42 



In March 1979, the Tongass Land Management Plan was adopt- 

 ed, and it designated the No Name Bay region as Land Use Des- 

 ignation IV, in other words, for timber harvest. So consequently in 

 April of 1980, the Forest Service began a process which has not yet 

 been completed. In 1980, they published the first environmental 

 impact statement which identified this area for extensive timber 

 harvest activity. 



That was appealed and litigated. Five years went by. No timber 

 harvest had come off that area. By 1986, they had to produce a sec- 

 ond EIS for east Kuiu. It was also appealed and litigated. Finally, 

 the Circuit Court ordered a supplement EIS to be prepared on the 

 same area which was concluded and signed in 1987. It, like its 

 predecessors, found that there could be a suitable level of harvest 

 with no environmental effect. This was also appealed and litigated. 



In 1990, Congress placed an additional 35,000 acres of Kuiu Is- 

 land into a new wilderness area immediately south of the 66,000 

 acre Tebenkof Bay Wilderness Area, which lies due west of No 

 Name Bay. At this point, nearly 40 percent of the island, which is 

 heavily forested, was now off limits to harvest. 



In 1993, the Forest Service issued the fourth environmental im- 

 pact statement on the east Kuiu harvest area known as the North 

 and East Kuiu Environmental Impact Statement. It also was ap- 

 pealed and litigated, and harvest was further delayed. 



In April of 1994, Alaska Pulp Company's long-term contract was 

 terminated, putting 450 people out of work at the Sitka pulp mill 

 and eventually causing the closure of the company's sawmill in 

 Wrangell at the cost of another 250 direct jobs. The Forest Service 

 then attempted to transfer the planned sales on east Kuiu to the 

 remaining long-term contract with Ketchikan Pulp Company 

 which, due to appeals on its sales, was also short of timber. 



Then the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association 

 appealed, filed suit, alleging the need for yet another EIS. And the 

 key issue — the only pointed issue was the timber sale was not re- 

 viewed for this particular buyer, and they wanted to force it to go 

 through a fifth EIS. 



That lawsuit tied up 282 million board feet of NEPA cleared and 

 desperately needed timber, which is still not available for our har- 

 vests. And, indeed, recently after negotiations between the Clinton 

 Administration and plaintiffs, the fiber was given away, and, in- 

 deed, the court ordered the east Kuiu area to go through a fifth en- 

 vironmental impact statement, which will cost another $2 million 

 to the taxpayer and take a number of months to produce. 



And I know I am out of time, but if I could conclude please. The 

 result is that after nearly 20 years of planning and producing pa- 

 perwork by the ton, the Forest Service has yet to produce a single 

 stick of wood or support a single private-sector job from the signifi- 

 cant stands of timber on Kuiu Island. The sales that were laid out 

 in 1979 are still awaiting harvest. 



Now, please remember that this is land that was purposely left 

 in the timber base by Congress in 1990 when the Tongass Timber 

 Reform Act was passed into law. Four environmental impact state- 

 ments have been performed, now a fifth has been ordered, and we 

 are not allowed to operate. I heard earlier that 20 percent of the 



