38 



that statement. Those are the facts under the terms of the legisla- 

 tion that we already have. 



Now, the next map, Mr. Chairman, is the Tongass National 

 Forest map showing timber moratorium areas designated in my 

 colleague Senator Wirth's bill. In addition to the 8.8 million acres 

 of the Tongass National Forest already off limits to multiple use 

 management. Senator Wirth's bill designates 23 moratorium areas 

 that are to be managed to protect old-growth ecosystem resources. 



Colored tan and added to the lands already excluded from multi- 

 ple use management are nearly 1.8 million acres included in these 

 timber moratorium areas for a total of 10.6 million acres, removed 

 from multiple use status. That is 63 percent of the forest. 



Now, the ANILCA compromise: in 1978 the Tongass National 

 Forest plan balanced wilderness and multiple use management, 

 and that is what this hearing is all about. In 1978 the Forest Serv- 

 ice found that the Tongass Forest could produce — could produce — 

 over 10 million board feet of timber each decade on a sustained 

 yield basis. 



However, the 1978 forest plan recommended a sustained yield 

 harvest of only 4.5 billion board feet per decade and reserved over 

 half of the forest for other uses not directly compatible with timber 

 management, including wilderness preservation. 



Congress altered the balance by creating more wilderness. That 

 is the price of wilderness, and that was the justification for the $40 

 million which Congress has made available and this legislation re- 

 scinds. Then Congress interceded in the planning process and man- 

 dated 5.4 million acres of wilderness, including much of the most 

 accessible timber. 



The result was to reduce the amount of timber available from 4.5 

 to 3.38 billion board feet per decade. Reducing the available timber 

 by 112 million board feet each year would have resulted in a loss of 

 hundreds of jobs in Southeastern Alaska. 



ANILCA, Section 705, attempts to restore the balance, searching 

 for a way to mitigate the impact of wilderness on the livelihood of 

 Southeastern Alaska residents. This committee, but primarily Sen- 

 ators Jackson, Tsongas, and the senior senator from Alaska, Ted 

 Stevens, worked with the Forest Service, as Ted indicated, to for- 

 mulate what is now ANILCA Section 705. 



Section 705 included marginal lands in the timber base to com- 

 pensate for more accessible timber locked up in wilderness quite 

 appropriately. Under this provision, the Forest Service was given 

 the funds and the authority to include additional timber economi- 

 cally marginal because of its remoteness and quality into the 

 timber base. 



Inclusion of economically marginal timber lands into the timber 

 base, called intensive management, raised the sustained yield ca- 

 pacity of the multiple use forest from 3.38 to 4.5 billion board feet 

 per decade, and was intended to avoid economic dislocation in 

 Southeastern Alaska. 



What we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is that Section 705 was 

 really the price of wilderness and nothing more. The merits of that 

 stand on their own. This is the core of the 1980 compromise. Those 

 who say the timber has been subsidized fail to recognize the signifi- 



