal lands of some sort, and
    thereby it seems like it is transferring it into the same
    category of Native American lands, and a trust relationship may
    or may not develop.
        So am I understanding your concern correctly, and if not,
    please tell me exactly what you are referring to in your
    conclusion?
        Mr. Sherman. Well, our concern is multifaceted. We are
    first concerned about if certain lands are selected that
    present challenges to the conservation strategy that has been
    set by the Forest Service for Southeast Alaska, we are
    concerned that litigation could result from that.
        And we are concerned that certain species could be listed,
    which again would represent a step backwards. Second, we are
    concerned about the in-holdings that I identify, because in-
    holdings have been very problematic across the United States
    for the Forest Service.
        Many of our programs are designed to eliminate in-holdings,
    because they represent so many, both legal and managerial,
    challenges for the Agency. We are very concerned about that.
        And we are concerned that we have to meet the needs of
    Alaska, in terms of timber production. That is a statutory
    requirement that we have, and if we can't provide the resources
    to do that, that will become problematic.
        So there is a series of issues like that, that again raise
    both legal and managerial challenges for us, and we believe
    that if we are going to change the arrangement that was made
    under ANCSA that it has got to be done very carefully, and we
    have to go in with our eyes wide open.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Sherman, I appreciate the explanation,
    because I thought that your concern was not so much one--and
    not to minimize your concern, but was not so much one that I
    feel will fall into the category of the self-determination
    rights of the Native people, versus what the Forest Service or
    the Department of Agriculture may think is in the best
    interests of everyone.
        I thought that it was more like, for example, in the
    Carcieri decision of the Supreme Court, which talked whether
    lands could be transferred, and having that clarification from
    you, aren't you basically saying now that there is this plan,
    and you are afraid that if Sealaska, if this bill goes through,
    and they are then afforded the right to withdraw these specific
    parcels of land, that it will somehow cause an imbalance in
    what you feel to be the plan that has come through. Am I
    understanding you correctly?
        Mr. Sherman. That is correct. Let me be very clear. We
    believe that Sealaska is entitled to between 60 to 80,000
    additional acres of land. Initially, those lands that they had
    targeted within what we call the withdrawal area.
        So this request is now outside of the withdrawal areas, and
    that represents certain challenges to the plan that the Forest
    Service had established for Southeast Alaska.
        Ms. Hanabusa. I understand that, Mr. Sherman, and I would
    just like to add that give your clarification, I believe that
    for those of us who believe in Native rights and Native
    determinations, the fact that this has not been done for 40
    years, that I can understand very clearly why now the Chairman
    has proposed this piece of legislation.
        Because it is something that you can't--when you are trying
    to right a wrong, or right something that has not been done,
    you can't just say, well, we will do it, but it is conditioned
    upon everything that has gone on for 40 years. Thank you very
    much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Ms. Hanabusa. Are there any
    additional questions for this witness? If not, I would like to
    thank the Under Secretary for his testimony. Members of the
    Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses,
    and we ask that you respond to those in writing. The hearing
    record will be open for 10 days to receive these responses.
        We are now ready for our next panel of witnesses. Those are
    witnesses Byron Mallott, a Board Member of the Sealaska
    Corporation; Bob Claus, the Forest Program Director of the
    Southeast Alaska Conservation Council; and Owen Graham,
    Executive Director of the Alaska Forest Association.
        Before I recognize the witnesses, I would ask for unanimous
    consent that written comments on H.R. 1408 from the Washington,
    D.C. Representative for Alaska Governor Sean Parnell, and from
    the President of the Intertribal Council, be inserted in the
    hearing record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

        [A letter submitted for the record by Joe Durglo,
    President, Intertribal Timber Council, follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.006

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.007

        .eps[The letter submitted for the record by John W. Katz,
    Director of State/Federal Relations and Special Counsel to the
    Governor, State of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.003

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.004

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.005

        .epsMr. Denham. All the witnesses again are reminded that
    their complete written testimony will appear in the written
    record, and you have five minutes to summarize it. You may
    begin.

    STATEMENT OF BYRON MALLOTT, BOARD MEMBER, SEALASKA CORPORATION,
                             JUNEAU, ALASKA

        Mr. Mallott. Mr. Chairman, my name is Byron Mallott, and I
    am a Director of the Sealaska Corporation. I have asked Jaeleen
    Araujo, who will provide her name, to sit with me in the event
    that there are specific questions that I am unable to answer if
    that is all right with you.
        Mr. Denham. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Mallott. I want to state that this bill is strongly
    supported by Sealaska. We believe that its intent is clear.
    That after 40 years, it is time to resolve and finalize
    Sealaska's entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act.
        I want to be responsive to several issues that I have heard
    raised. One is that it is Sealaska's intent to export any
    timber that it harvests from these selections. That is not the
    case. It has never been the case. What we do is to try to find
    the most reasonable and responsible market for our timber.
        And if the market suggests that it is appropriate for us,
    and that is our desire, our absolute desire, is to maximize the
    local use, the local hire, the local economic impact with all
    of our resources, and that is something that I think we need to
    emphasize.
        The other thing that I want to emphasize, Mr. Chair, is
    that Sealaska's timber harvest activities over the period since
    we began to establish a new kind of forest products industry in
    Alaska on private tribal lands has put close to in my judgment
    a billion dollars into the Alaskan economy.
        It has generated over $300 million to other Native
    corporations. It has impacted the overall economy of the region
    and the State in the most positive way, and it has allowed a
    resource to be available for regeneration for the future.
        Now, some people would argue that the harvest practices
    that the remaining harvested forests has not meaningful value.
    I would submit that to Native peoples, who are the first
    peoples of the forest, it does.
        We are here for the long term. We have been here for 10,000
    years, and we will be here for another 10,000 years, and we
    will see cycles of timber begin as seedlings, and achieve old
    growth, and go through the life process many, many times.
        That is our view of the Tongass National Forest. I would
    also say, Mr. Chair, that it is time to resolve this issue.
    That the Native peoples of Southeast can use the land
    productively, and we can use it in the best interests of our
    Nation, in terms of conservation, in terms of all of the uses
    that such lands can be put to, both in our interests and in the
    public interest.
        It is somewhat ironic to me that the argument can be made
    that the best arbiter, the best judgment about the use of a
    marketable resource, can be made by the government, as opposed
    to private enterprise and a private owner.
        That argument does not stand. History is replete with the
    results of that kind of management. I also want, Mr. Chairman,
    to say that regardless of what happens with any legislation
    that affects us, our people, that we live with the
    consequences, good or bad, or indifferent, because we will
    never leave this place, the Tongass.
        It is our home. It is our history, and it is our culture.
    It is what makes us who we are, and we only want to secure our
    place for ourselves, and for our children. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:]

         Statement of Byron Mallott, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
        My name is Byron Mallott, and I am a Board Member for Sealaska
    Corporation, as well as a former President and CEO of Sealaska. I am
    from Yakutat, an Alaska Native village, and I am Shaa-dei-ha-ni (Clan
    Leader) of the Kwaashk'i 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 H.R. 1408, 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 one of 12 Regional Corporations established pursuant to
    the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (``ANCSA'') of 1971. Our
    shareholders are descendants of the original Native inhabitants of
    Southeast Alaska--the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people. Our
    ancestors once used and occupied every corner of Southeast Alaska and
    our cultural and burial sites can be found throughout the region. This
    legislation is a reflection of the significance of Our Land to our
    people and its importance in meeting our cultural, social and economic
    needs.
        Forty years ago, as a young man, I traveled to Washington, DC as an
    advocate for the land claims of Alaska's Native people. Here I am
    again, forty years later, advocating for the equitable completion of
    Sealaska's land entitlement.
        This legislation involves less than 85,000 acres from the Southeast
    Alaska region, a region with almost 23 million acres of land; 85% of
    that land is already in some form of conservation, wilderness or other
    protected status. Putting the Sealaska legislation in perspective,
    Sealaska's remaining land entitlement represents about one third of one
    percent of the total land mass in Southeast Alaska.
        Yet this legislation also represents a significant opportunity for
    the public, Congress, the Administration, communities, environmental
    organizations and others to get it right for once in the Tongass. H.R.
    1408 achieves environmental balance, 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.
        H.R. 1408 fulfills the promise of ANCSA because it:
              allows Sealaska to finalize its ANCSA land
            entitlement in a fair, meaningful way;
              redresses inequitable legal limitations on Sealaska's
            land selections by allowing it to select remaining entitlement
            lands from outside of withdrawal areas that, among the regional
            Alaska Native Corporations, uniquely constrained Sealaska;
              allows for Alaska Native ownership of sites with
            sacred, cultural, traditional and historic significance to the
            Alaska Natives of Southeast Alaska;
              creates the opportunity for Sealaska to support a
            sustainable rural economy and to support economic and job
            opportunities throughout Southeast Alaska; and
              results in environmental benefits to the public
            because high conservation value lands important for fisheries,
            old growth wildlife reserves, areas important for local
            subsistence use and municipal watersheds will remain in public
            ownership.
        As discussed in detail in my testimony below, there is a
    compelling, equitable basis for supporting this legislation. There is
    no dispute that Sealaska has a remaining land entitlement, and this
    legislation does not give Sealaska one acre of land beyond that already
    promised by Congress. Sealaska has worked closely with the timber
    industry, conservation organizations, tribes and Native institutions,
    local communities, the State of Alaska, and federal land management
    agencies to craft legislation that provides the best possible result
    for the people, communities and environment of Southeast Alaska.
        One thing has become extremely clear in our effort to resolve
    Sealaska's land entitlement--that every acre of Southeast Alaska is
    precious to someone. With the vast array of interests in Southeast
    Alaska, there is simply no way to achieve an absolute consensus on
    where and how Sealaska should select its remaining entitlement.
    However, we truly believe that this legislation offers a balanced
    solution as a result of our engagement with all regional stakeholders.
    Our Dilemma
        Alaska Native Corporations were tasked by Congress in 1971 with
    supporting the economic future of the Alaska Native community, in part
    by utilizing lands returned by the United States to Native people to
    develop resources that would advance the social, economic and cultural
    well-being of our tribal member shareholders.
        We believe that Congress' core promise to Alaska Natives in ANCSA
    was that Alaska Natives would be able to develop sustainable economies
    so that we could work to achieve for ourselves economic parity with the
    rest of America. Socio-economic parity was a focal point of Alaska
    Natives and the Land, a 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. 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 Habitat Land Use Designation (LUD)
            lands; and
              much of that land is comprised of important community
            watersheds, high conservation value lands important for sport
            and commercial fisheries and areas important for subsistence
            uses.
        The Sealaska legislation allows Sealaska to move away from
    sensitive watersheds and roadless areas, to select a balanced inventory
    of second growth and old growth, and to select most of its remaining
    ANCSA lands on the existing road system, preserving on balance as much
    as 40,000 acres of old growth, much of which is inventoried ``roadless
    old growth''.
    Why is Sealaska Corporation Different?
        A common misperception of the Sealaska bill is that Sealaska is
    required to select its Native lands from within the 10 withdrawal areas
    in Southeast Alaska because Sealaska ``asked for it''. This perception
    is reflected in opinion pieces in Alaska newspapers and has been shared
    with Committee staff for the House and Senate Committees of
    jurisdiction. We therefore believe this misconception should be
    addressed here.
        ANCSA authorized the distribution of approximately $1,000,000,000
    and 44,000,000 acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the
    establishment of 12 Regional Native Corporations and more than 200
    Village Corporations to receive and manage the funds and land to meet
    the cultural, social, and economic needs of Native shareholders.
        Under section 12 of ANCSA, each Regional Corporation, other than
    Sealaska, was authorized to receive a share of land based on the
    proportion that the number of Alaska Native shareholders residing in
    the region of the Regional Corporation bore to the total number of
    Alaska Native shareholders, or the relative size of the area to which
    the Regional Corporation had an aboriginal land claim bore to the size
    of the area to which all Regional Corporations had aboriginal land
    claims. While each other Regional Corporation received a significant
    quantity of land under section 12 of ANCSA, Sealaska received land only
    under section 14(h) of that Act.
        Sealaska did not receive land in proportion to the number of Alaska
    Native shareholders, or in proportion to the size of the area to which
    Sealaska had an aboriginal land claim, in part because, in 1968, some
    compensation was provided to the Tlingit and Haida Indian by the U.S.
    Court of Claims, which determined that the Tlingit and Haida Indians
    were entitled to recover $7.5 million for the taking of the 17 million
    acre Tongass National forest and 3.3 million acre Glacier Bay National
    Park.
        The 1968 Court of Claims payment should be viewed in context with
    the universal settlement reached by Congress just three years later
    that allowed for the return of 44 million acres to Alaska's Native
    people. With a population that represented more than 20 percent of
    Alaska's Native population in 1971, Southeast Alaska Natives ultimately
    will receive title to only 1 percent of lands returned to Alaska
    Natives under ANCSA.
        Moreover, the 1968 settlement provided by the Court of Claims did
    not compensate the Tlingit and Haida for 2,628,207 acres of land in
    Southeast Alaska also subject to aboriginal title. These lands became
    an important basis for the participation of the Southeast Alaska
    Natives in the settlement in 1971. The court also determined the value
    of the lost Indian fishing rights at $8,388,315, but did not provide
    compensation for those rights. These rights were pursued through a
    property claims action before the Indian Claims Commission, originally
    filed in 1954, but there was no decision on the merits when ANCSA
    passed in1971. The Commission subsequently ruled that ANCSA
    extinguished such claims and the proceeding became a moot.
        Sealaska ultimately would be entitled to recover as much as 375,000
    acres of land under ANCSA. However, under the terms of ANCSA, and
    because the homeland of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people had
    been reserved as a national forest, the Secretary of the Interior was
    not able to withdraw any land in the Tongass for selection by and
    conveyance to Sealaska. The only lands available for selection by
    Sealaska in 1971 were slated to become part of the Wrangell-St. Elias
    National Park or consisted essentially of mountain tops.
        For this reason, in the early 1970s, Sealaska requested that
    Congress amend ANCSA to permit Sealaska to select lands from within 10
    withdrawal boxes 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, their very homeland. The
    suggestion that Alaska's Native people invited their own exclusion from
    their Native homeland is an idea that any compassionate witness to our
    history should find repugnant. It was a choice between something
    limited or nothing at all. Hardly a choice.
        H.R. 1408 addresses problems associated with the unique treatment
    of Sealaska and the unintended public policy consequences of forcing
    Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement from within the existing
    ANCSA withdrawals. The legislation presents to Congress and to this
    Administration a legislative package that will result in public policy
    benefits on many levels. H.R. 1408 allows Sealaska to select from
    alternative, well defined withdrawals areas in Southeast Alaska. The
    legislation enables the conveyance of the final acres to which Sealaska
    is entitled--and not one acre more.
        Historic pressures resulted in the political marginalization and
    spatial confinement of Native people in Southeast Alaska, documented in
    ``A New Frontier'' (discussed directly below), including federal
    pressures to prevent Native claims from impacting the timber industry.
    These pressures no longer (we hope) restrict the decisions of either
    the Congress or the Forest Service in pursuing a legislative solution
    that will enable Sealaska to finalize its Native entitlement in a
    manner that is both equitable and results in minimal impacts to other
    interests in the Tongass.
        Observers unfamiliar with ANCSA sometimes suggest that the Sealaska
    legislation might somehow create a negative precedent with respect to
    Alaska Native land claims. This seems odd in the context of the history
    of the Tongass and its impact on the Southeast settlement. Moreover,
    ANCSA has been amended more than 30 times. ANCSA was and remains a
    congressional undertaking, and as a statute, it is organic. As observed
    by Senator Mark Begich at a hearing on this bill before the Senate
    Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests in October 2009, Congress has,
    on multiple occasions, deemed it appropriate to amend ANCSA to address
    in an equitable manner issues that were not anticipated by Congress
    when ANCSA passed.
    Additional Observations: Why Native Land Claims Are Unique in the
            Tongass
        Two documents present an important historical perspective on the
    long struggle to return lands in the Tongass to Native people: (1) the
    draft document funded by the Forest Service and authored by Dr. Charles
    W. Smythe, ``A New Frontier: Managing the National Forests in Alaska,
    1970-1995'' (1995) (``A New Frontier''); and (2) a paper by Walter R.
    Echo-Hawk, ``A Context for Setting Modern Congressional Indian Policy
    in Native Southeast Alaska (``Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska''). A
    four page summary of the paper by Mr. Echo-Hawk is attached to this
    testimony; due to Committee limitations on the length of attachments to
    written testimony, we were not able to attach the full documents to
    this testimony.
        The findings and observations summarized below are to be attributed
    to the work of Dr. Smythe and Mr. Echo-Hawk. For the sake of brevity,
    we have summarized or paraphrased these findings and observations. We
    encourage people with an interest in the history of the Tongass
    generally, or in this legislation specifically, to take the time to
    read these documents in full.
        Dr. Smythe's research, compiled in ``A New Frontier'', found, among
    other things:
              By the time the Tongass National Forest was created
            in 1908, the Tlingit and Haida Indians had been marginalized.
            As white settlers and commercial interests moved into the
            Alaska territory, they utilized the resources as they found
            them, often taking over key areas for cannery sites, fish
            traps, logging, and mining.
              The Act of 1884, which created civil government in
            the Alaska territory, also extended the first land laws to the
            region, and in combination with legislation in 1903, settlers
            were given the ability to claim areas for canneries, mining
            claims, townsites, and homesteads, and to obtain legal title to
            such tracts. Since the Indians were not recognized as citizens,
            they did not have corresponding rights (to hold title to land,
            to vote, etc.) to protect their interests.
              For decades prior to the passage of ANCSA, the Forest
            Service opposed the recognition of traditional Indian use and
            aboriginal title in the Tongass National Forest. As late as
            1954, the Forest Service formally recommended that all Indian
            claims to the Tongass be extinguished because of continuing
            uncertainty affecting the timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
              On October 7, 1959, the U.S. Court of Claims held
            that the Tlingit and Haida Indians had established their claims
            of aboriginal Indian title to the land in Southeast Alaska and
            were entitled to recover compensation for the taking of their
            lands, and for the failure to protect their hunting and fishing
            rights.
              The efforts by the Interior Department in the 1930s
            and 1940s to establish reservations in Southeast Alaska alarmed
            the Forest Service--which at the time opposed the principle of
            aboriginal rights and its serious conflict with plans for a
            pulpwood industry in Alaska.
              The policy of the Roosevelt Administration, with
            Harold Ickes as Interior Secretary, was to recognize aboriginal
            rights to land and fisheries in Alaska and to support efforts
            to provide a land and resource base to Native communities for
            their economic benefit. Following hearings on the aboriginal
            claims related to the protection of fisheries, Secretary Ickes
            established an amount of land to be set aside for three village
            reservations: Hydaburg--101,000 acres; Klawock--95,000; acres
            Kake--77,000 acres.
              The judgments of the Department of the Interior were
            troubling to the Forest Service. If realized, the whole timber
            industry in southeast Alaska would be jeopardized.
              The Department of Agriculture later expressed its
            agreement with the efforts of the U.S. Senate to substantially
            repeal the Interior Secretary's authority to establish the
            proposed reservations in Southeast Alaska.
        Walter Echo Hawk's paper, ``Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska'',
    observes, in part:
              The Tongass National Forest was actually established
            subject to existing property rights, as it stated that nothing
            shall be construed ``to deprive any persons of any valid
            rights'' secured by the Treaty with Russia or by any federal
            law pertaining to Alaska. This was ignored.
              A Tlingit leader and attorney William Paul won a
            short-lived legal victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
            in Miller v. United States, 159 F. 2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947),
            which ruled that lands could not be seized by the government
            without the consent of the Tlingit landowners and without
            paying just compensation.
              To combat this decision, federal lawmakers passed a
            Joint Resolution authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to
            sell timber and land within the Tongass National Forest,
            ``notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights'' based upon
            ``aboriginal occupancy or title.'' This action ultimately
            resulted in the Tee-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.
    H.R. 1408: A Legislative Solution with Significant Public Policy
            Benefits
        Alaska's congressional delegation has worked hard to ensure that
    the fair settlement of Sealaska's Native land claim is accomplished in
    a manner that may have the greatest benefit to all of Southeast Alaska
    with the least possible impact on individuals, communities, federal and
    state land management agencies, and other interested stakeholders.
        This legislation is also largely in symmetry with the goals of the
    Obama Administration for the Tongass, which has worked to protect
    roadless areas and accelerate the transition away from forest
    management that relied on old growth harvesting. The Administration has
    been clear that it wants to help struggling communities in rural
    Alaska. The Administration also has dedicated unprecedented resources
    to working with American Indian and Alaska Native communities
    nationwide. This legislation helps to finalize Sealaska's Native
    entitlement in an equitable way, while supporting a transition by
    Sealaska to second growth harvesting and maintaining rural Southeast
    Alaska jobs.
        Without legislation to amend ANCSA, Sealaska will be forced either
    to select and develop roadless old growth areas within the existing
    withdrawals or shut down all Native timber operations, with significant
    negative impacts to rural communities, the economy of Southeast Alaska,
    and our tribal member shareholders. This legislation proposes an
    alternative: H.R. 1408 would permit Sealaska to select its remaining
    entitlement lands from outside of the ANCSA withdrawal boxes. The
    alternative land pool from which Sealaska could select under H.R. 1408
    includes forestland suitable for timber development, but commits
    Sealaska to also select second growth in lieu of the old growth
    available to Sealaska today. In fact, the legislation ultimately would
    preserve as much as 40,000 acres of old growth, and even more
    inventoried roadless acres, to be managed as part of the Tongass
    National Forest.
        H.R. 1408 would permit Sealaska to select 3,600 acres of land as
    sacred and cultural sites, and 5,000 acres of small parcels of land
    often referred to as ``Native 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. By permitting Sealaska to select a handful
    of small parcels for such uses, H.R. 1408 helps to preserve Native
    culture in perpetuity, ensures that the Tongass remains a Native place,
    and provides the catalyst for creating sustainable economies within the
    Tongass.
        The public benefits of this legislation extend far beyond Sealaska
    Corporation and its shareholders. Pursuant to a revenue sharing
    provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes 70 percent of all revenues
    derived from the development of its timber resources--more than $315
    million since 1971--among all of the more than 200 Alaska Native
    Corporations.
        As discussed throughout this legislation, Sealaska's land
    legislation strategy was also driven in large part by conservation
    organizations' stated public goals of ``protecting roadless areas'',
    ``protecting old growth reserves'', ``accelerating the transition to
    second growth'' and creating alternate economies.
        Finally, movement toward completion of Sealaska's ANCSA land
    entitlement conveyances will benefit the federal government. This
    legislation allows Sealaska to move forward with its selections, which
    ultimately will give the BLM and the Forest Service some finality and
    closure with respect to ANCSA selections in the region.
    The Forest Service's Plans for the Tongass: Impact of H.R. 1408 on
            Tongass Management
        The U.S. Forest Service has, in the past, expressed concern that
    H.R. 1408 could impact its ability to harvest second growth to support
    Southeast Alaska mills, and could impact other goals laid out in the
    2008 Amendment to the Tongass Land Use Management Plan.
        We believe Sealaska's offer to leave behind roadless old growth
    timber in the Tongass is significant; it is a proposal we believe this
    Administration should support based on its goals to protect these types
    of forest lands. We also believe that lands proposed for conveyance
    under H.R. 1408 conflict minimally with and may ultimately benefit the
    Forest Service's Transition Framework for the Tongass.
        The Forest Service uses various classifications to define the
    condition of its second growth. The term ``suitable'' means that
    forestland is available for harvest. The term ``unsuitable'' refers to
    lands that are not available for harvest under normal harvest
    prescriptions. For purposes of our calculations, unsuitable lands
    exclude second growth in conservation designations, but include second
    growth available for restoration and stewardship contracting.
              There are 428,972 acres of second growth on the
            Tongass National Forest.
                      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:
                      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, there could be an acceleration to exclusive
    second growth harvesting.
        If H.R. 1408 were to pass today, under current standards and
    guidelines, the Forest Service would retain at least 223,000 acres of
    suitable second growth and 177,000 acres of unsuitable second growth
    that is available for stewardship and restoration. We believe the total
    pool of lands available to the Forest Service is more than sufficient
    to support log demand for its Transition Framework.
        We also believe that to achieve a successful transition to second
    growth, the Forest Service needs Sealaska to remain active in the
    timber industry in the Tongass, because Sealaska's operations support
    regional infrastructure (including roads and key contractors),
    development of markets (including second growth markets), and
    development of efficient and sustainable second growth harvesting
    techniques. In short, the likely success of the Forest Service's
    transition to second growth is significantly improved if Sealaska
    second growth operations are in close proximity to Forest Service
    second growth operations.
        Sealaska has 30 years of experience developing and distributing
    Southeast Alaska wood to new and existing markets around the world.
    Sealaska recently has pioneered second growth harvesting techniques in
    Southeast Alaska and is active in this market.
        This legislation, which moves Sealaska into some older second
    growth, ensures that Sealaska will engage as an early partner with the
    Forest Service in second growth market development, while continuing to
    provide local jobs and supporting the local economy.
        It is also important to note that regardless of whether Sealaska
    selects within the existing ANCSA withdrawal boxes or outside of those
    boxes, Sealaska must select its remaining entitlement lands from within
    the Tongass. In other words, by selecting Native entitlement lands,
    whether under existing law or the proposed legislation (H.R. 1408),
    Sealaska's land selections will incorporate lands suitable for timber
    development and may require the Forest Service to adjust land
    management plans. However, the ability to make minor management
    adjustments is built into the revised Tongass Land Management Plan.
    Local Impact of H.R. 1408: Saving Jobs in Rural Southeast Alaska
        The Southeast Alaska region lost about 750 jobs in 2009, the
    largest drop in at least 35 years. In January 2011, the Alaska
    Department of Labor and Workforce Development reported the unemployment
    rate for the Prince of Wales--Outer Ketchikan census area at
    approximately 16.2 percent. In October 2007, the Alaska Department of
    Labor and Workforce Development projected population losses between
    1996 and 2030 for the Prince of Wales--Outer Ketchikan census area at
    56.6 percent.
        While jobs in Southeast Alaska are up over the last 30 years, many
    of those jobs can be attributed to industrial tourism, which creates
    seasonal jobs in urban centers and does not translate to population
    growth. In fact, the post-timber economy has not supported populations
    in traditional Native villages, where unemployment ranges above Great
    Depression levels and populations are shrinking rapidly.
        We consider this legislation to be the most important and immediate
    ``economic stimulus package'' that Congress can implement for Southeast
    Alaska. Sealaska provides significant economic opportunities for our
    tribal member shareholders and for residents of all of Southeast Alaska
    through the development of our primary natural resource--timber.
    Sealaska and its subsidiaries and affiliates expended over $45 million
    in 2008 in Southeast Alaska. Over 350 businesses and organizations in
    16 Southeast communities benefit from spending resulting from Sealaska
    activities. We provide over 363 full and part-time jobs with a payroll
    of over $15 million. Including direct and indirect employment and
    payroll, Sealaska in 2008 supported 490 jobs and approximately $21
    million in payroll.
        We are proud of our collaborative efforts to build and support
    sustainable and viable communities and cultures in our region. We face
    continuing economic challenges with commercial electricity rates
    reaching $0.61/kwh and heating fuel costs sometimes ranging above $6.00
    per gallon. To help offset these extraordinary costs, we work with our
    logging contractors and seven of our local communities to run a
    community firewood program. We contribute cedar logs for the carving of
    totems and cedar carving planks to schools and tribal organizations. We
    are collaborating with our village corporations and villages to develop
    hydroelectric projects. We do all of these collaborative activities
    because we are not a typical American corporation. We are a Native
    institution with a vested interest in our communities.
        Our shareholders are Alaska Natives. The profits we make from
    timber support causes that strengthen Native pride and awareness of who
    we are as Native people and where we came from, and further our
    contribution in a positive way to the cultural richness of American
    society. The proceeds from timber operations allow us to make
    substantial investments in cultural preservation, educational
    scholarships, and internships for our shareholders and shareholder
    descendants. Through these efforts we have seen a resurgence of Native
    pride, most noticeably in our youth. Our scholarships, internships and
    mentoring efforts have resulted in Native shareholder employment above
    80% in our corporate headquarters, and significant Native employment in
    our logging operations.
        ANCSA authorized the establishment of Native Corporations to
    receive and manage that land so that Native people would be empowered
    to meet their own cultural, social, and economic needs. H.R. 1408 is
    critically important to Sealaska, which is charged with meeting these
    goals in Southeast Alaska.
    Glacier Bay National Park
        In 1971, Congress tasked Native Corporations with selecting and
    managing sacred sites on behalf of the Native community. Legislation
    introduced on Sealaska's behalf during the 110th Congress proposed the
    conveyance to Sealaska of a handful of sacred, cultural, traditional
    and historic sites in Glacier Bay National Park, based on precedent for
    such transfers to Indian Tribes in National Parks in the lower 48
    states. As a result of concerns expressed regarding these potential
    conveyances, Sealaska sought an adjustment to the legislation to
    provide merely for ``cooperative management'' of the sites.
        With the National Park Service continuing to express concern
    regarding the ``cooperative management'' language in the bill,
    Congressman Young agreed to help resolve the concerns, and further
    revised the Glacier Bay language to clarify that the cooperative
    management requirement applies only to Glacier Bay sacred sites
    identified in the bill, to avoid any misperception that such language
    could apply to the entire Park.
        Cooperative management agreements would ensure Native use and
    management of the handful of very significant sacred and cultural sites
    identified within Glacier Bay, regardless of future changes in Park
    management. This language does not propose to negate the existing
    Memorandum of Understanding between the Park and the Huna Indian
    Association (HIA), and there have been discussions about revising the
    language to address a few additional concerns of HIA. As with all
    elements of this legislation, Sealaska remains open to a continued
    dialogue on this matter.
    Conservation Considerations
        We were disheartened last year when a handful of environmental
    groups disseminated blatant misinformation about this legislation. We
    think these groups must view this legislation as a part of a larger
    compromise between development and conservation, and by publishing
    statements like ``Stop the Corporate takeover of the Tongass'', these
    groups chose to ignore the Native equitable and other public benefits
    of this legislation. This only hurts our communities and the people who
    live there, including those who survive on jobs created by Sealaska.
        This legislation is fundamentally about the ancestral and
    traditional homeland of a people who have lived for 10,000 years in
    Southeast Alaska. For 145 years, people from across the western world
    have traveled to Southeast Alaska with an interest in the rich natural
    resources of the region--an area the size of Indiana. In the mid-1800s,
    Americans came to hunt for whales. In the late-1800s, gold miners
    arrived. In the first half of the Twentieth century, the fishing
    industry built traps at the river entrances, depleting salmon
    populations. In the 1950s and 1960s, two pulp mills signed contracts
    with the United States that gave the mills virtually unlimited access
    to Tongass timber. In the meantime, Natives from the late-1800's
    through the 1930's often were being moved from their traditional
    villages.
        Some conservation groups represent the latest influx of people with
    an idea about what best serves the public interest in the Tongass. In
    fairness, the conservation community writ large has long fought to
    preserve the Tongass for its wilderness and ecological values, and
    often I have appreciated the balance that the conservation community
    seeks for the forest.
        What I do not appreciate is environmentalism that does not
    recognize the human element--that people have to live in this forest. I
    do not accept environmentalism that does not recognize that the Tongass
    is a Native place. We welcome people to our homeland--but we do not
    appreciate the assault by some on our right to exist and subsist in the
    Tongass.
        There are groups that consistently agree with us that we should
    have our land, but wish to decide--to the smallest detail--where that
    land should be. We have been asked to place as much as two million
    acres of conservation on the back of our legislation as the price for
    selecting lands that make cultural and economic sense to our people.
    Native people have always been asked to go second. Let's not forget
    that H.R. 1408 addresses the existing land entitlement of the Native
    people of Southeast Alaska.
        In attempting to resolve Sealaska's unfortunate dilemma in an
    equitable manner, the Alaska Congressional delegation has been careful
    to draft legislation to be in alignment with the current
    Administration's stated objectives for the Tongass and other national
    forests.
        Moreover, while original withdrawal limitations make it difficult
    for Sealaska to meet its traditional, cultural, historic and--
    certainly--economic needs, these original withdrawn lands are not
    without significant and important public interest value. For example,
    approximately 85 percent of those lands now withdrawn for Sealaska are
    classified by the Forest Service as inventoried roadless areas. A
    significant portion is Productive Old-Growth forest (some 112,000
    acres), with over half of that being Old Growth Habitat LUD as
    classified under the 2008 Amendment to the Tongass Land Use Management
    Plan. H.R. 1408 allows these roadless old growth lands to return to
    public ownership, to be managed as the federal government and general
    public sees fit.
        Some groups claim that ``the lands that Sealaska proposes to
    select...are located within watersheds that have extremely important
    public interest fishery and wildlife habitat values.'' They are correct
    in a general sense. We agree that all lands in our region are valuable;
    our federal lands and our Native lands should be managed responsibly.
    We acknowledge the need for conservation areas and conservation
    practices in the Tongass. This bill meets those goals.
        Sealaska remains fully committed to responsible management of the
    forestlands for their value as part of the larger forest ecosystem. At
    the core of Sealaska's land management ethic is the perpetuation of a
    sustainable, well-managed forest to produce timber and to maintain
    forest ecological functions. We have attached a 2-page summary of
    Sealaska's land and stewardship practices to this testimony.
    Time is of the Essence
        Timing is critical to the success of the legislative proposal
    before you today. Without a legislative solution, we are faced with
    choosing between two scenarios that ultimately will result in dire
    public policy consequences for our region. If H.R. 1408 is stalled
    during the 112th Congress, either Sealaska will be forced to terminate
    all of its timber operations within approximately one year for lack of
    timber availability on existing land holdings, resulting in job losses
    in a region experiencing severe economic depression, or Sealaska must
    select lands that are currently available to it in existing withdrawal
    areas. If forced to select within the existing boxes, development will
    inevitably occur in the inventoried roadless areas available today to
    Sealaska.
    Sealaska Recognizes the Importance of the Public Process
        The alternative selection pool identified in the Sealaska bill is a
    product of an exceptional public process, including three previous
    Congressional hearings, more than a dozen meetings held by Senator
    Murkowski's staff in Southeast communities, and hundreds of community
    meetings held by Sealaska.
        The Sealaska bill has the support of the full Alaska delegation and
    many residents, communities and tribes throughout Southeast Alaska and
    statewide:
              The legislation is supported by the National Congress
            of American Indians, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Alaska
            Federation of Natives, the ANCSA Regional Presidents & CEOs,
            the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, and
            numerous tribes throughout Southeast Alaska.
              The Alaska Forest Association--which works with and
            represents Southeast Alaska's remaining timber mills--fully
            supports the Sealaska legislation.
              The Sealaska bill represents a net gain to the U.S.
            Forest Service of roadless and old growth timber in the Tongass
            National Forest. The legislation is fundamentally aligned with
            the goals of the Obama Administration.
        Some critics of this bill want to shut down this legislation
    because it might mean that Sealaska selects lands in ``their''
    backyard, near ``their'' favorite spots. This is understandable. But
    every acre of the Tongass is precious to someone and we need somewhere
    to go to fulfill our entitlement. Sealaska has been careful to select
    lands that are part of the Forest Service's timber base. Sealaska has
    compromised and adjusted its legislation several times on the basis of
    community and even individual concerns.
    Congressman Don Young has worked to Resolve Federal, State, and Local
            Concerns
        To address federal, state and local community concerns, Congressman
    Young committed to reintroducing legislation that:
              drops lands proposed for conveyance to Sealaska on
            northeastern Prince of Wales Island near Red Bay, and
            incorporates new lands into the pool of lands that would be
            available to Sealaska for Native selections--all new lands
            identified in the legislation are to be added solely on the
            basis of meetings with communities and other stakeholders in
            Southeast Alaska;
              revises language that allows Native Corporations to
            work with the Secretary of Agriculture under the Tribal Forest
            Protection Act to address fire hazards and spruce bark beetle
            infestations, and language that allows Native Corporations, as
            owners of Indian cemetery sites and historical places in
            Alaska, to work with the Secretary of the Interior to secure
            support under the National Historic Preservation Act--our
            revised bill language clarifies that these amendments do not
            create Indian country in Alaska;
              clarifies that the conveyance of Native sacred sites
            is subject to the criteria and procedures applicable to the
            selection of sacred sites under ANCSA;
              amends the bill to protect local guide permits on
            lands that would be conveyed to Sealaska;
              provides that the conveyances of smaller parcels
            (also called Native future sites), which are subject to
            significant development restrictions, are further subject to an
            easement for public access across such lands in addition to
            public access easements that would be granted under Section
            17(b) of ANCSA;
              provides that Native sacred sites could be conveyed
            subject to an easement for public access across such lands
            where there is ``no reasonable alternative'' access, a
            provision that also provides public access rights in addition
            to the public easements that would be available under Section
            17(b) of ANCSA;
              clarifies that any ``site improvement'' on any sacred
            site selected by Sealaska (for example, construction of a
            traditional longhouse or an access trail) must not be
            inconsistent with management plans for adjacent public lands;
            and
              provides that the BLM shall have additional time to
            convey ANCSA lands to Sealaska.
    Our Future in Southeast Alaska
        Our people have lived in the area that is now the Tongass National
    Forest since time immemorial. The Tongass is the heart and soul of our
    history and culture. We agree that areas of the region should be
    preserved in perpetuity, but we also believe that our people have a
    right to reasonably pursue economic opportunity so that we can continue
    to live here. H.R. 1408 represents a sincere and open effort to meet
    the interests of the Alaska Native community, regional communities, and
    the public at large.
        It is important for all of us who live in the Tongass, as well as
    those who value the Tongass from afar, to recognize that the Tlingit,
    Haida and Tsimshian are committed to maintaining both the natural
    ecology of the Tongass and the Tongass as our home. We therefore ask
    for a reasoned, open, and respectful process as we attempt to finalize
    the land entitlement promised to our community 40 years ago. We ask for
    your support for H.R. 1408.
        Gunalcheesh. Thank you.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.001

        .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.002

        .eps[NOTE: Additional attachments have been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]
                                     ______

        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Mallott. Mr. Claus.

      STATEMENT OF BOB CLAUS, FOREST PROGRAM DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST
               ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, CRAIG, ALASKA

        Mr. Claus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Claus,
    and I live in Craig, Alaska. I have a strong commitment to the
    people and places of Southeast Alaska. I served as an Alaskan
    State Trooper on Prince of Wales Island for 15 years, and I
    continue to work every day with the people on the island.
        I have spent many hours visiting with and listening to the
    people who live in the Native villages, fishing towns, and
    former logging camps, which will be most impacted by this bill.
        The lifestyle of rural Alaska is beyond the imagination of
    most Americans. We build and heat our houses with wood that we
    take from the forest. We eat deer from the woods, and we fish
    in the streams and oceans. We arrange our lives around the
    strength of the fish runs, the winter survival of deer, and the
    abundance of the berry harvest.
        People have lived like this in this place for thousands of
    years. People on the island are opposed to this proposal
    because of the changes that they fear. People are afraid that
    they will lose their ability to hunt along the North Prince of
    Wales road system.
        They are afraid that they will lose their ability to make a
    living from fishing if they lose Federal buffers for salmon
    streams. They are afraid that the transfer of control from the
    Forest Service to the Sealaska Corporation will mean a loss of
    local year around jobs, contributing to the decline of their
    towns' economies.
        They are afraid that the loss of protection for karst and
    cave lands will destroy unique geologic features, and adversely
    impact salmon streams. The cost of this bill outweighs the
    public benefit, and the people of Southeast Alaska know it.
        This is shown by the formal letters and resolutions from
    communities opposing this proposal. I recently heard a story
    about the history of salmon canneries in one of our small
    towns.
        A big industrial company came to the village, built a
    cannery, and set up fish traps. Local people fish in cans, and
    earned a laborer's wage. The fish traps decimated the fish
    runs. The big company pulled out, and what the people got in
    return was a few years of wages, a destroyed fish run, and a
    traditional culture in disarray.
        How does putting fish in cans until the fish are gone
    different than loading logs on to ships until the logs are
    gone? Fishing has changed since then, and the timber industry
    has to change, too.
        Community leaders from across the political spectrum are
    actively working toward a different vision for the future of
    Southeast Alaska, and we believe that an intact forest
    ecosystem supports the billion-dollar fishing industry, the
    billion-dollar tourism and recreation industry, and the
    traditional and customary economies practiced by local
    residents.
        We believe that the community scaled forest products work
    and energy projects are compatible with this economy. This bill
    with this emphasis on clear-cut logging for export is an attack
    on our vision of the future for Southeast Alaska.
        SEACC recognizes Southeast Alaska as a Native place, and
    supports Sealaska getting lands rightfully owed to them, but we
    question the balance of this particular bill. One way to
    measure fairness is through the resource value as measured by
    timber, existing infrastructure, potential for economic
    development, and habitat value.
        The amount and location of the land selection should
    reflect the true costs to the American people. Sealaska has
    chosen the most productive and easily accessible timber stands.
    The Native futures site selections represent the best sites in
    Southeast Alaska for tourism and energy related development.
        Some of those are in direct conflict with existing small
    businesses and community plans, and all of them block future
    investment by any other party. The potential selection of
    cultural sites creates conflicts within the Native community
    over who is the appropriate owner of cultural sites, and who
    decides whether a commercial use of those lands is appropriate,
    and whether these lands could be lost to creditors.
        This bill fails to find that balance that supports our true
    sustainable economy. Part of that balance will be to conserve
    lands to protect fisheries, habitat, and community traditional
    use areas.
        SEACC remains committed to a broad balanced solution that
    addresses the interests of the Sealaska Corporation, and
    respects Native culture, as well as the economic needs of all
    of the people of Southeast Alaska. We oppose this bill because
    it does not contribute to that solution.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Claus follows:]

               Statement of Bob Claus, Forest Program Director,
                     Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

        Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee:
        My name is Bob Claus and I am a community organizer for SEACC based
    on Prince of Wales Island. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before you today and I respectfully request that my written testimony
    and accompanying materials be entered into the official record for this
    Subcommittee hearing.
        Founded in 1970, SEACC has members all across Southeast Alaska,
    from Craig on Prince of Wales Island to Yakutat. SEACC's individual
    members include commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, small timber
    operators and value-added wood manufacturers, tourism and recreation
    business owners, hunters and guides, and Alaskans from all walks of
    life.
        SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of Southeast
    Alaska's unsurpassed natural environment while providing for balanced,
    sustainable use of our region's resources. Southeast Alaska contains
    magnificent old-growth forests, outstanding fish and wildlife habitat,
    important ``customary and traditional'' or subsistence use areas,
    excellent water and air quality, unsurpassed outdoor recreation
    opportunities, world class scenery, internationally and nationally
    significant cave and karst resources, and provides a unique way of life
    for the hardy, independent people who choose to call it home.
        We were invited to testify here today because of our long
    involvement with this legislation. \1\ There was a hearing at the
    Subcommittee on Public Land and Forests yesterday across the Capital on
    the most recent Senate version of this same legislation, S. 730. Unlike
    the last session, however, the two bills are not identical.
        Unlike H.R. 1408, Senate Bill 730 does not offer hyperbole for fact
    like the supposed findings in section 2 of the House bill; \2\ encroach
    upon the federally-recognized tribe for the Hoonah Natives government-
    to-government relationship with the National Park Service over their
    traditional homelands in Glacier Bay National Park; threaten as many
    small communities or valuable fish and wildlife habitat; or fail to see
    the value in conserving internationally significant karst and cave
    resources, primary fish producing watersheds, and lands recognized by
    local community leaders as important just the way they are. Senate Bill
    730 recognizes the need for stream buffers to protect salmon habitat,
    although including an ill-advised sunset clause. H.R. 1408 should
    include permanent stream buffers to protect fisheries.
        I want to be clear--the Senate bill is better than H.R. 1408, but
    that is little consolation to the communities and forest users most
    directly affected by this legislation. We hope the Chairman uses this
    opportunity to draft a bill that doesn't favor one interest or
    community at the expense of others.
        Community leaders from across the political and economic spectrum
    are actively working towards a different vision of the future for
    Southeast Alaska than that proposed in this bill. Our salmon forest
    supports the sustainable nearly $1 billion fishing industry, which
    employs nearly 10 times the number of workers as timber. Our fish,
    wildlife, and outdoor recreation opportunities support over a billion
    dollars in direct, indirect, and induced visitor spending in Southeast
    Alaska, and provide over 21 percent of the full and part time jobs in
    Southeast Alaska. \3\ The critical foundation of the region's economy
    is customary and traditional hunting, fishing and gathering; salmon is
    the primary source of food for rural Southeast Alaskans. We acknowledge
    the difficult times and economic desperation that our small communities
    are facing, but logging watersheds vital to food gathering make it even
    more difficult for them. \4\
        We believe that sustainable community-scaled forest products work
    and energy projects are compatible with this vision. This bill, with
    its emphasis on clearcut logging for export, conflicts with that vision
    of a bright future for Southeast Alaska.
    Communities Placed in Conflict with One Another
        This legislative proposal is extremely controversial and divisive
    in Southeast Alaska's small communities.
        One of our proudest national heritages is the freedom that
    Americans enjoy to access and use our public lands, anyplace and
    anytime. The lands sought by Sealaska will curtail public access and
    use of public lands and resources. The uncertain scope of the permitted
    activities and location of the easements proposed in H.R. 1408 raise
    concerns, as does the authority given Sealaska to control access and
    use of the easements and adjacent lands.
        The small communities of Edna Bay, Naukati, Cape Pole, Hollis,
    Whale Pass, Kupreanof, Thorne Bay, Point Baker and Port Protection have
    written formal letters or resolutions opposing this bill, and these are
    the communities closest to the transfer areas. Other communities and
    organizations formally opposed prior versions of this legislation.
    Hundreds of island residents have signed petitions opposing the bill.
        Many residents of these communities closest to the lands threatened
    by H.R. 1408 question how they can continue their shared way of living
    if Sealaska takes their forest. Many wonder if the existing timber
    industry will be able to transition away from old-growth logging if
    Sealaska receives the oldest young-growth on the forest.
        Residents of the rural communities on Prince of Wales have long
    used all the lands proposed for selection by Sealaska on North Prince
    of Wales Island, Kosciusko and Tuxekan Islands for subsistence hunting,
    fishing, and gathering. Without the legal requirements for public
    oversight and participation provided these rural residents under Title
    VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act on public
    lands, they will have no voice on how these ``private'' lands are
    managed by Sealaska nor will Sealaska be obligated to minimize impacts
    to subsistence resources and uses from its management.
        Residents of Hydaburg fought to safeguard lands surrounding Keete/
    Nutkwa and Kassa Inlets and Mabel Bay. Sealaska has targeted these
    traditional lands for the short-term economic benefits associated with
    clearcut logging and round log export to Asian markets. The 1989 House-
    passed version of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, H.R. 987, safeguarded
    these lands permanently by designating them part of the Nutkwa
    Wilderness. The final compromise legislation in 1990 ultimately left
    these lands unprotected. \5\ SEACC and others have consistently
    advocated for long-term protection for these lands ever since.
    Out-Of-Withdrawal Selections for Economic Development Lands in H.R.
            1408 Disproportionately Target the Most Ecologically Productive
            Lands in Southeast Alaska.
        The pool of lands from which Sealaska is seeking for clearcut
    logging possess some of the highest biological values represented by
    salmon, deer, black bears, big-tree old-growth forest, and estuaries on
    the Tongass National Forest. \6\
        Analysis of earlier versions of this legislation demonstrate that
    the ecological productivity of the lands sought by Sealaska for
    intensive clearcut logging is proportionally higher in 2009, with
    nearly 47,000 (59.2%) of the acres inventoried as big tree forest.
    Recent maps prepared by the Forest Service also show the significant
    overlap between old growth reserves set aside Tongass-wide to safeguard
    wildlife populations and Sealaska's selections, particularly on the
    North Prince of Wales, Kosciusko, Tuxekan, Election Creek, Polk Inlet,
    and Keete parcels. Although Section 6(c) of H.R. 1408 tries to insulate
    the Forest Service from the effects to the Tongass Land Management Plan
    from conveying the selected lands to Sealaska, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife's decision not to list the goshawk and Alexander Archipelago
    wolf under the Endangered Species Act was premised on the adequacy of
    the Tongass Conservation Strategy adopted in the Tongass Plan. Given
    the extensive modification of that conservation strategy on Prince of
    Wales and surrounding islands that will result if this legislation is
    enacted, the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service will face
    serious questions about the status of these old-growth dependent
    wildlife populations.
        A substantial majority of the lands targeted by Sealaska on North
    Prince of Wales, Kosciusko, and Tuxekan Islands contain world-class
    karst and cave resources. \7\ These resources are protected under
    federal law, and would lose that protection if turned over to Sealaska.
    Karst terrain occurs on water-soluble bedrock such as limestone,
    dolomite, or gypsum. It is characterized by underground water drainage,
    sinkholes, pits, and caves. These well-drained soils support some of
    the most majestic old-growth forest on the Tongass. Approximately 71%
    of the lands identified for conveyance by Sealaska are underlain by
    karst. The forest canopy protects the thin soils atop karst from
    eroding directly into the soluble rock below. Past and proposed
    clearcut logging on these fragile soils disrupt the natural hydrology,
    harm cave formations that hold information of thousands of years of
    climate change, and alter sediments that hold keys to understanding
    patterns of human migration into the Americas as well as other
    paleontological clues to our past. Eleven years ago, the Forest Service
    discovered human remains in On Your Knees cave on North Prince of Wales
    Island. DNA testing determined that these human remains were 10,300
    years old. The oldest human remains in Alaska have been found in this
    cave system, and it has not yet been fully explored or mapped. See
    Forest Service returns ancient human remains to Tlingit tribes, Juneau
    Empire (Oct. 21, 2007). \8\
    Futures Sites
        The Native futures sites selections represent the best sites in all
    of Southeast Alaska for tourism and energy related development. Some
    are in direct conflict with existing small businesses and community
    plans, and all block future investment by any other party. Some sites,
    like Pegmatite Mountain, Spring Creek, and Blake Channel are actively
    opposed by local communities. \9\
    Unfair to US Taxpayers
        Sealaska's proposed selections contain millions of dollars worth of
    public roads and facilities built at taxpayer expense, unlike the areas
    they are currently authorized to select. One way to measure fairness is
    through the resource value, as measured by timber, existing
    infrastructure, potential for economic development, and habitat values.
    The amount and location of land selections should reflect the true
    costs to the American public and not just the total number of acres.
    This should be a value for value exchange, not an acre for acre
    exchange.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the
    proposed legislation.

                  Endnotes for SEACC's Testimony on H.R. 1408

    \1\ By this reference, we incorporate testimony we gave the Committee
            in 2007 on H.R. 3560 (available at http://seacc.org/files/
            FINAL%20SEACC%20H.R.%
            203560%20testimony%2011-14-07.pdf) and last spring on H.R. 2099
            (available at http://seacc.org/files/
            SEACC%20Testimony%20%20on%20HR%202099%203-31-
            10%20LH%20%282%29.pdf) into the record for today's hearing, as
            well as supporting documentation provided committee staff.
    \2\ This problem is exemplified in section 3(5)(B) of H.R. 1408's
            statement that the $7.5 million awarded by the Court of Claims
            to the Tlingit-Haida Central Council (THCC) ``did not justify
            the significant disparate treatment of Sealaska under the
            Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act'' exemplifies our point.
            Both the historical record of Alaska Native land claims and the
            legislative record for the ANCSA reveal that the 1968
            settlement was the sole reason Congress decided to treat
            Southeast Alaska Natives differently from other Alaska Natives
            in the ANCSA. See e.g., Section 13(d), H.R. 10367, 92nd
            Congress, 1st Session, 117 Cong. Rec. 37,067 (1971).
    \3\ McDowell Group, Economic Impact of Alaska's Visitor Industry, Table
            9 at p. 20 (March 2010). This report is available at--http://
            www.dced.state.ak.us/ded/dev/pub/
            Visitor_Industry_Impacts_3_30.pdf.
    \4\ As noted by experts at the Alaska Department of Labor: ``Living in
            Alaska involves higher costs no matter where you live, but
            living in rural Alaska increases those costs even more.''
            Alaska Economic Trends at 15 (May 2011) available at http://
            labor.state.ak.us/trends/may11.pdf
    \5\ See House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Amending
            ANILCA to Designate Certain Lands in the Tongass National
            Forest as Wilderness, and For Other Purposes, H.R. 987, 101st
            Cong., 1st Sess., (1989), reprinted in House Report No. 101--
            84, Part I, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., (1989). As reported, the
            House passed H.R. 987 by a vote of 356 to 60, with 15 not
            voting. See 135 Cong. Rec. 3718 (daily ed. July 13,
            1989)(designating approximately 52,654 acres as the Nutkwa
            Wilderness). That fall, Congress enacted the Tongass Timber
            Reform Act into law. See Pub. L. 101-626, 104 Stat. 4426 (Nov.
            28, 1990)(designating approximately 28,118 acres as the Nutkwa
            LUD II Management Area). The nearly 25,000 acre of lands
            unprotected in the final legislation are the lands at risk in
            H.R. 1408.
    \6\ Schoen, John and Erin Dovichin, eds. 2007. The Coastal Forests and
            Mountain Ecoregion of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass
            National Forest. Audubon Alaska and The Nature Conservancy, 715
            L Street, Anchorage, Alaska. This complete report is available
            online at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm. See also
            Exhibit 3 to SEACC's Testimony on S.881 (Oct. 8, 2009)(a map
            comparing Landscape Scale Density of Oldgrowth Forests 1950's--
            2005 on the southern portion of the Tongass National Forests
            with the land pool proposed for selection by Sealaska)
            available at http://seacc.org/files/SEACC%20Final%
            20Testimony%20for%2010-08-09%20Hrg%20on%20S881.pdf
    \7\ See Exhibit 4 to SEACC's Testimony on S.881 (Oct. 8,
            2009)(available at http://seacc.org/files/
            SEACC%20Final%20Testimony%20for%2010-08-
            09%20Hrg%20on%20S881.pdf
    \8\ This story can be found on the web at http://www.juneauempire.com/
            stories/102107/loc_20071021021.shtml.
    \9\ See e.g., http://m.juneauempire.com/local/2011-05-07/tenakee-
            springs-opposes-seal
            aska-and-ipec-geothermal-site-selection
                                     ______

        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Claus. Mr. Graham.

      STATEMENT OF OWEN GRAHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FOREST
                     ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA

        Mr. Graham. Thank you. And thanks for the opportunity to
    speak in support of this legislation. The shortage of timber
    supply in Southeast Alaska has led to severe hardship for many
    people.
        Congress has set aside about 10 million acres in the region
    as wilderness, national monuments, parks, legislated roadless
    areas. Those reserves, which include about two million acres of
    forestland, were permanently set aside largely to satisfy the
    demands of environmental groups.
        Even with all this land set aside in perpetuity, there is
    still ample forestland to support a viable timber industry.
    Unfortunately, we don't have access to most of that, that non-
    set aside forestland.
        The non-Federal lands comprise only about 6 percent of the
    region, and although the State and the private landowners do a
    good job of managing their timberlands, their lands are
    insufficient to supply the minimum volume needed to keep our
    industry viable and sustainable.
        Sealaska is a good steward of the land. I have seen it with
    my own eyes, and I have worked with them for over 30 years.
    They do a good job of harvesting their timber, following the
    State practices, and they do a good job with the reforest
    station, and they do a lot of science studies.
        They protect their fishery values, and they are a good
    company, and a good organization. When Congress made their
    wilderness and roadless withdrawals, they promised to continue
    to supply roughly 12,000 acres of timber annually to support
    the timber industry and the economy in the region.
        But that promise has not been fulfilled. In 1990, when
    Congress enacted the Tongass Timber Reform Act, we had over
    3,000 direct jobs in our industry, but immediately after TTRA
    was passed, the supply of timber from the National Forests
    began to decline dramatically.
        At the same time, timber supplies from most of the small
    Native village lands also declined. The Federal lands are
    currently providing only about 1,000 acres of timber annually.
    That is less than 10 percent of the promised timber supply.
        And yet environmental groups still appeal and litigate
    nearly every timber sale that is prepared. Although both
    Sealaska and the State have continued to provide timber, they
    just manage a small amount of timberland in the region.
        And even without those supplies from the State and the
    private timberlands, our mills would be gone already. In fact,
    we are down to one medium-sized sawmill, and a handful of real
    small sawmills.
        Of the timber industry people who lost their jobs over the
    last 20 years, about two-thirds had to leave the region to find
    work. This created a great hardship, not just for them, but
    also for the communities that they left.
        Many of the people who were able to find work and remain
    living in the region are now facing potential layoffs again as
    Sealaska's timber supply dwindles. These people will not be
    able to find jobs a second time because there will be no jobs
    unless both Sealaska and the Forest Service are allowed to
    continue their timber operations.
        Passage of H.R. 1408 will provide Sealaska the opportunity
    to continue their operations and we hope that Congress will
    also support and encourage the Forest Service to restore the
    Federal timber supply that we were promised so long ago. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:]

    Statement of Owen Graham, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association

        Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young, and members of the Committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record of
    this important hearing on H.R. 1408.
        My name is Owen Graham. I am executive director of the Alaska
    Forest Association. The AFA is the statewide association representing
    companies engaged in forest practices including support companies. We
    have 115 members and represent timber companies, loggers, trucking and
    towing companies, suppliers, and other members who have a stake in the
    future of a vital and hopefully healthy timber economy in Alaska.
        AFA strongly supports the passage of H.R. 1408 without delay.
    Passage of this bill is critical to the future of our remaining
    industry. Alaska Native timber is in decline in part because ANCSA land
    entitlement has not been fulfilled, even though ANCSA was passed over
    three decades ago. The Native lands represent only about 3% of the land
    in Southeast Alaska, but Sealaska's timber operations, currently
    support about 40% of the forest industry employment in the region
    because of the inappropriate reductions in timber harvest from federal
    lands.
        Drastic reductions in the federal timber sale program since 1990,
    after the Tongass Timber Reform Act was enacted, have been disastrous
    for our industry and our communities. The federal lands comprise about
    94% of the total land in the region and, as a result of the dramatic
    decline in federal timber sales; our industry has declined over 90%. If
    Sealaska is unable to continue their forestry operation, we will not be
    able to maintain much of our industry support infrastructure--
    transportation companies, fuel barges, equipment suppliers, etc.
        Even though the Forest Service has a timber plan in place which
    claims to provide up to 267 million board feet annually, the agency has
    only offered about 15 mmbf of new timber sales annually. Because the
    timber sale program on federal lands is so unreliable, it is critical
    that private timber be available to support our industry. In most
    states, there is a mix of federal, state, and private timber which
    provides more opportunity to compensate for periodic declines in the
    federal timber sale program. We do not have that diversity of land
    ownership in Southeast Alaska, but it is vitally needed. This
    legislation will move the region a little closer to balance.
        From today's struggles described above, AFA hopes our industry can
    be restored to a level closer to what we had in 1990.That is why the
    passage of this bill is so vital and so timely. This committee and
    Congress need to act immediately.
        Please do not be persuaded by those who claim the passage of this
    bill will threaten wildlife viability or plant diversity. This is
    simply not true. There are millions of acres under complete protection
    in the Tongass including nearly 7 million acres of wilderness or
    legislated LUD II areas where development is statutorily prohibited.
    These legislatively set-aside areas include about 2 million acres of
    commercial timberland. The Tongass Land Management Plan
    administratively sets aside more than 3 million additional acres of
    commercial timberland. The commercial lands that are the subject of
    this legislation total less than 85 thousand acres--less than 2% of the
    commercial timberlands in Southeast Alaska.
        Sealaska is a good steward for their lands. They comply with the
    State Forest Practices Act regulations and they put an effort into
    managing their young-growth timber for the future. In addition, their
    lands are managed to allow timber, wildlife and fish to all prosper on
    the same acres. I have seen this with my own eyes.
        Some of those who speak against this legislation are the same
    people that have used administrative appeals, litigation and political
    pressure to drive down the timber supply from federal lands.
        A number of small communities have expressed concerns about
    potential impacts on the timber supply for local processors. Further,
    these communities fear a loss of recreational and subsistence access to
    the lands that Sealaska has selected. Sealaska has addressed these
    concerns; land selections have been modified to avoid the most
    contentious areas and Sealaska has agreed to provide public access to
    their lands. Further, the Forest Service timber sale plans for these
    areas indicate no conflict over the next few years and the agency has
    ample opportunity to adjust the forest plan to account for potential
    future timber sale impacts. After all, the forest plan has about three
    million acres of commercial forestland held in reserve that could be
    put to use if needed.
        Fish streams, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities are
    already well protected in this region; what is not assured is the
    future of our timber industry. We have lost 90% of our employment due
    primarily to a decline in the availability of timber from the federal
    lands in the region. We cannot afford to reduce the timber supply from
    private lands as well.
        Sealaska has agreed to provide access to their lands for both
    subsistence and recreational hunting and fishing and Sealaska's
    operations will provide continued jobs and other economic benefits to
    both regional and local communities.
        This bill does not finalize the total acres that Sealaska will
    receive under ANSCA, so we recommend that the committee instruct the
    BLM to work with Sealaska to negotiate the final entitlement.
        Thank you again. The AFA urges immediate passage of this bill to
    help keep our industry alive and our communities healthy.

                                REGIONAL IMPACTS

              Sealaska employment and its contractor employment
            combined is the largest for-profit sector employer in Southeast
            Alaska.
              Many Southeast communities, including Juneau,
            experience some level of economic impact from Sealaska timber
            harvest operations.
              In 2008 Sealaska Corporation, Sealaska Timber
            Corporation and Sealaska Heritage Institute spend $45 million
            in Southeast Alaska.
              Sealaska and its contractors directly employed 363
            workers in 2008
              Including both direct and indirect employment,
            Sealaska-related employment totaled nearly 490 workers and $21
            million in payroll in 2008.
    Summary
              The timber industry and the communities in Southeast
            Alaska need the continued economic activity provided by
            Sealaska's operations.
              The only impacts on the federal timber supply for
            local sawmills in the next 5-years are two commercial thinning
            projects proposed on Kosciusko Island (both of which have
            questionable economic viability). Beyond the next 5-years,
            there is a potential 2% impact, but that impact can easily be
            avoided by minor schedule changes.
              We need to sustain all of our timber employment--both
            from private and public lands--and there is more than adequate
            timber available to do so. The maximum timber harvest rate over
            the next 100-years would still leave about 90% of the existing
            old-growth commercial timberlands untouched.
                                     ______

        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Graham. All witnesses and
    Members are reminded that they have five minutes, and we will
    go for a second round of questioning. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate you
    taking over for me, and a thank you to the witnesses, and I do
    apologize, but I did achieve my goal on the Defense Bill, and
    so I feel quite good about that.
        Byron, the question of public access to lands that Sealaska
    would acquire in the Prince of Wales Island has been raised by
    some of the residents, the local communities on that island.
        I have received letters that suggest that people who have
    lived there on these lands and used these lands for 30 years,
    and that Sealaska should avoid land selections near these
    communities, or how is that going to work?
        Mr. Mallott. Sealaska has never posted its lands, except in
    very specific instances for specific reasons, and this is over
    almost a 40 year period now, and we would not do so in the
    future.
        The legislation, and the discussions, and the agreements
    that Sealaska has reached with virtually all of the parties
    involved would make essentially unparalleled public access
    available through and on to Sealaska's lands, and Jaeleen may
    have a more specific answer if she might be given the
    opportunity, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Young. Well, in fact, Byron, wouldn't it be only fair
    to say that the Forest Service could prohibit use of that land
    as it is supposedly Federal lands, and it remains in the Forest
    Service's hands, and they could keep people off that land, too.
    And you are not saying that is going to be done and under your
    jurisdiction, correct?
        Mr. Mallott. We are not saying that.
        Mr. Young. That is good, because the Forest Service, I know
    that they have restricted before and restricted uses for types
    of vehicles, et cetera, already. So I don't know why there are
    concerns.
        I get very concerned about those that say that this is
    their right. This is not their right, and I know that I have
    talked to people, and they say, well, we have been doing this
    all these years. It is on Federal land, and they have not been
    restricted before.
        So I commend the Sealaska people for saying, yes, there
    will be utilization on that land. No structures, but
    utilization and for recreational purposes. Byron, again, I
    introduced this bill in 2007, and it has been vetted throughout
    the region.
        I have made some modifications based on suggestions
    received, and there seems to be new criticisms every time we
    introduce the bill. Can you describe the negotiations in
    communities, and the work that you have done trying to get a
    solution?
        Mr. Mallott. Sealaska has had almost 200 meetings
    throughout the region with individuals, with groups, with
    communities. It has been involved in the Tongass Futures
    Roundtable process, which has all of the interests in the
    Tongass National Forest at the table.
        The sacred sites, particularly the future sites, have been
    modified over the course of three Congresses in which this bill
    has now been introduced, and we continue to this day to discuss
    and negotiate issues that others have a concern with.
        We feel that we have been fully responsive, fully
    transparent, and we are at a point where we are not sure how
    much more that in the interests of our tribal members, trial
    member shareholders, that we can give.
        Mr. Young. Well, again, I have watched this process, and I
    am deeply disturbed by those that keep saying that something is
    wrong with the bill after you negotiate with them, and my goal,
    Mr. Chairman, is to move this legislation as soon as possible.
        You also said that this legislation is the most important
    economic stimulus package that Congress could implement for
    Southeast Alaska. We keep talking about jobs. What is the
    estimated jobs if this thing goes forth for that area?
        Mr. Mallott. At the very minimum, there would be hundreds
    of jobs. The opportunity to essentially reconstitute the core
    of a sustainable timber industry is what we are talking about.
    If this bill is not passed, and Sealaska does not gain access
    to lands that it is entitled to, both for timber harvests and
    for other purposes--and I emphasize the other purposes. They
    are many, and they have to do with our existence in the
    forests--it is very likely that the timber industry will go
    away.
        And whether it will ever be reconstituted is problematic. I
    believe that even the United States Forest Service recognizes
    that, and they are I think anxious that somehow the issues be
    resolved so that we can work together to build an industry that
    is sustainable over time.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Byron, and my time is up, and I will
    come back for a second round of questions.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. Mr. Mallott, you talked about reforestation.
    Are there plans when trees are harvested? I come from Michigan,
    and my dad's first job was as a lumberjack, and in 1919, the
    last load of virgin timber in the lower peninsula of Michigan
    was hauled into Trevor City, Michigan.
        And they didn't think about reforestation. I am pleased
    that you are aware of the fact that reforestation is a very
    important element of forestry, of the timber industry. Back in
    1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt saw that, and saw what had happened
    in Michigan, and most of the white pine built most of the
    houses in Chicago.
        And we planted trees in 1935 and 1936, and I was about five
    years old then, and those trees now are mature trees, and
    probably not as big as some of the huge trees that were
    harvested originally.
        Are you talking with the USDA about reforestation plans if
    you get access to more of this area where you can do forestry?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes, Congressman. Sealaska has an active
    reforestation and silvicultural program underway on our current
    lands. We spend multimillions on reforestation on steep slopes,
    for example.
        We live in a very wet climate, and dealing with slopping
    lands is very much an issue. we have relationships with several
    western universities that have specific programs that provide
    both advice and on the ground direction involved in
    reforestation and the full range of silvicultural practices.
        And we know, for example, that we can both from an economic
    perspective, but again from a multi-use perspective maximize
    both the availability and the diversity of second growth
    through very active silvicultural practices, and we are
    committed to that, and we are engaged in it today at a very
    high level.
        Mr. Kildee. All right. I would encourage you to continue
    that. I am not sure what will finally happen to this bill. I
    know that Mr. Young is really determined and has been pushing
    this for a long time, and I think we can do certain things that
    will help reach your goals, while at the same time preserving
    those things that maybe should not be touched, right?
        And then along with reforestation, perhaps we can put
    something together, but I know what reforestation has done to
    Michigan. It has helped a great deal, and we should have done
    much more.
        But I think that is something that we did not think of from
    1919 to 1935, and it took Franklin Roosevelt to get the idea of
    planting trees about that high with the Civilian Conservation
    Corps, and young men out there planting those trees.
        But I think that we have to do it in a more scientific
    manner than how we did it in 1935 in Michigan, but I encourage
    you to stay involved in that.
        Mr. Mallott. We fully agree.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Claus, in your
    testimony, very dramatic testimony, you mentioned that there
    could be a point in time when there are no more logs.
        Do you really think that there could be a point in time,
    and is there any type of plan out there to harvest everything?
        Mr. Claus. I don't know. I don't believe there is a plan to
    harvest everything. I think that would be an exaggeration. What
    I do believe----
        Mr. Denham. We hear a lot of exaggerations here in this
    House. So, I just wanted to confirm that.
        Mr. Claus. Well, I do think that there is a limited amount
    of old growth timber. There is a limited amount of the kind of
    timber that does support our salmon fisheries, and that does
    support our habitat for endangered species, like the wolf, and
    the deer that people eat.
        And that is in limited supply, especially in the lower
    elevations, and where things are easily accessible. There is a
    limit to the amount of old growth timber that can be taken off
    the Tongass National Forest.
        Mr. Denham. And I agree. And would there also be a limit on
    how much too much growth would be, and where it actually leaves
    a community in jeopardy? In my district, we have a lot of
    mountainous areas, and at a certain point in my district, when
    you get too much growth, my communities become very concerned.
        And when we have forest fires that not only destroys the
    forest, but also destroys the homes and the towns in that area.
    Is there a point in your estimation where you have too much
    growth?
        Mr. Claus. In Southeast Alaska, we don't face the kind of
    fire danger that is faced in many other forests across the
    country.
        Mr. Denham. So you can never have too much growth there?
        Mr. Claus. I don't believe so. No, sir.
        Mr. Denham. And since 1990 do you know how many timber
    sales Sealaska or SEACC has gone on record to support?
        Mr. Claus. Have gone on record to support?
        Mr. Denham. Yes.
        Mr. Claus. I don't know. I don't that.
        Mr. Denham. You don't know, or is there a number? Have you
    supported any plans?
        Mr. Claus. Well, what we have done is that we have been
    working with the Forest Service in a different way in the last
    five or six years in a collaborative way to try to make the
    timber sales more realistic from our point of view to avoid the
    kind of litigation, and the things that have gone on in the
    past, and I think we have been successful at that.
        Mr. Denham. So you have been successful in working with the
    Forest Service, and you have supported the plans that the
    Forest Service has put out?
        Mr. Claus. Yes.
        Mr. Denham. And you have gone on record to support that?
        Mr. Claus. I don't know that. We have worked with them, on
    the Sandy Creek Project, and----
        Mr. Denham. I am just asking how many times you have gone
    on the record to support the Forest Service?
        Mr. Claus. The Central----
        Mr. Denham. It sounds like you have worked with a lot of
    different folks, and a lot of different agencies.
        Mr. Claus. Yes.
        Mr. Denham. I just want you to go on record and tell me
    which ones you have supported, and if there has been a plan out
    there that you have supported, and if you could provide that to
    us for the record?
        Mr. Claus. The most recent one is the Central Cooper sale,
    and that is ongoing, and we can provide more details to you at
    a later time. I don't have that in front of me.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. And it is my understanding that you
    are not prepared to support Mr. Young's bill at this time. The
    Senate version, as I understand, does not go quite as far as
    Mr. Young's bill. Do you support that version?
        Mr. Claus. We do not support the Senate version, but it is
    considerably closer, and I think that with further work with
    the Sealaska Corporation and other entities that might be
    closer to something that we could accept than this bill.
        Mr. Denham. Are you in any type of discussions, or are
    there pieces of that bill that you are offering your concern on
    issues?
        Mr. Claus. I am sorry, sir, but I didn't understand that.
        Mr. Denham. Is there anything specifically in that bill
    that you are looking to change so that you can gain your
    support?
        Mr. Claus. We think that there ought to be more
    conservation added to the bill to balance off the timberlands
    that Sealaska has and that we have concerns about. Certain of
    the future sites, yes, sir. So those things we would be happy
    to discuss in detail.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Ms. Hanabusa.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Claus, I don't
    know anything about your entity, OK? So you tell me what the
    Southeast Alaska Conservation Council is, and also what your
    position as Forest Program Director entails?
        Mr. Claus. Yes, Ma'am. The Southeast Alaska Conservation
    Council, or SEACC, is a 40-year-old organization, and 41 years
    old this year. We have been involved in timber policy on the
    Tongass since then.
        We are a group of members of approximately 1500 members,
    most of them Alaskans, most of them individual people. We have
    a small staff of about 10. My job as the Forest Program
    Director is to help advise on policy to our board of directors.
        And I have a small staff right now of myself and two others
    who do community organizing work in the communities, and mostly
    in Wrangell right now, and Ketchikan, which are our focuses.
        Ms. Hanabusa. So it just happens that it is about 40 years
    old? Did its creation coincide with the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act?
        Mr. Claus. I don't think so. It was a coincidence that the
    land issues at that time were the big issue of the day, and
    SEACC was formed at the same time, yes.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Has SEACC been active in all of the
    discussions on the Native Alaskan Settlement Act? In other
    words, when other entities, or other of the 12 entities have
    actually withdrawn lands, have you participated in the process
    like you are doing here today?
        Mr. Claus. Our focus is on forest issues in Southeast
    Alaska and around the Tongass National Forest, and the
    intersection of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act with
    that is not a direct one. We have not. So, no, we have not been
    outside of the region working with the Claims Act.
        Ms. Hanabusa. So anything regarding the Tongass, in that
    area, you have been participating as a voice in terms of how
    the lands are being withdrawn. Would that be a correct
    statement?
        Mr. Claus. Yes, Ma'am.
        Ms. Hanabusa. You said something in your testimony that I
    found a bit troubling. You mentioned the cultural sites, and as
    I stated earlier, issues regarding Native rights, and
    especially their cultural practices, are very dear to me.
        You said that you didn't know who really owned those sites,
    and who had a right to those sites. Do you remember that part
    of your testimony earlier?
        Mr. Claus. Yes.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Could you tell me what you meant by that?
        Mr. Claus. Yes, and what my concern is that I hear from
    Native people is that they don't know that a corporation like
    Sealaska would be the best carrier, the best owner, of cultural
    sites that they believe are attached to their clans.
        And I don't speak for them. I was saying what I hear are
    some of the concerns from the Native community, and that is as
    much as I should probably say about that.
        Ms. Hanabusa. But your testimony was that you didn't
    believe it, and so you are saying that it is not you, per se,
    but it is the Native peoples that you spoke to that are saying
    that?
        Mr. Claus. I am sorry if I misspoke. My concern is that
    there is a conflict inside the Native community about how
    management of the cultural sites should go forward, and I think
    that needs to be resolved by the Native people, and not by me.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Do you consider yourself a Native person?
        Mr. Claus. I do not.
        Ms. Hanabusa. So, Mr. Mallott, could you tell me what you
    consider to be these cultural sites that Mr. Claus has
    difficulties explaining why he made that statement, other than
    some Native people said to him that they think that there is an
    issue regarding whether Sealaska should do it?
        Are you very clear in your own mine, Mr. Mallott, as to
    what are those Native cultural sites?
        Mr. Mallott. Very, very, very vividly clear. They are
    sacred sites that we have an incredibly long historical, and
    cultural, and traditional attachment to, and we want to protect
    into time immemorial.
        And a for profit corporation is not really what Sealaska
    is. We represent tribal people, Native people, and protecting
    those sacred sites are among our very highest priorities. I
    would like to ask if I could for Jaeleen to comment. Jaeleen is
    Sealaska's General Counsel. She is also a tribal member
    shareholder, and knows this issue intimately.
        Ms. Hanabusa. I am sorry, but you are out of time, but Mr.
    Chair.
        Mr. Denham. I am happy to provide an extra minute.
        Ms. Hanabusa. You will have a minute. Thank you very much.
    Please proceed.
        Ms. Araujo. Thank you, Congresswoman. I just want to add
    that Alaska as you know was treated very differently in terms
    of Native land claims. Alaska Native Corporations are the only
    ones with an entitlement to Native lands.
        Our tribes currently don't have that right, and so if our
    cultural properties are going to go into Native ownership, it
    will have to be through our corporations. We are the only ones
    in Southeast, in terms of a Native institution, that have a
    remaining entitlement, and so we would like to use some of that
    to get some of our Native cultural properties back into Native
    ownership.
        We have the support of many of our tribes, and our
    intention with these cultural properties, and we already have
    draft MOUs in progress with the tribes, and to work with our
    tribes to manage these properties in perpetuity in a way that
    is appropriate for our local tribes, and our local clans.
        But we are the only ones with the Native land entitlements,
    and so we would like to use that on behalf of our tribes, and
    because all of our shareholders are tribal member shareholders.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, and as Mr. Mallott said, 10,000
    years in the past, and 10,000 years in the future. Thank you
    very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Owen, you have been
    listening to the testimony. How many acres are in the Tongass?
        Mr. Graham. Seventeen million.
        Mr. Young. Seventeen million. And what are we talking about
    in this bill?
        Mr. Graham. Oh, 80,000 roughly.
        Mr. Young. So, 80,000 and 17 million, and Mr. Claus says
    that the world is coming to an end, and there is not going to
    be any more timber.
        Mr. Graham. Yes.
        Mr. Young. What happened to the timber industry? You have
    been in it for 40 years. How has it changed in the Southeast?
        Mr. Graham. Well, we have lost 90 percent of our
    employment. We have lost most of our mills. We had two large
    pulp mills, and three large sawmills, and a lot of medium-sized
    mills.
        We have one medium-sized mill left, and all the rest of it
    is gone, and the people are gone. A few of them are working for
    Sealaska, and we are trying to hang on to those jobs.
        Mr. Young. Well, I am interested, because Mr. Sherman
    mentioned that the Forest Service is supposed to supply under
    the present Tongass Land Management Plan, I think, 267 million
    board feet annually?
        Mr. Graham. Yes.
        Mr. Young. And how much do they usually offer?
        Mr. Graham. Over the last 10 years, new timber sales have
    been less, way less, than 20 million board feet per year, way
    less than 10 percent.
        Mr. Young. Less than 10 percent? Mr. Chairman, I have to
    say that as an example, we are talking about 80,000 acres of
    land, and the Forest Service is supposed to guarantee 267,000
    acres of land, and Mr. Claus, how many--and again I go back to
    the Chairman's question. How many sales have you ever
    supported? One?
        Mr. Claus. That is the most recent one that I recall. I
    don't know about others.
        Mr. Young. Well, with all due respect, but I have been in
    this business a long time, and you have never supported a sale.
    Even this one, you are not really happy with it that we do
    support if. I have been here a long time, and I have watched
    your organization destroy an industry.
        We passed the Tongass National Forest Plan, and we were
    told by your group, Peace In the Valley, we are going to have
    small sawmills, and we are going to support you. You have never
    supported a thing. You want to kill the industry, and you have
    tried to kill us, and you have done a good job of doing it.
        And isn't it true that if we don't get this bill passed, is
    there any chance for any--Sealaska or any other industry in
    Southeast Alaska, that will work?
        Mr. Graham. Well, you know, Sealaska is the anchor for our
    industry, and we are just struggling to hang on right now. If
    we lose Sealaska, we will lose 40 percent of what we have left,
    and our health insurance program would collapse. I think our
    pension program would collapse.
        I think that a lot of our infrastructure, towing, and
    suppliers, would collapse. I think that it is extremely likely
    that it would all just crumble apart.
        Mr. Young. Byron, I will go back to you again. You are
    picking lands that have mostly been logged already, correct?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Mr. Young. And there is a road structure in, right?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes.
        Mr. Young. So we are not doing anything really new. How
    would that--how is the comment that it will affect the fishing
    industry when it has already been logged? How does that jive?
        Mr. Mallott. It doesn't. We are among the strongest
    supporters and local participants in the Southeast Fishing
    industry.
        Mr. Young. So you are a fisherman?
        Mr. Mallott. Yes, salmon, and halibut, and other species,
    and we would be the last to try to be involved in any practices
    that would destroy or inhibit salmon production in any stream
    in the Southeast.
        The move to second growth quite frankly was an effort to
    continue to move away from any kind of potential impact on
    other resource values within the forest, while still allowing a
    sustainable timber harvest.
        That is all that I can say. We are absolutely committed to
    sustaining all fisheries and the value of all aquatic resources
    in the Tongass National Forest.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Byron. Mr. Claus, I want you to
    submit to the Committee the total number of appeals and
    lawsuits that your organization has been a party to since 1990
    in the Tongass. I expect that information as soon as possible,
    because I don't think you have it, or you would have said that
    before.
        Mr. Claus. I don't have that with me.
        Mr. Young. Well, I need that. I want to show you what you
    have done over these years, and how you have used the legal
    system, and how you have destroyed an economy, and how you are
    trying now to destroy the Native people.
        And I got sort of a kick from the Madam from Hawaii. He has
    heard Natives do it. We have two of the Native leaders right
    here, and we have one more in the back of the room.
        These are the leaders, and I get concerned when a white guy
    starts talking about what the Natives are saying, and I will be
    right up front with you about that. The Native leaders are
    elected, and they are chosen, and they are the spokesman.
        And sacred sites to me is a crucial issue, and the
    selection of 80,000 acres, Mr. Chairman, out of 17 million
    acres. I remember going to--and by the way, all these
    communities that Mr. Claus says oppose this were logging camps.
        Now we have some retirees sitting there, and government
    workers, and people who have it made living on Federal land,
    and getting a paycheck, and trying to take it away from what I
    call the original owners of the land.
        Now that is the injustice, and in this Committee, there is
    going to be justice served for my American Indians and my
    Alaska Natives, and no outside organization paid for by some
    wealthy person out of San Francisco is going to interfere with
    that, because that is wrong. It is not justice. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Young. Any more questions? I
    have one final question. Mr. Mallott, Sealaska has been waiting
    for nearly 40 years to gain its entitlement of land following
    passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
        I understand that some folks argue that it is the
    corporation's own fault for accepting a 1996 amendment to that
    Act that caused Sealaska to select inside the 10 selection
    areas surrounding Native villages in Southeast Alaska, and that
    Sealaska delayed gaining lands inside the box several years ago
    by asking BLM to defer completing your land selections there.
        In your written testimony, you touched on this, but could
    you explain in greater detail the history of how you ended up
    with the land conveyance choices that you face under current
    law, and what happened in 1976?
        Mr. Mallott. Sealaska was unique among the ANCSA
    corporations in having its land selection opportunities clearly
    limited to within the specific townships surrounding the Native
    villages within the region.
        We were impacted at the time by the two long term pulp
    contracts which supplied timber to the Ketchikan and Sitka
    mills. They were at the time the only harvests taking place
    within the Tongass.
        The available timber was large and the opportunity or the
    ability within the framework of those contracts for another
    entity, even the owners of the land, the Native corporations,
    to make selections was severely limited.
        It was not our doing or our choice to limit in any way the
    opportunity for us to select lands that would give us the
    opportunity and give us a sense of justice fulfilled in any of
    our practices, and in any of our Acts.
        And any decisions that Sealaska took were in the framework
    of circumstances within which we had no control, and were given
    choices that we had to accept or essentially give up
    opportunities that were available to us.
        The choices that were made and where we stood at the time
    reminds me of the movie Blazing Saddles, where the black
    sheriff holds a gun to his own head, and says that you are
    going to lose the only black sheriff you have ever had, and it
    is just that crazy, Mr. Chairman, for anyone to accuse the
    Native community and Sealaska of making choices that would
    diminish either its opportunity or put it in a position where
    it could not realize the selection and the utilization of lands
    that otherwise might be available to them. It is ludicrous.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Mallott, and a thank you to all
    of our witnesses for your valuable testimony and patience.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for
    the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to these in writing.
        The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive
    those responses. If there is no further business, without
    objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        The following submissions for the record have been retained
    in the Committee's official files:
              Edna Bay Community, Statement submitted for
            the record on H.R. 1408
              Moll, Chohla, Spokesperson, Alliance for
            Access to Sitka's Streams and Forests, Statement
            submitted for the record
              Poelstra, Myla, Representing Nine Alaska
            Towns-Thorne Bay, Cape Pole, Hollis, Naukati, Whale
            Pass, Kupreanof, Port Protection, Edna Bay, Point
            Baker, Statement submitted for the record on S. 730
              Regelin, Wayne, President, Territorial
            Sportsmen, Statement submitted for the record
              Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Craig,
            Alaska, Supplemental testimony and attachments
            submitted for the record
                                    ------

        [A letter submitted for the record by lodge owners, guides
    and outfitters, sporting goods companies, hunting and fishing
    groups, and non-government fish and wildlife conservation
    organizations follows:]

    June 10, 2011

    Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    House Committee on Natural Resources

    RE: S. 730 and H.R. 1408

    Dear Committee Members,

        The undersigned lodge owners, guides and outfitters, sporting goods
    companies, hunting & fishing groups, and non-government fish and
    wildlife conservation organizations from Alaska and across the country
    are writing to express our opposition to the Southeast Alaska Native
    Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act (S. 730 and H.R.
    1408, although the bills are far from identical).
        We do not dispute the fact that Sealaska has legitimate claim to
    acreage on the Tongass. However, the locations for selection were
    clearly defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of
    1971. Now, almost 40 years later, Sealaska is trying to change the
    rules by picking high-value public lands outside these defined
    selection areas. Sealaska has had the opportunity to select from these
    areas for a number of years and absolutely no legislation is required
    for the settlement of their claims.
        Sealaska's land selections outlined in S. 730 and H.R. 1408 include
    many of the best hunting, fishing, subsistence, and outfitter/guide use
    areas on the Tongass. The sporting community has objected to prior
    versions of this legislation because of concerns over threats to fish
    and wildlife habitat from increased timber harvest, limits to public
    access, increased commercial development, and displacement of existing
    businesses and operators. Given these concerns have not been adequately
    addressed in the current legislation, and there is no legal
    justification for Sealaska to make selections outside the ANCSA areas,
    we urge you to oppose S. 730 and H.R. 1408.
        Thank you for your continued support for fish and wildlife
    conservation on America's public lands.

    Best regards,

    National Groups (7)

    American Fly Fishing Trade Association
    Randi Swisher
    President
    Westminster, CO

    Berkley Conservation Institute/Pure Fishing
    Jim Martin
    Conservation Director
    Mulino, OR

    The Campfire Club of America (est. 1897)
    Leonard J. Vallender
    Chair, Committee for Conservation of Forests and Wildlife
    Chappaqua, NY

    Federation of Fly Fishers
    Philip Greenlee
    Chairman of the Board/President
    Livingston, MT

    Recycled Fish
    Teeg Stouffer
    Executive Director
    Nebraska City, NE

    Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Society
    James Wilcox
    Secretary and Treasurer
    Olympia, WA

    Wildlife Forever
    Douglas H. Grann
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    Minneapolis, MN

    Alaska (7)

    Alaska Bear Guides
    Scott Newman, Master Guide
    Owner/Operator
    Petersburg, AK

    Brightwater Alaska, Inc.
    Charles R. Ash
    President
    Anchorage, AK

    Copper River Lodge
    Pat Vermillion
    Owner
    Iliamna, AK

    Painter Creek Lodge
    Jon Kent
    President
    Anchorage, AK

    Pioneer Outfitters
    Terry Overly, Master Guide
    Owner/Operator
    Tok, AK

    Royal Coachman Lodge
    Pat Vermillion
    Owner
    Dillingham, AK

    Togiak River Lodge
    Larry Lund
    Owner/Managing Partner
    Togiak, AK

    Arizona (2)

    Arizona Flycasters
    L. Gary Stinson
    Conservation Chair
    Phoenix, AZ

    Arizona Wildlife Federation
    Tom Mackin
    President
    Mesa, AZ

    California (7)

    California Division (Izaak Walton League of America)
    Peter Hillebrecht
    President
    Orange, CA

    El Dorado Chapter (Trout Unlimited)
    Ron Zigelhofer
    President
    Placerville, CA

    Golden West Women Flyfishers
    Cindy Charles
    Conservation Chair
    San Francisco, CA

    Northern California/Nevada Council
    (Fed. of Fly Fishers)
    Anne-Marie Bakker
    President
    Sonoma, CA

    Okuma Fishing Tackle Co.
    Douglas Lasko
    President
    Ontario, CA

    Santa Barbara Flyfishers
    Lew Riffle
    Conservation Chair
    Santa Barbara, CA

    Steelhead Flyfisher
    Jeff Bright
    Owner
    San Francisco, CA

    Illinois (1)

    Elliott Donnelly Chapter (Trout Unlimited)
    Grant Brown
    President
    Chicago, IL

    Iowa (1)

    Hunter Companies
    Hunter Parks
    President
    Cedar Rapids, IA

    Maryland (1)

    Waterwisp Flies
    Jim Greene
    President & CEO
    Chevy Chase, MD

    Minnesota (2)

    Bob Mitchell's Fly Shop
    Michael Alwin
    Proprietor
    Lake Elmo, MN

    Great Lakes Fly Shop
    John Fehnel
    Owner
    Duluth, MN

    Montana (6)

    Big Sky Inflatables, LLC
    Richard Stuber
    Owner
    Stevensville, MT

    Fishing with Larry
    Guy Schoenborn
    President
    Columbus, MT

    Mystery Ranch Backpacks
    Mark Seacat
    Marketing Director
    Bozeman, MT

    Sweetwater Travel
    Pat Vermillion
    Owner
    Livingston, MT

    Triple-M-Outfitters
    Mark Faroni
    Owner/Outfitter
    Dixon, MT

    Yellow Dog Flyfishing Adventures
    Jim Klug and Ian Sinclaire Davis
    Partners
    Bozeman, MT

    Nebraska (1)

    HuntingLife.com
    Kevin Paulson
    Founder and CEO
    Lincoln, NE

    Oregon (2)

    Catch Magazine
    Brian O'Keefe
    Owner
    Sisters, OR

    Fly Water Travel
    Ken Morrish
    Co-Owner
    Ashland, OR

    Togiak River Lodge
    Larry Lund
    Owner/Managing Partner
    Forest Grove, OR

    Pennsylvania (3)

    Arrowhead Chapter (Trout Unlimited)
    Jerry Potocnak
    President
    Sarver, PA

    Chestnut Ridge Chapter (Trout Unlimited)
    Scott Hoffman
    Treasurer
    Uniontown, PA

    Pennsylvania Fly Fishing Company
    Glenn Burgess
    Partner
    Boiling Springs, PA

    Washington (2)

    Steelhead Committee (Fed. of Fly Fishers)
    William Atlas
    Chair
    Seattle, WA

    SunDog LLC
    Dominick Villella
    Owner
    Seattle, WA

    Wisconsin (1)

    Aldo Leupold Chapter (Trout Unlimited)
    Michael Barniskis
    President
    Beaver Dam, WI

    International (1)

    European Fishing Tackle Trade Association
    Jean Claude Bel
    Chief Executive Officer
    London, United Kingdom
                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by Mike Daulton, Vice
    President of Government Relations, National Audubon Society,
    follows:]

    May 25, 2011

    The Honorable Don Young
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native
    U.S. House of Representatives
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515

    Re: Testimony on H.R. 1408

    Dear Chairman Young:

        On May 26, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native
    Affairs will hold a hearing on H.R. 1408, the ``Southeast Alaska Native
    Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act.'' Please accept
    this letter as testimony for the record on behalf of the National
    Audubon Society.
        The National Audubon Society opposes H.R. 1408 as the legislation
    is presently proposed.
        H.R. 1408 is a controversial proposal that would allow the Sealaska
    Corporation to select and take title to valuable lands within the
    Tongass National Forest that are currently open to the public for
    fishing, hunting, and recreation. Much of the land sought by Sealaska
    would be subject to intensive clear-cut logging. Although a relatively
    small total percentage of the forest acreage has been logged on the
    Tongass National Forest, half or more of the large-tree old growth
    forest has already been logged in Southeast Alaska. The very largest
    trees--the individual ``giants'' greater than 10 feet in diameter--were
    largely eliminated in the last century. Forest stand diversity in the
    Tongass National Forest has already been substantially altered due to
    past logging.
        The National Audubon Society fully respects the right of the
    Sealaska Corporation to obtain its full land entitlement as provided
    for by law under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and
    supports the prompt conveyance by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    of the lands already selected by Sealaska Corporation. H.R. 1408 is not
    needed to satisfy Sealaska Corporation's entitlement and would convey
    public lands in the Tongass National Forest from scores of new areas
    ranging in size from a few acres to several thousands of acres and
    create numerous land use conflicts with local communities and other
    forest stakeholders.
        All aboriginal Alaska Native land claims were settled under ANCSA,
    historic legislation that required a complicated balancing of private
    and public interests. H.R. 1408 would bypass ANCSA for the benefit of a
    single, private for-profit business, the Sealaska Corporation. H.R.
    1408 would provide the Sealaska Corporation a unique ability to obtain
    dozens of large and small parcels of high-value public lands
    strategically sited throughout the Tongass National Forest in Southeast
    Alaska.
              Sealaska has targeted some of the most biologically
            productive public lands in the Tongass for logging and other
            kinds of development, including some inventoried roadless
            areas. Lands that Sealaska Corporation seeks to obtain includes
            areas that are heavily used and highly valued as public lands
            by southeast Alaska residents, commercial fishermen, local
            outfitters/guides, and visitors to Alaska's Inside Passage.
              No further Congressional action is needed for
            Sealaska to obtain its land entitlement. In fact, Sealaska
            Corporation has already made its final land entitlement
            selections of approximately 65,000 acres with the BLM. Sealaska
            Corporation is itself responsible for the delay in acquisition
            of its remaining entitlement as it has asked the BLM to hold
            off on conveyance of its remaining land selections while it
            seeks to get more valuable lands by lobbying Congress.
              Sealaska has previously received a significant claims
            settlement. Sealaska received a substantial settlement under
            ANCSA, including more than $90 million and approximately
            354,000 acres of land to be selected in ``compact'' and
            ``contiguous'' tracts within the vicinity of nine Native
            villages in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska's past selections have
            included large tracts of valuable old growth timber that have
            since been harvested.
              Sealaska supported designation of the land selection
            areas that it now seeks to modify. Sealaska Corporation
            supported legislation that established the selection areas that
            the corporation is now seeking to modify. As reported by Alaska
            Congressman Don Young, the selection areas established in 1976
            ``embodies a compromise negotiated and supported by Sealaska,
            the State of Alaska, Native villages in the region and various
            environmental groups.'' (Congressional Record, Dec. 16, 1975)
            The land selection rights Sealaska Corporation now seeks to
            change are exactly what the corporation requested previously.
            Sealaska now wants to override ANCSA so the corporation can
            select more valuable lands in a combination of large and small
            parcels scattered across the Tongass National Forest.
              H.R. 1408 would establish a new precedent for the
            privatization of public lands. As proposed, the legislation
            could predictably result in additional small parcel claims on
            public lands being proposed throughout Alaska by other Alaska
            Native Corporations.
              The lands that Sealaska has proposed to obtain are
            substantially more valuable than the lands it is entitled to
            under current law. The proposed acquisition is not based on a
            value-for-value exchange of the lands currently selected by
            Sealaska Corporation. The lands that Sealaska Corporation now
            seeks are disproportionately valuable relative to the forest
            overall including old growth timber values that are
            substantially greater than the forest average.
        In conclusion, H.R. 1408 would severely impact the national
    interest in the balanced management and conservation of public
    resources within the Tongass National Forest and should not be enacted.

    Sincerely,

    Mike Daulton
    Vice President of Government Relations
    National Audubon Society
                                     ______

        [A resolution submitted for the record by Elfin Cove,
    Alaska, follows:]

                  Sealaska Lands Bills S. S730 and H.R. 1408
                              Resolution No. 11-02

    Whereas: The residents of Elfin Cove have a long tradition of use of
    Point Lavinia and the Inian Peninsula East for subsistence gathering,
    hunting and fishing, and;

    Whereas: Elfin Cove is completely surrounded by the Tongass National
    Forest, community members have utilized these areas for tourism
    enterprise, recreation and solitude experiences, and;

    Whereas: Point Lavinia and the Inian Peninsula East are part of a
    contiguous wilderness area that is in immediate proximity to Elfin
    Cove, and;

    Whereas: Elfin Cove residents have established a protective stewardship
    over the aforementioned areas, and

    Whereas: These areas contain rare and endangered species of flora and
    fauna,

    Be It Resolved: That the membership of the Community of Elfin Cove Non-
    Profit Corporation is against the Sealaska Lands Bill lands selection
    of Point Lavinia and the Inian Peninsula East as Native Futures Sites
    slated for tourism and recreation enterprise development.

    Witness:

    Dennis Meier--Chairman, CECNPC

    Attest:

    Janfe Button--Secretary, CECNPC

    Date: 6/3/2011

    Vote at CECNPC meeting: 5 in favor, 1 abstain
                                     ______

        [Letters submitted for the record by the Organized Village
    of Kake, Alaska, follow:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.008

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.009

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.010

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.011

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66652.012

    .eps                                ------

                Statement submitted for the record by Alan Stein

        My name is Alan Stein. Over 40 years ago as a young man, I looked
    through a seaplane window at Prince of Wales Island where today
    Sealaska has stirred up great controversy by having Representative
    Young introduce H.R. 1408.
        It was April, 1971 when I landed in Port Protection only to learn
    Native Alaskans had blocked all public land transfers in the State of
    Alaska pending a final settlement in the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act ANCSA (December, 1971).
        The US Forest Service told me I could not obtain title to the land
    I homesteaded until the Natives settled their claims.
        While building a cabin with a chain saw and hammer, I became the
    President of the Point Baker Association formed to protect Northern
    Prince of Wales Island. Our lawsuit resulted in the National Forest
    Management Act (1976). I came before this committee in March of that
    year to present oral testimony and I represented the United Fishermen
    of Alaska and PBA.
        I worked as a commercial logger at Dean Hiner's floating log camp
    near Calder Bay and appreciate the bone weary work men of the woods do.
    Dean and 50 other small outfits sued the two Pulp Companies for anti
    trust violations that put them out of business and won in federal
    court. But not before they were driven out of business.
        I owned and operated many commercial fishing vessels during my 25
    years in Alaska. I will always consider Alaska my true home.
        In 1989, I organized a coalition of Alaskan Natives, commercial
    fishermen, canneries, and others into the Salmon Bay Protective
    Association (SBPA). I was elected the Director. About 1,000 commercial
    fishermen joined our organization. Republican cannery owners from Alec
    Brindle's Ward Cove and Bob Thorstenson's Icicle Seafoods to Democratic
    owners such as Terry Gardiner of Norquest Seafoods made substantial
    contributions. The United Fishermen of Alaska supported our efforts. As
    did the major fishing organizations in SE Alaska.
        Our law suit, Stein v Barton (1990) did two things.
              First, it led to Congressional recognition and
            permanent protection of some of the habitat Alaskan Natives and
            others used to hunt and fish on some federal land on Prince of
            Wales Island.
              Second it won the first national permanent
            protections of salmon streams during logging; the injunction
            put into place was used as a model when Congress made 100 foot
            no cut buffer strips permanent protection provisions in the
            Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990).
    Sealaska Never Acted to Protect Subsistence Habitat on Federal Land
    Spiritual Connection Argument Weakened by its 40 year Inaction
        Sealaska's arguments of dispossession from their lands by a
    colonial power would be laughable historically were the earnestness of
    the claim not so great.
        The Wrangell Natives in the SBPA included some whose relatives had
    been the subjects of the Tee Hit Ton decision. 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
    Byron Mallot attaches a report by Walter Echo Hawk claiming this
    Supreme Court case is '' one of the worst decisions handed down.'' P4
    Echo Hawk.
        In Echo Hawk's view, the US Forest Service was a colonial power
    over the SE Alaska Natives and Tee Hit Ton is the ``Law of
    Colonialism.'' Echo Hawk p 7
        Mallot's reliance on Echo Hawk--who invokes ideology steeped in
    ``genocide,'' ``marginalization,'' ``colonization,'' ``post
    colonization,'' ``subjugation, dispossession, and exploitation'' to
    urge a new Congressional policy toward the Tlingit and Haida ``in their
    indigenous aboriginal habitats'' (Echo Hawk p1-2)--strikes me as sheer
    nonsense in light of the rest of the story on Salmon Bay.
        Eddie Churchill, an Alaskan Native of blessed memory, who was the
    head of the Wrangell Cooperative Association, sat on SBPA's board of
    directors. I fought long and hard to make sure that he and his tribe
    (as well as everyone else) could continue to hunt and fish in Salmon
    Bay by protecting its fish and wildlife. Congress agreed with us when
    they designated Salmon Bay a LUD II protecting it for all users, so
    long as it remains in US Forest Service hands.
    Sealaska AWOL when it came to protecting indigenous native habitat at
            Salmon Bay in 1990--undercuts their argument they consider all
            wildlife sacred
        Although I knew many of the members of the Board of Directors of
    Sealaska Corporation at the time, never did any of them express a
    desire to assist the Natives of Wrangell to preserve the land around
    Salmon Bay Lake. Never did Byron Mallot or Al Kookesh ask to intervene
    in this case on the behalf of Native subsistence users.
        If Byron really believes Echo Hawk's ``statement that monetary
    compensation does not protect a way of life (hunting, fishing),'' p 8,
    then where was Byron and Sealaska when I was fighting to save that way
    of life?
        The absence of the Sealaska Board of Directors from the SBPA case
    reinforced something that I heard from the Chief of the Chilkoot
    Tlingit, Austin Hammond of blessed memory. ``There are those of us who
    want to honor the land and take only what we need,'' he told me while
    standing in front of his house on the shore of Lynn Canal.
            ``Some of the young men in Sealaska only see money in the
            trees. Remember what I tell you.''
        If Austin were here today, I am sure he would disapprove of
    Sealaska's bill H.R. 1408 to destroy the fishing and hunting grounds of
    other tribes, other towns of men who grew up outside. Austin would get
    Byron and Al to sit on the peace rock along the Chilkoot River and
    talk, before they could get up, with all the leaders of the towns whose
    lives they want to upset with this bill. Austin would tell them Echo
    Hawk is sheer bull, a policy whose foundations falter on false
    historical and legal interpretation.

      SEALASKA SEEKS EXPANSIONS FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ANCSA, ANILCA and
                          other Congressional Statutes

    New land categories are unfair, unjust, and break previous settlements
                           hammered out over decades.

    H.R. 1408 must be seen in the context of the substantial benefits
            Sealaska has won from Congress over the last 40 years.
        Since the 1960s, Sealaska has obtained multiple settlements of its
    lands claims, all of which constitute what was fair and just. It has
    also benefited from other special interest Native bills in Congress.
        H.R. 1408 goes far beyond anything contemplated in ANCSA or
    subsequent settlements.
              A cash settlement of over seven million dollars in
            the late sixties compensated Natives for lands they occupied or
            used that had been placed into the Tongass National Forest.
            This was a final settlement, but a few years latter, Natives
            sought more compensation.
              ANCSA gave Natives a total of 656,400 acres or
            1,025.62 square miles. All but 65,000 acres or 100 square miles
            have been transferred. Sealaska also got a fair share of one
            billion 1971 dollars in cash. This land is among the most
            valuable timberland in the United States.
                      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 preferential
            subsistence hunting and fishing rights they sought. This
            exclusive priority to hunt and fish was a huge additional
            benefit that Natives had not won in ANCSA.
              Congress created huge tax benefits to Sealaska when
            it allowed it to sell net operating losses (the value of the
            timber in 1971 minus the value at a low point in the market,
            such that ``Sealaska has not paid State or Federal taxes'') and
            may not pay taxes on profits long into the future. See Sealaska
            Annual Report 2010 page 54
              Sealaska shareholders get free medical care from
            birth to grave even though the United States never subdued or
            conquered Alaska Natives.
              Finally, Sealaska and other Alaska Native
            Corporations under the 8 (a) provision of a federal law were
            given a huge benefit worth in excess of 25 billion dollars over
            the last ten years. Alaska Native Corporations do not have to
            compete with other corporations for federal contracting. They
            have exclusive bidding rights. See last year's Washington Post
            article for abuses under this scheme that Congress failed by
            one vote to remedy this year. SEE http://
            www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/
            AR2010100
            707217.html
                      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 H.R. 1408 is that the
    injustice of conquest was so great that only greater and more valuable
    tax payer assets given to Sealaska's corporate leaders will bring peace
    to the soul of America's conscience.
        Besides resting on false assumptions, the Sealaska approach raises
    troubling issues.
        When is final final?
        When is enough enough?
        Where will the 40 year history of hand outs end?
        Will it be when all public lands in Alaska are tied up, access
    blocked by Alaska Native Corporations, forever breaking the historical
    compromises hammered out in 1971, 1975, 1980, and subsequent years? It
    seems to me ANSCA was supposed to put Alaska Natives on their feet, not
    establish an elite class of corporate officers who make high salaries
    while shareholders get bupkees. This despite the trusts set aside for
    elders and students filled not so much by timber money as 8(a) profits.
        At some point Congress must put its foot down and tell Sealaska
    they should spend their time figuring out how to make money rather than
    take money from taxpayers.
        I find this approach not only hypocritical but historically
    inaccurate in that legal precedent and demographic movements have been
    jammed into an ideological prism so out of wack with reality that the
    goal of justice is distorted beyond recognition.
        Specifically the Enterprise or Future Sites have extraordinary
    value both in dollars and use. The Icy Straights site should be either
    leased to a private corporation based on the projected revenue of power
    generated from what is likely to be worth more than all the Columbia
    River Dams or developed by a public power authority. Sealaska should be
    allowed no Future or Enterprise sites. Enough is enough with taxpayer
    give aways above and way beyond what justice requires.
        Cultural or Sacred sites such as cemeteries are adequately
    protected under Federal Law as administered by the US Forest Service.
    This to is nothing but a scam against taxpayers seeking to lock up land
    now used by many for benefit of a few. The location of gravesites is so
    closely held that the wilderness itself protects them.
        I specifically object to what I have heard from one of Sealaska
    lobbyists who has told me that SE Alaska Natives were disposed of the
    entire Tongass. This is contemporary myth making on a grand scale and
    is false.
        No future or sacred sites need to be added to sweeten the deal.
    History and archeology belie Sealaska claims
        Over the ten thousand years of the archeological record of SE
    Alaska that I have studied, several cultures have occupied the roughly
    350 mile long coastline.
              The 9,200-year-old man found in a cave near Port
            Protection has not been shown to be genetically akin to modern
            Tlingit or Haida. Yet Tlingits claimed and obtained the remains
            as one of their own.
              A cultural shift occurred around five thousand years
            ago per the research at Tebenkoff Bay by the University of
            California Santa Barbara archeologists who found a transition
            from back bay fish based economies to front bay deer hunting
            and war like cultures at this period before Abraham left
            Bagdad.
              Nevertheless, Tlingit occupation may or may not date
            from five thousand years ago when they migrated out of Japan or
            Korea and merged with previous cultures. If Tlingits assert
            their occupation was from time immemorial, they draw on myth,
            not the archeological record.
              Haida migrations out of the Queen Charlotte Islands,
            which displaced Tlingit villages northward on Prince of Wales,
            did not occur until just before first contact around 1774.
        While Tlingits may argue they occupied the entire Tongass National
    Forest, the archeological truth is that there was very restricted land
    settlement and occupation in winter villages in major bays with a
    population estimated before the small pox epidemic of the early 1830s
    at less than 10,000. First Coast Survey. Warfare was common and
    villages provided protection. Hence small land areas were occupied.
        By the time of transfer to the United States, the population was
    estimated to have shrunk by half. Id.
        The distribution of population continued to be concentrated
    geographically to winter villages with smaller groups shifting over
    time during the summer to sockeye stream to sockeye stream with a
    pattern of depletion and movement prominent. So that in any one decade,
    use of the land was limited to shorelines at productive salmon creeks.
    Of the 2500 salmon creeks in SE Alaska, very small percentages were
    ever used during any decade. And never continuously. The Tlingit and
    other prehistoric residents occupied a very small part of the Tongass
    at any one time.
        The scope of historical occupation is highly relevant to the issue
    of land ownership.
        Per the Organic Act of 1884, use and possession of land was
    required to establish ownership. Given the transitory use of a limited
    amount of land, the more than 1000 square miles Sealaska has/will have
    received alone is just reflection of the scope of the land used and
    occupied in any one decade prior to 1867. At the turn of the 19th
    century, the scope of town land area shrank even further as detailed in
    further discussion.
        I have studied the historical record extensively from the time of
    first contact through the early 20th century and can find no record of
    forcible ejection of Haida or Prince of Wales Tlingit from their lands
    on any where near a systematic or extensive basis. (I was trained in
    the graduate school of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
    I have published on the subject matter of Prince of Wales Archeology.)
        So, a far different dynamic than the simplistic charge of Echo
    Hawk's colonialism was at work
        Abandonment of traditional villages by 1907 or earlier was the rule
    and practice on the Prince of Wales Archipelago. Thus the migration
    from the Kaigani Haida in Klinkwan, Sukwan, Koinglass, and the smaller
    settlements south of Sukwan Island had been completed or were well
    underway by 1907. Howkan had a post office and missionary provided
    school teacher from about 1883. It inhabitants moved to Hydaburg,
    Craig, Ketchikan, and other places after the turn of the century. The
    abandonment occurred in response to opportunity--opportunity to make
    money in the salteries and new canneries on the West Coast of Prince of
    Wales; opportunity to get a better education; opportunity to be near
    medical care.
        A similar dynamic occurred for the village of Tukexan and Kareen,
    Old Kassan, and the village near Cape Fox, which was abandoned when the
    Harriman Expedition arrived with John Muir aboard at the fin de siecle.
        It is offensive to the historical record to overlay Echo Hawk's
    rigid ideological colonialism explanation for the movement of the
    Tlingit and Haida from their outlying villages in the late 19th century
    to the towns they occupy to this day. The people who moved to Craig and
    Hydaberg and Klawock did so to learn, work, and embrace Christianity.
        As for the land ethic portrayed by Sealaska of respecting all
    living things, we should not forget that between the first Boston men
    who arrived in the 1780s and 1820, a vast herd of sea otter were hunted
    nearly to extinction by Alaska Natives on Prince of Wales who wanted
    rifles, blankets, and other trade goods. While the Russians did enslave
    the Aleuts who they brought to finish off the sea otters after 1802,
    the Haida and Tlingit on Prince of Wales were able to bring the
    population of sea otter to near extinction by reason of zeal for modern
    trade goods alone.
    Northern Sealaska Board Members and logging in Southern tribes'
            backyard, most of it in ancient Haida territory
              Almost all the commercial selections in S. 730 are on
            the southern Tongass where most of the heavy logging occurred
            in the past.
              Yakutat's Byron would rather concentrate logging onto
            Prince of Wales Island Archipelago than allow any around his
            home village at Yakutat and made sure Congress made the 100
            square mile ANCSA lands at Yakutat off-limits.
              Angoon's Al Kookesh made sure logging for his town
            occurred also in the south square in ancient Haida territory.
              Kluckwan on the Chilkaat was all too willing to
            select lands for logging off the West Coast of Prince of Wales
            in Haida territory. The combined affect of these changes to
            ANCSA which moved the selections away from their villages boxes
            designated in 1975 amendments and concentrated them onto the
            Prince of Wales Archipelago made sure the hunting and fishing
            of their fellow Haida and Southern Tlingit were put into
            jeopardy. This is a second example of hypocrisy on the part of
            Sealaska.
        It is hard for me to fathom why the Tlingit would want to force
    almost all the logging onto former Haida territory. Perhaps some
    ancient grievance is at the bottom of it.
        I am all for a settlement of Sealaska's claims in the areas it
    selected in 2008 when it made submissions to the BLM which are inside
    the boxes established in 1975 by request to Congress of Sealaska's
    President.
        Congress should walk away from H.R. 1408 and encourage Sealaska to
    live up to the capitalistic goals which Byron Mallot helped create when
    he worked as an aide to Ted Stevens forty years ago.
                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by Andrew Thoms,
    Executive Director, Sitka Conservation Society, follows:]

                           Sitka Conservation Society

                                    Box 6533

                              Sitka, Alaska 99835

                                 (907) 747-7509

                               info@sitkawild.org

                               www.sitkawild.org

                                  June 6, 2011

    Dear Members of the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native
    Affairs:

        Southeast Alaska is an awe-inspiring place of glaciers, fiords, and
    towering spruce trees. For all of its natural beauty, however, one of
    the region's most remarkable characteristics is that its land is held
    almost entirely in public hands as the Tongass National Forest. The
    public not only has free access to the land, but the public has a say
    in how the land should be developed while the Forest Service seeks to
    find the best balance for all users and most significant social/
    economic impact. The Sitka Conservation Society has over 1000 local
    members who are all part of our organization because they value the
    lands and waters of the Tongass. Our membership includes native and
    non-native Alaskans and also includes shareholders of Sealaska and
    other Native Corporations.
        Our membership is extremely concerned about the the Sealaska Lands
    Bill (S.703 and H.R. 1408). We are scared of this legislation because,
    if passed, some of the most important and beloved places in Southeast
    Alaska will be taken from public hands and placed in those of a private
    corporation. The public will need special permission to access the
    land, and the public will have no power to determine whether and how
    the land should be developed. For these reasons, we oppose the Bill and
    request that you do as well.
        The Tongass National Forest is enormous, but its richest natural
    resources are concentrated in a small handful of places, many of which
    have been identified as Sealaska selections. Most of the acreage in the
    Sealaska Bill is timber land. A transfer to Sealaska would mean the
    loss of some of the largest and oldest trees in Southeast Alaska as
    well as crucial habitat, with only a shortterm financial benefit to a
    limited number of people. It would also mean a loss of millions of
    dollars of 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.

                                   Sincerely,

                                  Andrew Thoms

                               Executive Director

                           Sitka Conservation Society