575 



Senator Murkowski. Very briefly, to make sure that we have a 

 complete record, I will ask you that I may be allowed to include 

 from my files information relative to this proposed effort to save 

 the Admiralty Island logging issue and the land exchange. These 

 things are hard to recall and Mr. Metcalf is correct, the general 

 agreement, it is my recollection, did involve the Bay of Pillars. As I 

 recall, Sealaska was awarded that. The environmental community 

 indicated that they were reluctant to accept what the Forest Serv- 

 ice had put in. A formal road I think was involved in it. 



But, in any event, it is my understanding that Shee Atika was 

 not satisfied that it was equitable. They wanted more land. It is at 

 that point that we came in and the land came out of the timber 

 base. Then the question was that there would have to be an ex- 

 change of land from the timber base and some other consideration 

 and that is where the road credits came in. I think it is important 

 to point out that when Shee Atika asked for more cash than we 

 could possibly expect to get out of the appropriation process, we 

 never formally introduced the bill. Unfortunately, the negotiations 

 were not finalized. However, with your permission I would like to 

 include those for the files. 



Senator Wirth. Thank you. I have a few questions about that 

 and perhaps you know the answers to them. During the discussion 

 between Senator Murkowski and Ms. Brown there was some collo- 

 quy that went back and forth related to second growth. You were 

 here at the time, Mr. Metcalf? 



Mr. Metcalf. I believe so. 



Senator Wirth. I can ask you a few questions about that, you are 

 a forester and knew about this thing. The discussion was that if 

 you look up on the map you see evidence of second growth. What 

 can you tell us about that second growth, you know, specifically 

 how large are the trees in the second growth, how long does it take 

 trees to come back, what is the quality of that timber versus what 

 was cut? 



Mr. Metcalf. The amount of wood fiber that is produced per 

 acre is essentially the same. It cannot hardly improve that but we 

 do get less defect in the trees. The trees are larger in the second 

 growth after better than a 100 years. 



Senator Wirtk. After 100 years the trees are larger than the 

 trees that were damaged? 



Mr. Metcalf. Well, I would say on the average. In the old 

 growth stand you had many large old trees, you had a variety of 

 openings, and you have a variety of aged ones. In the second 

 growth you have— the same age class. There is more wood fiber 

 that is usable in the second growth but there is not the variety of 

 age class nor is there the understory that supports the wildlife that 

 is important, for instance, in the old growth kind of species. So, if 

 you looked at the second growth after 100 years, and as you go fur- 

 ther north it takes 150 years, in Ketchikan and that, but it essen- 

 tially can produce more wood, usable wood fiber, but it is limited in 

 its ability to provide other forest values. 



Senator Wirth. Is there anywhere, in layman's language, a sort 

 of charter to base those on? It sounds to me like there are pluses 

 and minuses to second growth. You are going to have more wood 

 fiber and you are going to have better trees, is that right? 



