174 



contracts fail to achieve their original goals; threaten other 

 Alaskan industries dependent on access to natural resources; 

 interfere with free market mechanisms; and, impair the ability of 

 the United States, the State of Alaska, Alaskan native 

 corporations, and other responsible parties to properly manage 

 non-timber resources in Alaska. 



The Interior Committee, The House Agriculture Committee and ' 

 the House, however, chose not to order the termination of long- 

 term contracts. Instead, they adopted a middle course setting 

 forth a process for contract revision and establishing goals for 

 the renegotiation. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest 

 Service was given a clear mandate by H.R. 1516 to address the 

 necessary reforms through administrative action. 



The Society supported that procedure and endorses the goals 

 established by the Interior Committee and the House. If 

 implemented, the contract modification provisions of H.R. 1516 

 would have provided significant relief to new, short-term timber 

 purchasers, Alaskan Native corporations, non-timber users of the 

 Tongass and the taxpayer. 



To justify such relief, we need look no further than what 

 the Forest Service itself told the United States District Court 

 in Alaska in the case of Tenakee Springs et al. v. Courtriaht et 

 al. ^; 



The APC contract is perhaps the greatest 

 constraint on discretion of the Forest 

 Service. . .the Forest Service has little 

 discretion (in determining where harvests 

 will occur) to other than temporarily defer 

 certain areas in the current plan. . . (note 

 and emphasis added) . 



The Society could not have stated it better. 



The window of opportunity for renegotiation of the long-term 

 contracts has passed. While the modification of these agreements 

 through enactment of H.R. 1516 appeared both reasonable and 

 necessary to preserve and protect and important public resource, 

 the continual delay of reform of the Tongass is no longer 

 justified. 



Enactment of a renegotiation provision now could hopelessly 

 confuse and confound the on-going revision of the Tongass Land 

 Management Plan. That process and the extensive public 



5j86-0024 District of Alaska (1986) at 4, 6, Defendant's 

 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary 

 Judgement. 



19 



