360 



3g. When one reads your testimony, one finds it to be a web of charges against the Forest 

 Service in general, and certain named individuals within it. You were an employee of 20 years 

 and a TLMP planning team leader who resigned in 1982 and joined SEACC because of the 

 Forest Service's "limber at any cost" approach. Is this an accurate portrayal of your testimony? 

 Why do you think the Forest Service suddenly threw out the planning process in 1982? Were you 

 not able to see it clearly until then? 



A: In 1982 the Forest Service did not suddenly throw out the planning process. My article in 

 the attached Inner Voice details a 30 year history of Tongass management. As a Forest Service 

 employee, I had hopes that ANILCA's passage in 1980 and modification of the 1979 forest plan 

 that the Tongass was finally going to turn from its "timber at any cost" management. It didn't 

 happen. Unfortunately, just as SEACC predicted at the time, implementation of ANILCA and 

 the forest plan were totally timber oriented. I could no longer work for this agency. I'm in 

 Washington, DC to see that balanced management comes to the Tongass. 



4a. Did SEACC agree to the 1980 compromise for Southeast Alaska set out in Alaska National 

 Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)? Why not? 



A: In an October 26, 1980 press release SEACC's board of directors stated: "After 

 deliberation, we have unanimously voted to publicly oppose the present bill. We feel that 

 Section 705 is disastrous to the long term management of the Tongass." SEACC feared the 

 mandatory 4.5 timber supply goal and the guaranteed timber funds would continue Tongass 

 mismanagement. Additionally, Wilderness designations of ANILCA did not include a number 

 of key fish and wildlife watersheds that SEACC had proposed for protection in 1976 as part of 

 the first TLMP. 



Additionally, the language of Section 705 was never reviewed by any congressional committees, 

 nor subject to any hearings despite four years of intense Congressional action leading up to 

 passage of ANILCA in 1980. 



4b. Did the Alaska Coalition agree to the compromise? 



A: They decided not to oppose it, but they, too, were unhappy with the Tongass provisions of 

 ANILCA. In a November 12, 1980 Ketchikan Daily News article, Charles Clusen, chairman of 

 the Alaska coalition said: 



We're disappointed because of the deficiencies in the bill. It is not the bill it 

 should be, given all the circumstances. The tragedy of it is that a lot of great 

 and special places will be damaged in the meantime. Logging will be 

 accelerated. There will be a move to concentrate on those places now opened. 



But so much for a "deal's a deal." According the same article quoted above, both Don Young 

 and Ted Stevens said they would seek changes in the compromise the next year. "Although I 

 voted against it (the Senate bill), I think it will be easier next year to add changes," said 

 Stevens. "We are not overly happy with that bill," he continued. In the same article Young 

 said he would introduce amendments in the next Congress for more concessions in the hunting, 

 fishing and trapping areas. 



4c. Did the Alaska Coalition know of SEACC's objections to the 1980 compromise? 

 A: Yes. 



10 



