11 



Mr. Hallgren. Last week when we meet with the Forest Serv- 

 ice, we were told that Federal — I specifically asked about ten-year 

 contracts, and I am told that Federal law does allow ten-year con- 

 tracts, but they also informed me that none have ever been grant- 

 ed. So I would 



The Chairman. Did they say it could not be granted because of 

 the law? 



Mr. Hallgren. No. The law allows a ten-year contract to be 

 granted. The law does not allow contracts to be granted which re- 

 quire processing a certain spot, such as Sitka, but they did say that 

 even though the law allows ten-year contracts be granted, their un- 

 derstanding was that none had ever been given. 



My personal opinion is that that is a political decision that has 

 been made in D.C. rather than on the local level. 



The Chairman. That is your opinion, now. Let me ask if — they 

 think that they do not have within the parameter of issuing a ten- 

 year contract. Under your pilot program, would you envision timber 

 coming to Sitka or to — ^you included Wrangell in this equation, did 

 you not? 



Mr. Hallgren. Yes. The basic concept of the idea is have a cer- 

 tain land-based area, probably a little larger than the City and 

 Borough of Sitka, which would be under some form of local 

 decisional control, not just for cutting — that would be major to it — 

 but also for other ideas, such as where the cutting would be, how 

 much, and recreational uses, basically bringing those major ideas — 

 questions back to Sitka. 



Any cut in that area would be required to be processed primarily 

 in the — within the region: Sitka or Wrangell. It is my understand- 

 ing that there is such a high percentage of low-grade fiber in the 

 forest, that in order for our economy to work, to process high-grade 

 timber, you need to have a place to also process the low grade, and 

 that is — my thought was that Ketchikan would make an absolutely 

 excellent spot for Southeast to handle the 45 to 50 percent of the 

 cut that is low grade. 



The Chairman. That could be done under the present ownership 

 of the forest, under the Federal Government, if they would agree 

 with that? 



Mr. Hallgren. It could be done if the Federal statute were 

 changed to require processing in specific areas. I am told that that 

 is not allowed by Federal statute at this time, and also not allowed 

 by Federal statute at this time is local decisional — decisionmaking 

 as to the amount of cutting in the area and methods. 



The Chairman. I appreciate that, and I am glad you are looking 

 at the present situation because some people say this bill has not 

 got a chance, and I will challenge them to that because I happen 

 to believe that this concept of local decisionmaking goes beyond 

 Alaska. 



And for those in the audience, this bill was introduced by myself, 

 and because the Tongass is such a controversial area, that I have 

 already had inquiries from the State of Oregon, inquiries from the 

 State of Wyoming, Montana, Arizona. They are very interested in 

 this concept, especially as we are looking at the loss of stumpage 

 fees that would go to the communities. If there is no timber harvest 

 you have no stumpage fees. And the big thing is TLMP. As 



