[Senate Hearing 108-490]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-490
CAPE FOX LAND ENTITLEMENT ADJUSTMENT ACT; NEVADA NATIONAL FOREST
DISPOSAL ACT; CRAIG RECREATION LAND PURCHASE ACT; CENTRAL NEVADA RURAL
CEMETERIES ACT; AND TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE FOREST COUNTIES PAYMENTS
COMMITTEE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1354 H.R. 272
S. 1575 H.R. 1092
S. 1778 H.R. 3249
S. 1819
__________
MARCH 10, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-383 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri EVAN BAYH, Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Blair, Marilyn, President, Board of Directors, Cape Fox
Corporation.................................................... 26
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Lonnie, Tom, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource
Protection, Department of the Interior......................... 9
Lundekugel, Buck, Conservation Director, Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council........................................... 22
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 12
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 5
Watson, Dennis, Mayor, City of Craig, AK......................... 16
Wheeler, Dennis E., CEO and Chairman, Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp... 20
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 37
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 41
CAPE FOX LAND ENTITLEMENT ADJUSTMENT ACT; NEVADA NATIONAL FOREST
DISPOSAL ACT; CRAIG RECREATION LAND PURCHASE ACT; CENTRAL NEVADA RURAL
CEMETERIES ACT; AND TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE FOREST COUNTIES PAYMENTS
COMMITTEE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2004,
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM
IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee of Energy and
Natural Resources of the U.S. Senate will come to order.
I want to thank each of you for coming this afternoon.
I would like to recognize our ranking member, Ron Wyden,
when he gets here. We have worked closely together on a variety
of pieces of legislation over the years and I look forward to
partnering once again.
Let me welcome each of the witnesses who have traveled here
to testify on S. 1354, S. 1778, and S. 1819. I know that coming
to Washington at this time of year can sometimes be
challenging, especially when we force you to make trips, often
several times during the course of the year, due to the ricin
scare. Sometimes you do not even want to come near Capitol
Hill. We used to give you other excuses for not wanting to be
here. But I would suggest that you are probably in one of the
safest buildings in the country today based on the overall
security levels that you have probably had to experience
getting through all of this.
I also want to welcome Dennis Wheeler, CEO of the Coeur
d'Alene Mines Corporation of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. It is great
to see you here, Dennis. We look forward to your testimony. I
am glad that you came to Washington to testify on the Cape Fox
bill and hope that your testimony will help ensure that that
valuable project moves forward.
Finally, I want to welcome Under Secretary Mark Rey, who
used to be a fixture in this committee, not before this
committee. Those times when he prepared Senators to be tough on
administration people, now we oftentimes find it very enjoyable
to turn the table on Under Secretary Rey.
[Laughter.]
I also want to welcome Tom Lonnie, who is the Director of
Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection for the BLM. Welcome
before the committee, Tom.
I know that Senator Murkowski has a number of constituents
here to testify today on S. 1354 and S. 1778. In a few minutes
we will ask her, when she arrives, to make those appropriate
introductions.
We are taking up several bills that we dealt with during
last Congress, which I hope we can work through quickly this
year: S. 1354 and S. 1778, as I have mentioned, Senator
Murkowski's Cape Fox lands, a conveyance bill, and her city of
Craig, another land conveyance issue.
We will also review two bills related to land conveyances
in the State of Nevada. S. 1575 and its House companion, H.R.
1092, are two new ones before the subcommittee. They address
the conveyance of six parcels of land in and around Carson
City, Nevada. We will also be examining S. 1819 and its House
companion, H.R. 272, to convey cemetery lands in Lander and
Eureka Counties in Nevada.
Finally, we will take testimony on H.R. 3249, a bill to
extend the mandate of the long-term Advisory Committee of the
Rural Schools and Communities Self-determination Act of 2000.
I know that it has been a long and difficult effort to
effectuate the Cape Fox land conveyance and it is somewhat
controversial. I look forward to hearing more from all of the
witnesses and working with Senator Murkowski to move this
important legislation forward.
I am very interested in S. 1575 and H.R. 1092. It seems to
me to be a novel approach to auction off Federal lands to help
pay for the operational costs of reconstructing the Minden,
Nevada Interagency Dispatch Center. But I am also somewhat
troubled by provisions of this that will assign some of the
potential revenues generated by the bill to be spent for public
education and to the Carson Water Subconservancy District. I
want to hear how the administration and others feel about this
proposal.
It would seem to me that the proceeds from the sale of
lands managed by the Federal Government should either be
deposited in the Sisk Act account to be used for acquisition of
other lands to be managed by the Federal Government or to the
U.S. Treasury or to be utilized to fund needed backlog
maintenance of other Federal operating costs.
Of course, I am quite sure that in the State of Nevada we
do not worry about acquiring additional public lands. That
State, other than Alaska, probably has the largest percentage
of public lands of any State in the Nation.
We are going to allow each witness 5 minutes to summarize
their testimony before we proceed with questions of them.
We also will have a time crunch in relation to Dennis
Watson, who will be on the second panel, the mayor of the city
of Craig, Alaska. As we move to that second panel, Lisa, I will
ask you to make the appropriate introductions of your guests
that are here from Alaska.
With that, let us move immediately to our first panel and
we will start with you, Secretary Rey, for your comments. Thank
you.
[The prepared statements of Senators Ensign, Reid, and
Smith follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Ensign, U.S. Senator
From Nevada, on S. 1575
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding a hearing today on S.
1575, the ``Nevada National Forest Land Disposal Act of 2003.'' I
respectfully ask that my testimony be placed in today's hearing record.
I am honored to join my colleague from Nevada, Senator Harry Reid,
in sponsoring this important legislation. Congressman Jim Gibbons is
the sponsor of identical legislation in the House of Representatives.
S. 1575 is modeled on successful bipartisan laws that were enacted to
competitively auction surplus federal land in Clark County, Nevada, and
direct the proceeds to important public purposes such as parks, trails,
and infrastructure.
Eighty seven percent of Nevada's lands are managed by the federal
government. Nevada, for the past two decades, has been the fastest
growing state in the nation. As our population centers continue to grow
by leaps and bounds, we have continually needed to reexamine our
federal land boundaries to make sure they make sense. Such is the case
in the Nevada National Forest Land Disposal Act of 2003, which seeks to
dispose of seven relatively small parcels in Douglas County and Carson
City in northern Nevada.
The name of this measure is a little misleading. Yes, we seek to
dispose of lands now under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service.
But the lands we are putting up for competitive auction are isolated
parcels next to or interspersed with private land. From a management
standpoint, it does not make any sense to have the Forest Service
managing parcels that do not have forest characteristics. These lands,
when sold, will provide for orderly growth in the Carson City and
Douglas County area and allow for quality expansion.
S. 1575 calls for the auction of these seven parcels on a
competitive basis, at no less than fair market value. I have a written
commitment from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest supervisor that
the sale of the 231 acres of land identified in this bill will be
conducted the way we sell lands in southern Nevada, a process that has
earned high marks from the U.S. Interior Department's Inspector
General. By putting out desirable land for auction, the taxpayers
realize the highest price the market will bear. S. 1575 also give the
Secretary of Agriculture the ability to reject a sale if it is not in
the public interest. The taxpayers are protected and the federal
government is assured that the future use of the land will not harm the
National Forest system near these privatized lands.
The proceeds from the sale of the seven parcels will be put to good
public use. Five percent would go to the State of Nevada's general
education fund, the same as under current law in the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act. Another five percent would go to the Carson
Water Subconservancy District, a bi-state agency that works to balance
the interests of communities in Carson City and Douglas County and the
Carson River Watershed's environment. The remainder of the funds would
be earmarked for two worthy purposes: (1) the Interagency Dispatch
Center in Minden to augment the Forest Service's and State of Nevada's
ability to fight wildfires that are a major threat to our national
forest in the area; and (2) parks, trails, and natural areas for the
public to enjoy.
Responding to concerns about ``directed'' sales of public forest
lands, I would briefly like to explain the unique circumstances
precipitating the legislation I introduced. First and foremost, 87
percent of Nevada is owned by the federal government. No other state
has such a high percentage of federal lands, which is an enormous
burden on local governments. Most planning decisions in Nevada are not
made in town halls or by county commissioners. The planning decisions
must be made by Congress, an incredibly tough task in the fastest
growing state in America. The seven parcels that are offered for sale
in this legislation are simply not characteristic of the forest lands
we all support preserving. Rather, the parcels are suitable for uses
that are consistent with the population and economic growth that Nevada
is experiencing and will continue to experience in the foreseeable
future. It simply does not make sense--from a management or even a
common sense perspective--to keep these pieces of land within the
current national forest boundary and under federal management.
Concerning the use of the sale proceeds, there is a clear national
benefit in making available the sale proceeds to the Minden Interagency
Dispatch Center and the Carson Water Subconservancy District. Enhanced
fire fighting capabilities among all levels of government prevent
catastrophic fires in our national forest lands along the Sierra Front.
Wildfires have the potential to wipe out entire ecosystems, accelerate
erosion into streams and rivers, and hasten the spread of non-native
plant species and noxious weeds. The Carson Water Subconservancy
District takes a lead role in the very health of the Carson River, the
tributary to Walker Lake (a major stop for migratory birds) and the
subject of significant federal interest. To argue that these
beneficiaries are not of a national interest is a compartmentalized
view that simply does not take into account the fact that federal,
state, local, and private lands do not exist separately along distinct
boundaries.
The lands identified for disposal carry an added monetary value
because of the investments made by local governments such as
infrastructure and proximity to commercial and residential development.
Certainly, local governments have a right to realize that added
monetary value when selling public lands as long as the use of the
proceeds is a public benefit. I believe that all Americans realize a
tangible benefit from having a better equipped fire fighting capacity
to protect priceless forest lands along the Sierra Front. Federal
agencies do not have the money to take care of the lands they currently
manage in Nevada, and this is an honest attempt to help the Forest
Service.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Nevada National Forest Land Disposal
Act of 2003 has precedent in federal law. Nevada's need to grow
responsibly depends on our action today, and I believe I have written
this legislation to protect taxpayers and ensure that the funding
generated from these directed land sales is used to benefit the public
only. We should follow the lead of the House of Representatives and
pass S. 1575 quickly.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid and Hon. John Ensign,
U.S. Senators From Nevada, on S. 1819
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for the
opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation. As you may
know, as much as 87 percent of the land in Nevada is controlled by
federal agencies. The U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service: these
are our neighbors. And because we have so much federal land in our
state, Nevada's congressional delegation works closely with state and
local leaders to ensure that federal land issues are dealt with in a
fair and timely manner.
The problem addressed by this legislation, the Central Nevada Rural
Cemeteries Act, is a small issue with serious importance for two
communities in the heart of my state--Kingston and Beowawe. Each of
these towns was founded by pioneers who settled in Nevada's high desert
valleys in the mid-to-late 1800s. And, as with all communities, the
people of Kingston and Beowawe established local cemeteries to provide
a final and sacred resting place for their friends and family. This is
a fairly straightforward narrative, Mr. Chairman, except that when the
boundaries of the federal lands in Nevada were demarcated-roughly one
hundred years ago-the cemeteries of the two towns were not excluded as
they should have been. Today, much of the original Kingston cemetery is
on Forest Service land and the Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Beowawe is on
land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
To rectify this situation, The Central Nevada Rural Cemeteries Act
provides for the conveyance of the Maiden's Grave Cemetery to Eureka
County and for the balance of the original Kingston Cemetery to be
conveyed to Lander County. Plain and simple, this is the right thing to
do. There is no question that the people of Beowawe and Kingston
deserve the right to control and manage the ground in which their
ancestors lie. We sincerely hope that our colleagues recognize the
benefit that these conveyances would provide to the people of central
Nevada and that they will support the passage of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I am also a cosponsor of another piece of legislation
before this committee today. I am pleased to support the Nevada Forest
Land Disposal Act. Senator Ensign has provided detailed background on
this bill in his submitted statement.
I thank the Committee for its time and attention.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator
From Oregon, on H.R. 3249
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing
today on several bills pending before the Subcommittee, particularly
H.R. 3249, a bill to extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments
Committee. As a Member who represents a state where half the land is
managed by the Federal government, I support enactment of H.R. 3249.
This will enable the Congress to receive better information about the
effectiveness of the certain payment methodologies to eligible states
and counties under a variety of county payments statutes.
The Forest Counties Payments Committee was originally established
in 2000, ``to develop recommendations, consistent with sustainable
forestry, regarding methods to ensure that States and Counties in which
Federal lands are situated receive adequate Federal Payments to be used
for the benefit of public education and other public purposes.'' It was
supposed to produce a report within 18 months of its establishment,
which the Committee did. However, because of timing of the enactment of
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, of which
I was an original cosponsor, the effectiveness of payments to counties
under that Act could not be fully evaluated. That Act strengthens the
historic link between the counties and the federal lands located in
those counties by specifying that a portion of the county payments be
invested in eligible projects on federal lands. The effectiveness of
programs funded under Title II and Title III of the Act should also be
evaluated.
We should extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments Committee
in order for the Congress to have a complete evaluation before the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act comes up for
reauthorization. I am convinced that payments made under the Act have
been vital to schools in Oregon. However, since this is a nationwide
program, I believe it is important to have a complete analysis of the
effectiveness of this Act for all of the eligible counties.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee pass H.R. 3249 in the near future. I want
to thank all the witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee today.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, to
appear before you today to offer the Department's view on the
five bills that you mentioned.
With regard to the Cape Fox bill, the Forest Service
continues to work with Senator Murkowski's staff on the
language of the provision. The Department supports the
enactment of S. 1354. We have a couple of additional changes
that we would like to work through. We believe that there are
significant benefits to the Government from enactment,
including consolidation of public lands on the southern portion
of the Tongass and the elimination of split estate ownership.
The Department supports enactment of S. 1778, the Craig
Recreation Land Purchase Act. We have listed some suggested
modifications for the committee's consideration as well.
The Department does not object to making additional Federal
lands available to Lander County, Nevada, as provided for in S.
1819, but the Department believes the Forest Service can meet
the objectives of this legislation under its current statutory
authority that would allow it to convey national forest system
land to Lander County for fair market value.
S. 1575, the Nevada National Forest Land Disposal Act,
recognizes the importance of orderly and responsible
development in Carson City and Douglas County and that the
disposal of specific parcels of Federal lands administered by
the Forest Service may assist in the facilitation of that
effort. The Department does not oppose S. 1575.
Finally, the Department would have no objection to the
enactment of H.R. 3249.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment United States Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today in order to provide the Department's views on S. 1354 Cape Fox
Land-Entitlement Adjustment Act, S. 1778 Craig Recreation Land Purchase
Act, S. 1819 Central Nevada Rural Cemeteries Act, and S. 1575 Nevada
Forest Land Disposal Act of 2003.
S. 1354--CAPE FOX LAND ENTITLEMENT ADJUSTMENT ACT
This bill, as introduced, provides for an additional 99 acres of
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) selection area for Cape Fox
and Sealaska Corporations at Clover Passage on Revillagigedo Island,
and removes the requirement for Cape Fox to select 160 acres of
mountaintop land within their core township. It also requires the
Forest Service to offer, and if the offer is accepted by Cape Fox, to
complete land exchanges with the Cape Fox and Sealaska Corporations.
Through this land exchange:
Cape Fox Corporation would receive the surface and
subsurface of 2,663.9 acres of National Forest System (NFS)
lands at the Jualin Mine site near Berners Bay, north of
Juneau.
Sealaska Corporation would receive the surface and
subsurface of NFS lands to equalize values of Sealaska
subsurface lands and interests in land it conveys to the U.S.
Sealaska Corporation would select NFS lands of equal value from
within a 9,329-acre pool of NFS lands at the Kensington Mine,
also near Berners Bay.
The Forest Service would receive lands and interests in
lands of equal value from within: (1) a pool of approximately
2,900 acres, including a public trail easement, offered by Cape
Fox (surface) and Sealaska (subsurface) on Revillagigedo
Island; (2) 2,506 acres of Sealaska subsurface estate, located
at Upper Harris River and Kitkun Bay, on Prince of Wales
Island; and (3) 2,698 acres of Sealaska subsurface land
interests remaining to be conveyed to Sealaska pursuant to the
Haida Land Exchange Act and the Sealaska/Forest Service Split
Estate Exchange Agreement of 1991. Cape Fox would choose the
lands to be conveyed to the United States from the 2,900 acre
pool in (1) above.
The Forest Service previously worked with Senator Murkowski's staff
to clarify and improve the language when these exchanges were under
consideration in the 107th Congress. The Department could support the
enactment of S. 1354 with the changes below:
1) We request that Sec. 5(d) be clarified to read ``. . . by Cape
Fox under subsection (c) are equal in market value to the lands
described in subsection (b) based on appraisal reports approved by the
Secretary and prepared in conformance with the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice.'' Similarly, we request that Sec. 6(b)
be clarified to read ``. . . selected lands are equal in market value
to the lands described in subsection (c), and may adjust amount of
selected lands in order to reach agreement with Sealaska regarding
equal market value based on appraisal reports approved by the Secretary
and prepared in conformance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice.''
2) We request that Sec. 7(a) be clarified to read ``. . . shall be
of equal market value.'' And ``. . . estimates of market value of
exchange lands with supporting information in conformance with the
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.''
3) Sec. 5(f) gives the Secretary of Agriculture ninety days after
enactment to attempt to consummate an exchange agreement with Cape Fox.
During this ninety day period, Cape Fox (pursuant to Sec. 5(c)) has
sixty days to identify lands to be conveyed to the U.S., potentially
leaving only thirty days for the U.S. to complete an appraisal, obtain
title information, and complete the exchange process. Similarly, Sec.
6(d) only gives the Secretary of Agriculture ninety days after receipt
of selections by Sealaska to attempt to enter into an exchange
agreement with Sealaska. We request these time frames be extended.
4) A normal component of a land exchange includes a provision
requiring the exchanged lands to be subject to satisfactory
environmental site survey and remediation pursuant to the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Guide for
Environmental Site Assessment E 1903. We request this requirement be
added to Sec. 7(b).
With these minor changes, the Department of Agriculture supports
the enactment of S. 1354. We believe there are significant benefits to
the government from enactment, including consolidation of public lands
on the southern portion of the Tongass and elimination of split estate
ownership.
S. 1778--CRAIG RECREATION LAND PURCHASE ACT
The Department would have no objection to the enactment of S. 1778
if all the following concerns are addressed.
S. 1778 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase, at
appraised value, the ``Sunnahae Trail and Recreation Parcel'' described
in Sec. 2, as an addition to the Tongass National Forest. The funds
received by the City of Craig under S. 1778 would be used by the City
to purchase the ``Wards Cove Property'' described in Sec. 3, for local
economic development.
We support the City of Craig's interest in economic development
opportunities. The City of Craig is surrounded by ANCSA corporate land,
and has a limited taxable land base. Craig anchors the nine smaller
towns and villages on Prince of Wales Island, and the economic
stability of Craig is critical to the economy of the island as a whole.
We do note that acquisition of the ``Sunnahae Trail'' parcel will
present significant challenges for its administration as a component of
the National Forest System. The parcel is small, isolated from other
federal lands, and encumbered by outstanding mineral rights. We would
like to work with the Committee and the City of Craig to investigate
other options that address mutual interests. For example, the City of
Craig holds beach lots adjacent to the Craig Ranger District compound,
which might be more appropriate for sale to the United States.
The ``Sunnahae Trail'' parcel includes about 350 acres of trail,
trailhead, and mountaintop property surrounded by private land. Much of
the parcel is a narrow strip on either side of a city trail in need of
extensive reconstruction. Surrounding lands are owned by Shan Seet, an
ANCSA Corporation, and have been extensively logged. The City of Craig
owns only the surface estate; the subsurface estate is owned by
Sealaska Corporation.
S. 1778 would directly authorize appropriation of $ 250,000 to the
Forest Service for reconstruction of the Sunnahae Trail. Reconstruction
of the trail would cost far more. Section 2 would require the Secretary
to purchase the Sunnahae Trail parcel, at appraised value. Without a
current appraisal, we do not know how much this would cost, but a total
cost to the government of more than one million dollars is possible.
This purchase and reconstruction would limit the flexibility of the
Forest service to address other priority needs throughout the full
length of the trails under its administration. This flexibility is
essential to protecting and enhancing the Nation's comprehensive
interstate network of trails that provide a wide variety of
experiences, resources, and services for all types of trail users.
We also note that proper reconstruction of the Sunnahae Trail to
avoid steep slopes and minimize environmental impacts would follow a
different alignment. The parcel to be conveyed under S. 1778 follows
the existing alignment.
S. 1819--CENTRAL NEVADA RURAL CEMETERIES ACT
In summary, Section 1 of S. 1819 requires the Secretary through the
Chief of the Forest Service to convey to Lander County, Nevada for no
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in
and to the 8.75 acres of National Forest System land know as Kingston
Cemetery.
In accordance with Public Law 85-569, the Townsite Act, we have
already conveyed 1.25 acres of land (on which the cemetery is located)
to the Town of Kingston for $500 on August 1, 2000. At the time of
conveyance, the Town of Kingston indicated the 1.25 acres encompassed
all known marked and unmarked gravesites. The Town of Kingston
indicated that the 1.25 acres was adequate to accommodate their future
expansion needs. Specifically, all of the gravesites were accounted for
within a half acre fenced area that the 1.25 acres encompassed. The
additional 0.75 acres were intended for parking and anticipated
expansion of the current cemetery.
If new unmarked gravesites have been discovered or the needs of the
Kingston Cemetery have changed and are in the public interest, we would
be supportive of making additional Federal lands available to the
county or city for fair market value and granting the county an
easement to maintain the access road to the cemetery as a county road.
If Lander County is not willing to pay fair market value to
purchase this land, we would be willing to consider authorizing its
current and future use of this land under a special use permit
authorization.
The Department does not object to making additional Federal lands
available to Lander County, Nevada in S. 1819, but the Department
believes that the Forest Service can meet the objectives of Section 1
of this legislation under its current statutory authorities that would
allow it to convey National Forest System lands to Lander, County for
fair-market value in cash.
For example, under the Townsite Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
may convey, for fair market value, up to 640 acres of land to
established communities located adjacent to National Forests in Alaska
or the contiguous western states. Within certain limits, the Sisk Act
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands with states,
counties, or municipal governments or public school districts for land
or money.
Moreover, under the General Exchange Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture can exchange National Forest System lands with State and
local governments. These laws require the Secretary of Agriculture to
obtain fair market value for exchanges or sales of National Forest
lands. Indeed, the Federal policy, in recent decades has moved toward
obtaining a fair return to the public for the value of lands conveyed
out of federal ownership.
S. 1575--THE NEVADA NATIONAL FOREST LAND DISPOSAL ACT OF 2003.
In summary, Section 1 of S. 1575 directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to sell at public auction six specific parcels of National
Forest System land in Carson City or Douglas County, Nevada ranging
from 3 to 80 acres in size with proceeds of said sales being dispersed
to various state and local entities.
S. 1575 recognizes the importance of orderly and responsible
development in Carson City and Douglas County and that the disposal of
specific parcels of Federal lands administered by the USDA Forest
Service may assist in the facilitation of that effort.
Section 3(d)(1)(A) of the bill would add a requirement that the
Secretary shall ``pay five percent to the State of Nevada for use for
the general education program of the state''; (B) ``pay five percent to
the Carson Water Subconservancy District in the State''; and (D)
``retain and use, without further appropriation, the remaining funds
for the purpose of expanding the Minden Interagency Dispatch Center in
Minden, Nevada, as provided in paragraph (3). Section 3(d)(2)(B) of the
bill provides for ``The development and maintenance of parks, trails,
and natural areas in Carson City, Douglas County, and Washoe County,
Nevada, in accordance with a cooperative agreement entered into with
the unit of local government in which the park, trail or natural area
are located''.
In addition, Section 3(d)(1)(C) requires the Secretary to ``deposit
25 percent in the fund established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly
known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a)''. In general, we believe that
proceeds generated from the sales of Federal lands should be made
available for the acquisition of replacement National Forest System
lands within the State of Nevada.
While we support the premise of working closely with all agencies
within the State and appreciate the reimbursement of sales processing
costs, we would like to work with the committee to develop broader
alternatives for the distribution and use of the proceeds generated
from the sales of Federal parcels. Moreover, although we support the
expansion of the Minden facility, we believe that funding of that
construction should be included in the usual appropriation process. In
addition, the President's FY 2005 Budget includes a proposal to amend
the Small Tracks Act, the Sisk Act, and the Townsite Act, which provide
the Secretary the authority to sell or exchange land, to provide more
efficient real estate management of lands and facilities throughout the
entire National Forest System.
H.R. 3249--EXTENSION OF TERM OF FOREST COUNTIES PAYMENTS COMMITTEE
H.R. 3249 would extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments
Committee to September 30, 2007. The Department would have no
objections to the enactment of H.R. 3249.
The Forest Counties Payments Committee was created by Congress
pursuant to Section 320, of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act of 2001, Public Law 106-291. The Committee
is charged with developing recommendations to Congress for making
certain payments to states and counties for education and other public
purposes. The Committee was also instructed to monitor payments made to
states and counties under certain payments, loans and related laws
which would include the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393), to submit annual reports to
Congress describing the amounts and sources of payments to states and
counties, and be available to provide testimony, or comments on
legislation or regulations to implement recommendations made in such
reports.
The Forest Counties Payments Committee submitted its Report to
Congress on February 6, 2003. The Report includes recommendations for
future payments to states and counties, as well as findings and
information pertaining to allocation of education dollars by states,
the importance of sustaining the health of our forests and communities,
and the success of citizen advisory committees in reaching agreement on
various management projects.
Formal discussions between Congress and the Committee regarding
recommendations and information contained in the Report have not taken
place. This dialogue will be important as the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-determination Act comes closer to its expiration date of
2006. Also, there may be a need to provide additional information, or
evaluate other options that congressional committees may be interested
in considering.
Extension of the termination date would allow the Committee to
fulfill the requirements of the enacting legislation, continue the
monitoring and evaluating of implementation of P.L. 106-393, and
provide continued assistance to the six committees of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members may have.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mark.
Now let us turn to Tom Lonnie, the Assistant Director for
Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection, the United States
Department of the Interior. Tom?
STATEMENT OF TOM LONNIE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Lonnie. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here
today. I will briefly summarize my prepared testimony.
S. 1819 and H.R. 272 provide for the conveyance of two
cemeteries in Nevada to Lander and Eureka Counties. I will
confine my comments to the Eureka County provision of the bills
and defer to the Forest Service on the Lander County provision.
The BLM supports section 3 of S. 1819 and the identical
section 2 of H.R. 272, providing for the conveyance of the
Maiden's Grave cemetery near Beowawe, Nevada to Eureka County,
Nevada. Approximately 10 acres would be conveyed to the county
which would maintain the area as a cemetery.
While we would typically expect to receive fair market
value for such a transfer, we understand the unique
circumstances in this case and the unique needs of Eureka
County. We appreciate the opportunity to work cooperatively
with local interests to the betterment of the community.
During consideration of H.R. 272 by the House of
Representatives, amendments were made to address BLM's concerns
which were primarily technical in nature, and we support both
H.R. 272 and its identical companion, S. 1819.
We have submitted written testimony related to S. 1354, the
Cape Fox Land Entitlement Act, a bill which the Department of
the Interior supports. However, the Department is concerned
about the conveyance deadline in the bill and has recommended a
modification to it that is described in my written testimony.
Because the bill concerns lands administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior
defers to the Secretary of Agriculture on other aspects of S.
1354.
Finally, we have no objection to enactment of H.R. 3249
which would extend the term of the Advisory Committee on Forest
Counties Payments until September 30, 2007. The authorization
for the advisory committee expired on October 11, 2003 before
it was able to examine fully the impact of the Secure Rural
Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act. Extension of
the termination date will allow the committee to fulfill the
requirements of the enacting legislation, continue the
monitoring and evaluating of implementation of Public Law 106-
393 and provide continued assistance to the six committees of
jurisdiction.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these bills,
and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Lonnie follow:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Lonnie, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty,
and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management
H.R. 272 and S. 1819
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. S. 1819 and
H.R. 272 provide for the conveyance of two cemeteries in Nevada to
Lander and Eureka counties. I will confine my comments to the Eureka
County provision of the bills and defer to the Forest Service on the
Lander County provision. The BLM supports section three of S. 1819 and
the identical section two of H.R. 272 which provide for the conveyance
of the ``Maiden's Grave Cemetery'' near Beowawe, Nevada (Bav-o-wah'-
wee) to Eureka County, Nevada. Approximately 10 acres would be conveyed
to the county which would maintain the area as a cemetery. In addition,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would be required to grant access
to the cemetery across adjacent public land.
``The Maiden's Grave'' is the final resting place of Lucinda Duncan
who on August 15, 1863, died on her way to the gold and silver fields
of Nevada. Mrs. Duncan at 71 was ``the mother of the wagon train''
which consisted largely of her seven surviving children, their spouses
and a multitude of grandchildren. Following her death, the wagon train
held a ceremony and their leaving was memorialized by a member of the
party:
``. . . we paid our last debt & respect to the remains of the
departed mother. There upon that wild & lonely spot, we left
her, until Gabriel shall sound his trumpet in the last day. The
scene was truly a sad one to leave a beloved mother on the wild
and desolate plains. A board with the name of the deceased was
put up at the head & boulder was laid over the grave to keep
wolves from scratching in it. After this the train moved on.''
Today, the site continues to receive occasional burials. Therefore,
it is considered a ``modern cemetery'' and does not qualify for the
National Register of Historic Places. The BLM, through its planning
process, has identified the cemetery as suitable for disposal and the
county has indicated a strong interest in taking responsibility for
this parcel.
While we would typically expect to receive market value for such a
transfer, we understand the unique circumstances in this case, and the
unique needs of Eureka County. Under other circumstances, we might have
considered a Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act conveyance to
lower the cost to the county, but the need for permanency in this
transfer prevents this from being a viable option, thus the need for
legislative intervention. We appreciate this opportunity to work
cooperatively with local interests to the betterment of the community.
During consideration of H.R. 272 by the House of Representatives,
amendments were made to address the BLM's concerns which were primarily
of a technical nature and we support both H.R. 272 and its identical
companion S. 1819.
H.R. 3249
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 3249. This bill would extend the
term of the Advisory Committee on Forest Counties Payments until
September 30, 2007, to coincide with the expiration date of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Department
would have no objections to the enactment of H.R. 3249.
Litigation in the 1980s and early 1990s regarding the Northern
Spotted Owl resulted in steep reductions in timber harvests in the
Pacific Northwest, and correspondingly steep reductions in income to
counties that depended on revenues from timber harvests on public lands
and-national forests to fund local government services. Timber harvests
were greatly reduced in the 18 counties in western Oregon that the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed for sustainable timber
production under the Oregon and California Grants Lands Act of 1937
(the O&C Act).
In 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-393, the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, to make up the shortfall
to counties dependent on Federal timber revenues by providing a
temporary payment to counties covered under the O&C Act at 85 percent
of the average of their three highest timber receipt years from 1986-
1999. Public Law 106-393 also provided an additional 15 percent of the
average of their three highest receipt years from 1986-1999 to support
two types of projects: restoration (including watershed restoration,
forest road maintenance, and road decommissioning or obliteration) and
other county uses connected with BLM lands, including reimbursement for
search, rescue, and other emergency services; reimbursement for
expenses related to community service on Federal lands; and the
purchase of conservation easements. As authorized by Public Law 106-
393, since FY 2002, the BLM has paid directly to the 18 O&C counties
$332.2 million, and expects to pay an additional $112.7 million to
these counties during fiscal year 2005. The Act expires on September
30, 2007.
The Advisory Committee on Forest Counties Payments, authorized by
Section 320 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-291), was charged with developing
recommendations, consistent with sustainable forestry, regarding
methods to evaluate the Federal payments that States and counties in
which Federal timber lands are situated (for BLM, the 18 O&C counties).
The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) apply to
this Advisory Committee. Its membership includes representatives of the
Federal government (BLM Director, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and
Director of the Office of Management and Budget), or their designees,
and eligible counties (county-elected officials and elected members of
school boards or superintendents of school districts).
Specifically, Section 320 states that the Committee was required to
evaluate:
the method by which payments under the O&C Act are made to
eligible counties and States under provisions of the law;
the impact on eligible counties and States of revenues
derived from historic multiple activities of the Federal lands;
the economic, environmental, and social benefits that accrue
to counties containing Federal lands, including benefits to the
recreation and natural resources industries, and the value of
environmental services that result from Federal lands; and
the expenditures by counties on activities on Federal lands
which are Federal responsibilities.
The Advisory Committee's authorization expired on October 11,
2003--before it was able to examine fully the impact of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Extension of the
termination date would allow the Committee to fulfill the requirements
of the enacting legislation, continue the monitoring and evaluating of
implementation of P.L. 106-393, and provide continued assistance to the
six committees of jurisdiction.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
S. 1354
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on S. 1354, the Cape Fox Land
Entitlement Adjustment Act of 2003.
BACKGROUND
Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox) is an Alaska Native Village
Corporation organized pursuant to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) for the Native Village of Saxman, which is located near
Ketchikan. Like the other nine southeast villages recognized for
benefits under section 16 of ANCSA, Cape Fox received an entitlement of
23,040 acres. All other ANCSA Village Corporations were restricted from
making selections within two miles of the boundary of home rule cities.
Cape Fox, however, was uniquely affected by the original terms of ANCSA
as it was restricted from making selections within six miles of the
boundary of the city of Ketchikan. As a result of the six-mile
restriction, the only land within Cape Fox's core township available
for conveyance is a 160-acre parcel which the corporation does not
want. Under current law, the BLM must transfer this parcel to Cape Fox
and charge the acreage to the corporation's ANCSA entitlement.
The requirement for village corporations to take title to all
available land within their core township is a basic component of
ANCSA, applicable to all village corporations. Another basic component
of the original settlement is that conveyances to village corporations
will be restricted to lands withdrawn for that purpose under the
original terms of ANCSA.
S. 1354 waives an existing statutory requirement that would compel
Cape Fox to use a portion of its entitlement under ANCSA for a remote
160-acre mountainous parcel that is of no economic value to the
corporation. The bill also directs the BLM to convey to Cape Fox, the
surface estate to a 99-acre tract in the Tongass National Forest that
was unavailable to the corporation under the original terms of ANCSA;
the subsurface estate of this tract is to be transferred to Sealaska
Corporation (Sealaska).
Because S. 1354 extends benefits to Cape Fox that were not
available under the original terms of ANCSA, the Department of the
Interior has carefully considered the merits of this proposal and
agrees that the Cape Fox situation is sufficiently unique to warrant
the legislative remedy that is provided in S. 1354. However, the
Department is concerned about the conveyance deadline in Sec. 4(c) of
the bill. If Cape Fox decides to accept title to the lands offered, the
BLM must issue conveyance documents within six months of receiving the
corporation's selection. Current regulatory requirements for ANCSA
conveyances take longer than the six months--typically closer to 12
months--and must include identification of easements to be reserved,
issuance of an appealable decision, and public notice of that decision.
Unless the legislation specifies otherwise, or the ANCSA conveyance
process is changed before then, the 99-acre tract must be conveyed
under existing ANCSA regulations. The six month timeframe also could be
unnecessarily disruptive to BLM conveyance transactions that are in
progress.
The Department of the Interior recommends that Sec. 4(c) of the
bill be modified to read as follows: ``TIMING.--The Secretary of the
Interior shall complete the interim conveyances to Cape Fox and
Sealaska under this section as soon as practicable after the Secretary
of the Interior receives notice of the Cape Fox selection under
subsection (a).'' the Department understands the economic importance of
this conveyance to Cape Fox ad will transfer title as quickly as
possible in concert with other existing land transfer plans and
commitments.
Adjustment of Cape Fox's selections and conveyances of land under
ANCSA requires adjustment of Sealaska's selections and conveyances to
avoid the creation of an additional split estate between National
Forest System surface lands and Sealaska subsurface lands. Because this
adjustment concerns lands administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the Department of the Interior defers to the Secretary of
Agriculture for a position on this aspect of S. 1354.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Tom.
Now let me turn to my colleague, Senator Murkowski, for any
opening comments she would like to make, and why don't you
follow that up with any questions you might have of either Mr.
Rey or Mr. Lonnie.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have
questions of either Secretary Rey or Mr. Lonnie this afternoon.
I do appreciate your willingness to work with us on both of
these Alaska bills and appreciate all the help that we have
received thus far. We will keep working on it.
I want to thank both of you for attending the hearing this
afternoon, and I would also like to extend a personal welcome
to those who have come so far to attend the hearing, both on S.
1778, the Craig legislation, as well as S. 1354, the Cape Fox
legislation.
I might mention for the record that several of you have
been here multiple times in anticipation of a hearing and with
one natural disaster or a manmade disaster, we have not been
able to do that. So I am glad to see that at least this end of
the journey is over for you folks.
I would like to recognize Ms. Marilyn Blair, the president
of Cape Fox Corporation from Ketchikan; Mr. Dennis Wheeler, the
president of Coeur Alaska, who will also be testifying on this;
Mr. Buck Lindekugel, the conservation director of SEACC from
Juneau; and Mr. Dennis Watson, the mayor of the city of Craig.
I first would like to discuss S. 1778, the Craig Recreation
Land Purchase Act. This is an important bill that will
facilitate Forest Service land management on Prince of Wales
Island and help community expansion and development. The city
of Craig is the economic center of Prince of Wales Island, the
third largest island in the Nation. The town contains the major
retail shopping and service outlets on the island. Island
residents drive up to 100 miles round trip to come to town for
medical services and shopping. Craig also has the most active
and largest commercial fishing harbor and fleet on the island.
Due to land selection conflicts between the Forest Service
and the State of Alaska in the 1960's, the city of Craig
received no municipal entitlement land. This legislation will
help alleviate some of the loss to the city from the lack of an
entitlement.
One of the Forest Service's main administrative facilities,
the Craig Ranger District Station, is located in Craig, but
currently there is no Forest Service land near the ranger
station. My legislation would provide for a three-way
conveyance process which would result in three parcels of land
now owned by the city of Craig being conveyed into the Tongass
National Forest and an inholding owned by a private company
being acquired by the city. This legislation will provide
recreational opportunities in the forest which will benefit
both the public and the city of Craig and allow the city of
Craig to obtain land that is truly vital to its future.
As far as S. 1354, the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Adjustment
Act of 2003, this is legislation that passed the Senate with
bipartisan support in the 107th Congress. This addresses an
equity issue in one of Alaska's rural village corporations and
also helps to diversify the economy of Juneau.
Cape Fox Corporation is an Alaska village corporation
organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
by the native village of Saxman near Ketchikan. As with other
ANCSA village corporations in southeast Alaska, Cape Fox was
limited to selecting 23,040 acres under section 16, but unlike
other village corporations, Cape Fox was further restricted
from selecting lands within 6 miles of the boundary of the home
rule city of Ketchikan. All other ANCSA corporations were
restricted from selecting within 2 miles of such a home rule
city. So this 6-mile restriction went beyond protecting
Ketchikan's watershed and damaged Cape Fox by preventing the
corporation from selecting valuable timberlands, industrial
sites, and other commercial property not only in its core
township but in surrounding lands far removed from Ketchikan
and its watershed. As a result of the 6-mile restriction, only
the mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox core township,
which is nonproductive and has no economic value, was available
for selection by the corporation. Cape Fox's land selections
were further limited by the fact that the Annette Island Indian
Reservation is within its selection area and those lands were
unavailable for ANCSA selection. Cape Fox is the only ANCSA
village corporation affected by this restriction.
So it is clear that Cape Fox was placed on an unequal
economic footing relative to other village corporations in
southeastern Alaska, and despite its best efforts during the
year since ANCSA, Cape Fox has been unable to overcome the
disadvantage that the law has built into this situation. It was
for these reasons that I introduced this legislation to
partially address the Cape Fox problem.
Now, much concern has been raised regarding the
environmental effects of this land exchange upon the
recreationists of Berners Bay, and I would let the committee
know we held rather extensive hearings in Juneau last year. I
listened very clearly to those concerns. I reviewed the letters
that came into my office regarding this legislation, and it is
my intent to offer an amendment that will address both the
viewshed and the public access concerns which were raised by my
constituents in Juneau.
So I look forward to hearing from those constituents and
witnesses today. I do hope that the witnesses that are present
will continue to work with my office to further refine this
amendment so that we can reach a consensus that will support
not only a diversified economy, but without compromising the
beauty and the natural state that we have in Berners Bay. I
truly believe, Mr. Chairman, that we can achieve that goal.
With that, as I have indicated, I do not have questions of
either witness. So I appreciate your consideration.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Senator. The committee
will work with you to fine tune these pieces of legislation so
they can move forward.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Craig. And I thank you.
Secretary Rey, I note that this bill--the bill that I am
referring to is the Carson City conveyance--is similar to a
legislative initiative that was included in the 2004 and 2005
budget request by the President. Is that not correct?
Mr. Rey. Roughly so, yes. The 2004 and 2005 budget request
was not specific to a particular piece of land. It was
legislation to give us the flexibility to convey unneeded
assets and to retain the money received from those conveyances
to do other work on the national forest system.
Senator Craig. As I understand, S. 1575 and H.R. 1092 would
allow the Forest Service to sell parcels of land and to use the
proceeds to help pay for the reconstruction of the Minden
Interagency Dispatch Center, including the construction of
barracks for a hotshot crew. Would it be your preference that
Congress begin to earmark the proceeds from such sales to those
specific projects?
Mr. Rey. No. Our first preference would be favorable
consideration for the legislative authorities included in the
fiscal year 2005 budget request, and should that authority be
granted, we would then establish a priority list in areas where
conveyances take place to do that work on the basis of that
kind of a priority list.
Senator Craig. You would prefer no earmarks.
Mr. Rey. We would prefer in general legislation like that
which we have proposed, that the proceeds from the conveyances
not thereafter be subsequently earmarked.
Senator Craig. I also see that this legislation proposes
that 5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of these parcels
to the State of Nevada are for general education and 5 percent
to Carson City Water Subconservancy. I am wondering if this is
a good precedent and if we should not include a larger share
for public education from every sale of Federal lands. Would
the administration support such provisions in every land
transfer?
Mr. Rey. I think in general terms, that is sort of double
dipping. One of the reasons that we convey excess Federal
assets into non-Federal or private ownership is so that we can
assist other units of government to meet administrative needs.
Of course, if that is the case, then there is no point in
paying them a part of that back. We might as well just
negotiate the purchase price accordingly.
But where we convey those assets into private ownership,
one of the reasons is to help affect local development, and we
are adding those lands then to the local tax rolls, which tax
rolls should be supporting education and other public service
needs of local government. So I think our preference is, if we
are going to convey unneeded Federal assets, that we use the
proceeds for those conveyances to meet other Federal Government
needs.
Senator Craig. Now I am talking about the Craig, Alaska
conveyance. Also, some suggest that the proposal would saddle
the Forest Service with a parcel of land that they may not
want. I am told that the trail to the top of that knob in
Murielle City center is scenic and that it would be utilized by
many of the visitors to Craig. Given the fact that Craig,
Alaska is one of the fastest growing communities in southeast
Alaska, why would the Forest Service not want the--is it the
Sunnahae site?
Mr. Rey. Sunnahae Trail site.
Senator Craig. Sunnahae.
Mr. Rey. Right. We are content to take the Sunnahae Trail
site in exchange for the land that we would convey. There are a
couple of parcels that would be of greater use to us and we
have talked with the Alaska delegation and the city of Craig to
see if we can adjust the exchange to include those two parcels,
which would be of value to us for administrative purposes. They
are relatively small parcels, however, and so they will not be
enough to cover the equal value requirement of the exchange. So
we will be content to take the Sunnahae Trail parcel as well
and then maintain the trail for public use purposes.
Senator Craig. Tom, I am speaking in relation to S. 1819
and H.R. 272. This is the second time that this proposal has
been heard by this subcommittee in the last two Congresses, and
we have seen the Bureau of Land Management testify on it each
time.
Other than the potential for being nibbled to death by
small land conveyances, is there anything wrong with these
proposals?
Mr. Lonnie. We see nothing wrong with these proposals, sir.
Senator Craig. Lisa, any questions?
Senator Murkowski. I'm fine. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Well, gentlemen, thank you both. We will
stay in close contact with both of the agencies as we work
these pieces of legislation through the committee for any fine-
tuning necessary. Thank you.
Now I would ask the second panel to come before us. That
would be Marilyn Blair, Dennis Wheeler, Dennis Watson, and Buck
Lindekugel. I am going to change the order and I am going to
ask for Dennis Watson, the mayor of the city of Craig to go
first. We will also question you, Dennis. I understand you have
a tight time crunch and a flight to catch.
Mr. Watson. Oh, I am OK right now. Actually I do not right
now. Thanks. I am fine.
Senator Craig. You do not now?
Mr. Watson. No.
Senator Craig. Well, we will start with you anyway. We will
go ahead, Dennis, and start with you. Then we will step over to
Dennis Wheeler. Anyway, the mayor of the city of Craig, Alaska.
That city has got a great name to it. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF DENNIS WATSON, MAYOR, CITY OF CRAIG, AK
Mr. Watson. I would like to mention that I am proud to be
here and in the company of the people that helped to get the
forest receipts legislation passed a couple of years ago. It
has really helped us out.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Dennis
Watson. I am the mayor of the city of Craig, Alaska. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before this committee and for
hearing testimony on S. 1778. My testimony will explain the
need for this bill for Craig and Prince of Wales Island.
S. 1778 is a mechanism that will provide the U.S. Forest
Service with a net gain in acreage to the Tongass National
Forest while also allowing the residents of Craig to better
adjust to a changing economic climate. S. 1778 authorizes the
Federal Government to accept the conveyance of 348 acres of
land from the city of Craig and authorizes an appropriation of
up to $2.1 million for the land acquisition. The funding would
be used by the city of Craig to purchase private land at Craig.
Craig is located on Prince of Wales Island in southeast
Alaska. The island is home to some 4,500 residents. Since 1995,
the economy of Craig and Prince of Wales Island has undergone a
tremendous and painful economic contraction. The change in
Tongass National Forest timber policy has reduced logging
industry employment from 1,800 in 1992 to fewer than 600 in
2002. Unemployment rates in the Prince of Wales census area
have reached seasonal highs of between 19 and 25 percent in the
past 10 years. The annual unemployment rate for our census area
is frequently three times or more the rate for the United
States as a whole.
The loss of higher paying timber jobs has translated into
related economic problems for our island. Despite the higher
cost of living in Alaska compared to the continental United
States, per capita earnings are much lower for POW residents
than for residents of the contiguous lower 48. By the way, that
is Prince of Wales Island. The 2000 census reports that per
capita income in the Prince of Wales Island census area is 15
percent less than the U.S. figure. Similarly, our median family
income lags behind the United States as a whole and the
proportion of families below the poverty level in the Prince of
Wales Island/Outer Ketchikan area exceeds the national figure
by more than 10 percent.
Despite these problems, area residents are bullish on the
future. Increasing private sector opportunities in our economy
will improve chances of recovery. Passage of S. 1778 will
assist us in providing basic public infrastructure that will
lead to private industry investment.
The single best site for redevelopment efforts in Craig is
known as the old cannery property. The site contains 5 acres of
uplands and 5 acres of tidelands. Acquisition of this parcel
would allow the city to complete a needed harbor expansion. It
would also make available a substantial area for commercial
investment. This goal is important because unlike many other
cities in Alaska, Craig did not receive its municipal
entitlement lands it needed for community growth.
S. 1778 is integral to the acquisition of the cannery site
because the city cannot afford to purchase this property from
its owner, who has told us he is willing to sell us the
property. This bill will authorize a three-way land transaction
by which the city will sell a prime recreational parcel that is
formerly the site of a U.S. Forest Service trail and cabin. The
city will then use the proceeds of this sale to purchase the
abandoned cannery site.
While it is often an overused term, this is truly a win-win
transaction for all involved. The U.S. Forest Service will
receive lands that will provide a recreation site close to the
Craig Ranger District. Craig, in turn, will get the opportunity
to purchase the cannery property.
This entire transaction will be subject to the standard
Federal appraisal standards for both parcels and will be
overseen by the Forest Service. S. 1778 requires that the
exchange be based on a value-for-value basis. It also can take
place only on a willing seller/willing buyer basis and it be
accomplished only by the passage of this legislation that will
authorize the appropriation for the transaction. While there is
no guarantee that funds will be made available for this
transaction, we are working with Senator Stevens, a cosponsor
of this bill, to make these funds available, if the committee
and the Congress will pass this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in public policy on
Prince of Wales Island for 25 years, and I can tell you that
this property is absolutely the key to moving forward to
diversify our economy in Craig. The city is reviewing a plan to
redevelop this parcel if the bill is passed and the transaction
is completed. The city had great success in attracting private
sector development to our previously developed marine
industrial park. We hope to build on this momentum at the
cannery site.
The city of Craig supports the passage of this legislation
and urges the committee to act on this bill as soon as
possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Craig. Well, Mayor, thank you. Before we go on to
the Cape Fox issue, we are going to ask questions of you. We
will separate the two. They are distinctively different types
of legislation. So let me turn to my colleague from Alaska for
any questions she would want to ask of the mayor.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Mayor. I
appreciate your testimony.
I am glad to hear your comments about the residents of
Craig. You used the term ``bullish.'' They are bullish on their
economy. And I felt the same when I was visiting there this
summer. Craig has been hit very, very hard. It has a very
depressed economy because of the downfall in the timber
industry, but you would not know it from talking to the
residents. They have got a great attitude about making it work,
and this is one of those deals that I think, if we can offer a
little assistance here, they really can pull together great
things for the community, good economic opportunities and jobs
for the residents, which is what everybody wants.
In recognizing that, you have to wonder, though, what we
have to do in exchange in order to facilitate this economic
development. Could you still do in the city what you wanted to
do even without this exchange?
Mr. Watson. The short answer is that we are short on land.
Senator Murkowski. Those of us who have been to Craig
really appreciate how short you are.
Mr. Watson. Craig is actually an island that has a spit
that was built to Prince of Wales Island, and the surrounding
property that actually goes beyond the spit, during the Native
Land Claims Act, that was basically all selected by the native
corporations. What we have left in town is just a couple of
acres. It is actually not left. We have a couple of acres
downtown that has our municipal infrastructure there, city
hall, and our clinic, and those various things. So we are
basically used up right now. The cannery site is an old
downtown property that is fairly large and it fits the bill
just as good as anything can to get this done.
Senator Murkowski. Is it fair to suggest that this is
really the last or the only developable chunk of land in the
Craig proper downtown?
Mr. Watson. Yes, it is. It, of course, has the old cannery
on it yet. But it is the only large parcel that is left in our
community.
Senator Murkowski. Now, the question was asked by Senator
Craig of Secretary Rey about whether or not they really wanted
the trail. Now, I have heard from some--and I am not going to
suggest that this is true, but some folks have suggested that
this parcel is not really all that desirable and the trail is
not as desirable as one might want. Can you speak to that? We
understand that the Forest Service will have authorization so
they can reconstruct the trail so it can be usable and not so
muddy. If you could just speak to that issue.
Mr. Watson. Well, first off, I think the trail is in better
shape now than it ever was when the Forest Service owned it,
and they obviously thought it was a nice place then. And they
built a cabin. Actually at one time there was a cabin on either
end. It goes and there is a flat area. A muskeg is what it is
actually. And there was a cabin on either end of it. At one
time the Forest Service thought it was a good idea in those
days.
We have spent thousands of dollars in reconstructing the
trail, putting bridges and walkways and the different things in
there through the years. It is a great experience. You can get
up on the top and see 25-30 miles away to the Murielle National
Monuments and several other things that you have got all kinds
of landscape that is in the way of. It is actually a very
beautiful place, similar to, say, like Deer Mountain in
Ketchikan. It is a very popular tourist and local site to
visit. So I disagree.
Senator Murkowski. What you have done, you have really
worked to do a lot of that reconstruction so that it is not a
mud hole of a trail.
Mr. Watson. It certainly is not.
Senator Murkowski. And we recognize in southeast that if
you do not do something with the trails, all you are going to
have is a trail of mud with all that rain that we get.
Mr. Watson. You have about a 1-year window of opportunity
before the trail grows back in the forest again. We have been
keeping after it.
Senator Murkowski. Good.
Is there anything else that we need to know about the
exchange, about the trail that we have not yet covered?
Mr. Watson. No. I think that you have pretty much covered
it all. I just think it is most important to understand that,
as you mentioned earlier, our statehood act provided for the
State to select lands so communities could get municipal
entitlement lands to be able to expand. And we just, because of
some difficulties in the Forest Service in those days, were
unable. They basically blocked the selections around our area.
We were unable to do what everybody else was able to do, and we
are just trying to make up for that in creative ways.
Senator Murkowski. Well, this is certainly something that
since we began pursuing this as an exchange, hearing from the
people of Craig, they have been very receptive to this idea.
They would like the ability to move forward with the cannery
property and this exchange will facilitate all kinds of good
things. So what we have been hearing from all those in your
town has been very positive and very encouraging in terms of
what we are trying to accomplish here. So we appreciate that
support.
Mr. Watson. Well, thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Lisa, thank you. Mayor, thank you very much.
We appreciate those comments.
Four or five years ago I had the opportunity to visit Craig
and to spend time there, and I appreciate not only what you are
saying. Many of our small communities in Western States become
landlocked for reasons of Federal and public lands around them
and the inability to grow or expand. Of course, you have got
water on most sides and a limitation. So we will do all we can
to help facilitate the ability for you to grow and expand in
that area. It is a delightful community.
Mr. Watson. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Craig. Now let us turn to testimony on the
remaining pieces of legislation. Let me turn to Dennis Wheeler,
CEO of Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Dennis, I say for the record we have been good friends over the
years and I appreciate your leadership in the industry that has
played a critical role in our economy in Western States
development and continues to do so. Welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. WHEELER, CEO AND CHAIRMAN, COEUR d'ALENE
MINES CORPORATION, COEUR d'ALENE, ID
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Chairman Craig and members of the
committee. We are pleased to appear here today and support S.
1354. You have the context of my total remarks provided to the
committee, so I will be brief today, but I do want to make just
a few points.
As Assistant Secretary Rey has pointed out in supporting
the bill on behalf of the Forest Service, this exchange does
relieve the Federal Government from the complexity and costly
inefficient management of a public land area that is
fractionalized. For example, Coeur itself within the area in
question has over 12,000 acres of unpatented mining claims. One
of the benefits of this legislation will be to consolidate, for
administrative purposes and regulatory oversight purposes, the
land into one manageable area.
Second, although this is not a hearing on the environmental
aspects of the project, I would like to point out that Coeur,
as the largest primary silver producer in North America and a
significant gold producer as well, has spent nearly $23 million
for 900--and I emphasize 900--environmental studies for this
project. And we are recognized in the mining industry as a
leader in environmental stewardship, just last week having won
again from the State of Nevada a prominent environmental award
in recognition for our bat preservation program in our
operations there.
I would like to also remind the committee that the lands
involved in this exchange are not virgin undeveloped
properties. Rather, gold mining has taken place in the area
since 1886 and historically half a dozen mines have operated
there. We have been working on the project since 1987.
I think that significantly and most importantly for your
consideration from a social perspective this exchange will
allow Coeur to work even more actively with the Alaska Native
groups to provide needed, high-paying jobs to the area and
economic opportunity for them to participate in the project as
a result of the approval of this exchange.
We are financially very strong, with nearly $250 million in
cash and equivalents today and are perfectly capable of
assuring the committee and the public that this if this
exchange is approved, we will carry out our responsibilities in
doing the project right and working further with Cape Fox to
the benefit of all involved, including the Federal Government.
So I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and
testify in support of this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis E. Wheeler, CEO and Chairman,
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation, on S. 1354
I am Dennis E. Wheeler, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation. Coeur Alaska is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Coeur d'Alene Mines. Coeur Alaska, Inc. is pleased to
present this testimony supporting Senate Bill 1354, the ``Cape Fox Land
Entitlement Adjustment Act of 2003''.
Coeur Alaska Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Idaho based Coeur
d'Alene Mines Corporation, is headquartered in Juneau, Alaska. Coeur
owns patented lands and mining leases in Alaska. These properties
encompass the Kensington and Jualin mine sites in the Tongass National
Forest, 45 miles north of Juneau.
The historic Kensington and Jualin mines are situated within the
northern reach of the historic Juneau Goldbelt. Gold was first
discovered there in 1886 and led to the development and operation of
half a dozen mines in the area. The Kensington and Jualin mines
operated in various stages between 1886 and 1935. Since 1987, Coeur has
been working to reopen the Kensington Mine, using the best available
technology to design a mine which will be environmentally responsible
and provide high paying jobs to Southeast Alaska.
Coeur has invested over $150 million, including approximately $23
million for environmental studies, to reopen and operate the Kensington
Mine. Over 900 environmental and feasibility studies have been
completed to date. The project has previously received all its major
environmental permits, following completion of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and Supplemental EIS (SEIS). Unfortunately, depressed
gold prices prevented development of the project under that specific
operating plan. Coeur is presently working closely with the U.S. Forest
Service; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and the Alaska
Departments of Natural Resources, Environmental Conservation and Fish
and Game, on the preparation of a second SEIS to reopen and operate the
Kensington Mine in a manner that uses the best processes for mining,
milling, tailings treatment and storage, transportation, and
reclamation, and improves access and worker safety. The second SEIS is
scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2004, following an extensive
public process, including public meetings in Juneau and Haines, Alaska
(the closest communities to the mine project). These meetings were
conducted last week. The results of the meetings indicate substantial
public support for the project, and emphasize the need for new job
opportunities in a crippled Southeast Alaska economy. This SEIS is
required as a result of reconfiguring the mine plan to make it
operationally feasible under a wide range of gold prices. Importantly,
the SEIS will be completed with or without the passage of S. 1354.
Coeur owns, and controls through mining leases from other land
owners, approximately 1,720 acres of patented land at the Kensington
and adjoining Jualin Mine sites. These lands were patented over the
years under the 1872 Mining Law by various mining entities. These
private lands represent substantial holdings within the Tongass
National Forest.
The lands to be exchanged to the Cape Fox and Sealaska Corporations
under S. 1354 surround Coeur's patented lands. The lands are heavily
encumbered by 12,792 acres of unpatented mining claims held or leased
to Coeur. These National Forest lands encompassing the unpatented
claims are also classified by the Tongass Land and Resource Management
Plan (Tongass Management Plan) for mine development. Transfer of these
lands to Cape Fox and Sealaska will not affect the mining claim rights
or represent a deviation from the Tongass Management Plan. Rather, the
transfer will eliminate from the National Forest complicated mining
claim and patented land boundaries. The transfer will also greatly
simplify a currently complex and confusing management situation for the
Forest Service, saving the public considerable administrative costs.
Mine development and operations will continue to remain subject to
stringent federal and state environmental protection requirements,
including the SEIS. At the same time, by simplifying land ownership and
regulatory regimes, S. 1354 will further serve the public interest by
facilitating an environmentally and economically sound development of
the Kensington Mine. Further, the exchanges under the legislation will
provide a unique opportunity for Coeur to work cooperatively with
Alaska Native entities and their shareholders in the operation of this
enterprise.
The proposed exchange is important to Coeur's plans for development
of the Kensington project. It would allow consolidation of private land
holdings held by Coeur at Kensington, and those leased to Coeur (held
by Hyak Mining Co.) on the adjoining Jualin Mine property, with the
Native lands conveyed by the Secretary to Cape Fox and Sealaska.
Together, these lands would form a contiguous block of private land
managed and regulated for development as a mining district. By
facilitating a reduction in the number of isolated parcels, S. 1354
will not only decrease the cost and complexity of the Forest Service's
management of the area, but will simplify and provide important
certainty to operational permitting and long-range reclamation planning
for the Kensington gold project. Coeur re-emphasizes that the proposed
land exchanges between the Forest Service, Cape Fox, and Sealaska will
not short cut or eliminate key environmental requirements. For example,
although responsibility for oversight of reclamation would move to the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, reclamation standards and
obligations will not be diminished. Rather, the oversight and
regulatory responsibilities for reclamation will shift to the State of
Alaska. State regulation and oversight of the project, however, will
add a much needed level of predictability for Coeur and other investors
committing to development of this mining district.
Development of the Kensington gold project will bring significant
and diverse economic benefits to Southeastern Alaska. The project will
add high paying jobs, create additional indirect jobs, and add
additional tax base to a region of Alaska plagued by underemployment
and significant economic challenges. Coeur proudly boasts a strong
local/Native hire and training policy. Our relationship with the
Berners Bay Consortium since 1994 has further promoted local mining
vocational education, working directly with the State Department of
Labor and University of Alaska SE. The project is projected to last 15
years, including construction, startup and reclamation periods. Capital
costs for construction and sustaining capital are expected to exceed
$100 million. To date, Coeur has invested over $22 million at the site
on environmental baseline studies, permitting and environmental impact
studies.
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation is an environmentally responsible
operator, having been acknowledged by over 20 major national and
international environmental awards since 1987. Coeur is strongly
committed to sound resource development, and economic diversity in
Southeast Alaska.
Coeur urges the Committee to give favorable consideration to S.
1354.
Senator Craig. Well, Dennis, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Now let me turn to Buck--I am going to get this correct,
Buck.
Mr. Lindekugel. Lindekugel.
Senator Craig. Lindekugel.
Mr. Lindekugel. Hard on the D and that will help you.
Senator Craig. All right. Thank you very much. Conservation
Director for SEACC, Juneau, Alaska. Welcome before the
committee.
STATEMENT OF BUCK LINDEKUGEL, CONSERVATION
DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL,
JUNEAU, AK
Mr. Lindekugel. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Murkowski. My name is Buck Lindekugel and I am the conservation
director for SEACC, and I want to thank the committee for
inviting SEACC to testify today at this hearing.
Founded in 1970, SEACC is a grassroots coalition of
volunteer citizen groups throughout southeast Alaska, 18 groups
and 14 southeast communities from Ketchikan to Yakutat. SEACC
is dedicated to preserving of southeast Alaska's unsurpassed
natural environment while providing for balanced, sustainable
uses of our natural resources.
SEACC and a broad range of diverse local interests,
including building contractors, hunters, fishermen, recreation
business owners, and others who love Berners Bay strongly
oppose this legislation. For example, here is a stack of
letters, letters to Senator Murkowski, letters to the
newspaper, petitions signed by hundreds of citizens in the
region opposing this bill. With your permission, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to introduce these letters and petitions into this
hearing record.
Senator Craig. We will file them for the record. Thank you.
Mr. Lindekugel. Coeur Alaska has stated it does not need
this exchange to develop the Kensington gold mine. If Coeur's
proposed mine is in fact developed, the right way to manage it
is to keep the lands proposed for exchange in public ownership.
This is the best way for the Forest Service to minimize or
avoid adverse effects to the wildland character of the adjacent
land and resources that Congress chose to protect in perpetuity
as the Berners Bay legislated LUD II. Therefore, leaving these
public lands in public ownership is the best way for the
subcommittee to protect the broader public interest and
continued public access and use of Berners Bay's outstanding
resources.
In contrast, authorizing this exchange would trade
valuable, nearby, and easily accessible lands for isolated
private clear-cuts and subsurface rights of dubious value,
hundreds of miles away from Juneau. It would harm lands
culturally and spiritually important to the original settlers
of Juneau, the Auk Kwaan, threaten the public's existing access
and use of these wildlands for hunting, fishing, and
recreation, frustrate the finality of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act and invite additional land selection conflicts
across Alaska, and rely on an appraisal process that is
appropriate for assessing the value of lands for logging and
mining, but leaves no way of quantifying the ecological,
cultural, and recreational values, the true heart of Berners
Bay.
Like so many deals in life, there are good deals and there
are bad deals. We are counting on you Senators to screen out
the bad deals like this proposed exchange and stop this bill in
its tracks. Doing so will ensure that future generations enjoy
the same opportunities and uses of Berners Bay that we now
enjoy. We believe the best way for the subcommittee to judge
whether this exchange is really in the public's interest is to
come to Juneau, visit Berners Bay, and hear directly from local
residents at a formal subcommittee hearing in Juneau.
We appreciate the Senator coming last fall to Juneau to
attend a couple-of-hour public meeting where she heard and saw
a lot of concern from local residents. Unfortunately, that
record was not formalized and is not before the committee
before it is making this decision to move this bill forward.
An example of a good deal. Please consider S. 1778, the
city of Craig's proposed land purchase agreement with the
Forest Service. For the record, SEACC supports this bill
because it does not target a high value, old growth habitat.
The land is within the city's municipal boundaries that have
been previously industrialized. These lands are important for
the city's economic diversification and will permit much-needed
harbor expansion, downtown parking, and increases in necessary
sales and property tax revenues.
With the chair's permission, I submit the following
testimony on behalf of SEACC in support of S. 1778.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Mr. Lindekugel. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindekugel follow:]
Prepared Statement of Buck Lindekugel, Conservation Director, Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council, Juneau, AK, on S. 1354*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A follow-up letter from Southeast Alaska Conservation Council can
be found in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Buck Lindekugel and I am the Conservation Director for
the Southeast--Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC). The following
statement is submitted on behalf of SEACC. SEACC respectfully requests
that this written statement and accompanying materials be entered into
the official record of this Subcommittee hearing.
Founded in 1970, SEACC is a grassroots coalition of 18 volunteer,
non-profit conservation groups made up of local citizens in 14
Southeast Alaska communities that stretch from Ketchikan to Yakutat.
SEACC's individual members include commercial fishermen, Alaska
Natives, small timber operators, hunters and guides, and Alaskans from
all walks of life. SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of
Southeast Alaska's unsurpassed natural environment while providing for
balanced, sustainable uses of our region's resources.
We have submitted testimony twice before on this ill-conceived and
shortsighted bill. On August 6, 2003, we submitted written testimony at
the Subcommittee's field hearing in--Anchorage, Alaska. SEACC opposed
an identical version of this bill, S. 2222, in our testimony before
this Subcommittee on June 18, 2002. Most recently, we joined hundreds
of residents from Juneau at a public meeting, held in Juneau by Senator
Murkowski on September 20, 2003, where they expressed their strong
opposition to this bill. The simple reason-for this strong outpouring
of public sentiment at the public meeting is the high cultural,
ecological, economic, and recreational values of Berners Bay to
residents of Juneau and Upper Lynn Canal. While we thank Senator
Murkowski for taking the time to come to Juneau and listen to the
heartfelt opinions of her constituents most directly affected by this
proposal, we are extremely disappointed that she chose not to drop this
bill from further consideration.
For all the residents of Juneau and Upper Lynn Canal who hold the
spectacular Berners Bay dear, we again urge the Senator and this
Subcommittee to act in the public's interest and stop this bill in its
tracks. Any activities allowed in Berners Bay must be designed and
conducted in a manner that sustains and safeguards this spectacular
watershed's unsurpassed abundance and diversity of renewable living
resources, along with its capacity to continue to provide food, income,
and enjoyment to local residents and visitors. All of us believe it is
our responsibility to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same
opportunities and uses of Berners Bay's incredible riches that we now
enjoy.
Please consider what this bill is really about:
It is about giving away lands that belong to all of us.
High-value, forested wildlands. To private corporations. Mostly
in exchange for clearcuts, over 200 miles away.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Exhibit 1: Maps and analysis of the public and private
lands proposed for exchange in S. 1354 (Sept. 12, 2003).
NOTE: Exhibits 1-6 have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is about giving away sacred ancestral burial grounds and
old village sites of the Auk Kwaan tribe, the original settlers
of Juneau.
It is about shutting the public out of lands which are very
important for hunting, commercial and sport fishing, tourism,
subsistence, and recreation.
It is about speeding up development of a mine by eliminating
the Forest Service's oversight of mining operations and
reclamation. A mine which would provide jobs for about 12
years, yet invoke environmental damage for decades to come. A
mine operated by Coeur Alaska, a corporation on the edge of
financial insolvency as recently as April 2002.
Interestingly enough, while this land exchange may
facilitate mine development, the mine could be developed
without it. Coeur Alaska's Senior Vice President Rick Richins
said so himself: ``the land we control through patented and
unpatented mining claims could be developed a this time without
the Cape Fox land exchange.'' \2\ Coeur Alaska has possessed
all necessary permits since 1998. They don't need this land
exchange, they need a higher price of gold. It is only the
people of Juneau and Upper Lynn Canal who will lose if these
lands are privatized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Exhibit 2: What do you Think?, Juneau Empire, (Aug. 17,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is about threatening the integrity of an incredibly
productive and ecologically significant bay. That same mining
corporation proposes to cross Berners Bay in large vessels
several times daily and dump its wastes in a pristine lake
draining into the bay. These activities could severely impact
the rich eulachon and herring fisheries, salmon, bald eagles,
Thayer's gulls, seals, Steller sea lions, and humpback whales.
Lastly, it is about an ``equal value exchange'' that, sadly,
is not equal. The appraisal process, which would take place
after bill passage, will look at the ``highest and best use''
of the land at fair market value. Appropriate to assessing the
value of lands for logging and mining, this method leaves no
way of quantifying the ecological, cultural, subsistence, and
recreational values--the true heart of Berners Bay.
Sealaska Corporation may explain to you its reasons for wanting
Congress to bless this special interest legislation, but what is it
really about? We believe there is far more behind Sealaska's support
for this bill than meets the eye. For the record, SEACC acknowledges
that Sealaska has remaining rights and entitlements to additional
Tongass lands, from lands specifically withdrawn by Congress for that
purpose in the 1972 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Yet,
this proposed exchange clearly looks like some kind of bonus, above and
beyond Sealaska's land entitlement under ANCSA. Furthermore,
correspondence from Sealaska suggests that its real interest in this
proposed exchange may not be the land it would receive in the proposed
exchange but possibly the land it hopes to get if it earns Coeur
Alaska's support for reopening this historic land settlement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Exhibit 3: Letter from Richard P. Harris, Sealaska
Corporation Executive Vice President to Charles Paddock, Haines
Enrollees Incorporated (July 31, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That letter from Sealaska is troubling. SEACC and many other
Alaskans have been on record for years opposing efforts to reopen ANCSA
by establishing new, for-profit Native Corporations in Southeast
Alaska. Such a step will almost certainly open a Pandora's box of
additional land claims in Alaska, a never-ending flood of potential
public land and timber grabs, intertwined with timber giveaways,
leading to extensive clearcutting of forests now part of a public trust
for all Americans: the Tongass National Forest.
It is simply wrong to state that some Southeast Alaska communities
had been ``inadvertently and wrongly denied'' corporation status in
ANCSA.\4\ This erroneous claim, made in the past by then-Senator Frank
Murkowski, is unsupported by the facts. The Congressionally mandated
study that reviewed this issue did not make a finding that Congress had
inadvertently omitted the study villages from land benefits, and it did
not conclude that Congress must now award them land.\5\ We recognize
that the Native people who are asking for these land benefits have
histories and traditions in this region. We are sensitive to their
concerns, but we must vigorously oppose proposals that, as a result,
attack the Tongass and sacrifice a sustainable future for the entire
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 143 CONG. REC. S6502 (daily ed. June 26, 1997) (statement of
Senator Murkowski introducing S. 967, Technical Amendments to ANCSA and
ANILCA).
\5\ See Letter from Linda Leask, University of Alaska's Institute
of Social and Economic Research to Buck Lindekugel, SEACC (May 29,
1996) (this letter, and the earlier letter referenced in it, are
attached as Exhibit 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous attempts by the Alaska Delegation to reopen ANCSA to
establish new Native corporations and grant them lands from the Tongass
resulted in strenuous objections from a broad range of sportsmen,
business, and community interests.\6\ It must be noted that each time
such a initiative has been launched in Congress, it has gone nowhere.
If real problems with ANCSA emerge, they must be resolved by soliciting
public input from all concerned Alaskans, respecting all forest users,
and maintaining the integrity of the Tongass National Forest and other
federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., Letter from Rod Arno, Alaska Outdoor Council to The
Honorable Senator Burns, Co-Chairman, Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus
(Feb. 27, 1998) (stating opposition to H.R. 2812 and S. 967 (Section
8)). Individually addressed letters were sent by AOC to the over 300
members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest caucus in
Congress. See also Congressional Drop from Alaska Outdoor Council's,
Alaska's Sportsmen are United in Their Opposition to H.R. 2812. Both
the letter and fact sheet are submitted with our testimony as Exhibit
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way to understand why so many Juneau residents object to
this bill is in their own words.\7\ The following quotations are taken
from hundreds of letters opposing this bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Exhibit 6: a list of Letters, News Articles, and Citizen
Petitions Opposing Cape Fox Land Exchange, submitted by local citizens
from April 30, 2002 through March 3, 2004.
``The fact is, public lands that remain public are not
locked up--they are locked open. Open to the public. Open to
you and me. No land is more `locked up' than private land. If
anyone is trying to lock up (and destroy) Alaska, it's the
folks who want to privatize everything.''
``Spirit Mountain, also known as Lions Head Mountain, is
important to the culture of the Tlingit of the past, the
Tlingit of the present, and the Tlingit of the future. Please
do not give away our land. It is the only thing we have left.''
``During our stay at the Berners Bay cabin, people in a
dozen different boats plied the glacial rivers in search of
moose. In the bay, boaters pulled crab pots and trolled for
coho salmon. Thousands of people enjoy this amazing place each
year, whether from the state ferry, an air boat, a kayak, or a
cabin.''
The value of our fishery that depends on healthy salmon runs
exceeds by far the short term life of this mine.''
``We can eat fish, but we can't eat timber or gold.''
``. . . the herring were so thick that I could reach under
my kayak and actually grab them! Hundreds of eagles and
thousands of gulls were feeding on them--I could see the
herring still wiggling as the gulls swallowed them!''
``I hunt, fish, and trap in Berners Bay, and I've been doing
it since 1970. I have a cabin up there in the bay itself. I'm
very disappointed that Sen. Murkowski wants to trade land
that's already been logged for premium land that hasn't.''
``To trade 12,000 acres of national forest land at the edge
of this critical habitat area for 3,000 acres of clearcuts is
not only a disgrace to the environment, it's an insult to
American taxpayers.''
Again, we urge the Subcommittee to stop S. 1354 in its tracks.
Trades, such as proposed in S. 1354, should not be mandated by Congress
but enacted through existing administrative mechanisms and based upon
the presumption that the greater public good will be served.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this legislation.
Senator Craig. Well, Buck, thank you very much. Now let us
turn to Marilyn Blair, president of the Cape Fox Corporation of
Ketchikan. Marilyn, welcome before the committee.
STATEMENT OF MARILYN BLAIR, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CAPE
FOX CORPORATION, KETCHIKAN, AK
Ms. Blair. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, thank you for
the opportunity to finally be here to testify on S. 1354. My
name is Marilyn Blair and I am president of Cape Fox
Corporation, the native corporation for the Village of Saxman,
and today we need your help.
Unlike other village corporations, Cape Fox has faced
unique legal and geographical challenges that have impaired our
economic success. No other village corporation in the State has
had so much land denied from their original mandated selection
area. As a result of these restrictions, only the mountainous
northeast corner of Cape Fox's core township, which is of no
economic value, was available for selection. We were compelled
to select acres of marginal land, which had already been
logged, and we were forced to forego other economic
opportunities that would have been available had we been
treated like everyone else.
The Village of Saxman has 431 residents and the
unemployment rate is over 25 percent. Job creation is critical
to the economic survival of our families. Cape Fox Corporation
is instrumental in developing jobs for our village and these
past inequities have denied Cape Fox the capital it so
desperately requires to promote economic development. Now, when
it seems a common sense solution has finally been developed for
us, we are being accused of not being able to be good stewards
of the land that our people have managed for thousands of
years.
These accusations are being made by people who, when they
leave this room, will pretend to care about our people, our
culture, and our lands, but they refuse to let us help
ourselves. We are not cultural museum pieces; we are families
struggling to earn a living, but we will become museum pieces
if you do not let us earn a living off of our lands.
This solution is fair. It has taken years to get to this
point. We have listened to all the stakeholders and worked hard
to incorporate their concerns into the legislation. In fact, I
wonder if any other private landowner in this room would be so
accommodating with their own back yards.
Here is really what this legislation is all about and why
it is fair to all concerned.
We have a responsible economic partner in Coeur Alaska.
They have received 19 major national and international
environmental awards since 1987.
This is a mining district and has been for well over 100
years since gold was first discovered in 1886. This land
exchange is not going to change that fact. It will continue to
be a mining district.
This project makes economic sense for the whole area. Our
fishing industry is gone. Our timber industry is gone, but this
project will add 225 direct high-paying jobs for our people and
other people in the area at a payroll cost of $16 million. It
will also create up to 180 indirect jobs and add an additional
tax base. Construction alone will inject over $150 million into
the economy. Coeur has already invested $22 million at the site
on environmental studies and permitting.
Cape Fox has long established a reputation for responsible
private lands management and has always worked with public
agencies to provide access when it made sense. In fact, all of
our land in the Ketchikan area is open for recreational use.
This legislation provides reasonable access through buffers and
easements.
This exchange does not include any land within the Berners
Bay LUD II recreational area. Concerns about massive clear-
cutting near Berners Bay are totally unfounded. This is
emotional manipulation and nothing more. There is very little
commercial timber on the land to be exchanged. This legislation
even protects the viewshed.
This is an equal value exchange. No manipulation of the
numbers by opponents to this legislation will change that. We
will give value for value received. In doing so, we will be
able to earn an economic return from our lands and the Forest
Service will get lands and recreational easements that they
think are important for their management of the Tongass.
You have the culmination of years of hard work in front of
you. It is fair. It is reasonable, and it makes sense. Nobody
is getting something for nothing. We are not asking for a
handout. We are asking you to let us help ourselves create a
better life for our families and that is all.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Well, Ms. Blair, thank you very much for
that testimony. That is very direct and straightforward and we
appreciate that always.
Let me turn to my colleague now, Lisa Murkowski, for
additional questions of the panelists.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
make clear for the record, Mr. Lindekugel mentioned the
hearings that we held in Juneau. We had a field hearing, if you
will recall, Mr. Chairman, in August in Anchorage and then
several months later went down to Juneau to take additional
testimony, but it was not part of that actual field hearing. It
had been my understanding that we had already requested that
all the comments that we received at that Juneau hearing be
included as part of the committee record. Apparently that
request has not yet been made or if so, it has not been made
available. But I would like to make it clear that it was
clearly our intention that that be included.
Senator Craig. We will include all of that testimony given
at that time in this hearing's record, so it will be made
available for all Senators.
Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
A couple questions first of you, Mr. Wheeler. Welcome and
thank you, and I appreciate the comments that you made about
Coeur's environmental record. We feel that we do a lot of
things well in the State of Alaska and we want to encourage all
those companies that do things well to continue with us.
Can you explain to the committee the status currently of
the Kensington Mine permitting program? Where are we right now
in the process?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator. It is important to make the
point that the Kensington mining project has already been
completely permitted and has received a full environmental
impact statement approval. We are, however, and will soon
complete a second SEIS for the project because we too have been
listening to all segments of the public, and we have actually
reconfigured the project by relocating most of the surface
facilities on the other side of the Lynn Canal, out of view,
and it is going to make the project smaller, but better, and
Coeur will benefit economically as well.
I think those are really the highlights. We are in the
final stages. The draft NPDS permit has been issued, and I
think the Forest Service has put out for public comment the
supplemental EIS and we expect that process will be completed
soon.
Senator Murkowski. One of the concerns that has been raised
is the plans that Kensington has for the tailings, the tailings
management at the site. Can you explain what you are planning
to do with that and how you will handle any environmental
issues with the tailings?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I can. In response to public comment and
agency involvement, the initial project, which has been
permitted involved a dry tailings facility that would have
taken several acres of wetlands to put in place even though it
was fully permitted.
We subsequently looked at submarine tailings disposal,
which technologically would have been a preferred alternative,
but we were concerned about ocean dumping as not being an
appropriate method as far as the public was concerned.
So what we have done now is, in relocating the project, we
have taken a small area known as Slate Lake. This has been
supported by the fishing groups, the community groups, other
than the testimony here that you have heard, and because it is
not a salmon fishery, there are not prolific numbers of fish
there. And actually in our reclamation of the Slate Lake's
project, following the mining itself, we will have created a
much more favorable habitat for future fish populations that
Coeur will provide there. So in terms of the small area
utilized for tailing disposal now--and Slate Lake is on the
other side of the mountain--we will end up and the public will
end up with a far better fishery than currently exists there.
Senator Murkowski. So you are actually enhancing.
Mr. Wheeler. We are definitely going to enhance the
environs. And as the Senator well knows, this area is
recognized for mining under the Federal Tongass Forest
Management Plan.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Ms. Blair, the people with the Cape Fox Corporation have
been waiting a long time for this issue to be resolved, for
them to get the lands that were promised them under the Alaska
Native Lands Claims Settlement Act. What happens if this bill,
if this legislation, does not become law? Where are you then?
Ms. Blair. Well, we will look for other ways to resolve the
inequities that we have suffered due to that 6-mile limit. This
is just one way to partially help Cape Fox resolve what we have
suffered because of the 6-mile limit.
Senator Murkowski. A couple comments have been made in
reference to Cape Fox's intention of clear-cutting, and the
issue of harvesting of the timber keeps being brought up. At
the hearing that we held in Anchorage, at the testimony that we
took in Juneau, my recollection was that the witnesses for Cape
Fox indicated that they really had no intention of harvesting
timber in this area, that it was not really marketable timber.
But it was again suggested by Mr. Lindekugel that in fact what
we may see, if this exchange takes place, is isolated private
clear-cuts. Can you, once again for the record, indicate what
Cape Fox's intention is?
Ms. Blair. Cape Fox has no intention of clear-cutting any
lands that would be traded in the Berners Bay area. Where they
are getting that information is beyond me, but it is not from
Cape Fox. They have never once approached us or asked us
anything about that. It is false. We will not clear-cut any
land there.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
Last, Mr. Lindekugel, I appreciate your comments on the
record, your support of the Craig exchange. I thank you for
that.
I did want to get clear again, because we seem to be going
back and forth on whether or not we are going to be seeing
these extensive clear-cuts. It has certainly been our
intention, as we have been dealing with the parties, that Cape
Fox is making the statements that they are making with genuine
assertions, not making a claim that we are not going to do
something today and then next week we are going to change our
mind. So it is important to make that clear.
One of the things that we are also including, as we are
drafting these amendments, is a provision that would allow for
a viewshed protection. I guess what I would ask you is, as we
are developing these, if SEACC, yourself or representatives
from SEACC would be willing to work with my office as we draft
this language to address some of the concerns that you have
raised.
You have indicated that your preference is to basically
kill the bill. I believe, otherwise I would not be going
forward with this, that we can have the development of the
mine, we can allow for the redress for Cape Fox, and we can
allow for the continued recreational opportunities by those who
use Berners Bay with the appropriate steps. I think that
through the amendments I am looking at, we can get there, and I
would ask you if you would help us in coming up with that
amendment language.
Mr. Lindekugel. Thank you, Senator. We would be happy to
review the language and get back to you as quickly as possible.
Last session the subcommittee adopted some amendatory
language to the bill. We do not think those amendments improved
the bill too much. The bottom line is the bill still conveys a
huge chunk of public lands that are valued for recreation,
hunting, and fishing to private corporations for lands that are
of little value for those uses.
If I could just point your attention to this picture to the
side, that is a picture of Slate Cove. Where the road comes
down here is where they intend to build the marine facility. So
this area here would be significantly developed, and that
assumes that that is the only development that occurs on that.
That will be clear-cut in order to build that facility. So I do
not think SEACC has been out of line with regard to that. The
plans that folks have said they were going to do are going to
involve cutting trees, clearing the land, and blocking public
access to those lands.
The thing is once this bill becomes law and those lands
become private, neither this subcommittee nor concerned
residents of Juneau are going to be able to influence how those
lands are managed. Right now while they are public lands, we
have an opportunity to comment on how those lands are managed
and to exercise our rights as citizens to pursue the uses that
we think are appropriate.
As Mr. Wheeler commented, the Forest Service has just
complete the comment period on the supplemental draft
environmental impact statement regarding modifications to the
Cape Fox land exchange. Those modifications propose dumping 7.8
million tons of mine waste into lower Slate Lake.
Mr. Wheeler mentioned the 900 studies that Coeur has
prepared. We looked at the administrative record for this that
the Forest Service has developed for this project to this date
and, unfortunately, sir, there were not 900 studies. We would
like to see those studies. We think that the information the
Forest Service used to make a decision needs to be high
quality, peer-reviewed, scientific data that can withstand
close scrutiny.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. A comment was made--again, I
want to just make a clarification for the record. I think you
suggested that you had reviewed some amendments that we had
adopted with regard to this legislation, and we have not
formally made any amendments to the legislation.
Mr. Lindekugel. A point of clarification, Senator. The
amendments I referred to were to S. 2222 in the 107th Congress.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Mr. Lindekugel. And addressed an equal value exchange. And
we had problems with those amendments.
Senator Murkowski. That is not mine.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Senator.
Buck, in listening to your testimony, I am trying to
determine the concern you have as it relates to the Cape Fox
bill. I am wondering, are you more upset with the aspect that
it might be mined or are you upset with the land conveyance
that would go to the Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska?
Mr. Lindekugel. We are concerned about maintaining the
incredible productivity of Berners Bay for future generations.
The same values and uses that we enjoy we are hoping to
maintain and pass on to future generations, and we are
concerned that this legislation, along with the most recent
proposal by Coeur for their mine, is inconsistent with our
vision for how this special place should be managed for the
long-term benefit of all Americans.
As Mr. Wheeler mentioned, they have a permitted project.
That project is outside of the larger Berners Bay watershed and
would not directly affect Berners Bay if developed. They have
not developed it primarily because the low price of gold in the
past few years made it uneconomical.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, if I might just say a couple of
comments.
Senator Craig. Mr. Wheeler, yes.
Mr. Wheeler. We have never been able to get the support
from SEACC and Mr. Lindekugel for this project regardless of
how it was configured.
And the suggestions about clear-cutting any area for our
facilities I would just like the record to show, as the
Senators know, there are certain rights for the use of timber
on unpatented and patented mining claims that do accrue to a
holder like Coeur. I will say we have no intention of clear-
cutting this area at all. We are not in the logging business.
There have been a myriad of public comments with regard to
the numerous studies that have been done with regard to this
project. To my knowledge, we have never had a request from Mr.
Lindekugel or his group to come in and look at any information
that has been made available anytime anybody has requested it.
So with that, I would like to just conclude by thanking you
for the opportunity to set some of the record straight here as
to what I have heard.
Senator Craig. Well, Dennis, is it not reasonable to
assume, though, that if you are going to build a docking
facility, there may be some trees cut down for the purpose of
facilitating a construction site?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely that would likely have to occur.
Senator Craig. My guess is that if you were going to build
a building and a site, you would clear that immediate area.
Mr. Wheeler. Exactly, Senator, but not in the context of
clear-cutting.
Senator Craig. Well, that is what I am trying to establish
for the record. Buck, you have said they are going to clear-cut
that immediate area. Are you defining the clearing of an area
for the purpose of the construction of a loading facility a
clear-cut?
Mr. Lindekugel. Regardless of how the land is managed after
it is cut, if you clear all the trees from a large block of
land, that is a clear-cut, even age management. That is how I
was using the term.
Senator Craig. Dennis, what would be the approximate size
or acreage involved in the establishment of a transfer
facility?
Mr. Wheeler. I do not have that exact acreage, Senator. We
can provide it to you. It is not a large portion of the land in
question here.
Senator Craig. Well, obviously, we can all play semantics.
Mr. Wheeler. Exactly.
Senator Craig. I know what a clear-cut is and I know what
the Federal law calls a clear-cut, and I know that when you
clear an area for the purpose of the construction of a
facility, that is not termed a clear-cut by anybody's
definition. Now, you may wish to call it that, Buck, and that
is your obvious privilege to do so. But I have been involved in
overseeing the forest products industry for a long time, and I
know what a clear-cut is by definition both in size and scope
and watershed shape and all of that. So we will leave it at
that.
But it is my concern, I guess, in working with Alaskans for
nearly 28 years that we have worked to try to establish an
economy in that State which will sustain a population, and in a
State where you have about 88 percent or greater public lands,
that is very difficult, beyond the hunting and the fishing, to
establish anything that relates to resource development.
Has your organization ever supported mining in the State of
Alaska? Do you support active mining in any form?
Mr. Lindekugel. We have not supported a specific mining
project in southeast Alaska. That does not mean that we do
not--we have not taken a ``we are against mining, all
mining''--we have not taken a position that we are against all
logging. We have supported fishing. We have opposed farm fish.
We are doing the best we can, consistent with our objectives,
to further long-term interests of the region.
Senator Craig. But it is safe to assume that you have not
actively or openly supported any specific mining project to
date.
Mr. Lindekugel. Correct.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
As it relates to the Alaska Claims Settlement Act, which
was a legitimate and responsible way to Native Alaskans certain
of the lands which rightfully they should claim, and when it
comes to Cape Fox and the restrictive character that they have
been put to as a result of certain types of land designation,
has your organization ever proposed alternatives in land
exchange so that the Cape Fox Corporation could, in fact,
effectively identify what would be rightfully theirs under the
Alaska Native Claims Act?
Mr. Lindekugel. Thank you, Senator. Under the law, we were
not in a position to do that. However, we have supported Cape
Fox's proposal to develop a hydropower facility at Mahoney
Lake, which is in their selections near Ketchikan. They were
going to sell that power to the city of Ketchikan.
Unfortunately, that effort was stymied by the efforts of
Senator Murkowski's father and the other delegation members in
halting Cape Fox's efforts to sell that power to Ketchikan in
order to build an intertie connection, a corridor through
Tongass wildlands, that at this point they lacked the money to
actually build the infrastructure to support the intertie
connection.
Cape Fox had selected that land. It was within their
selection rights. They had selected it for the purposes of
hydropower development, and they were frustrated in carrying
out that intent. We supported that intent. However, because we
did that, does not mean that we are going to support these
lands in this location. It is a different place.
We would be happy to try to identify lands that would be
more appropriate, closer to the Village of Saxman, closer for
their workers to access. If that was the interest of the
committee and Senator Murkowski, we would try to do that.
For your information, we understand there is a timber sale
that the Forest Service put out for public notice a short time
ago. I have not had a chance to look at it very closely, but it
appears to be national forest lands that are surrounded by
lands that are owned by Cape Fox, and they might be eligible
lands for replacing or achieving the objectives of this
legislation without putting at risk the valuable public lands
at Berners Bay.
So we are happy to work with the Senator and you, Mr.
Chairman, as you see fit.
Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate those comments because I
know that under the Alaska Native Claims Act, there were
limitations as it relates to distance and location and all of
that. I guess my frustration is that when you oppose one
exchange it would seem reasonable, if you agree with the basis
of the law itself--and you may or may not--that you at least
work to facilitate others that are legitimate and within those
limitations.
Mr. Lindekugel. That is it, Mr. Chairman. We do not believe
this exchange is within the limitations of ANCSA. It is added.
It is trying to fix a problem. We understand their problem. We
understand they had an opportunity to address that problem, and
they have been frustrated in doing that. In our opinion, we do
not believe this bill is about entitlements under ANCSA. We
think it is above and beyond that.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Ms. Blair, I heard something different from you. Do you
have anything you wish to add to that?
Ms. Blair. Thank you. I do not believe that we needed their
input or their help in the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric facility.
It is nice to know that they supported it, but it is not
anything that was required of Cape Fox to get their support.
Also, as far as the inequities that we have been suffering
because of that 6-mile, Cape Fox and its staff and the board of
directors are perfectly capable of finding other ways, aside
from this one, without the help of SEACC. And we would like to
be free to always do that on our own and try and find some
other resolution. Cape Fox is a very responsible landowner.
I agree with your--the clear-cutting. Any piece of land, if
you want to build a house on it and there are trees on it, you
are going to have cut down trees to build that house. And that
is all this is. We would not cut any more trees than are
necessary for roads or the development of the facilities. It is
development. That is all it is.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Dennis, a couple of questions of you. One of them has been
addressed in your comments. I am looking at an alert from SEACC
here that talks about how the Coeur d'Alene Corporation would
use Slate Lake--or turn it, I think it says, into a mine's
tailing dump. The mine is already--and I am quoting--permitted
to do dry tailings storage, but the corporation wants to cut
the cost by dumping tailings into the lake instead.
Was this part of the original EIS or the supplemental EIS
on the Kensington Mine proposal?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, it is included within the supplemental
EIS.
Senator Craig. If this conveyance comes to pass and you
want to use this site as a tailings site, would you not have to
meet all of the State of Alaska standards, as it relates to
site and site development?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. This exchange will have no impact
whatsoever in terms of removing the Federal and State
compliance that we will have to meet on all of the
environmental laws and regulations that are in place. It has no
impact on them whatsoever.
Senator Craig. And I think Buck mentioned in passing, at
least in part, SEACC's concern about whether or not the Coeur
d'Alene Mining Corporation might get into financial trouble.
With the price of gold where it is today, what is the likely
prospect of that expression?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, our estimated cost of the project today
is $80 million, Senator. I commented that we had over $250
million in the bank today. We are one of the strongest balance
sheet companies in the precious metals sector today, and there
are no concerns about our ability to meet our obligations here.
Senator Craig. I appreciate that.
Well, I thank you all very much for your testimony. I know
that these are always controversial issues. They are whether
they are in Alaska or in my State of Idaho. I have not at all
been shy in being supportive of mining, but I have also been
supportive of mining playing by all of the rules and that the
rules comply with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and
all of those very important environmental standards. In Alaska,
with the unique fisheries and the marvelous fisheries that it
has, you have an additional burden, but I have also seen it
done very, very successfully in ways that do not damage
fisheries and do add the kind of economies necessary to a State
to afford a population base.
So we will review these things with due caution, to make
sure that the record is complete before the committee makes the
appropriate decision in relation to these conveyances because I
must tell you that when it comes to public lands, we take these
matters seriously.
But I am also one who has not at all been bashful about
recognizing a balanced use of our public lands, and I do
believe that mining plays a role, as does logging. We now know
better how to do it than we have ever done it before to assure
water quality and that we sustain habitats in a way that do not
damage them or impair them in any form, or at least in a
substantial way that is not recoverable in appropriate fashion.
With that, I thank you all. The record for the committee
will stay open for 10 days.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Before we close, I just want to make an
observation here. In listening to the testimony from Mr.
Wheeler about this mining project that we anticipate will be a
huge economic boon to the Juneau area in terms of jobs, in
terms of revenues, in terms of a boon to the Cape Fox
Corporation and in settling an outstanding issue of so many
years and resolving that and with the amendments that I have
proposed that would allow for limited access from the water's
edge up to a certain portion so that those people that are
kayaking in the bay have that opportunity to continue the
recreation, additional provisions as they relate to some kind
of a viewshed, I really feel that this legislation can work to
the benefit of so many, not only the economy, not only the
recreational users in the area, but the folks down in the
Saxman area that have been waiting for resolution for a long
time. So I would like to think that we can work this so that
all interests are served.
And I appreciate the chairman's support of this very
important issue. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you for your leadership,
Senator.
Mr. Lindekugel. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Mr. Lindekugel. If I may just add one thing to Senator
Murkowski. The Forest Service just extended yesterday or 2 days
ago the comment period on the supplemental draft EIS for the
Kensington project. It might be appropriate to ask the Forest
Service. They have the technology, the information base to
evaluate the viewsheds and other potential ways of mitigating
the impacts from this exchange if it does go forward. I would
just urge that that is an opportunity the Senator may wish to
explore.
Senator Craig. I appreciate that advice and it is good
advice. When we are dealing with these kinds of resources on
public lands, we always include the managing agency of the land
at the time of the exchange and their comments and
recommendations as it relates to these kinds of activities.
That is an appropriate suggestion. Thank you.
And we thank you all very much for your testimony.
The subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation,
Coeur d'Alene, ID, April 26, 2004.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: With regard to the questions raised in your
letter of March 31, 2004, please find attached a courtesy copy of our
responses which were previously provided to Senator Murkowski. If you
have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact Mr. Wheeler or myself.
Best regards,
Heather R. Turner,
Manager, Public, Community & Governmental Relations.
[Enclosure.]
Question 1. What is the status of the Kensington mine permitting
program, and will the land exchange in any way affect this program?
Answer. All State permits have been submitted, the Forest Service
is currently developing responses to all comments on the DSEIS. The EPA
has released the Preliminary DNPDES permit for government to government
review. Federal, state and local permitting requirements will be
completed prior to enactment of the land exchange, and conveyance of
the lands, since an appraisal must be completed to ensure that an equal
value exchange can be consummated. This is required by S. 1354. This is
the third EIS that has been performed on the project, and approximately
900 studies and $25 million have been spent through a variety of
environmental studies.
Question 2. If S. 1354 is passed in 2004, will Coeur complete the
EIS and permitting given the fact the USFS will not be the landowner?
Answer. The Clean Water Act requires that an EIS is prepared for a
``new source.'' The Kensington mine project is a new source. Therefore,
an EIS would be required for the project, regardless of whether or not
the land exchange legislation is passed. Having said this, it is
important to note that Coeur has developed a schedule to place
Kensington into production in early 2006. Delays to this schedule would
be detrimental to the long-term strategy of the company and our
shareholders. We have already experienced permitting delays that could
jeopardize the viability of the project.
Question 3. Does Coeur intend to log the area for the purpose of
constructing mining and processing facilities?
Answer. Yes, Coeur will be required to remove timber in those areas
impacted by the construction of mine facilities. These include: the
processing facilities (located on private land--patented mining claims,
the tailings pipeline (located on private and federal land), and the
tailings storage facility (located on private land). The new Coeur
proposal would reduce the size of the tailings storage facility and
necessary borrow areas from about 200 acres to 20 acres. The operating
plan contemplates minimum tree clearing, stream buffers, and visual
screening. The tailings management facility cannot be seen from Berners
Bay or Lynn Canal.
Question 4. Explain your plan for tailing management at the site
(this is a SEACC claim of ``dumping toxic tailings into pristine
lake''?
Answer. Coeur plans to place inert (non-toxic) tailings into Slate
Lake under a 404 Permit issued by the Corps of Engineers. The discharge
from this facility will be monitored through a 402 Permit, issued by
the RPA. This preferred alternative results in leg wetland disturbance
than the currently permitted alternative, and provides for a tailings
disposal method that meets applicable water quality standards, For
clarification, the tailings from the Kensington project have less metal
content than the sediments that currently exist in Slate Lake. In its
current state, Slate Lake is not a high quality fishery. The lake
supports a small Dolly Varden fishery. Approximately 11 acres within
the 20-acre lake are considered ``anoxic.'' This means that low
dissolved oxygen levels prevent benthic organisms and fish from living
in the ``zone.'' Light does not penetrate into this zone. The Coeur
lake restoration plan increases the size of the lake to 56 acres. The
bottom contours of the lake, after tailings placement, create new
habitat in that sunlight penetrates to a depth that supports aquatic
habitat. New spawning areas for Dolly Varden will be created around the
fringes of the larger lake, and new wetlands habitat will be created
for wildlife. Coeur also intends to trap and relocate most of the Dolly
Varden fishery, prior to placing tailings in the lake. Once operations
cease, a new population of fish will be introduced to the lake. Public
access will also be provided for recreation and fishing, once the
mining operation has ceased.
Question 5. Does Coeur intend to log the site, and sell timber
commercially?
Answer. No. USFS regulations (current) do not allow Coeur to log
and sell timber commercially, as a result of approval of the Plan of
Operations, EIS, and Record of Decision. If the land exchange
legislation is enacted, Sealaska and Cape Fox will own the surface
rights and commercial timber values. Both corporations have publicly
stated they do not intend to log the area. Sealaska has indicated they
plan to develop a portion of the exchange lands as a cultural
management site. Both corporations would lease or rent the affected
mining area (less than 200 acres) to Coeur, in order to conduct the
mining operation. The post-mining reclamation plan described earlier
highlights Coeur's intentions to rehabilitate the land.
Question 6. Does Coeur have a local hire policy?
Answer. Coeur maintains a local and native hire and training
preference. They have and will continue to provide mining vocational
training and education courses, working with the Berners Bay
Consortium, University of Alaska, and Alaska Department of Labor. At
Coeur's four other active mining operations, approximately 80-90
percent of the employees are ``local hire.''
Question 7. Will Coeur limit access to the minesite?
Answer. Coeur will be required, by the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, to limit access in active mine areas.
Question 8. Does the Clean Water Act prohibit tailings disposal in
Slate Lake?
Answer. No. The Clean Water Act (the Act) defines strict water
quality standards that apply to mining operations. The Act allow for
the discharge of fill into waters of the U.S., provided all
requirements of the Corps of Engineers and EPA are met. Further, any
discharge from the Slate Lake treatment facility must meet water
quality standards, and protect the existing uses of the stream. EPA has
issued a preliminary draft discharge permit for the Kensington mine.
The permit cannot be issued, unless all applicable EPA water quality
standards are met.
______
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council,
Juneau, AK, April 26, 2004.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Your letter, dated March 31, 2004, gave the
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) over two weeks to give
``prompt consideration'' to the question from Senator Lisa Murkowski to
SEACC for the record regarding S. 1354. Unfortunately, as is sometimes
the case with mail coming to Alaska, we did not get your letter until
April 19, 2004, nearly a week after our response was due.
Last week I spoke with Trish Aspland from Senator Murkowski's staff
and left a message with Frank Gladics from your office notifying them
of the letter's late receipt and our intent to respond to your query
promptly. Given the circumstances, we respectfully request this
response to Senator Murkowski's question be included in the official
subcommittee hearing record on S. 1354.
The question posed by Senator Murkowski was as follows:
Question. Mr. Lindekugel, with the concerns you have raised
regarding loss of public access to these lands and the potential
degradation to the viewshed from the waters of Berners Bay, would your
organization be willing to work with my office on language that would
address these issues and protect these lands to your satisfaction?
Answer. We would like to take this opportunity to reconfirm the
statement I made to a similar question from Senator Murkowski at the
March 10, 2004 subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC. As I stated
then, SEACC is willing to review specific draft language proposed by
Senator Murkowski's office to see if it addresses our concerns.
As I elaborated at the subcommittee hearing, however, we are
concerned that any new amendments will fail to improve S. 1354. We feel
this way because it is our view that the amendments adopted by the
subcommittee last session fell far short of fixing the serious problems
with this bill. The bill introduced by Senator Murkowski as S. 1354 on
June 26, 2003, included all of the amendments from last session. Rather
than addressing the fundamental problem with this legislation, the
giving away of large chunks of public lands currently used by Juneau
residents for hunting, commercial and sport fishing, and recreation to
private corporations for clearcut lands hundreds of miles away, last
session's amendments actually made this giveaway worse. Below, we
address some of the specific failings of last session's amendments that
Senator Murkowski carried forward into S. 1354:
1) Last session's amendments dropped the provision originally
contained in S. 2222 that prohibited the Secretary of Agriculture from
offering ``all land from the mean high tide mark to a point five
hundred feet inland to all marine shorelands in and adjacent to the
waters of Berners Bay.'' This ``beach fringe'' is the most productive
and highly used portion of the land to be given away by S. 1354.
2) Another amendment accepted last session that fell far short of
improving the bill dealt with the loss of Tongass old growth forest
under this bill. Instead of replacing all the oldgrowth forest acreage
that could be lost on lands given to Cape Fox and Sealaska, this
amendment only applies to about one-third of the old growth forest
transferred to these corporations.
3) Last session's amendments also stated that the lands exchanged
were to be of ``equal value.'' S. 1354, however, does not even require
the Forest Service to follow the Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions, as required by the agency regulations. See
36 C.F.R. Sec. 254.9. We further question whether an appraisal process
designed to assess the value of lands for logging and mining purposes
is even appropriate in this instance because it provides no way to
quantify this bill's effect on the heart of Berners Bay--its tremendous
cultural, ecological, and recreational values.
4) Last session the subcommittee amended S. 2222 to provide that
lands conveyed to Cape Fox and Sealaska corporations under Section 5 or
6 would have no effect on those corporations' land entitlements under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Such an approach ignores the
fact that this exchange basically increases both corporations' land
entitlement by allowing them to obtain beach front property with high
resource and public values for lands of lesser and dubious value.
While we stand ready to address the issues of public access and
protection of viewsheds, we are keenly interested in the specific
language Senator Murkowski, working with your committee staff, may
propose to address the above-mentioned issues. The question posed SEACC
in your letter refers specifically to concerns raised by ourselves and
a broad range of diverse local interests relating to public access and
the viewshed. We wish to clarify that while important, the identified
issues relating to public access and protection of the viewshed do not
reflect all the concerns that SEACC and others have with this proposed
legislation. We hope the testimony and exhibits SEACC has previously
submitted for the record on this proposed legislation serve to identify
the host of issues that exist with this legislation, including its
adverse effect on the culturally significant ancestral burial grounds
and old village sites of the Auk Kwaan, the original settlers of the
Juneau area. If you have any questions concerning this material, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you for the opportunity to formally respond to Senator
Murkowski's question. Again, we are willing to review any specific
draft language proposed by Senator Murkowski to address the concerns we
have raised with this legislation.
Best regards,
Buck Lindekugel,
Conservation Director.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Goldbelt Corporation,
Juneau, AK, January 22, 2004.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: My name is David Goade, Executive Vice President
of the Goldbelt Corporation. I am writing to express my wholehearted
support for Senate Bill 1354, the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Adjustment
Act of 2003 (``land exchange''). My viewpoint integrates my 21 years of
public and private sector experience in Alaska land management and
development issues. My view also embodies what is in the best long-term
economic interest of Goldbelt.
Goldbelt unequivocally supports the land exchange and the well-
reasoned position statements already submitted by the Cape Fox and
Sealaska Corporations. As a fellow Alaska Native Corporation, Goldbelt
applauds their untiring efforts to resolve longstanding land conveyance
inequities and to bring long-lasting economic benefits to their
respective Alaska Native shareholders. The proposed land exchange
provides a means to meet both these critical objectives. Goldbelt
shares this long-tern vision and commitment.
Goldbelt is headquartered in Juneau, Alaska and has over 3,300
Alaska Native shareholders. The corporation owns 1,382 acres of
waterfront land at Echo Cove, which is only 10 miles from the proposed
exchange lands at Berners Bay. Aside from the direct benefits to Cape
Fox and Sealaska noted above, the land exchange provides at least one
more major benefit--a benefit to Goldbelt.
The operation of the Kensington Mine presents many important long-
term business opportunities for Goldbelt. Such opportunities involve
mineworker transportation and housing service contracts. It also
provides long-tern jobs for Alaska Natives of which many will be
Goldbelt shareholders. Any circumstance that enhances the enduring
economic viability of the mine operation is of great benefit to
Goldbelt. The land exchange enables the mine operator to, in this case,
be more efficient in its decisionmaking process by shifting land
ownership to Native Corporations and primary government oversight to
Alaska state agencies. This translates into real, significant time and
cost savings for the mine operation by reducing regulatory duplication
and increasing agency access, consistency, and predictability over
time. In my view, this circumstance created by the land exchange will
enhance the long-term economic viability of the mine project.
In summary the land exchange:
Resolves long-standing land conveyance inequity issues for
the Cape Fox Corporation.
Brings many long-lasting economic benefits to the Sealaska,
Cape Fox, and Goldbelt Corporations and their respective Alaska
Native shareholders.
Enhances the long-term economic viability of the Kensington
Mine project.
Increases the likelihood that Goldbelt will receive
sustainable, long-term economic benefits through owning and
operating mineworker transportation and housing services. Such
operations will provide many job opportunities for its 3,300+
Alaska Native shareholders.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this land exchange
matter.
Sincerely,
David D. Goade,
Executive Vice President.
______
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing this letter in support of two
pieces of legislation before the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I request that this
letter be entered into the record of the hearing of the Subcommittee to
take place on February 4, 2004.
First, I support the passage of S. 1354, the ``Cape Fox Land
Entitlement Adjustment Act of 2003.'' The Cape Fox Corporation faced
many restrictions on its land selection according to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act. These restrictions forced Cape Fox to select
lands that were not economically productive. The land exchange between
Cape Fox and the Tongass National Forest proposed in this bill-will
provide Cape Fox with productive lands and a base for economic
development.
I also support the amendment you plan to introduce to this bill.
The amendment will ensure that a right-of-way can eventually be granted
to the State of Alaska for the construction of the Juneau Access road
and maintenance facility. This road and maintenance facility are
necessary to remedy the situation where Juneau, Alaska's state capital,
is not accessible to the continental road system.
Also at issue will be S. 1778, the ``Craig Recreation Land Purchase
Act.'' I support this legislation to allow the City of Craig to
purchase lands in Wards Cove while relinquishing title to other lands.
This bill will give the City of Craig access to needed lands for
economic development while conserving other lands in the public domain.
Thank you for your consideration of my views. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Frank H. Murkowski,
Governor.
______
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council,
Juneau, AK, March 19, 2004.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Craig: This letter follows up on your recent hearing
in Washington, DC, regarding S. 1354, the Cape Fox Land Entitlement
Adjustment Act, which would give away valuable public lands and invite
further land selection conflicts by waiving the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act's (ANCSA) land selection requirements. In addition to
the written statement we provided for the March 10, 2004 hearing in
Washington, DC, we submit this followup statement responding to some of
the claims made by other witnesses at the March 10th hearing. We
respectfully request that these supplemental comments be included as
part of the official, written hearing record.
Given our past testimony before this Subcommittee, including
exhibits and materials introduced into the record at the March 10
Subcommittee hearing, you are well aware of the staunch opposition to
this bill from SEACC and a broad range of diverse local interests. This
bill has also provoked unfavorable reactions from members of Congress,
who have urged its rejection. We recommend the Subcommittee consider
the strong dissenting views voiced by Democratic Members of the House
Committee on Resources on the House companion bill for S. 1354 in
2003.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See H.R. REP. NO. 108-313 at 6-7 (2003) (dissenting Views on
H.R. 1899).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All who oppose this public land giveaway share some common
concerns. This land giveaway, and the mine development it will
facilitate, are the first steps in the industrialization of the Berners
Bay watershed; the first of a multitude of projects that threaten the
Bay's ecological, cultural, and recreational values. Any activity or
use allowed in Berners Bay must he designed and conducted in a manner
that sustains and safeguards this spectacular watershed's unsurpassed
abundance and diversity of renewable living resources, along with its
capacity to continue to provide food, income, and enjoyment to local
residents and visitors. All of us believe it is our responsibility to
ensure that future generations can enjoy the same opportunities and
uses of Berners Bay's incredible riches that we now enjoy.
I. RESPONSE TO STATEMENTS OF DENNIS E. WHEELER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHAIRMAN OF COEUR D'ALENE MINES CORPORATION
One of the witnesses who testified before the Subcommittee in favor
of S.1354 was Dennis Wheeler, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Coeur d'Alene Mines. Mr. Wheeler's testimony before the Subcommittee
contains several statements that we believe do not tell the whole
story.
Wheeler Statement No. 1: ``Further, the exchanges under the
legislation will provide a unique opportunity for Coeur to work with
Alaska Native entities and their shareholders in the operation of this
enterprise.''
SEACC Response: This legislation is ``unique'' indeed. Even before
then-Senator Frank Murkowski introduced S. 1354's predecessor, S. 2222,
on April 23, 2002, Coeur d'Alene Mines had negotiated and entered into
land-use agreements with Sealaska and Cape Fox corporations for
property around the mine site.\2\ How can it be in the public interest
for 3 private corporations to put their heads together to decide how to
divvy up lands that do not belong to them, but to all Americans, and
then seek Congressional approval for this ``private'' deal? Is the
Subcommittee aware of what terms and conditions are included in these
land-use agreements? If so, then we believe it is the Subcommittee's
responsibility to share the contents of these agreements with the
public. If not, then this Subcommittee should take no further action on
this bill until these land-use agreements are provided for review by
the Subcommittee and public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Press Release, Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation, Kensington
gold project moving forward at 2 (April 25, 2002) (attached as Exhibit
1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler Statement No. 2: ``Development of the Kensington gold
project will bring significant and diverse economic benefits to
Southeastern Alaska. The project will add high paying jobs, create
additional indirect jobs, and add additional tax base to a region of
Alaska plagued by underemployment and significant economic
challenges.''
SEACC's Response: There are inherent costs of hitching any local
economy to a liquidating industry such as metal mining. An increased
role of mining in a region's economy virtually always leads to
increased instability in job levels and payroll, at least to the short
and medium term, and usually in the long term.\3\ The Greens Creek mine
on Admiralty Island provides a good example of this. This mine opened
in 1989 but shut down about 4 years later because of low metal prices,
before re-opening in 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See generally, Thomas Michael Powers, The Role of Metal Mining
in the Alaskan Economy, (Feb. 2002). This report can be found at our
web site, www.scacc.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits from increased property taxes may accrue to the local
government. This assumption, however, ignores the adverse effect that
the environmental degradation associated with industrialization of
Berners Bay could have on people's willingness to live, work, and do
business in Juneau. According to the Kensington Gold Project Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) (4-97 through 4-
100), ``Short-term direct adverse impacts would be expected'' for
housing, schools, and public services (e.g. fire and police protection,
health care, and emergency services).
Experts opine that ``the characteristics of a local area that allow
it to attract and hold people are an important part of the area's
economic base. If this is not recognized, that part of the economic
base may be irreversibly damaged.''\4\ We contend that a significant
reason why residents choose to live in Juneau is the level of access to
the natural environment that we enjoy, and the breadth and quality of
the recreation opportunities we have, particularly in Berners Bays.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Powers, supra note 3, at 37. See also Russell Heath, ``My Turn:
Juneau gets nothing from Berners Bay land trade,'' Juneau Empire (Mar.
15, 2004) (attached as Exhibit 2).
\5\ See U.S. Forest Service, Shoreline Outfitter/Guide Draft
Environmental Impact Statement R10-MB-425 at 63 (July 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler Statement No. 3: ``Over 900 environmental and feasibility
studies have been completed to date [for the Kensington Mine].'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See also Dennis Wheeler, Letter to the Editor, Mine proposal
creates jobs, meets standards, Juneau Empire (Feb. 26, 2004) (attached
as Exhibit 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEACC's Response: Where are these studies and how can we get a copy
of them? Our review of the ``Reference'' section of the Forest
Service's planning record for the Kensington Gold Project DSEIS reveals
just over 200 studies. If these studies are as critical ``to ensure the
highest environmental standards and to protect Slate Lake and Berners
Bay'' as Mr. Wheeler states in his letter to the editor, why are they
not contained in the Forest Service's planning record?
Wheeler Statement No. 4: ``The second SEIS is scheduled to be
completed in the summer of 2004, following an extensive public process,
including public meetings in Juneau and Haines, Alaska . . . The
results of the meetings indicate substantial public support for the
project . . .''
SEACC's Response: We seriously question the basis for Mr. Wheeler's
conclusion. The Forest Service limited the referenced public meetings
to a ``question and answer'' format; the Forest Service did not accept
oral testimony for or against the mine or make a formal record of the
public comment received at these public meetings. Consequently, there
is no way the Forest Service or Mr. Wheeler could capture the comments
or ``results'' of those meetings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Aaron Brakel, Letter to the Editor, ``Comments were lost at
mine meeting,'' Juneau Empire (Mar. 3, 2004); Dave Albert, ``Hold
public hearing about Berners Bay,'' Juneau Empire (Feb. 27, 2004); Skip
Gray, ``My Turn: Let's bring back public hearings,'' Juneau Empire
(Mar. 9, 2004). The referenced materials are attached as Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler Statement No. 5: ``Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation is an
environmentally responsible operator, having been acknowledged by over
20 major national and international environmental awards since 1987.''
SEACC's Response: Lets look at what entities have granted Coeur
these national and international awards. Many of these awards were
granted by trade and industry groups, including the American Institute
of Mining, Chile's National Mining Society, the American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), and the
Northwest Mining Association. Coeur's reliance on environmental awards
from industry groups like this fails to assuage Juneau residents'
concerns about Coeur's proposed gold mining project adjacent to Berners
Bay.
Coeur is especially proud of an award received from oil and
chemical giants Conoco and Dupont because that award's selection
committee included groups like the Mineral Policy Center, a non-profit
organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment
against the adverse impacts of mining. The Mineral Policy Center has
publicly disavowed its role in granting this award because:
After it was issued, information came to light that Coeur's
Rochester mine was polluting the groundwater with toxic
pollutants. The problem has continued. Last year the state of
Nevada issued a notice of violation because cyanide levels were
in violation of state water quality standards. . . .\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Bonnie Gestring, Letter to the Editor, ``Policy, Center
promotes responsible mining,'' Juneau Empire (Mar. 10, 2004) (attached
as Exhibit 5).
Consequently, it is no wonder that a significant number of Juneau
residents object to Coeur's ill-fated plan to increase company profits
by dumping nearly 8 million tons of mine waste into a pristine mountain
lake with resident fish populations and which drains directly into the
resource-rich Berners Bay.
II. RESPONSES TO STATEMENTS OF MARILYN BLAIR, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS FOR CAPE FOX CORPORATION.
Another witness who testified at the March 10th Subcommittee
hearing was Marilyn Blair, President of the Board of Directors for the
Cape Fox Corporation, the Native Corporation for the village of Saxman,
located about 5 miles south of Ketchikan. We take this opportunity to
respond to several of her comments as well.
Blair Comment No. 1: ``Unlike other village corporations, Cape Fox
has faced unique legal and geographic challenges that have impaired our
economic success. No other village corporation has had so much land
denied from their original mandated selection area.''
SEACC Response: The argument that ANCSA needs to be modified as
proposed in S. 1354 to address the equity of ANCSA's land selection
criteria over thirty years later is not compelling. First, Cape Fox did
not have ``land denied from their original mandated selection area.''
In fact, the lands Congress decided to withdraw from the Tongass
National Forest for selection by Cape Fox were specified in ANCSA. See
43 U.S.C. 1621(1). Cape Fox received the same amount of land as every
other Southeast village and urban corporation under ANCSA
(approximately 23,000 acres).
Second, constraints on the selection of lands resulted in some
disparities between the value of timberlands conveyed to each village
and urban corporation in Southeast Alaska. However, the economic
benefits realized per shareholder from logging these lands were divided
between widely varying numbers of people. Cape Fox Corporation has
fewer original shareholders (230 shareholders) than all but one other
village corporation.\9\ Consequently, the direct financial benefit per
shareholder was higher for Cape Fox than nearly all village
corporations in Southeast Alaska.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Only the village of Kasaan had fewer, with 119 shareholders.
See Knapp, Native Timber Harvests in Southeast Alaska, Table 2 at p.7,
USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-284 (1992) (This exhibit was attached as
Exhibit 9 to the testimony submitted by SEACC for the Subcommittee's
August 6, 2003 field hearing on S. 1354 in Anchorage, Alaska).
\10\ See Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of
Alaska, Anchorage, A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Communities, at 94-
98 (1994) (attached as Exhibit 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Fox, like other Southeast Alaska village and urban ANCSA
corporations, has cut virtually all the timber from the lands it
selected under ANCSA in roughly 20 years. Plainly, S. 1354 sets the
precedent that Congress will make additional grants of valuable Tongass
National Forest lands as recompense for the unsustainable land
management practices carried out on private lands by Cape Fox and other
Southeast Alaska ANCSA corporations. This giveaway of public lands will
frustrate the finality of ANCSA and invite additional land selection
conflicts across Alaska.
Blair Comment No. 2: ``This project will add 225 direct high paying
jobs,for our people and other people in the area at a payroll cost of
$16 million.''
SEACC Response: This optimism about anticipated ``high quality jobs
for our people,'' does not comport with the Forest Service's analysis
of socioeconomic impacts associated with the Kensington Gold Project.
As noted in the January 2004 draft supplemental environmental impact
statement (DSEIS) for the Kensington Gold Project, the Forest Service
assumes that 80% of the construction and operations workforce would be
hired from outside the Juneau area.\11\ There is a need to import
workers because there is a highly limited pool of local workers with
the technical skills needed to construct and operate the mine.\12\
Based upon the DSEIS analysis for the alternative proposed by Coeur,
the 16-month construction phase would provide 64 locally-hired jobs
while the 10-year operation phase would only employ 45 locally-hired
workers.\13\ Once these few locally-hired positions are divided among
Juneau, other nearby communities, and Cape Fox shareholders, the
anticipated job opportunities are sharply diminished. While few local
residents would benefit directly from jobs at the mine, many more will
be negatively impacted by the industrialization of Berners Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DSEIS at 4-89; 4-93.
\12\ Id. at 4-89.
\13\ Id. at 4-93; 4-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blair Comment No. 3: ``This solution is fair. It has taken years to
get to this point. We have listened to all of the stakeholders and
worked hard to incorporate their concerns into this legislation.''
SEACC Response: On August 6, 2003, at the Subcommittee's field
hearing in Anchorage, Alaska, Tribal Leader Rosa Miller testified on
behalf of the Auk Kwaan, the original settlers of Juneau. She described
the cultural significance of the Auk Kwaan's ancestral lands in Berners
Bay. Looming over Berners Bay is Lions Head Mountain, which the Auk
Kwaan consider sacred because the spirits of their shamans dwell in it.
Berners Bay also contains-several village sites, and where there were
villages, there are also burial sites.\14\ Tribal Leader Miller further
testified:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Statement of Rosa Miller, Tribal Leader of the Auk Kwaan,
Regarding S. 1354 (submitted to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests, U.S. Senate Energy Committee, for the Anchorage, Alaska field
hearing on August 6, 2003).
Senate Bill 1354 proposes to give away our ancestral lands to
both the Sealaska and Cape Fox Corporations. In the old days,
when you traveled to someone else's territory, you could not
land your canoe until you got permission from the clan who
lived in the area. We've heard absolutely nothing from either
corporation about their intentions for our lands in Berners
Bay. We fear that the relentless drive for corporate profits
will override culture, tradition, and the protection of sacred
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
grounds.
To date, we are unaware of any efforts by Cape Fox to meet with
Tribal Leader Miller to address the Auk Kwaan's concerns.
Blair Comment No. 4: ``[W]e were forced to forego other economic
opportunities that would have been available had we been treated like
everyone else.''
SEACC Response: We agree with this statement. In the past, actions
taken by the Alaska Delegation have frustrated an important economic
development opportunity pursued by Cape Fox on land conveyed to it
under ANCSA. This opportunity, one that SEACC supported, was the
development of the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project by Cape Fox.
``[Cape Fox] selected this site under ANCSA primarily for its
hydroelectric potential.'' \15\ But instead of helping Cape Fox pursue
this project, the Alaska Delegation worked to stifle this private
initiative by promoting other projects over the objections of Cape
Fox.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Letter from Gigante, Cape Fox CEO, to Senator Frank
Murkowski, at 2 (Feb. 16, 2001). This letter was submitted with SEACC's
testimony for the August 6, 2003 Subcommittee field hearing held in
Anchorage, Alaska as Exhibit 10.
\16\ See Letter from Alaska Delegation to Boergers, FERC (Feb. 8,
2001). This letter was submitted with SEACC's testimony for the August
6, 2003 Subcommittee field hearing held in Anchorage, Alaska as Exhibit
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, we appreciate this opportunity to supplement our
previous testimony on S. 1354. We are counting on this Subcommittee to
screen out the ``bad'' deals, like the proposed Cape Fox giveaway, and
to stop this bill in its tracks. To protect the public's interest in
these special lands, it is imperative that the Subcommittee take a hard
look at the land use agreements entered into between Coeur and the
Sealaska and the Cape Fox Corporations for these lands before this
giveaway bill moves another inch.
Thank you for your careful attention to our supplemental testimony.
Best Regards,
Buck Lindekugel,
Conservation Director.
______
Prepared Statement of Alfred McKinley, Sr., on Behalf of the
Wooshkeetaan, on S. 1354
My name is Alfred McKinley, Sr. My Tlingit name is Aan xis koox. I
am of the Wooshkeetaan (Eagle/Shark) Clan and am submitting this
testimony, as the recognized Wooshkeetaan spokesman, in support of
Sealaska Corporation receiving the land at Berners Bay in Southeast
Alaska.
The Wooshkeetaan people are the recognized original owners of the
Berners Bay area. Our traditional ownership has been recorded on page
38 in Haa Aani, Our Land, Tlingit Land Rights and Use, by Walter R.
Goldschmidt and Thomas H. Haas, edited with an introduction by Thomas
F. Thornton. Chart 6: Juneau-Douglas Territory, in Appendix C of this
published book also shows the Wooshkeetaan as the aboriginal owner of
the area.
The Tlingit people accept Haa Aani as an accurate report on our
land ownership and traditional property rights. It is the result of an
assignment in 1946 from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to help
settle land ownership disputes with the increase in Western migration
to Alaska. Dr. Goldschmidt, an anthropologist, and Mr. Haas, an
attorney, traveled throughout Southeast Alaska interviewing Elders and
Clan leaders in the villages to gain a first hand account of who owned
the land and the waters and under what rules. They were accompanied by
Joe Kahklen, Sr., a respected Tlingit Elder, who has since passed away.
I have enclosed a copy of page 38 and Chart 6 for your information.
Sealaska Corporation met with representatives of the Wooshkeetaan
Clan in Juneau last year regarding this issue. As the traditional
people of Berners Bay, we support Sealaska Corporation receiving this
land because it will allow us to have places like Slate Creek, which is
one of our old village sites, back in Native ownership. The Native
Cemetery & Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska report, prepared in
October of 1975 by consultants Wilsey & Ham, Inc., reports that this
site is ``Identified as a 500 to 600 year old permanent village site,
probably with remains present.'' (p. 654). I first went there as a
young man with my uncle, John B. Fawcett. Over the years, we used the
area for fishing and hunting, and it remains important to me and my
Clan today. Returning this significant historical site to Native
ownership is one of main reasons the Wooshkeetaan support this project.
We understand that there may be others who purport to speak for us
or on our behalf. These people, though well intentioned, are not
authorized to represent our Clan or speak about our property.
In conclusion, the Wooshkeetaan Clan supports Sealaska Corporation
receiving the land at Berners Bay.
Alfred McKinley, Sr.,
Spokesman, Wooshkeetaan Clan.
______
Juneau, AK, February 2, 2004.
Dear Honorable Senators: Greetings from Juneau, Alaska. I am
writing in regards to S. 1354 the Cape Fox Entitlement Adjustment Act
(S. 1354, H.R. 1899). The land exchange proposed by Senator Murkowski,
albeit justified in meeting obligations due to native corporations in
Alaska, is unfair as an economically equivalent exchange to owners of
the public land. If the land management style (clear cuts, excessive
road building) that these native corporations have shown on their
current properties occurs on these newly exchanged lands, one of the
strongest coho salmon producing streams in SE Alaska is vulnerable.
Exchanging approximately 12,000 acres to Cape Fox and Sealaska
Corporations along with rights to log, subdivide, sell, and develop a
large swath of wild lands on the northwest side of Berners Bay for
3,000 acres of mostly timber harvested lands and certain subsurface
interests near Ketchikan is unfair. The Cape Fox land exchange offers a
quick ``fix it'' solution to an treaty issue that has been lingering
for almost 30 years. An exchange should occur, but not with such a huge
gap in the gains to one group (native corporations) and the loss to
another(the public).
Please do not pass S. 1354, until other solutions are explored. If
this parcel must be exchanged please consider the suggestion offered at
a public meeting that Senator Murkowski offered in Juneau. The
suggestion was to only exchange the subsurface rights--those the Cape
Fox and Sealaska Native Corps are particularly interested in this
exchange. A majority of the 300 attendees at this public meeting were
against this land exchange.
Thank you for your time and considerations.
Sincerely,
Andrew Eller,
Juneau, AK.
______
Prepared Statement of Chris E. McNeil, Jr., Chief Executive Officer,
Sealaska Corporation, on S. 1354
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of Sealaska Corporation regarding
Senate Bill 1354, the ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement Adjustment Act of
2003.'' Sealaska is the Alaska Native Regional Corporation for
Southeast Alaska under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(``ANCSA'').
Sealaska Corporation supports the enactment of S. 1354 because it:
allows for native ownership of a recognized Native historic
site;
creates a potential opportunity for jobs for Sealaska
shareholders;
creates business opportunities for Sealaska and other Native
Corporations in services relating to mine development;
makes another step towards the fair resolution of the Alaska
Native Land Claims Settlement Act; and
resolves management inefficiencies for Sealaska and the
United States Forest Service on the Tongass National Forest by
resolving split estates.
In sum, the bill resolves the outstanding Cape Fox and related
Sealaska entitlement issues in a fair manner that furthers the
objectives of ANCSA, benefits Tongass National Forest management, and
otherwise serves the public interest. The bill provides for adjustments
to resolve inequities in Cape Fox's outstanding land entitlements under
ANCSA. The adjustments to Cape Fox surface land and selection rights in
turn require adjustments concerning Sealaska's title and ANCSA
conveyance rights to subsurface lands underlying the Cape Fox lands. S.
1354 provides for these adjustments.
The bill also resolves land encumbrances that negatively impact the
U.S. Forest Service management of certain split-estate lands (where the
U.S. Department of Agriculture is the surface owner and Sealaska is the
subsurface owner) and ensure that valid subsurface selection rights, in
which Sealaska has conveyance rights to the subsurface beneath Tongass
National Forest surface lands, do not create additional split-estate.
This legislation will ensure that the split-estate areas do not present
a continuing encumbrance and management problem for the Forest Service.
In regards to split estates, Sealaska would like to note that S.
1354 would be an appropriate place to address another split estate
created by a previous Act of Congress, the Kake Tribal Corporation Land
Transfer Act, P.L. 106-283. This Act left unresolved the status of the
Sealaska-owned subsurface of lands transferred by Kake Tribal
Corporation to the SEAL Trust for protection of the City of Kake's
watershed. The Act did, however, authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to acquire from Sealaska Corporation the subsurface estate to the
approximately 1,127 acres of lands through a land exchange. See 43
U.S.C. Sec. 1629h(c)(3). Accordingly, Sealaska would like to propose an
amendment to S. 1354 to incorporate the approximately 1,127 acres left
unresolved in P.L. 106-283 into the lands to be exchanged to the United
State by Sealaska Corporation in S.1 354, at subsection 6(c).
The resolution of these issues in S. 1354 involves exchanges of
Cape Fox and Sealaska lands and conveyance rights for equal value lands
in the Kensington and Jualin mining district area on the Tongass
National Forest. The transfer to Sealaska and Cape Fox of adjacent
tracts in this area, as provided in the bill, will eliminate from the
national forest lands that are already heavily encumbered with
unpatented mining claims. This is an area that is already designated
under the Tongass Land Management Plan for mining development. This
area surrounds patented claim, private land inholdings.
The simplification of national forest boundaries and management
that will be achieved through the exchanges are of substantial benefit
to the Forest Service and the general public. The exchanges will not
have any significant effects on Forest resources, uses, or values. In
addition, the exchanges do not involve any Berners Bay LUD II lands.
Any mine development in the area will remain subject to federal and
state environmental protection requirements.
The mining claim holders are supportive of these exchanges. The
ANCSA conveyances to Cape Fox and Sealaska in these exchanges will
remain fully subject to all existing mining claims, State of Alaska
selections and rights-of-way, and other existing third-party rights.
The exchanges will provide Alaska Natives an opportunity for
partnership with the claim holders and to gain experience in mine
development and related enterprises, including potential jobs for
Sealaska shareholders.
The Sealaska/Forest Service exchange provided for in S. 1354 also
allows Sealaska to receive conveyance to a site of historical value to
Native shareholders in the vicinity of Slate Creek Cove. This site has
not been eligible for selection and conveyance under Section 14(h)(1)
of ANCSA because of the presence of mining claims. Once conveyed,
guidance for the protection of this site will be provided through the
Sealaska Heritage Institute (``SHI''), its Board of Trustees and
Committee of Traditional Scholars. SHI was organized to preserve the
language and culture of Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian Indians.
Sealaska is confident that the parties can expeditiously reach
agreement regarding the equal value of the particular lands to be
specified for the exchange, as provided in S. 1354. Significant
progress has already been made to that end. Sealaska and the Forest
Service have already achieved substantial progress on other elements of
the Sealaska/Forest Service land exchange provided for in the bill.
The Sealaska exchange in the bill could be accomplished
administratively with the Forest Service, without the need for
legislation, as an additional modification of the existing Sealaska/
Forest Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement under Section 17 of the
Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-415.
However, enactment of S. 1354 would facilitate and expedite the
exchange, and assure that the Sealaska exchange is completed in
conjunction with the resolution of the Cape Fox entitlement issues
incorporated in the bill.
In conclusion, Sealaska supports prompt enactment of S. 1354 into
law. Sealaska stands ready to actively cooperate with the Secretaries
of Agriculture and the Interior and with Cape Fox to implement S. 1354
once enacted.
______
Prepared Statement of Alec Brindle, Chairman, Wards Cove Packing
Company, on S. 1778
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Alec Brindle.
I am the Chairman of Wards Cove Packing Company. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit this statement to the committee in support of S.
1778. We strongly support passage of this bill and will work to
implement the transaction authorized in the bill if passed.
In 2002, after 75 years in the salmon business in Alaska, Wards
Cove decided to sell its Alaskan salmon operations to other operators,
while concentrating its ongoing Alaskan operations in other fisheries
and in retailing. One result of this decision is that Wards Cove began
selling many of its real estate holdings in Alaska. Unlike our other
properties in Alaska, Wards Cove agreed to delay marketing its Craig
site so that the City of Craig would have the first opportunity to
acquire the property. I understand from conversations with city
officials that the municipality has plans for the property that include
a number of developments benefiting the general public in Craig and on
Prince of Wales Island.
Wards Cove has now held its Craig property off the market for more
than two years. As a family company founded in Alaska, we have
benefited greatly from Alaska, and would like where possible to work
with communities for the benefit of all concerned. While the company is
willing to continue delaying the marketing of the site for a bit
longer, we can not hold this property indefinitely. Most of our other
Alaska salmon sites have already been sold, and our divestiture must be
complete in the near future. Ultimately Wards Cove Packing will move to
market this property to other potential buyers if the city is unable to
arrange for its purchase.
Mr. Chairman, I support the City of Craig's efforts to acquire this
property from Wards Cove Packing. The site is in Craig's downtown. The
city's efforts to meet the community's needs through ownership of this
parcel is the ideal way to redevelop the land. The City of Craig's
willingness to transfer ownership of other land that they own to the
Forest Service in exchange for the Wards Cove parcel makes this
exchange a fair and equitable one both on its face and in practice.
It is my hope Mr. Chairman that this committee and the Congress
will approve this legislation. Thank you for considering my comments.