357 



Kwaan, and Goldbelt. The timber needs of Klukwan, Goldbelt, Shee Atika, Atikon, and 

 Koncor are their own business since they have their own lands. The Tongass National Forest 

 should not be expected to carry the burden of Native corporations who excessively harvested 

 their own lands at an unsustainable rate. 



Klukwan, Goldbelt, Shee Atika, Atikon, and Koncor don't support the 24 proposed areas. 



Sealaska supports setting aside of 7 areas in an unroaded, unlogged state (by some other name 

 than Wilderness) -- and while doing so stated that "Sealaska supports preservation and 

 protection of the following areas identified by the SE Alaska Conservation Council..." 



2j. In fact, didn't Sealaska underwrite a poll in 1988 which showed that 85% of the people of 

 Southeast Alaska were opposed to wilderness designation? 



A: Sealaska's poll had four critical questions, none of which have the 85% figure you 

 mistakenly refer to: 



"There should be an expansion of lands designated as wilderness in the Tongass." 

 48% agreed, 50% disagreed 



"There should be an expansion of lands in the Tongass that are off limits to road 

 building and logging." 65% agree, 34% disagreed 



"Should areas designated by communities as important to subsistence, recreation, 

 tourism, and fishing be protected and removed from the commercial timber 

 harvest?" 76% agreed, 18% disagreed 



"If you knew removing these areas from the commercial timber harvest would 

 cost jobs, do you still feel these areas should be removed?" 76% agreed, 11% 

 disagreed 



3a. Did SEACC sue the Forest Service over the 1979 TLMP. and if not. why not if it was not a 

 "true" NFMA Forest Plan? 



A: SEACC prepared an administrative appeal of TLMP in 1979, but it was filed late, allowing 

 the Forest Service to throw it out. This removed any chance of going to court. 



3b. Please explain your charges against Mr. Overbay of the Forest Service which you make at 

 page 8 of your testimony. 



A: As far as the planned revision being a true plan revision, I refer you to the attached 

 document, Broken Promises -- the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. The Forest 

 Service's Washington office has directed the Revision noi to be "zero based" -- as was the 

 initial intent of the revision. Instead, the direction has been to narrow the scope to a "need to 

 change" plan. The Tongass planning team, in consultation with their Washington, DC 

 headquarters, has dropped a number of key elements that were necessary to include in a true 

 plan revision. 



The Forest Service's Washington Office Directives, signed by Mr. Overbay, had two negative 

 consequences that undermine the potential of the Tongass Plan Revision to address Tongass 

 resource problems: 



